Allow me a little rant first :)
The word “Plot Hole” seems to be thrown around quite a bit and, most often, misused or downright misunderstood.
A "Plot Hole" is when something contradicts the rules of that particular story or when something is impossible in that particular universe where this story unfolds.
It is not a dumb decision by a character or other senseless events. Those make perhaps lazy writing, but not actual plot holes.
Examples like; “why doesn’t she just go upstairs and get that gun we saw earlier” or “why does she run to the car when we know the other guy has the key”… all good points, but they can easily be explained by a stupid or stressed out character who forgot. It is not illogical and impossible events or actions and so not plot holes.
The keyword here, I believe, is that if it is impossible or something that could not be - then we have a potential plot hole. If the question is like, “why didn’t they just…”, then we usually have no plot hole, but just a natural human confusion.
One way to define a plot hole is to ask these two questions:
1: Does the questioned event or statement contradict earlier events or statements in the story?
2: Is the questioned event or statement logically impossible in this story or universe?
If it is “YES” to the first of these two questions, we have a potential plot hole. If “YES” to both these two questions, and we have a definite plot hole.
When I read a TOP TEN list on the biggest plot holes in movies, about 80% of the listed are often not real plot holes.
Now, back to your question: These are some famous examples of often cited plot holes that are not necessarily plot holes:
1: “Citizen Kane”(1941), when he dies, he utters out his last word, “Rosebud.” This sparks a search by a reporter to find the meaning of the word. The plot hole is that Kane was alone when he died. No one heard it. At first notice, it contradicts what is essentially shown, and so is a YES to the first question and becomes a potential plot hole. However, one could argue that his butler heard it… it is not explained in the movie who heard him say this, so it does not go against question 2 in principle. It is not impossible someone heard it. The answer is NO to the second question. It is not a plot hole.
2: “The Matrix” (1999). Cypher makes a deal with Agent Smith while he is secretly connected to the Matrix. It is established in the movie that one requires an operator to be connected. You need, at least, two people. Therefore the answer is “YES” to question 1. It is a potential plot hole. Of course, it is not necessarily a “YES” to question 2, as it can be explained simply by Cypher having a timer he invented for this reason or whatever. It is not impossible, but it goes against what is specifically explained and shown in all three movies. Could have been fixed easily, and some claim an earlier scene does show Cypher work on this timer-thing. It is a potential plot hole, but not a definitive plot hole.
3: “Minority Report” (2002), after the hero is imprisoned, his wife frees him with his old eyes, as they grant her access to the facility. Since he is then a criminal, his security clearance would have been deleted. Although a popular stated plot hole, it is not. The answer is NO to both questions. Indeed, his credentials should have been blocked, but evidently, they were not. What should have been done, does not necessarily tell us anything about what is possible. It can be attributed to either lazy writing or lazy security. But not an impossibility and nor does it go against earlier events or statements (he used his old eyes earlier in the story himself). And besides, no one knew of his eye operation except him (and his wife). Unlikely as that is, it is not impossible, and so not a plot hole.
4: “Batman Begins” (2005), the villain planned to infect the water supply with a toxin that is activated only when water is heated to become gas or fog so it can be inhaled. However, no effects are reported except in the end when he drives around on a huge microwave emitter. Logically, bathing and cooking, etc., should have spiked the city for weeks up until the showdown. So this is a YES to question 1, and question 2 too - but, it could also be explained by the fact the toxic concentrations wasn't big enough until near the climax of the movie. And so, not necessarily a YES to the second question. I suspect it is a plot hole forgotten by the storytellers, but we can rationalize it away.
5: “X-Men Origins: Wolverine” (2009), Silverfox can will any man to do whatever by simple touch. So why does she not touch Major Stryker and command him to release her captured sister? This is indeed a risk Stryker takes, and he is, after all, an expert in handling mutants. The fact is that she never touches him, and we can assume he is aware of the risk and keeps her at arm’s length always, except in the end. Even though it could have fixed her predicament sooner, it does not constitute a plot hole. The answer is NO to both questions.
6: “The Karate Kid” (1984), our hero wins the tournament with a face kick, which was previously informed to disqualify any contestant. This victory surely speaks YES to question 1. So we have a potential plot hole indeed. If the answer also is YES to question 2 is not so clear. It is not impossible to imagine tournaments winning unfairly. However, this speaks against the movie and the whole message, so IMO, it is fair to say the answer is also YES to question 2. The storytellers forgot. That said, the tournament had many head kicks, so perhaps it is a myth it wasn't allowed.
7: “Back to the Future” (1985), Marty manages to ensure his mother ends up with his father, but why can’t his “future” parents remember him, and the fact that their son looks exactly like him? It is a NO to the first question, and consequently also the second question. Who remembers faces this well from our past 20+ years ago? And no less, faces we hung out with perhaps no more than an hour spread over a couple of days, if even that. They forgot, pure and simple, and never cared to connect the dots. Even if they did see the resemblance, the idea is so outlandish I am sure they would quickly dismiss it as brain fog; “…he looks like him doesn't he… what’s for dinner?” No, not a plot hole.
8: Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005), To protect Anakin's son, they place Luke on Anakins childhood planet, let us him keep the name Skywalker and under the care of Anakin's stepbrother. It makes little sense if you want to hide someone. However, Luke and Leia's existence was unknown to Anakin. He thought he killed his wife and unborn twins on Mustafar. He wasn't looking for them because he thought they didn't exist. Vader had no reason to think Luke was his spawn. In some way, Owen Lars’ farm was the safest place - likely, on some level, never to be touched by imperial troops - because it was the resting place of his mum. It is a little risky but it also makes some sense. The answer is NO to both questions. Not a plot hole.
Other candidates?
My point is that finding plot holes is not easy, and most people who cry “PLOT HOLE” do not know what it is.
0 Comments