• Wondering which camera, gear, computer, or software to buy? Ask in our Gear Guide.

I think I've painted myself into a plot hole.

H

harmonica44

I thought my script all added up, but I just realized a possible plot hole here. Basically a gang leader has evidence on his gang members, and another gang, which he does business with. The evidence is locked in safe, and he's using it as collateral, in case someone wants to turn on him. The safe is in a a building that he has someone keep watch of, and he gets a call that someone is breaking into the building, and therefore, possibly has motive to go for the safe, since that's what's in the building that's valuable.

The gang leader then calls members of the other gang to help out spur the moment, to help get the intruder. They all drive down there to get the intruder, as the intruder takes time to crack the safe. The intruder breaks into the safe, and almost gets away, but the members of the two gangs arrive. Killing and chaos ensues and the intruder ends up getting the upper hand and trapping the gang members. A member of the second gang who the leader called to help, escapes and ends up taking the evidence with him, to protect himself and the rest of them.

Now later on the cops capture this gang member, and with his back against the wall, he agrees to give the cops the evidence he obtained on all of them, if he is given a much lighter sentence, or immunity. whatever deal he can bargain with the evidence, if it's good enough. But here's the thing. After he escapes, why wouldn't he just have destroyed the evidence. Then whatever evidence the other gang's leader had, is gone, and nothing to worry about from that end. What reason does he have to keep the evidence safe?
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
I guess but he is also digging himself into a hole though, if the evidence is found by the police, which are after him more than guy #1, who he does business with occasionally, and is on better terms with than the police. Plus guy #1 being the gang leader, would not have evidence in there to incriminate himself, but since he does for his men, i guess that's good enough for guy #2 cause it's chain of evidence that would lead up anyway right?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
He destroys the evidence against himself, turns over only the evidence the cops are aware of that he has, retains the rest for himself to use against others the same as was done to himself.

BTW, gang leader 1 is a dumb@ss idiot to call for help from gang leader 2 & crew he's basically blackmailing.
Hope there's a good reason for such idiocy. ;)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
He's not blackmailing gang #2 he does illegally business with them. selling them goods. but has collateral on them in case they turn. but he's desperate for so he calls them. does this feel forced?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I would be more concerned about the plot hole of one man stealing this evidence, and the gang leader using not only his gang, but calling another allied gang to stop one man from robbing a building (that is already guarded) for whatever reason. That doesn't seem right to me, but maybe it is because I don't know the whole story or the details?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
harmonica44 said:
He's not blackmailing gang #2 he does illegally business with them. selling them goods. but has collateral on them in case they turn.
Click to expand...
Do what I want or don't do what I don't want you to do OR ELSE...
Yeah. That's called blackmail.


but he's desperate for so he calls them. does this feel forced?
Click to expand...
Not forced, just stupid.
Now, if large part of the story is that they're all a bunch of mean, tough, badass half-wits doomed to perish at their own stupidity then you got yourself a winner.

Give the film CLOCKERS a day in court. See if you like it.
You also might wanna try TRAIN SPOTTING.
Many Cohen films are about dumb f#ckin idiots f#cking up peanut butter sandwiches.
BEFORE THE DEVIL KNOWS YOUR DEAD is a recent "buncha idiots" crime film.
THE TOWN has several characters making dumb@ss decisons that eventually FUBAR a perfectly good heist.

"There's the smart decision - and then there's the bad one.
By all means, pick the bad one."
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Lucky Hardwood said:
Yes. If he was so buddy buddy with gang 2, why would they be shooting at each other?
Click to expand...

They aren't shooting at each other. Both gangs are on the same side, shooting it out with the highly skilled intruder, that is breaking into first gang's safe. The intruder traps both gangs in the building, and one member of the second gang escapes with the evidence.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
you could have him start to get chased by the cops as soon as he leaves that place, before he's even had a chance to dispose of it. while he's on the run he finds a place to stash the info real quick. later, under pressure, he reveals where he hid the evidence.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
if he get's immunity, the evidence against himself, is null and void anyway...

when you do such a deal, you usually have to tell them all of your involvement anyways, as that adds credibility to your statements. If you don't, you can be taken down by the defense attorney when he surprises the lawyer with stuff he hadn't heard.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Yep for sure. I got that part covered. I just don't believe he would keep the evidence, even of the others, since it would still link to him. But I guess as long as him keeping it around as a bargaining chip is logical. But even if he's not seen while on the run, he can still dispose of it, in private, couldn't he?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Well actually come to think of it some successful movies have plot holes and no one cares. I mean in The Departed for example:

SPOILERS

The Dignam character wants justice for Captain Queenan's death. Costigan calls him and tells him to meet him on the rooftop where Dignam died. But another cop shows up, saying that Dignam could not make it. Later at the end, finally Dignam shows up, but only after he let an innocent man be murdered, when he could have shown up and possibly avoided it, rather than let the villain get away with that much, before finally showing up at the end.

There is no explanation as to why Dignam did not show up that day, even though he wanted justice, so you think he would have considered it top priority. This movie has a huge hole gone unexplained, and it was an Oscar winner. So if no one important cared about that, maybe I'm being too picky, and I don't need an explanation as to why this character, kept all the evidence. He could just say he did, and the cops don't bother to ask him why, so he does not say why. And that's it. What do you think?

If someone I show the script too, hoping to get actors or business asks me why though, what do I say? It's just not explained cause it's one of those thing's the audience does not need to know? That could sound bad.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
Yes, many successful movies have plot holes in them. What you need to remember here is that you are creating a fictional world. The rules are yours to write however you see fit. The only rule that you cannot break is that actions must make sense in the world that you have created. Maybe in the world of this particular film, your gang leader isn't very smart and believes that keeping the evidence against himself will protect him better than destroying it. You just need to make the actions of your characters true to the character in the setting of the movie. What you write/produce/direct/shoot/edit/release doesn't have to conform to what those same types of people would do in the real world. This is called the suspension of disbelief, and as long as your audience can suspend their disbelief for the duration of your film, you have succeeded.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Okay thanks. Well the gang leader is a smart guy and has gotten away with his crimes so far, and always staying a step ahead of the cops trying to bring him down. But he is also narcissistic, which is a weakness, and after this whole fowl up, he is under great stress, and feels vulnerable for once, which is why he may have not made the smartest decision by keeping it. I think as long as the audience can be convinced by that. He does not have a lot of screen time, but I think I can convey it in what he has. Do I have to explain that he removed the evidence concerning him to help? Thanks.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top