Bad plot holes in good movies...

In ANH, after the escape from the DS, Leia knows they are being tracked. So why would they go directly to the rebel base and lead the imperials there. Furthermore, after the imperials have tracked the MF to Yavin, why would just the Death Star show up and not at least some of the imperial fleet? They also would have no time to celebrate their victory, as the entire Imperial Fleet would be bearing down on Yavin and they'd have to get the hell out of Dodge.
 
Here's another one I realize for Back to the Future: In Part 2, Doc gets onto Marty for trying to take the Sport Almanac back in time to exploit it to make money. Yet, Doc Brown has no problems with Marty taking back a Hoverboard, which he could easily sell to Mattel and make tons of money on, and it in turn ends up saving the day in two separate events.
 
When Doc takes Marty and Jen to the future shouldn't it be a furture in which Marty and Jen disappeared mysteriously 30 years ago?
 
Syrinx said:
Still with Aliens.. "Just another bug hunt" is mentioned. Makes it pretty clear that it's a fairly routine mission ?
Click to expand...

I think there is more than one species of Aliens the marines have dealt with. I doubt these particular ones though since Ripley has to explain them. Looks like their universe is not a friendly place.

There is actually a few in the 1986 Transformers movie thanks to them cutting out sequences yet the audio in one spot was meant for the cut scene and doesn't match. The end of the 1987 Gi joe was the same way: Duke was meant to die and the animation shows that a modified version of that reaction and still doesn't match the redubbed ending they did so he lived.
 
In the briefing/hearing scene it is specifically said they have surveyed many worlds but never encountered a species as Ripley described. They didn't say they'd never encountered alien species - they just hadn't encountered that one.

Also... I always took the Arcturan were just human settlers.

And the other alien life found would most likely be non-to-barely intelligent lifeforms - nothing as sophisticated as what Ripley and crew encountered. And the way the marines refer to them, it seems they take issue with being used as animal exterminators instead of what they actually are.

Not exactly a plot hole, but if the derelict was a warmachine and the aliens were weapons... what other species was/were the space jockey's battling... or... were they just used to clean planets for their colonization?



Regarding Back to the Future and Doc's apparent hurry - well... he is not really someone who knows how to calm down - everything is overly dramatic and needing to happen two minutes ago with him. He just witnessed what happened in the future... so... he wants to do something about it now and not later... he really doesn't consider the fact that he has pretty much all the time in the world.
 
Last edited:
SmilingOtter said:
Which will be answered in Apollo 19 no doubt... ;)

As for TWOK, why bother looking for a lifeless planet at all, when there are plenty of nebulae (guaranteed to be lifeless) that will magically transform into planets when hit by the Genesis device?
Click to expand...

SAY WHAT???? :lol

Jedi2016 said:
Having the very first production T-800 in Terminator: Salvation just happen to be a 101 was pure fan service (but pretty damn cool nonetheless). I seem to recall that film had quite a few holes in it, too.
Click to expand...

The whole film is one giant plot hole. Shouldn't even be considered as a Terminator film really.

Jedi2016 said:
And don't forget that they did have a name for the creature, as it was described by Ripley. A society that's never encountered alien life is unlikely to come up with a name like "xenomorph", which is remarkably specific in its description of the Alien.
Click to expand...

How is that specific? Xeno comes from the Greek word xenos which means Stranger, and Morph which also comes from Greek and means form or shape. "Strange shape" is anything but specific in my opinion.

NAZGÛL said:
Speaking of T2, why doesnt the T1000 replicate the face of the cops he imitates? Neither the first one or the biker cop.

And why invest so much into creating 101 Terminator cyborgs, and still make them look like one guy? No need for dogs smelling for infiltrators, if he is big and looks exactly like the other ones before, dont let him in.
Click to expand...

Because: T-1000 doesn't need to replicate either of the cops, copies the first one's clothes and copies second one's clothes/takes his bike, that's it. Not a plot hole.
The model 101 looks like Arnold, model 102 like someone else, 103 like someone else... and so on. You never got that??? Watch the first film again. The T-800 in the future war sequence looks nothing like Arnold, so he's not a model 101.

Jedi2016 said:
but honestly, I never got that at all from the film, I got it from the book. The only time we really see it in action in the final cut is when it first gets into the police cruiser at the beginning, and briefly touches the computer before using it, so it can understand how the computer works before it starts pushing buttons. It's almost a throwaway motion, I bet most people don't even realize that he does it.
Click to expand...

Arnie mentions it more than once... he can mimic anything he touches by physical contact ;)

darthgordon said:
Okay... since we're on a Terminator kick- why would the machines make their terminators, big hulking guys that stick out like a sore thumb. I mean, not only are they huge, but I can't imagine that in the post-apocalyptic future of the Terminator movies, food and gyms are in great abundance. They’d be far less conspicuous if they were scrawny, with bad skin and losing their hair.
“Gee, there’s a 6’3” guy with a 60 inch chest… well, he looks just like everyone else, so let’s not notice him.”
I mean, I don’t think they need all the muscle, since they’re just robots underneath.
Click to expand...

Not all Terminators look like Arnold? As seen in the first film for example. This isn't even close to being a plot hole anyway.

Satxer said:
And last: Fifth Element. The Monochiwan(sp?), gets closed in the temple, where the hell did it go!?
Click to expand...

Just because you don't see it on-screen doesn't make it a plot hole. Perhaps they came back during those centuries and collected his remains.
 
Too Much Garlic said:
Also... I always took the Arcturan were just human settlers.
Click to expand...

Frost: Hey, I sure wouldn't mind getting some more of that Arcturian poon-tang! Remember that time?

Spunkmeyer: Yeah, Frost, but the one that you had was a male!

Frost: It doesn't matter when it's Arcturian, baby!

With that exchange in mind, I always assumed Arcturans were aliens. If they were just human settlers, perhaps they were all just really, really good looking?
 
aeonpulse said:
Frost: Hey, I sure wouldn't mind getting some more of that Arcturian poon-tang! Remember that time?

Spunkmeyer: Yeah, Frost, but the one that you had was a male!

Frost: It doesn't matter when it's Arcturian, baby!

With that exchange in mind, I always assumed Arcturans were aliens. If they were just human settlers, perhaps they were all just really, really good looking?
Click to expand...

Or it just follows the grand naval tradition of "any port in a storm..."
 
Snowtrooper said:
In ANH, after the escape from the DS, Leia knows they are being tracked. So why would they go directly to the rebel base and lead the imperials there. Furthermore, after the imperials have tracked the MF to Yavin, why would just the Death Star show up and not at least some of the imperial fleet? They also would have no time to celebrate their victory, as the entire Imperial Fleet would be bearing down on Yavin and they'd have to get the hell out of Dodge.
Click to expand...

I guess Leia wanted to get to where the main Rebel force was so they could use the plans to destroy the Death Star. Dumb but they had the info they needed. Tarkin was over confident in the Death Star so why would he waste a fleet on going to blow up a tiny resistance force. Show up, blow up, boogie home.
 
Last edited:
They address that in the radio drama: Han offers to lay up somewhere but she says there's no time, if they wait, other planets might be destroyed.
 
Treadwell said:
They address that in the radio drama: Han offers to lay up somewhere but she says there's no time, if they wait, other planets might be destroyed.
Click to expand...
That may be, but it's not in the movie so it doesn't change anything. And, realistically, this little exchange of dialogue could easily have been in the movie--it's, what, maybe a ten second conversation?
 
Treadwell said:
They address that in the radio drama: Han offers to lay up somewhere but she says there's no time, if they wait, other planets might be destroyed.
Click to expand...

I had never heard the radio drama so I missed out on that bit of conversation. I always thought that they could have delivered R2 to someone else who would then take it to Yavin. I don't know if you'd really call it a plot hole, but just something I'd wondered about over the years. Doesn't take away from the greatness of the film IMO.
 
Galactus said:
When Doc takes Marty and Jen to the future shouldn't it be a future in which Marty and Jen disappeared mysteriously 30 years ago?
Click to expand...

I see what you're getting at, but Doc would have returned them to the "present" 1985 at around the same time they originally left, thus closing that loophole.

Time travel paradoxes are difficult to deduce logically, especially in BTTF.
 
Galactus said:
When Doc takes Marty and Jen to the future shouldn't it be a furture in which Marty and Jen disappeared mysteriously 30 years ago?
Click to expand...
They had thought about it and addressed that concern. The following is the official answer from Gale and Zemeckis. Sometimes fans these days come up with all sorts of plot holes to dispute the time travel logic of the BTTF movies, but the creators had pretty much taken most of them into consideration, it just couldn't be conveyed in the movies in a direct way.

"Q: When Doc takes Marty and Jennifer out of 1985 and brings them to the future, how can Old Marty and Old Jennifer (and their family) even be in the future? Wouldn't their disappearance from 1985 instantaneously erase their future?

A: To be honest, yes, it very well should erase their existence from the future. This is, in fact, the ultimate paradox of Back to the Future Part II. We really thought about this one for a long time, but we finally decided that after the set-up of Doc saying "Something's got to be done about your kids," the audience would feel cheated if we went to the future and found out they didn't exist. You could, however, argue that existence of Old Marty, Old Jennifer and their kids in the future automatically proves that young Marty and Jennifer will eventually get back to 1985. The flaw in this reasoning is that Doc repeatedly tells us that the future isn't written, so why would this part of the future be "written?" Ah, but Back to the Future Part III may contain the answer to this question after all. When Doc spots the tombstone in 1885 and sees that the name on the photograph of the tombstone has vanished but the date remains, he says "We know this photograph represents what will happen if the events of today continue to run their course into tomorrow." That's a pretty big "if." And it suggests that time travel to the future always takes you to a future based on the events of the time you left -- a logical extrapolation of what the future of that moment holds. Of course, the existence of free will allows for the possibility of infinite futures, which is what Doc says at the end of Back to the Future Part III: "Your future is whatever you make it." But time travel into the future takes you to the most likely future of the moment you left."
 
This thread is more than 7 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. This thread hasn't been active in some time. A new post in this thread might not contribute constructively to this discussion after so long.
If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.

Similar threads

Usagi Pilgrim
AMPUTEE ARCHETYPES IN MOVIES
Replies
1
Views
377
Usagi Pilgrim
Usagi Pilgrim
blewis17
VIDEO: How Bad Movies are Made / Rise of Skywalker
2
Replies
35
Views
2,147
pengbuzz
P
Sluis Van Shipyards
Movies that you stopped watching because of inaccuracies
2 3 4
Replies
62
Views
2,993
joberg
joberg
Bloop
My deepfake videos - "fixing" movies with de-aging FX and younger characters
2
Replies
33
Views
1,876
drusselmeyer
drusselmeyer
goldcylon
Good news everybody.... Futurama returns
Replies
7
Views
554
edge10
edge10
Back
Top