MovieChat Forums > Flightplan (2005) Discussion > 28 Major plot holes - please add others

28 Major plot holes - please add others


I know that there are already several threads here mentioning plot holes but there are, amazingly, people who still seem to think this is a good film and people complaining about said plot holes are missing the point.

It's true that there is many a good film with one or two holes in the plot, sometimes even gaping ones. But they always allow for the suspension of disbelief.

This turkey has the plot holes coming so thick and fast that even if you continually adjust your disbelief level you just cannot see the film making the slightest sense.

Here is a composite list of all the plot holes I noticed and a few that others have spotted. Please add any more that you know of.

1) Get husband onto roof of building

2) Push him off without anyone seeing

3) Know in advance exactly where the body will be taken

4) Risk involving the morgue director in the plan

5) Know which flight the coffin will travel on

6) Ensure marshal gets assigned to that flight

7) Ensure girlfriend gets assigned to that flight

8) Get explosives into a coffin for which you don't know the combination

9) Rely on a woman and child getting on board without anyone noticing the child.

10) Rely on the child not speaking to anyone, not making any noise, not asking for anything.

11) Rely on their being empty seats on the packed inaugural flight of a new aircraft type

12) Rely on the mother taking the child to lie on those seats

13) Rely on no one seeing the child's removal

14) Rely on no one noticing a man putting his hand into a sleeping woman's trousers

15) Rely on mother going ballistic rather than just calmly talking to people and making requests

16) Somehow manage to get the computerised check-in systems to 'forget' the girl

17) Rely on the mother not requesting the airport authorities check the inevitable CCTV footage

18) Rely on the corrupt stewardess being the one assigned to search the section with the kidnapped child

19) Rely on the captain/airline contacting the morgue (to ask what?) rather than the hospital or police and thus get the fake information

20) Rely on no one, immediately on hearing of the child's death, asking why her coffin is not on board

21) Rely on the mother escaping and opening a coffin that she believes is sealed when there are dozens upon dozens of other luggage containers in the hold

22) Rely on the authorities agreeing to the ransom without talking to the so-called terrorist

23) Rely on them actually transferring the money - how would an alleged terrorist have known if it had been transfered

24) Finding a way to get the money when the authorities knew exactly where it was

25) Rely on the exploding child leaving no trace with an amount of explosive so small it didn't even hurt two people who were no more than ten metres away when it went off. That would not happen.

26) Expect someone with no explosives training to know that the explosives present were of such low power that they would be safe no more than 10 metres away

27) Have corrupt stewerdess remain on plane (necessary to distract Kylie so that the marshal could free and arm himself). How would that have been explained later? Why would she even have remained?


Plus:

Kyle was a propulsion engineer. You know, those big things with the spinny insides that hang down from the wings on pylons. There is no way that would have given here any detailed knowledge of the aircraft internal layout, electrical systems or avionics.



reply

I know that there are already several threads here mentioning plot holes but there are, amazingly, people who still seem to think this is a good film and people complaining about said plot holes are missing the point.

It's true that there is many a good film with one or two holes in the plot, sometimes even gaping ones. But they always allow for the suspension of disbelief.

This turkey has the plot holes coming so thick and fast that even if you continually adjust your disbelief level you just cannot see the film making the slightest sense.

Here is a composite list of all the plot holes I noticed and a few that others have spotted. Please add any more that you know of.

1) Get husband onto roof of building
- Why is this so unbelievable?

2) Push him off without anyone seeing
- Again - in the dead of night, who is going to be looking at the roof?

3) Know in advance exactly where the body will be taken
- Reasonable to assume that a death in a certain area would be dealt with by a certain morgue...

4) Risk involving the morgue director in the plan
- Money! (Why should a morgue director be so incorruptible?)

5) Know which flight the coffin will travel on
- You could not guess this, but you could find it out once the booking has been made.

6) Ensure marshal gets assigned to that flight
- Difficult, but not neccesarily impossible

7) Ensure girlfriend gets assigned to that flight
- See above

8) Get explosives into a coffin for which you don't know the combination
- Morgue director konws the combination...

9) Rely on a woman and child getting on board without anyone noticing the child.
- Agree this is implausible

10) Rely on the child not speaking to anyone, not making any noise, not asking for anything.
- Again, implausible

11) Rely on their being empty seats on the packed inaugural flight of a new aircraft type
- did they rely on this? or was it just a bit of luck? could have waited until Jodie Foster went to the toilet.

12) Rely on the mother taking the child to lie on those seats

13) Rely on no one seeing the child's removal
- risky, but kids get snatched...

14) Rely on no one noticing a man putting his hand into a sleeping woman's trousers
- Pickpockets? plane full of sleeping people or watching films.

15) Rely on mother going ballistic rather than just calmly talking to people and making requests
- She would always go ballistic eventually. Do you have kids?

16) Somehow manage to get the computerised check-in systems to 'forget' the girl
- Stewardess does not even put it through the computerised system.

17) Rely on the mother not requesting the airport authorities check the inevitable CCTV footage
- They're not going to be able to see it on the plane! Why would they do that if they think she is crazy?

18) Rely on the corrupt stewardess being the one assigned to search the section with the kidnapped child
- She would simply volunteer to search that section.

19) Rely on the captain/airline contacting the morgue (to ask what?) rather than the hospital or police and thus get the fake information
- Give the captain the details of the morgue, he will think it is a credible source of info.

20) Rely on no one, immediately on hearing of the child's death, asking why her coffin is not on board
- They would have to go down to the hold to check and the captain did not want that to happen.

21) Rely on the mother escaping and opening a coffin that she believes is sealed when there are dozens upon dozens of other luggage containers in the hold
- Of course she is going to check there, in the movie, it felt like a totally reasonable assumption.

22) Rely on the authorities agreeing to the ransom without talking to the so-called terrorist
- Agree - this is bolx

23) Rely on them actually transferring the money - how would an alleged terrorist have known if it had been transfered
- Pretty shaky this.

24) Finding a way to get the money when the authorities knew exactly where it was
- Could be tricky

25) Rely on the exploding child leaving no trace with an amount of explosive so small it didn't even hurt two people who were no more than ten metres away when it went off. That would not happen.
- Doesn't matter. If you have got away with it to this point, why would you be under suspicion? Just goes to prove how crazy she is...

26) Expect someone with no explosives training to know that the explosives present were of such low power that they would be safe no more than 10 metres away
- Behind a thick steel door. Calculated risk.

27) Have corrupt stewerdess remain on plane (necessary to distract Kylie so that the marshal could free and arm himself). How would that have been explained later? Why would she even have remained?
- This was pretty stupid, surely they would have noticed that one of the flight crew was still on the plane.


Plus:

Kyle was a propulsion engineer. You know, those big things with the spinny insides that hang down from the wings on pylons. There is no way that would have given here any detailed knowledge of the aircraft internal layout, electrical systems or avionics.
- She would certainly know her way round a plane if she is intimately involved in the design & development.


Don't get me wrong, I don't think this was a great movie by any means, but it had a certain air of suspense and was entertaining enough for 90 mins. Foster and Bean really carried this though and it only really went downhill once it was revealed that the Marshall was the terrorist.

reply

You seem to have missed the point with most of these, that being that they were not completely impossible but that they were RELYING on them.

I suspect I could drive into town drunk, well over the speed limit, shoplift items from a couple of shops, have a meal in a resturaunt and scratch the paintwork on a car that I didn't like, all without getting caught.

But I would not RELY on not getting caught if the consequences would likely be a life sentence.

"- She would certainly know her way round a plane if she is intimately involved in the design & development."

No.

A propulsion engineer is concerned with engines NOT the insides of the plane. Propulsion engineers typically work for Engine manufacturers rather than Aeroplane makers.

I agree that The acting carried the film along. I didn't feel I'd wasted 90 mins of my life but I can't understand why they would make something with such a turkey of a story arc.

It seems they were RELYING on people making a lot of excuse for them.

reply

If they were so ruthless why bother keeping the child alive but drugged...just to blow her up later? Did I miss something?

reply

Not only that ...

It was a British pilot flying an plane from an unknown airline from Germany to New York - maybe, but probably not, a US airline. Does every flight with a US destination have a sky marshall attached ? Somehow, I don't think so.

They came down on an airfield in Newfoundland. Last time I checked an atlas,
that was in Canada. How come they've scrambled all these FBI agents who (officially) have no jurisdiction outside the US ? Does Canada not have any law enforcement agents other than the Mounties ? Or are we just supposed to assume that the film was primarily made for a US audience and therefore familiar US symbols would satisfy anyone who saw it ? Lazy assumption, if so

I quite enjoyed it, but the plot holes are gaping ...

reply

In Canada, the RCMP would probably have jurisdiction, as airports fall under federal authority.

reply

I think most of your plot holes have been sewn up by the refutations, leaving only few valid ones.
Have you seen many thriller films? There are tons of movies with far more plot holes.

reply

No, there are not. Name one film with more plot holes, and point them all out. Anyone with a brain and the ability to think beyond that of a mongoloid can see none of these plot holes have been refuted. This movie should be burned and its makers imprisoned.

You've got the touch! You've got the power!

reply

None? I beg to differ. #15 was definitely refuted.

--------
My top 250: http://www.flickchart.com/Charts.aspx?user=SlackerInc&perpage=250

reply

think most of your plot holes have been sewn up by the refutations

I disagree, most of those plot holes are fairly stupid. You CAN come up with reasons for them, but none of those reasons are anything more than weak apologetics; trying to patch up stuff that doesn't make sense.

reply

Look at the so-called refutation of Item 26

Expect someone with no explosives training to know that the explosives present were of such low power that they would be safe no more than 10 metres away
- Behind a thick steel door. Calculated risk.

THICK STEEL DOOR????? Inside an aeroplane???? Why would any aircraft builder put a thick steel door (which of course is HEAVY) within the pressure hull? Modern aircraft interior structures are largely composites, which don't have much resistance to bomb blasts, and elsewhere they are aluminium. Use of steel is minimal for reasons of weight.

Admit it, the movie was complete crap and an insult to the intelligence of viewers. I have to ask, why have so many reviewers here absolutely slated it as rubbish, and yet awarded 6 or even 7 stars??? That has grossly inflated its average score to around 6, which lured me and my wife into the preparedness to endure it on TV on a quiet evening when we were too tired to do much else other than drink cask wine. We should have gone to bed, but sat through to the end wondering how on earth they were going to make any sort of conclusion out of such a bumblingly lame mess.

Fellow reviewers, have you forgotten that to be a thriller, we have to be captivated by the story, and not spend all our time thinking "how dumb is that?" To mention the word "Hitchcock" in the same breath at ShytePan is a massive affront to that great master of suspense, who must be turning in his grave that this piece of garbage has been compared with his work.

reply

Well remember Jodie is a propulsion engineer and designed the engines for a flying version of the Queen Mary. For a mammoth aircraft made of steel reinforced concrete and stainless steel they are overkill.

Also note that when she blew up the plane the engines weren'r even phased.

reply

Unless the plane is propelled by a nuclear reactor, requiring feet-thick radiation shielding, there's no reason a passenger plane would have "thick steel doors" that would shield bomb blasts.

reply

I have to ask, why have so many reviewers here absolutely slated it as rubbish, and yet awarded 6 or even 7 stars??? That has grossly inflated its average score to around 6, which lured me and my wife into the preparedness to endure it on TV on a quiet evening when we were too tired to do much else other than drink cask wine. We should have gone to bed, but sat through to the end wondering how on earth they were going to make any sort of conclusion out of such a bumblingly lame mess.


While I agree there are a lot of plot holes, how can you possibly blame people who liked it enough to rate it at 6 or 7 for the fact that you sat through until the end, despite your crippling fatigue, all the while realizing the plot was "bumblingly lame?" Your choice, your problem. You were sitting at home in front of the TV. Click! Problem solved! ;)

reply

Of course they were taking big risks and relying on them. They're trying to steal 50 million dollars! As far as robbery attempts go, this carried less risk than holding up a bank. the only really implausible part is the authorities simply believing an air marshal, and also believing that she was a hijacker when there was no evidence until then to point to it. Other than that, quite an original plan and it almost went off.

reply

Just saw the movie and I thought it was decent until the end. I missed part of the begining but I agree with all the plotholes except 15.

reply

What I find just as implausable as all those mentioned plot holes, is that one person is continually allowed to go balistic, run up and down the aisles , pound on the cockpit door, shouting and scaring the crap out of a huge planeload of passengers. I'm pretty sure the crew would strap the person into a seat and drug them down. As a passenger I would have insisted on it. And while we're at it, chuck those two nosey kids out the door, no parachutes =)

reply

Agreed, there is no way they would allow her to go this crazy this many times before strapping her down, post 9/11. One 'freak out', maybe, but two 'freak outs' would be pushing it, certainly not what she got away with.

It was kind of enjoyable in a kind of 'how absurd will this get' kind of way.

reply

Wow, I mean...wow.

It's official, you apologists are asbolute *beep* morons.

reply

It's a film for ffs, it was quite enjoyable in my opinion. If you approach every movie with "THIS HAS TO BE PLAUSIBLE IN EVERY WAY" you can't enjoy any of them.

reply

Suspension of belief has to be believable.

If the "suspension" actually draws attention to the fact it's ridiculous, it does the OPPOSITE.

reply

Actually.. propulsion engineers are hired by aircraft companies all the time. I'm sure engine manufacturers hire them in order to build the engine, but in assembling the plane they are necessary, too. Aside from that, lots of people have vague or even specific job titles, but they still have other tasks in their workload. This is especially true of engineers and other science-related professions. Most, if not all, engineers are multi-discipline, and it stands to reason that someone building an engine for a certain type of plane would need to know how the plane is set up and be involved in the design process...

But there are a lot of plot holes aside from the ones that can be written off. I don't really thinks it takes away from the movie personally, but I can understand how people who get really worked up in the details might be irritated. Most movies like this have many plot holes if you take the time to look for them, and I don't recommend looking. Who knows what was taken out in editing or what the writers had in mind.

I liked the movie, not terribly much, but the suspense of Jodie's character was great. I was really upset with the movie when I started to think she had imagined bringing her daughter on board, and I'm glad they didn't turn it into a stupid thing like that.


"I don't patronize bunny rabbits."

reply

2) Push him off without anyone seeing
- Again - in the dead of night, who is going to be looking at the roof?

Did they say that it was the middle of the night? I'm only wondering because the (admittedly fake) death certificate for the girl listed her death at 2.36pm. (The exact quote is "She died from internal injuries at 2.36pm.) Sure, she could have been in surgery for hours. Still, I just don't remember them saying that the accident (=murder) happened during the night.

reply

I agree that numbers 8, 15, and 21 don't belong on the list, but the others certainly do.

number 4 -- morticians make enough. Especially a mortician working in a metropolitan city. They can easily make a comfortable upper middle class income.

number 19 -- in the USA I'm almost certain that the proper protocol is to contact the relevant hospital. I can't imagine why it would be different in Germany. Even if the protocol is different in Germany why would it involve the mortician? Doesn't make sense to me as that simply isn't one of the services they provide.

The movie was a really good idea that was squandered in an attempt to take it further than it should have gone. The director or screenwriter could have toned down several areas of the story, and it would have been even more intense due to the increased plausibility of the events. I tried to enjoy it, but it's difficult to get past the numerous problems. oh well

reply

I have some further rebuttals.

7) Ensure girlfriend gets assigned to that flight
- See above

- In Australia, flight attendants work a set of routes routinely, she most like work berlin-usa flight every week.

9) Rely on a woman and child getting on board without anyone noticing the child.
- Agree this is implausible
10) Rely on the child not speaking to anyone, not making any noise, not asking for anything.
- Again, implausible

-Kind of implausible, it is very well known to detectives that eye witness accounts can be extremely inaccurate as the brain has the ability to "fill in" missing details and convince ourselves it was true. Point is, if everyone thinks she wasn't there people could honestly believe they never saw her carrying anything or saw her carrying a bag etc.
- Plus there was that little kid at the end who said she saw the girl.

11) Rely on their being empty seats on the packed inaugural flight of a new aircraft type
- did they rely on this? or was it just a bit of luck? could have waited until Jodie Foster went to the toilet.

- I've flown on a double decker airbus and it was the most empty flight I ever flew (red eye as well), my 5 person family had an entire row to themselves.

12) Rely on the mother taking the child to lie on those seats

- he put the idea in her head by mentioning them at the beginning.

25) Rely on the exploding child leaving no trace with an amount of explosive so small it didn't even hurt two people who were no more than ten metres away when it went off. That would not happen.
- Doesn't matter. If you have got away with it to this point, why would you be under suspicion? Just goes to prove how crazy she is...

-not sure if they exist in reality but it is confirmed they are in a 'non combustible' port, which she new about.

also read that a few people said she would have no knowledge of plane layout
1. Her husband was an aviation engineer, may have had influence
2. Not that hard to do research, she is obviously very good at her job and has a passion, my father is not a pilot but can tell you what year and model any plane is by looking at it and distinguish many features internally.

reply

[deleted]

lol, you came onto imdb to pretty much read what happens in the film 8 minutes before you watch it..?

reply

rely on both of them falling asleep?

reply

Rely on the her not closing the coffin and relying on the captain letting him go down there alone in the first place.

reply

To be fair he said "Don't" and aimed the gun at her, when she tried to close it.

reply

Fairly complete list, and a good summary that shows exactly how the script was written. They came up with the situation they wanted; a woman on a plane where her daughter disappears completely and noone belives her. So far so good, that sure is a tense situation that will be frightening, especially for parents. But then came the problem... How on earth can you make that happen, so that it lasts long enough to make a movie? So they piled up far-fetched reasons, each leading to new questions... and the whole plot is layer by layer of band aid for the previous one.

Sure you can make every step remotely *possible* - but not believable. Not even an idiot would go for such a stupid plan. But the plan really is "how can we make the heroine get into this situation". And the solution is less than elegant.

reply

You are a complete idiot, nothing more to say. Learn the definition of "plot hole".

-----
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1139797/ - Best movie ever made.

reply

ROFLMAO.

In intelligent and cogent response that advances your case considerably.

NOT!

reply

I agree with the O.P.

Flightplan (2005) is a tragically bad remake of the Hitchcock film, The Lady Vanishes (1938).

Admittedly, The Lady Vanishes plot depends on viewers ignoring that taking an old woman prisoner would be much easier from her hotel room (that she occupies by herself) the night before, rather than on a moving train. However, it's not a huge deal as at least the bad guys can easily get off the train, if need be. As the Lady does not know anyone on the train and is traveling by herself, it's somewhat plausible that she will not be missed. Besides, as it is near or in wartime, it's just another risk taken in war.

The crap that is Flightplan takes the same idea but the twist is that instead of a woman, it's a young girl. So, the viewer needs to move past:

- That the best idea smart people have for taking a girl hostage is on an airplane. I guess that working a convoluted involved plot in the air beats a plot either before or after the girl reaches the ground. After all, it's not like if things go poorly, they are stuck on an airplane ... oops, yeah they are.

- While Hitchcock's film relies on it being plausible that an unassuming old woman might not be noticed or missed, this piece of junk has her traveling with HER MOTHER. Beside that, it depends on people on flights not noticing children. Hmmm, funny ... if anything people notice on planes it's children as they are concerned they might be noisy. Btw, what's the backup plan if someone noticing the girl? Those people involved with messing with the flight list have WHAT for a remaining career (let alone Federal jail time). I mean really, you work for an airline, is there any amount of money someone could offer you for aiding in the kidnapping of a girl on an airplane? Heck, I'd just sell them a better plan.

- Even if things go well, how in the heck do they think they are getting that girl off the plane or better yet, How in the heck do they think there is not going to be a total lockdown on a plane involving a missing child in this day and age, even if there is only a one percent chance that it might be true?

reply

What the heck? His/her definition of a plot hole is exactly correct, as about 98% of this thread has agreed with all those plotholes, so why don't you learn the definition of a plot hole or at least try to refute some of them?

"Contempt loves the silence, it thrives in the dark" -Merchant

reply

What the heck? His/her definition of a plot hole is exactly correct, as about 98% of this thread has agreed with all those plotholes, so why don't you learn the definition of a plot hole or at least try to refute some of them?


I don't know where/how you "learn" your definition of a what a plot hole is, but let's try to draw a distinction between the two categories below:

1. "Goofing up" by employing bad screenplay, bad directing, bad storyline, and "gratuitous coincidences" (Eg.: Rely on the child not speaking to anyone, not making any noise, not asking for anything; Being able to buy off the morgue director; Rely on the corrupt stewardess being the one assigned to search the section with the kidnapped child , etc.).

Also, a "lack of intelligence" in the characters, which is, at times, akin to bad storyline (Eg.: On hearing of the child's death, not asking anyone why her coffin is not on board (Kyle); Rely on the captain/airline contacting the morgue rather than the hospital or police (El Capitan); Keeping Julia alive, only to kill her later (Air Marshall), etc.)

2. Internal inconsistencies/contradictions (Eg.: Have corrupt "stewerdess" remain on plane - despite everyone else forcedly disembarking)

You may note that the bulk of these so-called "plot holes" fall under point 1, yet very few fall exclusively under point 2. In my opinion, only point 2 constitutes the definition of a plot hole.

Then, we have more gems such as "fact-based" flaws. Among others:

1. Whether Kyle knew the aircraft design/layout (Kyle, who referred to herself as a propulsion engg, should neither know, nor give a sh!t about the aircraft design/layout, under normal circumstances)
2. Rely on the...amount of explosive [being] so small it didn't even hurt two people who were no more than ten metres away when it went off(combination of "gratuitous coincidence" and assuming that the previous point is true)
3. How come they've scrambled all these FBI agents...in "Canada" (Google 'FBI Hostage Rescue Team')

Although they may seem silly/improbable, there is occasionally a case to be made for the above category of statements, if we are given additional useful information/evidence.



Anyway....I'm sure someone may have already brought this up - but why exactly did the perpetrators need Kyle? Wouldn't they be in a better situation if the victim knew absolutely nothing about the plane?

reply

Good list.

I LOVED the user comment I'm about to paste here so much that I think they should pay more attention to this during the eventual remake, using thisuser comment as the plot outline:

I have a cunning plan…, 19 May 2007

Author: paulpensom from London, England


*** This comment may contain spoilers ***


This must be close to the plot synopsis:

Man: "You know we're always saying we could use 50 million dollars?

Woman: "Yes"

Man: "Well I have a cunning plan."

Woman: "What's that then?"

Man: "First of all we need to find an aeronautics engineer working in a foreign country, with a child, and an encyclopedic knowledge of the layout of a particular long-haul plane."

Woman: "Why's that?"

Man: "Well then, you see, we murder her spouse, in such a way as it looks like an accident."

Woman: "What for?"

Man (exasperated): "Well then of course, we bribe the mortuary assistant at the hospital into letting us place explosives inside the casket."

Woman: "But why?"

Man: "I'm coming to that. Then we wait until the woman decides to return the the U.S."

Woman: "But what if she doesn't?"

Man: "She just will, okay? So anyway, when she decides to return home we find out what flight she's on. Hopefully she is not only placed on the type of plane of which she has encyclopedic knowledge, and flying with the airline of which you're a flight attendant, but also on the same flight as her dead husband's casket. Are you following?"

Woman: "I think so."

Man:"Good, we're nearly there. Then all we need to do is falsify the checking-in information to remove all record of her daughter, make sure she gets on the plane half an hour before everybody else, ensure there is a row of empty seats behind her and get me on the flight, sitting nearby."

Woman: "And then?"

Man (laughing): "Now this the cunning part. She takes the empty seats, allowing her daughter to sit in the aisle seat, then when she goes to sleep, all I have to do is steal a food trolley, stuff the daughter into it and hide her in the hold. Oh, and did I mention that we must ensure that nobody on the entire plane sees the daughter?"

Woman: "Isn't this getting a little far fetched?"

Man (angry): "What do'you mean? It's a great plan? All I have to do then is remove the child's boarding pass from wherever the mother is keeping it without waking her, assist her search for the missing child in the guise of an Air Marshal, convince the captain that the woman is mad and that the child died with her father (through a forged note from the mortician), and wait for the mother to escape from my custody.

Woman:"Escape, why?"

Man: "Because the casket can only be unlocked by her, so once she's unlocked it I can set the timer on the explosives. From there we're home and dry. I merely have to recapture her, convince the captain that she's actually not mad but a hijacker who wants 50 million dollars and give the Captain our account number, asking him to ensure the money is paid straight in. Oh, Then we land, everybody gets off the plane, I shoot the mother and blow up the daughter and nobody is any the wiser. We walk away with a cool 50 million. Simple eh?"

Never before have I wasted two hours of my life on quite such egregious nonsense.

reply

---
Man:"Good, we're nearly there. Then all we need to do is falsify the checking-in information to remove all record of her daughter, make sure she gets on the plane half an hour before everybody else, ensure there is a row of empty seats behind her and get me on the flight, sitting nearby."
--

Her daughter was never put on the checking in information. The stewardess ensured this.



--
Man: "Because the casket can only be unlocked by her, so once she's unlocked it I can set the timer on the explosives. From there we're home and dry. I merely have to recapture her, convince the captain that she's actually not mad but a hijacker who wants 50 million dollars and give the Captain our account number, asking him to ensure the money is paid straight in. Oh, Then we land, everybody gets off the plane, I shoot the mother and blow up the daughter and nobody is any the wiser. We walk away with a cool 50 million. Simple eh?"
---

He can unlock the casket. He got the code probably from the mortician. Just like the letter saying her daughter is dead from mortician... even for
He just needed her to escape to make it seem as if she is 'going to get the detonator' in case there are questions about it later. Not implausible.
Killing her husband and finding out one what flight hes being shipped off on isn't to difficult. Bribing the mortician wouldn be easy, if that morgue manager is willing to make some cash.


--
Man (laughing): "Now this the cunning part. She takes the empty seats, allowing her daughter to sit in the aisle seat, then when she goes to sleep, all I have to do is steal a food trolley, stuff the daughter into it and hide her in the hold. Oh, and did I mention that we must ensure that nobody on the entire plane sees the daughter?"
---

He doesn't have to rely on nobody seeing her daughter.
They wouldn't do a proper search of the plane till it lands, by then the terrorist threat would already have been called in.

She came on the plane early before anyone else, so it is likely that no one on the plane saw her daughter come in (but as for not seeing her till everybody goes to sleep is another thing). Kid napping her daughter while everyone is sleeping is risky, but possible. Inject her some lethal poison or sedative and put her into the cart is risky, but possible (and taking her daughters plane ticket from her pocket and her daughters bag) So you'd have to make sure that everyone is sleeping.

You have missed the real plot holes of the film... like why the stewardess was still on the plane once everybody left, don't you think they would have noticed this? Why was the stewardess still on it anyway... how would he know if the authorities would agree to the ransom without talking to the so-called terrorist... how could he rely on them actually transferring the money - how would an alleged terrorist have known if it had been transferred?

There's also believing that coffins aren't x-rayed. Seems like a real security flaw. Also believing that there is a ventilation shaft inside of the ladies toilet room. That is also a another big security risk.

Then there's believing that she would hit him by surprise... without him shooting her dead right on the spot and putting the detonator in her hands like he planned for. A villain with this much planning wouldn't make such a simple mistake.

The movie isn't implausible, just unlikely

reply

I think you are naive beyond reason, the movie is totally implausible, verging on impossible.

He doesn't have to rely on nobody seeing her daughter.


Dont be silly of course he does. His plan goes up in smoke once she has been identified as a passenger. So, as soon as the girl gets up to use the toilet, for example, his "plan" is finished. How did he even know that the mother would leave her alone, or fall asleep?? How did he know where to find the girls boarding pass to steal it???

Also, the story is that the child died with her father, in which case, why are there not two coffins?

The plot of this film is beyond stupid.



"Come on, Doc. We`re not talking about a band-aid or a tube a Ungentine"

reply

ROFLMAO!!!!!!

Thank you so much for posting this comment. You made my day!

reply

This post was written 3 years ago, but I have to take my hat off to you sir/madam, as this is the funniest post I've read in a long time and sums this movie up so well.

I'm writing this signature in bold so people know it's a signature

reply

Completely agree with the users above. You win!! What a waste of potential.

reply

Excellent, Yarko. Thank you for reposting PaulPensom's comment. When you see it from the plotter's point of view, it all becomes so plausible, LOL.

reply

Apologies if this has been mentioned previously. But a major reason for the terrorists' plan falling down and ruining the entire film:

Coffins on planes are lined with zinc, not lead. Precisely so that they CAN be x-rayed. Consequently the explosives would show up no problem.

I found this out while reading about those women who tried to wheelchair their dad onto a flight (to Germany I think?) when he had passed away. the article detailing how a corpse is supposed to be handled mentioned zinc lined coffins.

If this werene't the case, Terry Taliban would be flying their deceased relatives all over the place and smuggling all sorts of stuff with impunity.

P.S. Apart from Civilization, what else have I missed?

reply

if the mortician was involved, zinc could be replaced with lead, no?
the thing is, now you couldn't put anything blocking examination through security-
lead use in any way would merely demand attention...


"The best time in life is somewhere between the second and third Martini"

reply

I saw a movie once that took place over a period of a whole year and not once did any of the characters eat or drink anything. Talk about a major plot hole. Then there was this other movie that showed people getting off of a bus but they never showed them getting on. Again, major plot hole. Oh yeah, then there was a scene in this one movie where someone was talking on the telephone but it they never showed it ringing or the guy picking it up.

I'm guessing you don't enjoy many movies if you consider more than 4 or 5 of your "plot holes" to actually be plot holes.

reply

The things you mentioned are not plot holes. They could pass off as chronological inconsistencies, but won't in most cases.

There are two major problems with the plot of Flightplan:

First, it is most unlikely that the actions and events required for the plan happen with the exact outcome. There are just too many ways this could go wrong, so it is unlikely someone would try it in the first place.

Second, in Hollywood, they often use convenient plot elements to make a story happen, mostly ignoring real life so much it hurts. In Flightplan there just too many: e.g. coffins don't get scanned; there's a hatch to get to some maintenance shaft; there's a fuse box you can easily manipulate to control something very important; one of the terrorists is a weakling; the airline sends the money without asking any questions.

It is the sheer number of improbabilities in the plan, and of convenient plot elements that make Flightplan an utter mess. We are all used to some improbable elements in an elaborate plan, or to the convenient ventilation shaft (it's been in nearly every action movie), but so many errors and holes are just too much. Then add unexplained wtf-moments like the explosion (that didn't even set of a fire) and you have a *beep* movie.

reply

Your argument is so stupid it is painful.

reply

This is so good, I need to get my cable turned 'cause this junk is on regular tv now. 5/10

Look at the night sky, where does it end?
http://imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=15368636

reply