How DID Andrea come into town early to kill Chuckie Sol? She was clearly on the plane coming in to Gotham the next day. How/why would she do that? Are we to assume she drove into town, killed Chuckie, drove back and then flew in so there would be a record of Andrea Beaumont not arriving until the day after? That makes no sense especially since she was not a known figure whose whereabouts would ever be questioned.
That isn't a plot hole. The film was structured in a way that fooled the audience. Just because the Phantasm scene was placed before Andrea's landing into Gotham doesn't mean it took place before it. It was a ruse to get the viewer off of any possibility that the Phantasm could be her.
Not a plot hole, just cleverly done plot structure.
This film does have a lot of flashbacks. I think his explanation makes sense. They didn't really imply it was a flashback I suppose but I think it was just to try and throw people off. The scene of her coming in on the plane could very well have taken place before Chucky Sol was killed
Who's to say the filmmakers couldn't put the scene out of order?
I understand the continuity means she must have been in Gotham before Chucky Sol died, but nothing says the scene couldn't be out of order to throw the audience off.
In fact, that's the only thing that makes sense.
Requiescat in pace, Krystle Papile. I'll always miss you.
It's perfectly justifiable. The filmmakers wanted to throw the audience off. Hence Andrea appears onscreen to arrive in Gotham later so we never suspect till the big revelation at the end she could possibly be the Phantasm.
The movie Midnight Meat Train did something similar.
It had an opening scene set immediately after the closing scene.
You may not like it, but nothing else makes any logical sense. Thus, the only conclusion to reach is that Andrea arrived in Gotham before the movie initially implies she did so as to make the audience believe her father is the killer.
Requiescat in pace, Krystle Papile. I'll always miss you.
That's your opinion on the matter. Mine differs from yours.
You're emotionally invested in the idea that movies must be strictly linear affairs spoonfeeding the audience everything in logical order. I don't mind having an intentionally misplaced scene to keep me from guessing the film's primary plot twist till the end.
We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this because I'm not emotionally excited enough over it to keep arguing in circles with you on the issue.
Requiescat in pace, Krystle Papile. I'll always miss you.
This is going to be my last post on the subject because you've descended into a pretentious asswipe feeling the need to insult people for disagreeing with your OPINION--which, despite your elitist, combative attitude is nothing approaching a fact.
You don't know what I understand or don't understand. All you know is that you have a preconceived notion no one has any right to disagree with. The very nature of it makes it an opinion, not a fact.
Now I'm done with this conversation. Keep spouting your opinion as fact all you like. No one else who's bothered to post on here agrees. That alone should tell you you're spouting nothing more than an arrogant, pompous opinion--one I have no further interest in reading or debating.
Adios.
Requiescat in pace, Krystle Papile. I'll always miss you.
I agree with ramon. The filmmakers clearly gave it little to no thought at all so while it isn't impossible that a film could play with the timeline to fool an audience, that so clearly was not the case here lol. I think they just figured eh, mostly kids and fanboys will see it, no one will think too much about it. I think we can safely say that it was indeed an actual plot hole though. Even if she did come into town twice, why on earth would she go on a plane again? Makes no sense.