MovieChat Forums > Chuck (2007) Discussion > Possible Plothole?

Possible Plothole?


In S05E01, Morgan has been with the intersect glasses. Chuck was sad since it meant for him.There Ellie checked it out and said to chuck that "unfortunately,it had only 1 charge which was consumed by chuck"

The same glasses was later used by Sarah in S05E11.So how is it possible for her to use it since all intersect upload charges were exhausted?.

Also it would had been obvious strategy for sarah to decieve Quinn by agreeing to work for her and kicking his ass when he un-cuff her. Cmon, She was a so called "Trained Assassin/Spy".

Lastly,want to see just finished the chuck yesterday and am also suffering from same "PCSD"(Post CHUCK Stress Order) and wish It returns someday.To even think this masterpiece of a show struggled to be come back for nearly 3 of its season is a shame,while stupid show like arrow(it was awesome in season 1) and Vampire Diaries are going strong.(some of those shows I did watched).

reply

I think the glasses thing is a plot hole but for a different reason.

The glasses were blanks loaded with the intersect files and each pair could only be used once (we saw a chip burn out in the glasses when Chuck used the last pair he recovered from Quinn), so the plot had access to the intersect revolved around having unused pairs of glasses.

Yet in the bullet train episode (S5E11) we saw Chuck try to build an ad-hoc pair of glasses from objects he stole from the passengers, so he could load it with a suppression device for Sarah to stop her flashing.

So the plot hole is if Chuck could have used the suppression device on Sarah without any special hardware how come he couldn't use a similar device to restore Sarah's memories?

We saw from earlier intersect uploads that it really only needed a display device and the images themselves were the important aspect due to how the data was encoded into them for the brain to access.

reply

Glasses Sarah used were similarily faulty, but were different than what Morgan used.

reply