STAR WARS: THE LAST JEDI

[minute bull]

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.

I'd appreciate your not putting words in my mouth. I said fodder, not nothing. I get that you regard Snoke and Phasma as suffering from unsatisfactory pay-offs. I don't happen to agree in the case of Snoke, but with Phasma I wanted to see if there was something more than commercials that made her out to be more, I'm not sure which adjective you apply to Phasma here but more of that.

You are probably right about that plot hole. Plot holes are common in time travel movies because time travel is so difficult to do and make any sense.

Time travel movies are great illustrations of the non-reality of films, and distill the essence of story, particularly plot holes. Plot holes are even rarer in time travel films because the paradox, like Hulk's wormhole, is built into the story, and dictates that by necessity the narrative must seem impossible but because it's a paradox, what was impossible in the real world is therefore not a plot hole. Biff is not a paradox because he violates the rules established by the film. Rules change between time travel films. These films though all involve time travel are usually very different in method, goal, and result. We can't apply the same rules to all time travel films. But the abiding principle is that paradoxes are not plot holes.

Speaking from a writing standpoint, time travel stories emphasize the singularity of one story by emphasizing the notion of multiple possibilities. This is counter intuitive, because naturally what we do after a time travel film is imagine how things could have gone differently. Here is where we trip ourselves by confusing paradoxes with plot holes, mistakenly assuming there is an original timeline and a changed timeline. For instance, in INTERSTELLAR it's natural to ask how Cooper sends information to his past self. The paradox is how does he know to tell his past self where to go, when the only way he knew how to get there was by already being there. There must be, we cry, a timeline where the cause comes before the effect because that's physics.

No, this is story. Stories occur one way. With time travel stories, there are no multiple timelines, unless expressly stated (like SOURCE CODE), there is only one. If we were to imagine the timeline as a metaphorical line, we could perceive a linear story as a straight line, going from one direction to the other. With time travel stories, we may conceive multiple lines running parallel, occasionally bumping into each other or converging and diverging into myriad pathways. But the time travel metaphorical line looks more like the single line with loops that veer off but return back to the single line. The loops represent changes made to the story, like the wish fulfillment of B2F, or paradoxes that validate the weird inconsistencies (INTERSTELLAR), but the important thing is the singularity of the line. Thus, despite the illusion of multiple possibilities, there is only one way things occurred, which is why the default theme of time travel stories is the one where a guy hears a prediction about his life, tries to prevent it but by the vet act of doing so dooms him to the prediction. The Oracle presents this concept as a broken vase to Neo. And more recently, INFINITY WAR. Dr. Strange views millions of multiple timelines but only one sees them to success. Therefore despite any obstacles and bad decisions, and attendant heartache and frustration, we now know they are all part of the "design" Strange was able to glean. This is the essence of story: here's how things went.

I say all that to reaffirm that when you assume things beyond what the film depicts, you miss the film. And that some of the things you think needs defense are not within the film but rather with your perception. And you are defending it hard. It's interesting to see a person lobby for politeness yet begins rebuttals with the word "durr," which at least isn't as passive aggressive as starting sentences with "well" or "actually." Don't get me wrong, I can take a joke, it's more the hypocrisy that gives one pause, you understand. I concede that plot holes get in the way of receiving story as intended, but your notion of a plot hole is ill founded.

Don't durr me.

 

[IamStryker]

I say all that to reaffirm that when you assume things beyond what the film depicts, you miss the film. And that some of the things you think needs defense are not within the film but rather with your perception. And you are defending it hard. It's interesting to see a person lobby for politeness yet begins rebuttals with the word "durr," which at least isn't as passive aggressive as starting sentences with "well" or "actually." Don't get me wrong, I can take a joke, it's more the hypocrisy that gives one pause, you understand. I concede that plot holes get in the way of receiving story as intended, but your notion of a plot hole is ill founded.

Don't durr me.

I agree with most everything you had to say about time travel films and plot holes from what I saw there.

I will reiterate my point here that it's the movies job to notice these problems, inconsistencies, impossibilities and to do something about it. I think most everyone agrees that movies are better when they make general sense. When tons of people aren't saying "wait a minute that scene doesn't work how could that have possibly happened"? I believe last jedi is an example of a movie that has too many cases of poor writing. Too many inconsistencies and poor characters.

I would rather not start mudslinging. I will stop myself from using durr as long as we don't have to keep restating the same points over and over again.

If you want to say that I am wrong on plot holes then you will have to show specifically how I am not using plot holes correctly in a certain instance. I believe your own rebuttal here is that you don't think Finn dragging Rose is impossible or inconsistent. At that point we will just have to agree to disagree. I find that to more than fit the definition of plot hole and I believe it's consistent with other well known examples of plot holes that we have already brought up. The karate kid one is a pretty good example I think.

One other quick point here. It came to my mind that in one of your early arguments you basically said that it was obvious that if Finn hit the canon he would be either killed or captured. I wold agree that he would certainly have been killed but if somehow he survived that he definitely would have been captured. Why is it that with the canon those are the only two possibilities that came to your mind but in regards to Rose hitting Finn and then him dragging her back you are prepared to accept that as logical?

 

[Dizzy]

Bought the movie on 4K. The enhanced features are amazing. You can practically taste the manchild tears.

 

[minute bull]

If you want to say that I am wrong on plot holes then you will have to show specifically how I am not using plot holes correctly in a certain instance. I believe your own rebuttal here is that you don't think Finn dragging Rose is impossible or inconsistent.

I have explained this numerous times on multiple levels, and I have to imagine it's my long-winded phrasing that's preventing you from seeing my side of it. Here's your definition again:

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.​

Your contention is that distance makes it impossible or illogical for Finn dragging Rose back to fort to be unnoticed by the First Order, who is standing RIGHT THERE. Have I got that right? Or do you want to explain more?

One other quick point here. It came to my mind that in one of your early arguments you basically said that it was obvious that if Finn hit the canon he would be either killed or captured. I wold agree that he would certainly have been killed but if somehow he survived that he definitely would have been captured. Why is it that with the canon those are the only two possibilities that came to your mind but in regards to Rose hitting Finn and then him dragging her back you are prepared to accept that as logical?

I'm not sure I understand your question here. How does my acceptance of what happened conflict with the logic behind speculating what would have happened had Finn reached it?

 

[IamStryker]

I have explained this numerous times on multiple levels, and I have to imagine it's my long-winded phrasing that's preventing you from seeing my side of it. Here's your definition again:

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.​

Your contention is that distance makes it impossible or illogical for Finn dragging Rose back to fort to be unnoticed by the First Order, who is standing RIGHT THERE. Have I got that right? Or do you want to explain more?

I don't know how at this point we still aren't clear on this lol. My issue with this plot hole is two points A) The movie gave us no reason to believe that the first order would allow Finn to just walk all the way back to the base. That is extremely silly and illogical to me. B) How far away the base is here s also an issue. The first order (and Finn and Rose) are very far away when that scene happens. Then after a short dialogue from Luke they appear close to the base and shortly after Finn and Rose appear. The movie had to have skipped over the chunk of time it would have taken for all of them to get to the base. The main point here is that this was a long distance to cover so the movie just teleported them back instead of deal with that. This just adds to the plot hole and the poor writing. They couldn't show Finn and Rose walking all the way back because it would have looked ridiculous and taken forever. Again my biggest problem is how the movie doesn't show us how they make it back. Walking slowly right next to the first order is a bad explanation. It's not logical.

I'm not sure I understand your question here. How does my acceptance of what happened conflict with the logic behind speculating what would have happened had Finn reached it?

I thought it was pretty clear. You assumed Finn would either die or be captured if he hit the canon. But when it comes to Rose slamming into him and walking all the way back that is logical to you? Would it be cool with you if he hit the canon survived and then walked all the way back?

 

[Strange King]

Bought the movie on 4K. The enhanced features are amazing. You can practically taste the manchild tears.

Thats the equivalent of buying batman and robin

 

[minute bull]

Walking slowly right next to the first order is a bad explanation. It's not logical.

Tell me why.

The First Order on at least two occasions made grave errors by overlooking and underestimating a threat they deemed inconsequential. Even Commander Canady blisters at their tardiness in response when he mutters, "We should have scrambled the fighters five minutes ago." Similarly when Holdo flips the ultimate of bitches, Hux assumes she's trying to create a distraction as they pick off the transport carriers, allowing Holdo to fly a hole through his entire fleet.

What makes you think it's illogical that the First Order would maintain their habit of hubris when looking down on two tiny people, no weapons, no transport, and the only place they can go they're about to crack open like an egg? Is it illogical to think that just as they're about to play it safe and capture Finn and the unconscious fat girl -- their attention gets pulled away by the appearance of Luke Skywalker?

Given what I just said, please explain how any of that is illogical. While we're waiting, please enjoy this video of Reggie Jackson evading fans on-field.

I thought it was pretty clear. You assumed Finn would either die or be captured if he hit the canon. But when it comes to Rose slamming into him and walking all the way back that is logical to you? Would it be cool with you if he hit the canon survived and then walked all the way back?

Ohhh, I get it now. You're saying because I think Finn would have died or been captured after hitting the cannon, Rose should have either killed them both or they should have been captured, because I regard their motives as being the same. Right? Okay, I'll get into that after you get into my question above.

 

[IamStryker]

Tell me why.
.

At this point I won't be able to convince you. I can accept that you want to fill in the blanks for the movie instead of the movie actually making sense.

Is it illogical to think that just as they're about to play it safe and capture Finn and the unconscious fat girl -- their attention gets pulled away by the appearance of Luke Skywalker?

Yes because as I said the trek all the way to the base would have taken a long time. Not the few minutes the movie seemed like it was when they time skipped.

Ohhh, I get it now. You're saying because I think Finn would have died or been captured after hitting the cannon, Rose should have either killed them both or they should have been captured, because I regard their motives as being the same. Right? Okay, I'll get into that after you get into my question above.

Yes. Your assumption was not that they would somehow magically get away. That's the entire point here. Any rational person would say that they would be captured or killed. No one is going to say "Oh well maybe they will walk all the way back and the first order will ignore them!".

 

[Protectandserve]

It's on Netflix. I'm re watching it and it is worse the second time I think. There is just so much shit that makes no sense at all.

 

[minute bull]

At this point I won't be able to convince you.

Because you can't. You couldn't convince me of this anymore than I could convince you purple is red. Let's recap THIS WEEK'S topic, replacing the concept of plot hole with the color purple. I will be playing the role of you and you will be playing the role of me, in a low tactic to stir within you empathy.

ME (holding up the color purple): Look. This is red.
YOU: No, that's purple. How can you say it's red?
ME: It's red.
YOU: Purple is the combination of red and blue. Don't play yourself.
ME: Hello? Red is a fundamental component. You said red.
YOU: I said red AND blue. You ignored the blue part.
ME: That part is nonsensical. It's silly. Durr. It's red.
YOU: No. It's purple. I'll go as far as magenta. Maybe fuschia.
ME: Listen. Red is a color. Purple is a color.
YOU: Yes, they're both colors. They also complement green. But red is red, and purple is purple -- and that's purple.
ME: You're not making a good argument. Absolutely terrible. You don't even know what I'm saying.
YOU: You're saying red is purple, which is incorrect.
ME: I can't convince you because you're dense.
YOU: I'm the one who's dense? Let me use the analogy of a plot hole...​

I can accept that you want to fill in the blanks for the movie instead of the movie actually making sense.

That comment doesn't make sense because I know the movie makes sense. I didn't try to convince myself that it made sense, there was no glaring question hanging in my mind. I already conceded that yeah it's super convenient and I won't argue with your opinion you think it's badly written, but it makes sense to me, and without the mental chicanery we've been hurtling through for the past week.

Your gap in understanding is you conflate film logic with logical reasoning -- by vicariously ascribing your own sense of reason, desire, and/or logic onto the characters. You step into the shoes of the characters, imagining their choices as yours and what you might do in their situation. Thus, undesirable choices you deem illogical. According to you, what you are doing right now ITT is a plot hole, because you are presented with logic and reason and facts counter to your misconception -- yet, you still cling to the undesirable choice.

Film logic is not the same as character choice or motivation.

The term "impossible/illogical" doesn't refer to stupid or bad or ill-advised decisions. Characters choose unwisely all the time -- and not always against film logic. Finn dragging Rose back is neither impossible nor illogical because we see him dragging her on the makeshift skiff AND we know why they do so.

What would be impossible/illogical is if Finn came back Asian and Rose came back as a camel. If that example is too ridiculous for you to understand the mechanism, try this: what would be illogical, but not impossible, is if they came back wearing each other's clothes.

Yes because as I said the trek all the way to the base would have taken a long time. Not the few minutes the movie seemed like it was when they time skipped.

You need to let time and distance go. Story controls and shapes time and distance. I'll agree that contrivances can get super ridiculous but scrutinizing stories with actual, real physics is a waste of time. SPEED is a great example why you should not bother.

But seriously, how long dis runway tho:

Yes. Your assumption was not that they would somehow magically get away. That's the entire point here. Any rational person would say that they would be captured or killed. No one is going to say "Oh well maybe they will walk all the way back and the first order will ignore them!".

Listen. I'm not trying to make you look stupid. I didn't write all this shit for the past week for anyone else but you, taking your thoughts and your opinions into consideration, and fashioning responses so that you receive a specific message tailored just for you, because you asked and because deep down you really would like to be better at this, whatever you want to call it. I'm not in this for you to thank me or praise me or say that I'm anything. I don't need to argue that I'm right; I already know that I am. I don't need you to say that I'm right, either, not like you want me to acquiesce to your terms, which I have done in some cases.

When I conjectured that Finn would be killed or caught having reached the cannon, you know I was directly responding to how Finn's and Rose's actions are the same; it was because you argued they were not the same. It was in reference to your notion of what constitutes success and the clarification of the mission objectives.

Using my fake scenario to counter what actually happens in the movie is what I mean by inconsistent reasoning and cherry-picking items out of context. I don't blame you, really, because of two reasons. 1) Largely because I'm long-winded and disorganized, it's difficult to winnow past the attitude and get to the crux of what I'm saying. 2) Learning something new can be a humbling endeavor, and on the platform of an online forum no one likes the idea of being humiliated.

The truth is no one can humiliate us but ourselves.

So, to answer your question: no, I would not have a problem with it. Because that's the part when Jake Skywalker enters, and he is the ultimate extenuating circumstance. He is the game-changer. He is the solution. He creates the logic that results in the First Order being thwarted and the Resistance surviving.

 

[Dizzy]

Thats the equivalent of buying batman and robin

I think you need to chill out.

 

[Strange King]

I think you need to chill out.

I think opposite than you

 

[CrimsonFan]

Saw it for the second time last night.

I loved it. This is a badass movie you guys are crazy

 

[TrueBias]

Bought the movie on 4K. The enhanced features are amazing. You can practically taste the manchild tears.

Jesus, you bought this too?!

You love wasting money.

 

[TrueBias]

I was curious how the dvd/blu ray sales were doing compared to Force Awakens.

My oh my, have you seen those numbers?
$77mil for Last Jedi vs $189mil for Force Awakens.

 

[IamStryker]

That comment doesn't make sense because I know the movie makes sense.

If it made sense you wouldn't have to do the writers job for them. People like me wouldn't be asking how Finn and Rose made it back safe because the movie would have given a seamless plot that answered those questions reasonably. It doesn't and we hence we have these plot holes.

I didn't try to convince myself that it made sense, there was no glaring question hanging in my mind. I already conceded that yeah it's super convenient and I won't argue with your opinion you think it's badly written, but it makes sense to me, and without the mental chicanery we've been hurtling through for the past week.

You have made the argument more than once that we should accept what the movie does and not question it. So you are ok with there being plot holes. You are happy to fill in the blanks and move on with your enjoyment of the movie. That's great but it's still a plot hole.

Your gap in understanding is you conflate film logic with logical reasoning -- by vicariously ascribing your own sense of reason, desire, and/or logic onto the characters. You step into the shoes of the characters, imagining their choices as yours and what you might do in their situation. Thus, undesirable choices you deem illogical. According to you, what you are doing right now ITT is a plot hole, because you are presented with logic and reason and facts counter to your misconception -- yet, you still cling to the undesirable choice.

You have not given any logic reason or facts that counter this plot hole. I don't have to imagine myself as these characters to know that they should not be able to walk back right next to the enemy and without the movie giving even a basic explanation as to how. The movie reinforces this plot hole when Kylo makes that statement to basically take no prisoners (kill everyone).

Film logic is not the same as character choice or motivation.
The term "impossible/illogical" doesn't refer to stupid or bad or ill-advised decisions. Characters choose unwisely all the time -- and not always against film logic. Finn dragging Rose back is neither impossible nor illogical because we see him dragging her on the makeshift skiff AND we know why they do so.

I am once against astonished at your logic. You claim again that this is not illogical because there is a skiff? So what? Because we know that they wanted to get back to the base? So what? You want to simply accept that they did this without questioning it. Ok well go ahead you can do that. It's still a plot hole and you haven't given any reasonable explanation as to how it's not a plot hole. Telling me to accept what happened is obviously not a way to convince me that what happened isn't illogical or impossible. That's just telling me to ignore the problem.

What would be impossible/illogical is if Finn came back Asian and Rose came back as a camel. If that example is too ridiculous for you to understand the mechanism, try this: what would be illogical, but not impossible, is if they came back wearing each other's clothes.

Coming back wearing each other's clothes would certainly be a plot hole. But what if I told you to just accept it? Maybe they stopped some where to make out a bit and changed into each others clothes? Don't question the movie.

You need to let time and distance go. Story controls and shapes time and distance. I'll agree that contrivances can get super ridiculous but scrutinizing stories with actual, real physics is a waste of time. SPEED is a great example why you should not bother.

It's the movies job to make sense. There is nothing about Star Wars that should ignore how fast two people can walk a few miles. That's something that we can reasonably criticize in a star wars movie.

Listen. I'm not trying to make you look stupid. I didn't write all this shit for the past week for anyone else but you, taking your thoughts and your opinions into consideration, and fashioning responses so that you receive a specific message tailored just for you, because you asked and because deep down you really would like to be better at this, whatever you want to call it. I'm not in this for you to thank me or praise me or say that I'm anything. I don't need to argue that I'm right; I already know that I am. I don't need you to say that I'm right, either, not like you want me to acquiesce to your terms, which I have done in some cases.

I don't believe you are right at all. As I said before we can agree to disagree at this point. I am cool with that.

When I conjectured that Finn would be killed or caught having reached the cannon, you know I was directly responding to how Finn's and Rose's actions are the same; it was because you argued they were not the same. It was in reference to your notion of what constitutes success and the clarification of the mission objectives.

I still thought it was interesting that your only conclusions there was kill or captured. Not walk all the way back just fine.

So, to answer your question: no, I would not have a problem with it. Because that's the part when Jake Skywalker enters, and he is the ultimate extenuating circumstance. He is the game-changer. He is the solution. He creates the logic that results in the First Order being thwarted and the Resistance surviving.

You wouldn't have a problem with him slamming into a canon at that high speed and ending up fine? AND THEN walking back next to the enemy? Wow.

 

[IamStryker]

Saw it for the second time last night.

I loved it. This is a badass movie you guys are crazy

I'm curious as to which scenes you thought were badass? When I think about this movie very little of it felt epic to me. Holdo going lightspeed through those ships looked pretty cool. The fight with Kylo and Ren against the guards was alright the first watch. Then when I looked at it closer it was made pretty badly and still made Rey look very Mary Sueish.

I can't look at any of Luke's scenes without cringing at what they did.

 

[BisexualMMA]

I was curious how the dvd/blu ray sales were doing compared to Force Awakens.

My oh my, have you seen those numbers?
$77mil for Last Jedi vs $189mil for Force Awakens.

Amazing how the numbers drop when you make a movie to intentionally annoy the audience.

 

[KILL KILL]

Gave it another shot and watched it on Netflix. Hated it even more than before. Glad I skipped the Solo movie because I can't support the irreparable damage they've done to this franchise.

 

[minute bull]

Telling me to accept what happened is obviously not a way to convince me that what happened isn't illogical or impossible. That's just telling me to ignore the problem.

No big loss. Anything else you wanna discuss?