...since [Darkseid] is sending Steppenwolf all over trying to find Antilife so there seems to be some more backstory that wasn't able to be explored.
...Somebody needs to ask Terrio about this in the original script.
Diana’s narration (as previously noted):
“The three Mother Boxes never synchronized. The Unity never came to pass. But in their retreat, the Boxes were left behind on Earth. They grew weak. Dogs without masters. Falling asleep, awaiting their return. Fading from the view of the enemy, anonymous among a trillion worlds.”
Ostensibly, this answers why the villains lost track of their various spoils. According to some, however, this explanation is insufficient; a better-crafted movie would have given us a more complete and airtight backstory on the Boxes and the Anti-Life Equation. Well, maybe…
But I think this raises a more general question about the technicalities of writing fiction. When confronted with a plot hole (big or small, real or alleged), to what extent should the writer try to address it? Now, conventional wisdom says that if the hole is major, distracting or otherwise “takes the audience out of the moment,” it should be filled. But then there are cases of so-called “fridge logic” plot holes — an error/discrepancy that only occurs to the viewer later on. And such a delayed realization means, by definition, that the aforementioned “moment” wasn’t affected. Therefore, it wasn’t really that important…?
Additionally, there’s a kind of cost-benefit calculation that must be considered. Granted, exposition can often fix a problem. But detailed exposition takes time and may affect the narrative flow. And is it really worth the effort if most of the audience a) didn’t notice the problem in the first place, b) were content with the “lip service” explanation provided or c) were satisfied that
some likely/plausible explanation could be inferred and didn’t need to be spelled out?
Finally… There’s the question posed by several internet articles and videos: do plot holes even matter?
The Big Sleep has a rather famous goof — which the filmmakers were fully aware of. Indeed, during production Howard Hawks asked Raymond Chandler to resolve the matter. But Chandler was stymied; he hadn’t noticed that
his own novel contained the same goof. And yet,
The Big Sleep is an acknowledged and beloved classic.
Or how about this conundrum?
Ultimately, I think our first response to a movie is at an instinctive, emotional level. The analysis comes later. So if we
like a movie, its plot holes (within limits) are deemed minor flaws: forgivable sins, not deal breakers. OTOH, if we
dislike a movie, we might well cite a plot hole as one of the reasons why. But this is rhetorically risky — inasmuch as we must apply the same standard to every movie. Which could be problematic if you happen to think highly of (for example)
The Big Sleep or
The Empire Strikes Back.
Bottom line: plot holes (whether actual or claimed) can be fun to recognize and dissect. I’ve done this many times.
But their relevance to the overall quality of a movie is… debatable.
