Why do most movie plots have obvious flaws, despite the extreme competitiveness of the script marketplace?

Question

@Standback wrote in an answer to "How difficult is it to break into screenwriting?":

It's extremely, extremely difficult.

Not too many people making movies. Lots of people writing screenplays. Gargantuan investment to get a movie made. Not an easy sell.

You would think then that only the very best of the very best screenplays become movies. However, I don't think it's particularly controversial to say that the average movie plot has obvious flaws, such as:

• Scientifically implausible "sci"-fi
• Historically inaccurate "historical" movies
• Boring movies (nothing happens until the end)
• The character keeps getting saved by a series of miracles, it starts to insult your intelligence
• Bad guys shoot worse than kindergarteners
• etc. etc. etc.

What would explain this paradox: If the selection process for movie scripts is extremely competitive, why do most movie plots have obvious flaws?

Answer 1

Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
     ~ George Carlin

Most viewers are incapable of noticing plot holes, implausible characters, and so on. As long as a movie triggers the desired emotions, they are happy with it.

Answer 2

Making movies is far more complicated than just pounding out a good screenplay. You may have written the next Schindler's List, but in the end, if no one watches it, it's not worth any money. Works of art are only worth as much as they can sell for, and movies are very, very expensive to make. So what types of screenplays sell well?

Original screenplays have a place somewhere, but it's large franchises that are making the most money right now, by far. And sadly, these franchises have armies of film-makers at their disposal, plus lot's of copyright protections, so that not anyone can take their source material, and make their own movie out of it. Think of Marvel, who can basically pick and choose who will direct/write/act their movies, because they have the capital to pay them large sums of money.

Additionally, you need to think of marketing. Christopher Nolan for example, made a name for himself, to the point where moviegoers, once they hear his name, they will want to see the film, even if the screenplay isn't good or has glaring plot holes.

Another one is time: Many screenwriters are held to a schedule (in order for the film to be released at a time when it's likely to make more money), so they don't have time to edit it to perfection.

In essence, it's all tied up with money, in one way or another, sadly. In general however, if you write good screenplays of a particular genre, you can make a name for yourself (e.g. Tarantino, Sorkin, Spielberg, Waititi, and plenty of others)

Answer 3

Because humans:

To elaborate: It IS really hard to get into making movies. That's why artists are always looking to make a movie at all costs - because once you're in, you have a reputation. Because of the money involved, most folks don't want to take a chance on an unknown - even if they love the stuff. So many movies are based on stuff that's all ready successful (like TV shows, comics, or books) precisely for this reason.

Some of it can be translation. I loved the book The Postman, but the movie was REALLY terrible. Different formats can fall flat describing things originally in a different media. Editing can be a problem since a longer movie might have tied those elements together like they wanted to, yet there wasn't time to put it all into 90 minutes less credits.

But people are also lazy, and want success to be easy. So once you're in, you are assumed to be good until you make a mistake. So the inside talent pool is small once a movie is picked. If your works make money despite a few flaws, no one cares.

My favorite "skit" from Family Guy was Stephen King sitting anguished at a typewriter. His editor asks him what his next work is about, and in desperation, Stephen grabs a lamp and says, "It's about a lamp monster!" The editor replies, "Are you even trying any more? (sigh) When can you get it to me?"

Sadly, I might watch the Lamp Monster movie.

Then there's the fact that a lot of viewers don't care about a few obvious flaws if the movie is fun. Anyone who's watched any Smokin' Aces films, John Wick films, or any number of others can see there are glaring deficiencies, yet it's fun to watch. Sometimes people just want to suspend disbelief in the process, not just the story. Give folks a great gun fight or space battle, and they're happy. After all, movies are a visual media and great visuals are as important as a good story.

Also sadly, I've watched both Smokin' Aces movies and all the John Wick movies. If they come out with another Star Wars movie, I'll probably watch it as soon as I'm done watching Solo (sigh).

Answer 4

Movies, like wars, are made by people.

What you are calling a paradox is a conflation of your tastes in storytelling and the decisions made by other storytellers who are putting their money on the table and making a movie they think will satisfy their aesthetic sense of art and make a return on the investment.

Are they always right? No. They’re people and most people get it wrong some of the time.

Why are there common elements to movies that seem goofy? Because people are more alike than we are different and because being different and taking a risk is scary so its safer to color inside the lines rather than go for the whole Jackson Pollack thing where other people’s money is involved. And, its even scarier when its your money on the line too.