The guy/husband kepy saying, "No one knows we're here. No one will look for us." But the man who took them out would be known to be missing, as well as the boat that he took them out in. This is the only part that bothered me in an otherwise excellent film.
shareit's not a plot hole, rather a stupid character :)
shareActually I thought that the guide took them out to the regular tourist spot at first. When they didn't seem to catch any fish, he seemed to go off into another part of wilderness that I assume was not a place where his company would take tourists. I was more remote.
shareThe biggest plot hole is why the Croc kept spitting up the women.
"Flying Fish In TNA Create Absolute Chaos"
Team DDBZJSPFU
LOL @ Canedust. But prbronx, even if the guide took the others on a different route, it was still the company boat which would have been missing.
shareI agree - I kept thinking the exact same thing. I still enjoyed the movie - but I could have shown more emotion about losing a 5 dollar bill than that chick did about losing her husband... but that's just my opinion of course.
"The biggest plot hole is why the Croc kept spitting up the women"
Thats not right, this is based on true events and in the events in which it was based on the croc actually did that according to the witnesses.
You Can Get Much Farther In Life With A Kind Word And A Gun Then With A Kind Word Alone
Am I missing something? "spitting up the women"?
shareErm, while I'm not sure what the issue with "spitting up women" is (if you want to see an accurate depiction of Crocodile feeding habits then maybe the discovery channel rather than a monster movie is a better bet?) I'm afraid it isn't true that the croc did this in the real events that inspired the movie.
First, no women were involved (it was 3 men) and second only one was attacked - he was killed and the others described the croc showing off his dead body but it certainly didn't spit him out while still alive.
[deleted]
I surmise the croc wasn't nearly as hungry though still territorial and aggressive.
African Bullfrog aka Pyxie Frog: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymbe6SSnCv8
I think the guy had killed the real owner of the tour company which had incidentally gone defunct. It's then the 3 "tourists" showed up...
share>the last thing you'd do if your sister was just chomped by a croc would be to go back in the water!!
What if she's bleeding to death and your only hope is the boat?
[deleted]
Sure and two alive is better than one. So it is a gamble in the heat of the moment. After this movie was made a guy in Australia spent 8 days in a tree waiting for rescue. I guess we'll never know about the ones that have never been found.
share[deleted]
I enjoyed the film and thought the plot was decent until I read this post. :-D Yup, not only were a tour guide and a boat missing, but also there was a also tourist van parked right at the pier!!. In one day there would have been a massive search and everyone would have lived happily ever after if they didn't fall into water in their sleep. The movie had me on the edge of my seat, though.
shareI disagree that it was sure a rescue mission would find them quickly. I was in Kakadu Park / Australia hiking and boating myself - it is a vast region - and if you stray off the beaten path, you can surely get lost. Even if they did know someone was missing (with the van in the carpark and the boat/guy missing, probably really soon), I seriously doubt that they would be found quickly.
Our own tour guide - a really tough Australian mate - said he was lost once for seven days when he lost his way in Kakadu. He thought he was going to die. Nobody came for him, but finally he stumbled upon a road more or less by accident. The main problem was not so much thirst but looking for food, which took up more energy than he could get back from the few berries, fruits etc. he was able to gather.
A helicopter would not see them as there was dense vegetation. A boat had to look in practically every little tributary. This might take some time. So, basically, I found it utterly realistic that they would not "wait and see" but tried to retrieve the boat.
I also thought that on my first viewing ..because they had missed the first tour boat and that guy offerd to take them out himself
so surely when the original boat returned they would of notced he was missing and a boat had gone and the gun had gone
ALSO ANOTHER THING THAT BUGGED ME (SPOILER)
after she shoots the croc the woman casually wanders around in the water ..she gets the boat and goes back to the tree and collects her dead sister then gets back in the water and puts her in the boat ...HOW THE HELL DID SHE KNOW THERE WAS ONLY ONE CROC??? there could of been a few of them ?? or a family of them??
that annoyed me a little ..was still a good little movie tho!
I thought nothing of this film, I was not terrified much at all. The only thing realy happening is 3 ppl spending what seemed like 2 hours in a tree dying one at a time... The concept of this movie is used before and I dont get why anyone should see it.
You might say to me, its a low budget or based on a true story, but even that accounted for I still see no potential in this movie.
The best part of this movie must be when the crocodile surfaces and just look out with its big eyes, that was infact a bit thrilling...
The closest thing to crazyness, is being normal.
Jan Nic I agree completely with your post.
The best part was when the croc surfaces and kind of stares them down in the tree.
YOu idiots definitely didn't stop to think that the boat they saw was looking for them. Or just how massive mangrove swamps can be.
sharesalt water crocs are extremely territorial and I suspect another big one would not be near this particular territory.
shareThink like a crock would have been handy lol
share[deleted]
I dunno...but the part where that guy finally ventures into the water in order to get the boat was pretty stupid.
Those two girls sitting in the tree watching it all as he swims out. Then he tries to tip the boat, but to no use. So, he dives and tries to tip it from the inside. Quite obvious!
But that one dumb girl think he's getting attacked and drops the rope...wtf??
And then it's like, oh no...I can't reach the rope, it's all over...
Ah...I read about the plot and tuned in as it was airing on tv, that being right now actually. But now, after watching this stupid scene I think I'll rather go for "Sleepers" airing on a another channel:)
I think the guy Billy (Not sure if it was his name) ran the fishing trips but as they arrived Jim said "You've just missed him".
Now when Billy returns and finds Jim gone and a boat missing, surely he must put two and two together and realise something's happened and search?
I know it's an old post. But you are not even close to describing how stupid this scene actually is. He tells her to give him more rope. She throws the whole rope into the water. Why the *beep* does she do this? It makes no sense whatsoever. She is supposed to pull him back in. Or at least keep the rope. Not just throw it into the water. Not even kids are this stupid.
Then when he is finished getting the boat upright and they are finished shouting - great for attracting predators! He just remains in the water. He doesn't even try to swim or get back into the boat. He just remains there with his legs in the water. Just hanging out. And they are all 100% calm and relaxed. Him being in the water? Dude, no problem! 1 minute ago they were shouting like crazy. Then the most obvious thing happens and the 2 women are surpriced by this. WTF? How can they be surpriced. They already know that the croc goes for water that moves. We all know this.
Then afterwards she tries to reach the rope with a really small stick. She just had a 1,5 meter long stick. Why is she not getting that stick back or finding a new one just as big? And why is she swinging the stick like a retard. The rope is 50 cm away from her. Even a child could have reached the rope right away. The just pushes down on the rope. Beats it down. That scene is so damn stupid.
also, what about their car? The police would be called and they'd know who rented that car and the search would be on.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Even if the croc(s) didn`t get them, it could well be that they had been starved before a rescue team would find them. A guide who once got lost in the Kakadu Park told me that dehydration was manageable as he always found water but the effort to look for food took up more energy than he actually gained.
shareWhy didnt they pull the boat to them before trying to turn it over...
shareThey couldn't have pulled the boat towards them. A chain (or something) attached to the boat was snagged on a rock at the bottom of the water. We learned this when Adam tried to flip the boat over. I also think the trio should have given a rescue party longer to find them. Despite the vastness of the area, rescuers might just have been lucky and found them within a few days.
shareThis was not a plot hole.
The dude that took them out was not a tour guide, we never find out exactly who he is but it is made clear that the whole trip is improvised.
He may as well be just a friend of the tour guide who sailed in and saw an opportunity to make a few $$ for all we know. There is absolutely no reason to assume anyone would no where he was or even care if he was missing for that matter.
True, jupnose, they might not know where he was, but if the real Billy came back to the dock, wouldn't he find the rental car there and wonder where the people from it had gone?
The set-up at the start of the movie was a bit odd to me. The tourists asked for Billy in a tone that seemed to imply they'd rung and set up the tour, but then Jim says "Oh, he left five minutes ago" ... was that true? Did Billy even exist? Or was that Billy looking for them in the boat that went past in the swamp the next channel over, when the girls screamed but couldn't get its attention? Looked like there was only one person in that boat, but if he was searching, wouldn't he go a bit more slowly and look around a bit more?
I thought that maybe he didn't know they'd been attacked, or had a problem, but Jim and his boat had been gone overnight, which must have been a bit odd in just a tinny; and if it wasn't *really* dangerous, why did Jim take the gun in such a furtive but grim-jawed manner?
Yeah yeah, I know, it's not great to have all the details of a movie tied up in neat little bundles, but loose ends flapping around aren't so great either, when it means the plot doesn't quite make sense.
You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.
You sit up there in your tree for a couple of days and you are going to be too weak to do anything else anyway. You kill yourself with fear -- the guy was right. Maybe they rescue you, but maybe they don't. People seem to think they got lost in a city park or something. They got lost in an area the size of a small country. And how long until that search is even started? They don't know how long the other guide is going to be gone. Even if the other guide returns, how long until he decides a rescue is needed? And how much of a vast swamp could he possibly cover by himself? And how long until he calls in help? How would the rescuers even know which direction to look? Or how far out? Helicopters aren't going to be able to see them through the trees, so you are going to sit up there in your tree and hope that somebody in aboat accidentally happens by your little tributary?
shareThis discussion thread is all the proof one needs that Black Water did what movies are supposed to do, especially suspense/thriller/horror films.
A major reason for the success of this sort of film is its ability to present the viewer with a scenario, whether realistic or not (axe murderer loose in camp, alien loose on ship, woman trapped in unexplored cave, strange new disease turning people into flesh-eaters) and then show the viewer one group or person's reaction to that scenario. But what really matters isn't what the actors do under those circumstances, but your own *reaction* to the actors' choices.
From the energy with which so many are debating the proper course of action in this film, I would say it has done a marvelous job. I presume you all would watch this film, or one like it such as Open Water, and then during or after the film keep arguing with your friends and telling everyone about how you would have acted differently (I would have made a spear and poked the croc, I would have used fire by friction to set a tree ablaze as a signal, I would have used the rope in the first place to lash together a very long pole, etc., etc.). The discussion goes on and on as each person tries to weigh the relative risks and merits of each little detail of the scenario, while others continue to inject more realism into the circumstances. Perfect! That is one of the things that makes films like this great - their ability to get the audience thinking and talking about such real-life situations.
When you watch "The Edge," for example, the actors make all sorts of survival mistakes. But that is part of what activates the audience's minds, to say, "geez, that was stupid. I would have..." The folks in "Dawn of the Dead" screw up royally, or do they?
In the end, I find it difficult to accept that anyone passionate enough about the issue of proper survival technique in an Australian mangrove under threat of super-giant crocs to come online and post about it at IMDB can really say the movie was terrible precisely *because* the actors got it wrong. Sure, the actors could have sucked, the direction, the effects, even the script in some respects (though personally I think these were all well done, especially for a low-budget indy). But to say, "I didn't like it because I thought the actors did stupid things that I wouldn't have done," completely misses the point that you are having a strong reaction to the film, and that any director or actor would be thrilled by that prospect.
If you're still not convinced, go watch a flick like "Cannibal Holocaust" and try not to have some sort of reaction to it. Better yet, sit through the film and tell everyone that the film sucks because they eat people, and you wouldn't have eaten people because that's not cool. Or, realize that most directors make films to make you react to them, and you have just been treated to the magic that is film.
"Send...more...cops."
No, it's based on a true story and they were found pretty quickly IRL. They would have become a bit thirsty, that's all.
share[deleted]
[deleted]