A goof I submitted has been deleted

  • 3
  • Problem
  • Updated 7 months ago
  • Solved
I submitted a goof for Mortal Engines, which was accepted. But now a couple months later it’s been deleted. It was a legitimate plot hole so I’m really confused why it’s been removed.
Photo of Joseph

Joseph

  • 7 Posts
  • 12 Reply Likes

Posted 7 months ago

  • 3
Photo of Ed Jones (XLIX)

Ed Jones (XLIX)

  • 15377 Posts
  • 17562 Reply Likes
A user like you or I reported it probably, and IMDb reviewed it and agreed.
If you think you are right, re-submit it.
(Edited)
Photo of Joseph

Joseph

  • 7 Posts
  • 12 Reply Likes
Considering there is now only one goof on it despite there being more when the film came out, I get the feeling someone is reporting anything negative.
Photo of Ed Jones (XLIX)

Ed Jones (XLIX)

  • 15377 Posts
  • 17562 Reply Likes
There may be that one person submitted them not because they were negative. But to pad their submissions totals for top contribution status. Goofs cant be a positive or negative thing. Also they are probably the least rechecked thing by an original contributor. So one individual could do thousands of these without being noticed. An IMDb employee might look at all goof deletions for the title in question.
Photo of J.

J.

  • 402 Posts
  • 612 Reply Likes
Here is a link to an archived snapshot of the goofs page from December 24, 2018. Assuming the plot hole listed is your submission, you have a good case for having it restored. Seven of ten users found it interesting.

I don't know, but maybe the staff can restore the item and the user votes along with it.
Photo of Adrian

Adrian, Champion

  • 1185 Posts
  • 1374 Reply Likes
The plot hole listed is not a plot hole. Plot holes are something that could not happen. This is just left unexplained. I can see why it was removed.
Photo of Joseph

Joseph

  • 7 Posts
  • 12 Reply Likes
All that IMDB lists on their guide for plot holes is, “Genuine errors in narrative structure”.
By your logic nothing that isn’t explained is a plot hole, whereas I think by definition plot holes aren’t mentioned.
Photo of Adrian

Adrian, Champion

  • 1185 Posts
  • 1374 Reply Likes
But this isn't a genuine error in narrative structure. It's just left unexplained. Are you saying that every point that isn't explicitly spoonfed to the audience is a "plot hole"?
Photo of Joseph

Joseph

  • 7 Posts
  • 12 Reply Likes
Which category would you suggest, then? Other people found it interesting, so despite your rosy opinion I think it would still be nice if it were on the page.
Photo of Adrian

Adrian, Champion

  • 1185 Posts
  • 1374 Reply Likes
It's not a goof at all. Who cares if people find it interesting? Lots of people find things interesting that aren't either factual or interesting.
Photo of Joseph

Joseph

  • 7 Posts
  • 12 Reply Likes
Interesting is entirely subjective. If someone finds something interesting, it isn’t an uninteresting thing to them
Photo of Adrian

Adrian, Champion

  • 1185 Posts
  • 1374 Reply Likes
Plot hole is entirely objective. This is not a plot hole. Who cares if people subjectively find it interesting?
Photo of Joseph

Joseph

  • 7 Posts
  • 12 Reply Likes
The problem is, I’m entirely unconvinced by your argument that it isn’t a plot hole. In my mind, it’s a major error in the writing of the film. It makes absolutely no sense within the universe, it’s a clear plot hole. But I know I can’t convince you otherwise.
Photo of Jeorj Euler

Jeorj Euler

  • 7225 Posts
  • 9397 Reply Likes
Photo of Jeorj Euler

Jeorj Euler

  • 7225 Posts
  • 9397 Reply Likes
The IMDb guide emphasizes error, implying contradiction, rather than missing pieces of information surrounding completely plausible acts (based on established fictional rules or otherwise non-fictional rules) that may have a world of explanations behind them. However, it is not entirely clear that gaps in causation are disqualified. Yet again, in both reality and fantasy, there is the concept of coincidence, which is not indicative of an error in history, testimony or storytelling.
Photo of J.

J.

  • 402 Posts
  • 612 Reply Likes
I've always thought that "plot hole" refers to an important piece of information that is left unexplained. The word "hole" supports that definition: it makes me think of a hole in a piece of fabric.

But I'm not sure that a plot hole is a goof.

In NORTH BY NORTHWEST (1959), a crop-duster plane chases Thornhill through the cornfield. We're never told why the villains chose this clumsy method of assassination when they could have driven up to him in a car and shot him.

In VERTIGO (1958), Madeleine gets into her hotel room without the hotel manager seeing her enter; she exits without either the manager or Scotty seeing her leave. We never find out how.

Hitchcock called this sort of thing an "icebox scene." Icebox scenes are little mysteries that you suddenly wonder about after you get home from the movie and start rummaging through the icebox. "Wait a minute, how did Kim Novak get past the hotel manager?"

The contributor guide makes it clear that IMDb generally doesn't like this kind of goof. Maybe they should eliminate the category altogether or rename it "plot contradictions."

(None of this is meant to suggest an opinion on whether Joseph's goof for MORTAL ENGINES should be restored. I don't have an opinion on it.)
Photo of Will

Will, Official Rep

  • 3787 Posts
  • 4751 Reply Likes
We agree, this isn't a plot hole per se as there is no contradiction here.

I hope this helps.

Regards,
Will
Photo of J.

J.

  • 402 Posts
  • 612 Reply Likes
Joseph, why don't you resubmit this information as an FAQ entry? Something along the lines of this:

Q: How is Shrike able to track Hester?
A: At several points, Shrike manages to catch up with Hester, even going so far as to know which specific room she is in at Airhaven. Yet it is never explained how he is able to effortlessly track her over Europe.
Photo of Joseph

Joseph

  • 7 Posts
  • 12 Reply Likes
That’s a great suggestion. I didn’t actually realise that section existed. Thank you.