Take another quiz >

Movies by Plot Hole

Can you guess the movie based on these glaring plot holes?
Quiz by Quizmaster
Rate:
First submittedDecember 20, 2014
Last updatedDecember 21, 2014
Times taken14,715
Rating4.33
4:00
Enter answer here
0
 / 17 guessed
The quiz is paused. You have remaining.
Scoring
You scored / = %
This beats or equals % of test takers also scored 100%
The average score is
Your high score is
Your fastest time is
Keep scrolling down for answers and more stats ...
Plot Hole
Movie
It's highly unlikely that alien computers would be compatible with Earth computers
Independence Day
It would take decades for a T-Rex to reach maturity
Jurassic Park
The main character already wished to be a prince - why does he have to do it again?
Aladdin
It would have been far easier to train astronauts to drill than vice versa
Armageddon
Kevin can't be called because the phones are down - but he still orders pizza from Little Nero's
Home Alone
Why didn't Hitler have any soldiers guarding the theater doors?
Inglourious Basterds
The computers use humans as batteries - why not just use cows?
The Matrix
The main character was transformed at age 11. Where did the portrait of
his adult, human self come from?
Beauty and the Beast
The Nazis were digging in the wrong place - why not just let them?
Raiders of the Lost Ark
If you have a sword that kills the giant monsters, why not use it right away?
Pacific Rim
They rebuilt the second space station with the exact same design flaw as the first
Return of the Jedi
Flying around the Earth really fast does not make time go backwards
Superman
It would take far more than 500 years for people to evolve gills
Waterworld
The Hubble telescope and International Space Station have different orbits
Gravity
Why not use the eagles for transportation, rather than take an arduous journey on foot?
The Lord of the Rings:
The Return of the King
Kicks to the face were against the rules of the tournament
The Karate Kid
When the main character instantly doubles in size, his pants remain intact
The Incredible Hulk
+1
level 77
Dec 20, 2014
Fun! Any chance you could just accept "Hulk" though?
+1
level ∞
Dec 21, 2014
Yes, of course. Hulk will work now.
+1
level 76
Dec 25, 2014
Love this, hope another one comes along soon. Very funn.
+1
level 77
Dec 31, 2014
In Beauty and the Beast, you could say that the portrait is part of the curse, just to make him feel worse by knowing how he would look like. In Superman, I think the point is that he flies so fast that he goes back in time... I mean, this is still incorrect physics, but it makes more sense. In Return of the Jedi, is it really exactly the same flaw? They don't use the same strategy to destroy it, so I always thought it was slightly different. In Raiders of the lost Ark, I think Indiana Jones is just the sucker.
+1
level 77
Apr 17, 2015
The end of Superman doesn't make any sense at all no matter how you try to retcon it. It's also just a horrible horrible HORRIBLE plot device, worse than dues ex machina, because it completely negates any dramatic tension ever. Nothing matters if the main character can, at will, reverse time and get a do over.
+1
level 59
Apr 17, 2015
The plot device of a character being able to turn back time is used to great effect in the Michael Haneke movie Funny Games (and its remake). I won't tell you how if you haven't seen it, but there's an example of when it really adds to the dramatic tension.
+1
level 77
Apr 18, 2015
I saw that movie on TV one night. It was horrible. One of the dumbest movies I've ever seen. and what was up with that bit where he turned back time? It was completely unexplained and made no sense at all. Sort of like Zach Morris being able to mysteriously stop time. Except Zach Morris wasn't a completely unlikable and unwatchable twisted sadistic psycho of a character.
+1
level 54
Apr 27, 2016
Funny Games was a great movie. It was supposed to be unsettling, breaking the fourth wall and making you feel unsafe in your understanding of how a movie should behave.
+1
level 45
Sep 21, 2017
*deus-ex-machina
+1
level 77
Apr 17, 2015
The question is, can a superhero violate the laws of physics? The speed of light limit is a strong one indeed ^^.
+1
level 58
Apr 17, 2015
If he could fly around the world several times a second, he could have just gotten to the missile before it hit the fault in the first place.
+1
level 77
Apr 18, 2015
Right, there's that, too. If he can fly faster than the speed of light so that the Earth appears to be rotating backward, or else so fast that.... the force of air friction.. ?? .. is so great that it exerts enough energy on the surface of the planet to start spinning the world backward and mysteriously doesn't just kill all life on the planet as this should.. ????? anyway... if he could do either of those things... then... we're supposed to believe that he has trouble keeping pace with a regular rocket propulsion engine?
+1
level 82
Mar 13, 2015
Interesting thought: http://www.reddit.com/r/FanTheories/comments/130it2/lord_of_the_rings_a_theory_about_the_eagle_plot/
+2
level 61
Apr 17, 2015
Fun quiz, but most of these are implausibilities, not plotholes. A plothole is something that violates the rules of the story itself. Eg. the Karate Kid one is definitely a plot hole, because it is stated in the movie that kicks to the face are illegal. Danny winning (a plot event) could not occur according to the rules of the movie as stated in the plot. That Hitler didn't have the doors guarded, that the Empire did not learn from its mistake, and that it would be easier to train astronauts than drillers are not plot holes. They're implausibilities. Movies are very often implausible. An example of a plot hole is in Toy Story, while Buzz Lightyear still believes he is a superhero and not a toy, he freezes and plays dead along with all the other toys when Andy (a human) enters. This makes no sense according to the rules of the story. If he doesn't think he's a toy, he has no reason to freeze and play dead. It's a lapse in the continuity of the story.
+1
level 77
Apr 17, 2015
That could be explained as an involuntary reflex.
+1
level 55
Apr 17, 2015
Fun quiz. :) I do think that the thing in Aladdin did make sense, though. Jafar reversed everything that Aladdin had wished for.
+1
level 53
Dec 6, 2016
And when did he do that? nowhere in the movie does it show anyone's previous wishes get reversed, otherwise Jafar would no longer be a genie after Aladdin makes his 3rd (technically 1st) wish of freeing the Genie.
+1
level 77
Apr 17, 2015
The humans as batteries (and actually any life form, so cows, too) thing is totally inefficient and impractical. So... either the movie is stupid (probably), or (more interestingly) there is a completely different reason that the machines are keeping all humans inside a Matrix. I've read a lot of different compelling theories about this, including that the machines lack the capacity for creative thought and are using the combined matrix of human brains as an enormous super computer, using us for our computational power not our body heat- the former of which exceeds that of cows. and that's why they need to run the simulation to keep everyone happy and complacent otherwise why not turn us into unthinking vegetables? There are other theories, too.
+1
level 49
Apr 17, 2015
The original script had humans acting as hard drives, storing machine data and intellignce, but they decided that was too confusing for the average movie going moron, so they made people be batteries instead.
+1
level 77
Apr 17, 2015
Well that would make a heck of a lot more sense. And it's possible that's still the real reason since the information we get comes from an unreliable narrator, Morpheus, who is wrong about a number of other things, too.
+1
level 48
Apr 17, 2015
Although, freeing cows from the matrix would make for an interesting plot twist.
+1
level 77
Apr 17, 2015
Re: Jedi... what is that about? They weren't firing photon torpedos down an exhaust port. And they actually had to fly inside the Death Star to reach the core to blow it up... which was only possible because it was still under construction. But anyway, even unfinished, there was apparently still no straight shot from the surface to the core. So... actually... it seems like they did fix the previous version's design flaw. Unless you're just saying that it's still vulnerable to attack from fighters. But, that can be a hard thing to fix. We've been aware that Aircraft Carriers render Battleships and other capital ships extremely vulnerable ever since WW2, and yet, it's still possible today for a single fighter/bomber to sink a large capital ship. It's not like they haven't tried to address the problem. In Star Wars, they tried to address the problem. Eliminating straight shafts to the core and also using a shield generator that created a giant force field around the entire thing.
+1
level 77
Apr 17, 2015
Yes, that's what I said above, I don't think they use the same flaw in both movies. What bothers me more is: why didn't they restart the shield in the first movie?
+1
level 58
Apr 17, 2015
The shield is projected from the nearby moon. Presumably it's only needed when under construction, as it can defend itself when operational. You can't project the shield onto the DS once it is flying in space.
+1
level 77
Apr 18, 2015
I talk about the magnetic shield that captures the millenium falcon, and that Obiwan shuts down. The first death star was not near any moon and was not under construction.
+1
level 45
Oct 21, 2017
if your trying to say "why didn't they restart the tractor beam recapture the Falcon" its simple and even explained in the movie. they placed a tracker on the Falcon to follow them to the rebel base on Yavin IV Princess Leia suspects it and its then confirmed by Tarkin and Vader
+1
level 37
Apr 17, 2015
The eagles aren't a plothole. Not even close. There are literally a dozen reasons as to why the eagles wouldn't and couldn't do that.
+1
level 77
Apr 17, 2015
Yeah name one.
+2
level 49
Apr 17, 2015
Well, as is said in the books, the eagles only care about things that directly impact them. They haven't been bothered by Sauron, so they don't have any reason to fly hundreds of miles from their territory, risking their lives to get past Ring Wraiths and their flying mounts. The only reason they helped in The Hobbit is they hate the goblins and wanted to piss them off by helping their enemies escape. Anything else they do in the series is because they know Gandalf and Radagast are bros.
+2
level 49
Apr 17, 2015
Seriously, just think about it, "Hey Eagle King, want to carry me and my 8 besties hundreds of miles on the backs of your people to a land of volcanoes where every living thing except us will try to shot you out of sky and probalby eat/torture you if you're caught, all to solve a problem that should have been taken care of centuries ago, but wasn't because we kind of suck?"
+1
level 77
Apr 17, 2015
Gandalf could certainly have used their help earlier in the film trilogy. So why wouldn't they help a bro out then? If they rescued Frodo and Sam just to piss off goblins, risking their lives in the process... you know what would have REALLY pissed them off? If they had flown straight to Mt Doom and dropped the ring in the fire. That would have actually made them angry. At the point of the rescue I don't think anyone cared, they were all too busy running for their lives, getting swallowed up by giant sinkholes or consumed in lava etc.
+1
level 49
Apr 17, 2015
Exactly, they only went into Mordor AFTER the ring had been destoyed and it was reasonably safe, helping out is one thing, risking being tortured to death by in Barad-dur is on a higher level than just being friends of friends. And them rescuing to piss off goblins was the Hobbit, not lotr.
+1
level 77
Apr 17, 2015
Giant balls of fire flying through the air is reasonably safe? Also, they showed up minutes after the ring was dropped in. You said they lived hundreds of miles away. How did they get there so fast?
+1
level 37
Apr 17, 2015
1. The eagles care not for the affair of the ring, they only help Gandalf occasionally. 2. The eagles are affected by the ring like any other being. 3. The eagles would have been killed or at least risked their lives by the nazgul 4. The eagles wouldn't be able to face Sauron's wrath while he was still in power in Mordor 5. The whole point of the mission was secrecy, Sauron was not to know their intent. The eagles would have been spotted by Sauron/Nazgul. 6. The ring was forged in the cracks of Mount Doom, you can't "just drop it in" from high above, and the entrance would be heavily guarded. 7. Were it not for the events unfolding as they did, Mordor would have been crawling with orcs, with bows. I don't think I'm going to bother coming up with more for now. Regarding the fact that they show up fast, they don't. They are there to help fight in final battle at the Black Gates, and at Gandalf's request they go to save Frodo and Sam. Giant balls of fire are an invention by Peter Jackson.
+1
level 67
Apr 17, 2015
@ forgin - Agreed. The Eagles would have been corrupted by the ring as they neared Mount Doom, which is why it was imperative that a being that was less corruptible and less powerful (a hobbit) was sent in the first place. Sauron would have seen the Eagles coming, and his orcs, Nazgul, and other servants would have been more than enough to take them down, not to mention Sauron himself. He alone would have been able to knock the Eagles out of the sky. Secrecy was of utmost importance. It is plausible that they could have made it one way or another, but the Council didn't want to take the gamble. As for why the Eagles arrived at the last second, it is in their best interest to destroy Sauron, and they may have decided to come to Gandalf's aid as the battle began. Not to say that the Eagles couldn't have been helpful throughout the quest, but they would not have made it to Mount Doom undetected.
+1
level 67
Apr 17, 2015
Besides, Tolkien said he did not want the Eagles to be considered taxi cabs of Middle Earth, and that's good enough for me.
+1
level 45
Apr 17, 2015
Yes forgin knows whats up. People need to stop with this eagles stuff.
+1
level 77
Apr 18, 2015
could have fooled me, samwise
+1
level 53
Dec 6, 2016
secrecy? Sauron sent out the ring wraiths to get the ring back anyway didn't he? not much of a secret...
+1
level 67
Apr 17, 2018
The same reason you wouldn't send in a biplane to a target heavily guarded by a modern airforce backed by surface-to-air missiles.
+1
level 72
Jan 2, 2019
I actually have a completely different take. The entire story was about the growth of the hobbits from small, scared, country folk to able warriors capable of the most difficult task that more standard warriors were incapable of handling. This is an allegory of Tolkien's life and his time in WWI. The journey IS the story. The ring is anecdotal to the growth of the hobbits. The razing of The Shire is the climax of the story, not Mount Doom in my opinion. The movies butcher the real story. The movies are great for movies but they aren't true to the essence of Tolkien's story/life.
+3
level 76
Apr 17, 2015
I loved this quiz. I do not love it when people pick apart fantasy movies because of something they consider implausible. If they are okay with wizards fighting fire demons, and dwarves and elves fighting side by side against wraiths, or men from other planets living on earth and flying around fighting bad guys, can they not just suspend belief a bit more and enjoy whatever story the writers give us? There just seems something wrong when they can accept the idea of fantasy creatures, but only if they follow the physical rules of humans from Earth. If soap opera characters can get away with coming back from the dead over and over, surely we can allow Superman to fly backwards to change time. (I think that's why these stories are called fantasy and fiction rather than reality.) Plotholes are a different thing and should be filled with asphalt.
+1
level 77
Apr 17, 2015
There are degrees of suspension of disbelief. If I go into a comic book movie I am ready to suspend disbelief to a certain level. For instance, that Spiderman can shoot webbing that sticks to everything but not to himself. It's a comic book movie. okay. Or that mutation, instead of giving someone cancer or a leg growing out of their back, grants them the power to shoot laser beams out of their eyes and blow holes in mountains. But... two things. 1) it has to be internally consistent. If they set down a bunch of rules and establish a milieu for the fantasy world, and then later break those rules, this is upsetting to the average audience member. 2) logic is still logic. You can be in a fantasy setting with fantastical things going on, but if characters are still behaving in ways that make no sense, or plot holes emerge that are clearly the result of sloppy or lazy writing, no amount of suspension of disbelief will fix that.
+1
level 77
Apr 17, 2015
and... 3 (I guess)... what I started to say before about degrees... if a film has a silly premise that starts from the beginning most people will let that slide and accept it for what it is but then if suddenly in the middle of the movie things get much sillier, it can be harder to accept. It depends on how much the film is grounded in reality from the start (which is why I said there are degrees of disbelief suspension.. the audience has to know what to expect), and also depends on how silly/stupid exactly the plot device is that is introduced later. For example, believing that a species evolved on an alien world in a harsh environment so when it came to Earth's much more pleasant environment it gained super strength and other seemingly arbitrary powers (yet looks exactly like a human)... that's ridiculous. But if that's the film's premise, we can suspend enough disbelief to go with it. However it's nowhere near as stupid as reversing time by spinning the Earth backward.
+1
level 76
Apr 18, 2015
I understand "jumping the shark" which goes along with what you said about a plausible plot suddenly going wonky. If a writer tells me Superman made the earth spin backwards to change time, rather than grouse it can't be done, I allow myself to think, "Wow, Superman figured out a way to do that!" You have a knowledge of physics which I do not and you see that even if the earth rotated backwards it still wouldn't change time so you cannot accept it. It may even come down to a difference in our thought processes. I am spiritual and have faith in God. I believe in things I cannot see, so maybe it's easier for me to accept impossible things in movies as well. You say you are an atheist so it appears to me that you believe in only the things which can be proven. Perhaps we take our different perspectives with us when we movie-watch. I hope the world is a better place with both of us. You keep my kind from going too far into La-La Land, and I nag you about possibilities unseen. Your thoughts?
+1
level 77
Apr 18, 2015
Maybe but I still think it has to do with establishing the film's universe first and then being true to that. For example... I loved Scott Pilgrim vs the World. But from the opening title this movie establishes itself as something bizarre and surreal. Any strange thing that happens in this context I'm perfectly happy accepting. On the other hand, some movies try to be "gritty and realistic"... and then throw in something dumb that's very unrealistic. Like... my one big problem with Batman Begins, great movie, but at the end that dumb microwave emitter water evaporator. It just wouldn't work. If Nolan wanted to do the "realistic" version of Batman, then he succeeded brilliantly in some ways but then it's fair to criticize the points that are not realistic. If you set up Indiana Jones as a character set in a world where fantastic occult crap happens, ghosts and the breath of god and whatnot, and then suddenly throw in interdimensional aliens out of left field some people will be upset.
+2
level 77
Apr 18, 2015
(Not me, personally I thought transitioning from the Nazi obsession with the occult to the Soviet obsession with ESP and aliens was perfect, but I'm just making the point that some people were upset because they felt the milieu established by previous films was violated). Other times audiences might get upset if they feel their intelligence has been insulted. Like in the case of ID4, or almost any movie especially in the 90s where computers were treated as sort of magical because most people don't really understand how they work... so... why not have them fly up to the mothership and of course they know the wi-fi password and their two completely different technological systems are perfectly compatible even though in the real world you can't even get your USB device to work in Windows 8 without downloading new drivers and crashing the system. It's insulting because obviously whoever wrote this is thinking "well the audience is too dumb to know this wouldn't work, so whatever"
+2
level 77
Apr 18, 2015
For those who actually *do* know how a computer works... they end up feeling like they're being treated as if they were ignorant. At least in a film that takes itself seriously and is trying to come off as realistic. A similar example, in the Mummy 3: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor... of course the hacks who wrote this script are just assuming that Americans know fudge all about Chinese history... so... why not invent a completely made up character and say he built the great wall of China. Sitting in the theater watching that movie I was like... wtf... Jet Li is not Qin Shi Huang... but of course whoever wrote this thinks that I'm going to be ignorant of Chinese history so it's cool to just make crap up. They wouldn't pull that same stunt if they weren't making that assumption. Imagine a film about US history where the first president of the USA is the Eagle King and he defeats the British by shooting lightning bolts at them and then he builds the Hoover Dam and founds McDonald's.
+2
level 77
Apr 18, 2015
They wouldn't do that, not in a film that was grounded or semi-grounded in a realistic world, because the average moviegoer knows who George Washington was. Hollywood writers won't assume that you are ignorant on this point, and so wouldn't try to get away with the Eagle King story.
On the other hand, take a movie like Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. This film isn't trying to be realistic. It isn't assuming that you are too stupid to know that Honest Abe did not prey on the undead. It's deliberately trying to establish a world where there is a twist- in this case that vampires are real and played an integral role in US history particularly the Civil War. It's a far-fetched and absurd idea but they adopt it and own it, even the title of the film is absurd.

It's 5 a.m. here and I feel like this is another case where I am rambling incoherently because I'm too tired to say what I want to say succinctly. I hope at least some of that made sense.
+1
level 59
Apr 17, 2015
Would not the new Hobbit movies also be an answer for Lord of the Rings?
+1
level 64
Apr 19, 2015
Thank you for the Pacific Rim one. There were so many plot holes in that it made my brain hurt.
+1
level 50
Apr 21, 2015
I thought for sure Pacific Rim was any of the Harry Potters ahah
+1
level 66
Jan 19, 2016
same here, never seen pacific rim but it seemed to fit in with the chamber of secrets and the basilisk
+1
level 54
Apr 27, 2016
Or any single episode of Power Rangers! The plot always works the same. 1: Fight Putties. 2: Fight human-size monster, lose. 3: Fight human-size monster, win a little. 3: Monster grows into a giant. 4: Call in the Zords and destroy the monster with the Megazord. Possible workaround, just keep that Megazord in handy for when the human-sized guy is running around soaping peoples' mirrors, and just step on the little minion.
+2
level 66
Jan 19, 2016
"It would take decades for a T-Rex to reach maturity" - Ya, that's the only thing that makes that movie not 100% realistic
+1
level 73
Jan 25, 2016
Was the beast really transformed at age 11? I thought it was a punishment for him being an arrogant sex pest to lots of women?
+1
level 67
Apr 17, 2018
Wait, what? I'm not sure what version of the story you're thinking of, but the quiz is referring specifically to the Disney movie (the 1991 animated one, not the recent live-action remake), where the Beast was cursed when he refused to provide shelter for an old woman who came to his door on a cold winter night. His age is figured because the curse has to be broken by his 21st birthday (which occurs in the film) and during "Be Our Guest" Lumiere sings that for "ten years we've been rusting.'
+1
level 48
Mar 10, 2017
Was there really something in the movie that indicated the beast was transformed at age 11? Or is that part of the original fable?
+1
level 67
Apr 17, 2018
It's never stated explicitly, but the last petal of the rose was supposed to fall on his 21st birthday, and Lumiere sings that for "ten years we've been rusting."
+1
level 33
Apr 2, 2017
Two points: In return of the Jedi, it is stated that the exposed thermal exhaust port is necessary for flow of ventilation of the station, so this time to combat that flaw the emperor installs an impenetrable deflector shield which is the whole point of the endor story arc. Also, in Raiders of the Lost Ark, Marcus Brody makes it clear at the start of the film that Indiana's objective is to find and take the ark for the college, not simply stop the Nazis from obtaining it, so both of these aren't really plot holes
+1
level 70
Apr 3, 2017
Gravity. Loved it. About as much as I love boils and root canal.

Seriously, though, if you enjoy listening to Sandra Bullock panic and hyperventilate for 90 minutes, then you'll love Gravity.
+1
level 14
Sep 17, 2017
THE LAST ONE IS SO TRUE THO
+1
level 72
Sep 21, 2018
Jurassic Park, the dinos had frog DNA - which is why they were hermaphroditic. So the frog DNA could have altered their maturation speed as well. Not really a plot hole.
+1
level 58
Dec 28, 2018
The eagles are NOT a plot hole. Sauron would see them coming, shoot them down, and boom, he has the ring.
+1
level 65
Jan 15, 2019
Please make a second part, this is so cool