The 'plot hole/nitpick review'

Fago123

I've noticed a rather annoying new trend of film reviewing on the internet recently. The 'nit-pick review'. The 'plot-hole review'. The 'why didn't character x do something I felt was the more obvious option'. Or 'how can character y manage this random action that doesn't seem logical to me'.

I'm sure people will argue this has always existed on the net, but there's seems to be a huge surge in it recently, it seems the popular thing to do.

The buzzword now is 'plot holes'. To me it doesn't really add to the discussion, if you've seen a film and dislike it then share with us why from an acting/story/direction/emotional/entertainment/etc point of view. Not "how can Batman break solid brick with a roundhouse kick?". It seems to be more frequent when discussing the traditional summer blockbusters. I'm not saying that we completely suspend our disbelief just because it's designed as a 'popcorn movie' but surely there's a bit of leeway there?

Maybe it's a mind set thing, but the thought of watching a movie constantly thinking things like "wasn't he wearing a different coloured tie a minute ago?" is completely alien to me. Doesn't that kill some of the joy of watching movies?

Anyone else find it a little tedious wading through these types of comments or am I on my own here?

delbertgrady

Without such nitpicking, we wouldn't have the brilliance of How It Should Have Ended.

missingtime

I think there is a difference between a plot hole and a continuity error.

If there is a glaring plot hole, then the Movie can be subjected to valid criticism imo.

I don't really care for minor continuity errors.

FloatingVoter

Its always a bit of fun checking who's wearing a wristwatch in the middle ages / Roman era. Continuity / wardrobe checks are so common on film sets though that I'm pretty sure some of them are deliberate gaffes to garner publicity.

Mickeroo

delbertgrady wrote: »

Without such nitpicking, we wouldn't have the brilliance of How It Should Have Ended.

Yeah but they have the sense to know that the little nit picking type criticisms (which 99% of the time don't even come under the umbrella of plot holes) don't necessarily diminish the quality of a film, hence why they can point out all the silly stuff in The Dark Knight yet still acknowledge it as "an incredibly awesome movie" at the end. Can't wait for their inevitable Man of Steel one, the banter in the cafe with Supes and Batman kills me.

krudler

This crops up a lot in big blockbuster discussions on here, stuff like how did Batman make it back to Gotham or moments of suspension of disbelief. A minor mistake or continuity error is one thing, movies have scenes shot months apart so mistakes happen, stuff like "oh that blood splatter was different in the last scene" is just stupid nitpicking.
Parts of a movie where the plot simply doesnt hold up are different and often they do warrant criticism when they fall into simply lazy storytelling or not thinking ahead from the scriptwriters. I have no problem with filling in some blanks myself but bad scriptwriting is bad scriptwriting.

Fysh

OP, you're covering quite a wide spread there with your critique.

The problem with things like nit-picks or plotholes is that they relate to a story's effectiveness in triggering a suspension of disbelief. The rule of thumb is that the more fantastic elements your story has, the more realistic and grounded you need to keep the rest of your elements - so that an audience member will subconsciously think "well, ok, the flying suit of metal is nonsense, but the stuff that I'm familiar with is all presented in a way that makes sense to me, so I guess I can just go along with it". If your story involves repeated instances of unlikely coincidences, or violations of its own internal logic, or Nonsense Physics of the sort that are obvious to everyone, then you damage the suspension of disbelief - and once you've done that, you've broken the audience's engagement with the story. Different people have different tolerances for attacks on suspension of disbelief, which is why some people will eg not have a problem with anything shown in WWZ while others (eg me) might wonder at a variety of events in the film that seem contrived for plot-forwarding purposes without being coherent or internally consistent.

Speaking only for myself, I can generally put up with minor things (eg

in Man Of Steel, Superman taking off at super-speed should be causing a pressure wave and possibly sonic boom that would flatten anyone standing around him. But, you know, flying alien and all that, so Not That Big A Deal

) as long as the film is reasonably engaging. If the film doesn't engage me, though, potentially small things become more problematic (eg

in WWZ, Brad Pitt's character has been a UN agent working in wartorn countries all over the world, and yet doesn't know to put his damn phone on silent before taking part in an operation where everyone's life is at risk and silence is of the utmost importance? Well, that's entirely believable

).

I don't think it's legitimate to pretend that all plot-holes large and small are of the same category as minor continuity glitches in film, because the point of a story is to envelop you in a fictional world that seems real - and that depends on the story's world being depicted in a coherent and consistent way. If that coherence and consistency get thrown out of the window because the author can't come up with a plausible way of progressing the story, then the story has a problem, and I don't think it's legitimate to say "You, the audience, are responsible, because you should just accept whatever we offer you without daring to critique it in any way". However, this is all subjective, so what I find ludicrous and problematic might seem fine to you and vice versa.

krudler

With Superman taking off at least they did cover that in MoS by having him tell Lois to stand back a bit when he rockets off in desert scene. I quite liked how he doesnt just float away it looks like it takes a lot of effort and energy to shoot into the sky like he does. As long as physics work in whatever universe the movie is set in I've no problem with stuff like that.

Immolation

Everything wasfine until the nonsense that was TDKR came along & that's why we can't have nice things.

johnny_ultimate

I wrote a long article about this late last year. There's a few points Id probably change or elaborate on now (I hadn't seen Oblivion then ) but certainly the rambling gets across some of my general concerns about the trend. Raw and unedited copy and paste job follows:

2012 has seen the release of several massively hyped blockbusters, with at least one major one (The Hobbit) yet to come. The Avengers, The Dark Knight Rises, Prometheus, Skyfall, Looper... It's been a busy year of big-budget cinema, and each of the films have been greeted with reactions varying from gushingly hyperbolic praise to considered disappointment to pure hatred & spite. All had their fair share of problems, all had their minor & major successes. Critical and fan discussions were divided and lively: as it should be.

Yet in the midst of all this discussion - much of it productive and intriguing, it should be stressed - there emerged a trend. It shouldn't be surprising - these films attract massive audiences. Many of these are viewers who either don't care or don't have easy access to the smaller and frequently more interesting films that are out there. They don't usually engage with the wider critical discourse or forum discussions concerning film. Sometimes it's great to receive this new influx of opinions - a nice antidote to elitism, or hearing grounded alternate perspectives that we enthusiasts might not usually have the pleasure to engage with. While it's perhaps an injustice that The Dark Knight Rises has generated several thousand more forum posts than Holy Motors has, this will always be the way, especially when brilliant films worthy of debate like Margaret are unceremoniously and shamefully buried by its very distributors. On the plus side, much of this year's blockbuster batch has in at least been more engaging and artistically ambitious than the Hollywood output of recent years.

But yes: a trend did emerge nonetheless. And that trend was the Rise of the Nitpicker.

They go by other names - plot-hole spotters etc... - but their actions are the same - rip a film to shreds based on narrative logic / illogic alone. Some such complaints are completely warranted - few could deny that Prometheus' script was riddled with shortcuts, stupidity and inconsistencies. Others were more specific, often bafflingly so. How did Bruce Wayne get back to Gotham? How did James Bond survive falling off a bridge with a gunshot? Why do the future criminals of Looper have such an elaborate way of closing their loops, or why is it explained away with a single line of dialogue? The answer to the first question is simple: because he's ****ing Batman. The answer to the second question is also simple: because he's ****ing James Bond. There's a single shared answer for all of them though: it doesn't really matter.

A film by its very nature is a contrivance, a work of fiction. Suspension of disbelief is a prerequisite - doubly so for high-concept mainstream blockbusters. Are any of the purported plot holes of The Dark Knight Rises any more ridiculous or contrived than the concept of a vigilante dressed as a bat in the first place? I'm not excusing lazy scriptwriting, but sometimes a writer needs to take a shortcut or two to get to the stuff that really matters. The James Bond franchise as a whole is a good example: a series that has always been pretty silly, and even has a character - Q - who dishes out elaborate gadgets tailor designed by the scriptwriter or Ian Fleming to get the hero out of a particularly dramatic preconceived pickle. Yet at their best they're still great fun despite various nonsensical elements. James Bond films are at their best when they indulgence in their license to thrill - personally, I'm willing to forgive a shortcut or two when the payoffs are worth it. And Skyfall, while far from a masterpiece, is thoughtfully directed and often very entertaining indeed, while not skimping on some worthwhile character development. To me that's more important than scrutinising the handful of quick contrivances employed to advance the plot.

Filling in every single blank in a film's plot can be detrimental to a film's pace, or distract from the production's more important themes, scenes or characters. TDKR is already packed to the gills with narrative and ideas it wants to explore, often to its detriment (particularly during the sluggish opening hour). Wasting time on tiny details that matter little would only exacerbate the challenges of a film that already has structural and pacing problems. Looper - which, produced at a modest budget, is only vaguely suited to this discussion - is a film particularly unsuited to specific plot scrutiny - time travel films that aren't Primer are infamously problematic when it comes to logic and paradoxes. Luckily Johnson has crafted a film rich with intriguing characters, ideas and situations, not to mention drenched in a compellingly cinematic aesthetic. To me, it's almost unfair to go over the script with a fine-toothed comb when the overall experience is so rewarding. Time travel is inherently illogical - sometimes we just have to go along for the ride.

With all the pointless nitpicks this year's big-budgeted productions attracted, oftentimes the more intelligent or fascinating debates were drowned out. Prometheus was flawed as hell, but I came across far fewer reflections on the film's grand themes (admittedly often contradictory, which if anything makes debate more valuable) or lush cinematography than I did on the stupidity of the ship's biologist. Perhaps many people just aren't as interested in a film's overall artistic or technical successes as they are in tiny gaps of logic. Perhaps they are unwilling to make the leaps of faith required to reap the most from the experience as a whole. I partially blame those crazy long Star Wars prequel deconstructions on youtube, which were more worthy nitpicks as they were picking apart genuinely, irrefutably awful scripts (and they were also pretty funny).

Noel Murray over at the AV Club put together a more articulate reflection on this craze than I ever could. He concludes:

Viewers who praise movies with logical inconsistencies—or movies that appear to some to be espousing socially regressive viewpoints—are forced into defensive postures, asked to answer for mistakes that they may not actually care about.

It's an important point. The thing about film is that it can be challenging to truly explain why any given film did or didn't work for a viewer. We've all come out of a cinema and said "I like it, but I don't know why". Only on a second viewing of The Tree of Life this weekend was I able to come to a final conclusive reaction to the experience (positive, by the way, and enhanced by the rich critical discourse Malick's opus has enjoyed). There are so many variables: pacing, acting, direction, music, cinematography, tone, theme, personal preference etc... Many of these are entirely subjective - one person's great film can easily be another's worst nightmare. The main goal of discussing and critiquing film is trying to dismantle a film and understand why and how we have a specific emotional reaction to the complete piece of art. Divided opinions from individual to individual are only to be encouraged - it'd be no fun if we all liked the same stuff, even if some films will deservedly attract near universal praise (I struggle to see how anyone could dislike A Separation, for example - I'd genuinely love to hear that argument if you're that person!). Plot holes and nitpicking, however, can sometimes be objective and difficult to refute, even if ultimately the film succeeds in other, more difficult to decipher ways.

Yes, there will always be a place for thoughtful deconstructions of the failings of scriptwriters - in Hollywood, it's sure as hell an easy thing to do. In the worst case scenario, script inadequacies can indeed fatally undermine a film. It's always our duty to encourage writers to do better, especially when intellectually stimulating blockbusters are increasingly thin on the ground. But let us hope that the continued nitpicking does not drown out the voices of those who like to delve deeper, beyond the surface level inconsistencies and most basic of editing choices - perhaps said nitpickers will ultimately move on to appreciate and critique the multiple layers that can be evident in even the most expensive of blockbusters. We shouldn't completely forget cheap writing tricks, but sometimes we should be willing to at least partially forgive.

Sad Professor

I think the growth in nitpicking in recent years is mostly due to the increase in comic book films, which bring with them a passionate and knowledgeable fanbase who can be a very hard crowd to please. It's probably also an consequence of film critics being supplanted by film geeks. Critics watch a lot of films and don't have time to be scrutinising insignificant little details in a film that they'll probably never see again. Where as geeks tend to re-watch and obsess over the same few films and franchises and often aren't happy unless they are taking them apart frame by frame.

kunst nugget

Continuity errors I don't mind or usually don't notice (if the film is good enough I'll usually forgive them) but illogical plots are pretty unforgivable a lot of the times. Take Looper and Prometheus from last year - these really were the biggest piles of cack and the reason was how nonsensical their plots and how moronic the actions of many of the characters were - I still can't fathom how people praise Looper for being an intelligent sci-fi film.

Stuff like the burning bridge in TDK doesn't really stand up to scrutiny when you think about it at all but the dynamic of the film and the overall narrative arc is such that I'm willing to forgive it.

krudler

kunst nugget wrote: »

Continuity errors I don't mind or usually don't notice (if the film is good enough I'll usually forgive them) but illogical plots are pretty unforgivable a lot of the times. Take Looper and Prometheus from last year - these really were the biggest piles of cack and the reason was how nonsensical their plots and how moronic the actions of many of the characters were - I still can't fathom how people praise Looper for being an intelligent sci-fi film.

Stuff like the burning bridge in TDK doesn't really stand up to scrutiny when you think about it at all but the dynamic of the film and the overall narrative arc is such that I'm willing to forgive it.

Prometheus has probably the stupidest bunch of scientists in movie history in it. Look at something like Sunshine, they're a bunch of astronauts, physicists and other assorted scientific professions who have to make tough choices, one of them completely fcuks something up but it's human error and it pushes the plot forward. Whereas in Prometheus you have two supposed geniuses who get scared of a centuries old corpse and go wandering around an unexplored alien cave (and one of them is responsible for mapping the frigging thing!). It was absolutely daft logic. Was like watching the cast of Scream on an alien planet.

Fago123

Yeah perhaps I was too broad with my OP but I think the main point I was trying to get across is that I find this culture of trying really really hard to find these 'plot holes' really frustrating. I don't understand the fun of it.

I'm a huge Chris Nolan fan and I think his films have heightened this trend. There's a belief that his films are intellectual blockbusters (rightly so in my opinion) and that might breed an attitude of "hang on a second, I'm smart too, I bet I can outsmart your script".

kunst nugget

krudler wrote: »

Prometheus has probably the stupidest bunch of scientists in movie history in it. Look at something like Sunshine, they're a bunch of astronauts, physicists and other assorted scientific professions who have to make tough choices, one of them completely fcuks something up but it's human error and it pushes the plot forward. Whereas in Prometheus you have two supposed geniuses who get scared of a centuries old corpse and go wandering around an unexplored alien cave (and one of them is responsible for mapping the frigging thing!). It was absolutely daft logic. Was like watching the cast of Scream on an alien planet.

Sunshine, for me, jumped the shark with its third act so I don't know if it's a great comparison. Give me Event Horizon, Blade Runner or the original Alien film for some good quality sci-fi. The biologist interacting with the unknown lifeform is without doubt one of the stupidest moments I have ever seen in a film.

As someone who has read comics all my life I never fail to laugh when I see other comic readers rant and rave about the smallest things. After The Avengers came out I was in my local comic store picking up a few things and discussing why it was I felt that the Avengers was so disappointing. In the middle of this a friend of my girlfriend walked in and started offering his take on the film. He's the kind of guy who would read through a hundred back issues in order to prove a point such as "Captain America would never use that word". Anyways he butted into the conversation I was having and started off on one of the mos ridiculous rants I have ever witnessed. One of his biggest problems with the film was the fact, that in the comics "the black widows guns don't make the same sound as in the film." I could find a hundred reasons not to like the film but the sound FX used for the guns would never be one of them, yet he repeatedly and vehemently went on and on about it. He then started complaining that the color of the costumes did not match the comics and a dozen other criticisms so ludicrous that I genuinely think that he may have suffered a serious brain injury.

kunst nugget

Deleted User wrote: »

As someone who has read comics all my life I never fail to laugh when I see other comic readers rant and rave about the smallest things. After The Avengers came out I was in my local comic store picking up a few things and discussing why it was I felt that the Avengers was so disappointing. In the middle of this a friend of my girlfriend walked in and started offering his take on the film. He's the kind of guy who would read through a hundred back issues in order to prove a point such as "Captain America would never use that word". Anyways he butted into the conversation I was having and started off on one of the mos ridiculous rants I have ever witnessed. One of his biggest problems with the film was the fact, that in the comics "the black widows guns don't make the same sound as in the film." I could find a hundred reasons not to like the film but the sound FX used for the guns would never be one of them, yet he repeatedly and vehemently went on and on about it. He then started complaining that the color of the costumes did not match the comics and a dozen other criticisms so ludicrous that I genuinely think that he may have suffered a serious brain injury.

How does he know the sound of the guns? Are there scratch and hear comics out there?

krudler

kunst nugget wrote: »

Sunshine, for me, jumped the shark with its third act so I don't know if it's a great comparison. Give me Event Horizon, Blade Runner or the original Alien film for some good quality sci-fi. The biologist interacting with the unknown lifeform is without doubt one of the stupidest moments I have ever seen in a film.

A biologist with no understanding of basic animal body language at that, sorry but if something is reared up and clearly hissing at you then you don't scoot towards it to give it a rub, alien or not. The whole audience groaned at that part, it was barely a step away from "what was that noise in the basement, lets split up to cover more ground" :pac:

Fysh

Fago123 wrote: »

Yeah perhaps I was too broad with my OP but I think the main point I was trying to get across is that I find this culture of trying really really hard to find these 'plot holes' really frustrating. I don't understand the fun of it.

Ah, I understand where you're coming from. I think it's a problem compounded by the Tireless Rebutter syndrome - someone finds that their initial reaction is "I didn't like that film", and at first they mention the big problems that made them not like the film. Then they get stuck into a conversation with someone else who really liked the film, and start going back and forth about whether the film was good or not. At which point, smaller irrelevant details that probably would have been forgiven or forgotten start irritating the first person, because the discussion is making them continue to think about this film that they didn't enjoy and they start to get more annoyed by it due to the amount of their time it's occupying. And it all just loops around.

Handsome Bob

Immolation wrote: »

Everything wasfine until the nonsense that was TDKR came along & that's why we can't have nice things.

Ja it ruined the whole trilogy.

ancapailldorcha

If I'm watching a film and I notice plot holes, then the film essentially isn't doing it's job. The Dark Knight Rises was one of the best films I've seen in the last year and I never noticed most of the things people keep banging on about. A good film will hold my attention well enough that I simply won't notice most of these things unless they're huge like

the opening of Skyfall

.
Even then, unless the film is truly terrible I can still enjoy it. Otherwise, spotting these goofs is often more fun than the film was ever going to be (I'm looking at you, X-men 3).