MovieChat Forums > 3:10 to Yuma (2007) Discussion > HUGE PLOT HOLE!

HUGE PLOT HOLE!

posted 14 years ago by RynoII
24 replies | jump to latest

After Wade kills the first man guarding him, they never do anything about. He keeps killing them off one by one and they just take it instead of just shooting him. I guess they requested that he would be brought to his hanging alive, but won't they still be paid if they had to shoot him and claimed self defense?

Another thing is why did they handcuff in front instead of behind, his back? That way he wouldn't have been near as dangerous and that's the point of how handcuffs are suppose to be used.

Some plot holes I don't mind but these two are big enough to drive the whole plot through.

[–] edjavega 14 years ago

About the handcuffs, I was wondering when Ben Wade lost them? Up to the time he was delivered to the train, he had them on. But when Charlie comes up with Wade's gang and shoots Dan Evans, Ben kills his gang in anger. No more handcuffs. Did they disappear?

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] RynoII 14 years ago

I won't agree with you on the Prince's offer. He was offering out of desperation and does not know how the non-criminal mind works in people.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] RynoII 14 years ago

Weren't the townspeople afraid that the bad guys would gun some of them down if they did not accept the offer? Or perhaps they were afraid they would be taken hostage and the bad guys would force their loved ones into shooting the lawmen for them, if they did not accept?

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] RynoII 14 years ago

I don't think that the bad guys cared about if the townspeople would keep their mouths shut or not. I mean the bad guys rode into town showing their faces and not even wearing masks, while committing their crimes. So they obviously don't care about covering up evidence.

What about handcuffs though, can anyone think of explanation as to why they didn't cuff him behind his back?

[–] AssetsonFire 14 years ago

Why do you assume it was 100%? Everyone not interested obviously stayed away.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] AssetsonFire 14 years ago

No, I don't get it. If there were abstainers then obviously 100% of people didn't take up arms. Your decision of writing your own addendum where they are all massacred for not following suit is immaterial. I suspect you're making this up as you go along to justify your dislike. If you don't like the film, do it for real reasons.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] oskar-reimer 14 years ago

QUOTE: "The way its depicted 100% of the town takes up arms against their own lawmen at Prince's offer"

As I´m sure you understand not every persons actions are depicted in a motion picture. I interpret the scenes as if most of the town-people keep away from the deadly situation. It´s the logical action for most of them.

Furthermore, the towns three lawmen are all dead by the time the townspeople has to decide whether to take up on the offer.

Of course the ones taking up on the offer risks justice, but the risk is not that great. The 200 dollars also gives them means to move along to another area.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] KevinWI 14 years ago

"It's as if Osama Bin Laden and Al Quida ride into Times Square New York on Camels and offer the citizens $20,000 a piece to shoot down the police, believable NO."

In Times Square? No.

But what if he made that offer in some poor gang-ridden parts of Harlem - where everybody hates the cops already? Or in Karachi, Pakistan.

That little town in the end setpiece was hardly a major city where the law was prevalent. It was the Old West. Rules were sketchy and people were desperate.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] RynoII 14 years ago

It wasn't the WHOLE town that did it. Only like 6 townsmen accepted the deal.

[–] dimsum73-1 14 years ago

Those aren't plot holes.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] stairway2heaven 14 years ago

The real problem with that scene is that none of the deputies or Bale shot at the gang. Bale had a shotgun if I recall. Stick it out the window and take a shot. It would have made the gang scatter instead of parading around town with no fear. The gang did all that riding to save their beloved leader, there's no way they would have filled the room full of lead in fear of hitting Crowe. And everyone knows in a fight those who have the high ground have a great advantage. And 5 against 7 isn't that unfair of an advantage people come on!

[–] robsurtees 14 years ago

They show Wade handcuffed in front instead of behind because he is played by Russell Crowe, and you don't go into the climax of your film with your star rendered helpless. It doesn't do their macho image any good, and it's bad box-office!
Mind you, by that stage in the movie they could have wrapped him in duct tape and shoved him under a seat for all I cared.

[–] marichos 14 years ago

"I guess they requested that he would be brought to his hanging alive"

There goes your huge plot hole... why would they hang a dead person?

Of course they need him alive.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] RynoII 14 years ago

All they had to do was either cuff him from behind or break all his fingers, to prevent him from trying anything. They could still hang him with with broken hands.

[–] ALWrite 14 years ago

To RynoII:

"All they had to do was break all his fingers..."

You do, of course, realize what that says about the men handling him in such a way, don't you? (BTW, that's one of the reasons why this somewhat unconvincing 'torture scene' is in there.)