That's not a plot hole!

[Right Hook]

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.

I like that quote they always use "No fate but what we make." Older Kyle tells it to Sarah in the 80's, then Sarah tells it to John in the 90's and then John tells it to young Kyle in the future, who then of course goes back and tells it to Sarah. It just popped up out of fucking nowhere. Not sure if it is a plot hole but it always fucked with my head in classic time travel style.

 

[BytByte]

The whole Batman situation was explained in the movie, though. It was told to Lucius.

 

[lacktheknack]

Memento: This one I find somewhat excusable seeing as most people don't know shit about neurology, but it still not a plot hole. "If Leonard has Anterograde Amnesia how does he remember that he has Anterograde Amnesia?" People with Anterograde Amnesia know that they have amnesia. I don't how it works, but they know.

Well if you think about it: Imagine you were suddenly standing somewhere with no context whatsoever, with a whole bunch of memories firmly in the "far off" part of your brain, with no recollection of what happened this morning, or yesterday, or even three minutes ago? I'd conclude initially that I have Alzheimer's disease, but then I'd look down at myself and see that I'm not old, and would then conclude that I have anterograde amnesia.

And then a minute later, I'd do the same thing over again.

And then again. And again.

OT: I loved how one person was talking to me about Myst, and was telling me that there was a HUGE plot hole where the book depicted The Cleft being situated a few miles above the D'ni cavern, while Myst: Online depicts The Cleft as a canyon in New Mexico.

Me: "That's not an inconsistency... the Cavern is on Earth."

I think his head exploded.

 

[michael87cn]

Chill out a sec here cuz I'm gonna get deep and blow your mind.

There's no such thing as a plot hole and there's no such thing as bad writing.

Perspective changes everything.

What's good to you is bad to another. What you perceive as Infallibly a mistake, someone else understands.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MN6rJTPWgkE

Watch this video of 2 blokes playing a puzzle game, 1 guy has an easy time and the other keeps wondering how he does it so easily.

Just because you don't understand how something works, doesn't mean it's bad writing or that it was a mistake. Perhaps you're the one making a mistake. ^_^ (I'm looking at you, Harry Potter dude)

 

[Mycroft Holmes]

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.

That makes zero sense whatsoever, how would blindfolding yourself help in any way? Like God's a lawyer and hes just going to go, oh darn you found a loophole I guess you win now? It's about intent. Indy wasn't trying to game the system, he just made a misstep. The trials were controlled by god, who is clearly evidenced to exist in Indiana Jones. There may be mechanical parts to it, but God is clearly in charge of the whole set up.

Also there was nothing mechanical or engineering based about the leap from the lions head, it is clearly shown from multiple angles to not exist, you can even see his feet hanging over the edge. The bridge appears from nowhere because of his faith, because of his intent. Because God judged him through the trials.

 

[Yopaz]

I just hate it when people assume unexplained things = plot hole.

That's called bad writing. Just introducing something then saying "it works because it does" is a massive cop out, second only to the power of love.

Unexplained things don't have to be bad writing. It might be there to intentionally cause speculation. At the end of The Wheel of Time series there were enough unexplained things that could probably fill at least 3 books. Intentionally left unexplained to leave us to explain it the way we feel like. I'd say that's an example of excellent writing because it inspires the reader to seek their own answer and leaves the story lasting long after you are done reading it.

OT: I'm still not convinced about Memento.

Spoiler

Extreme case of anterograd amnesia, completely unable to create new memories, the extreme patient from the test trials in the flashbacks was unable to remember he had anterograd amnesia despite the fact that it was affecting his wife and making her so depressed she was willing to let him kill her just to make him remember something. Now given the indication that this person was the same as the main character then there's still something iffy about the plot, though it kinda shows he could remember something after the condition started affecting him. Yeah, it's confusing and I'm not convinced.

 

[NoeL]

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.

How does that make any sense at all, conceptually? And even if this is true:

Spoiler

Why doesn't Old Joe suffer any emotional change affected by Young Joe? If scarring his arm and killing himself affects Old Joe, then why doesn't his knowledge of what he'll become and his resolve to NOT be that child-murdering psycho not have an affect? I guess you'd have to argue that despite Young Joe being willing to kill himself over these ideals they nevertheless get forgotten and delegated to the back seat by the time Old Joe goes on a rampage - which is possible, but unfortunately undoes Young Joe's personal growth.

 

[The_Great_Galendo]

The thing that actually annoys me the most about LOTR isn't even the eagles.

I'm not sure whether it's the same in the books (clarification?) but in the film, you have the entrance to Mount Doom, the ONE thing that can kill Sauron, and he doesn't have any guards there permanently?

I mean, I understand the whole distraction thing and the orcs moving away...but why the fuck wouldn't he have just 2-4 permanent guards sitting there? Hell, why not just put some traps there at least or even just, you know, block up the entrance to the mountain entirely?

I actually caught grief when I saw it in the cinema because I laughed out loud when they finally reached it and it's just sitting there empty.

I'll field this one:

1) The main reason it wasn't defended was because Sauron couldn't imagine that anyone would want to destroy the ring rather than use it for themselves. I think this is the only reason mentioned canonically in the books, but also:

2) The mountain is in the middle of his domian, surrounded by thousands of orcs (and other servants), and the easiest way in involves getting past an ancient giant spider that's got a fairly good track record of devouring most things that enter its lair. I think it's probably a pretty reasonable assumption that anything that can get to Mount Doom won't have much difficulty dealing with a few guards at the end. It's a wrong assumption, as it turns out -- but it's still a reasonable one.

 

[NoeL]

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.

Then how come he didn't see Sam and Frodo hiding behind a rock? I Saruman might've bought into Sauron's bullshit a little too much ;D

 

[Astoria]

To do a 180 on the OT: Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets is rife with them. They're massively bad plot holes, not one anyone can actually argue over like the LOTR ones. Slytherin symbol on the tap of the sink that leads to the chamber:

Okay so this is a castle, stated as being built in the 11th century, which was when the chamber was also constructed, so at some point someone would've had to have built that bathroom, presumably with in the last 100 years to account for the plumbing, hot water porcelain objects etc. And we're supposed to believe that no one investigated down there? And that none of the teachers with all their powerful magic noticed it? Nevermind the fact that whoever built the bathroom built it with all those mechanisms in it for when they opened it. Yeah fuck off.

The Basalisk moves through the pipes. Pipes are tiny, and the Basalisk is huge, where the fuck did it get in and out? Through the taps? And why the hell did it not eat any of the people it petrified? That's how Basalisks hunt, they paralyse people then eat them. I mean I know Rowling isn't exactly the greatest author but how did she overlook that?

Slytherin himself built that bathroom and the pipes leading to and from the chamber. Normal pipes are tiny yes but did you see the size of the ones in the chamber? Those would've been built all around Hogwarts by Slytherin. And and before you say how could you hide those size pipes in walls, there are spells that make things smaller on the outside than they really are i.e the tent they used in Goblet of Fire. How it got in and out though I have no idea but again the simple answer is magic. The reason the teachers couldn't find the chamber was it was enchanted to only open when spoken to in Paseltounge. The basalisk in reality would have eaten it's victims but the books were still pretty tame at that time so it might have been a bit horrifying for kids to read.

A better plot hole from CoS was why didn't the horcrux in Harry die when he was stabbed by the basalisk.

 

[Starik20X6]

Another reason the Fellowship doesn't fly everywhere (and neither do the dwarves and Bilbo) is because Gandalf doesn't actually control the birds. All he can do is send them an S.O.S. and hope they show up in time.

 

[Vault101]

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.

because they arent trying to set him up as a "villan" villan but more a force of neither good nor evil

and if his circle logic was intentional then you would have the option to call him out on it...which you dont..you HAVE to follow along with his bullshit

[small/]obligatory I havnt played the extended cut no spoilers[/small]

 

[MrShowerHead]

Snip

Yeah, about that dismembering scene...

Spoiler

One thing that always bugged me on that scene. While I think it's a cool idea of tracking possible loopers from the future who escape, I'm not quite sure it works like that. The movie shows us that people can change their "fate" and create seperate timelines. That's how Old Joe survived the execution, something that was surely going to end up in his death. But then they suddenly bring in the concept of a single timeline, where something that happens to his younger self happens to his older self.

Besides, when Joe has his fingers cut off, he should simply grow older without his fingers. Old Joe, who's with him in the same present shouldn't be affected. He shouldn't be affected by his normal future, because he had changed the course of events. Same thing with the ending.

Or you know, maybe I'm just thinking too much into it

 

[flyer son of no one]

the one is see alot is sliva's plan from skyfall, saying oh there no way anyone could plan right down to that last second. but he didnt have to, he was an agent so he know protocol and what would happen, and the whole train part "he didnt know the route he was going to take, because he didnt know where M is, he didnt know he would be chased that far, and he didnt have time to plant explosives, and how did he know the train was coming then", well chances are he was told where M was by his fucking army, and they could have shown him the shortest route to take once handing him the police uniform, he didnt need to set explosives, his men could have done that for him, and its londan theres a train every 5mins, if a train didnt come he was really really unlucky

 

[James Joseph Emerald]

Snip

Yeah, about that dismembering scene...

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.

How does that make any sense at all, conceptually? And even if this is true:

Spoiler

Why doesn't Old Joe suffer any emotional change affected by Young Joe? If scarring his arm and killing himself affects Old Joe, then why doesn't his knowledge of what he'll become and his resolve to NOT be that child-murdering psycho not have an affect? I guess you'd have to argue that despite Young Joe being willing to kill himself over these ideals they nevertheless get forgotten and delegated to the back seat by the time Old Joe goes on a rampage - which is possible, but unfortunately undoes Young Joe's personal growth.

It makes sense if you forget about the notion that time is universal and linear, and adopt a slightly different interpretation based on a concept that is introduced in the film: time as a loop.

Spoiler

Basically, I think of it like a program which is running. I dunno if either of you have programming experience, so I'll try to explain it as simply as I can. Say reality is a program -- a sequence of events. And let's say an object Joe reaches a point (X) in this sequence of events, and loops back to point C (i.e. Old Joe goes back in time). Now this second (Old) Joe exists concurrently with Young Joe at point C, and the program continues to run through point D, E, F, etc. Old Joe, being the same object as Young Joe, would share all his important variables. Now, if something else was to interfere and change a variable shared between the Joe objects (i.e. scar his arm) at point G, it would immediately be reflected in both Joes, i.e. without the need to actually iterate through the whole loop. This is essentially because both Joes would technically exist simultaneously in the present iteration of the loop, rather than one existing "ahead" along a timeline. Does that make sense?

Now that is a possible explanation for how various characteristics (missing limbs, knowledge of the future, etc.) can carry over from a past to future self without those characteristics altering the timeline itself. Obviously the chicken-and-the-egg paradoxes (e.g. "which came first, the Rainmaker or the death of Old Joe's wife?") can't really be explained with logic.

My point, anyway, is that you can't claim time paradoxes are plot holes, because we don't know how time works.
It would be like saying the warp drive from Star Trek is a plot hole, due to our current understanding of physics indicating that nothing can travel faster than light.
Plot holes are internally inconsistent.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

the one is see alot is sliva's plan from skyfall, saying oh there no way anyone could plan right down to that last second. but he didnt have to, he was an agent so he know protocol and what would happen, and the whole train part "he didnt know the route he was going to take, because he didnt know where M is, he didnt know he would be chased that far, and he didnt have time to plant explosives, and how did he know the train was coming then", well chances are he was told where M was by his fucking army, and they could have shown him the shortest route to take once handing him the police uniform, he didnt need to set explosives, his men could have done that for him, and its londan theres a train every 5mins, if a train didnt come he was really really unlucky

Yeah if anything, the only thing I would see as a potential plot hole was M16's incompetence in dealing with Silva's laptop. With a man is that technologically savvy, it would be stupid to connect his computer to your network.

 

[DoPo]

There's no such thing as a plot hole and there's no such thing as bad writing.

Except there are. If a plot holes aren't "misunderstanding the plot" (well, not always) but "the plot friggin' doesn't even keep internal logic going". Numerous examples are there, here is the one that immediately leaps to mind

Spoiler: Minor spoiler about the Butterfly Effect

The main character is able to go back to past points in his life and if he does something different, he wakes up in a world that reacts to that difference - if he gets hurt as a kid, it means he was always hurt for his entire life. However, at one point he is in prison and wants to convince his cellmate to help him. He does it by travelling to the past and impaling his palms on some spikes. Then we go back in prison and he suddenly sprouts holes in his hands, which his religious cellmate takes as a sign from Jesus. Only it doesn't make sense, since the protagonist would have lived his whole life with the holes in the palms, so they wouldn't have "miraculously" appeared, so his cellmate shouldn't be surprised to see them.

It goes against all logic the movie tries to impose and "alternative understanding" is not "understanding" it's somebody not comprehending it in the first place.

Also, bad writing is a thing. Read some fan fiction [http://www.fanfiction.net/s/6200297/1/My-Immortal] and explain to me how all writing is good.