30 Of The Most Infamous ‘Plot Holes’ That The Movies Actually Explained, But The Audience Didn’t Notice

Animeking1108 asked their fellow redditors to share the infamous ‘plot holes’ that are basically misunderstandings caused by an impatient audience that doesn’t want to think for “more than ten seconds.”

Most of us are probably aware of quite a few of these. They’re so infamous, they’ve passed on into popular culture and have become enrooted like sleeping Ents and we no longer question them because we take the plot holes for granted.

The major one is from 1997’s ‘Titanic’ where Leonardo DiCaprio’s Jack drowns at the end of the movie (can’t spoil a movie over a couple of decades old), even though there’s enough space on the door for him and Rose, portrayed by Kate Winslet. But do you remember that scene? The movie shows that the door couldn’t handle both of them. The Mythbusters found a way where they could both technically survive, but it seemed overly complex and impractical.

Insider points out that the odds of Jack surviving on the floating door were close to zero… unless the door was made out of pine. (Plus, in the script, it’s referred to as wooden debris and it’s technically the top of a door frame, but that’s being overly technical.)

“Pine might have allowed the two to both survive long enough for rescue. However, due to the way the panel flipped when Jack tried to grab it after Rose was clinging on, the wood was most likely oak,” writes Insider. “Unfortunately, the size of the oak debris coupled with the weight of a sodden and hypothermic Rose on top could work, but not if you added Jack's additional weight to it."

"Since the Maritime Museum confirmed that the original wood paneling was indeed oak, this solution makes the most sense.” Apologies, Jack, but no matter how much the internet loves you, there was just no way for you to get out of your gruesome and grim ending.

Another major ‘plot hole’ (that is anything but) comes in the form of my favorite movie series of all time, ‘The Lord of the Rings’ trilogy. The keyword here is eagles. Eagles? Great Eagles! The alleged ‘slip’ in storytelling goes something like this: the Fellowship of the Ring could have asked the eagles for help and plopped the One Ring right into the fiery chasm of Mount Doom, defeating Sauron and saving Middle Earth. Hooray! Right..? Not so fast there, young hobbits.

Here’s the problem. That would never have worked. And there’s a host of reasons for it! Starting with the fundamentally practical (tons of orcish archers in Mordor, Sauron’s Eye always on the lookout, the Nazgul and their winged beasts ready for action) to the meta (the Ring might have enticed the eagles with its insidious promises of power, and let’s not forget that the eagles themselves are meant to “bear tidings not burdens”).

What’s more, the Fellowship’s quest was a secret. Relying on the eagles without a distraction like Aragorn’s attack would have proven to be the downfall of Middle Earth as we know it. Besides, there are spies everywhere and the eagles would have been spotted at some point. Sauron would know in advance what to expect and, let’s not forget, that you can’t drop the Ring directly into Mount Doom from the air.

The eagles themselves aren’t under Gandalf’s control, least of all anyone else’s: they are proud creatures who aren’t anyone’s aerial taxi service. When the eagles decide to help is entirely up to them. They directly serve the Valar and they have their own reasons for doing (or not doing) things. If this were Dungeons and Dragons, you could argue that they’re True Neutral or Lawful Neutral or that their understanding of what’s good is beyond the understanding of mortals or even wizards.

What other ‘plot holes’ that aren’t really plot holes at all do you know about, dear Pandas, whether in movies or any other medium? Why do you think audiences have a hard time being patient and thinking about the scenario sometimes? Do you think good storytelling is possible even while leaving some gaps in the plot? Let us know what you think!