Board 8 > Most annoying supposed "plot hole"?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Wanted to ask this because it annoys me to no end whenever something is brought up as a plot hole when an explanation is intuitive or flat-out present. For instance, why do people act like the eagles could have always flown the One Ring into Mt. Doom? Presumably it would have been better-defended earlier in the story and was only vulnerable at the end of Return of the King because most of Sauron's armies had been defeated.

---

Batmans back.

its a damn superhero movie

---

people complaining about cap/time travel in Avengers Endgame

masterplum posted...

its a damn superhero movie

---

Not sure how much it qualifies as a "plot hole", but people talk about it all the time as an error and it always bugged me when they did:

In the Harry Potter series a lot of people ask why didn't Voldemort simply choose random ordinary items to use as his Horcruxes and toss them into the ocean or something so that they would never be found or destroyed. But it's made obvious why, and it's explicitly pointed out by the characters in the books why he didn't do this. First of all, Voldemort is incredibly narcissistic and wanted his Horcruxes to have important magical and historical value. He would had never degraded himself by putting his soul into pieces of garbage no matter how practical it would be. Secondly, Voldemort is extremely arrogant, and he did not imagine that anyone other than himself would have the skill and knowledge to figure out what he did. He still didn't believe that his enemies had learned he split his soul even after several of his Horcruxes were already destroyed by them! Throughout the entire series it was made clear that Voldemort's arrogance was his greatest weakness, and he had payed the price for it multiple times across all the books. This was simply another example.

---

LinkMarioSamus posted...

Wanted to ask this because it annoys me to no end whenever something is brought up as a plot hole when an explanation is intuitive or flat-out present. For instance, why do people act like the eagles could have always flown the One Ring into Mt. Doom? Presumably it would have been better-defended earlier in the story and was only vulnerable at the end of Return of the King because most of Sauron's armies had been defeated.

Another thing I have heard on this is that the eagles just...didn't want to do it?
---

Emeraldegg posted...

Another thing I have heard on this is that the eagles just...didn't want to do it?

I don't know enough about Tolkien lore to know how willing to sacrifice themselves eagles are but that seems plausible

---

another excuse I heard for the eagles was that they were beings on part with Gandolf and it would have been too big of a risk for them to be corrupted

bullshit excuses

---

why didn't they all just kill Gilligan

---

Something that bothers me for similar reasons is whenever people start complaining about the presence of tropes.

To be fair this sometimes comes from a legitimate place--like the pitfall of overusing common tropes is when the writer uses them as a crutch because they're too lazy to write their own characters/plot. But here the problem is that the writer is lazy and that there's no substance to the story--not that the presence of tropes is somehow a detriment. And then it feels like these sorts of complaints carry over to cases where there is substance to the story but the writers also happen to use tropes, or to cases where the writer deliberately uses them to tell a specific type of story.
---

GranzonEx posted...

another excuse I heard for the eagles was that they were beings on part with Gandolf and it would have been too big of a risk for them to be corrupted

bullshit excuses

Flying straight there, in full sight of Barad-dur would just mean the fellbeasts of Mordor, the Witch King, and the Nazgul would beeline straight for them.

Itd be suicide.

---

the big fucking god damn eye the movie makes a big deal about would see them coming from a million miles away

---

also,

Why doesn't Ross, the Largest Friend
simply EAT the other five?

Serious answer:

People not seeing clark kent is Superman pissing people

Theres a million reasons why, and I'm aware you gotta have some nerd knowledge to know them, like the LOTR bird thing

but still man.


---

Punnyz posted...

also,

Why doesn't Ross, the Largest Friend
simply EAT the other five?

this joke has always annoyed me because the biggest Friend is Joey

---

Punnyz posted...

the big fucking god damn eye the movie makes a big deal about would see them coming from a million miles away

That yes. That really does not help. The dumb thing is my mom is a big LOTR fan and even she thinks it's a plot hole.

Another one: I really hate it when people act like the first Death Star's weakness is a plot hole and thought it was unnecessary when Rogue One revealed it was an inside job. Consequently I also loathe how quick people are to claim the Holdo maneuver from The Last Jedi could have been used against the Death Star. Yes, an attack that has a narrow chance to work (this is obvious even from TLJ, don't need no Rise of Skywalker) against something with an extremely minuscule weak point?

Heck, people keep joking about how the Empire couldn't protect the Death Star's weak point when the defenses leading up to it were the whole reason the rebels had to fly through the trench, and, again, IT WAS AN INCREDIBLY SMALL WEAK POINT! Maybe people are getting the Death Stars from the original trilogy confused?

---

the lord of the rings plot hole shouldn't be a pet peeve. even the biggest fans of the show and Tolkien literary experts throw up their hands and say "it just wouldn't be a very good story"

doesn't matter if the eye can see the eagle. the only things that could reach them are the 9 ringwraiths riding the fellbeasts, and they didn't even have those at the start of the trilogy

also, gandalf is able to just repel them with magic whenever so it'd be extremely simple

---

not sure why the eagles are such a big deal, tom bombadil is way more notable plot hole as far as lord of the rings goes tbqh. unless we're just talking about the movies.

---

I feel like in almost every story, there's something glaring either the heroes could have done to succeed more easily or the villain could have done to succeed instead (like there's at least one instance in any fantasy story where the villain could have killed the protagonist and just doesn't) . Like someone else said, it would just make for a much less interesting story.

---

Pretty much anything about FFVII's plot because that game is flawless

Grand Kirby posted...

Not sure how much it qualifies as a "plot hole", but people talk about it all the time as an error and it always bugged me when they did:

In the Harry Potter series a lot of people ask why didn't Voldemort

Yeah people calling characters acting "sub-optimally" while still being in character a "plothole" bugs me. It's not a plot hole for characters to make bad decisions! It can be contrived or bad writing, but people act like it's a hole in the plot, like the writers forgot, when it's not. Overused tropes like villains being arrogant with their plans is a good example of this.

---

"Monica would never be able to afford her apartment."

They explicitly explain this on the show.

---

I never read the books but IIRC someone told me they DO bring up Tom later? Is that correct?

I mean, I'm just saying, at least they addressed the issue

---

Punnyz posted...

I never read the books but IIRC someone told me they DO bring up Tom later? Is that correct?

I mean, I'm just saying, at least they addressed the issue

They bring him up but it's basically a "uhhhh we don't know what the heck is the deal with that guy"

---

Leonhart4 posted...

this joke has always annoyed me because the biggest Friend is Joey

Well if you go by height instead of overall build then it really is Ross

---

Then00bAvenger posted...

Well if you go by height instead of overall build then it really is Ross

yeah I've heard this but he doesn't say "tallest"

I guess if they're just casual watchers I could see it, but it doesn't feel like they're presented that way

---

pyresword posted...

Something that bothers me for similar reasons is whenever people start complaining about the presence of tropes.

To be fair this sometimes comes from a legitimate place--like the pitfall of overusing common tropes is when the writer uses them as a crutch because they're too lazy to write their own characters/plot. But here the problem is that the writer is lazy and that there's no substance to the story--not that the presence of tropes is somehow a detriment. And then it feels like these sorts of complaints carry over to cases where there is substance to the story but the writers also happen to use tropes, or to cases where the writer deliberately uses them to tell a specific type of story.

I've seen people defend shitty writing by saying that "it's just tropes" more often than attacking authors just for using tropes, especially if you count complaints about tsundere characters being terrible

---

The Fellowship knows that Sauron can control the weather in Mordor's mountains, so I'd imagine Boromir shoots the eagle plan down immediately.

They also find out that Saruman has crebain spies, and the Nazgul have Fellbeasts. And Sauron's power is incredible at Mt Doom. I think it's the opposite of "they flew the ring over the volcano and tossed it in". It'd be a boring story because it would fail so obviously.

<i>also, gandalf is able to just repel them with magic whenever so it'd be extremely simple</i>

If you're going by the movie, the Witch King has his way with Gandalf.

---

masterplum posted...

Batmans back.

its a damn superhero movie

I could buy the back, I could even buy the return to Gotham from that situation. I can't buy the elaborate flame-lit Bat symbol on the bridge.

Like did he return to Gotham and spend time in a ticking-time-bomb situation to douse gasoline or some other flammable substance on the side of the bridge.

Or did he apply the substance at some point in the past and it evaded both detection and weather-related erosion for however many months if not years, for the contingency of a day that he'd need to... light a giant bat symbol on that side of the bridge. And even if that were the case he'd still have to have made a trail of flammable substance from the bridge over to ice to where the flare would get set off.

.... probably less "plot hole" than nitpicking and I know it's a superhero movie but damn.

LeonhartFour posted...

They bring him up but it's basically a "uhhhh we don't know what the heck is the deal with that guy"

Someone says they should bring the ring to him, but the ring has no benefit to him and he doesnt really care about it or if the Dark Lord wins or loses or something..
(also he may not even have any powers outside his domain)
Besides that wouldnt help in the long run, only destroying the ring would stop Sauron.
---

MartinFF7 posted...

I could buy the back, I could even buy the return to Gotham from that situation. I can't buy the elaborate flame-lit Bat symbol on the bridge.

Like did he return to Gotham and spend time in a ticking-time-bomb situation to douse gasoline or some other flammable substance on the side of the bridge.

Or did he apply the substance at some point in the past and it evaded both detection and weather-related erosion for however many months if not years, for the contingency of a day that he'd need to... light a giant bat symbol on that side of the bridge. And even if that were the case he'd still have to have made a trail of flammable substance from the bridge over to ice to where the flare would get set off.

.... probably less "plot hole" than nitpicking and I know it's a superhero movie but damn.

Ive been watching a lot of super friends on HBO max. You just cant even approach old super hero shows like that if you dont just assume super heroes do stuff. A flaming bat is just so whatever compared to hundreds of super hero illogicalities, and thats coming from someone who thinks ant man and the wasp is unwatchable because of how impossible the plot is.

---

NFUN posted...

I've seen people defend shitty writing by saying that "it's just tropes" more often than attacking authors just for using tropes, especially if you count complaints about tsundere characters being terrible

I think blasting tropes used to be way more common back when TVTropes was more ubiquitous and maybe the pendulum has swung back the other way.

In my experience people are more generally neutral on tropes now and are upfront about loving or hating certain ones, but that does mean there are more trope defenders than there used to be.

---

ugh tvtropes. rarely have i been so baffled by a site's popularity.

---

Tvtropes is fun to read.

---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

ugh tvtropes. rarely have i been so baffled by a site's popularity.

It kinda baffles me that this baffles you

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Tvtropes is fun to read.

It's an extremely good media database too.

---

Leonhart4 posted...

It kinda baffles me that this baffles you

Lmao

---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

ugh tvtropes. rarely have i been so baffled by a site's popularity.

"Thish troper had shomething shimilar happen with a girl he liked..."

---

i think tropes are neither an excuse nor an indictment. a show is good or bad completely independently of its tropes

FWIW, here's the best possible explanation as to why the eagle thing wouldn't work

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bC7ckGiCd3I&t=107s


---

banananor posted...

i think tropes are neither an excuse nor an indictment. a show is good or bad completely independently of its tropes

FWIW, here's the best possible explanation as to why the eagle thing wouldn't work

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bC7ckGiCd3I&t=107s

Yo this video was awesome

---