Where are the plot holes?

I have described a plothole, friendo.

 

I actually have no disagreement with the story choice. I am merely pointing out that there is a logical inconsistency in what transpired, and the facts surrounding the event. To perhaps clarify

1) The First Order is a highly competent military that has almost wiped out the rebels completely
2) There are more First Order ships than what we see on screen
3) If you are part of a team, and you are engaged in a chase, your natural reaction is to ask the rest of your team to intercept

Now all of this would be ok if this were a two minute chase. But we are talking about a chase that spanned hours!!!! So we essentially have the First Order behaving inefficiently.

So at this point in time, the author of the story has provided two conflicting view points.

1) The First order is incompetent and is unaware of basic strategy in regards to a chase
2) The First order is more than competent and have the rebels on the run

There is no obvious explanation for the above inconsistency. It becomes more jarring because it is one of the central premises on which the plot is built.

 

Well, I'll rewatch to remind myself of the specifics of the scene but my first impression would be the force, battle meditation, or something of that nature. He was there and I am sure he was aware of what was happening. How did Palpatine know what was going on the the finally battle in ROTJ?

 

Palpatine presumed that his plan worked, being arrogant and stuff. He also tried to make Luke angry. And i dont think the Force told Snoke about what was going on in the battle. Palpatine had no idea about what happened on Mustafar, he only sensed that Vader was in danger. So i dont buy your explanation.

 

I am not familiar with what exactly transpired at the Battle of Gettysburg

However, I am pretty sure that what Pickett faced was not a textbook scenario where the right course of action is obvious.

In regards to this situation, we have a common scenario of a chase where you have a ton of your team mates. To not take the basic course of action of not intercepting with your team is then indeed something that requires an explanation.

To perhaps put it into the Gettysburg war scenario, if Picket had chosen to not fire weapons during the battle, then one would be right in asking for an explanation.

I should also maybe clarify that in my opinion, plot holes aren't logical inconsistencies that are absolutely irreconcilable. It is more than possible that any plot hole can be reconciled with an explanation. But when evaluating a movie, the plot holes stick out as troublesome because the entire point of a movie is to sell a story to the viewer! If there are central premises that have jarring inconsistencies in them without explanation, then it makes the movie objectively flawed.

 

I've only seen the movie once but why don't they tell Poe the plans from the start? I understand he was demoted but he then takes Holdo and some of her crew hostage. Wouldn't you tell him the plan at that point? Also, Poe the "Most trusted fighter pilot in the Resistance" was trusted to retrieve the map of Luke Skywalker in TFA and led the attack to blow up Starkiller Base wasn't allowed to know the Resistance plan to escape (Mind you there were only a few of them left anyway)? I'm not sure if this qualifies as a plot hole but it definitely takes me out of the film when I have to sit and question these things while watching it.

 

Well, I just rewatched the ending scenes with Snoke, Kylo, Rey and Im not sure what Snoke did that could have be a plot hole. He showed Rey what was happening with the transports being blown up. Hux was told about their maneuvers in the scene before. If Snoke can read Kylo's mind, don't see why he may not be connected with Hux also to be kept up today. He could be receiving information at his throne. He could be seeing into the short future and projecting it onto his screen. For me, I see other possibilities other than plot hole. Just me though.

 

I think if Lea had been awake she would have told him. But I didn't sense that closeness in Holdo and Poe, it was more of a military relationship and he was the brash subordinate that had been recently demoted so she wasn't obliged to tell him another more that we would anyone else of a lower rank.

 

Seriously what was Poe thinking? Why would he tell the plans to Finn knowing it was very probable he could be captured.

 

sometimes it is. I think the Lord of the Rings plot hole around utilising eagles to destroy the ring, or progress its transport is a plot hole and a illogical military decision. its both, because yes there is a history of illogical military decisons, but if we the audience can come to the conclusion that using eagles is the best route then it seems illogical and unbelievable for Gandalf, an experienced wizard and leader to miss such an opportunity. it is a both a hole and an illogical military decision because if it breaks what we believe the character would do in a given situation it is a hole in the plot.
if a plot hole is:
'is a gap or inconsistency in a story line that goes against the flow of logic established by the story's plot'
Then TLJ is riddled with them, as many of the films parts go against the flow of logic. so if you apply logic to the situations then they appear to be plot holes.
from this point of view the leia surviving in space thing is a plot hole, because although we don't know the limits of the force, we do know the precedent for trained Jedi's skills, and we know on some level how being exposed to the void of space works. the logical conclusion from what has been established by previous stories is that Force users are no more likely to survive in space than anyone else. yet here we are.
There is nothing in the TLJ that is such a massive plot hole as to derail the whole film, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have any.
Story decisions can be plot holes, negating previously established criteria or rules are also plot holes.

I think the idea of Luke drawing his saber on Ben Solo is exactly a plot hole. it shows us something possible, but that we don't find likely or believable based on the previous time was saw luke confronted with such a choice. Luke in the original trilogy was a character who always chose to see the good in people. this can be reduced down to saying he always turns left. now in this new film, he sees the darkness in Ben and contemplates killing him because of the darkness, essentially turning right. a direction we have never seen luke turn and we are given no reasoning or logical explanation for his change of heart....this is a fine decision for Luke to make but without showing the audience how he came to change in this way there is literally a hole, where that piece of plot should be as it contradicts previously established rules around the character and our previous beliefs about him. it is a plot hole. its a gap where plot is needed to explain this change. like a missing piece of evidence in a science experiment.

 

I don't believe Holdo had a plan. The FO chased the resistance until all other ships were destroyed and they were forced to retreat to a base on Crait with no known exits. If Crait was the plan, transports would have been fueled in advance. If kamikaze was the plan, why not employ the tactic with other ships before the FO destroyed them. I speculate she piloted the kamikaze mission out of guilt (x-wings have autopilot so I'm sure that was an option. Otherwise Leia could have used her Force Push to initiate hyperdrive).

Does anyone know what Holdo's plan was? I'd love to hear thoughts.

 

Fighting with a lightsaber and a staff is not that similar.

 

No it isn't you don't actually understand what a plot hole is and that's why you haven't addressed what is actually being spoken about.
if a film omits logic or jumps logic it is a hole in the plot. such as if we saw Vader in ANH trying to kill luke, and the next scene was him saving luke from the emperor in ROTJ. it would make sense the character had changed but without showing the audience the logical steps to get us to this point there would be a large hole in the plot of the film.

 

Not to nitpick, and my Tolkien knowledge is a bit rusty, but wasn't there a problem of the Nazgul dominating the air at the time?

 

The the things i'm mentioning are in fact the thing you are describing. The way the scene with Luke drawing the saber on sleeping Ben works on the audience is thus:

Rey doesn't belive that story when she hears it, she can't imagine that this guy Luke Skywalker who is a legend to her could do such a thing as draw a saber on his sleeping nephew just because he senses evil.
We as an audience relate to Rey because we feel the same way about Luke based on other existing depictions of him in previous films/material.

When it is shown that it is in fact true that he drew his saber on Ben, we the audience find it as shocking as Rey because it appears illogical and out of character to us, as it does to Rey.

Now this works as a dramatic set up because its unexpected. but the reason its unexpected is because it makes no logical sense. TLJ often does this, turns what we think we know about TGFFA on its head by simple ignoring, or directly undermining previously established rules/characters or logic.

I think what we are shown with Luke/Ben is inconsistent with the established character and contradicts what we are told and shown about these characters, specifically luke in this example. if you don't think that is a plot hole, then that's got nothing to do with the definition of a plot hole, its just your opinion, within the definition of a plot hole, this fits.

What was the reason Luke was able to see the good in vader and chose to act on that, but then when presented with a simillar situation chose to do the opposite?

If you can't answer that then I think there is a hole in the plot. and i'm not saying its contained within TLJ but that particular scene in TLJ produced a massive plothole in the arc of Luke Skywalker and the saga as a whole.

 

So I am also finding it confusing in regards to some replies on this thread. According to some of you, nothing is a plot-hole because it can have an explanation (fantastical or otherwise). I am not sure that is a correct understanding. But, if that is the understanding we are going to uphold in regards to defining a plot-hole, then that is ok! However, then we have to still address the points people have brought up that are problematic in terms of story-telling.

We can call it "errors in narrative design" or something else. But those negative aspects do exist in this movie, regardless of what label we want to classify them under.