MovieChat Forums > Just Go with It (2011) Discussion > The plothole I can't get over (SPOILER A...

The plothole I can't get over (SPOILER ALERT!!!!!!)

posted 14 years ago by dmg44
18 replies | jump to latest

While this was an enjoyable movie, after I left and got to think about it, something just doesn't make sense. Am I missing something? I mean here Sandler's charactet is all set to marry the blond chic. She still thinks they are HIS kids. It would be one thing if Aniston were the only issue. She could just disappear. But even though Aniston had custody, could he really live a life lying about how important those kids were to him? Surely even if the story was that they lived far away, they would make periodic visits, etc. And they would have to attend their graduations, etc. And if he told her the truth after the wedding , would she not be furious that she had been deceived? Were Aniston, Sandler , the kids and the Lundgren guy just going to play a lifelong charade?

[–] ASFan213 14 years ago

Well, in terms of playing the charade, I'm sure they could have ditched 'Dolph Lundgren'. He was expendable.

Bazinga.

[–] hibban45 14 years ago

Well he said that he was going to have them die in a car accident or something... but I highly doubt he'd be able to believably pull that off. The smart thing to do would have been, when Aniston answered her phone and the news of the kids came out, to just say that he was her second husband, and the kids were from her first marriage. Boom, problem avoided. That would have made the movie much less interesting though.

[–] leiastarkiller 14 years ago

Yeah that was pretty bad. But the entire wedding idea was annoying. Didn't he say when he met her that he was still married but they were splitting up? How could she agree to marry him when she thought he was still legally married? Also, hadn't they only gone on a couple dates? And, why would she assume they're going to get married just because her new boyfriend's ex-wife's new boyfriend told her he looked at some rings? There is no human on this planet that is that stupid.

[–] Airmark 14 years ago

yeah - that was more disturbing of an oversight to me...

the entire premise of the movie was getting to know the current (but soon to be ex) wife and their kids. literally only days have passed and so it is clear they are not yet divorced (even though the marriage is a farce) yet they start planning a wedding. made no sense.

now sure thinking more long term, some plausible way to not have the kids in their lives permanantly seems far fetched also.

but in the short term, the bigger problem was as far as the story went THEY WERE STILL MARRIED.

[–] grambax 14 years ago

in the short term, the bigger problem was as far as the story went THEY WERE STILL MARRIED.

I don't think much of the plot holds up to a moments actual consideration, but I must confess I did find it dumbly amusing. The premise was so silly that I wasn't bothered by it not really convincing; I don't think it was really trying to be. That sort of thing bothers me much more in a film that takes itself seriously. As far as I remember, Cactus Flower was a little more subtle with the premise, but its been so long since I saw it, and the styles were so different, that the remake issue didn't particularly bother me either.

But as far as his "first" marriage, he did say, in the scene in the school where he admitted to it, that the divorce had been in progress a long time, and words to the effect that it was literally a couple of days away from being finalized, so, however unlikely, I think the film did establish that it wasn't inconceivable that he was by the end of the holiday legally free to marry.

[–] Evangelisti 14 years ago

We all think of things like this during these movies and end up feeling clever, but it's easy to pin down... We also all get frustrated deep down when someone walks away and the other person doesn't explain something that he could easily handle... but this was pretty funny.

Worth killing for, worth dying for, worth goin to hell for.

[–] eifler121 14 years ago

They discuss how after the vacation how the kids were going to be killed off.

[–] Maserati7777 14 years ago

I honestly don't know why he didn't just say they were her kids from a previous marriage or she cheated on him.

Leave your "Write me a role on Glee" message after the beep
Maserati777

[–] Zingbot_9000 14 years ago

Somebody was sleeping during part of the movie.

Danny was going to tell Brooklyn Decker that the kids died in a car crash.

Now that brings a different problem. Unless Jennifer Aniston was going to get a new job, which Danny did not want her to...then how was Brooklyn Decker never going to find out that Jennifer Aniston worked with Danny?

[–] moonlight100 14 years ago

Aniston's character asks Sandler's Character the same question in the film....Sandler just says that they will figure it out when it happens......plus I think that Aniston's character was going to move to NYC after the whole charade was up anyways.

[–] kjhuang17 13 years ago

Danny semi-jokingly discussed doing plastic surgery on Katharine to change her appearance. Alternatively, Katharine could've gone back to her frumpy hair and clothes, though I don't think that would've done the trick. She could've always lied and said that the woman working in Danny's office was her twin sister or something. Or maybe Palmer would never have reason to visit Danny's office.

[–] Yorick_Brown 14 years ago

Unanswered questions aren't plot holes and I always figured that he'd eventually tell her the truth.

It is bad writing that Sandler's character didn't just say the kids were former step kids but he could have lied about them being his bio kids so he could a. show he's not sterile and b. simply look better in her eyes.

What's the worst that I could say
Things are better if I stay
So long and goodnight

[–] bkproz 14 years ago

first this was a MOVIE and fictional! that being said, we as an audience really don't have to worry about the future of their fictional life, but as a plot hole, I just assumed for my own entertainment that he would tell "the blond chick" the truth later, if she didn't understand then it wouldn't work out obviously, thus proving his theory at the beginning that he should stick with his ploy of keeping the ring on his finger to get "laid" and never heart broken.The whole idea of the trip to Hawaii/premise of movie was a bonding of him with Aniston and her kids, which he already knew well from her working for him for years, it was just a whole set up for him to realize that Aniston is the woman in his life and the one he should be with, after all. The whole character of Nicole kidman was to get them to realize they love each other at the dinner, being that she is the one woman that he has never lied to and she knows him better then anyone, and still loves him. Leading us to the ending up of him with Aniston instead of the blond chick.