Are 'plot holes' an excuse?

[Scars Unseen]

There're plotholes, and then there're glaring plotholes. Most works have plotholes, because it's rare that the producer thinks of everything. [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheProducerThinksOfEverything] On the other hand, you have movies like Frozen, which made me yell at the movie at the very end when

Spoiler

Elsa realizes that the key to controlling her power is love. This is known to the trolls, who told Anna that it would take an act of true love to cure her frozen heart problem. But the entire problem could have been avoided had they just told Elsa that at the beginning of the movie instead of focusing on warning her about what would happen if she gave in to fear, thus guaranteeing that she would live in fear her entire childhood.

Granted, then there wouldn't be a movie, but my opinion is that if your entire plot revolves around your cast being dumber than a bag of rocks for most of the movie, you should probably write a better plot.

 

[StriderShinryu]

As a few others have said, plotholes can definitely be a bit of an excuse. If a movie doesn't spell everything out for you or hold your hand through the plot but what happens still makes sense, it's not really a plot hole. If, god forbid, a movie actually makes you think a little to figure out how something may have worked but didn't give you the exact solution on screen, it's not really a plot hole.

On the other hand, legitimate plotholes can definitely hurt or even ruin a movie. If there is no logical explanation shown or if the movie doesn't even give you the basic building blocks to put that explanation together yourself, it's definitely a potential issue. For me, it really does come down to how noticeable it is. If it's something I notice but don't spend any time thinking about, or if it's something that I don't even notice at all the first time through because I'm just enjoying the movie, then I'm cool with it. If it's so obvious that it actually distracts you from the rest of the movie, then it's a problem.

As for how long plot holes have been around or if they're more prevalent now. I think it's just that movies are a more widely consumed and critiqued media form today. I really doubt that movies of today have more plotholes, it's just that there are more movies today and your average person watches way more of them with at least something of an attuned critical eye.

 

[Compatriot Block]

Something I've seen called a plot hole far too often is poor decision-making ability.

If a character makes a stupid choice that could have been avoided, it isn't a plot hole unless the movie treats it as the right decision to have made. If the monster is supposed to be nigh-invulnerable and someone decides to attack it head on with a handgun, it's only a plot hole if the monster is defeated despite the earlier information the audience was given.

Sure, sometimes this can be infuriating, but that doesn't make it a plot hole.

 

[LongAndShort]

It takes a pretty impressive plot(s) hole to break my enjoyment, but it's been known to happen. Most of the time I can rattle off a whole bunch of other reasons why I hated it while I'm at it (the dialogue sucked, the acting sucked, the action sucked, the characters sucked, etc.)
If the other elements of a film are good enough, I'll enjoy a film regardless of plot holes.

I do find people tend to jump onto the plot hole wagon far to quickly, or misuse the term as a blanket for 'stuff in the plot I didn't like'.

 

[Chaos Isaac]

Depends on the film, really. Though, I think the real thing is, it's a excuse if you can't give me examples of these so-called plot holes.

Though... I tend to have different excuses. Like, Gwen, why you no stfu? Or, Godzilla, why you have no good fight scene?

 

[DementedSheep]

A lot of things have plot holes. If you are noticing them they are probably really bad ones or the story was shit in other ways so you aren't being distracted from them. I point out plot holes in movies I like for fun sometimes.
Plot holes can be a valid criticism. Although I wish people would stop saying something is a plot hole when it's simply a point that wasn't gone into depth about not an actual hole. Stupidity isn't a plot hole either though it can be bad writing.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

I take plot holes with a grain of salt. There's a lot of editing pressure ("kill all your darlings" [Faulkner] is an expression that fits) A lot of the missing information we nitpickers are looking for sits on the cutting room floor, awaiting DVD/BluRay extras or a "directors cut","unrated", or otherwise "extended" edition of the movie. Of course not all movies get that treatment and not all plot holes are generated by editing cuts.
Sometimes, even great writers put in a few plot points thinking way too far ahead then when the chopping block is set before them, they forget to remove certain elements that hint towards said story piece...
Its difficult to tell the perfect story, but then in life how much information do you get about every event you've taken part in? There's always a mystery somewhere, and not everything has an answer.
Of course there's also just shit writing/editing/directing that creates horribad plot holes.

I'll agree though that people can and have used plot holes as an excuse to dislike a movie that otherwise is a gem of cinema, or at least pretty darn good. Those people have no joy in life in my view. I pity them for they cannot enjoy anything without deconstructing it looking for the thread to unravel the whole.

 

[lacktheknack]

One person told me that they didn't like Gravity, and cited the "womb scene" - where Sandra Bullock enters the space station, curls into the fetal position and has a cable resembling an umbilical cord floating by her - as a plot hole.

"It just doesn't make sense."

I've never really taken people claiming plot holes seriously since then.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

They're not an excuse if they're there. I don't know anyone who looks for things to ruin a movie for themselves. I know plenty of people who will give criticism, but they still say they like the movie. Pacific Rim has a ridiculous premise and does nothing but nonsense throughout the plot, but I like the action so much that even conscious of them I don't care.

There is a factor of appearing intelligent requiring you to dislike some aspect of a film, but that doesn't mean there aren't plot holes, and generally there are.

 

[RariShyZealot]

Spoiler: For a personal example...

MLP:FiM had a two-parter called "A Canterlot Wedding". The thing that killed these potentially great episodes for me were that - particularly in the second episode - the plotholes got so horribly out of hand that the entire thing just crashed and burned even with all the good things the episodes had going for them. Whether it was the main villain and her army suddenly losing 200 IQ points in the final act or by having the villain singlehandedly one-hit KO the strongest pony in the series - in perfectly healthy condition, btw - only to have the villain herself and her entire army get one-shot insta-nuked by two crippled / wounded ponies later on. No, I don't buy that the power of love is so strong to where Cadence and Shining Armor while half-dead could eclipse a perfectly healthy Celestia that much, unless you wanna convince me that Mr and Mrs Cake are also superponies well beyond Alicorn Princesses. Yes, I'm still bitter. DX<

Spoiler: An explaination

Ohh, actually, the comics reveals Celestia threw the fight, hoping Twilight would fix it, even hinting that she knew "Cadence" was a changeling but let her be to teach Twilight a lesson about doing the right thing even if others think you're wrong. And the power of love worked in the episode because Cadence is the closest thing Equestria has to a love goddess, her Special Talent, her destiny and strength is love, of course hers would be powerful.

 

[MrSchmeiser]

They're not an excuse if they're there. I don't know anyone who looks for things to ruin a movie for themselves. I know plenty of people who will give criticism, but they still say they like the movie. Pacific Rim has a ridiculous premise and does nothing but nonsense throughout the plot, but I like the action so much that even conscious of them I don't care.

There is a factor of appearing intelligent requiring you to dislike some aspect of a film, but that doesn't mean there aren't plot holes, and generally there are.

Agreed pretty much. Sometimes when i watch a movie i just can't stop pointing out stupid stuff or nonsensical shit but those movies are subjectively bad, the good ones just make me shut up and enjoy that shit.

The pacific rim ones made me rage a bit, WHY DIDN'T SHE USE THAT SWORD EARLIER???? Well maybe because she wasn't supposed to be a pilot and the one time she did try out she almost blew everyone up and you really think any sane person(she is quite shy aswell if i remember) would just say, HEY I INSTALLED THIS SWORD ON MY OWN WITHOUT ANY AUTHORIZATION. You can argue both ways but in the end we won't prove any points

 

[elvor0]

One person told me that they didn't like Gravity, and cited the "womb scene" - where Sandra Bullock enters the space station, curls into the fetal position and has a cable resembling an umbilical cord floating by her - as a plot hole.

"It just doesn't make sense."

I've never really taken people claiming plot holes seriously since then.

That...that's pretty bad. That's so far away from the definition of a plot whole it's not even on the same planet.

If a plot hole is big enough then yeah, it's pretty annoying and ruins the story somewhat. If I didn't like it for a reason, that's not an excuse, that's me not liking it for a reason, not me looking for a reason to dislike it for the sake of it.

Also, to the people saying "people say somethings a plot hole when it isn't for X reason earlier in story". I pay quite hard attention to most media I'm watching, if there's a plot hole, it's generally not because I wasn't paying attention. Because "you wern't paying attention" comes up a lot as a counter argument, but the sort of people that get annoyed about plot holes are not the sort of people who don't pay attention to what they're watching. To your average movie goer, "plot hole" isn't in their train of thought.

I wonder if what they describe as plot whole is actually just something stupid, like what Lacktheknack mentioned, or if it's a genuine plot hole and /you/ wern't paying attention.

 

[twistedmic]

There're plotholes, and then there're glaring plotholes. Most works have plotholes, because it's rare that the producer thinks of everything. [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheProducerThinksOfEverything] On the other hand, you have movies like Frozen, which made me yell at the movie at the very end when

Spoiler

Elsa realizes that the key to controlling her power is love. This is known to the trolls, who told Anna that it would take an act of true love to cure her frozen heart problem. But the entire problem could have been avoided had they just told Elsa that at the beginning of the movie instead of focusing on warning her about what would happen if she gave in to fear, thus guaranteeing that she would live in fear her entire childhood.

Granted, then there wouldn't be a movie, but my opinion is that if your entire plot revolves around your cast being dumber than a bag of rocks for most of the movie, you should probably write a better plot.

Though your example is not really a plot hole, explanation why is in spoiler tags-

Spoiler

It's a case of the Trolls being somewhat vague and the King and Queen misinterpreting what they were told then overcompensating, due to fear that Elsa would be killed over her ability.
It was never stated that the Trolls were absolutely clear and specific with any advice that they gave, or that the Kng and Queen were wisest, smartest and most level-headed people in the entire kingdom.
Plus the Trolls struck me as the typical fairy-tale creature that tries to lead the person they are helping to the right answer rather than flat out telling them what they need/should do.

 

[L. Declis]

As someone who has a degree in this shit, no.

If you sit there and analyse any story, you'll realise that not a lot of crap makes direct and logical sense and includes poisonous amounts of handwavium.

This is the result of what I call the "post-Scream layman critic". You spent half an afternoon on TVTropes and you watch a few meta-commentary films and now you're the expert on all films and all these things are false. It's no different than painting Warhammer figures and then critiquing Picasso.

There is this particular channel on YouTube (movie mistakes or something) which has a little wank over all these 'plot holes'.

If you are so uptight that you need a reason why these plot holes existing need to exist, then let me give you some:

If they did the simplest and logical thing, the film/story/game would be 5 minutes long. These is what often happens. This isn't interesting. We're going to watch the time it 'didn't happen correctly' and watch how people deal with bad things going wrong.

Humans are human and so make mistakes.
Humans are human and so don't know everything.
Humans are human and so may forget a piece of information.
Humans are human and so may choose bad decisions for reasons.
Humans are human and so are more than one or two tones of characters.
A space ship will travel at the speed of story; if it's meant to arrive just before the storm, it will travel the universe in a minute. If it's meant to be late, then that SUPERDRIVE will simply not make it in time regardless.

 

[Thaluikhain]

If they did the simplest and logical thing, the film/story/game would be 5 minutes long. These is what often happens. This isn't interesting. We're going to watch the time it 'didn't happen correctly' and watch how people deal with bad things going wrong.

Which is all very well and good, but a good writer will justify those sorts of things. If stuff happens for no reason, if people actions aren't based on anything other than what the plot needs, then there isn't much of a story.

 

[bartholen_v1legacy]

I wouldn't exactly call it an excuse seeing as it is kind of a deal breaker for some.

I didn't enjoy the avengers that much because of plot holes like the hulk freaking out despite being always angry (just going by what he says before he punches the worm thing), the whole "kill the mother ship and everything dies", and blunt trauma to the head being an instant remedy for magical brain washing.

It's just little things that build up.

Yes, I'm going to be that guy and tell you that none of those are actually plot holes. Plot holes are something that go either against the established rules of the world they take place in, or completely illogical choices that should not be expected from sane characters. Hulk can freak out because Bruce Banner has learned to control his rage, see The Incredible Hulk. Killing the mothership etc. is lazy storytelling, sure, but nothing hinted that it wasn't possible, since so little was established about the Chitauri in the first place. "Blunt trauma to the head" is also lazy, but about as common a device as hitting someone on the back of the head guaranteeing instant knockout without brain damage (see Lost for a probable record amount of this happening). If those bother you enough that they ruin your suspension of disbelief, nothing I can do about it.

OT: Like so many have said, if I notice them or start thinking "wait, that doesn't make sense" while I'm watching it (ie. Evangelion 3.0), yes, it is a problem. If the movie grips me enough that I don't think about such stuff while watching it (ie. Man of Steel), it doesn't bother me.

Though my argument is immediately ruined by Iron Man 3, which I enjoyed while watching it, but dropped very fast to IMO the worst Marvel movie out there when I started to notice all the illogicalities in it.

 

[MrBaskerville]

I've noticed a trend of late. Whenever someone takes a dislike to a new film, the first point anyone seems to make is 'there were too many plot holes for me to enjoy the film'

What do you guys think? are new films subject to more plot holes than classic films, or do you think people are just looking to tare things down these days because everyone's a critic?

If you are bored by a movie, for whatever reason, people tend to start tearing it apart. The obvious thing is to say that you disliked it because of plotholes, but i think it's usually something else that's the real problem. Like boring characters or similar.

 

[Lieju]

How much the plot-holes bother me depend on how much they affect why I enjoy the film, and how avoidable they would have been.

Let's say there is a scifi-movie about a coflict between two races. And that there are huge plotholes in why the conflict came about and ended up the way it did.

If I enjoy the movie because for example the main focus is on a character who has to deal with the conflict and their journey, what happens to get them in the point they need to be isn't as important.
Most Philip K Dick novels drown in plot-holes, but the focus is on characters and experiences, so they don't matter.

But if the focus of the movie is on the conflict, then the plot-holes will bother me, because it breaks it's own rules.

Also plotholes that were caused by pure laziness annoy me.

 

[Something Amyss]

If I'm noticing plot holes in the movie, there's likely something else wrong with the movie. They might be an indicator of what's wrong, but usually they're not the root cause. A plot hole isn't a good thing, but there are bigger considerations.

 

[V da Mighty Taco]

Spoiler: For a personal example...

MLP:FiM had a two-parter called "A Canterlot Wedding". The thing that killed these potentially great episodes for me were that - particularly in the second episode - the plotholes got so horribly out of hand that the entire thing just crashed and burned even with all the good things the episodes had going for them. Whether it was the main villain and her army suddenly losing 200 IQ points in the final act or by having the villain singlehandedly one-hit KO the strongest pony in the series - in perfectly healthy condition, btw - only to have the villain herself and her entire army get one-shot insta-nuked by two crippled / wounded ponies later on. No, I don't buy that the power of love is so strong to where Cadence and Shining Armor while half-dead could eclipse a perfectly healthy Celestia that much, unless you wanna convince me that Mr and Mrs Cake are also superponies well beyond Alicorn Princesses. Yes, I'm still bitter. DX<

Spoiler: An explaination

Ohh, actually, the comics reveals Celestia threw the fight, hoping Twilight would fix it, even hinting that she knew "Cadence" was a changeling but let her be to teach Twilight a lesson about doing the right thing even if others think you're wrong. And the power of love worked in the episode because Cadence is the closest thing Equestria has to a love goddess, her Special Talent, her destiny and strength is love, of course hers would be powerful.

There's a few issues with that though. First off, the canon of the comics is dubious at best, especially with all the retcons it keeps throwing out.

Spoiler: Comics spoilers

Luna's envy of her sister made her personally decide to revolt and become Nightmare Moon? Nonono, she was possessed! Celestia gets waffle-pwned by Chrysalis after the latter absorbs Shining Armor's strength? Nope, Cele actually threw the fight all along! Typically speaking, when a spinoff series made by different people in a different medium starts retconning key elements from the source material (which is still ongoing), it becomes hard for people to take it seriously as a part of canon. (Keep in mind than whether or not something is canon isn't a measure of quality. Something can be non-canon and still be awesome and vice-versa. In other words, I'm not saying that the comics are or aren't good, just that they're most likely non-canon.)

Secondly, it shouldn't be the job of the comic book series to fix major plotholes from the show like that (and 7 months later to boot), especially when - once again - the team behind the comics is entirely different from the one making the show. Spinoffs like the IDW comic book series are great for addressing smaller plotholes like why Twi and Shining Armor / Cadence didn't really seem to keep in touch during the first 2 seasons. However, plotholes that completely affect the outcome of the show's episode should be addressed in the show itself (preferably in that very episode / multi-parter).

Lastly, while I know you were just addressing that particular gripe of mine, that still leaves all the other major plotholes and issues with ACW - which leaves me to believe that the writers of ACW didn't exactly plan on having the comics deal with it. In other words, it's still sloppy writing on the part of FiM's writers.

EDIT: As for the "Cadence" thing,...

Spoiler: ACW spoilers

... my issue isn't that Cadence won or that Celestia lost, only how effortlessly it all happened. Celestia got beaten in a matter of seconds by Chrysalis alone, only for Shining Armor and Cadence - both in terrible condition - to turn right around and annihilate Chrysalis and her entire army in one shot. Even with the power of love in the hands of the Princess of Love, the power gap between Cele and Cadence would have to be too big for me to believe that an injured Cadence could wipe the floor with someone that could apparently beat Celestia in her (Chrysalis') sleep.