<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title><![CDATA[Major Plot Hole or Stupid Question?]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><em>Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — The Handmaiden</em></p>
<hr />
<p dir="auto"><strong>w-j-tomford</strong> — <em>9 years ago(January 03, 2017 12:32 PM)</em></p>
<p dir="auto">Why couldn't the Count and the Lady have carried out the plan with her first handmaiden, without telling that handmaiden anything? In other words, why did the Count need to bring Sook-Hee into the plot? Couldn't he have just eloped with The Lady and her first Handmaiden, committed that girl to the asylum (she would be none the wiser), and then everything would have gone as planned. Why confuse the whole thing by bringing Sook-Hee into it and then double crossing her?</p>
]]></description><link>https://filmglance.com/discuss/topic/262240/major-plot-hole-or-stupid-question</link><generator>RSS for Node</generator><lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 May 2026 23:50:52 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://filmglance.com/discuss/topic/262240.rss" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><pubDate>Thu, 07 May 2026 20:21:49 GMT</pubDate><ttl>60</ttl><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to Major Plot Hole or Stupid Question? on Thu, 07 May 2026 20:21:56 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><strong>tokoyo</strong> — <em>9 years ago(February 06, 2017 03:17 AM)</em></p>
<p dir="auto">The uncle hired the original maids. They could've ratted Hideko out for reward without the risk.</p>
]]></description><link>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/2226487</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/2226487</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[fgadmin]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 07 May 2026 20:21:56 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to Major Plot Hole or Stupid Question? on Thu, 07 May 2026 20:21:55 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><strong>PopperTheKungFuDragn</strong> — <em>9 years ago(January 21, 2017 11:33 AM)</em></p>
<p dir="auto">Could be, but either way I don't think its a major plot hole. A minor quibble maybe.<br />
Poorly Lived and Poorly Died, Poorly Buried and No One Cried</p>
]]></description><link>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/2226486</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/2226486</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[fgadmin]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 07 May 2026 20:21:55 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to Major Plot Hole or Stupid Question? on Thu, 07 May 2026 20:21:53 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><strong>Orlando_Gardner</strong> — <em>9 years ago(January 17, 2017 05:29 PM)</em></p>
<p dir="auto">I believed it was because Sookee looked more Japanese. The Count even remarks on her fine bone structure for a Korean girl. The original maid was far too Korean to pass off as a Japanese lady to the mental institution.</p>
]]></description><link>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/2226485</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/2226485</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[fgadmin]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 07 May 2026 20:21:53 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to Major Plot Hole or Stupid Question? on Thu, 07 May 2026 20:21:52 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><strong>makor86</strong> — <em>9 years ago(January 12, 2017 05:42 PM)</em></p>
<p dir="auto">1st one didnt fit. They wanted someone who would be much better pick.</p>
]]></description><link>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/2226484</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/2226484</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[fgadmin]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 07 May 2026 20:21:52 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to Major Plot Hole or Stupid Question? on Thu, 07 May 2026 20:21:51 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><strong>pashke-57322</strong> — <em>9 years ago(January 05, 2017 01:20 PM)</em></p>
<p dir="auto">You're right, it is a plot hole in the movie BUT the book he adapted the movie from did not have this plot hole because of a major change in the script. As much as I love Park Chan Wook's adaptation of "Fingersmith," he did leave out a major plot point/twist.<br />
<em>Book spoiler ahead</em><br />
In the book, the person who raised Sook Hee, Mrs. Sucksby, played a bigger role, in fact she was the mastermind of the whole operation. The uncle did not have any wives in the original, he took in "Hideko" (Maud) because his sister that died gave birth to a daughter. His sister grew up confined in the mansion, she decided to run away one day, and she got pregnant (not sure if she was already pregnant when she left). The uncle was looking far and wide for her, when she stumbled upon the thieves' shop. She gave birth there and begged Mrs. Sucksby to help her. She did not want her baby to have the same life that she did, stuck in a mansion, living a lonely existence. So the crafty Mrs. Sucksby took the opportunity to give her another baby, and not just any baby. She gave her own daughter  to the dying woman (childbirth issues?). So Sue's (Sook Hee) mom is the dead lady, and Maud's (Hideko) is Mrs. Sucksby. As thanks for her kindness, Sue's mom wrote her a promise dividing her fortune between the two babies (they'll get the money when they turned 21 i think). Mrs. Sucksby was consumed by greed and planned the whole scheme, using the count,so she and her real child, Maud, could get all of the money- stealing Sue's half of the fortune. That's why it HAD to be Sook Hee/Sue.</p>
]]></description><link>https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/2226483</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://filmglance.com/discuss/post/2226483</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[fgadmin]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 07 May 2026 20:21:51 GMT</pubDate></item></channel></rss>