CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › CHUD.COM Main › Logic gaps, Plot Holes, Hellboy and Film
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Logic gaps, Plot Holes, Hellboy and Film

post #1 of 22
7/28/04 at 3:36pm
Thread Starter 
I've been thinking about this for a bit, now, and thought I'd throw it out there for open discussion.

I've noticed, lately, that I cut certain movies an enormous amount of slack in a way that I don't afford others, necessarily.

I'm sure we all do this, to one degree or another. But what I was wondering is, why?

To wit: I love me some Hellboy. I've been a fan of the comic since seed of destruction first published, and have anticipated the film since Harry first posted that Wayne Barlowe concept sketch, those many years ago.

And I really, really liked the finished movie. Just purchased the dvd, and watched it for the second time last night. But on second viewing, I noticed something. Hellboy has issues. Lots of them. Like, all OVER the place. Yet, I still love it. I (sub)consciously have chosen to ignore those holes; assumedly, 'cause I like the general vibe of the flick so much.

examples of the "holes"/less-than-perfect moments:
1. At the beginning, the portal to "elsewhere" opens onto some sort of...space-like realm. This floating, star-lit void contains the seven giant beastie things. But Hellboy too? What, is he floating around in the void of space like a cosmonaut monkey?

2. The commander of the army at the film's opening is AWFUL. "That's a load of crap!" is one of the most poorly delivered lines I've ever heard. Not over-the-top in a fun, comic book way, over the top in a hammy not-quite-there summer theatre kind of way.

3. Why is Rasputin bothering to run around leaving clues and killing everyone with these big sammael beasts, if he could just slip into Broome's office, kidnap him, and lure Hellboy to Russia with a taunting note?

4. How does Kronen sit up on the operating table after having his "key" removed, especially when we're shown him winding it down to fool everyone into thinking he's dead?

5. Product placement. During the course of the film, I got a hankerin' for Bud Light beer, Baby Ruth bars and Red Bull. Wonder why?

Enough. I really like the movie. I'm not criticizing it. But these things stuck out on second viewing (and these were just off the top of my head) and got me thinking...why can Hellboy do all that and still be "good" to me? Especially the way I and others on here can nitpick films from time to time?

Anyone?
Reply
post #2 of 22
7/28/04 at 4:05pm
I think you answered your own question at the beginning of your post... You've been a Hellboy fan for quite awhile, and the film was faithful enough to the comic (at least in the look, as I understand it) that you were easily swept up in an admittedly fun ride. And that's exactly what the film was for me, a fun ride. I enjoyed it in the theatre, will probably rent it soon, but I'm highly unsure of whether I'll ever add it to my permanent collection. Why? Because as a Hellboy uninitiate, I saw the problems very clearly right up front.

On the other hand, I'm a HUGE Equilibrium apologist. Looked at rationally, it's not a great film, and honestly is probably on par with Hellboy overall. BUT, when I watch it, I don't get pulled out by flaws, plot holes, etc., because I'm so wrapped up in John Preston's story, as hamfisted as it is at times.

So, I think we as primarily genre film fans tend to get carried away by a COOL concept or what we perceive to be as a solid execution on screen of our favorite properties. When we get caught up in this kind of thinking, it's very easy to overlook or forgive even obvious faults.

Not saying that it's a bad thing to do so, and I'm definitely not attacking or singling out Hellboy fans, because we're all like that when it comes to that certain franchise near and dear to our hearts, whatever it may be...
Reply
post #3 of 22
7/28/04 at 4:07pm
Those aren't really plot holes, in my opinion.

1. The portal to "elsewhere" opens to, well, elsewhere. It's undefined, but has a Lovecraftian look to it - which was important to Del Toro. Who knows what's out there - but the movie suggests that the rift had to be opened in order for something bad to cross over.

2. Not a plot hole or lapse in logic. I didn't think that guy was all that great either, but he's barely in it.

3. I guess he decided to instead kill Broom and lure Hellboy that way. I don't know. Broom's death cause Hellboy to grow up a bit, so it's important in that respect, I guess.

4. Well, maybe his key ain't the shut off switch you are thinking it is. Basically, he's tricking the good guys into thinking he was killed. I think Del Toro just wanted to heap on the weird when it came to this character.

5. Yeah, but that's a lot of movies these days. I didn't think it was that overt in this flick. It's a far cry from Minority Report, at least.
Reply
post #4 of 22
7/28/04 at 4:09pm
these kinds of things can be overlooked quite easily, although one's admiration for the "tightness" of the film will undoubtedly suffer with each dangling little strand. more problematic with films like hellboy is, and I think the film got a free pass from a lot of people because of the talent involved, the fact that it's just empty spectacle. the villains had zero presence or personality, and the plot was just by the numbers crap barely a step above something like bulletproof monk. there was nothing cohesive about it, nor was there any urgency to it. liz and especially hellboy were interesting characters, but they gave the former one note and the latter two or three... not enough to build a movie around either. I can imagine fans of the comic filling in gaps in the story with their own knowledge of the character, and were probably just happy to see some of the material recreated in (what I assume was) a faithful and competent way. but the movie itself was not very good (or different) at all.
Reply
post #5 of 22
7/28/04 at 4:10pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJ Blood
I think you answered your own question at the beginning of your post... You've been a Hellboy fan for quite awhile, and the film was faithful enough to the comic (at least in the look, as I understand it) that you were easily swept up in an admittedly fun ride. And that's exactly what the film was for me, a fun ride. I enjoyed it in the theatre, will probably rent it soon, but I'm highly unsure of whether I'll ever add it to my permanent collection. Why? Because as a Hellboy uninitiate, I saw the problems very clearly right up front.

On the other hand, I'm a HUGE Equilibrium apologist. Looked at rationally, it's not a great film, and honestly is probably on par with Hellboy overall. BUT, when I watch it, I don't get pulled out by flaws, plot holes, etc., because I'm so wrapped up in John Preston's story, as hamfisted as it is at times.

So, I think we as primarily genre film fans tend to get carried away by a COOL concept or what we perceive to be as a solid execution on screen of our favorite properties. When we get caught up in this kind of thinking, it's very easy to overlook or forgive even obvious faults.

Not saying that it's a bad thing to do so, and I'm definitely not attacking or singling out Hellboy fans, because we're all like that when it comes to that certain franchise near and dear to our hearts, whatever it may be...

That's a good point...I think you're right.

Now, explain to me why I like The Phantom, Crossroads (The Ralph Macchio version), and Demon Knight, and we can all go home.
Reply
post #6 of 22
7/28/04 at 4:13pm
Logical leaps in a movie like Hellboy are almost not worth pointing out, but I see your point. What kills me is the product placement. Spider-Man 2 was a hell of a lot of fun, but when the conversation is framed around a display case of Dr. Peppers, it takes me out of the movie. I won't even talk about I, Robot, which took product placement to new lows (and wouldn't have been good without it anyway.)
Reply
post #7 of 22
7/28/04 at 4:16pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Matchstick
Those aren't really plot holes, in my opinion. (You're right...not really. Just didn't have another phrase for them)

1. The portal to "elsewhere" opens to, well, elsewhere. It's undefined, but has a Lovecraftian look to it - which was important to Del Toro. Who knows what's out there - but the movie suggests that the rift had to be opened in order for something bad to cross over.

2. Not a plot hole or lapse in logic. I didn't think that guy was all that great either, but he's barely in it. (Good point...but again, in another movie, this guy might've been singled out for being awful and thus another reason for the picture being less than perfect. No one's mentioned him asa far as I can tell)

3. I guess he decided to instead kill Broom and lure Hellboy that way. I don't know. Broom's death cause Hellboy to grow up a bit, so it's important in that respect, I guess. (again, i don't disagree that it "helps him grow" even if we never really see that. But plot/'storywise, its kinda convoluted and makes no sense. I understand why Del Toro did it, but it still doesnt make much sense)

4. Well, maybe his key ain't the shut off switch you are thinking it is. Basically, he's tricking the good guys into thinking he was killed. I think Del Toro just wanted to heap on the weird when it came to this character.

5. Yeah, but that's a lot of movies these days. I didn't think it was that overt in this flick. It's a far cry from Minority Report, at least.
1. well, yea..i get that...but how is hellboy just...floating in space? Cause they show this "other place" and that's what it looks like...so, for Hellboy to have come out...was he just floating around?)

2. (Good point...but again, in another movie, this guy might've been singled out for being awful and thus another reason for the picture being less than perfect. No one's mentioned him asa far as I can tell)

3. again, i don't disagree that it "helps him grow" even if we never really see that. But plot/'storywise, its kinda convoluted and makes no sense. I understand why Del Toro did it, but it still doesnt make much sense

4. Maybe not. But that's what it's telegraphed as being, no? When he twists it and shudders, lying still after killing Clay, its made to look like he wound himself down. My point, is that its never explained and goes against the logic of that scene.

5. true enough.

Like I said, I'm not criticizing the film..im noticing things in Hellboy i might criticize other films for, yet find I dont want to do that for Hellboy, and was wondering why that was.

The observation about being a prior fan makes sense...but I do it for properties I don'rtt have that prior intevment in, as well.

Good points, all.
Reply
post #8 of 22
7/28/04 at 4:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJ Blood
I think you answered your own question at the beginning of your post... You've been a Hellboy fan for quite awhile, and the film was faithful enough to the comic (at least in the look, as I understand it) that you were easily swept up in an admittedly fun ride. And that's exactly what the film was for me, a fun ride. I enjoyed it in the theatre, will probably rent it soon, but I'm highly unsure of whether I'll ever add it to my permanent collection. Why? Because as a Hellboy uninitiate, I saw the problems very clearly right up front.

On the other hand, I'm a HUGE Equilibrium apologist. Looked at rationally, it's not a great film, and honestly is probably on par with Hellboy overall. BUT, when I watch it, I don't get pulled out by flaws, plot holes, etc., because I'm so wrapped up in John Preston's story, as hamfisted as it is at times.

So, I think we as primarily genre film fans tend to get carried away by a COOL concept or what we perceive to be as a solid execution on screen of our favorite properties. When we get caught up in this kind of thinking, it's very easy to overlook or forgive even obvious faults.

Not saying that it's a bad thing to do so, and I'm definitely not attacking or singling out Hellboy fans, because we're all like that when it comes to that certain franchise near and dear to our hearts, whatever it may be...

also you could scrutinize the best films and they'd probably fall a little flat. alot of certain genre's take a big ole suspension of disbelief on our part as viewers. i mean look at evil dead 2 and army of darkness. perfect examples of taking suspension of disbilief to the next level. =)
Reply
post #9 of 22
7/28/04 at 4:29pm
The main pointless thing was the "two shall arise when he dies" thing with Sammael. It just doesn't make much sense and make him impossible to kill. But they do all disappear at the end when liz fries them......for some reason. It wasn't even necessary, all they had to do was say Sammael's lay eggs like crazy(which they did).
Reply
post #10 of 22
7/28/04 at 5:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by zeroplate
Logical leaps in a movie like Hellboy are almost not worth pointing out, but I see your point. What kills me is the product placement. Spider-Man 2 was a hell of a lot of fun, but when the conversation is framed around a display case of Dr. Peppers, it takes me out of the movie.
You're the first person I heard mention it and I really didn't even notice it, so it couldn't have been too bad.

Now Josey and the Pussycats, there's you a movie with some seriously insane product placement.

Did I just inadvertently admit that I watched Josey and the Pussycats? Whoops.
Reply
post #11 of 22
7/28/04 at 6:04pm
The sargeant at the beginning was the guy who played Gold Leader in A New Hope.

Personally, I liked him. He was over-the-top in a fun way--for me, at least. I mean, he has the line "Look at the size of that whammer!"
Reply
post #12 of 22
7/28/04 at 6:04pm
Big error I noticed in HELLBOY was that his Right Hand Of Doom, er, switched sides at one point.

But that's okay. I consider it more an homage to EVIL DEAD II when Ash goes down into the cellar and his chainsaw arm inexplicably switched sides.
Reply
post #13 of 22
7/28/04 at 6:20pm
The fact that Hellboy came through that portal into space at the very beginning really bothered me too. It just didn't make any sense. Not only because of the silly image of a baby demon just floating around, but the fact that the Lovecraftian view of hellish Other-Worlds and the Catholic inspired Hell are two very different concepts and places. Hellboy is so obviously a classic Catholic/Protestant demon. Red skin, horns, pointy tail, hooves for feet. The Elder beasts are so obviously Lovecraftian in design and they don't mix well as far as positing that they come from the same place as Hellboy.

It would have made more sense if it was posited in the movie that there are "layers" to the various worlds, and that to get to the Lovecraftian space, you would first have to pass through traditional Hell. Then it would make sense to get someone like Hellboy first to be your "key" to the other dimension beyond. When you make a film that is more fantasy inspired, it is even more important than in a traditional action movie to get your world-rules right and stick to them. The suspension of disbelief is supremely important the more fantastical you get! Unless you're aiming for absolute abstraction and experimental tastes.

But there were other reasons Hellboy didn't work for me. I could not once buy any setting in New York as actually taking place there. Everything looked so obviously Eastern-European. Some cool set pieces, but everything seemed lazily done. It was as if the only thing they were focused on was getting Hellboy himself true to the comic. And that's not enough though it may seem the right thing to do.

I also agree with the Sammael problem. That was just too silly. Either they reproduce by eggs, or they reproduce by the soul-splitting. Pick one and stick with it. And the fact that after killing Raz a huge Older One bursts forth was just a stupid excuse to have the "big monster" battle. Could have been handled much better.
Reply
post #14 of 22
7/28/04 at 7:57pm
I think I mentioned this before, but I felt like Pauline Kael's "A box of crackerjacks that is all prizes" applies far more properly to Hellboy than to Star Wars as she'd intended. After all, Star Wars is a logically constructed movie with a plot that basically makes sense. Hellboy is literally just a string of very good scenes with NO coherent throughline and plot holes you could drive a truck through.

I just skimmed this column, but I didn't see anyone mentioning the fact that Liz fries an array of Sammael in one scene and then is tied up by the villains in the next, one of the more glaring continuity gaps I've seen in a motion picture that wasn't a total train wreck anyway.

I think that sort of encapsulates a lot of movies today: explaining "what the hell just happened" is considered secondary to keeping the audience giggling with delight. The famous phrase "kill your babies" doesn't seem to apply these days--a lot of movies seem to be ALL babies without the harder work of telling a logical, original story.

I mean, compare Hellboy with some of the similar SF action/adventure movies of the 80s and late 70s. First of all, each of these movies have a distinctive "feel" to them. Raiders of the Lost Ark is not Blade Runner is not The Thing is not ALIENS. Hellboy seems too close to a mishmash of "stuff that's worked before".

Secondly, look at how much care is put into making sure these movies are clear, logical, and fairly simple to follow. The average James Cameron or early John Carpenter movie is really very simple in terms of plot and doesn't feature a nonstop cavalcade of "cool" scenes. I miss this kind of movie, the kind where action sequences can go on for 15-20 minutes. These days, movies seem to have ADD. They throw twists, interweaving plot threads and new locations at the audience every five minutes--essentially, the Star Wars model.

I don't MIND this per se, but it seems like a lot of movies would benefit by really trimming down their central conceit and focusing in on it rather than trying to pile on a lot of snazzy superficial stuff. Not EVERY movie needs to feature wisecracks in every scene, or keep the heroes moving from place to place relentlessly. I think filmmakers need to back off a little from that kind of thing.
Reply
post #15 of 22
7/28/04 at 8:03pm
I think a better example for a huge plot hole getting a pass because of how well it's played out is in Ocean's Eleven--the whole thing with the SWAT team being the theives and their gear bags have the money looks insanely clever the first few times you watch it, until you start wondering where the other set of bags that the security put into the rigged van came from. And also--when Andy Garcia goes down into the vault, where have the two security guards they knocked out go?

It's a plot hole no matter how you look at it, but the onwderful thing about Ocean's Eleven is the slieght-of-hand at work--Sodebergh more than likely realized it was a plot hole, and decided to just run with it. It's a tricky business, almost like a magic act, and it always produces one of two results: the illusion is maintained, and the audience never even knows that it's there, or it falters, and the audience immediatly pounces on the mistake.
Reply
post #16 of 22
7/28/04 at 8:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Prankster
I just skimmed this column, but I didn't see anyone mentioning the fact that Liz fries an array of Sammael in one scene and then is tied up by the villains in the next, one of the more glaring continuity gaps I've seen in a motion picture that wasn't a total train wreck anyway.
That's because this was a individual basis theatre problem, not an actual film problem. Many projectionists cut to the next reel to soon (because of the blackout after Liz fries everything), and a lot of theatres skipped right over the scene where Meyers wakes up in time to see Rasputin and the blonde chick taking the gernade belt and then whapping Meyers over the head. He blacks out again and it then cuts to him tied up in the ceremonial chamber.
Reply
post #17 of 22
7/28/04 at 11:36pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by g-dude
I think a better example for a huge plot hole getting a pass because of how well it's played out is in Ocean's Eleven--the whole thing with the SWAT team being the theives and their gear bags have the money looks insanely clever the first few times you watch it, until you start wondering where the other set of bags that the security put into the rigged van came from.

You are right that this is a plot hole, and if you listen to the DVD commentary with Soderbergh and Griffen they own up to it. Like you mentioned, they just went with it anyways.
Reply
post #18 of 22
7/29/04 at 2:44am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesse Custer: Carnivale Roustabout
Enough. I really like the movie. I'm not criticizing it. But these things stuck out on second viewing (and these were just off the top of my head) and got me thinking...why can Hellboy do all that and still be "good" to me? Especially the way I and others on here can nitpick films from time to time?

Anyone?
I actually had a slightly different reaction with Hellboy.

I had read all the comics, been following all the news about the movie rather religiously (I even was given Hellboy figures for my birthday~), and was overall really looking forward to the movie.

I was all ready to cut it some slack if it even turned out halfway decent.

My general feeling throughout the movie was...

1) Ron Perlman was great
2) The look was great
3) Some minor greivances with some plot elements, basically what you mentioned above

I forgave #3 because of #1 and #2 and because of my fanboy take...

but then... the end almost ruined it all for me.

I don't know if this has been mentioned much before, but did anyone else want to scream near the end when Hellboy is about to open the gate?

As this was happening, the well-formed character that is Hellboy in my head had only one option. Fake like he was going to open the gate, then get royally pissed off and beat the crap out of everyone. That is Hellboy, is it not? The Hellboy I know and love does not need to be told it's what on the inside that counts. Hellboy doesn't need to be told to do the right thing. He just does it.

Did that really annoy anyone else?

I'm willing to forgive it as long as they don't pull something so glaringly painful in the sequel.
Reply
post #19 of 22
7/29/04 at 2:47am
Stone conducts electricity.

'Nuff said.
Reply
post #20 of 22
7/29/04 at 3:04am
Nothing with Rasputin made any sense to me. Just like Blade 2, a weak and inexplicable main villain. He DID cool things, like rise out of a pool of blood, and appear out of nowhere from the shadows, that would have had some significance if he was cast and written differently.

I think a lot of the film's flaws reflect the comic books. Plots revolving around magic and random mishmashes of mythology are never going to really make sense. The very nature of them defies logic.
Reply
post #21 of 22
7/29/04 at 3:05am
There's a minor logic gap/plot hole/whatever in Spider-man 2 that didn't really bother me, but i thought was really funny. After he saves the super-strong little asian girl in the building that's on fire, he just hands the kid off to the nearest Asian couple and runs away.
Reply
post #22 of 22
7/29/04 at 2:09pm
heres my question wasnt the portal damaged before hellboy came out of it? I figured the device was like a TV but to other dimensions. Once it was damagaged it just flickered threw a few and hellboy was just in on of the random ones before it shut down.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: CHUD.COM Main
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › CHUD.COM Main › Logic gaps, Plot Holes, Hellboy and Film