Now I am offended, because I study film&tv in uni, and I do take pride in my knowledge. Of course all terms are bit subjective, but in my honest opinion your definition of the term plot hole is very different from it's general take.Again, try to search for some other non-Wikipedia articles explaining what a plot hole is, instead of being so stubborn about your own assumed set of definition.
If you demand me to look for and present sources supporting my view, you'd better start linking sources that support yours. If you google for plot hole and look different examples, pretty much non of them is unfinnished plotline. They are just things that don't make sense.
No, that is not a plot hole. It would have been just non explained plot element - this time non-properly introduced character. There is nothing that doesn't make logical sense in that. Sure it would be silly to show a character and then not actually have her in the story, but it doesn't defy any form of logic set by the story previously.If the story ended before Hancock (or the other 3 "powerful rivals" drawn on the WSJ cover that has yet to make an appearance) was introduced, is it not a plot hole then? Who the hell are these guys? Where did they go? So on and so forth.
That, is a plot hole.
And yes, if OP had been axed some of unexplained things would have become plot holes, just as I tried to demonstrate with Aces parentage case. But your initial claim was that every open ended plotline or unexplained detail would have been a plot hole is not right.
Last edited:
