Why didnt Rl Stine just burn all the books instead of locking them up and putting a key in a jar? if he didnt want his monsters he created coming out and causing chaos why didnt he burn all his books before? i know taking this kid movie bit seriously but strange that he would keep them locked up like that.
shareMaybe he didnt want to? He kept them locked up because they were dangerous, but the reason he created them in the first place was to make them into imaginary friends for himself when he was younger. He must be at least a little attached and sympathetic towards them.
shareI dabble in writing fiction and keep everything in a box, even stuff I wrote as a kid. Your stories are your babies.
shareMajor plot hole. It was never explained why he kept those books, knowing how dangerous they were. Obviously, he could never open them to read, so if he really HAD to keep them, when not lock them in a chest and keep it in a safe?
The film was pretty enjoyable, though felt like a mash-up of Gremlins, Small Soldiers and Van Helsing.
As many have said, people don't know what a plot hole is. Something which is not explained is not a plot hole.
shareIn this instance, it is a plot hole. The easiest thing would be to either destroy the books or, if he really had to keep them, lock them in a safe. If a writer fails to explain something critical to the plot and the viewer/reader asks "why doesn't he just do this...?", it becomes a plot hole.
It's the difference between good writing and convenient writing.
No, that is not a plot hole. That is you deciding a different course of action would be more logical. People in real life do not always, or even often, act logically.
A plot hole is an inconsistency in the plot or a contradiction within the flow of the story. There are numerous reasons why he would not destroy the books. And if people don't lock guns in safes (or special locked gun cabinets) why is it not possible, or even likely, that he would not lock them in a safe?
There is an accepted rule in fiction that says characters must be believeable (consistent with themselves), not necessarily realistic. Given how dangerous the books are, Stine was not acting consistently with his own character. Someone who keeps their guns unlocked is negligent. Stine was not shown to be negligent or careless in his attitude towards the books. Quite the contrary - he was obsessively fearful that they would be opened. Therefore, it's absolutely an "inconsistency in the plot" that he would not take simple measures to keep them from ever being opened. The fact is, it served the plot to have the books in such a place that they could be opened easily by being dropped on the floor. It's a plot hole - a poorly written element of the story that requires the viewer to say, "Well, that's just the way it is".
Contrast The Babadook (if you've seen that). The mother recognises the book is dangerous and tries to destroy it many times. But the book keeps coming back. They could have written something like this into Goosebumps quite easily.
And another major plot hole is why he was so worried about losing his daughter. Everyone thought, "why can't he just re-write her?" Which is exactly what he did at the end.
You are completely convinced this is a plot hole. So there seems to be no point to continue. However, I would recommend you reflect that not everyone thinks the same way. Different people with the same end goal approach problems differently. Those differences do not constitute a plot hole.
shareThey would have been perfectly safe if it weren't for those meddling kids
shareIt's not a plot hole, it's simple to explain.
The monsters were kept trapped in the books. I'd assume if they were burned, the monsters would escape. The books were their "prison." You burn the prison and the prisoners escape. He was basically guarding them.
That said, yes the key was in a ridiculous spot.
This topic seems silly to me as later in this movie, the Dummy, after letting the other creatures out of the book, burns said books. It doesn't destroy them. Not only that but it shows that the monsters come out of the books when you just open them. Which he would've had to open them to destroy them. Except the creatures would come out of them as he'd have to open the books to burn them. It's pretty straight forward.
shareI am having trouble following this logic. It doesn't destroy them because they are already outside of the books. I'd assume burning the closed book with a creature still inside would destroy it. I am also not quite clear why exactly he would have to open the books to burn them?
shareYou misunderstand. He releases the creatures from the books then burns them. This makes R.L Steinn have to type a new story to get rid of all the creatures.
share