# Inconsistencies and plot holes.



## Reaver (May 19, 2015)

Anyone else sick to death of glaring inconsistencies and plot holes in books, movies and t.v. that die hard fans blatantly choose to ignore?













When writing, do you do your best to eliminate these things or do you just let them slide?


----------



## Ireth (May 19, 2015)

In a word: Yes.

About the pic... does that really count as a plothole, since Obi-wan was basically lying by omission the whole time he spoke about Anakin/Vader to Luke until the big reveal?


----------



## Feo Takahari (May 19, 2015)

One thing about posting chapter by chapter is that people will point out the holes as you write. I had a magical effect targeting descendants of monsters, which was less powerful as it got farther away, but then had a character get affected by it who should have been too far away. This could have set up a twist that her mother was a monster, but that meant I had to change some stuff about the monsters' weaknesses. I wound up marking the story as "Early Access."


----------



## WooHooMan (May 19, 2015)

It seems to me like fans are more eager to talk about plot-holes and inconsistencies now than ever.  I think it's an internet thing.

Me personally: usually I try to fix them, sometimes I let them slide and sometimes I intentionally put in plot-holes and inconsistencies.  Whatever makes for a better story.


----------



## Miskatonic (May 20, 2015)

Keeping track of continuity is important.


----------



## Penpilot (May 20, 2015)

Yeah, I think part of it is if you point out a flaw in something they love, they take it as you pointing out a flaw in them, which isn't true. If you love something, love it warts and all. 

As for myself, most of the time I try to address every plot hole I can, but in the end it's impossible to plug every hole. There will always be someone more clever than you and they'll find those holes. Other times, the rule of cool wins out. If I find a significant plot hole that can't be fixed without destroying the whole story, I leave it be if it's not glaringly obvious and/or stupid. 

The way I look at in those instances is nobody is perfect, author, reader, or character, so there's always a chance that an obvious solution will slip through the cracks. I mean how many times have any of us done an arduous task only to have someone afterwards point out an obviously easier way of doing it or avoid doing it all together. Those are the forehead smack times.


----------



## Mythopoet (May 20, 2015)

The way I see it is this: as an author, you are promising me a unique experience through your story. I am giving you my money and my time to provide me that experience. The more inconsistencies and plot holes there are in your story, the more the experience falls flat and feels fake. Likewise the more mysteries and questions you leave unsolved and unanswered the more incomplete the experience feels. As a reader, I don't find this acceptable. I want a full and believable experience. Anything that lessens that is at best an annoyance. 

As a writer I do my best to eliminate such things. It helps that my first reader (my husband) is the world's worst pedant and nit picker. He's constantly pointing out things I never noticed and asking questions I never thought of before. He's honestly my best resource since he's a grammar and spelling nazi as well so he makes a great copy editor.


----------



## Miskatonic (May 20, 2015)

Continuity also ensures that your twist ending doesn't come across as forced. If the reader can go back and connect the dots and say "Why didn't I think of that?!" and show true surprise then you've done a pretty good job.


----------



## BWFoster78 (May 20, 2015)

My issue with "inconsistencies and plot holes" is that, though they may exist from the reader's perspective, maybe they aren't real.  If Star Wars were a book and we had a chapter from Ben's POV, maybe it's made clear that he's lying.  However, as the author, I may choose not to include that chapter because it's unnecessary to the greater story.  I can't tell the reader everything behind every character's actions or the book would be so bloated as to be unreadable.

As a reader, I just don't stress over these type of things.  Nor as a writer.

If it makes sense to me, then the reader's just going to trust that I'm staying true to the story.  I will not overexplain for the purposes of making sure no one perceives an inconsistency.


----------



## Reaver (May 20, 2015)

Ireth said:


> In a word: Yes.
> 
> About the pic... does that really count as a plothole, since Obi-wan was basically lying by omission the whole time he spoke about Anakin/Vader to Luke until the big reveal?



The pic is not meant to show any plot holes but rather is a demonstration of glaring inconsistencies between the scripts of Episode IV and the prequels.

In my opinion, ALL of the prequels were sloppily and lazily written piles of incoherent pig vomit.

I challenge any fan of the prequels to tell me who the main character of The Phantom Menace is. 

If it's Anakin, why do we not meet him until 45 minutes into the movie? 

Also, why would an entity called The Trade Federation want to disrupt trade? Is their name an ironic one?

Why do Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan take separate ships down to Naboo and run the risk of landing hundreds if not thousands of miles apart?

Oh wait... I forgot that Lucas said that the prequels were made for kids to enjoy. After all, what kid doesn't just LOOOOOVE intergalactic politics?


But I digress...


----------



## CupofJoe (May 20, 2015)

Reaver said:


> Also, why would an entity called The Trade Federation want to disrupt trade? Is their name an ironic one?


There is the old adage... "every country with 'Democratic' in its name, isn't..." - They aren't called "The Free and Fair Trade for All and Everyone Federation" or TFFTAEF for short...

As for the larger original point, I'd rather have a few minor loose ends and unanswered questions in my tales that a string of remarkable and unlikely events and coincidences so that I can  neatly sow up every last plot element. Life is ragged and random to some extent, so a bit of unfinished story telling is okay for me...


----------



## X Equestris (May 20, 2015)

Reaver said:


> Also, why would an entity called The Trade Federation want to disrupt trade? Is their name an ironic one?



As I recall, it was a protest of the Republic's wiping away of the free trade zones in the Mid and Outer Rim, where the Trade Federation hadn't been required to pay taxes.  Trade with one planet is microscopic compared to the profits lost from the elimination of the free trade zones.

As far as the topic at hand, there will typically be some degree of inconsistencies.  Things change over time, and as a work expands, old ideas may be incompatible with new ones.  The trick, I think, is to make sure those inconsistencies are as small as possible.


----------



## BWFoster78 (May 20, 2015)

Reaver,

I'm definitely no fan of the prequels.  I only watched them once and am not looking forward to the day when I have to see them again with my son.

Back to your original question, though: If I'm getting you right, you're more annoyed that fans refuse to admit that inconsistencies exist than you are that the inconsistencies are there in the first place?


----------



## Svrtnsse (May 20, 2015)

For me, there are two things to consider when it comes to plot holes and inconsistencies:
1. Did I notice it the first time I consumed the story?
2. Did it have any significant negative impact on my enjoyment of the story?

If a plot hole is such that it doesn't appear to me until after I'm done with the story, then to me it really isn't worth getting upset over. I guess the exception would be if it's a plot-hole that has the potential to have a serious negative impact on future installments in a series.

The example in the original post is such that I probably wouldn't have thought about it until after the movie was over, and as such, it wouldn't have bothered me.


----------



## Incanus (May 20, 2015)

I agree that plugging every single plot-hole/inconsistency would be difficult, if not impossible.  And yet the storyteller should certainly try to patch up as many as they can find.  There's a bit of a trade-off.

It's funny this was brought up at this exact moment.  I just watched the movie Snowpiercer last weekend.  I was flabbergasted.  The story was wall-to-wall plot holes and inconsistencies.  From the premise to the smallest detail, not a lick of it made the least bit of sense.  One of the top ten worst movies I've ever seen; maybe top five.  I stuck it out to see if someone was going to wake up from a dream, or if there was some other explanation for the non-stop nonsense, but it never came to pass.  And I have no problem with the thematic material--I largely agree with the message.  And then, for reasons unknown (or at least dubious), the critics were all falling over themselves to heap praise on this movie.  I can't make heads or tails of it.


----------



## Reaver (May 20, 2015)

BWFoster78 said:


> Reaver,
> 
> Back to your original question, though: If I'm getting you right, you're more annoyed that fans refuse to admit that inconsistencies exist than you are that the inconsistencies are there in the first place?



I would say that my problem lies more with sloppy and lazy writing than the inconsistencies themselves. I get that die hard fans will never change. I'm guilty of it myself with the Avengers and other superhero movies.


----------



## WooHooMan (May 20, 2015)

Reaver said:


> I challenge any fan of the prequels to tell me who the main character of The Phantom Menace is.



In theory, it's Qui Gon Jinn: top-billed actor with the most amount of screen time and highest barring on the plot.



Reaver said:


> Also, why would an entity called The Trade Federation want to disrupt trade? Is their name an ironic one?



In theory, they disrupted trade on Naboo as a means of furthering Palpatine's agenda.  Presumably, they would benefit from his schemes - probably after he became chancellor.



Reaver said:


> Why do Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan take separate ships down to Naboo and run the risk of landing hundreds if not thousands of miles apart?



In theory, it didn't matter how far apart they separated since they had planned to meet at the Naboo capital.  It was just moderately lucky that they were able to meet-up before either of them started heading to the capital.

Keywords being "in theory".  There can be excuses for plot-holes or inconsistencies but that doesn't "fix" them or make the story better.  
People don't complain about the inconsistencies of the prequels because they feel they're what ruin prequels.  They complain about plot-holes because they don't like the prequels and plot-holes are easier to identify and talk about than the greater issues like the terrible dialogue, awful acting, poor plotting, horrible direction, over-reliance on CGI and so forth.

There are a ton of people who complain about the eagles in Lord of the Rings being a plot-hole (there's an excuse but the average movie goer doesn't seem to care) but I've never heard anyone use the eagles as a reason why Lord of the Rings was bad.

So, yeah, I'll stick with my argument that "inconsistencies and plot holes" are as big a problem as you make them and they, on their own, shouldn't break a story.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick (May 20, 2015)

Reaver said:


> After all, what kid doesn't just LOOOOOVE intergalactic politics?


Honestly, that's what I thought was missing when Empire Strikes Back came out. I was kicked out of the movie theater for asking very loudly, "Why do these puke-brains keep re-electing the Emperor?" When I saw Return of the Jedi, it was supposed to be a birthday party for my friend and also a celebration of us finishing elementary school. But of course we most enjoyed the intellectual speculations about the many factions among the Ewoks, a complex yet cute warrior race.

I hope Episode VII links Galactical Warming to the rise in violence. Then, after the movie, I'll take my daughters to Starbucks so we can discuss, debate, and maybe learn a little more about ourselves. Star Wars at Starbucks. That's gonna be a thing. A thing that involves politics, coffee, and light sabers.


----------



## Penpilot (May 20, 2015)

Reaver said:


> In my opinion, ALL of the prequels were sloppily and lazily written piles of incoherent pig vomit.



Whoa-Whoa-Whoa stop the horses here. Let's not be so hard on pig vomit. At least pig vomit was the outcome of a completely logical set of processes and circumstances. The ending actually makes sense.  



Reaver said:


> I challenge any fan of the prequels to tell me who the main character of The Phantom Menace is.



Oh this reminds me of the prequel reviews done by RedLetterMedia. In some very long videos they pick apart why the prequels failed. One of the reasons is no one knows who the main character is.

For those interested here's a playlist. The videos aren't just straight reviews they throw in some wacky and sometimes disturbing humor based on the character of the narrator who is presenting the reviews.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxKtZmQgxrI&list=PL9A12F8F947849C30


----------



## BWFoster78 (May 20, 2015)

Reaver said:


> I would say that my problem lies more with sloppy and lazy writing than the inconsistencies themselves. I get that die hard fans will never change. I'm guilty of it myself with the Avengers and other superhero movies.



Like I said, I can't defend the prequels.

Let's take something a lot better like Finding Nemo.

End of the movie, Nemo's father (Marlon?) and Dory are swimming around Sidney harbor.  Now, I've never been there, but I'd guess that Sidney's shoreline is freaking huge.  What are the odds that they'd be so near where Nemo comes out of the drainage pipe?

Honestly, though, that part of the story makes an emotional connection with the audience.

Would the story have been better in any way if they'd either made that scene different or tried to shoehorn in a rationale?

I don't think so, but opinions may vary.


----------



## ThinkerX (May 20, 2015)

Plot-holes and inconsistencies...those happen in the real world as well.

Different people can and do remember the same event very differently, or focus on one thing to the point of not even noticing something else.  Can't find the link at the moment, but the most recent example of this was one of these internet tests that involved keeping track of the shots during a clip of a basketball game.  So, you watch the clip, count the shots, move on to the next section, and the question is 'did you notice the bear prancing about the court?'  So, go back and re-watch the clip, and sure enough, there's a guy in a bear suit running around the court, often right next to the players making the shots.  

There's another version of this that turns up with...those of extreme mindsets (most often religious cults).  To these people, the groups founder or god has all the answers, period.  Relevant prophecies *have* to be correct, period.  Except, sometimes (often), the real world dictates otherwise.  Sometimes, this means the end of the group / cult.  But other times...they'll pour over the relevant scriptures, pluck words and concepts from this or that section, and essentially fabricate a new set of beliefs - which they will then adamantly insist were the correct ones all along, and their previous views either get declared heresy or get suppressed.  Happened a couple times with Christianity at the outset - the endtimes got pushed back, and the perceived nature of Jesus changed pretty radically.  (Mods, this is by way of example, only.)

And there are many, many historical examples of leaders and others making decisions on the basis of badly flawed, biased, or incomplete information.


----------



## stephenspower (May 21, 2015)

I think of plot holes as opportunities. What if they aren't holes? What information could close them? How does that change my story? 

Tolkien did this. He realized that he'd given two elves the same name and instead of changing one asked himself, What if the second was, despite elves having no souls, the reincarnation of the former? How would that work?


----------



## stephenspower (May 21, 2015)

The same goes for typos and other mistakes btw. A friend just wrote me on Facebook that she had some "night in shining armor" story I'd written for her in high school. I wrote back: "What if the night could have armor?" What would it look like? Why would it need it? What is "the night" from various perspectives? My first thought was a Dyson sphere, but that's too easy.

Side note: OMG, what horribly obvious and certainly desperate thing did I write this girl that I liked 30 years ago?


----------



## BWFoster78 (May 21, 2015)

> Side note: OMG, what horribly obvious and certainly desperate thing did I write this girl that I liked 30 years ago?



I was on the yearbook staff in high school.  You should read the ridiculously over-the-top praise of that I gave the cheerleaders on their page.  I don't know whether to cringe or to laugh.


----------



## Reaver (May 21, 2015)

I'm not sure how many others here were in high school in the 80's like me but I have to say that I truly believe my generation is the original textspeke people.

I say this because looking at the stuff my friends wrote in my yearbook, I can't help but believe this to be true. For example:

'U R 2 good 2 B 4gotten!"  and "Don't U 4get about me!!"


----------



## stephenspower (May 21, 2015)

I graduated high school in 1985. That's not text-speak. That's Prince-speak.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick (May 21, 2015)

Text-speak: the speak formerly known as Prince-speak.


----------



## psychotick (May 22, 2015)

Hi,

With Star Wars those are your plot holes?! Honestly the very first time I saw the first movie I had this single question running through my head - why when they fight with light sabres don't the light sabres simply pass right through one another? They aren't solid! So logically they jedi should be cutting each other to ribbons. But I suppose it made for better sword fighting.

The other thing that annoyed me about Star Wars was the complete lack of explanation about what sort of drives they used. But hey I'm a trekkie.

As for plot holes and inconsistencies - that's where the beta readers come in. Good beta readers are invaluable.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## Reaver (May 22, 2015)

psychotick said:


> Hi,
> 
> With Star Wars those are your plot holes?! Honestly the very first time I saw the first movie I had this single question running through my head - why when they fight with light sabres don't the light sabres simply pass right through one another? They aren't solid! So logically they jedi should be cutting each other to ribbons. But I suppose it made for better sword fighting.
> 
> The other thing that annoyed me about Star Wars was the complete lack of explanation about what sort of drives they used. But hey I'm a trekkie.



I'm a Star Wars fan (not the prequels) and a Star Trek fan. There are some things about the science in both franchises that are bothersome to me.  

For example, space is a vacuum yet we can hear the booms and see the fire from exploding space ships? Faster than light travel? 

In my opinion, the coolest form of space travel from any sci-fi story is The Spacing Guild's ability to fold space in Dune. 

To me any science issues are irrelevant because they're great ideas and I enjoy both franchises on their own merits. 

In regards to what types of drives the Star Wars ships use, all I know is that the T.I.E. in T.I.E fighter stands for Twin Ion Engine. So.. some sort of ion propulsion? 

Agreed about beta readers.


----------



## Penpilot (May 22, 2015)

Reaver said:


> I'm a Star Wars fan (not the prequels) and a Star Trek fan. There are some things about the science in both franchises that are bothersome to me.



Yeah, In Star Wars the science is pretty much fantasy, but Star Trek is pretty close with the techno babble. I hear that in the Trek scripts writers are known to write something to the effect of "insert technobabble here" and then just move on with the story.

I mean how many times have we heard something like this. "Rerouted secondary warp core power through Jefferies tubes 1, 4, and 23, and through the primary phaser bank's power emitters, then we'll filter it into the main deflector dish. This will cause a subspace flash, and disrupt the plasma flow in alien ship's engines, which in my estimation will cause a cascade failure in their power grid. It'll blow our secondary power couplings, but I think it'll work."

It should @ssho!e because you did the same bullspit last week.


----------



## Incanus (May 22, 2015)

I'm a fan of both Star Wars and Star Trek as well.  The science of Star Wars has always been thread-bare, but ultimately isn't really a problem, because its just not a 'science-y' story.  I always found it strange that the Millenium Falcon is supposed to be one of the fastest ships.  Han Solo says it goes 'point five past light speed', or something like that.  So that's 1.5 times the speed of light.  At that rate, it would take years, decades, or centuries to go from one planet to another, but they just hop into ships and go from planet to planet in the same time it takes me to go to the grocery store.

And Star Trek:  I remember laughing the first time I heard them refer to a 'Heisenberg compensator'.  Yeah, you're certainly going to need something like that to get the transporters to work!!  I love it--a device where the uncertainty principle goes in one end, and out comes certainty!  Now that's technology!


----------



## psychotick (May 22, 2015)

Hi,

I agree. In Trek the tech runs the gamut. There's some that's actually based on legitimate theory like the warp drive, while other stuff eg Impulse, has no basis or even explanation. But in Star Wars there is no tech at all. You just get in your ship and drive.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## Miskatonic (May 23, 2015)

psychotick said:


> Hi,
> 
> I agree. In Trek the tech runs the gamut. There's some that's actually based on legitimate theory like the warp drive, while other stuff eg Impulse, has no basis or even explanation. But in Star Wars there is no tech at all. You just get in your ship and drive.
> 
> Cheers, Greg.



Pretty much why I enjoyed Star Wars and have absolutely no interest in Star Trek.


----------



## Penpilot (May 23, 2015)

Incanus said:


> And Star Trek:  I remember laughing the first time I heard them refer to a 'Heisenberg compensator'.  Yeah, you're certainly going to need something like that to get the transporters to work!!  I love it--a device where the uncertainty principle goes in one end, and out comes certainty!  Now that's technology!



How do we know this is referring to Werner Heisenberg? Maybe it's referring to Walter White from Breaking Bad. Maybe the compensator is to keep things on the up and up when the operator is on drugs. With all those replicators out there, someone had to realized how to program in little pick-me-up or a bring-me-down.  Ok, I'll stop now.


----------



## Devor (May 23, 2015)

psychotick said:


> With Star Wars those are your plot holes?! Honestly the very first time I saw the first movie I had this single question running through my head - why when they fight with light sabres don't the light sabres simply pass right through one another? They aren't solid! So logically they jedi should be cutting each other to ribbons. But I suppose it made for better sword fighting.



. . . . . and why does nobody try a shotgun?


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (May 24, 2015)

Devor said:


> . . . . . and why does nobody try a shotgun?


They did. It was called "Order 66".


----------



## Penpilot (May 24, 2015)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> They did. It was called "Order 66".



You would have figured, with their ability to glimpse into the future, at least one Jedi would have seen this coming before they got shot in the back.


----------



## X Equestris (May 24, 2015)

Penpilot said:


> You would have figured, with their ability to glimpse into the future, at least one Jedi would have seen this coming before they got shot in the back.



Yoda did.  Most others didn't see it, as the clones weren't acting out of malice.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (May 24, 2015)

Penpilot said:


> You would have figured, with their ability to glimpse into the future, at least one Jedi would have seen this coming before they got shot in the back.


The Dark Side clouded their vision. Convenient, I know.


----------



## psychotick (May 24, 2015)

Hi,

Unfortunately they did look ahead with their jedi powers and did see the rise of the shotgun and themselves getting shot in the back. Unfortunately a time paradox meant that they couldn't change anything - if they had they wouldn't have been seeing the future!

Cheers, Greg.


----------

