MovieChat Forums > Fargo (2014) Discussion > Plot holes in season 1??

Plot holes in season 1??

posted 7 years ago by stonekeeper_ever
15 replies | jump to latest

When Malvo kidnaps the guy at his office in front of everyone, the security camera had it all on tape but later on the police dpt. only have the photo to work with. We can still see that its him but apparently, not enough for a conviction. So why couldn't they get a hold of an important piece of evidence concerning a crime???

The only answer is because the plot could not work if things happended as they should've in real life...

Thoughts?
Any other plot holes you found?

Excuse my English, I am French-Canadian

[–] denblauenochsen 7 years ago

What do you mean? It's not like they know his name early on and his name is probably not Lorne Malvo. He evades the police the entire time. The whole point is that they can't capture him, not that he couldn't be found guilty.

of course, there is the early episode eating the blame, where lorne lets himself be captured but in doing so clears himself of suspicion and ruins the credibility of Gus and Molly.

[–] stonekeeper_ever 7 years ago

No no no, when Malvo puts on the glasses and start his 'act', Gus shows the other cops the picture and they say its not clear enough to convince him. Come back when you have more proof. Hence the '' Your making a mistake''.

Now my point is, in reality, Gus could easily find the tape from the kidnapping where we clearly see that its Malvo. Where is that tape?? We see it once and then they never mention it again.

Is it clearer?

Excuse my English, I am French-Canadian

[–] denblauenochsen 7 years ago

Ok, I see what you're saying now. But I don't think the whole video would've changed anything, so for the convenience of a tv show that has to end in an hour, they just say the photo isn't good enough.

Malvo completely convinces the people in charge of whether he is free to go that he is a preacher named Frank Peterson who couldn't possibly do any of what Gus (who has no credibility to them) accuses him of.

[–] stonekeeper_ever 7 years ago

But in the video it's obvious beyond any reasonable doubt that it's him (unless he has a twin brother). So why do you think the tape would not be a game-changing evidence?

[–] TaRaNRoD (1579) 6 years ago

"The only answer is because the plot could not work if things happended as they should've in real life..."

Here, you gave the answer yourself in the very first post.

[–] Tabbycat (748) 5 years ago

Shows them going through the tape frame by frame.
Photo was a still from that video, and looked like the best face shot they were going to get.

[–] marka99-1 7 years ago

I think since it was so grainy that it wasn't indisputable evidence. That's the only thing I can figure out.

[–] stonekeeper_ever 7 years ago

I don't dispute the fact that the picture was grainy but the video is very clear that it's him.

[–] denblauenochsen 7 years ago

YOU know it's very clear it was him because you also see Lorne Malvo many other times. The police who are looking at this do not have the same knowledge that you do. Also, the whole point is that they are easily fooled by Malvo's shenanigans. If this were CSI you would be right, but Fargo shows a much more realistic take on police investigating in the US.

[–] stonekeeper_ever 7 years ago

Are you still talking about the picture or the tape?

And why dont you think the tape would be a game-changing evidence?

Excuse my English, I am French-Canadian

[–] denblauenochsen 7 years ago

Talking about both the picture and the tape. I already wrote this above but I will try rephrasing it.

Because you watch the show, you know who Billy Bob Thornton is and the way that he walks, or at least that character, it is obvious to you that that is the same person that Gus brought to the police station.

However, you have to remember that Fargo first of all is kind of a show ABOUT how police make some mistakes. They are not all that good at what they do. The chief played by Bob Odenkirk definitely is not good at this.

Mostly because he is so easily fooled, but also because Lorne completely changes his appearance and so on, he would realistically not think for sure that the man in the video is the same man that was brought in. Even if he does think they look quite similar, the guy has a believable alibi. It's not nearly enough to keep some one under arrest for. Even though GUS (and you) knows that he is Lorne, Gus can not keep him on his own.

[–] stonekeeper_ever 7 years ago

OK OK gotcha.

Excuse my English, I am French-Canadian

[–] Bolchevik (369) 6 years ago

I agree that the video probably wouldn't have change anything. The picture was simply the best shot of it, according to Molly. However, I really believed the picture was more than enough to link Malvo to his false idetntity (minister). First you have Gus 100% percent sure its him. Then the picture which is very clear in my opinion. Plus all the suspicion.

At the time, i thought like Denblauenochsen : I'm simply biased cause I know it's Malvo. But remember in another episode in the film, they show the picture to some random person and he instantly recognize Malvo. That was pretty funny.

[–] FootOfDavros (6688) 4 years ago

I think the biggest plot hole is the bullet pellet wound in Lester's hand.

They find him unconscious, lying next to his slain wife with the police chief likewise lying in a pool of blood upstairs. They take him into hospital, yet somehow, whilst inspecting his comatose body, manage not to see the wound on his hand.

[–] Bloodworth79 (5555) 2 years ago

There is too much of that and its what's turning me off.
Malvo gets too lucky