That's not a plot hole!

[Olas]

You know I did some math at the end of The Dark Knight Rises, and

Spoiler

There is NO WAY Batman would be able to fly the bomb out of there fast enough with the timer being on what it was. Bane said the bomb had a six mile blast radius, and even though I forgot how to do the math, the Bat would have had to fly around 2,000 MPH to clear that. Not to mention some of the fallout would blow back.

It's impossible to calculate how fast the Bat would have had to travel because we don't see how much time is left on it when it leaves Gotham. All we know is it had about two minutes left when we last saw it as batman hooked it to the bat, traveling 6 miles in 2 minutes means going 180 mph. Fast for a ground vehicle but not for that thing, rewatch the scene where it's passing over Gotham, that thing is FAST!

Obviously he had less than 2 minutes, but since movie time isn't synced to real time it's hard to say how much. In any case, anything that requires a mathematical calculation to determine isn't really much of a plot hole, more like reel physics.

 

[Woodsey]

Yeah, and Looper shows enough to say that it does contradict itself.

Spoiler

Bruce Willis and JLG live the exact same life up until they close their loop. In the first version of events, everything goes smoothly for Bruce Willis and he does his 30 years. Then he goes back on the first timeline and escapes execution, and creates a second branch which JLG lives (albeit shortly). In the first branch, Future Joe dies. He never goes after the kid, none of that is set in motion. Yet all the rumours of the kid being shot in the cheek and seeing his mother killed in front of him occur in the first timeline.

It is a glaring plot hole, and it is not excused by "other time travel films are shit too".

Besides which, time loops like you get in Terminator fit their own logic. Paradoxical logic, yes, but logic still; no beginnings and no ends. Looper, ironically, doesn't deal in actual time loops and it establishes itself distinctly from that theory.

Your comparison is also way off. Looper's events aren't simply unlikely, they're fucking impossible unless we assume someone else does exactly the same in the first timeline as Bruce Willis does in the second. And all you get then is something which is both incredibly contrived and never intimated in the film itself.

I just watched it last night, and I don't remember it ever explicitly stating that:

Spoiler

A) The reason for The Rainmaker turning evil is due to his mother dying; this is implied, but the director himself said that this implication was mainly to bring the movie to a satisfying conclusion, and isn't necessarily true. He even included a line about The Rainmaker having a prosthetic jaw, which could happen later even if his mother doesn't die.

B) Time is linear. Remember the scene where the guy is getting his limbs chopped off? By the end, the old version is missing his nose, most of his fingers, both his legs, and both his arms, because the young version is being dismembered at the same time. However, if the young version has just been dismembered, how does he regrow all his limbs 30 years later in order to escape? The reason is that once a loop hasn't been closed, the timelines intersect to form a kind of infinity symbol, where past and present exist concurrently. This is hinted at a lot in the film, like when Bruce Willis is discussing how his memory has gone foggy (i.e. the timelines have intersected, so his past has been made as alterable as his younger self's future).

A) is just going to be an inarguable point. If you need the plot to be dictated explicitly to you in order to fully commit to something that is otherwise implied beyond all doubt, then we're going to get nowhere.

B) doesn't contradict my point, so the plot hole remains.

Spoiler

The kid becomes the Rainmaker because of Bruce Willis - even though he doesn't, because it's impossible - before anyone travels back in time. What you're describing is a separate side-effect once someone's gone back.

 

[DJ_DEnM]

Chronicle ending

Spoiler

"How come Andrew is stabbed by a spear at the end when he can shield himself from incoming damage via telekinesis? It's a plothole."
No it's not. The characters create shockwaves by expanding their shields. Andrew sent everyone flying backwards by doing this. This left him temporarily without a shield which is how Matt stabbed him with a spear.

I thought it was cause he was caught off guard...Oh well.

 

[Winthrop]

Wow. I feel really bad for you. The fact that you missed this one means that you completely missed Bruce's character developement in the Avengers. Hell, that was the best thing about that (already great) movie.

The idea is that the Hulk on the Helicarrier was one that Bruce wasn't in control of (because the change was involuntary), but in New York he did have partial control, because he has learned to control and be one with his emotions.

Maybe it's not a plot hole, but that's some pretty damn speedy character development considering the only thing that happened (that we saw) between the helicarrier and New York was him exchanging a few lines with some old security guard. If it went from full-on rage at the beginning and gradually got more and more controlled over the hole movie than I'd completely agree, but if all Bruce needed was what that one guy said to get (partial) control than it's not a very big accomplishment.

He had been suppressing his emotions (especially anger) since the fight in Harlem. He mentions this a couple of times, especially to Tony and its slightly implied with his meditation at the end of the other movie. Tony convinces him throughout the course of the film that being the Hulk isn't a curse, but that its a blessing. Bruce doesn't really believe any of that as he is too afraid of the Hulk. He is terrified. He did ridiculous amounts of damage in the past and is worried of accidentally killing someone. Later, however, he sees the damage that Loki is doing and realizes that the Hulk is necessary to do good and that Tony was right all along. As such he willingly allows the Hulk to take over, but maintains some grasp on it as he is no longer at war with the Hulk and his emotions, but is accepting his coexistence with the Hulk and sees that he can still do good. As the other poster stated, this is the majority of Bruce's plot and development in the film.

 

[Magicman10893]

People like to take lousy shots at Mass Effect 3 ever since the ending in order to justify their "Bioware sucks and Mass Effect is ruined" opinion. One of my most annoying ones was the fact that there were only 3 Ardat-Yakshi in Mass Effect 2 and then in Mass Effect 3 there was a monastery for them and tons of Banshees (Reaper husks made from the Ardat-Yakshi members of the Asari) appear in the campaign. First of all, that monastery was always there. Secondly, there were 3 left in Mass Effect 2 when talking to Samara, but Ardat-Yakshi aren't identified until aroung age 40 and the amount of time that has passed from that conversation to Mass Effect 3 is plenty of time for a few Asari among literally an entire race, numbering in the billions or trillions, to be diagnosed or discovered. Finally, the exact description of Banshees, taken from the codex in the damn game itself, says that they are made from those that are active or latent Ardat-Yakshi, which means any Asari that is one, will be one eventually, or has the genetic code to produce Ardat-Yakshi can be made into a Banshee.

EDIT: I almost forgot about the other game from Bioware that people like to tear apart: Dragon Age 2.

Some people point out the ridiculous amount of Blood Mages in Kirkwall. What those people don't realize is that the Tevinters that built Kirkwall (using slave labor) designed the city in such a way in order to weaken the veil between the physical world and the Fade in order to bring demons into the physical world with ease. This means that Mages in Kirkwall are much more susceptible to demonic possession and interaction. This gives the Templars more reason to be overly aggressive, due to the increased amount of Abominations, and then making the Mages turn to Blood Magic.

 

[Guitarmasterx7]

I can't think of any off the top of my head, but I hear a lot of people bitching about plot holes that are actually just a film leaving out an unnecessary scene that would have been fucking boring to watch.
If you have a plausible theory of how a character did something off-screen that's under 2 sentences, the movie probably doesn't have to explain it for you.

 

[Godhead]

Maybe this isn't exactly a plot hole, but I've noticed a lot of people calling out the Starchild in ME3 for "Circular Logic," claiming that's one of the problems with the ending.

Now, I won't deny the ending sucks, but why is this a problem? He's the villain, of course his logic is flawed. If his logic weren't flawed, then you know what he would be? A GOOD GUY.

You don't have to have flawed logic to be a villain. It's completely possible that you have sound reasoning but you go around it in a very evil way. Just look at HAL from 2001.

 

[sgtslacker]

You know I did some math at the end of The Dark Knight Rises, and

Spoiler

There is NO WAY Batman would be able to fly the bomb out of there fast enough with the timer being on what it was. Bane said the bomb had a six mile blast radius, and even though I forgot how to do the math, the Bat would have had to fly around 2,000 MPH to clear that. Not to mention some of the fallout would blow back.

Spoiler

Not a plot hole batman fixed the auto pilot so he just jumped out at some point and the bat plane flew the rest it self

 

[Asita]

My pet plot hole is Terminator
How exactly is John Conner even there to begin with, Kyle only met Sarah because John sent him back to protect her from the 1st T800 and the T800 is sent back to kill the Survivors leaders mother and in doing so creates said leader. Kinda like the old time travel back and kill your grandfather, cant because you would never be born and then kill him so he lives and you are born.

Actually, it's quite the opposite. Whereas going back in time and killing your grandfather retroactively aborts one of your parents (and thereby you), Terminator effectively inverts this and makes it so that the grandfather doesn't exist as such until he goes back in time. The former creates a paradox[footnote]By virtue of the fact that your existence is necessary to eliminate your grandfather, which by nature precludes your existence, thereby rendering you incapable of eliminating your grandfather, thus allowing him to continue living...and we hit an infinite regress of mutually exclusive acts. The paradox essentially boils down to you creating an event that renders your own time travel unneeded or impossible, thus preventing you from doing the act which renders it such.[/footnote], the latter creates a stable time loop[footnote]Continuing with the grandfather analogy this could be considered comparable to you travelling back in time and introducing your grandparents to one another. By doing so, they court one another as your history dictates they did and thus eventually have a child who becomes a parent to you. As opposed to the grandfather paradox which relies on nullifying your existence, this particular time loop reaffirms your existence.[/footnote], where the act of the visitor from the future enables his own history. Both can be found on TvTropes under the heading of Temporal Paradox, the latter identified as the "Reverse Grandfather Paradox" (noted in the article as "not actually a paradox in the logical sense, but a confusing and counter-intuitive result of time travel").

 

[CommanderL]

Just because this thread is generating enough "RAARRRRR FUCKING EAGLES!!!!!!!!!!!" rage to power a small city.
From the other side of the fence. (IMO eagles = fail but bear with me)

1. My understanding is that Mordor, while large, is not epic, gigazmo, covering the rest of the world, therefor if the eagles were to fly in so that the volcano is between them and the Eye then they wouldn't be seen (by the Eye at least)

2. Eagles *FLY* Who exactly, pray tell, can hit an eagle (giant, mind) with a large chunk of rock that travels slower than its target (remember the boulder has to get to the same altitude as the target (Eagle, giant x1)) **is like trying to hit a bullet with a smaller bullet whilst wearing a blindfold, riding a horse.** Couldn't have said it better myself.

3. Birds have this ability, what was it again? Oh yeah, the ability to HOVER and LAND (also not killing themselves on power lines but I digress) so they wouldn't need to "calculate the speed of the eagle, the weight and the fallen speed of the ring." They could just land on the rim and then one of the (assuming more than one eagle/rider goes) riders could easily just drop the ring into the mouth, as it were.

---------- Fission Mailed ---------

My pet plot hole is Terminator
How exactly is John Conner even there to begin with, Kyle only met Sarah because John sent him back to protect her from the 1st T800 and the T800 is sent back to kill the Survivors leaders mother and in doing so creates said leader. Kinda like the old time travel back and kill your grandfather, cant because you would never be born and then kill him so he lives and you are born.

the terminator thing is a shifting timeline sarah conor has a kid with a random guy the kid is named john conor grows up leads the resistance

they send terminator to kill sarah conor kyle reese saves her a diffrent john conor is born this one is more prepared to fight the machines

 

[bigfatcarp93]

Maybe this isn't exactly a plot hole, but I've noticed a lot of people calling out the Starchild in ME3 for "Circular Logic," claiming that's one of the problems with the ending.

Now, I won't deny the ending sucks, but why is this a problem? He's the villain, of course his logic is flawed. If his logic weren't flawed, then you know what he would be? A GOOD GUY.

You don't have to have flawed logic to be a villain. It's completely possible that you have sound reasoning but you go around it in a very evil way. Just look at HAL from 2001.

I know, but my point is that there is no such thing as a villain with flawless logic. Otherwise they're not a villain. Insane villains don't have ANY logic.

 

[James Joseph Emerald]

A) is just going to be an inarguable point. If you need the plot to be dictated explicitly to you in order to fully commit to something that is otherwise implied beyond all doubt, then we're going to get nowhere.

B) doesn't contradict my point, so the plot hole remains.

Spoiler

The kid becomes the Rainmaker because of Bruce Willis - even though he doesn't, because it's impossible - before anyone travels back in time. What you're describing is a separate side-effect once someone's gone back.

Uh, I don't understand how what you're describing is any different from a standard time paradox?
Your point is that this is some sort of illogical oversight by the writers (i.e. a plot hole), which is contradicted by the fact that the writers intentionally left the specifics of the plot vague (so you can't really say for sure what the cause-and-effect relationship between past and future is).

Also, my point A may be inarguable, but it renders your point moot:

Spoiler

I could just as easily argue that the apparent paradox is proof that the Rainmaker will become a tyrant despite his mother being saved.

Any way you want to spin it is just conjecture, and not incontrovertible evidence of a logical hole. You could argue anything is a plot hole if you're willing to introduce assumptions and selectively ignore story elements.

 

[Mycroft Holmes]

I'm terrible at noticing plot holes, and even worse at remembering them. I do remember one though, in Indiana Jones: The Last Crusade. When he has to step on the tiles to spell out Gods name, he steps on a wrong tile and falls through the collapsing floor. But he grabs onto another tile and saves himself. Only problem is that that tile isn't part of Gods name and should have collapsed as well.

That isn't a plot hole, he wasn't stepping on it to spell the name ergo it wouldn't collapse. It wasn't some dude setting up a puzzle with collapsing floor squares, it was God using his powers, he doesn't have to collapse the tile if he doesnt want to, because he's God(or shes? yeah think about it.)

 

[Truehare]

Don't know if this was mentioned or not, but I remember coming out of the theater after The Blair Witch Project, and my friend commenting how that was stupid, them keeping their cameras rolling all the time like that. First of all, the definition of "all the time" was a matter of perspective: they kept the cameraas rolling the whole time *we see them rolling*, which is only a small fraction of the time they spent lost in the woods. Otherwise, the movie would have been four days long, and I don't think I would be able to watch the entirety of it in a thater...

Then he argued, OK, but why film when they were experiencing the paranormal phenomena, why film when they were exploring the abandoned house in the woods and getting killed and all? Come on, that's EXACTLY when you want to fim the most, to analyze as soon as you get back home! Nobody wants to assume they'll just die in the next few minutes, unless it's pretty obvious they will, and that was not the case in that movie. And even so, for a cinema student, maybe it's still important to leave some documental evidence of what happpened to you behind...

Mind you, all of this was before the plethora of "handheld mockumentaries" we have been exposed to over the past few years...

 

[debtcollector]

That isn't a plot hole, he wasn't stepping on it to spell the name ergo it wouldn't collapse. It wasn't some dude setting up a puzzle with collapsing floor squares, it was God using his powers, he doesn't have to collapse the tile if he doesnt want to, because he's God(or shes? yeah think about it.)

So all it would take to solve that room would be to do it blindfolded? No, I don't think so. None of the three trials were supernatural in any way, just feats of engineering. That said, it isn't a plot hole so much as an inconsistency. It's not like the entire plot is rendered moot.

Just because this thread is generating enough "RAARRRRR FUCKING EAGLES!!!!!!!!!!!" rage to power a small city.
From the other side of the fence. (IMO eagles = fail but bear with me)

1. My understanding is that Mordor, while large, is not epic, gigazmo, covering the rest of the world, therefor if the eagles were to fly in so that the volcano is between them and the Eye then they wouldn't be seen (by the Eye at least)

2. Eagles *FLY* Who exactly, pray tell, can hit an eagle (giant, mind) with a large chunk of rock that travels slower than its target (remember the boulder has to get to the same altitude as the target (Eagle, giant x1)) **is like trying to hit a bullet with a smaller bullet whilst wearing a blindfold, riding a horse.** Couldn't have said it better myself.

3. Birds have this ability, what was it again? Oh yeah, the ability to HOVER and LAND (also not killing themselves on power lines but I digress) so they wouldn't need to "calculate the speed of the eagle, the weight and the fallen speed of the ring." They could just land on the rim and then one of the (assuming more than one eagle/rider goes) riders could easily just drop the ring into the mouth, as it were.

Point 1. I'll let Saruman take this one. Mr. Lee?
"Of course. *Ahem* 'His gaze pierces cloud, shadow, earth, and flesh.'"
Thank you. Let me reiterate. His gaze pierces cloud, shadow, earth, and flesh. That volcano won't stop the Eye.
Point 2. Sauron has a lot of Orcs. They have bows, they have catapults. While they are consistently shitty shots, all they need to do is fill the sky with speedy projectiles until the Eagles become well and truly pincushioned. However, yes, the Eagles can fly higher than arrows and stones can reach. But Sauron has flying dudes, too. And not just the Nazgul and their mounts. There are references to giant bats as well, and who knows what else? Point being, all they need to do is make sure things aren't going above projectile range or else they'll send the flying monkeys.
Point 3. Fine, I'll give you this, if only because that's a stupid argument for anyone to make. Of course, the issue here is that they (they being the dudes in charge: Gandalf, Aragorn, etc.) didn't have the Ring when the Eagles were deployed, and when they did have the Ring, they were much too far from Mordor for the Eagles to go unnoticed. Besides, Eagles answer to no man, elf, or wizard. They don't run a damn courier service.
Eagles are kind of assholes.

 

[Professor Idle]

I was dedicated to defending Lord of the Rings from that plothole constantly. When I saw the Hobbit, I walked out liking it, but THE EAGLES DROPPED THEM 50 MILES FORM THEIR DESTINATION! THEY COULD SEE WHERE THEY HAD TO BE! THERE WAS NOTHING STOPPING THEM

 

[Olas]

OK asshole you can't figure this out, fine! THE EYE OF SAURON WOULD SEE THEM! You know the giant fucking eye that sees all of Mordor and is constantly looking for the ring...

Oh, you mean the exact same problem they faced in Return of the King, which they solved by sending an army on a suicide mission as a distraction?

dont forget that those eagles pretty much owned the wyrms/dragons...

I'm pretty sure they're called fellbeasts.

And the reason the fellowship doesn't just ride on eagles is because the eagles didn't want them to. The eagles aren't just steads that Gandalf can command and order around, they're intelligent creatures who do as they wish and understandably they wanted to stay the hell away from Mordor.

Though the real reason is because it makes for a better story.

 

[NoeL]

My pet plot hole is Terminator
How exactly is John Conner even there to begin with, Kyle only met Sarah because John sent him back to protect her from the 1st T800 and the T800 is sent back to kill the Survivors leaders mother and in doing so creates said leader. Kinda like the old time travel back and kill your grandfather, cant because you would never be born and then kill him so he lives and you are born.

Great! Now we can get back on topic by pointing out that your plot hole isn't a plot hole.

In a linear progression of time, what comes first in that story? Answer: Reese arriving from the future and impregnating Connor. It therefore makes perfect sense that - following a linear progression of time - John Connor exists in the future. His existence would only become paradoxical if he didn't send Reese back in time (which would result in his nonexistence), but in fact he does so no paradox exists. All it means is that in an attempt to retcon the past the machines unknowingly created the present.

You could argue there's a paradox that if the machines were aware of Reese's existence in the past and its direct effect on the present they would never have sent the T800 in the first place, but the events in Terminator happened pretty off the radar so we wouldn't expect Reese's presence (or identity) to be common knowledge, or even that there was a T800 in the past (more on that later). Besides, wouldn't they assume their plan was doomed to failure simply due to the fact that Connor exists (I guess they assumed changing the past could alter the present?)? Hell, it's possibly Skynet had no freaking idea themselves that the remnants that lead to its creation were from the T800 Connor sent back in time. Even when the machines were manufacturing T800s who knows if they were even capable of realising that the parts responsible for Skynet were the same parts they were building - or maybe they did recognise the parts and assumed they must've sent that T800 themselves, hence why they sent a T800 back in the first place (but wouldn't they realise that mission failed if Connor exists and there's nothing but scrap left of the machine, and not waste a machine by sending it on a suicide mission?). There's little indication that the machines are particularly intelligent or creative, they're just efficient and self-aware. Come to think of it it's a wonder they came up with the idea to assassinate a woman in the past to solve their current problems.

Anyway, there are a number of problems with the Terminator movies, but I don't think the one you listed is one of them.

 

[Atomic German]

snip

Dont forget to mention that the Eagles refused to carry the ring because of the incredible amount of evil tied to it. In the Hobbit theyre not made aware of the ring because it lies in a semi dormant state, otherwise seeming like an ordinary ring till worn.

 

[Right Hook]

I was dedicated to defending Lord of the Rings from that plothole constantly. When I saw the Hobbit, I walked out liking it, but THE EAGLES DROPPED THEM 50 MILES FORM THEIR DESTINATION! THEY COULD SEE WHERE THEY HAD TO BE! THERE WAS NOTHING STOPPING THEM

Except the eagles have lives, they have better things to do than deliver a bunch of annoyingly heavy dwarves across the country. They did Gandalf a solid by saving their asses but that was still kinda pushing it. The eagles don't want to pimp themselves out to others, riding on their backs is an EXTREMELY high honor, pretty soon every asshat with a place to be would be demanding a ride if they just did it for the hell of it. Not to mention Smaug being at the lonely mountain, a giant dragon is probably a pretty big deterrent, sleeping or not.