Where are the plot holes?

They're the worst. But the generate a ton of clicks so other people put up with them for brand recognition.
Even hate clicks are clicks.

 

Right, I just don't get the appeal.

I remember back in 2013 I spent a night watching several of their videos. At first I was like, "huh, these are clever."

After like 3 or 4 of them, though, I realized they were all the same. I can't imagine what kind of psychopath would regularly consume that media.

 

They try hiding it as "satire" but it's not. They clearly don't know what satire is or are hoping people just think it means "making fun of" in a very broad sense.

Here's what satire is: the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues

I have no idea at which point CS thinks they engage in ANY of that.

 

Slightly related, but if you want something similar that actually is effective satire, Clickhole does a pretty good job with their "This Will Change the Way You Watch..." series. Clearly, they understand that to be satirical they have to also embrace the medium, not just the subject.

 

I think to many fans, if the contrivances don't have an explanation within the movies, it's a plot hole. If you need to read books, manuals and such to understand the mechanics, plot and characterization, that's fine, but it should be specified beforehand. As others have stated though, this is SW, it's not intended to be that technical.

I think all fans want is consistency, and if something is about to outside of that consistency, then allude to it before hand.

Even with trenches on Crait, he flew straight out to the walkers at max speed in a ship to moves a lot faster than walking and dragging another person. This will never make sense, and I don't expect there will ever even be a way to "fix" it like fans have Hans use of "Parsecs".

Drive 50km (35mph for our American friends) in a car for 5 minutes and then drag a body back the distance you just travelled and tell me how long it takes to get it back lol. It just doesn't work (not to mention I expect the speeders to be moving faster than 50km/h).

 

Case in point; the 8 billion plot and logic issues most anyone ignores in Back to the Future.

Cheers,
Jayson

 

Which is why I don't want time travel in Star Wars! Haha

 

Ha, true that!

Yeah I think whatever suits the story is key but TPTB seem to have some criteria about plausible rules and battle physics in the SW universe.
I just can't seem to guess some of them!

All I can gather is if it ends up looking like pre WW2 warfare it's favored and that real world physics shouldn't get in the way of effective sound design.

Good question - I have no idea.
Maybe it's some thing to do with mass?

Another good question.
Beats me, but I'd be curious to know the storytellers explanation.

 

Not going to respond to all of them.

FO like the Empire screwed up all the time. Prime example is why didnt Empire simply blow up the planet that was between Death Star and Yavin IV. Movie would have ended. Explosion of planet and effect on gravity would have destroyed the base and the Rebellion.

They were trying to slow the walkers for reinforcements to arrive. That was dialogue in the film.

In the weightlessness of space a tiny little tug is enough force to propel her back towards the ship. And related if you watch close enough she first flies through an outer door that gets closed before the inner door is opened. Thus no one is sucked out. This is also in the novelization.

You cant accept the explosion on the bridge of the Raddus, but in ROTJ simple lasers from fighters takes out all the shields of a Super Star Destroyer and then an A-Wing takes out the Super Star Destroyer when it collides on the bridge.

Your comment about Luke isnt a comment about TLJ it is a comment about the whole concept of the new trilogy. If you believe Luke became some sort of Superman Jedi everyone should have lived happily ever after.

We can go back and forth and file all sorts of reasons to find flaws in all the Star Wars films. TLJ is no different. Hell action movies in general are no different. For instance a very common thing in ALL action movies is a small group of the heroes able to overcome huge amounts of villians. A typical thing is hand to hand combat where a hero takes on say 10 villains henchmen. All the henchmen seem to movie around and sort of acting like they are part of the fight, but in reality they are staying out of the fight just moving about trying to look cool. Then when 1 goes down another takes his/her place until they are all gone. Star Wars is just as guilty as this as the rest. Or the villain simply not killing the hero(s) without making a spectacle of it and the heros getting away. This is just the way movies are made and if you go into a film looking for this not to happen you end up unhappy. If you expect a film to be perfect as awesome as it may be you come out thinking it was awful.

 

When you think about it is plothole even possible in any movie at all?

 

Movies don't want to represent real life, so plotholes are very possible. Sometimes even necessary. If you think about it most movies don't make really sense or are often convenient structured to make the story more statisfying or suitable to the audience.

 

NinjaRen
Movies don't want to represent real life, so plotholes are very possible. Sometimes even necessary. If you think about it most movies don't make really sense or are often convenient structured to make the story more satisfying or suitable to the audience.
But that is exactly my point.People think of plothole as being a negative thing in a movie. My point is that since movies are fictional then everything that happens can be explained in some way. So in a sense, no plothole.

 

Not quite. A plot hole is partially objectively defined and partially subjectively defined.

Strictly speaking, it's a gap in the story where in that gap things seem to have occurred without any in-story recognition or logical explanation.

More specifically a plot hole is more easily defined by the part of a story after (A) and before (B), between which, upon arriving at point (B) in the story, the audience is provoked to wonder what exactly happened between (A) and (B) due to a strong shift from established trajectories or the story's own defined rules.

A principle point to plot holes is that they aren't just any gap, but gaps which go against an established trajectory or established internal logic.

Not meeting canon isn't a plot hole.
Not meeting canon is an abstract idea of world continuity as held in opinion by members of the audience.
(e.g. Superman would never do that because... That's not how wizarding in Harry Potter works because... That's not how light sabers work in Star Wars because...)


There's also simply the unbelievable.
These aren't plot holes; they are just simply things that audience members do not accept as probable or possible.
There's no gap in the plot of the film; there's just a denial of belief of the probability of something occurring.

Some from the thread we've seen regarding TLJ are things like bombs in space and Leia using the Force to survive space.


Stupidity is also not a plot hole.
Stupidity is some level of drama, tenuousness, danger, or tension was caused by a character being written to have done something that audience members think was short-sighted or stupid considering what they, as the audience, are thinking due to being removed from the film and observing the story.

For example, a plot hole isn't Marty McFly choosing to go back to September 2nd, 1885 when he knows that Doc will be shot on September 7th, but also knows that the Doc has been there for eight months before Doc wrote the letter to Marty on September 1st, 1885.
Why did Marty give himself less than a week to save Doc from being shot instead of giving himself months? No clue. These two make lots of these kinds of idiotic choices all throughout the series - Marty also only gave himself 10 minutes to save Doc from being shot - not really sure what his plan was since he couldn't show up and reveal himself to his other self, but hey...
So these aren't plot holes, but they are pretty stupid choices.


What I've seen a lot of aren't plot holes.
They're claims of canon, disbelief, or stupidity.


Here's some example plot holes, and we'll look at why being explained doesn't mitigate a plot hole from existing.

A weak plot hole is like Marty's parents not recognizing Marty as Calvin Kline in 1985 when he shows back up - no comment is ever made that Marty's the spitting image of Calvin, whom both is parents very much personally owe their marriage to.

That's an easily over looked plot hole as it has very little bearing on the plot of the film since it happens at the end of the film.

A moderate plot hole that I've used as an example before is Han Solo and Lando in Return of the Jedi.
The last time Han saw Lando, Lando was betraying them.
The next time Han knows Lando is around is when Lando is hanging off of the barge struggling to survive.
Han saves Lando and subsequently throws Lando the keys to the Falcon with nothing in the film addressing the conflict resolution between these two characters.

This is about the same as if Vader and Luke have the Bespin incident, and then at the beginning of ROTJ Luke tosses Vader his green light saber and tells Vader not to break it when he faces the Emperor.
It would be pretty jarring considering where we left off with the relationship between these two.

What makes this one moderate is that it involves secondary characters and doesn't have a lot to do with the primary protagonist and antagonist plot line, so it is a bad one, but it's also not that crippling.

However, a true and blue strong plot hole is something that is almost impossible to explain away that goes entirely opposite of what's been established in the film.
An example: In 1885, Doc Brown's time machine's flux capacitor broke from the lightening strike so he cannot go forward in time so he hides it in a mine shaft for Marty to find in 1955.
In 1955, Marty gets a letter and instructions as to where to find the time machine.
Marty goes back to 1885 with this time machine, and the time machine's broken fuel system and lack of fuel become the primary obstacle for the entire movie. Every other event in the film is centered around the fact that the time machine's fuel system is broken, and that they lack gasoline even if they did have a working fuel system.

Except they do have a working fuel system and fuel because Doc Brown hid the time machine he came in in a mine shaft for Marty to find in 1955.
They simply ignore this other time machine the entire movie, and it's clearly outlined in the film because Marty wouldn't be able to go from 1955 to 1885 if there wasn't a time machine sitting in a cave in 1885.

They never address it, and the lack of it flies directly opposite of information and logic given before the drama.

Now this plot hole actually is one of the strongest examples of a plot hole because as you try to explain it away, it gets worse.
If you say, for example, that they couldn't use that time machine because it needed to stay there for Marty to find in 1955, then they could have just taken the fuel and fuel system, and written in extra information to Marty in 1955 that he'll need a new fuel system and some fuel...if they even needed to spell that out as it would've been obvious and something that Marty and Doc in 1955 could fix.

Now, we can make up excuses and reasons for these gaps, but a plot hole isn't something that can't be explained away; it's something that flies in the opposite direction of the previously created in-film logic or trajectory without being addressed by the film.


Cheers,
Jayson

 

I personally would not use scenes from a time travel movie as an example of plothole as the concept itself is essentially one big plothole.

 

Actually, that is exactly why they were used; because those films are famous for plot holes.

Also, I disagree. Time travel does not inherently equal a plot hole. A plot hole is as defined above which requires a writing or editing error.

Cheers,
Jayson

 

I'd say that's a pretty good summation of it. As I like to say, the plotholes perceived are all reliant on how much you're willing to suspend your disbelief.

Behavioral stuff like subpar decision making ("why didn't Snoke sense Kylo's betrayal? "Why did Holdo not reveal her plan to Poe?") are so weak that I think one's suspension of disbelief is so low that they probably shouldn't even be watching fiction to begin with. If everyone walked around without making mistakes, it would hardly make for a compelling movie. Not to mention the fact that many who argue those points are also on the silly "Rey Mary Sue" bandwagon. Ironic, right?

 

Irony is one word for it....