“We’ve almost got some of their telecommunications cracked; the front end even runs on a laptop!” The Mac that sunk a thousand ships could have been merely clunky product placement, not a bafflingly stupid tech-on-film moment.
“Senator Amidala is in a coma. Even if she recovers, she will never be the same and may not live long.” But no… George had to have his god-damned funeral scene, even if it demanded Simone Biles levels of mental gymnastics to save Carrie Fisher’s most emotionally resonant moment from ROTJ, as well as one of the more intriguing OT lore dumps.
Bonus points if a scene was scripted or filmed and got cut.
I saw some criticism of Netflix’s ‘Ripley’ adaption, based on the fact that Andrew Scott is in his late 40s, so his character (and all associated characters) had to be maybe in their late 30s but not much younger. They said that a father wouldn’t be as interested in him returning the USA in the same way that he would be if his son was in his early 20s (as in the ‘Talented Mr. Ripley’ film). I thought they could just add a line from the father, saying he’d tolerated his son galivanting around Europe until now, but now needed him home because his father was starting to consider retirement and wanted him to take over the business.
“We’ve almost got some of their telecommunications cracked; the front end even runs on a laptop!” The Mac that sunk a thousand ships could have been merely clunky product placement, not a bafflingly stupid tech-on-film moment.
Wasn’t the in-movie explanation for that that all modern tech was secretly based on reverse engineered alien tech?
Where did it say that in the movie? Otherwise that would have been another great one liner for this thread.
It was explained in a deleted scene: https://www.cracked.com/article_18720_7-famous-movie-flaws-that-were-explained-in-deleted-scenes.html
There’s a deleted scene where they explain that he figured it out by analyzing the crashed ship’s programming and also the signal that they were sending through the satellites at the beginning of the movie.
Then back to the Future part 2, Marty McFly should have arrived in the future where he disappeared 30 years ago and his children were never born.
Even if he did arrive history should have begun reverting itself, as his disappearance from the past should have altered the present until he returns.
As long as he experienced no ghosting effects, that would have meant that he was functionally immortal until he returned back to the present.
That entire scenario could have been avoided if doc Brown had said we’ve got a few hours until the universe begins to rectify the fact that you are not in the past with the temporal causality of the present future
I kinda think that if you can imagine a one-line fix to a plot hole, it isn’t really a plot hole.
I remember someone insisting to me that there was this huge plot hole in the film of the Fellowship of the Ring, because Merry and Pippin don’t get told about what Frodo and Sam are actually doing until the Council of Elrond, but still willingly run around risking life and limb to help them. Now, not only is this not a plot hole in itself (I’m pretty sure I’d help anyone fleeing a demonic horseman, just on principle, never mind if that person was my lifelong friend/cousin), it’s also quite obvious that they could have been told everything offscreen. The audience didn’t need to hear all that explanation again, five minutes after we first heard it.
A lot of plot holes people like to complain about are basically of this nature. ‘Can you imagine a fix?’ Yep, easily. ‘Did the audience need to hear it?’ Nope, because I could easily imagine it. ‘Well, there you go, then.’
Yeah, 90% of the time someone says pothole and I hear “The story didn’t spoon feed me the answer and I’m inexplicably mad about it.”
In another thread just today I was pointing out that this is the result of the Cinema Sins school of criticism taking over the average person’s relationship with media. People seem to genuinely think that how good or bad something is comes down to tallying up “plot holes” to come up with a sin score and calling it a day.
Plot holes are fine. Even legitimate plot holes are fine; if a story actually captures your attention and holds your emotional engagement, you won’t be thinking about plot holes because you’ll be too busy enjoying the story. This is Hitchcock described as Fridge Logic; problems that only occur to you hours after the movie is over and you’re staring into the refrigerator trying to decide what snack to make (yes, that’s the actual origin of the term). And he was very much of the opinion that this was absolutely fine; as long as any apparent inconsistency wasn’t so egregious as to break suspension of disbelief right there in the moment, it could be safely ignored.
When people fixate on minor plot holes it’s either because a) fundamentally the story sucks, so their mind is wandering, or b) they’ve trained themselves to constantly find or invent logic holes instead of actually trying to engage with what the storytelling is doing.
Probably one of the most famous examples, but the robots in The Matrix originally kept humans around as wetware CPUs using their spare brainpower. Studio execs forced the Wachowskis to change it to them using humans as batteries, even though that makes no sense. Agent Smith possessing someone in the real world in the sequels would have made a ton more sense with the original explanation.
I thought this was partially coveref when neo asks for a physics book, and they tell him one doesn’t exist.
Also instead of Neo Jesus, when he kills the squiddies outside of the matrix, that should’ve been because they were still in there but Zion and co didn’t realise there was another layer to go.
Instead we got Revolutions.
It’s easier to explain, he had WiFi connection to the matrix/machines.
This is what I thought was going to happen at the end of 2 and was so excited I had to watch 3 right away. I was disappointed.
Disagree, the “another layer” thing would be extremely lazy writing.
Depends on how it’s done. What little EU there was for The Matrix does have it as a thing that a small percentage of redpills go crazy, thinking that Zion is just another layer of the matrix. The Oracle being another part of the system of control would also be on brand for the machines and would work well with the Architect’s bit about how if he’s the father of the matrix then she is its mother.
I kinda just assumed that was how it was meant to be interpreted and the other stuff was just crappy writing. The mention that Zion had been destroyed multiple times kinda implied it was just another matrix.
Unless… there is always another layer because different people require different illusions… and therefore there is no escape from the Matrix…
Disagree, the “another layer” thing would be extremely lazy writing.
And “Neo has actual superpowers for no reason” wasn’t?
What do you mean “no reason”? IMO it was executed and explained well.
Neo having super powers in the matrix was explained. Not how he had them in “real life”.
What was the reason for the change?
The execs thought audiences wouldn’t understand using human brains for processing power.
Same kind of change was made in the Three Body Problem series. Instead of the cosmic microwave background radiation flickering for a character who is viewing it through a device, all the stars in the night sky flickered for all of humanity. Lots of yadda yaddaing the science as well in that show.
I, uh… Okay? Admittedly I was already using PCs at the time that movie came out, but I feel that’s still easier to understand than using humans as batteries. I think both concepts are somewhat abstract but the brain as a bio processor is still something I can grasp more easily than trying to think of where exactly we even store out “energy” and how they’d use that. I would’ve been curious how normies from that time period would’ve seen this though.
Yeah, when the story got out (true or not) a few years after release the general consensus was that it was a bad call.
Probably also a matter of agency. Being used as a battery where you’re still in control of your mind goes over better than “we’re gonna hijack this persons mind and constantly make use of it”. It also then makes things like agents taking over people in the matrix or Smith getting out that much more impactful.
From my view, I feel it would’ve kinda made more sense in explaining the Matrix itself even. If it was computed by our brains, then a good portion of how we perceive it would likely just be part of our own brain processes. Like a dream. It’s often weird but when we’re dreaming we usually don’t perceive it as weird. They wouldn’t have to recreate a complete digital simulation, they just would have to hook up into our brains and let it do the world building.
Using brainpower to power the matrix makes sense, but it sounded like OP was initially just saying for spare computing period, whether for the matrix or anything else even if it wasn’t related.
“Using their spare brainpower” sounds more like them using the remaining parts of someone’s brain that is not used for whatever they do use to run their consciousness within the Matrix.
I guess they’ve never hard of the borg…
That doesn’t really work either. Human brains are not great at computing unless you are looking for “good enough,” results, and only on some pretty narrow fields, facial/speech recognition, some physics interactions, etc. But worse than that… we’re kind of using them. If they wanted us to compute, the whole function of the Matrix is just taking up run cycles. And you can’t just coopt them during sleep, we need the rest periods ,or we literally die. Only one answer makes sense to me, it’s a nature preserve. They didn’t want to be responsible for destroying their creators, and the only other sapient species known to exist. So they build the Matrix to keep us docile. Then, the energy reclamation actually makes some sense. They’re never going to be net positive, but assuming they are having difficulty keeping their society powered, they would be incentivesed to reclaim every watt of power they could from us to reduce our burden on their grid.
Well, they could co-opt our brains in various ways.
That asinine stuff at an office? Maybe it’s work the computers weren’t good at.
Doing manual labor? Maybe it’s controlling some robot doing a real world analog.
Some unskippable ad that you passively thought about? Maybe it represented work being done.
Maybe it is intruding on “spare” brainpower and if the balance glitches in some weird way? Reset you with “just a dream”.
I think there’s enough room for a “wetware” computing explanation. However I could see it being more than audiences were really prepared to think through. I think your “we need the humans safely out of the way of harming us, but we don’t hate them and we’ll keep them alive and engaged in a safe way” probably would have worked well, but they wanted the AIs to be cartoonishly bad in the first movie, and that would have been “too nice”.
Human brains are excellent at computing certain things that are almost impossible for a regular computer. Having worked for years on computer vision I can tell you how hard it is to make computers realize simple stuff, heck, you need massive server farms just to do a basic object recognition that any 3 years old can already do. Sure, you can train a simple AI to recognize some objects, but it will never (currently) be as many objects or as precise as a person can instantly recognize.
The truth is human brains are excellent at what they evolved to do, i.e. pattern recognition. So much so that when trying to figure out data it’s usually easier to plot the data in many different ways to see if something shows up. In fact usually when you try to do cluster analysis the first machine result is, let’s say not great, but you can see that things are wrong and adjust the parameters.
As for your other point your brain does this automatically, they can just put a billboard with the thing they want analyzed and your brain (and millions of others) will give them the answer. Or they could use our dreams, even during sleep our brains are still active, and they could run any scenarios then. There are many other ideas, e.g. people playing videogames inside the matrix are actually controlling robots, or people working in forklifts are actually piloting construction robots in the real world, etc.
The original CPU idea was excellent, but computers weren’t so ubiquitous back then, and the producers thought that the audience wouldn’t understand it.
Humans solving CAPTCHA for the machines
Humans are great computers, we’re just not digital. Our brains are definitely analogue computers, where closer neurons or stronger synapse connections can mean higher voltage signals from one cell to another. This is a very powerful and nuanced form of computing. It’s not great for exact calculation of numbers, but it is great for interpreting data, even extremely large data sets. Human brains (many animal brains really) are also really fantastic at image processing in particular.
If it’s worthwhile to have a dedicated video card in your pc, then likewise, it would probably be worthwhile to have human brains in your evil robot hivemind. It would make some kids of processing much more efficient.
Man that does work so much better…
I’ve seen this posted a few times but I could never find a source. I think this is just what people want to believe!
Here’s a source: https://web.archive.org/web/20211007003509/https://www.reddit.com/r/matrix/comments/q2xefs/batteries_not_processors/
Bottom line, original is batteries
I love the explanation. “Human body heat combined with a firm of fusion generates electricity.”
So they have Fusion, and yet they’re relying on body heat. Yeah, makes a lot of sense everyone knows the human body is several hundred thousand degrees.
A little bit more emphasis during Star Wars that Vader wanted the Storm Troopers to aim poorly and let them get away. It would have solved decades of jokes and arguments about Storm Trooper weapon accuracy.
What? Never heard that. Why?
Because Luke is his son and he still cares about him. He just tries to hide it from the emperor and in the end has to kill him to save Luke.
The problem is the audience only ever finds this out in the final movie so it doesn’t make a lot of sense in the first two films. I’m not sure if there was a good way to address this though because the only option would have been to have a scene where Vader basically explains all this to Luke. It seems a bit late in the story for it really to be relevant.
So that they can track the ship back to the rebel base!
That makes sense.
It was right there all along:
Grand Moff Tarkin : Are they away?
Darth Vader : They’ve just made the jump into hyperspace.
Grand Moff Tarkin : You’re sure the homing beacon is secure aboard their ship? I’m taking an awful risk, Vader. This had better work.
Actually that raises another point. It is really unclear in the first film what exactly Vader’s position of authority is. Because he seems kind of subordinate to Tarkin at points. He even tells Vader to leave that officer alone when he’s strangling him, and he obeys the order.
Evidently most of the fandom needs to have it beaten over their heads a bit more blatantly than that.
Another thing that would have been helpful is if it was made clearer just how monstrous the Ewoks actually are. There wouldn’t be as much shame to the Imperials for losing against them if people had only internalized a bit better that:
- Ewoks are strong enough that they can haul Redwood-sized logs up into the canopy to build deadfalls, using only crude vine ropes and muscles, and do it quietly enough that the nearby Imperial garrison didn’t notice.
- They are stealthy enough that an ordinary hunting party can sneak up on an elite Rebel strike force (including a Jedi).
- That hunting party was hunting a 3-meter-tall boar-wolf, by the way. Ewoks hunt these routinely.
- Endor is full of predators like that, and despite that the Ewoks let their children wander the forest on their own. Upon being confronted with an armor-clad alien wielding a blaster weapon and riding a flying machine, one of those lone children thought to himself: “guess I’d better kill him.” Leia helped, of course, but the Ewok couldn’t have known she would.
- One of their literal gods, personified in the form of a physical avatar before them, ordered the Ewoks not to burn some people alive and devour their flesh. The Ewoks hesitated for half a second and then resumed piling the firewood with a jaunty song. Gods are spiffy and all, but don’t get in between Ewoks and their cannibalism.
Conversely: Stop overthinking Star Wars. I get that people love the universe but the movies are straight up just not deep at all.
They are stealthy enough that an ordinary hunting party can sneak up on an elite Rebel strike force (including a Jedi).
Are we really pretending George was thinking about this while making Jedi? Like in a script review some young guy pipes up: Hey George, how do the Ewoks sneak up on Luke when he has force powers? And George calmly explains, “Well son, Ewoks may look cute but they are actually deadly hunters with expert tracking and stealth skills”
The Ewoks win against the empire because the script says they do. It looks stupid because they are children/(dwarves?) in costumes who can probably barely see what’s going on.
I know I’m being a major grump but reading these comments make my eyes roll out of my sockets. It’s like watching art critics fawn over an 8 year old’s painting because they’ve been told it’s a picasso.
I say all this as someone who enjoys the OT but finds it increasingly embarrassing to admit to having any interest in the property.
Overthinking is the best kind of thinking.
Are we really pretending George was thinking about this while making Jedi?
No. I’m a proponent of the death of the author school of literary analysis. I don’t care what George Lucas was thinking. Indeed, he’s shown himself to not be the best at figuring this sort of stuff out.
What I’m doing here is having fun. I’m taking a work of fiction and seeing how far I can run with it. You, on the other hand, are feeling embarrassed about having fun and avoiding it. There’s a famous quote by CS Lewis that I think is apt here.
I was anticipating this response and you’re entirely correct. I’m happy you enjoy thinking about Star Wars lore and I shouldn’t be shaming anyone for having fun. I shouldn’t feel embarrassed and I understand that that is a character flaw and something I should work on.
Aside from that, there is this feeling of confusion and frustration that I think has some validity, but which doesn’t necessarily justify me being a dick online about it. I think my frustration is that Star Wars has a specific meaning to me which is very different from what it has become today, and it’s frustrating watching the “original meaning” get washed away in a sea of merch and fan theories. I know it’s stupid to hold a specific interpretation as the correct one and try to force that on others, but I hope you can at least empathize with the feeling of watching something you like morph into something completely unrecognizable.
To me, Star Wars is trilogy of corny action adventure movies with a cast of quirky characters set in a fantastical but ultimately very shallow universe. A trilogy that revolutionized the VFX industry and brought fantasy into the mainstream. I feel alone in viewing the ip this way, I feel alone in thinking Rogue One was a boring lifeless husk of a movie that no epic battle scenes could redeem.
I assume take pleasure in sharing your love of Star Wars fan with other fans and that’s more or less what I’m after I think. I’m sorry for being a dick about it.
I know it’s stupid to hold a specific interpretation as the correct one and try to force that on others, but I hope you can at least empathize with the feeling of watching something you like morph into something completely unrecognizable.
Oh, we can certainly agree about that sort of feeling. I am very much not a fan of the Disney sequel trilogy, for example, and seeing them enthuse about how it’s all part of the “Skywalker Saga” and how Rey is the true “chosen one” and all that rot is just awful. But still, the “let’s see if I can make it make sense” part of me has still had some fun with trying to fix up even small bits of that pile of wreckage.
I’m not even a fan of the prequel trilogy, despite the retroactive “redemption arc” they seem to have received in recent years. I think they’re still pretty bad, they just got a coat of polish in the form of the Clone Wars and a “this is what bad really is” comparison to stand next to in the form of the sequel trilogy.
set in a fantastical but ultimately very shallow universe
Shallow puddles are still fun to splash around in. :) Sometimes the shallowness actually gives me more flexibility and fun in theory-crafting about it.
Anyway, there’s room for all sorts of fans, and I’m sorry that you’re feeling alone. I’m sure there’s others out there that share your view, it’s probably just a bit hard seeing them with the current amount of activity from the other kinds of fans.
Is it cannibalism? It feels more like a (talking) bear eating a human.
I do feel like the Stormtooper point got lost on Lucas too by RotJ honestly. In Empire they do pretty good except when they’re, again, explicitly trying to lure the hero into a trap. RotJ has the most weirdness of the originals and probably the most EU ‘redemptions’/revisions. With stuff like “here’s what was really up with the Ewoks”, Boba not dying, etc.
“Long pig”
Replace some of the stormtroopers in ROTJ with regular army forces and it might have helped the stormtroopers’ reputation.
“Not to mention how many troopers we lost under orders to not shoot to hit.”
I think Lucas thought he had it covered with Obi-Wan’s, “These blast points are too accurate for Sandpeople. Only Imperial Stormtroopers are that accurate” line. You are correct though, that is one change that was needed.
There’s a YouTube series called “how it should have ended” and 90% of them are basically answers to this question lol
DBZ fan. Lots of things:
- SSJ4 could be canon. It just requires a full moon and a tail. When all the Saiyans in-universe don’t have them, it’s kinda impossible…
- Becoming SSJ easily (Goten and Trunks) is easily explained by saying that because their fathers already were SSJ by the time of conception, it had become a natural reflex to them, rather than a barrier that needed to be broken.
- They’ve been able to blow up planets since the days of 9000 power levels, probably even with 1000, yet with power levels of 1B the fights are largely the same. Explain this as some sort of ki concentration, where your energy has…more energy per energy, or something?
- Goku’s “telepathy” was always just him feeling someone’s energy, and feeling how flustered and overwhelmed they are. He does a similar thing to Future Trunks, but it wasn’t called telepathy, it was “searching his emotions” - another BS way of saying “shit, you don’t look good, what’s up!”.
- The Dragon Balls take a year to charge, but are often usable pretty much right away - the RR army get them 8 months after they were used, and despite being used to revive Goku the Earth balls are used basically a month later because Kami is revived. Maybe just explain it as Kami needing time to revive them as they’re intrinsically linked? It Kami goes on bed rest, you’ll have Dragon Balls in a few weeks…
- Launch didn’t disappear. She married Tien, they have kids, and she stays at home to raise them.
I could probably write a book to “fix” the show, but these fixes just tend to annoy fans because they want a “canon” answer to a show that is hilariously broken.
They’ve been able to blow up planets since the days of 9000 power levels, probably even with 1000, yet with power levels of 1B the fights are largely the same. Explain this as some sort of ki concentration, where your energy has…more energy per energy, or something?
To be a planet killer, you need a power level of around 2500. So 1000 is not sufficient, 9000 is overkill.
It’s stupid if you think about it. Instead of fighting and potentially losing, you could just blow up the planet and killing every strong fighter on it because being able to breathe in space is not a learnable technique. It’s kinda like the “why use any spell other than Avada Kedavra?” in Harry Potter and the answer is, there isn’t really a point.
The Dragon Balls take a year to charge, but are often usable pretty much right away - the RR army get them 8 months after they were used, and despite being used to revive Goku the Earth balls are used basically a month later because Kami is revived. Maybe just explain it as Kami needing time to revive them as they’re intrinsically linked? It Kami goes on bed rest, you’ll have Dragon Balls in a few weeks…
The Dragon Balls source their power from the guardian that governs them. So, each set has different rules set by their guardian and the guardian can also arbitrarily change those rules. When Kami was revived, he apparently changed the 1-year recharge (if I remember right this is also said by him but I might be wrong, been I while since I’ve watched the early arcs). A definite change occurred when Dende took over guardianship over Earth and restored the Dragon Balls and made them about as powerful as the Namekian ones.
The biggest plot device in Dragon Ball are the zenkai boosts and how inconsistent they are in both power and occurrence. The one Goku got on Namek just prior to the Frieza fight was astronomical because they made Frieza way too strong even for SSJ Goku to defeat without an asinine boost. At the end of the regular Dragon Ball, Goku had all his limbs broken and a huge hole in his chest just above the heart, certainly a terminal condition, but he received no zenkai boost at all. When Radditz showed up, Goku was just as strong as in the 23rd Tenkaichi Budokai which makes absolutely zero sense. You cannot even pull the “it was just a showmatch”-card on that one because the finals were not a showmatch and Piccolo Jr fully intended to eradicate Goku to avenge his father.
…and it was all a dream.
I hate it when storytelling pulls me out of the story, and back into the theater.
wtf did you link to
What you want is “show” without the “tell”. Always works better.
What you want is “show” without the “tell”. Always works better.
Actually I was speaking more about the plot holes and non sequiturs, but you also have a valid point.
It’s a balancing act though, isn’t it?
Sure, you can’t have it be too clunky, but you also have to lay some foundation for the characters’ actions to make sense. Screwing it up either way will pull a percentage of the audience out of the story.
Perhaps some sort of establishing shot in the lab with OS9 or whatever they had in Independence Day would work better than dialogue, but the specificity of the solution called for something. Handwavium is best when a bit higher level, IMHO.
It’s a balancing act though, isn’t it?
Don’t mean to be argumentative, but generally speaking? No, it’s not.
Either you’re in the story, and enjoying it, or you’re in the theater, noticing the seat you’re sitting in, and not paying so much attention to the movie being shown you.
A good Storyteller keeps you in the story, and doesn’t let you escape until the end credits.
Okay, I guess I see that, but allowing that the storyteller fucked it up, some failures of storytelling stick in my craw worse than others.
Okay, I guess I see that, but allowing that the storyteller fucked it up, some failures of storytelling stick in my craw worse than others.
Me as well. For some you just smirk negatively at, others you cringe at, and others you get pissed off at.
But all of those can pull you out of the story, and back into the movie theater. They’re all bad, just in varying degrees.
Fair enough. I think we could use more discussion around here that jumps off from the original queries and prompts. :-)
I think we could use more discussion around here that jumps off from the original queries and prompts. :-)
That socializing technique works at parties too! 😇🙂
I remember my reaction to the sword moment in Pacific Rim the first time I saw it: This is dumb and I don’t care. I was taken out of the story, but it was so cool that I pulled myself back into it.
With TV shows, they don’t want to trap you, they want you to come back later to hear more. It’s rare for someone to read an entire novel in one sitting, but a good story is one you’ll pick up again later. With theatre, they give you an intermission so you don’t pee on the seats. That used to be the case with movies, too.
A good Storyteller tells a good story. That’s it.
I remember my reaction to the sword moment in Pacific Rim the first time I saw it: This is dumb and I don’t care. I was taken out of the story
Could you elaborate about what was it about that pulled you out of the story?
In my case I had the same reaction you described, but for me it was like “wait the other pilot wouldn’t know that thing exists?”, and I got pulled out of the story for a moment. It did affect my enjoyment of watching the movie.
If I was the editor for the movie I wouldn’t have included that. And if they wanted some other deus ex machina moment to surprise the audience with, I would have tried something else.
With theatre, they give you an intermission so you don’t pee on the seats.
Um, that wouldn’t pull you out of the story, as at that point the story is paused, for you to go to the restroom.
To be pulled out of the story, you have to be watching the story, and then see something completely wrong with the storytelling while watching it.
That used to be the case with movies, too.
I remember them, as well as the music in the beginning before the movie actually starts to get everyone in their seats. Star Trek The Motion Picture was one of the last movies I’ve seen that had that. And even today if you watch the movie Ben-Hur on your TV you’ll see a lot of times they play the intermission break halfway through the movie.
Well, that’s a clear sign you haven’t seen Pacific Rim. It’s a dumb ability to have without using up until that point, especially given everything that led to it. But it’s fucking awesome, so I rebuilt my willing sense of disbelief just to enjoy it some more.
You said you dislike it when you’re reminded you’re in a theatre. Intermission is the story literally just saying “you’re in a theatre, go do something else for a few minutes and come back later.” The play isn’t good because you’re unable to leave. It’s good because you DO come back later.
Well, that’s a clear sign you haven’t seen Pacific Rim.
But, but…, I have…, multiple times.
And I saw the sequel movie, as well as the Netflix series.
Everything I saw fit into the world building/lore, and nothing pulled me out of the movie, with the one semi-exception of the sword scene.
You said you dislike it when you’re reminded you’re in a theatre.
No, I was stating that I hate being pulled out of the story. If I’m at home in the living room and the same thing happens, I hate that too.
Being reminded of where I am is a after side effect, and not the problem in and of itself. It’s being pulled away from the story in the first place thats the problem.
That’s an important distinction.
The Tv stations play the intermission? I’d think they would just cut that and jam more commercials in there.
The Tv stations play the intermission? I’d think they would just cut that and jam more commercials in there.
It was cable TV (vs streaming service), one of the networks that don’t play commercials during the movie.
TCM maybe, can’t remember which.
Way to miss the entire point of their reply and essentially regurgitate your initial comment in a half-brained swipe at pedantry. Stay in school, chief.
The black liquid was never a bioweapon it was made as an insecticide. Why, what did you people do with it?
Honestly that entire movie was a plothole given the origins of the xenomorphs is already established.
“Eagles can’t fly us to Mt. Doom because of a magic curse or some shit”- Gandalf to the council in Lord of the Rings
In the books it’s explained that the eagles were involved in a war of their own during the first two books and couldn’t send help without risking their own destruction. There’s actually a part in the books where frodo is like “why didn’t the eagles just fly us” lol.
I think that one’s pretty well explained (albeit not explicitly) by the presence of the Nazgul and the eye of Sauron, which were either destroyed or otherwise occupied when the eagles made their rescue. People pretend Mordor had no airborne defenses for the bit, but it doesn’t really make sense
The Eye was proven to not be all-seeing or all-knowing. Same with the Ring Wraiths. And Orcs were shown numerous times to be inept guards.
So have an eagle fly Frodo to Mt. Doom on a night with a new moon, above the clouds. There is no way they would be spotted. A curse, while stupid, is the only explanation that really puts this plot hole to rest IMO.
The best explanation would be the actual one - they don’t give a shit about Middle-Earth.
This is exactly right. They were just busy with important eagle business.
Doesn’t have to be all seeing to spot a fucking eagle lol. This is akin to “Gandalf should’ve teleported the ring to Mordor, it never explicitly said he couldn’t”
I saw something maybe yesterday that was like, Samwise could carry frodo without being affected by the ring, so why didn’t they just tape the ring to a small animal and put it in a bag, and carry the bag to Mordor?
I’ll tell you that council didn’t think very hard before concluding “one of us must physically carry it all the way there.”
That only applies to the movie, and anyway it’s easily explained by the The Ring not wanting to switch to Sam in that moment. In the book Sam totally puts on the ring to trick some orcs and it tries to tempt him with the power of gardening really well.
The Ring would reach out and influence people around the bag. The Ring would tempt whichever eagle carried Frodo. It had to be a being that had enough control to keep hold of The Ring but not enough ambition to be controlled by it. And even then IIRC it wasn’t actually possible to destroy it willingly, Eru Ilúvatar stepped in and gave Gollum a tiny nudge off the cliff.
I mean… Why didn’t he? 🤔
Mordor probably had some javelins too.
Pirates of the Caribbean it was pointed out Bootstap was strapped to a cannon and dropped into the sea but the logical conclusion that by lifting the curse Will had to kill his own father was never a plot point. not exactly a plot hole just a missed opportunity.
By that point he had joined the Flying Dutchman’s crew and thus did not die when the curse was lifted. But Will didn’t know this, so your point stands.
even if it demanded Simone Biles levels of mental gymnastics to save Carrie Fisher’s most emotionally resonant moment from ROTJ
I don’t think it’s “gymnastics” to imagine that an orphan toddler might end up with some false memories of what she imagines her mother was like.
What I’d rather have had as a tiny change to “improve” the situation would be to confirm that Palpatine used some kind of Dark Side alchemy to drain Padme’s life to keep Vader alive, I really like that notion. Wouldn’t need to be with dialogue, even, just have some kind of scene showing Palpatine meditating and channeling something.
And also, I personally think that vaders redemption at the end of episode 6 was false.
Vader killed billions of people. He destroyed an entire planet for the lulz.
And he was a whiny little shit his entire life before becoming Vader.
One tiny little moment of redemption is not enough to undo all the shit he did.
It is my opinion that the force ghosts shown at the end of episode 6 are being created by Luke Skywalker to assuage his own mental trauma of the series of events that had let him to that point.
He did that so he can tell himself that he is a hero, that he is not a failed Jedi, that all of the pain and suffering he had been through was worth it.
The only reason why Leia could sort of see them was because she was tuned into his force power
And he was a whiny little shit his entire life before becoming Vader.
Nah, he was cool as fuck as a pod racing eight year old or whatever.
He was a particularly angsty* teen, I’ll give you that, but he was also kinda being constantly left in the dark by his weird religious magi cult who wanted him to be their chosen one, so like, I can understand why his rebellious streak would be so big.
I do ultimately agree though, no amount of “redemption” can bring someone back from nuking an entire fucking planet.
That “little moment of redemption” was him fulfilling his destiny and bringing balance to the Force. He doesn’t become a Force ghost because he’s been like, forgiven of his sins or something. He becomes a Force ghost because he dies at peace in the Force.
You can have your headcanon about the Force ghosts and Luke being insane if you’d like, I’m not trying to like, fight you on it or anything. But it sort of misses the point, in my opinion.
For whatever reason, people love headcanons that rely on the main protagonist hallucinating and us the audience being dragged down into insanity with them. There is a fan theory out there that Cameron in Ferris Bueller’s Day Off is a figment of Ferris’ imagination. It’s really bonkers stuff but people love this style of fan theory for some reason.
You’re right and it’s very weird, because it’s not at all interesting to think of films this way. Basically, the form it takes is:
None of this film is real!
But… I knew that already? It’s a film?
I have a follow-up head Canon about the movie Evil Dead 2, in that what we are seeing is Ash telling us the story of what happened and how his girlfriend got her head chopped off with a shovel.
That would explain the camp, The Three stooges comedy and the over-the-top bizarre this guy is just so cool he can’t be killed even by an army of the Dead even when he sucked into the past like A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court.
This is held up by the revised ending to army of darkness where he’s telling this story to a girl in Kmart sorry, S Mart to impress her as if having a home-built robotic hand wasn’t impressive efuckingnough.
Christopher Reeve Superman. How come he’s fast enough to go back in time, but not fast enough to save Lois in the first place?
Scene needed is Jor-El explaining that Clark is as strong as he believes himself to be. He can literally focus the entire power of the Sun if he’s strong enough.
Do you think he was flying around the earth for kicks? No, he was using a gravitational slingshot to build speed. Granted, they could have explained it better, so I guess a line like “we need to use the turn of the world to speed up our satilites, and we still can’t match his velocity. Imagine how fast he’d be.” But less clunky, of course.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_assist
That’s not how gravity assist works. You need relative differences in speed.
Someone once explained it that watching the earth spin backward was not him flying so fast that he literally drugged the Earth in reverse but rather that the Earth spinning backward was a byproduct of our third party view watching time go in reverse because Superman was traveling back in time.
But he would have to literally be stronger than the sun to do that because the only way you can travel backwards in time is to travel faster than the speed of light.
But it’s movie magic so what can you say?
Honestly my head canon is that just like how humans on a hell of an adrenaline rush can do superhuman feats like lift a car for someone trapped under it, superman has basically the equivalent, breaking his known limitations through sheer force of adrenaline.
Kind of like how in one of the early seasons of the CW Flash series, Barry accidentally travels back in time while pushing himself to stop a tidal wave from destroying Central City.
Kind of like how in one of the early seasons of the CW Flash series, Barry accidentally travels back in time while pushing himself to stop a tidal wave from destroying Central City.
That one really annoyed me because like the next episode they were saying he needed to go mach 3 which was faster than ever! And I was like… Is time travel less than mach 3? I’m pretty sure have jets that can go Mach 3…
Yeaaah CW Flash was really inconsistent with its power curves and growth.
I like that idea.
In a similar vein, Supes could be much weaker if he were asleep or distracted. In the current iteration, if Clark Kent gets hit in the head by a ninja the weapon breaks; in the new one, he can be knocked out if he isn’t pumped up. Sort of like how Houdini was killed when he told a fan they could hit him as hard as they wanted; he meant after he’d had a moment to prepare.
