The worst plot hole - Man on a Ledge (2012) Discussion

[–] holtom5 12 years ago

Doh, just seen that I wasn't the first to notice this.

reply

[–] fluffy-1 12 years ago

Cameras were on him as his empty hand went into the jacket and emerged holding the diamond.

reply

[–] holtom5 12 years ago

And?
If "It looked like he pulled it from the jacket" were proof of anything, then 5 minutes of watching a second-rate magician is proof that doves can be spontaneously created and playing cards can change faces.

reply

[–] Yorick_Brown 12 years ago

This isn't a plot hole. I wish people would stop overusing or misusing that term.

He proved that the diamond was never stolen and Englander committed insurance fraud (among other nasty things he did).

He never even needed to take it from Englander's pocket. That was just convenient.

Take us down and all apart
Cherry Tree
Lay us out on the table

You're sharp alright...

reply

[–] holtom5 12 years ago

I used the term plot hole because that's what it is.

Your post suggests to me you haven't even read the OP.

reply

[–] Yorick_Brown 12 years ago

I read through your entire post and I still contend that this isn't a plot hole.

Englander lied about the theft and the diamond is proof of it.

Take us down and all apart
Cherry Tree
Lay us out on the table

You're sharp alright...

reply

[–] holtom5 12 years ago

In the OP I explain why showing the diamond neither proves Englander lied, nor that Cassidy is innocent, in itself.

You haven't addressed my point at all. You're just asserting "So anyway, it proves his innocence...".

reply

[–] Yorick_Brown 12 years ago

Englander made up a whole scheme where he committed insurance fraud and used dirty cops to frame an innocent man.

Now that the diamond has been recovered AND his conspirators have been caught, that's more than enough to prove Cassidy's innocence.

Take us down and all apart
Cherry Tree
Lay us out on the table

You're sharp alright...

reply

[–] holtom5 12 years ago

As I said in the OP: "You could argue that the crooked cop going crazy, and the growing Internal Affairs evidence is enough to have his conviction quashed. That may be true, but that evidence would have to largely stand on its own. The diamond reveal doesn't help that much".
And I think I was understating things by saying "doesn't help that much". It's hard to see how it helps at all.

I think most people will appreciate that had Cassidy's Plan A succeeded (i.e. steal the diamond from the vault), it wouldn't have helped his case one iota. His defense would be "OK, I stole the diamond. But recently, not when you think I did. See? I have the diamond"!

Pulling the diamond out of Englander's pocket seems on the face of it much better evidence but when you consider that it is trivially easy to make it look like you've pulled something out of a pocket, it proves nothing.

reply

[–] Yorick_Brown 12 years ago

Pulling the diamond out of his pocket for the cameras to see was just a plus.

Retrieving the diamond at all would have been proof that Englander had committed insurance fraud and used dirty cops to frame an innocent man.

Take us down and all apart
Cherry Tree
Lay us out on the table

You're sharp alright...

reply

[–] holtom5 12 years ago

Again, you assert.
How so?

reply

[–] Yorick_Brown 12 years ago

How else?! The new police investigation would have gone through Englander's records and interviewed the dirty cops on his payroll to get the necessary evidence and testimony to show Engalnder had committed insurance fraud and conspiracy to frame a police officer.

Take us down and all apart
Cherry Tree
Lay us out on the table

You're sharp alright...

reply

[–] holtom5 12 years ago

No, that's not the issue here.
I said, in the OP, that the Internal Affairs / crooked cop evidence may well be sufficient on its own, but that the diamond reveal doesn't help at all.

I'm asking you for why you think the diamond reveal helps.
You earlier said "Retrieving the diamond at all would have been proof that Englander had committed insurance fraud and used dirty cops to frame an innocent man".
What's your basis for saying that, and what do you think of the alternative (and, indeed, much more plausible explanation for anyone that didn't see the events at the vault) that Cassidy tried to make it look like he pulled the diamond from Englander's pocket but he had it all along?

reply

[–] Yorick_Brown 12 years ago

There'd be a huge paper trail that would be discovered with Englander framing Cassidy.

Why wouldn't Cassidy just run with the diamond rather than go through this elaborate set-up if he had the diamond all along? That's what people would think.

Take us down and all apart
Cherry Tree
Lay us out on the table

You're sharp alright...

reply

[–] holtom5 12 years ago

There'd be a huge paper trail that would be discovered with Englander framing Cassidy.

Again, we're talking about the diamond, not the other evidence, as I said in the OP.

Why wouldn't Cassidy just run with the diamond rather than go through this elaborate set-up if he had the diamond all along? That's what people would think.

OK, now we're getting somewhere: finally an argument to defend your suggestion that the diamond alone is enough to exonerate Cassidy.

But, I don't find it very convincing. Conjecture like that isn't going to hold much sway, particularly when there are other, equally or more likely possibilities e.g. Cassidy figured he'd just get caught like last time, so figures faking his innocence is the best bet e.g. Cassidy is not acting particularly rationally right now, as evidenced by him almost taking his life (to an outside observer)

reply

[–] Yorick_Brown 12 years ago

Yes. There would be a paper trail with Englander covering everything up related to the diamond.

Taking the diamond out of his pocket was just a plus. They only needed to take the diamond to the proper authorities to complete their mission.

The investigation would have shown that Englander had committed insurance fraud and had dirty cops on his payroll.

Take us down and all apart
Cherry Tree
Lay us out on the table

You're sharp alright...

reply

[–] holtom5 12 years ago

Repeating the same assertions and off-topic points again.

I think that's the closest we're going to get to you admitting you don't have a leg to stand on.

reply

[–] jack-upland 12 years ago

However, in the height of the moment, the police and others might believe that Cassidy's proved his point and Englander might not be able to think of an explanation.

Also, it is hard to understand why, if Cassidy had the diamond and had escaped from prison, he would stage this elaborate charade.

reply

[–] Yorick_Brown 12 years ago

However, in the height of the moment, the police and others might believe that Cassidy's proved his point and Englander might not be able to think of an explanation.

Yeah. There's too much of a paper trail of Englander's misdeeds to get away with his crimes.

Also, it is hard to understand why, if Cassidy had the diamond and had escaped from prison, he would stage this elaborate charade.

There's that too.

Take us down and all apart
Cherry Tree
Lay us out on the table

You're sharp alright...

reply

[–] holtom5 12 years ago

However, in the height of the moment, the police and others might believe that Cassidy's proved his point and Englander might not be able to think of an explanation.

Yes, that's something which could happen after the events in the movie.

Another is that Englander simply claims that he did not have the diamond and Cassidy has tried to make it look like he did.

Also, it is hard to understand why, if Cassidy had the diamond and had escaped from prison, he would stage this elaborate charade.

What charade? If you mean the standing on the ledge, from the point of view of people in that universe (i.e. not us watching the film), the ledge had nothing to do with the diamond reveal.

In terms of the charade of doing a sleight of hand and pretending to pull it from a pocket: I'm sure lots of criminals have tried to do such a thing. If you think you're not going to get away with a crime you may believe the best policy is to put the item back and try to fool them you didn't do it. Particularly if he has motive against Englander.

reply

[–] trapdoorstudios 12 years ago

Ok,
In the film they state that he MUST have broken the diamond and sold it seperately. Presumably this is the only way as they never found any evidence for him to actually have it.

By proving that it is still in tact, this gets rid of the above asumption, which I think then shows that he didn't have any way of hiding or moving the diamond.

I think there are flaws in this, which would have been easily negated by actually having the police stop and find the diamond. Any one else in fact but him.

But the understanding was that he was convicted based upon the fact that he had stolen, destroyed and sold on the diamond. By proving that the diamond had never been destroyed he was actually showing that he couldn't have been guilty for the crime protrayed that he was locked up for.

reply

[–] holtom5 12 years ago

In the film they state that he MUST have broken the diamond and sold it seperately. Presumably this is the only way as they never found any evidence for him to actually have it.

My recollection is that it was just open speculation about what he did with the diamond.

It's hard to see how the conviction would rest on that, because he was convicted of stealing the diamond. Selling it on, is not, in itself, proof of stealing it.

reply

[–] mark6785 12 years ago

"In the film they state that he MUST have broken the diamond and sold it seperately. Presumably this is the only way as they never found any evidence for him to actually have it."

That makes no sense at all. Theres no evidence I have a big ass diamond either, that dosent mean I've broken one up and sold it.

reply

[–] holtom5 12 years ago

Or, let me put it to you this way:

A thief steals your gold watch. There's enough evidence to convict, but the watch is never recovered. Then, he escapes from prison, and in front of everyone smacks you in the face, knocking you down. He puts his hand into your pocket, pulls out the gold watch and holds it up for all to see.

So: he's just proved you lied, and he's innocent, right?
I mean, he could have just palmed the watch, or had it up his sleeve, but nah, let's ignore those possibilities.

reply

[–] Yorick_Brown 12 years ago

Englander also went out of the way to frame it that Cassidy fenced the diamond.

This elaborate scheme can't be explained away and Englander's dirty police associates backs up Cassidy's claims.

Take us down and all apart
Cherry Tree
Lay us out on the table

You're sharp alright...

reply

[–] mark6785 12 years ago

Yorick , I only read the first page and half of back and forths , then skipped to the end to if you two were still talking about this , so apologies if i missed something , heres my take:

I agree fully with the OP

The Entire concept of the movie "steal the diamond to prove i didnt steal it" is ridiculous and proves nothing.
Whats to say you didnt just return it?

The lucky bit where he happens to pull it from the bad guys pocket in front of police helps slightly but ultimately proves nothing.
again - whats to say he didnt just walk up to the guy in the street , perform the aforementioned 2nd rate magicians trick , and say "Ooh look the naughty bad man had it in his pocket all this time"

All that stuff about paper work , paper trail and insurance fraud is irrelevent.
Because , again, whose to say the diamond wasnt stolen and returned by the idiot on the ledge, making all insurance claims totally above board , legeal ,justified and necassary.

The rumour about the diamond being broken up is irrelevent.
It was never really known wether it was broken or not, returning the diamond proves it wasnt broken up , but so what? - it still , yet again, dosent prove that he didnt steal it.

The whole premise of the film is stupid.
I like heist films, this could have been a good one - everthying apart from the completely stupid and baffling plot was pretty good.
Maybe they could re-edit one or 2 scenes and dub over some of the dialogue to turn the plot into "I've done the time ,now I'm doing the crime"

reply

[–] Yorick_Brown 12 years ago

Work on your spelling on grammar.

Don't you WANT to be taken seriously?

Take it slow
Take it easy on me
Shed some light
Shed some light on things...

reply

[–] mark6785 12 years ago

Aw, come on - I spent ages on that post just for you! I even looked up how to do bold just to make it more readable.

Every other cop-out grammar nazi reply I've seen at least points out what was wrong. I noticed I missed a capital letter at one point , and an apostrophie, but I'm not gonna proof read and correct the whole thing just for you.

So what did you think about what I actually said?

reply

[–] nirvana_rulz 10 years ago

You're an idiot. Work on your reasoning and logic.

Don't you WANT to be taken seriously?

reply

[–] hobnob53 12 years ago

I agree -- this movie didn't make much sense. A lot of running around, narrow escapes, and bouts of vertigo, but so preposterous it sinks under its own improbabilities and convoluted plot.

As to the OP's point, I agree that Cassidy pulling the diamond out of Englander's pocket at the end doesn't prove anything. Together with the testimony of the others who exposed the truth, it would help exonerate him, but yanking the diamond out of the guy's pocket in itself isn't proof of Cassidy's innocence.

However, this strikes me as not so much a plot hole as just one more example of a sloppy script and inept direction. I think the OP is investing too much concern over the diamond-in-the-pocket. He's right, but the real problem is that the screenwriter wrote a careless script and the director was so concerned about shocks and stunts that he didn't bother to develop the film with any sense or consistency. They both probably assumed that because the audience already knows Cassidy is innocent and Englander guilty, they could throw in anything regardless of its lack of logic, as a cheap way of "proving to the world" (in the movie) Cassidy's innocence.

Unfortunately, this is far too typical of a lot of carelessly made movies these days, where the visuals are more important than the plot.

Frankly, I found that whole scene lacked suspense and was so "busy" -- with the crowd surging forward, that guy jumping the policeman, and the rest -- that the whole point of pulling the diamond out of Englander's pocket is muted. So even as a dramatic "revelation" it loses most of its impact.

Plus, any film that casts Kyra Sedgwick as a reporter (unconvincing enough) with an Hispanic surname (just too much) is already so stupid that it can only go downhill from there.

reply

[–] Gheelnory 12 years ago

I agree; the way the 'Cassidy pulls the diamond out and shows it' scene was filmed simply muddled the issue. But even if it had been filmed to show the action (and the onlookers witnessing it) very clearly, it wouldn't have made any logical difference to the plot.

From earlier in the thread, one of the few specific ideas offered in support of the 'It All Makes Sense' theory:

Why wouldn't Cassidy just run with the diamond rather than go through this elaborate set-up if he had the diamond all along? That's what people would think.

Because running with the diamond would mean a life on the run. That's not to everyone's taste. Cassidy would have had no guarantee that he could fence the diamond, either, so he might have been facing a life on the run in poverty.

Therefore many people would not think "he must be innocent and the proof of this is the elaborate set-up." Instead, they would think 'Cassidy could have gone through this elaborate set-up---even though he really did steal the diamond and had it stashed somewhere all along---because he wants to be exonerated. He wants to live a normal life, not one as a convicted criminal. He doesn't want to have to live on the run. If he can convince everyone he was innocent---even though he wasn't---he may even be hoping to qualify for some monetary compensation from the state, for wrongful prosecution.'

So, no: in the world of the movie, people might very well conclude that Cassidy DID have the diamond all along, but staged the ledge/heist event simply to convince people he'd been innocent--though he wasn't.

reply

[–] globalist 12 years ago

"Plus, any film that casts Kyra Sedgwick as a reporter (unconvincing enough) with an Hispanic surname (just too much) is already so stupid that it can only go downhill from there."

LOL I was thinking the same thing!

1/10

- don't worry fanboy, that's just my signature.

reply

[–] yurenchu 9 years ago

Plus, any film that casts Kyra Sedgwick as a reporter (unconvincing enough) with an Hispanic surname (just too much) is already so stupid that it can only go downhill from there.

I disagree. From my understanding, her role was intentionally over-the-top and played for laughs, and Kyra did that well. Furthermore, I see no reason why we should consider it stupid/implausible that her character might be married to a Hispanic guy (and therefore had a Hispanic surname).

However, I agree completely with what the OP wrote.

______
Joe Satriani - "Always With Me, Always With You"
http://youtu.be/VI57QHL6ge0

reply

[–] xorkrapniknil 11 years ago

It proves his innocence because, in the movie they state he was convicted of stealing the diamond and the diamond was never recovered because he cut the diamond into small pieces and sold it. Therefor recovering a diamond that in fact has not been cut up and sold destroys whatever case the prosecutor who put him away had made. Which of course this entire premise is a fallacy on it's own and ruins the entire movie. Simply because you'd be hard pressed to find a court who would convict a man to a 25 year sentence because some guy said, "yeah he stole my diamond and chopped it up and sold it so i can't get it back and now I'm filing an insurance claim on it..." Being unable to prove he ever had possession of the diamond, which he didn't, and that there were in fact any buyers of the so called diamond, which there weren't. Unless you want to go with the entire corrupt cops forged and false testimonies etc... Either way It's kind of sloppy writing.
Not to say I disliked the movie, it was entertaining if you over look some simple logical mistakes.

reply

[–] moviechatterer (15787) 4 years ago

"Therefor recovering a diamond that in fact has not been cut up and sold destroys whatever case the prosecutor who put him away had made"

it absolutely does not, he does that prove he didnt steal it and then not cut it up?

reply

[–] moviechatterer (15787) 4 years ago

Apologies, you went on to say
"Which of course this entire premise is a fallacy on it's own and ruins the entire movie."

i totally agree!

reply

[–] Sam_Fisher_Agent_47 11 years ago

You obviously missed the part in the movie where they disclosed the diamond being broken up into little pieces and sold individually!

_________________________________
Steven Seagal Fan Club President

reply

[–] holtom5 10 years ago

...and you didn't read the rest of this thread because we've discussed this.

The diamond being cut up was merely speculation IIRC and no-one has challenged my recollection on that.

And even if it was a central part of the prosecution; it still doesn't exonerate him now.
Imagine someone is convicted of stealing your car. The car is never recovered; the main theory is the thief eventually dumped it in a lake.
To convict someone of stealing your car there would have to be sufficient evidence that they stole your car.

Now, at some future date your car is recovered intact. That proves the theory of dumping in the lake was wrong. But, so what? It doesn't exonerate the thief. Whatever evidence there was that (s)he stole the car remains.

reply

[–] Sam_Fisher_Agent_47 10 years ago

In this film there was no evidence that Nick stole the diamond.

_________________________________
Steven Seagal Fan Club President

reply

[–] holtom5 10 years ago

However there was sufficient grounds to convict him of stealing it.

Showing that the diamond has not been cut up wouldn't change that, as speculation of what happened to the diamond is not evidence for a conviction.

reply

[–] Sam_Fisher_Agent_47 10 years ago

Perhaps, but pulling the diamond out of the 'victims' pocket proves his innocence! Desperate times call for desperate measures!
_________________________________
Steven Seagal Fan Club President

reply

[–] holtom5 10 years ago

Yeah you haven't read the rest of this thread, have you?
At least read the first page. Appearing to pull a diamond out of someone's pocket proves nothing.

------------------------

And actually I would go further than what I said on this last year: the diamond reveal actually harms Cassidy's case.

So, Cassidy was convicted due to (it would seem) falsified evidence / crooked testimonies etc. And the evidence for that has been exposed late in the film.
Fine; that could/should exonerate Cassidy.

But then you throw in the diamond reveal. We'd have to believe that Englander chose that time to go for a stroll with the diamond. And Cassidy somehow knew that, and knew it would just be in an easily-accessible pocket.
Now, we the viewer know that's true, but in-universe it stretches credulity. So all kinds of alternative theories would be proposed.
I think it's a mistake for Cassidy to get near Englander and associate himself with the diamond.

reply

[–] nirvana_rulz 10 years ago

Totally agree. The whole plot doesn't make sense. It's hilarious too that they had been planning this heist for a year and the question of "how will stealing the diamond prove prove you're innocent?" apparently never came up.

The funniest part was that (mentioned earlier in the thread) that if Nick's plan to steal the diamond worked what would his defence be: "I stole the diamond recently, not when you think I did - I'm innocent!"

It's such a big plot hole, as the it's premise of the movie. It's a really shoddy script, that could have easily been tweaked so it made sense. I watched it 30 minutes ago, and there's no justifying this plot hole. Nothing in the movie suggests that showing a full intact diamond unequivocally shows Nick as innocent. I think all the people in this thread saying it made sense just suspended their disbelief to such a degree (because as the viewer we're told Nick is innocent) that they completely neglect what the characters in this universe have seen and been told.

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] yurenchu 9 years ago

In the second half of the movie I was expecting that the twist would be that Jamie Bell had placed a hidden camera in the vault such that Ed Harris would be secretly filmed while opening his safe and holding the diamond, and that later during the final dramatic reveal Sam Worthington, while being arrested, would beg detective Edward Burns to look at the camera recording and into Ed Harris' pocket, where Burns would find the diamond.

But no, instead Sam continues the rest of the movie trying desperately to secretly steal the diamond, using an elaborate scheme to ensure that the fingerprints of all his family members are on it, in order to later show it to the public in his own hands; which only incriminates himself more!

______
Joe Satriani - "Always With Me, Always With You"
http://youtu.be/VI57QHL6ge0

reply