You don't know what a plot hole is. You don't even understand a STAR WARS film. Yeah you don't want to listen, it's because you're too dense to realize when people are taking time to talk to you about how much you can't understand. This isn't a debate. You already lost when you thought a film needed defense or needed to prove its worth to you. That's like asking an apple to prove it should be eaten.
This whole defense idea is humoring a shortcoming in your thinking. Why is it bad writing? Why is a plot hole? You have no consistent basis and further you have no ability to understand why you're frustrated and pissy over a movie. I hate movies all the time. I don't put much thought into those unless it's to change my mind. Do some work yourself or meet people half way. There's politeness for you, but I don't imagine you accept any other terms but your own.
In fiction, a plot hole, plothole or plot error is a gap or inconsistency in a storyline that goes against the flow of logic established by the story's plot.[1] Such inconsistencies include such things as illogical or impossible events [2], and statements or events that contradict earlier events in the storyline. The term is more loosely also applied to "loose ends" in a plot – side-lined story elements that remain unresolved by the end of the plot.
Finn dragging Rose that distance in that amount of time and without getting killed is an illogical or impossible event. I don't know what's hard to understand about that. This is not the only plot hole I can bring up, it's just one of the more glaring examples.
You don't even understand a STAR WARS film. Yeah you don't want to listen, it's because you're too dense to realize when people are taking time to talk to you about how much you can't understand. This isn't a debate. You already lost when you thought a film needed defense or needed to prove its worth to you. That's like asking an apple to prove it should be eaten.
Again if you want to accuse me of something at least back it up with something and then I can at least see how you get to your conclusion. How do I not understand a star wars film? I have responded to everything you have presented so I don't know where the "you don't want to listen" comes from either. Where as there have been times I lay out a long argument and you ignore most of it.
Resorting to blatant insults is childish as well as revealing how weak your position is. I did ask you to defend the movie so I did kind of expect a form of debate. Your analogy of the apple is very odd and not at all a good analogy. You appear to disagree with me that the movie is written badly and has the plot holes that I am saying it has so what is wrong with you defending your position and in effect defending the movie? I would have little problem defending what I thought was a good movie like Infinity War.
This whole defense idea is humoring a shortcoming in your thinking. Why is it bad writing? Why is a plot hole? You have no consistent basis and further you have no ability to understand why you're frustrated and pissy over a movie. I hate movies all the time. I don't put much thought into those unless it's to change my mind. Do some work yourself or meet people half way. There's politeness for you, but I don't imagine you accept any other terms but your own.
If one of us is appearing upset right now it would be you.
I explained in detail why it's bad writing and why that particular scene has at least one plot hole. I haven't seen a decent defense from you on how it's not bad writing and not a plot hole.
You can be polite and still feel like your position is correct. I prefer if people reply to me so I can see it instead of passive aggressively bringing me up in a separate post.
In fiction, a plot hole, plothole or plot error is a gap or inconsistency in a storyline that goes against the flow of logic established by the story's plot.[1] Such inconsistencies include such things as illogical or impossible events [2], and statements or events that contradict earlier events in the storyline. The term is more loosely also applied to "loose ends" in a plot – side-lined story elements that remain unresolved by the end of the plot.
Finn dragging Rose that distance in that amount of time and without getting killed is an illogical or impossible event. I don't know what's hard to understand about that. This is not the only plot hole I can bring up, it's just one of the more glaring examples.
How so? It's not illogical nor impossible that Finn dragged Rose back. This is what I mean by fake distance -- you think it's too far, but only because of what you perceive as distance. The fact WE SEE HIM make it back is proof he was able to get back, just because we didn't see exactly how doesn't mean it's illogical or impossible. Unless you can prove it to be impossible.
Here's something close to what you're talking about, but it's not a plot hole either, and it's from the MCU: How does Hulk get to Sakkaar? We're meant to infer that Sakkaar exists as a trash planet with multiple wormholes and that the Quinjet must have flown through one, which resulted in Banner going into "remission" until Thor catches up with him years later -- but I don't think this is established in film. I know why people are willing to accept this over that, but let's face facts: we're saying we're willing to accept a wormhole in space coincidentally transporting Hulk to another planet over Finn dragging Rose maybe half a mile (?) under the noses of superior numbers who would not consider two people a threat.
Here's another "plothole" from INFINITY WAR: How come there are two identical Infinity Gauntlets? One in Odin's chamber and another worn by Thanos? How can they exist at the same time, look the same, and Thor not know about the razing of Nidavellir before INFINITY WAR? His search for the Infinity Gems never once brought him to the clue sitting in his father's throneroom? Answer: It's not a plot hole because, yeah, it's not impossible that he never saw the fake gauntlet and yeah his mission may not have brought him back to that one glaring clue or Nidavellir.
Just because we don't see it happen doesn't mean it's impossible -- it just means it's a story that hasn't been told (yet).
People were holding out for Snoke and Rey and whomever, because we're all aware of this notion: that there might be more to the story than we've gotten so far. Getting hung up over fake distance does not necessitate a story point dedicated to selling it beyond: look, he dragged her.
Again if you want to accuse me of something at least back it up with something and then I can at least see how you get to your conclusion. How do I not understand a star wars film? I have responded to everything you have presented so I don't know where the "you don't want to listen" comes from either. Where as there have been times I lay out a long argument and you ignore most of it.
I've already explained why your reasoning is bad, go back and look. Don't want to? Here it is again:
I said the same logic you used to to support Finn's suicide mission should also be applied to Rose because they are doing the same thing -- saving people; but you just said what? Finn's saving the mission, Rose is just being selfish? How is that bad writing? Finn is told it's a suicide run, and you said, "How do you know? Are you psychic?" I said because Poe establishes it as fact; to which you responded that's just Poe's opinion. So, let's say that Finn does succeed and kamikazes into the cannon; okay, but he can't die. We can't kill him, he's a main character. So he defeats the canon at what cost? He loses the ship because it's a rickety old POS whose blaster was melted away. Now what -- he's captured by the gorilla walkers. Is there another path to success, taking this tack? I'm asking you how he would have succeeded.
Here's the killer: this is exactly what happened in INFINITY WAR. Thor's plan with Stormbreaker is the same as Finn's plan with the rickety speeder, except Thor makes it to his death cannon (but looks much, much cooler on his way there) -- and discovers "it's sill not enough." Hence what next occurs is the lowest points for our heroes: the death of half the universe and the dwindling hope of the Rebellion.
You can't make up things like "SOMETHING ELSE could have gone well" in a movie, because "well" is not how the plot went. The story goes its way, not your way. To charge bad writing to a story simply because it did not go the way you want is narciscissm. Secondly, to hang up on such a minor point as fake distance is WEAK LOGIC when that distance is not impossible nor illogical.
I get that you feel there are gaps missing in the story, but there aren't. YOU'RE MISSING THEM (these non-gaps). You simply refuse to accept them, and going over why you're incorrect about your assessment is that much more impossible. You can't accept the truth about a movie let alone the possibility you're somehow mistaken in parts of your thinking. It's okay to think it's bad and not like the film -- but you're not correct with your reasons thus far, which is only to say the only thing preventing you from liking this film is you. Not the film. And fighting for the concept of not-liking a film, too, is illogical.
How so? It's not illogical nor impossible that Finn dragged Rose back. This is what I mean by fake distance -- you think it's too far, but only because of what you perceive as distance. The fact WE SEE HIM make it back is proof he was able to get back, just because we didn't see exactly how doesn't mean it's illogical or impossible. Unless you can prove it to be impossible.
My opinion of your reasoning here is that because the movie does such a poor job of writing these events that the fans have to take over and do the work for them. It's not our job to look at an obvious plot hole and then fix it for the movie by inserting some half baked explanation like "Finn pulled Rose behind the rubble and the enemies assumed they were dead. He then found a trench that we never saw in the movie and pulled her through it. The movie then somehow time skips so Finn can pull her the multiple hours it would take to get them back to the base". Something along those lines. This is still a plot hole because the movie gives a no indication on how this could have possibly been done. You claim fake distance but the movie gives a clear visual of how far it is and we also clearly watched how long it took speeders to go that far. How fast does a speeder go you think? Maybe I will try to google it but I am guessing pretty dang fast. Finn could not have dragged her that far in that time frame. Imagine if the movie made us watch Finn drag her all the way back. Of course it wouldn't use that much time and it also wouldn't make sense as to why the enemy is not shooting them. So instead it just teleports them back and hopes no one thinks about it too much.
Here's something close to what you're talking about, but it's not a plot hole either, and it's from the MCU: How does Hulk get to Sakkaar? We're meant to infer that Sakkaar exists as a trash planet with multiple wormholes and that the Quinjet must have flown through one, which resulted in Banner going into "remission" until Thor catches up with him years later -- but I don't think this is established in film. I know why people are willing to accept this over that, but let's face facts: we're saying we're willing to accept a wormhole in space coincidentally transporting Hulk to another planet over Finn dragging Rose maybe half a mile (?) under the noses of superior numbers who would not consider two people a threat.
Whatever got Hulk there was between movies. People don't generally care how he got there as it's not that important to the particular movie. In sci fi and fantasy movies stuff like worm holes exist that of course isn't in real life but that isn't a plot hole. The movie needs to tell us how things work in that universe. When I look at a particular scene I want it to make sense in the confines of that universe and the circumstances of the scene.
Here's another "plothole" from INFINITY WAR: How come there are two identical Infinity Gauntlets? One in Odin's chamber and another worn by Thanos? How can they exist at the same time, look the same, and Thor not know about the razing of Nidavellir before INFINITY WAR? His search for the Infinity Gems never once brought him to the clue sitting in his father's throneroom? Answer: It's not a plot hole because, yeah, it's not impossible that he never saw the fake gauntlet and yeah his mission may not have brought him back to that one glaring clue or Nidavellir.
If I remember correctly the goddess of death chick said that the gauntlet in Odin's chamber is a fake. She said that about most of the stuff in Odin's chambers.
Just because we don't see it happen doesn't mean it's impossible -- it just means it's a story that hasn't been told (yet).
People were holding out for Snoke and Rey and whomever, because we're all aware of this notion: that there might be more to the story than we've gotten so far. Getting hung up over fake distance does not necessitate a story point dedicated to selling it beyond: look, he dragged her.
It's impossible based on the information the movie gave us. They can try to go back and fix it in the next movie but if they did that it would just be because they failed to properly tell the story in this movie. I still don't know how this could be fake distance. Just think about how fast the speeders were going reasonably speaking and about how long we saw them flying them. Rate multiplied by time = distance.
I've already explained why your reasoning is bad, go back and look. Don't want to? Here it is again:
I said the same logic you used to to support Finn's suicide mission should also be applied to Rose because they are doing the same thing -- saving people; but you just said what? Finn's saving the mission, Rose is just being selfish? How is that bad writing? Finn is told it's a suicide run, and you said, "How do you know? Are you psychic?" I said because Poe establishes it as fact; to which you responded that's just Poe's opinion. So, let's say that Finn does succeed and kamikazes into the cannon; okay, but he can't die. We can't kill him, he's a main character. So he defeats the canon at what cost? He loses the ship because it's a rickety old POS whose blaster was melted away. Now what -- he's captured by the gorilla walkers. Is there another path to success, taking this tack? I'm asking you how he would have succeeded.
I honestly have no idea what you are talking about or where there is any rationality in the above post. I'm mostly confused by the "How could he have succeeded" question. Finn was literally a second or two away from the canon which was his goal to destroy. He made the conscious decision to sacrifice himself to stop that canon. You argued that we don't know if he would have made it but how in the world can you make that claim when he was literally right in front of it? If Rose hadn't of stopped him he very easily would have hit the canon.
Finn and Rose aren't even close to doing the same thing. That claim has absolutely no rationality in it. What Finn is doing makes sense. There is nothing strange or wrong with his choice. People make that choice in real life and in movies ALL THE TIME. Rose's motivation is what makes absolutely no sense. She claims to want to save what she loves but she has absolutely no way of knowing if either of them will survive her insane crash into him and then SOMEHOW make it back to the base. She could very easily be killing her other friends by stopping Finn but she doesn't care. That's why it's selfish, she is ignoring why she was out there in the first place. She is ignoring what her sister gave her life for.
Here's the killer: this is exactly what happened in INFINITY WAR. Thor's plan with Stormbreaker is the same as Finn's plan with the rickety speeder, except Thor makes it to his death cannon (but looks much, much cooler on his way there) -- and discovers "it's sill not enough." Hence what next occurs is the lowest points for our heroes: the death of half the universe and the dwindling hope of the Rebellion.
You can't make up things like "SOMETHING ELSE could have gone well" in a movie, because "well" is not how the plot went. The story goes its way, not your way. To charge bad writing to a story simply because it did not go the way you want is narciscissm. Secondly, to hang up on such a minor point as fake distance is WEAK LOGIC when that distance is not impossible nor illogical.
Are you suggesting that I can't think about how the movie could have been written better? You are claiming that I am charging the movie with bad writing only because I wanted it to do something different but that is not the case. Yeah I want the movie to be better but that's because it's full of bad writing. This is just one plot hole and I am not calling the movie bad because of one plot hole. I am saying it's a clear example of a plot hole and I don't know why you are defending it so hard. Finn dragging an adult the same distance that they just traveled on SPEEDERS in that amount of time is most certainly impossible and that doesn't even factor in why the enemy wouldn't have simply killed or captured them. But the movie just ignores it and teleports them back.
I get that you feel there are gaps missing in the story, but there aren't. YOU'RE MISSING THEM (these non-gaps). You simply refuse to accept them, and going over why you're incorrect about your assessment is that much more impossible. You can't accept the truth about a movie let alone the possibility you're somehow mistaken in parts of your thinking. It's okay to think it's bad and not like the film -- but you're not correct with your reasons thus far, which is only to say the only thing preventing you from liking this film is you. Not the film. And fighting for the concept of not-liking a film, too, is illogical.
I have accepted that we are never going to agree here and we have only been discussing one scene lol. I can only imagine that you also think that Snoke and Phasma were well made characters right? No problems there......
Whatever got Hulk there was between movies. People don't generally care how he got there as it's not that important to the particular movie. In sci fi and fantasy movies stuff like worm holes exist that of course isn't in real life but that isn't a plot hole. The movie needs to tell us how things work in that universe. When I look at a particular scene I want it to make sense in the confines of that universe and the circumstances of the scene.
This is where I think you're inconsistent. By your definition we do not see how it could have possibly been done. If you accept the advent of wormholes as explanation, why not dragging?
Personally I don't think HOW Finn getting back to base is important. It's not crucial beyond the fact he gets back.
If I remember correctly the goddess of death chick said that the gauntlet in Odin's chamber is a fake. She said that about most of the stuff in Odin's chambers.
The hole forms because the fake gauntlet looks like the real gauntlet, so if the fake gauntlet has been there since THOR 1:
It literally raises more questions than it answers (within the story; outside the story we know it's just an Easter Egg and movies are imperfect).
Finn getting back to the fort doesn't raise important questions except for "Hey, wouldn't the First Order have seen them?" And that's answered by the intervention of Luke, who drew everyone's attention.
It's impossible based on the information the movie gave us. They can try to go back and fix it in the next movie but if they did that it would just be because they failed to properly tell the story in this movie. I still don't know how this could be fake distance. Just think about how fast the speeders were going reasonably speaking and about how long we saw them flying them. Rate multiplied by time = distance.
What I mean by fake distance is stories do not adhere to physical reality, so what we see is a depiction of Story. An approximation. Yes, it would be more easily sold if the depictions were accurate, but for dramatic license stories often diverge from reality. There is sound in space. There is AI to give agency to robots. In more mundane films, bullets knock people flying backwards. You always get good parking and the bartender automatically knows what you want if you just say "beer." Shakespeare said never let history get in the way of a good story.
To get hung up on minor details is to rob yourself of the pleasure of the story. It's perfectly fine to be hung up, and maybe you don't think these details are minor. And the truth is, for you, there was no story so there was no pleasure.
But you won't get me to agree it's a plot hole based on what you've said, and based on what you've said I think you're cherry-picking, which is fine for me too. But as far as debate goes, it will neither win you the argument nor gain you a better understanding of the mechanisms at work. Maybe you're not interested in being right or wiser, but I must admit no one said you had to be. I find it utterly fascinating where the rubber meets the road, and what people are willing to buy and not buy.
For me just because we didn't see what happened doesn't necessarily mean it COULDN'T happen. To be sure, you're right that it's better to show than not-show, or merely tell -- but the absence of story points does not necessarily result in "impossible" or "illogical."
I honestly have no idea what you are talking about or where there is any rationality in the above post. I'm mostly confused by the "How could he have succeeded" question. Finn was literally a second or two away from the canon which was his goal to destroy. He made the conscious decision to sacrifice himself to stop that canon. You argued that we don't know if he would have made it but how in the world can you make that claim when he was literally right in front of it?
Because he was in a rickety craft that was already breaking down as it neared the cannon and because even if he made it to the cannon and destroyed it -- where does he go from there? Recall your issue with Finn dragging Rose back -- you wonder how does he do this under the nose of the First Order? Okay, so the same logic should apply to concept of Finn destroying the cannon. If he's right under the nose of the First Order, they know he's just destroyed their cannon -- how do you imagine he finds success at THAT point?
Finn and Rose aren't even close to doing the same thing. That claim has absolutely no rationality in it. What Finn is doing makes sense. There is nothing strange or wrong with his choice. People make that choice in real life and in movies ALL THE TIME. Rose's motivation is what makes absolutely no sense. She claims to want to save what she loves but she has absolutely no way of knowing if either of them will survive her insane crash into him and then SOMEHOW make it back to the base. She could very easily be killing her other friends by stopping Finn but she doesn't care. That's why it's selfish, she is ignoring why she was out there in the first place. She is ignoring what her sister gave her life for.
Are they both risking their lives for uncertain gain? Yes. Are they both doing because something they believe in? Yes. Are they (selfishly) doing it despite better reasons not to? Yes.
That's not a rational connection?
It's cruel to say that Finn would have saved everyone else's life so in prevention of that Rose has killed everyone else. It's not that she doesn't care about the rest, she doesn't want him to die for no reason. I don't know how you can say one is selfish and the other isn't. I really can't see how you think they're so different.
The point is Thor striking Thanos is equivalent to Finn reaching the cannon. It didn't work. My contention if Finn had destroyed the cannon, he would have been either killed or captured -- he would have failed in what he intended to do. Because the OVERALL mission is NOT destroy the cannon, just like it was NOT destroy the Dreadnought at the beginning. This mission is to keep the Rebellion alive, including himself.
It's not about fighting what you hate, it's about saving what you love.
I'm saying is faulting a movie because it didn't go according to your druthers is you putting yourself ahead of the film, in which case it is you who needs to rethink the film IF YOU WANT TO ENJOY IT. Big IF there. But, IF you want it -- there is a sublimely good film in TLJ just waiting for you to recognize it. I seent it already.
And I fully believe that when the dust settles -- whatever that means for each of us -- that people will eventually come around to appreciating TLJ. I wholeheartedly encourage you to think about how the movie could have been written better, but just in a way that makes sense. It may make perfect sense to you but your reasoning doesn't make sense to me, which is not to say either of us have failed in communication or debate. It's just that we're really different in how we take in films.
I have accepted that we are never going to agree here and we have only been discussing one scene lol. I can only imagine that you also think that Snoke and Phasma were well made characters right? No problems there......
Anyway, I'm more interested in The Why we don't agree. Above, we disagree in perceived character motivations and the importance of distance/logistics. To the latter, I concentrate on the events of story whereas you're more concerned with detail and logic. To the former, well, I think you're just making stuff up and you think I have no rationality; and I feel we both regard ourselves as the opposite.
Before you get into the fabric of Snoke and Phasma, I have to warn you I never built them up in my head. I think they functioned within the story perfectly well, and I really liked Snoke in this one. I didn't need to know where he came from just like I didn't really need to know where Palpatine came from when I saw him in ROTJ. To that point, I didn't need to know where Vader came from either, but then we got the Prequels and my heart broke into a thousand pieces. Like with Rey, I don't hold credence in backstory so much as in the events that unfurl immediately before my eyes. The NOW is their origin story.
I also never understood why I should expect anything more out of Phasma. So, why did you think they were bad?
Durr he dragged her. How does that explain how they were not captured or killed? For someone who accused me of not knowing what a plot hole is you sure want to pretend they don't exist.
This is where I think you're inconsistent. By your definition we do not see how it could have possibly been done. If you accept the advent of wormholes as explanation, why not dragging?
Dragging doesn't answer how they got back safely and that fast. Wormholes doesn't have that problem. There isn't a plot hole with Hulk just a backstory that we didn't see because it was before the movie ever happened. Before the movie is also a different case as opposed to during the movie.
I don't mind if you think that. Some people are going to care more than others. But it's still a plot hole. I'm not trying to get you to say the movie is bad because of this plot hole. Just admit that it's a plot hole. Same as so many other movies we have seen. Should I bring up other examples of plot holes that people commonly reference?
The hole forms because the fake gauntlet looks like the real gauntlet, so if the fake gauntlet has been there since THOR 1:
It literally raises more questions than it answers (within the story; outside the story we know it's just an Easter Egg and movies are imperfect).
Finn getting back to the fort doesn't raise important questions except for "Hey, wouldn't the First Order have seen them?" And that's answered by the intervention of Luke, who drew everyone's attention.
No if you watch the movie you can see how far they are from the base then the movie time jumps forward to where the walkers are very close to the base. So the movie skips all that time it would have taken the walkers to get there and for Finn to drag Rose all the way back. Luke appearing doesn't answer the question because the distance has already been traveled and they already ignored Finn and Rose inexplicably.
What I mean by fake distance is stories do not adhere to physical reality, so what we see is a depiction of Story. An approximation. Yes, it would be more easily sold if the depictions were accurate, but for dramatic license stories often diverge from reality. There is sound in space. There is AI to give agency to robots. In more mundane films, bullets knock people flying backwards. You always get good parking and the bartender automatically knows what you want if you just say "beer." Shakespeare said never let history get in the way of a good story.
Movies will look fake in some ways because they are movies. Like a fist fight in a movie isn't going to look like a fist fight in real life for example. People know this and that's fine for the most part. But that is different than plot holes that the movie could have avoided with better writing. That scene needed to make better sense. With the characters choices/motivations and with how they survived.
To get hung up on minor details is to rob yourself of the pleasure of the story. It's perfectly fine to be hung up, and maybe you don't think these details are minor. And the truth is, for you, there was no story so there was no pleasure.
But you won't get me to agree it's a plot hole based on what you've said, and based on what you've said I think you're cherry-picking, which is fine for me too. But as far as debate goes, it will neither win you the argument nor gain you a better understanding of the mechanisms at work. Maybe you're not interested in being right or wiser, but I must admit no one said you had to be. I find it utterly fascinating where the rubber meets the road, and what people are willing to buy and not buy.
For me just because we didn't see what happened doesn't necessarily mean it COULDN'T happen. To be sure, you're right that it's better to show than not-show, or merely tell -- but the absence of story points does not necessarily result in "impossible" or "illogical."
Like I said they could have made the scene make more sense. The problem is the way they presented it is not rational. The first order was bent on killing all of them. There was no reasoning presented by the movie as to why Finn and Rose were not captured or killed. This scene is the very definition of a plot hole. Another example is when Finn and Rose were about to be executed and then after Holdo smashed into them Phasma was somehow on the other side of the room walking towards them with a bunch more guards. That didn't make any sense. She should have still been right there reacting similar to Rose and Finn.
Because he was in a rickety craft that was already breaking down as it neared the cannon and because even if he made it to the cannon and destroyed it -- where does he go from there? Recall your issue with Finn dragging Rose back -- you wonder how does he do this under the nose of the First Order? Okay, so the same logic should apply to concept of Finn destroying the cannon. If he's right under the nose of the First Order, they know he's just destroyed their cannon -- how do you imagine he finds success at THAT point?
I'm not sure where this confusion has started but I have never been claiming that Finn would survive Smashing his ship into the canon. It was obviously a suicide run at that point. That's why he closed his eyes, he was accepting death. He would be successful in stopping the canon. That was my point.
Are they both risking their lives for uncertain gain? Yes. Are they both doing because something they believe in? Yes. Are they (selfishly) doing it despite better reasons not to? Yes.
No I do not agree with that. Finn was just a second or two away from succeeding. There isn't really any reason to believe he wasn't going to hit that canon like he wanted to. What Finn is doing isn't selfish in the least and actually makes sense. I have gone over this so many time in this discussion and it's baffling that you are still trying to argue against it. The motivations of the two are night and day different. Finn's makes sense and Rose's doesn't. This is one big example of why so many Star Wars fans dislike Rose the most. Her character is done so poorly and doesn't make sense.
It's cruel to say that Finn would have saved everyone else's life so in prevention of that Rose has killed everyone else. It's not that she doesn't care about the rest, she doesn't want him to die for no reason. I don't know how you can say one is selfish and the other isn't. I really can't see how you think they're so different.
What do you mean "no reason". How can you type that and not see how little sense that makes? The mission is not no reason. Stopping the first order is not no reason. Her being selfish is only one issue. If she knew how they would live that would help the scene a lot but she didn't even know if they would survive the damn crash. It's such a stupid scene I struggle to believe any adult actually takes it seriously.
The point is Thor striking Thanos is equivalent to Finn reaching the cannon. It didn't work. My contention if Finn had destroyed the cannon, he would have been either killed or captured -- he would have failed in what he intended to do. Because the OVERALL mission is NOT destroy the cannon, just like it was NOT destroy the Dreadnought at the beginning. This mission is to keep the Rebellion alive, including himself.
No you are completely wrong here. Him being killed or captured has nothing to do with his goal there which was to take out the canon with his ship. Based on the information the movie gave us at the time stopping the canon was very important to keeping them alive.
I'm saying is faulting a movie because it didn't go according to your druthers is you putting yourself ahead of the film, in which case it is you who needs to rethink the film IF YOU WANT TO ENJOY IT. Big IF there. But, IF you want it -- there is a sublimely good film in TLJ just waiting for you to recognize it. I seent it already.
I don't know how anyone can call this a "sublimely good film". It has far too many problems to be anywhere close to that. Basic problems. You really appear to be suggesting that everyone should turn their brains off and ignore any issues with any movie because if they don't they will be "putting themselves ahead of the film".....
And I fully believe that when the dust settles -- whatever that means for each of us -- that people will eventually come around to appreciating TLJ. I wholeheartedly encourage you to think about how the movie could have been written better, but just in a way that makes sense. It may make perfect sense to you but your reasoning doesn't make sense to me, which is not to say either of us have failed in communication or debate. It's just that we're really different in how we take in films.
It's already widely accepted as the worst star wars movie. I doubt that will ever change. So far we have really only discussed this one part of he movie and you are trying to say it's not a plot hole when I am sure it is objectively a plot hole. That is a problem.
Before you get into the fabric of Snoke and Phasma, I have to warn you I never built them up in my head. I think they functioned within the story perfectly well, and I really liked Snoke in this one. I didn't need to know where he came from just like I didn't really need to know where Palpatine came from when I saw him in ROTJ. To that point, I didn't need to know where Vader came from either, but then we got the Prequels and my heart broke into a thousand pieces. Like with Rey, I don't hold credence in backstory so much as in the events that unfurl immediately before my eyes. The NOW is their origin story.
I also never understood why I should expect anything more out of Phasma. So, why did you think they were bad?
You don't really have to build them up in your head. They were presented as important antagonists, especially Snoke. The problem is the movie threw them away in such a baffling manner. Fans had no chance to learn anything about them. Snoke was just some powerful dude that people hardly understand who then died to a stupid trick from Kylo. It didn't make much sense and really wasted the character. Honestly the movie didn't need Snoke at all to accomplish the same thing. No one would miss Snoke because we don't care about him. The movie failed to make anyone care. Same type of critique goes to Phasma. We know very little about her. She is barely in either movie. She is really there just to be a generic bad guy. Imagine if Darth Vader was treated like this? Darth Vader gets the appropriate screen time. An amazing back story. Fight scenes with weight to them and dialogue that connects the characters and makes them epic. Now of course Kylo is the main protagonist in the movie I get that but these supporting antagonists could have added to the movie instead of being throw away villains.
Like I said they could have made the scene make more sense. The problem is the way they presented it is not rational. The first order was bent on killing all of them. There was no reasoning presented by the movie as to why Finn and Rose were not captured or killed. This scene is the very definition of a plot hole.
I don't see how it could be anything other than a plot hole. If you disagree then maybe we can compare it to other plot holes and see if there is a difference.
One that comes to mind is independence day when the plan they come up with is to upload a virus into the alien craft. They say nothing about how it is possible to use human computers on alien technology to do this. It's really the same situation here where we have no idea how Finn and Rose could possibly survive this situation and how Finn could make it all the way back like that.
I don't see how it could be anything other than a plot hole. If you disagree then maybe we can compare it to other plot holes and see if there is a difference.
One that comes to mind is independence day when the plan they come up with is to upload a virus into the alien craft. They say nothing about how it is possible to use human computers on alien technology to do this. It's really the same situation here where we have no idea how Finn and Rose could possibly survive this situation and how Finn could make it all the way back like that.
I'll give you something to think about, and get into your above points a bit later.
A plot hole is an impossible or illogical event that must satisfy the following criteria:
1. The story establishes it as impossible/illogical
2. It's purposely written that way, meaning that mistakes don't count (such as Luke's projection moving Leia's hair through contact or the more obvious Luke kicking the dude in ROTJ but never coming close to contact)
3. To a lesser degree, it should be something significant
The abiding depiction of the First Order is they without fail underestimate the Resistance. Every time, they initially overlook the "threat" and end up paying for it. There is also real psychology where focus on one thing makes other things in your field of vision invisible. Have you seen the video with the basketball and the panda? But this video doesn't really mean much to this discussion, other than to say yes people can sneak by without you knowing.
I've only found two plot holes, and one is iffy.
KARATE KID. I believe Daniel wins and I believe the rule is stated that kicking above the waist is illegal. If these are true, then winning via crane kick is a plot hole. The kick is purposely written, so it's not a mistake. But like I said iffy.
Here's the good one.
BACK TO THE FUTURE. Marty goes back in time, changes events, and returns to a changed present. In the second movie, Old Biff goes back, hands himself the almanac to become rich, and returns to his present. Nevermind the question why he'd return from his idyllic youth at all, we know the film needs to bring the DeLorean back or else Doc, Marty, and Jennifer are trapped; but Biff returns to HIS present. Nothing changed. 1985 sure changed, but not the future. The argument here is perspective. From Marty's or the DeLorean's perspective, Biff's actions are part of the obstacles that were always going to plague the timeline, hence they just need correction. But this gets into the agency of time itself, which is the mythos of TIMECOP not B2F. I'm sure there are more arguments, but like I've said: plot holes are tough to find. They are not things we don't like or don't understand, that's not enough to qualify.
Dragging doesn't answer how they got back safely and that fast. Wormholes doesn't have that problem. There isn't a plot hole with Hulk just a backstory that we didn't see because it was before the movie ever happened. Before the movie is also a different case as opposed to during the movie.
I get that, and I remind you that I said Worm-Hulk wasn't a plot hole, I said according to your criteria it should be. The bold section applies to Finn returning to base. It's the same thing, which means the fact you accept one and not the other indicates inconsistency of reasoning. No bueno.
I don't mind if you think that. Some people are going to care more than others. But it's still a plot hole. I'm not trying to get you to say the movie is bad because of this plot hole. Just admit that it's a plot hole. Same as so many other movies we have seen. Should I bring up other examples of plot holes that people commonly reference?
BE MY GUEST, and may many, many people like that post in a show of solidarity.
Here's the funny thing: I don't mind that you call TLJ a bad movie, just don't call something that's not a plot hole a plot hole. It's as if you saw a man who behaved in a manner you hate and you said, "THAT'S NO KIND OF MAN." Technically, you're wrong but I still understand what you mean and wouldn't quibble with phrasing. However, to argue the nature of biological sex would mean your declaration is false 100% of the time, to say nothing about getting ME to agree with you.
I'm illustrating how we can see plot holes that aren't necessarily plot holes. The nature of the plot hole itself is incidental, just like it's incidental whether or not we consider Rey a Mary Sue. Even though it SEEMS likes some events and Rey check the boxes that would categorize them as plot holes or Mary Sues -- the larger issue is how the category affects and effects the story. We can't say Rey is badly written because she is a Mary Sue and then when pressed the response is she's a Mary Sue because she's badly written, that's circular reasoning. The real thing to concentrate on is how Rey navigates through the story, and yes it's super convenient much of the time but rarely unwarrantedly so.
Trust me: it took me four times going through TFA before coming to that conclusion. (Man I was so upset with TFA that first time.)
The problem with Odin keeping the gauntlet circa THOR 1 (Phase 1) is the question it raises due to the existence of both gauntlets. Thanos has had his gauntlet since at least AVENGERS 2 (Phase 2); preceding AOU, Thor has been seen sitting in Asgard's throneroom plenty in DARK WORLD (also Phase 2). How has he not seen the gauntlet? How do both gauntlets look the same? One answer could be Odin saw the gauntlet in a premoniton, but why then is a fake artifact surrounded by, you know, actual spoils of war? If this is a premonition, how come he informs no one? There could be many reasons but because none of them are unearthed, except Hela establishing it as fake in RAGNAROK (Phase 3), this should be according to your criteria considered a plot hole. But it's not. It's just, as we agree, "unexplained backstory" or "a story not yet told (and may never need to be)."
But there are a lot of questions, pertaining the timing of events. Has Peter Dinklage been staring at his steel hands for three years, trying to sadturbate with nary an ejaculation? HE DIN'T CALL NOBODY? NO ONE VISITED NIDAVELLIR? Skurge was like, "Fuck god-slaying weapons, all I need is my two Texas AKs?"
No if you watch the movie you can see how far they are from the base then the movie time jumps forward to where the walkers are very close to the base. So the movie skips all that time it would have taken the walkers to get there and for Finn to drag Rose all the way back. Luke appearing doesn't answer the question because the distance has already been traveled and they already ignored Finn and Rose inexplicably.
Here's another thing to think about: time doesn't flow the same in film as it does in reality, nor does it flow at consistent speed within the film itself. We know this for sure during slow-motion sequences, but it's also true when no camera tricks are involved. Just like distance is arbitrary in film, so is the passage of time -- what defines distance and time is, say it with me: Story. If the story dictates they got back safe, then that's it. You can call it convenient or badly written, but you can't argue it's a plot hole or impossible unless you have better proof than what you've provided thus far. Don't adhere to definitions that already confirm what you think -- you're much better off challenging your own understanding, then real conviction comes from appreciating the counter argument AND STILL sticking to your guns. Trying to deny counter argument or diminish me is futile at best and self-incriminating at worst.
Another example is when Finn and Rose were about to be executed and then after Holdo smashed into them Phasma was somehow on the other side of the room walking towards them with a bunch more guards. That didn't make any sense. She should have still been right there reacting similar to Rose and Finn.
I agree with that, but it's not a plot hole. It's not impossible for Phasma and her retinue to be elsewhere because they could have been helping other soldiers off-ship or knocked headlong into another part of the hangar by the giant shockwave of a ship crashing through their ship.
I'm not sure where this confusion has started but I have never been claiming that Finn would survive Smashing his ship into the canon. It was obviously a suicide run at that point. That's why he closed his eyes, he was accepting death. He would be successful in stopping the canon. That was my point.
Stopping the cannon is not the mission. The mission is keeping safe until help arrives. Stopping the cannon is PART of the mission, and if the success of PART of the mission still means the mission is in danger -- that's the definition of futile. Yes, Finn has to try because he's desperate and blind to reason -- but he is incorrect and Rose spares him from his mistake. If the cannon is gone, the First Order still has the remaining fleet and Finn is either dead or captured. Nothing changes except that Finn becomes a liability.
The cannon is there only to teach Finn the lesson of why the Resistance exists. First he left the First Order for himself, then he did everything for Rey, and then he was presented with two-sides of war, and still after Rose nearly died he still didn't get it, even when Poe explains they are the spark that will ignite the blah blah blah he may still not wholly grasp the key to victory.
What do you mean "no reason". How can you type that and not see how little sense that makes? The mission is not no reason. Stopping the first order is not no reason. Her being selfish is only one issue. If she knew how they would live that would help the scene a lot but she didn't even know if they would survive the damn crash. It's such a stupid scene I struggle to believe any adult actually takes it seriously.
No you are completely wrong here. Him being killed or captured has nothing to do with his goal there which was to take out the canon with his ship. Based on the information the movie gave us at the time stopping the canon was very important to keeping them alive.
GODDAMMIT, LARRY, STOP SPELLING CANNON WITH ONE N.
Canon is a camera company, a type of Classical music piece, and the official history of a fictional mythos. A cannon is what I've been taking to your line of reasoning.
You really appear to be suggesting that everyone should turn their brains off and ignore any issues with any movie because if they don't they will be "putting themselves ahead of the film".....
Very much the opposite. Turning your brain off is what robbed you of a sublimely good film, and it's not a matter of mental chicanery. I didn't walk out of TLJ needing to fool myself into believe it was great; all these tricks and statements are only used here in discussion. I'm not arguing for the film because I already believe it's great -- I'm arguing against your understanding. It's not even really an argument, because I'm trying to show you ANOTHER interpretation, not supplant your own. Beyond the film, I'm also sharpening up your debate skills by reinforcing terms and mechanics. But, make no mistake: I have no problem if you disagree with any of this. It's truly your loss, not mine.
You don't want to point to definitions and look for consensus when it comes to film analyses. It's weak and simple, and often screws you over if your interpretation of the definitions is oversimplified and misses the nuance. It's not uncommon. Even the guy with the three videos on why TLJ is horrible, he brings up mechanisms he says would have improved the film while not accepting that those mechanisms were already in place and he'd missed or rejected them. Don't take it too bad.
It's already widely accepted as the worst star wars movie. I doubt that will ever change. So far we have really only discussed this one part of he movie and you are trying to say it's not a plot hole when I am sure it is objectively a plot hole. That is a problem.
How are you making stuff up still? Everyone knows TPM is widely regarded as the worst, but in my opinion it should be either ATTACK OF THE CLONES or TFA. Personally? I think everyone should be saying AOC, while I'd be the lone voice against TFA.
Not MY problem.
You don't really have to build them up in your head.They were presented as important antagonists, especially Snoke. The problem is the movie threw them away in such a baffling manner. Fans had no chance to learn anything about them. Snoke was just some powerful dude that people hardly understand who then died to a stupid trick from Kylo. It didn't make much sense and really wasted the character. Honestly the movie didn't need Snoke at all to accomplish the same thing. No one would miss Snoke because we don't care about him. The movie failed to make anyone care. Same type of critique goes to Phasma. We know very little about her. She is barely in either movie. She is really there just to be a generic bad guy. Imagine if Darth Vader was treated like this? Darth Vader gets the appropriate screen time. An amazing back story. Fight scenes with weight to them and dialogue that connects the characters and makes them epic. Now of course Kylo is the main protagonist in the movie I get that but these supporting antagonists could have added to the movie instead of being throw away villains.
What's the bold version of this?
<puh-lease75> That's a contradiction, and Snoke was excellently realized in TLJ. His supreme power was on glorious display, and ultimately informed us of the hubris that would be his undoing. Snoke is very clear despite his origins being mysterious. His history matters very little to me, in the same way that Palpatine's history as Senator and Chancellor means ZERO to the lightning bolts he wielded in ROTJ. The film is already spread thin by dividing the principles into their own subplots. As it stands, within TLJ he is very well integrated and crucial to the story.
Phasma -- I really don't get why Phasma needs more pop. Is it because she's a big ass bitch? Because she comes from GOT? Because her armor's silver? Because she's cruel to underlings? Because Kennedy made this big stink about Feminism? Where in either movie is it presented that Phasma should hold more signinficance than being Finn fodder?
I very much didn't like it. There's not a single scene that sticks out to me as memorable. They forced comedy into too many situations, spread the characters thin such that none of them feel that developed, and completely glossed over certain subplots. It was almost as if whoever wrote this movie looked at what they had developed for TFA and said
Maybe Episode 9 comes out and makes sense of all of it. But I'm not holding my breath.
KARATE KID. I believe Daniel wins and I believe the rule is stated that kicking above the waist is illegal. If these are true, then winning via crane kick is a plot hole. The kick is purposely written, so it's not a mistake. But like I said iffy.
.
This is a good example of a plot hole. It's a bit different than the one we are discussing in the last jedi but it's still a good find. Of course the movie is so good that no one really cares. The scene itself is amazing so no one is going to complain much about it. I have no problem admitting though that it is a plot hole even though I love the movie.
I get that, and I remind you that I said Worm-Hulk wasn't a plot hole, I said according to your criteria it should be. The bold section applies to Finn returning to base. It's the same thing, which means the fact you accept one and not the other indicates inconsistency of reasoning. No bueno.
It is very obviously a plot hole and I haven't seen a single convincing argument from you that it isn't. Hell one of the points you have made over and over again is basically that I should accept whatever the movie tells me. How can you accuse me of not knowing what a plot hole is when you are telling me to ignore them and just go along with whatever they say? That's not the attitude of anyone who cares if there are plot holes in a movie.
We can't say Rey is badly written because she is a Mary Sue and then when pressed the response is she's a Mary Sue because she's badly written, that's circular reasoning. The real thing to concentrate on is how Rey navigates through the story, and yes it's super convenient much of the time but rarely unwarrantedly so.
The problem with Odin keeping the gauntlet circa THOR 1 (Phase 1) is the question it raises due to the existence of both gauntlets. Thanos has had his gauntlet since at least AVENGERS 2 (Phase 2); preceding AOU, Thor has been seen sitting in Asgard's throneroom plenty in DARK WORLD (also Phase 2). How has he not seen the gauntlet? How do both gauntlets look the same? One answer could be Odin saw the gauntlet in a premoniton, but why then is a fake artifact surrounded by, you know, actual spoils of war? If this is a premonition, how come he informs no one? There could be many reasons but because none of them are unearthed, except Hela establishing it as fake in RAGNAROK (Phase 3), this should be according to your criteria considered a plot hole. But it's not. It's just, as we agree, "unexplained backstory" or "a story not yet told (and may never need to be)."
You keep saying "my criteria" but you don't even understand my criteria. Odin having a fake gauntlet doesn't affect that movie AT ALL. That is why it's not a plot hole. You having questions about where the gauntlet came from is not an example of an illogical or impossible event. Obviously.
But there are a lot of questions, pertaining the timing of events. Has Peter Dinklage been staring at his steel hands for three years, trying to sadturbate with nary an ejaculation? HE DIN'T CALL NOBODY? NO ONE VISITED NIDAVELLIR? Skurge was like, "Fuck god-slaying weapons, all I need is my two Texas AKs?"
This is like saying that lightspeed is a plot hole because we don't know how it works. If your question deals with the fantasy elements then it is not an example of a plot hole.
Here's another thing to think about: time doesn't flow the same in film as it does in reality, nor does it flow at consistent speed within the film itself. We know this for sure during slow-motion sequences, but it's also true when no camera tricks are involved. Just like distance is arbitrary in film, so is the passage of time -- what defines distance and time is, say it with me: Story. If the story dictates they got back safe, then that's it.
Once again you reveal that you don't even care about plot holes. Just go along with whatever the movie says. And you have the gall to tell me that I don't know what they are. Give me a break. Durr the movie got them back safe. But it was an illogical or impossible event so therefore it's a plot hole.
You can call it convenient or badly written, but you can't argue it's a plot hole or impossible unless you have better proof than what you've provided thus far.
This is total nonsense from someone telling me to just accept what happened because that's what happened. It's bad writing is what made the plot hole. So yeah I will say it's both because it is. The proof I have given is more than enough.
I agree with that, but it's not a plot hole. It's not impossible for Phasma and her retinue to be elsewhere because they could have been helping other soldiers off-ship or knocked headlong into another part of the hangar by the giant shockwave of a ship crashing through their ship
They were altogether so the scene would have made a lot more sense for them to at least be in the same vicinity and show them all knocked down. They were marching together toward Finn and Rose like nothing had happened. It's still a plot hole but not as major as the other one.
Stopping the cannon is not the mission. The mission is keeping safe until help arrives.
Stopping the cannon is PART of the mission, and if the success of PART of the mission still means the mission is in danger -- that's the definition of futile. Yes, Finn has to try because he's desperate and blind to reason -- but he is incorrect and Rose spares him from his mistake. If the cannon is gone, the First Order still has the remaining fleet and Finn is either dead or captured. Nothing changes except that Finn becomes a liability.
Finn isn't incorrect about anything. He made a conscious choice to help save what he cares about. Rose wasn't sparing him from anything because she had absolutely no way of knowing they would live. The movie is what told us that it was important to stop the cannon but now you are minimizing that to push your argument. It's still irrelevant how much good it would have done. What Rose did made no sense on any level. If she could have done something to guarantee both their safety then I would concede some here but that is not the case.
Very much the opposite. Turning your brain off is what robbed you of a sublimely good film, and it's not a matter of mental chicanery. I didn't walk out of TLJ needing to fool myself into believe it was great; all these tricks and statements are only used here in discussion. I'm not arguing for the film because I already believe it's great -- I'm arguing against your understanding. It's not even really an argument, because I'm trying to show you ANOTHER interpretation, not supplant your own. Beyond the film, I'm also sharpening up your debate skills by reinforcing terms and mechanics. But, make no mistake: I have no problem if you disagree with any of this. It's truly your loss, not mine.
Really weird claims you are making. A lot of "I'm so great" kind of talk. Your debating is not impressive. This has nothing to do with losing anything. I don't think you are wrong to like the movie. I think you are objectively wrong with the stuff that is wrong with it.
You don't want to point to definitions and look for consensus when it comes to film analyses. It's weak and simple, and often screws you over if your interpretation of the definitions is oversimplified and misses the nuance. It's not uncommon. Even the guy with the three videos on why TLJ is horrible, he brings up mechanisms he says would have improved the film while not accepting that those mechanisms were already in place and he'd missed or rejected them. Don't take it too bad.
That's a contradiction, and Snoke was excellently realized in TLJ. His supreme power was on glorious display, and ultimately informed us of the hubris that would be his undoing. Snoke is very clear despite his origins being mysterious. His history matters very little to me, in the same way that Palpatine's history as Senator and Chancellor means ZERO to the lightning bolts he wielded in ROTJ. The film is already spread thin by dividing the principles into their own subplots. As it stands, within TLJ he is very well integrated and crucial to the story.
"Well integrated" is that another way of saying pointless and unneeded? People don't give a shit about Snoke for good reason. The movie made it that way. Shit character.
Phasma -- I really don't get why Phasma needs more pop. Is it because she's a big ass bitch? Because she comes from GOT? Because her armor's silver? Because she's cruel to underlings? Because Kennedy made this big stink about Feminism? Where in either movie is it presented that Phasma should hold more signinficance than being Finn fodder?
Now you want to argue that a character that was built up by the people who made this movie and advertised heavily by this movie and made to look like an important villain in the movie itself isn't important? She's just another throw away storm trooper right? Well I agree with you. She sucked so horribly she may as well have been another random storm trooper.
Now you want to argue that a character that was built up by the people who made this movie and advertised heavily by this movie and made to look like an important villain in the movie itself isn't important? She's just another throw away storm trooper right? Well I agree with you. She sucked so horribly she may as well have been another random storm trooper.
No, I'm asking you why I had to think more of Phasma than I did, so apparently it was the marketing that cajoled you into thinking that.
That sincerely IS the objectivity you possess.
You don't have to do anything. Phasma was factually one of the main villains in the movie and her character was shit. Just like you said she meant nothing.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
