MovieChat Forums > Derailed (2005) Discussion > Plothole - What evidence did the blackma...

Plothole - What evidence did the blackmailer have of infidelity?

posted 12 years ago by chaosroach
11 replies | jump to latest

Let's say Clive Owen refused to pay the money. So then the blackmailer (pepe le pew) calls the wife and says 'your husband had sex with another woman'. Then Clive denies it and say prove it frenchie and... then what?

I don't remember any photos or videos being taken or incriminating audio recordings. Also, if there were photo or video evidence, then Clive would know that it must have been a setup because the video camera would have to be placed and positioned before entering the room.

OMGPLOTHOLE!

[–] blade101167 12 years ago

Blackmail is a millennia old trade, it hasn't just been invented since mobile phones and video cameras came along to capture visual proof.

Giving a spouse, employer or anyone else the merest whiff of suspicion of some indiscretion will suffice in most cases and ensure the person being blackmailed will pay up. Of course blackmail is a game of bluff but unfortunately one that the blackmailer usually wins, at least in the beginning.

So not a plot hole at all, not even in the slightest...

"The World Wide Web: where even the most stupid amongst us are equally entitled to their opinion"

[–] chaosroach 12 years ago

I don't know where you dredged up this fiction, but it's completely false. The wife would simply say, show the proof, there would be no proof and husband and wife would laugh at the blackmailer.

Here's your chance to prove me wrong: find a single case of there not being proof and a blackmailer still being believed and getting money or whatever they wanted. Hurry up now, time's ticking.

[–] blade101167 12 years ago

I withdraw my comments: blackmail is a completely fictitious crime that could never possibly work in real life. Stupid me. (BTW, do you even actually know what blackmail is and how it works?)

You're forgetting one core fact with this movie: he was guilty - at least of cheating on his wife - plus the blackmailer stole his wallet, he didn't report any mugging to the police, there were corroborating witnesses who could place them both together at the hotel etc. His wife's still gonna believe him when guilt was written all over his face? I think not and in this film, he wasn't going to run that risk.

But I can tell you're pissed because I disallowed your supposed plot hole that isn't. And there I was thinking I was having this discussion with an adult and it turns out to be simply some little adolescent watching his first grown up movie. And since you got quite rude with me, don't even go there trying to out insult me, I will eat you alive: but more likely, I'll probably just ignore you.

"The World Wide Web: where even the most stupid amongst us are equally entitled to their opinion"

[–] chaosroach 12 years ago

Oh look, you failed to deliver a single example. It's painfully obvious you don't know what blackmail is, so here's some info:

"To blackmail someone you will have to have proof of something they don't want anyone else to know. You will need to threaten them with sharing this proof if they don't do or give you want you want."
http://answers.ask.com/Health/Mental/how_to_blackmail_someone

It seems you really don't grasp how blackmail works. It isn't making idle statements about wrongdoings, upsetting people and then getting money for it. That's called being a retard, something with which you're completely familiar.

If this husband cheated and there's no evidence, there's absolutely no way he would voluntarily admit it. In this story, he did not confess no matter what happened and that's just the reality of the character. If you disagree, you're simply wrong.

It's quite hilarious you act butthurt. Methinks thou doest protest too much. Trying to divert attention away from the fact that blackmail doesn't work without proof is quite pathetic.

Now, even if he didn't report his wallet was stolen, once it came to light, it would be FAR from proving he had sexual intercourse with another woman. Also, who are these mystery witnesses that both saw him at the hotel and would have the motive to help the blackmailer by reporting them to the police? The taxi driver? The front desk guy? Even if they did, there's that little issue of PROOF again, remember.

It's clear you're a huge goofball and a clown, but I'm a generous fellow, here's your chance to redeem yourself, find me a single case of there not being proof and a blackmailer still being believed and getting money or whatever they wanted. Once again, time's ticking.

[–] purplenad2004 11 years ago

@chaosroach, the one thing that the blackmailer might accomplish is to cause the wife to forever distrust the husband which can ruin a marriage. However, I think Charles should have just come clean with his wife in the beginning since any money he gave was money taken from his daughter's fund for her condition. Of course if he had simply thought of that, there would be no movie.

[–] Princess_Ashmi 11 years ago

Erm... no, she wouldn't just say 'show me proof'. Sure you can never truly know the truth unless you had solid proof but that small piece of information would plant the seed in her mind, which would make her question it 'Could he be cheating? Why did you come home late?" etc

And if she put him on the spot by asking him he might have crumbled under the pressure. Some people with a guilty conscience do, a lot of men who cheat usually want their wives to know.

Ashmi any question

[–] chaosroach 11 years ago

I haven't seen the movie in quite a while, but I still remember this much:
"In this story, he did not confess no matter what happened."

Comfort the disturbed and disturb the comfortable

[–] yusef-ghanima 11 years ago

i'm not sure this is plot hole, since reputation matters specially for people in financial stuff. but i agree the movie is stupid and doesn't make sense, this crap could be real, there could be such damn stupid people but they don't worth watching.

[–] bnisha04 10 years ago

I realize your post is rather old however I am only responding due to the fact that I just watched this movie and u have a point. I don't feel it is a plot hole. The Aniston character completely used him. She knew he was a sap and she worked him. He finally came to a realization in the hotel room at the end. Remember he never planned to give him anything. But then the French guy threated him. Plus he knew where he lived. Sooo the cheating who cares. He was trying to protect his family and Aniston and that is why he give him the initial 20K.

[–] hza021 10 years ago

Thank you for being the one person here who realized why the blackmail worked. Laroche didn't threaten to tell his wife, there was an implied threat to his family and Anistons character by mentioning that to him in the initial phone conversation.

[–] kdmode 9 years ago

I agree.

All he had to do was go to the cops and say he was mugged by someone with a French accent - which is what he told his wife and employer anyway - then when Pepe turned up with his wallet and told the wife he cheated she would have laughed him out of the room!

This movie is SO painfully stupid.