Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 28, 2024, 09:51:44 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Plot Holes That are a Step Too Far.

Started by yesitsme, June 19, 2018, 02:18:03 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Replies From View

Quote from: AsparagusTrevor on June 20, 2018, 09:28:25 AM
It's a fictional movie about time travel...


...is the kind of bullshit handwaving I fucking hate people coming up with. A good story, no matter how outlandish the premise, should follow the established rules of its own universe, otherwise it's just extremely lazy writing.

Yes, time travel films tend to be more excused than they should in this regard, partly I think because a lot of the plot problems are buried in time travel loops and paradoxes that audiences (and sometimes, I think, the writers) find confusing enough.  Whereas I'm very good at quickly getting my head around time travel films and when a film isn't following its own established time travel logic it always stands out to me.

Back to the Future has similar flaws to that Butterfly Effect scene when you think of the fading hand business during the concert dance scene.  Marty himself changing or being erased by his actions in the past, yet when he returns to 1985 the circumstances around his family have shifted, but he hasn't been updated to fit that world - he is the same as he was before.

St_Eddie

Quote from: AsparagusTrevor on June 20, 2018, 09:28:25 AM
It's a fictional movie about time travel...


...is the kind of bullshit handwaving I fucking hate people coming up with. A good story, no matter how outlandish the premise, should follow the established rules of its own universe, otherwise it's just extremely lazy writing.

I'm so relieved that you included that continuation of your sentence.  I too hate that kind of lazy and dismissive handwaving.  The same applies to people who say that absolutely anything goes in a fantasy film.  "It's a film with wizards and weird creatures.  Yet you're nit-picking it for breaking its own logic?  Haha.  Whatever, mate".  That line of thinking irks me, to say the least.

popcorn

That was something that drove me mental when they cast a female Dr Who and loads of nerds objected. Take this tweet from Jonny Sharples, which got 7.5k retweets and 20k likes: "Your dad thinks Dr Who being a woman spoils the realism of someone travelling space & time in a phonebox fighting bins with plungers on them"

This unintentionally reinforces the notion that a female Who is unrealistic (by equating it with the unrealistic premise  of a time traveller). It's the wrong line of attack.

The objection isn't that a female Who is unrealistic. Scifi isn't some nonsense genre without rules. If the new Dr Who was an inanimate corkscrew, no one would like it, and not because of arguments about realism. Characters have to feel real even in unrealistic stories. That women don't seem real to the bad nerds is the problem, not "realism".

Disclaimer: I do not care about Dr Who and I think a female Who sounds like a fine idea, why not?

greenman

Quote from: a duncandisorderly on June 20, 2018, 09:16:10 AM
I think checkoutgirl's right in that there aren't gaping plot-holes spoiling BR, so much as a general sloppiness.

if you're of a mind to be kind to scott & the committee that wrote what ended up on screen (& generally speaking I'm not), &/or a fan of the look/feel/sound of the flick (which I most assuredly am, & which is why I keep going back to it), then this sloppiness & internal inconsistency can be viewed as 'leaving things for the audience to make up their own minds about'. t me, that's a cop-out, & is evidence that the folks involved chose not to deal with the central thrust of the book, but rather to cherry-pick the bits of it that would make a good scifi action flick. it seems to me almost by accident that some of the existential issues survived as far as the big screen.....

I think the main reason for my personal ire at scott, fancher & the rest is a long & deep attachment to the writing of dick & that while the movie looks & sounds great, it lacks precisely the quality that draws one to PKD's writing.

massive intellect of tyrell, huge corporation turning out flawed replicas of humans to do- what, exactly?- as labourers "off-world", & yet the design (& supply?) of their eyes is farmed out to some bloke with a high-street cryo lab?

& so on.

I can see why someone attached to the book might have issue with it as basically the film seems like it flips around the message, rather than the replicants being tied into a warning about general dehumanising they become tied into the idea of humanising themselves as post religious people. I don't really see this as equivalent to something like say Dune, its less a simplification than it is a shift in the story that's trying to be told.

I do tend to think as well that the film as well has more than a touch of fantasy to it, I don't view it as purely at attempt to create a realistic vision of he future so elements like Chew and the animal market that perhaps don't entirely make sense are acceptable as a kind of future exotic noir, certainly I don't think their a step too far.

Thomas

Quote from: Utter Shit on June 19, 2018, 03:15:44 PM
It's a well-known one, but in Jurassic Park the massive drop into the cage should prevent the T-Rex from escaping regardless of whether the power lines are down. Annoying.

As this needlessly detailed diagram demonstrates, the drop is actually to the left of where the T. rex emerges -


St_Eddie

Quote from: Thomas on June 21, 2018, 02:39:44 PM
As this needlessly detailed diagram demonstrates, the drop is actually to the left of where the T. rex emerges -

If I remember correctly, the confusion stems from a continuity mistake which was created in the edit.  Like you say, the drop is actually to the left of where the T-Rex makes her entrance from but because of the way the movie is edited, it appears that it shouldn't be possible for her to cross the threshold from where she does.

yesitsme

On the subject of Jurassic Park I took little 'un to the zoo the other week.  One of the Rhinos was scratching itself on the all of it's enclosure.

'That's it testing the barrier' the bloke next to me told his wife.

He didn't say it in a knowing, ironic way.  He said it with real fear in his voice.

It hadn't escaped by the time we'd left.  Phew!

Tapiocahead

In Groundhog day, the piano teacher lady is really proud of Bill Murray's amazing piano playing skills at the auction, but as far as she is concerned he would just be an already shit hot piano player that has just showed up to her house earlier that day and given her a load of money to have a go on her piano.

St_Eddie

Quote from: Tapiocahead on June 22, 2018, 11:35:10 AM
In Groundhog day, the piano teacher lady is really proud of Bill Murray's amazing piano playing skills at the auction, but as far as she is concerned he would just be an already shit hot piano player that has just showed up to her house earlier that day and given her a load of money to have a go on her piano.

I can't remember, is it established that Phil went to the piano lady's house on that particular iteration of the day?

Brundle-Fly

Quote from: popcorn on June 20, 2018, 10:27:46 AM
If the new Dr Who was an inanimate corkscrew, no one would like it.


Oh, I suppose you object as well to the remake of Ghostbusters with its cast of table condiments?

New Jack

#40
Quote from: Tapiocahead on June 22, 2018, 11:35:10 AM
In Groundhog day, the piano teacher lady is really proud of Bill Murray's amazing piano playing skills at the auction, but as far as she is concerned he would just be an already shit hot piano player that has just showed up to her house earlier that day and given her a load of money to have a go on her piano.

Saw this on reddit where I can't bring myself to reply ever

Doesn't seem wrong to me like. He's an amazing player, he has a warmup sesh, might have even worked out she'd be proud as he was doing favours for everyone and wanted to give her a thrill, cause by the end he's definitely orchestrating happy things for people he's met.

If you gave Mozart a one off lesson and saw his concert later you'd be all smug too. Maybe he even turned up pretending to be shit, and made her feel like an amazing teacher. That possibility to me is much closer to Phil's character than the assumption he turned up to dazzle her like a big show off.

Totally works for me. He's made her happy. And it's in character for him to 1) know she'd take pride albeit a bit artificially and 2) set it all up, as he's in Favours for Karma mode, a simple motivation. Plus 3) he's clearly a massive hit at that party, so it would be weirder for someone in such a close knit community that he's encountered to not pitch in as everyone else is - as that's what that scene is about, solidifying him finally as a good person, especially externally for the benefit of Rita - the change is complete and an old lady taking a bit of pleasure (and worst case scenario exaggerating a bit) seems totally fine, and certainly not unbelievable. It doesn't even go against the fabric of his mindset and the results he's trying to bring about.

MojoJojo

Isn't the joke that she's taking pride in it?

New Jack

Quote from: MojoJojo on June 22, 2018, 02:25:06 PM
Isn't the joke that she's taking pride in it?

Yeah... The complaint is pretty in-universe though. I don't think it holds water unless you assume things we haven't seen.

It totally works for me as a joke, and I only posted a wall of text as I'm already aware of the meagre complaint :)

yesitsme

I don't want to open the Star Wars box but I'm going to.

See in Return of the Jedi we see that Darth has to sit in a Rotating Egg of Death to have his helmet pulled off.

Then at the end he motions to Luke that there are some bulldog grips under his chin where he can achieve the same result.

If I was the Master I'd be furious that he'd spent a fortune putting the REoD when he could have had his builders putting a grill over the air vent that anyone who'd bagged a fucking womprat on Tattooine could have blown the whole fuking thing sky high.

AGAIN!

AsparagusTrevor

Quote from: yesitsme on June 22, 2018, 02:39:29 PM
I don't want to open the Star Wars box but I'm going to.

See in Return of the Jedi we see that Darth has to sit in a Rotating Egg of Death to have his helmet pulled off.

Then at the end he motions to Luke that there are some bulldog grips under his chin where he can achieve the same result.

I never got the impression he had to sit in that egg to remove his helmet, I just thought it was somewhere for him to go and chill out for a bit. He just installed a helmet removal device so he didn't have to do it himself in his Chillout Egg.

St_Eddie

Quote from: AsparagusTrevor on June 22, 2018, 02:47:16 PM
He just installed a helmet removal device so he didn't have to do it himself in his Chillout Egg.

I can relate.  I use this...



...to wank me off.  Sure, I could do it manually in a crisis but I'd sooner have the robot arm do it for me.

greenman

Quote from: New Jack on June 22, 2018, 02:28:25 PM
Yeah... The complaint is pretty in-universe though. I don't think it holds water unless you assume things we haven't seen.

It totally works for me as a joke, and I only posted a wall of text as I'm already aware of the meagre complaint :)

To be fair as well the film does bother to show us a scene earlier were she does question him being new to playing("...but my father was a piano mover") so its not as if its totally ignored. Perhaps he just shifted his story with her that he wasn't a beginner and maybe out of practice before faking rapid improvement to make her feel good?

Ultimately what she says isn't actually incorrect is it? his playing is the result of her teaching even if its not on that one day. To not feature her at all at the end highlighting this would arguably me more questionable.

Dr Rock

I think it's a plot hole that can be filled - on the final day, he wanted her to feel valuable so he said something like he's a very good piano player who has a block that makes him play poorly. And she helps him get past it in the final day's lesson.

New Jack

Quote from: greenman on June 22, 2018, 04:06:13 PM
To be fair as well the film does bother to show us a scene earlier were she does question him being new to playing("...but my father was a piano mover") so its not as if its totally ignored. Perhaps he just shifted his story with her that he wasn't a beginner and maybe out of practice before faking rapid improvement to make her feel good?

Ultimately what she says isn't actually incorrect is it? his playing is the result of her teaching even if its not on that one day. To not feature her at all at the end highlighting this would arguably me more questionable.

Quote from: Dr Rock on June 22, 2018, 04:17:17 PM
I think it's a plot hole that can be filled - on the final day, he wanted her to feel valuable so he said something like he's a very good piano player who has a block that makes him play poorly. And she helps him get past it in the final day's lesson.

Way more succinctly put, thank you. It is a complaint about what could be sorted offscreen - but you need to question what's offscreen to even generate it. As plot holes go, it's reaching...!

Tapiocahead

Fair enough,  I just wanted to join in.

greenman

First rule of CaB, don't question Blade Runner or Groundhog Day, add in Withnail and I and you've got the source of most of the forums values.

Shit Good Nose

Quote from: greenman on June 22, 2018, 09:21:47 PM
First rule of CaB, don't question Blade Runner

I don't mind people questioning or criticising Blade Runner, as long as their questions and criticisms are valid and correct - duncandisorderly's incorrect criticisms of Deckard's eyes being given the replicant glow retrospectively, and Scott only tinkering with the idea of Deckard being a replicant at the release of the first director's cut being prime examples (the eye glow is clearly present in the theatrical cut as originally released as it was an on-set mistake [ironically, this has subsequently been retrospectively changed to being an intentional moment, but pretty much every well researched book about the making of the film has everyone saying it was a mistake due to Ford overshooting his mark slightly], and the unicorn sequence was filmed during the making of the film but forcibly removed by the studio cos they thought audiences wouldn't get it).  The BR 2049 thread (and even several "professional" critics' reviews) was full of this as well, where people were criticising it for things that were either very clearly explained in the film, or stuff that they just missed/ignored. 

And all this generally from people who claim to have seen BR "hundreds" of times.

BR is my favourite film, but if you look back at all of my posts in relating threads and discussions, you'll see I've NEVER argued with anyone because they didn't like the film - all that is subjective.  But it grates when people so obviously don't pay attention or misunderstand the film and then write it off for being ill-thought out nonsense.  Same goes for 2049.

Steven

Quote from: Dr Rock on June 22, 2018, 04:17:17 PM
I think it's a plot hole that can be filled - on the final day, he wanted her to feel valuable so he said something like he's a very good piano player who has a block that makes him play poorly. And she helps him get past it in the final day's lesson.

But the cunt is still going round and presumably offering her a load of cash to kick out the poor little girl already taking a lesson?

anyway all he has to do is go round and tell her he's rusty but has a concert to play later that night and offer a big load of cash for some pointers, he makes mistakes but then puts on a flawless performance at the concert = big shit eating grin on Mrs Twinkleivories, I can believe he's her favourite student all the rest are kids who pay little play terrible.

Avril Lavigne

In Fight Club when the Narrator is seen on CCTV footage being dragged backwards by his hair, by Tyler Durden who doesn't exist and isn't there on the footage.

greenman

Quote from: Shit Good Nose on June 22, 2018, 09:42:45 PM
I don't mind people questioning or criticising Blade Runner, as long as their questions and criticisms are valid and correct - duncandisorderly's incorrect criticisms of Deckard's eyes being given the replicant glow retrospectively, and Scott only tinkering with the idea of Deckard being a replicant at the release of the first director's cut being prime examples (the eye glow is clearly present in the theatrical cut as originally released as it was an on-set mistake [ironically, this has subsequently been retrospectively changed to being an intentional moment, but pretty much every well researched book about the making of the film has everyone saying it was a mistake due to Ford overshooting his mark slightly], and the unicorn sequence was filmed during the making of the film but forcibly removed by the studio cos they thought audiences wouldn't get it).  The BR 2049 thread (and even several "professional" critics' reviews) was full of this as well, where people were criticising it for things that were either very clearly explained in the film, or stuff that they just missed/ignored. 

And all this generally from people who claim to have seen BR "hundreds" of times.

BR is my favourite film, but if you look back at all of my posts in relating threads and discussions, you'll see I've NEVER argued with anyone because they didn't like the film - all that is subjective.  But it grates when people so obviously don't pay attention or misunderstand the film and then write it off for being ill-thought out nonsense.  Same goes for 2049.

Yeah the originals probably my favourite film as well or close to it and I do think its gotten rather caught up in Scott taking over from Lucas in people pushing "he was never anygood" in reaction to his recent work(see ever mention of Alien that supposedly would have been better directed by Dan O Bannon). Probably doesn't help that Hampton Fancher to me always seems a little resentful that Scott shifted it away from being a Stalkeresque more dialog heavy stage play style film and talked down any substance it had because so much of it wasn't in the script but in the filming.

2049 is I think much more forgivable as people would have only seen it once or twice without the ability to rewatch any scene at home.

BeardFaceMan

Quote from: Avril Lavigne on June 23, 2018, 12:03:28 AM
In Fight Club when the Narrator is seen on CCTV footage being dragged backwards by his hair, by Tyler Durden who doesn't exist and isn't there on the footage.

Spoiled the entire film for me, that bit. Still not sure what it was supposed to be showing and how it worked.

MoonDust

The entire underlying premise of Jurassic Park is based on the fact that zoos are literally impossible to maintain because of the abstract mathematics of chaos theory and "life finds a way". The book goes further on this point, in an anti-science/don't-play-God framed narrative.

But, like, how many times have zoos suffered complete breakdowns in security and all their animals have run amok and flourished in the surrounding wild?

I get that it's saying dinosaurs don't belong in our time, therefore it's dangerous to make a zoo for them because all hell will break loose, but they don't know any different if they're born and raised in captivity. Just like zoo animals now. It's not like the cloned dinosaurs are gonna be aware in any way they're 65 million years out of place. The T-rex isn't gonna be wondering around its enclosure like "can't put my finger on it. But I just feel like it's 1993, rather than 65,000,000 BC, know what I mean, raptor?" "I know exactly what you mean, pal!"

a duncandisorderly

Quote from: Shit Good Nose on June 22, 2018, 09:42:45 PM
I don't mind people questioning or criticising Blade Runner, as long as their questions and criticisms are valid and correct - duncandisorderly's incorrect criticisms of Deckard's eyes being given the replicant glow retrospectively, and Scott only tinkering with the idea of Deckard being a replicant at the release of the first director's cut being prime examples (the eye glow is clearly present in the theatrical cut as originally released as it was an on-set mistake [ironically, this has subsequently been retrospectively changed to being an intentional moment, but pretty much every well researched book about the making of the film has everyone saying it was a mistake due to Ford overshooting his mark slightly], and the unicorn sequence was filmed during the making of the film but forcibly removed by the studio cos they thought audiences wouldn't get it).  The BR 2049 thread (and even several "professional" critics' reviews) was full of this as well, where people were criticising it for things that were either very clearly explained in the film, or stuff that they just missed/ignored. 

And all this generally from people who claim to have seen BR "hundreds" of times.

BR is my favourite film, but if you look back at all of my posts in relating threads and discussions, you'll see I've NEVER argued with anyone because they didn't like the film - all that is subjective.  But it grates when people so obviously don't pay attention or misunderstand the film and then write it off for being ill-thought out nonsense.  Same goes for 2049.

well, along with the instruction never to bring BR up on C&B, I suppose that's me told. it still makes no sense AT ALL for deckard to be a replicant, but whatever.

MoonDust

Also I don't get why the producers of the film of Jurassic Park (as if I remember rightly, this isn't the case in the book) decided to portray Alan Grant as if he's the only person in the world who has a theory that birds evolved from dinosaurs, and everyone thinks he's fucking barmy for it. But the theory that birds came from dinosaurs had been around long before the film was made, mostly owing to the fact just a glance at their fossils shows it's pretty fucking obvious, especially to someone who's scientifically trained in osteology and bone anatomy.

Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth

Quote from: Avril Lavigne on June 23, 2018, 12:03:28 AM
In Fight Club when the Narrator is seen on CCTV footage being dragged backwards by his hair, by Tyler Durden who doesn't exist and isn't there on the footage.
Quote from: BeardFaceMan on June 23, 2018, 07:55:31 AM
Spoiled the entire film for me, that bit. Still not sure what it was supposed to be showing and how it worked.
The narrator was shuffling along the ground with his feet.