Pensive Wright
I think we should edit the description, since a plot hole is an inconsistency in the storyline. Like how Super Mario Galaxy shows the star shroom's stages of construction in-game, but the book that tells of Rosalina's childhood shows the Starshroom.
I think we should add something on the page about things that do NOT constitute plot holes, since so many people seem to misunderstand what a plot hole is (in fact MOST of the entries on this page aren't actually plot holes). Examples would include:
- Mundane problems with mundane or obvious solutions that aren't directly shown being solved - Something that is merely unexplained but doesn't actually contradict anything else in the story - A character acting illogically or failing to take the objectively best course of action in a given situation - A character acting out of character in order to drive the plot forward - Any instance in which a device or other mechanical invention shown on screen wouldn't actually function in the real world but nonetheless drives the story (see "black box") - I'm sure you can think of more
The only time something genuinely constitutes a plot hole is when something happens that directly contradicts or is logically impossible according to the established rules of a work of fiction. Anything that merely doesn't make sense, while it can be an example of poor writing, isn't automatically a plot hole.
Edited by Zack-Akai
The Twilight Realms
In The Lion King, Scar never says that Simba killed Mufasa, he just says Simba was responsible for Mufasa's death (as Mufasa died saving Simba from the stampede). This is explicit in the scene where Simba admits his "guilt". Scar: Go on, tell them. Tell them who is responsible for Mufasa's death. Simba: ...I am. (lionesses gasp) Scar: He admits it! Murderer! Simba: No, I'm not a murderer! Scar: If it weren't for you, your father would still be alive! Do you deny it? Simba: No! Scar: Then you're guilty!
Living the gamer's life until I die. Take a controller and join the ride. Not affiliated with the Twilight saga. Hide / Show Replies
While your reasoning here is correct, it is entirely reasonable for a character like Scar to use distorted logic of this nature to achieve his ends. We see the same sort of thing used frequently and effectively in real life, e.g. "Democrats want to murder babies" / "Republicans want to control women".
This entry
was removed with the following edit reason:
I believe this is a perfectly legitimate entry and should be restored. This is good enough to be the #2 plot hole of all time on Moviemistakes.com (http://www.moviemistakes.com/best/plothole)
and they have the by far the strictest standards, especially for plot holes. This entry has hundreds if not thousands of positive votes and hasn't been corrected for years, so you can safely assume that it's correct.
Furthermore, the edit reason mentions the access codes of a dead person, but Anderton is a convicted criminal and considered very dangerous (AND was set up by the big bad), so this goes far beyond Swiss-Cheese Security and his wife NEVER could have entered the laboratory this way.
The last Harry Potter example, maybe I'm remembering the film wrong. I know that students learn to tell the difference between the werewolf and the true wolf in the book. But Snape's lesson in the film has him ask what the difference between a werewolf and an Animagus is. So it's really more of a Plot Hole in the books, though a werewolf's appearance isn't described in detail.
This entry has turned into Thread Mode. Put it here if someone can condense it.
- When Amy and Rory are sent back in time by the Weeping Angels, the Doctor says that the events of the episode have risked an instability in the fabric of space-time, so not only can he not nip back in the TARDIS to fetch them, he can't ever bring the TARDIS to New York again. So he won't ever see them again. However, the Doctor's TARDIS is not the only way to travel in time, and it's implied that River will be able to visit Amy and Rory (she's going to get Amy to arrange the publication of her detective novel, so it'll already exist to play its role in the plot). And if River can visit them, can't she ask them to travel in space in the normal way (over to New Jersey, maybe?) without travelling in time, so that the Doctor can pick them up from there? There's no reason why the TARDIS should create an instability by going to that time in a different place, and there's no reason why they should spend the rest of their lives in the precise location they were sent back to.
- Recent developments have mitigated this to the point that it is not a plot hole so much as it is just insufficiently explained at first. As revealed in the Series 7 finale, one's own grave is the "one place that a time traveler must never go," because, as said in The Angels Take Manhattan, once you know your future, it's fixed, which has been hinted at all throughout the Moffat era when the dangers of foreknowledge have been mentioned. The Doctor saw his own grave on Trenzalore, and knew that he could not avoid that fate on his own when he later returned to the planet in The Time of the Doctor. The only reason why he does manage to get around it is because he has external help from the Time Lords. With that in mind, one realizes that simply by observing the text on the tombstone as it changes, Amy and Rory have sealed their fates. The fact that the tombstone "updates" right in front of their eyes proves that it is not a fake, because it is responding to events in the future, thereby creating a Stable Time Loop. As soon as they got sent back, history became fixed, because they saw the outcome ahead of time on the tombstone, which was them living out their lives and dying in New York. So they became aware of that being their future, and had to abide by it, lest they were to create a paradox that would destroy New York.
- Actually,it is still a plot-hole knowing the Tenth Doctor was able to modify the past even though he read about it in the Water Of Mars by saving 2 astronauts (not counting Adelaide).Also,Eleven severely goes against this rule during episodes like Journey To The Centre of The Tardis and A Christmas Carrol,where he uses knowledge from timelines he aims to prevent to undo events.The whole reason this is a paradox is ,because if you take information that only exists in a certain timeline but go on to change this timeline in ways that would prevent the information from ever coming to exist you've created a literal contradiction in the course of time.For example,if you fail a test then go back to tell yourself your mistakes, you create a version of reality where you did not fail it and you could/would therefore not have gone back in time to warn your self,which is in itself a contradiction.
- Recent developments have mitigated this to the point that it is not a plot hole so much as it is just insufficiently explained at first. As revealed in the Series 7 finale, one's own grave is the "one place that a time traveler must never go," because, as said in The Angels Take Manhattan, once you know your future, it's fixed, which has been hinted at all throughout the Moffat era when the dangers of foreknowledge have been mentioned. The Doctor saw his own grave on Trenzalore, and knew that he could not avoid that fate on his own when he later returned to the planet in The Time of the Doctor. The only reason why he does manage to get around it is because he has external help from the Time Lords. With that in mind, one realizes that simply by observing the text on the tombstone as it changes, Amy and Rory have sealed their fates. The fact that the tombstone "updates" right in front of their eyes proves that it is not a fake, because it is responding to events in the future, thereby creating a Stable Time Loop. As soon as they got sent back, history became fixed, because they saw the outcome ahead of time on the tombstone, which was them living out their lives and dying in New York. So they became aware of that being their future, and had to abide by it, lest they were to create a paradox that would destroy New York.
Knows-Many-Things
Yeah, uh. I dn't think many of these are plot holes so much as they're nitpicks. Plot Holes are things that could unravel the entire story, not little unexplained tidbits.
Find the Light in the Dark
I think that the article is a bit too negative, even for a usually-bad trope like this. A Plot Hole isn't necessarily poor logic — the whole idea behind Fridge Logic is that if you only recognize a plot hole after the show is over and you're walking to the fridge, it hasn't really interfered with your enjoyment. And sometimes MST3K Mantra applies — if you're writing a big-budget action movie, with the expectation that most of your audience is there for big explosions and fight scenes, getting bogged down in trying to explain every single detail can actually be worse than just glossing over plot holes and pushing ahead with your story.
Just out of interest, what's the plot hole in A Midsummer Nights Dream alluded to in the page quote?
It's super effective.
Removed, as this seems to be a mess of counter-arguments.
- The plot of Heavy Rain does not survive any real scrutiny. Most notably, Ethan spends much of the game convinced that he is the Origami Killer during his Tyler Durden-esque blackouts, because he always ends up all the way across town with an origami figure in his hand. However, this is patently ridiculous even from his POV, because the Origami Killer has been striking since before Ethan had the accident which caused the blackouts in the first place. And then at least three of the trials involve Ethan's actions being verified by someone remotely, so he obviously could not be setting these traps for himself. When it is revealed that he is not the Origami Killer, no explanation is given for where the origami animals came from or why Ethan always ran to a specific building that was relevant to the OK's origin. Another more direct example is that after Madison escapes the fire at the OK's apartment, she can call FBI Agent Jayden on her cell phone to give him the address, even though she never meets him, or even learns his name and phone number. Many other examples.
- An extensive series laying out the plotholes in detail.
- Ethan has brain damage. This excuses almost everything. His accident could have neatly messed with his memory, making him forget that he's the Origami Killer. As far as the origami animals and his blackouts taking him to certain places, it's (very vaguely) alluded that when he reads about the crimes in the newspaper, his subconscious mind makes a bizarre connection that sends him to wherever the victim was found, along with randomly folding origami. He lost his son; he's probably trying to make it mean something, or have a reason, given how senseless it was, even if it's not a conscious desire.
- The first plothole (the one about the killer striking before Ethan had his accident) actually has an explanation; even though the characters say the Killer has been at this for three years, if you look at the actual dates of the crimes they start the same time Ethan gets out of his coma. Apparantly when characters say "three years" they really mean the murders have been spread out over three years (2009, 2010, 2011), even though by the start of the main plot it is the fall of 2011, thus meaning only two years have actually passed.
- In order to preserve the ending, that one of the playable characters is the Origami Killer, the writers introduce a new plot hole. Because you, the player, have the ability to listen to your character's thoughts, EVERY SEQUENCE with Scott makes little sense in retrospect. When speaking to potential suspects, Scott still relays to the player, via the "listen to thoughts" power, his suspicions of suspect behavior; because Scott is the killer, and is merely investigating in order to clean up clues, there is no reason at all for him to treat suspects as such IN THE PRIVACY OF HIS OWN MIND, except that being able to read his mind would spoil the ending for the player. Is Scott so worried about protecting his secret that he won't even THINK about it?
- An extensive series laying out the plotholes in detail.
I removed the Bleach example regarding Kira's revelation as a healer causing plot-holes because that's not actually the case. Originally, all the manga had ever told us was that Gin used to be Aizen's vice-captain and that Aizen had recruited Kira, Hinamori and Renji into the fifth division, and that Gin was now third division captain with Kira as his vice-captain.
The fandom assumed that meant Kira was transferred directly from the fifth division to the third division when Gin was. Later on the manga reveals Kira actually spent some time in the fourth division as a healer, but it was a very long time ago. The fandom reacted to this revelation by claiming this was a contradiction of Kira's backstory and that it created plotholes. It didn't, the only thing it contradicted was fanon.
It also doesn't contradict Kira not healing Renji after Renji's loss to Ichigo. In the Soul Society arc, Gotei divisions could not claim authority over other divisions, Kenpachi (verbally) whipped Mayuri's hide for trying to take command of Ikkaku because even a captain doesn't have authority over other divisions. Kira couldn't assume the responsibilities of a division he wasn't a part of, it wasn't his jurisdiction, and once Byakuya issued the order for no-one to be allowed to heal him, that would have been that. Gin countermanded Byakuya's order (stepping over his authority to do so, but he does that a lot) and immediately removed Kira from the scene so even then Kira wouldn't have been able to heal Renji.
Even in the scene that reveals Kira used to be in the fourth division for a while, Kira doesn't volunteer to heal Rangiku and Hinamori and is extremely reluctant to do so which is why his past is revealed in the first place - Hisagi calls him out on his reluctance precisely because he's more qualified of the pair of them to heal wounds like that. So we know he's reluctant to attempt healing unless he absolutely has no choice and even when he was healing, he panicked that he might be too rusty for the task because it had been so long since he'd been a healer.
Edited by Wyldchyld If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.
I don't want to just add this <new stuff> to the Main Page (if I even could); I want it to be treated correctly, in keeping with the site's expectations. There's no e-mail or contact form for a "Main Dude/Team" or single person to ask about this, so I'm appealing to anyone reading this who feels experienced, knowledgeable, and comfortable enough to make informed decisions about how to best handle it ...
In fact, anyone who feels okay about it can probably just go ahead and add this appropriately, if it is appropriate to do so. Or you can reach me at the e-mail I just created for this specific purpose: "ineptizine +BEFORE+ gmail +PERIOD+ com". I'd be happy to chat about it or be redirected to comments here or told about actions taken. I'm certainly not "HANDS OFF" about this, and welcome feedback about the concept or about how to *properly* introduce it to this wiki. I guess I'm feeling not quite but pretty close to "UP FOR GRABS".
I want to introduce the term "Ineptizine" and the related term "Ineptizine Rating". They don't refer to a new trope; it seems pretty clear to me that they fall under "Plot Hole". So if anywhere, I think they should be mentioned on the "Plot Hole" page. Also, they're terms that I coined; I want to be up-front about that in case it affects treatment.
By the way, I'm also not using any markup tags or anything, not trying to, anyway. The text I propose for inclusion is between the lines of separated dashes.
- - -
Application of, or exposure to, Ineptizine creates unintentional plot holes. If the plot hole is definitely intentional, or acknowledged with a lampshade or in any other way that shows the writer-or-whoever is defintely aware of it, Ineptizine probably isn't involved. Internal consistency should be taken into account; *having* weird rules or realities in a work isn't the result of Ineptizine exposure, but breaking your own rules & realities definitely shows you in(eptizine)haled. Of course, our own reality applies when we're not told otherwise.
An Ineptizine Rating indicates the severity of the plot hole — how much Ineptizine was involved, with a low number indicating a minor plot hole and a high number being an egregious error, the proverbial "plot hole you could drive a truck (/747/cruise ship/skyscraper/star ship/macGuffin) through". Typical Ineptizine Ratings range from 1 to 10 (a common scale), but are inherently subjective, and if you want to make a point, call it an IR:15 if you want. But generally, IR:10 should be enough to point out glaring stupidity on someone's part.
Ineptizine Ratings can be applied to a specific thing, a scene, or an entire work, depending on the speaker's desires. For instance ...
- Thing: "This show's Ivex Revisionator gets an IR:3 because it's made of tissue paper, but it never shows any effects from fire or rough handling, no explanation. Rarely a major plot point, but still."
- Scene: "When the Highlander is running through the complex, he's got that sword again, but we saw him leave it behind, stuck in the floor beneath that descending super-diamond-ultra-drill, just two scenes ago! What the heck!?! IR:7 at least!"
- Entire Work: "Yeah, there was that thing where the thing went wonky, but overall, the episode had little Ineptizine, so I'd give the episode an Ineptizine rating of, mmm, 1."
The terms came about when Carlos Vigil of Milwaukee, WI (just a guy, you know?) misheard a line from one of the *Star Trek* series (*Enterprise* or *Voyager*, he thinks). A character blamed something on anesthesine gas (or referred to it in some way), but Carlos asked his wife, "Did he just say 'Ineptizine'???" They ROTFL and started using the term right away, mostly about *Star Trek* shows at first, but very soon for other things. The term has spread among some of their friends as convenient and amusing shorthand.
Carlos' highest Ineptizine Rating goes to the people who made *Star Trek Generations* — in which the ship's stardrive section is lost as a result of a warp core breach, and the saucer section crash lands on the surface of Veridian III! "Answer me this: How could *all* of the people associated with this movie — the writers, directors, the producers, the guy who gets the donuts, and-if-nobody-else and-even-above-all the bloody ACTORS — have *all* forgotten all the times that warp cores have been ejected on *Star Trek*??? They could not have! The warp core breach wasn't instantaneous and they had time to discuss and react to it. Yet they don't eject it to save the ship and people, and in fact, nobody even *mentions* trying to eject it. Systems fail all the time on *Star Trek* (and in real life); they could have saved this scene and movie from a colossal IR:10+ by adding ONE line: "The Warp Core Ejection System's gone off-line!" In fact, with very slight variation, it's a line that's appeared in the shows, I think more than once. With that line, they could have kept the separation and crash and everything without any reason to think of Ineptizine."
- - -
Edited by ineptizinerating10 Hide / Show Replies
...
...
...
...
Edited by dontcallmewave He who fights bronies should see to itthat he himself does not become a brony. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, Pinkie Pie gazes Also
Okay, so just to help you all be clear and helpful, I ask: What exactly are you each objecting to? I'm not objecting to your responses; I'd just like more feedback and conversation.
I get that the first person (dontcallmewave) is saying, "I don't even understand this," with their "what." I thought I wrote pretty clearly and gave enough detail to explain everything. Then again, I do know that some folks just get overwhelmed with much text and literally can't process it. I have no way of knowing if that's happening here.
And the other three don't want ... something. A little more feedback would be helpful though, and more friendly :) . Are you objecting to the term being presented here, or anywhere on the site? Are you objecting to the term itself, just not liking it? Do you think I'm suggesting it as a trope? (I'm not. It's just a way to refer to the degree of ineptitude revealed by a Plot Hole.) Do you just not like the way I wrote the description? *Maaaaaybe* you don't like *Star Trek* or anything derived from it? Something else? Some combination of things?
Well, thanks for any more feedback you can give, guys. And thank you for responding at all.
To make the objections a little more clear, I think the problem is that there is no reason for us to use the term "Ineptizine" and a lot of reasons for us not to. I'm not trying to be rude, as you have been polite about the whole thing yourself, but I can't see how your idea would add anything to the site.
Some of the problems I can see with your idea are:
1. "Ineptizine" is not a pre-existing term for the concept, and doesn't indicate what the trope is about. The term would just cause confusion for anyone who hasn't read the page, which is something the site has been trying to avoid lately.
2. The scale you've created is, as you say, subjective. Anything that is subjective usually causes problems, as different tropers argue over and have edit wars about whether a trope really applies or how good or bad something is. Subjective tropes are separate from regular ones, and sometimes get all their examples cut if they cause frequent edit wars.
3. A lot of tropes have been changed or cut because they were seen to simply be complaining. Tropes that accused the writers of making mistakes or writing poorly often became bloated as people added examples just to deride the work. "Ineptizine" would likely cause people to add examples of how terrible and stupid the plots are in works that they dislike, rather than have any honest examination of the plot in question. It's better to just avoid that.
4. Mostly, tropes aren't altered unless there is something wrong with them. People can tinker with the description, or add comparisons to other relevant tropes, but the trope itself is left alone unless it's causing problems. If a trope seems to be covering too many things at once, or is full of incorrect examples, or needs a better name, then it's usually discussed in the forums and a solution is found there. As far as I know, there is no problems with the trope right now, so there is no need to change it. And I don't think setting a precedent of altering a trope to suit one specific person is a good idea.
All in all, I can't see any reason to include "Ineptizine" in the trope. Most of the tropers here, as well as myself, were confused as to why you indicated the term "Ineptizine" should be included in the trope at all. As far as I can tell, it wouldn't improve the trope, which is the only reason to make such a change. Again, I'm not trying to be rude to you. You've discussed this politely, which is how things like this should be handled. I just don't think "Ineptizine" needs to be included on this site. Sorry.
Actually, that's an excellent reply, Jerrik! Thanks. None of your reply came off as rude; you answered my initial questions :) . And that's exactly why I brought this up on the discussion page! Now I can see where *your* thoughts lie, anyway :) .
I *certainly* am not suggesting that this is a trope, or something that alters the description of the current trope; I was clear about that in the original post. I agree that altering something to suit one person alone is counter to the definition of, or idea behind, tropes. I also agree that the trope does not *require* a new term to be used in discussing examples, which is what "ineptizine" really is.
The "Plot Hole" page seemed (at first) that it might be the place to drop in a fun & related shorthand term — at least the only place I had seen so far where it might fit in. (I think I recall seeing mention of some sort of place for anything that fit nowhere else, maybe just to give people a place to dump things they couldn't or shouldn't post elsewhere. But I noticed it in passing and didn't take particular note.) I'm seeing that there's consensus among at least five people, who were kind enough to give some feedback, that THIS is NOT the place in any case.
.*Is* there *anywhere* else on this site that it might go without harm, do you think? Your points 2 and 3 are good ones: avoiding pointless flaming and edit wars is A Good Thing(tm) :) .
Folks I've talked with have enjoyed the term, and we've taken to using it, knowing that it's a subjective scale and that numbers assigned can vary. Of course, the folks to whom we've spread the term have also been mostly "Trek" fans, and the term is cute because it's a pun taken directly from mishearing a common "Trek" term once. ("Incompetence" would be as functional, but not as light-hearted, not as fun.) I realized that this site deals with way more TV (and thus way more types of TV) than even I have ever watched — and that it's not unreasonable to think that a reference term based in *Star Trek* wouldn't click with folks who >gasp< (and big *wink*) don't really know *Star Trek*. Heck, I don't recognize or understand a lot of stuff from *Naruto* or *Dragonball Z* or lots of others, so no blame to anyone who doesn't go for everything I go for :) .
... Anyway, I'm not saying that the world needs the word or concepts behind "ineptizine", or that it illuminates the trope "Plot Holes", but I am saying that I think it will add some fun and useful shorthand for a lot of folks. So I wonder where I *can* share it with the people, being all selfless and generous and stuff ;) .
(I know that I type a lot, trying to explain things as fully as possible to lessen the amount of back & forth needed in a conversation. I know some folks don't like to read a lot, and some don't even like to be presented with a lot available to read at one time. Ah well. I can only hope that's not what caused the initial terse responses. Even use of the tropes that I could look up like "What" and "Big No" didn't help me understand the objections, like Jerrik's thoughtful response did. "What" seemed to indicate confusion, which is what made me wonder if the first post was too much reading for dontcallmewave's taste or invoked a milieu he or she isn't familiar with. The others definitely made clear the fact of objection, but that's all.)
Edited by ineptizinerating10
I have no idea what's going on, but I just wanted to be a part of this legendary thread.
We're seriously accepting examples on the page for plot holes? How is this page not three hundred screens long?
Hide / Show Replies
I just watched Star Trek TNG : Descent 1&2 last night. Don't know why it's listed as an example. Hugh, the Borg they previously captured, ultimately creating the situation they're in, tells Riker and Worf about Lore (during part 2), having previously been one of his followers. They don't magically know, it's a distinct, logical, sequence of events. Maybe it was cut to shorten it for TV, but it's definitely on the DV Ds.
How the hell are Plot Holes subjective?! I mean, they are occurring because the universe's internal logic suddenly contradicts itself, right?
Hide / Show Replies
Taken from the page:
"In some cases, what one person sees as a plot hole could be seen by another as something that makes sense if enough thought is put into it, or makes sense but was not adequately explained. Examples here will therefore be subjective. "
But that means that either 1. you are not paying attention, or 2. or came up with some random justification. Doing It for the Art used to say that it was subjective even though it not.
Edited by nuclearneo577
Is that the reason why you removed the entire paragraph of the quote in question?
I there really a point of it? Doing It for the Art used to have a paragraph that said that it was subjective.
Probably should, or at least bring it up in a forum about subjective tropes. A discussion page like this is a rather obscure place for others to voice an opinion; I don't have one either way, but it's a bit unjustified to pull/call something out as not subjective without a formal concensus (especially since Doing It for the Art also got it's "...this trope is subjective..." description pulled by nuclearneo577; I didn't see any topic in the forums about the change, at least from a brief scan of titles).
How is Doing It for the Art subjective? It was slapped there because of misuse.
Edited by nuclearneo577
Droopy Dog in "The Three Little Pups" is an example. The Huckleberry Hound/Wolf/Dogcatcher swallows the television in one scene, in the next scene the television is back in place. Droopy says "Don't ask how we got the television back."
Hide / Show Replies
What, no mention of Equilibrium? The gun swap? That's not a plot hole, it's a plot *black* hole. The IM Db FAQ page for Equilibrium gives a shakily plausible explanation, but also shows how following that explanation all the way through makes it even worse.
Hide / Show Replies
There's a button on the main page. It's called "Edit." This is a wiki. Do the math.
Wolverine was chosen because his 'Healing Factor' allows him to survive being cut-off from his blood supply? [snark] This gets better and better [/snark] Red blood cells only last a few months before being broken down. Good-bye, Hemoglobin. Hello, Anemia. White cells vary greatly, but many of the body's first responders and immune reaction response will last days at most. The rest still have a limit. The good news is that Wolverine will not have to worry about the auto-immune response after a decade or so. The bad news is he will be the super-'Typhoid Mary' for EVERY infectious bacteria, virus, fungi and parasite.
MS 3 KT Mantra ain't going to cut it. They should have settled for a Marvel Vampire.
Per TRS, this is now definition-only:
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=1661790036074394500&page=2#comment-33
Patiently awaiting the release of Paper Luigi and the Marvelous Compass.