Plot holes- why we are so picky?

I respect the opinion of others. I am not expecting anyone to agree with me, we are having a discussion here & that's great & what this site is all about! I am in fact a fairly quiet person & I don't 'shoot my mouth' off willy nilly! :-D

@ Indy John...agreed! Probably an entirely different movie lies on that proverbial floor!

Truth is......we are or I am so picky because I expect more of filmmakers than we often get. There is a clear line that a filmmaker chooses to either cross or not when he or she chooses to respect or not the intelligence of moviegoing audiences. I my self am no genius, but I've lived my life viewing the silver screen, so-to-speak, and expect a certain attention to detail, to logic that either makes or breaks a film. Cypher mentioned that we expect a good story and as it goes, good storytelling demands a certain level of attention to detail and an appreciation of the audience's intelligence. Clear lapses in tha attention to detail, lapses in logic and lapses is respect for our intelligence as moviegoers comes off as an insult. The filmmaker is putting together a story they expect us to pay money for and when a story lacks those details and it fails to unify itself in the telling of that story as a result, it can, not always, but often can come across as an insult to the movie going public. I am picky because I expect that any world created within the confines of story being told will follows its own rules as establihed, will follow a logic we as an audience can follow without having to make excuses for it, will unify itself in a meaningful way and will NOT insult my intelligence by failing to do any of that.

As to the number of replicants in [i]Bladerunner[/i], this is from an article in the BBC, [url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/825641.stm]Blade Runner riddle solved[/url]: "In Channel 4's documentary On The Edge Of Blade Runner, Scott discusses the scenes and asked what they mean, [Ridley Scott] confirms with a grin: 'He's a replicant'. Another hint in the film comes from the number of replicants which Deckard is hunting. We find out that six had made their way to earth, one of whom was killed. Deckard is looking for four, begging the question: 'Who is the fifth replicant?'.

@Craigamore.......very well said!

Oh yes and @zzplural quote "@Crabfart: (in relation to Blade Runner) "you don't need to know exactly what happened to understand the story" Now that's really funny, because many of Prometheus' detractors don't like the bits that they don't understand!" 1. I was talking about alien 2. It is the ones that fully understand prometheus that dont like it so much. The ones that think its really deep and its all cool and mysterious and other people are missing something are actually the ones that DONT understand it in its entirety! 3. Just look at all the people agreeing - even staff! 4. Prometheus has holes in the main story line and lots of them! Not just side storylines! 5. +what the others said ! :D

I am a huge fan of most of Ridley's work - Alien, Blade Runner and Prometheus. Many forget, ALIEN and Blade Runner all had massive plot holes and left you with so many questions. Like Alien, they discover this Alien ship, find an egg of some sort, gaze into it without considering if it could be dangerous, then BAM facehugger latches on Kane's face. Then the film ignores the Alien ship for the rest of the film, they never went back to investigate further, they ended up focusing entirely on the Alien itself - a VERY closed aspect of the universe which was explored more deeply in Prometheus. Now, am I going to say Prometheus had no plot holes and was perfect to the core? No. But I've said it before and I'll say it again - I'm GLAD it wasn't. The plot holes mean there's more to come and the film is more successful and powerful because we think hard for our answers. Something films just simply don't do anymore. Or at least it's very rare to find one that does. Prometheus felt a lot like Alien in the sense that there was so much mystery left unsolved - just like in ALIEN. Most film goers are so used to getting all the answers in one go and then the sequels get worse and worse as they go on. Prometheus defied this "trend" and posed more questions than answers while still answering enough for you to form intelligent theories which "could" prove true in later sequels. The plot holes were done on purpose. There is a bigger picture which I think a lot are missing. But you know, not liking aspects of the film and having all those plot holes allows for us to speculate and dissect more of the film - which is also great. Ridley and crew stated for years that this was NOT going to be a direct prequel, that there WOULD be more questions than answers and that it was made in mind to extend into 2 sequels. I enjoyed Prometheus because I read the interviews and knew what Scott and Lindelof were going to do. I knew the plot would be ambiguous and I knew I would have more questions coming out than going in. I didn't expect a close ended film. I actually anticipated it would be ambiguous as I personally love having to dig for my answers and really brainstorm possibilities. I think I've gone on enough now, haha, but I guess what I'm trying to say to those who didn't like it is - I understand why you didn't. But I think you should focus on the bigger picture, and not dwell on little details which were more and likely set in place for a reason, to throw you off. Think bigger.

Nobody understands Prometheus fully. A bit like what Feynman said about Quantum Mechanics: If you think you understand it, you don't! That's one thing that I [i]really[/i] like about it. Someone mentioned a problem with the number of replicants in Blade Runner earlier. Didn't RS fix this with an overdub in the Director's Cut? Along with a few other mistakes (most notably the bit where Deckard was only pretending to be handling a computer in Tyrell's room, doing a bit of Marcel Marceau).

Thanks The Lone Gunwoman. As to the supposed plot hole in [i]Alien[/i] with the acid burned hole in the floor.........How is it a plot hole that we see evidence of acid in a film about an alien creature that bleeds acid? How is this a plot hole when this evidence is found on a ship carrying those creatures? How is this a plot hole when this evidence is discovered, presumably, thousands of years after the event took place? What I'm getting at is that you have a team of people happening upon the aftermath of an event that took place long before any of them was even born. The particulars of that event, just like any archeological discovery on earth, are not always going to be clear from the immediate evidence, nor do they need to be for a coherant story to be told. In this case, the how of the SpaceJockey being infected, the how of the acid burned hole into the cargo hold, the particulars of that event are not known and do not need to be known to logically present the story told in [i]Alien[/i], other than to simply suggest the highly dangerous nature of the egg cargo. Also, we know that the facehugger can utilize its acid to burn through a helmet to get at its prey. It can easily be said then that there's no reason to believe it can't do that same thing to get out of the cargo hold or that an adult drone can't also use acid as it likes to burn through barriers. The adult, having been born of the SpaceJockey, could have burned its way through to the cargo hold if it wanted, we don't know, but what we do know allows for that possibility, which DOES NOT CONTRADICT anything we already know and thus IT IS NOT A PLOT HOLE. People throw about the term 'plot hole' all the time without really understanding what it means. As it goes, a lack of information regarding a plot point is not necessarily a plot hole. This is what we have in [i]Alien[/i], a lack of information that begs questions and creates mystery, but also, [i][b]never[/b] contradicts established facts of that story[/i]. A true Plot Hole is a piece of information or lack there of that does [i]contradict[/i] or refute established facts, basic logic or plot points made in the telling of a story. That's the difference here. A true plot hole would be something like the alien being vulnerable to fire in one scene, but not in the next or Ripley being able to survive in a vacuum, as she does in the climax of [i]Aliens[/i].

Actually you can survive in a total vacuum for a while : [url=http://www.newscientist.com/blog/space/2008/06/how-long-can-you-survive-in-vacuum-of.html]see here[/url] but I dont think she was in a total vacuum was she? I cant remember but never mind...

It isn't that people have become picky nowadays, they always were. Don't believe me? Go back and read the original negative reviews that movies like 2001, Bladerunner and Alien received. All those films were harshly criticized and disappointed a lot of people when they first came out and then some years passed and the same pretentious critics deemed them sci-fi classics. Go figure. Although, tbh; I still agree with the negative reviews 2001 originally got. Apparently all that it takes to make a movie be considered a classic is the passage of time.

"... I knew the plot would be ambiguous .." Although I had read a few items about this movie,,I didn't expect it this ambiguous ...and need several more episisodes to flesh out the storyline. I like see spectacular movies on the big screen..but watch the personal..thoughtful ..,.ambiguous films at home with closed caption ... Rev/FF and the like. Thinking about it this film has some of each so I wlll enjoy the home version whenever it released..

The moment a film allows its audience to break its suspension of disbelief it loses credibilty. This is even more dangerous in science fiction, where audiencies are being asked to take a leap to begin with. The climax of 'Aliens' with its airlock miracle of Ripley pulling herself out is, as you admit, a little ridiculous. In this case, rules of physics are not simply bent, they're shattered. No amount of oxygen on a ship of any size would be a large enough quantity to fight the immense force of the vacuum of the entire void of space, which is immeasurable by the way. The kind of force that vaccum generates with that kind of size behind it does not allow for such a minute amount of oxygen to last any reasonable length of time greater than a split second - especially considering the size of that freaking airlock - we're not talking about a pinhole here. Physically, the concept is impossible. Instant depressurization in space means no air.....all gone, just like that.............all that being said, this is no minor oversight. It is so ridiculous as to cheapen the entire film.....as in any other action film when a stunt or explosion appears stupidly over the top or impossible, it gives the audience an excuse to break suspension of that disbelief and it should lose self respecting movie goers at that point. This is the kind of thing that usually makes people roll their eyes and it should. For it to happen in an Alien film is pathetic, especially considering the first film takes the time and effort for its lead to put on a suit so that she won't die in the process of blowing the airlock.

Chris & Craigamore.....I bow to you both......you truly are Engineers! :-)

@craigamore I didnt see it as obviously a plot hole - after all air could have been constantly being released into the ship via valves and then out through the door (maybe some kind of safety measure even in the event of a breach). And I think most people have no experience of this kind of event so I guess they dont know what would happen. You can also last about a minute in a vacuum before you die but yes it was stretching points - like her strength! Interestingly theres a plot hole in prometheus that not many people could spot in the same way - carbon dating: [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAJFQUUmPnA]You cant carbon date an alien to 2k years apparently[/url] but even I am not that picky I glossed over that one! :P

@chris - Kane's looking into the egg is curiosity; he is acting well within the scope of his character + the thing in the egg wasn't that menacing (say like the cobra alien from Prometheus). I believe no further investigating was done because there is guilt (on Dallas's part), a breach of quarantine, and the crew is genuinely scared. They went to the derelict ship once and now a crew member is down; why go back? They didn't want to stop in the first place. I believe the rest of the movie was just survival when things get rolling. Who wants to investigate when an "8 feet tall creature with acid for blood" is bent on destroying your crew. We never get that menacing feel in Prometheus. It is just playtime with aliens, goo, and being hellbent on listening to the words of some random scientist (that really didn't need to be on the trip anyway). I don't really believe Prometheus is ground-breaking; I believe it is teasing us into a sense of possible possibilities and that annoys some of us!

"..We never get that menacing feel in Prometheus." You mention an important difference from good to great movies..a great Bad Guy Yes there are some candidates(Weyland,,David,,Vickers..) but nothing of an overwhelming (evil)presence... something the charactors and audience and latch on to .

Yer I am still not seeing hardly any plot holes from Alien and BR and definitely no major logic stoppers like prometheus did - I agree with ulic... @indy yes another problem - all character were boring or forgettable except shaw and david - not good :( ...

Alien and BR really don't have plot holes; people are just digging now. Those are just two great films. BR could be slow at times, but that didn't really keep it from being a great film - one's love of the genre would carry them through.

"...BR could be slow at times,.." This was true for me..but when viewed as a drama and not expecting continuous action..them my mind slowed down and let the story just unfurl.. This happenned to me in Prometheus in the middle where I became aware that I was in a theater watching a movie. That is true with many movies...but the really good ones.keep your mind in the world created(TDK and Usual Suspects come to mind) on screen.

As for the whole [i]Aliens[/i] airlock business, besides it bothering me on principle, what makes it truly awful to me is that it mirrors, copies, the climax to [i]Alien[/i] and does a piss poor execution of it. [i]Alien[/i] goes to the trouble of having Ripley hide in a locker, put on a spacesuit with the intention of protecting her self in that she comes up with the idea to blow the airlock, she straps herself in so that she isn't sucked out and then she blows it. Not to mention that [i]Alien[/i] makes it as realistic as it can, boom, the airlock is blown and everything not tie down, including every molecule of oxygen is instantly sucked out in a display of explosive decompression rather than the slow, drawn out, ludicrous sequence in [i]Aliens[/i]. Don't get me wrong, I like [i]Aliens[/i], I always have. It's one of the best films from the golden age of action cinema in the 1980's and early 90's, but I can't forgive such an obvious lapse and oversight; especially concerning the fact that it takes that ending directly from its predecessor and does a seriously inferior job of it.

"...As for the whole Aliens airlock business.." In the movie '2001' there was a scene of a person going from a Pod,,to the entrance lock on the ship..without a helmet..I seem to recall a 10-15 second time frame. Several scientists called Kubrick ouit on that scene,,,but it stayed in the film with no excuses.. I am glad, craigamore, you point out items in the movie that caught your attention.. THe more that happens it will get Movie Producers attention to details..and bring a better product to market.

Number of replicants in Blade Runner: We see 4; it is implied that some from the original "lot" have been "retired" before the start of the film. Some even argue that one of them may have been "reprogrammed" with latest version of the software (not aware of being an android, like Rachel) and implanted memories to become... Deckard. This is consistent with some of the dialogue. It's not a plot hole, it's a further nuance in the "android / not android" dilemma, something deliberately ambiguous, same as Inception (is it reality or a dream?) and Total Recall (again, reality or a dream? And another Philip Dick story)

If one looks back to when Alien and Bladerunner were made, the most information a moviegoer would usually get it is a cheesy trailer and maybe a little write up in a Sci Fi mag. As a movie audience, word of mouth, and box office sells were the only feedback one could use to gauge a movie on (never trust a critic). Now, we have too much data, and very little wisdom to use it or even organize it properly, and everyone's a critic...

[b]@ulic qel-droma[/b], Alien and BR certainly did have plot holes. We just don't criticize them as much now cause those films are considered "classics" by comparison to some of the other sci fi films which have hit the scene since then. Give it time, Prometheus will soon be considered in the same light as Alien and BR, because it is different. From the opening scenes of the film, you get the feeling that this isn't going to be a close quarter horror film like ALIEN, or a high energy action thriller. But an intellectual and philosophical journey. The opening scene is light, the music is profound and the imagery is immense. The multiple (amazing) shots of the barren landscapes give you the sense that this film will be very vast and very open. It sets the stage for such a film. So, to compare the film to ALIEN as being poor is an unfair judgement. Alien began in a dark setting with creepy music and atmosphere which automatically set you up for slow-paced horror. I don't want to compare THE plot holes of Prometheus to that of Alien or Blade Runner as it's unfair to each respective film. But, look at the films in their own light. Prometheus - Ambiguous plot, acting was fine if you ask me. Not everyone can be the main character. Normally you have ONE or TWO main characters, but in Prometheus, David, Shaw and Vickers all were considered main characters. Developing every other character to that extent is impossible in the time frame the movie had and would've have left us with (dare I say it) even more plot holes. Let's be realistic - every film needs those characters who simply "die" or "take the fall". As far as plot goes - it's a very small portion of what this franchise is about and what it will become. Yes, some are upset that they didn't get "more". But this is teaching us patience and teasing us with what is still ahead. I can almost 100% guarantee you, those who are griping about Prometheus right now will be one of the first to buy their tickets to the sequel. Ultimately - give it time, SUPPORT the initiative which the studio and Ridley have taken on and anticipate the sequels. I bet once this journey is complete and the final films are put together, you all will be blown away and look back and wonder why you ever discounted Prometheus so much. I'm not saying your opinions are invalid or wrong, I appreciate the alternative viewpoints. But I'm simply suggesting to look past the little bits of acting or plot holes which didn't get fully explained - as the story is only 1/4 of the way told. If anything, be upset that Prometheus 2 isn't in theaters yet. Haha

@Chris - I agree that the acting, directing and filming are fine or done well; it is the story and plot holes that disturb me. I watch the other movies in the franchise and brush over a lot of the inconsistencies (even Star Wars, which is loaded with continuity errors) and still feel good about these movies and have since day 1. With Prometheus it is different. I feel unnerved and apprehensive about whether or not I like it.

"..about whether or not I like it..." The thing is that the movie is hard to get out of your mind,,and perhaps in the long run that is what is most important., I rated it 6/10 because it didn't seem complete or satisfying for what the story is trying to convey. Through checking in at this site I realize there was a lot going on..something that I failed to grasp at my one and only viewing. I won't change my rating of the movie,,based on my readings, However when I watch the film the next time,,,I will rerate 'Prometheus'...if needed. I don't I have ever worked so hard to understand a movie...

Crabfart is quite correct in this regard. When you slowly crack open a large bottle of fizzy pop you don't get an explosive decompression. That's because the volume of gas escaping is quite large and its way out is restricted. The airlock looks big but the Sulaco is massive. And, as Crabfart suggests, air might be being pumped out automatically from somewhere as an emergency measure. Great post by Chris, by the way. He's obviously a very patient person.

Is anyone reading the other post lol I said 2 times already you can last about 1 minute in a vacuum ! And the little room in alien was tiny in comparison to the aliens film plus it might have been pumping air out constantly when the pressure dropped from emergency valves etc. etc. . Anyway I reckon most people didnt think it was so unusual!

I was thinking less about the airlock situation in Aliens and escaping atmosphere and more about Ripley not losing an arm to the weight of the alien queen (Regal) gripping her foot. That to me is more far fetched.