Plot hole city: Part 3!

[Saquist]

You didn't post any source material to back up your claims.So until then it's stating an opinion as fact. .

I did post sources for plot hole. You just weren't around for it. Anyone could do the research and dare to discover for themselves. That's why I hold my position until someone over turns that research.

What must be true for you must be true for everybody else and if not then must be made to be true

Huh?

Not everybody has the same standards.

That's not my concern though.
People don't chose standards for the best reasons so the presence of multiple standards does not in itself justify why I should entertain them all or seriously down play my own standards that I have gone through alot of trouble to learn from other sources.

No it isn't. It's only a plot hole if it has an effect on the story. That's what is cut n dry.

That's too general. Any discrepancy or lacking can have an effect on the story. The reason it's called a plot hole and not a "story" hole is because the plot OF the story has been affected by the lack of information.

Then do it and let people enjoy the movie how they want to and let writers write the movie they want to, not how you think they should write. Writing is not an easy thing.

I don't want to create a film.
I've already written good scripts. I've done just about every form of artistic expression. And my criticizing their work is par for the course. It's not my problem if you don't like the criticisms being leveled.

Nitpicking never accomplishes anything because there is always something that can be nit picked.

Oh that's not true.
Nitpicking (as much as you don't like it.) is the act of striving for perfection or a lack of errors at the most and at the least the making aware of those errors and take away fro the final work.

And that's why it's highly subjective. And of course there is also such a thing as being argumentive for the sake of being argumentive, which is what nitpicking is really all about. People can always make excuses why they're "not" nitpicking, of course, and hide behind them, but in the end it all boils down to one thing:

I definitely nitpick.
It's my field to nitpick. And I do it to practically everything because I enjoy finding errors that others ignore. That includes my own.
For me it's about being informed and not being ignorant. Some people prefer the ignorance which is why they say it's bliss.

As for me, sure, I can see minor errors in some things and can muse about them, but for me unless it is something that will drastically alter the story I'm not going to let it bother me and make all kinds of excuses
.
What is plausible to one person is not plausible to another.

Then don't let it bother you.
But you were trying to make a case on something the facts, and your analogy was in error. Because if Nero could rationalized as irrational without any direction from the film then so could Hal. Your thinking wasn't fair on all points.

Movies are supposed to be escapist entertainment, and are always highly subjective. And always will be. The best thing to do is to just lay back and enjoy the movie.

Then don't worry about the plot holes. Enjoy the film. I enjoyed Jurassic Park despite the fact that the cliff appears out of no where when the SUV is pushed over by the T-Rex.

Now, here's the big plothole that could alter the entire story.

If HAL took over the first pod, there was nothing to prevent him from taking over the pod Bowman was in, and shoving him out into space. If that would've happened, the ship would have no astronauts in it and there would've been no Bowman to merge with the monolith and no Starchild.

This assumes there was no manual override or computer lockout on the pods. Perhaps when the pods were outside the ship, the control that HAL had over them was more limited than when they were still in the pod bay. We only have the one data point of a pod being controlled by HAL, and Frank was not aboard the pod when it happened.

Grant you, what you point out is a weakness in the story. The main thrust of the point is that everything is so very automated.

But with so little explicit description of the nature of the technology in the film, and with explanations so ready that are capable of repairing the weakness, it can't really rise to the level of being a hole. The main thrust of the counterpoint is that Dave seems to be directly in control of his pod, making a great many manual adjustments while picking up Frank's body. Perhaps Dave preferred to manually control picking up Frank's body, on instinct, perhaps even driven subconsciously by the concerns he and Frank had recently expressed.

Nice observation, though.

But it's the job of the story teller to properly explain this.
Writers go through a lot of trouble in movies to exemplify events for the final scenes.

In Dark Knight they display the ability of the cell phone for the final use to save the day.

In Star Trek 2009 they display what red matter can do by destroying vulcan.

In Independence Day the danger of a hovering Saucer and it's weapon over the central point in a city is displayed before our heroes face the same danger at the end.

In these cases of major event development it serves the writers goal of suspense. The very same practice is neglected elsewhere when it interferes in the stories resolution. So the fact that HAL could control the pods is treated as incidental. He had control of the pods...now he does not...and a plot hole arises because the negative is unexplained.

 

[William Wallace]

But then, if we have to assume things that the movie fails to tell us, doesn't that make it a plot hole?

No, it still does not.

While one might (for whatever reason) wish that every detail was so thoroughly explained that it could not possibly be interpreted in more than one way, the storyteller (the filmmaker, in this case) is under no obligation to provide such a thorough and complete explanation. Questions may remain unanswered, and it then falls (whether by design or by default) to the reader/viewer/audience to decide what they believe happened; this neither constitutes a failing in the storytelling nor does it a plot hole make.

Gotta disagree there. Going back to James Bond analogies for a minute, if we see a villian hit Bond's car with a missile launcher, with Bond in it, seemingly killing him, and 2 minutes later Bond appears alive and unharmed, don't you think it's the writer's job to explain to the viewer how Bond survived the blast? Did he eject at the last split second? Was the car a decoy all along? Does he have a twin brother? It's bad enough when writers use ridiculously unlikely and convenient explanations to resolve situations (see also: deus ex machina), but if they don't even bother to provide any explanation, you think that doesn't constitute bad storytelling?

 

[Vulagr]

But it's the job of the story teller to properly explain this.

Finally found the quote button.

But not to the verbose detail many fans demand.

Oh that's not true.
Nitpicking (as much as you don't like it.) is the act of striving for perfection or a lack of errors at the most and at the least the making aware of those errors and take away fro the final work.

No, it doesn't. Because all it is is arguing for the sake of being argumentative, nothing more. It just creates problems that don't really exist. That's all it does. Because What you can pick at, others can pick at your nit picking and it just creates a big huge circular nit pick.

Then don't worry about the plot holes. Enjoy the film. I enjoyed Jurassic Park despite the fact that the cliff appears out of no where when the SUV is pushed over by the T-Rex.

I tend not to unless it's something really big.

It's my field to nitpick. And I do it to practically everything because I enjoy finding errors that others ignore. That includes my own.
For me it's about being informed and not being ignorant. Some people prefer the ignorance which is why they say it's bliss.

No, some people just love hyperbole and love to make problems where there isn't.

Here's a challenge for you.

What films have you not been able to personally nit pick because they're perfect in every single way you want them to be?

I'd bet there isn't any that is that perfect.

And that's why nit picking is absolutely useless. It accomplishes nothing, and what one person picked at another person can pick away as well.

And I have nothing more to say on the matter. We'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[number6]

Good luck waiting for a real answer!!

 

[CorporalCaptain]

So the fact that HAL could control the pods is treated as incidental. He had control of the pods...now he does not...and a plot hole arises because the negative is unexplained.

I thought I was clear the first time, but I guess I have to break it down even simpler.

HAL took control of a pod only when no one was at its helm. Ergo, when Dave is at the helm of his pod, there is no reason to assume, based just on what has happened before, that HAL can take control of Dave's pod.

There is no plot hole here.

 

[Set Harth]

1-Why didn't Nero take steps to save Romulus? (part of the plot)

1) You can't prove that he didn't send a message to Romulus. Thus it is only your assumption that he "didn't" do anything. Your assumptions and speculation are not proven to be accurate in the actual film. So if your assumptions are filled with so-called "plot holes", that just demonstrates the logical problems with your assumptions. It doesn't show any problem with the film. You can't wish imaginary "plot holes" into existence simply by repeatedly insisting that your rewrite of the film is somehow more valid than the actual content of the film.

2) He did announce his intention to save Romulus, but saving Romulus through the use of red matter is not an objective that fits within the timeframe of the film. It was not going to be a problem for 130 years. Evacuations take time. Don't keep playing this useless and nonsensical game where you pretend that a deadline 130 years in the future must for some unspecified reason be addressed immediately. No one approaches deadlines with that kind of absurdly skewed and hyperbolic timing, including you. Thus it is an absurd complaint against the film.

Irrationality also doesn't explain why he didn't say Romulus when he had 25 years to do something...anything.

That's true, because there's nothing remotely irrational about it. Nero couldn't "say Romulus" during the 25 years between 2233 and 2258 because he didn't have the red matter yet. This has already been repeatedly explained to you, but you continue to ignore it. This speaks to the credibility of your overall position.

 

[Vulagr]

So the fact that HAL could control the pods is treated as incidental. He had control of the pods...now he does not...and a plot hole arises because the negative is unexplained.

I thought I was clear the first time, but I guess I have to break it down even simpler.

HAL took control of a pod only when no one was at its helm. Ergo, when Dave is at the helm of his pod, there is no reason to assume, based just on what has happened before, that HAL can take control of Dave's pod.

There is no plot hole here.

Except that Dave had to leave the pod to get back into the ship.

And there's no reason why he couldn't take control of a pod while someone's in it as well. It just so happens that it was the most opportune time to take control of the pod is when they're outside.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

As soon as he left the pod, he was in the emergency airlock, and what could the pod do then?

And there's no reason why he couldn't take control of a pod while someone's in it as well. It just so happens that it was the most opportune time to take control of the pod is when they're outside.

As I've already indicated, this supposition is an assumption, not established by anything on screen.

 

[M'Sharak]

But then, if we have to assume things that the movie fails to tell us, doesn't that make it a plot hole?

No, it still does not.

While one might (for whatever reason) wish that every detail was so thoroughly explained that it could not possibly be interpreted in more than one way, the storyteller (the filmmaker, in this case) is under no obligation to provide such a thorough and complete explanation. Questions may remain unanswered, and it then falls (whether by design or by default) to the reader/viewer/audience to decide what they believe happened; this neither constitutes a failing in the storytelling nor does it a plot hole make.

Gotta disagree there. Going back to James Bond analogies for a minute, if we see a villian hit Bond's car with a missile launcher, with Bond in it, seemingly killing him, and 2 minutes later Bond appears alive and unharmed, don't you think it's the writer's job to explain to the viewer how Bond survived the blast? Did he eject at the last split second? Was the car a decoy all along? Does he have a twin brother? It's bad enough when writers use ridiculously unlikely and convenient explanations to resolve situations (see also: deus ex machina), but if they don't even bother to provide any explanation, you think that doesn't constitute bad storytelling?

I wasn't talking about James Bond movies, and your response makes it quite clear that you're far more interested in making a show of bending over backwards to miss the point than in hearing—much less gaining an understanding of—what anyone else thinks, so I guess I'll be off.

Don't get too carried away with the shtick, though. I'd hate to get the wrong idea.

 

[Vulagr]

As soon as he left the pod, he was in the emergency airlock, and what could the pod do then?

He could've done something to prevent Bowman. I just don't know what.

As I've already indicated, this supposition is an assumption, not established by anything on screen.

I'm not saying it isn't. Unfortunately it's something that can only be speculated about.

But it still is a big plot hole.

 

[Set Harth]

He could've done something to prevent Bowman.

No, he couldn't. The film makes this sufficiently clear. The pod doesn't fit into the airlock. If he could have "prevented Bowman" he would have done so.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

But it still is a big plot hole.

I already agreed it is a weakness. But just because I also agree it is a good point that raises questions, that is not the definition of a plot hole. Plot holes occur only when there is no reasonable explanation for what happened.

Due to the fact that Dave is shown to be manually in control of the pod, that makes it plausible to suppose that HAL can't take over right then. Yeah, it's not the most satisfactory way of handling the situation, but no movie or story is infinitely satisfactory.

It's not a plot hole.

 

[Vulagr]

I don't agree.

How do you define plot hole?

Here's one definition that does seem to be contradictory to my own:

a serious inconsistency in the plot of a book or film or TV show, such as an impossible event happening, or an event that contradicts something else that has taken place

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/open-dictionary/entries/plothole.htm

 

[CorporalCaptain]

The definition you cited from http://www.macmillandictionary.com/open-dictionary/entries/plothole.htm seems to have the gist down pretty well, which I'll quote for truth:

a serious inconsistency in the plot of a book or film or TV show, such as an impossible event happening, or an event that contradicts something else that has taken place

We had discussion of this in earlier similar threads, earlier this year. The definition presently in Wikipedia is poorly worded to the point that it admits bad interpretations, so I won't even cite it.

The one in TV Tropes is better. From http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PlotHole:

Plot holes can come in many forms:

• Characters suddenly having knowledge that was never passed to them, or vice versa; characters not knowing something they knew last week, or something that anyone in their position must know.
• Characters acting completely out of character.
• An event does not logically follow from what has gone before.
• Characters ignoring or avoiding obvious solutions to their problems, provided those solutions are obvious to the characters, and not just the viewers.
• An event occurring that, given other details present in the work, is not possible.

Even this definition has some problems as written [for example, with respect to acting out of character, in not immediately clarifying nuances that might distinguish plot holes from characterization problems], but it's on the right track and the TV Tropes article goes on at length to clarify what it means through numerous examples. I've highlighted what I personally think are the most important points and the main thrust of the definition. These highlighted points match the definition you cited really closely.

Furthermore, the TV Tropes article goes on to make the following clarification, which is essential:

Note that a Plot Hole is inherently a contradiction. A Plot element that is merely left unexplained is not a Plot Hole unless its occurrence is impossible according to the setting's rules.

These are the standards by which I've been responding to every alleged plot hole brought up in these threads.

Plot problems that don't rise to the level of an actual plot hole are called simply plot weaknesses.

 

[Saquist]

I thought I was clear the first time, but I guess I have to break it down even simpler.

HAL took control of a pod only when no one was at its helm. Ergo, when Dave is at the helm of his pod, there is no reason to assume, based just on what has happened before, that HAL can take control of Dave's pod.

There is no plot hole here.

I gotcha.

But not to the verbose detail many fans demand.

Oh course not.

No, it doesn't. Because all it is is arguing for the sake of being argumentative, nothing more.

The definition does not attach a motive so I cannot concur.

It just creates problems that don't really exist. That's all it does. Because What you can pick at, others can pick at your nit picking and it just creates a big huge circular nit pick.

I don't understand this part of your reply.

I tend not to unless it's something really big.

Most of the time my enjoyment of the work is predicated the artistic expression, precision and metaphor in the film. Like Matrix, Edwards Scissor Hands, What Dreams May Comb, Inception...etc.

No, some people just love hyperbole and love to make problems where there isn't.

I can't agree to your negative as there is room in life for both types of people.

Here's a challenge for you.

What films have you not been able to personally nit pick because they're perfect in every single way you want them to be?

The Matrix is probably the only one.
I love the use of metaphor in color and dreams. No plot holes. I also like the amount of foreshadowing from the beginning to the end. Nearly every scene had a purpose toward telling the story fully.

I'd bet there isn't any that is that perfect.

Even the Matrix has it's cinematic problems such as continuity errors due to editing. Look, don't miss the point here. Nitpicking may be unpopular but it does serve a purpose, you may not agree with that purpose but as long as there is a field of science that uses it then it does have a place in real life.

 

[Broccoli]

Ya think?

In this thread? Not bloody likely.

 

[number6]

The Matrix? Seriously?

 

[Saquist]

1) You can't prove that he didn't send a message to Romulus.

I don't have to.
If it wasn't in the film then it didn't happen.

2) He did announce his intention to save Romulus, but saving Romulus through the use of red matter is not an objective that fits within the timeframe of the film. It was not going to be a problem for 130 years.

Your reasonings are not canon and are not part of the story.

That's true, because there's nothing remotely irrational about it. Nero couldn't say Romulus during the 25 years between 2233 and 2258 because he didn't have the red matter yet. This has already been repeatedly explained to you, but you continue to ignore it. This speaks to the credibility of your overall position.

On the contrary. It wasn't ignored it was meticulously and efficiently dismissed as all of your irrelevant excuses have been.

Please come again....

 

[Cyke101]

But then, if we have to assume things that the movie fails to tell us, doesn't that make it a plot hole?

No, it still does not.

While one might (for whatever reason) wish that every detail was so thoroughly explained that it could not possibly be interpreted in more than one way, the storyteller (the filmmaker, in this case) is under no obligation to provide such a thorough and complete explanation. Questions may remain unanswered, and it then falls (whether by design or by default) to the reader/viewer/audience to decide what they believe happened; this neither constitutes a failing in the storytelling nor does it a plot hole make.

Gotta disagree there. Going back to James Bond analogies for a minute, if we see a villian hit Bond's car with a missile launcher, with Bond in it, seemingly killing him, and 2 minutes later Bond appears alive and unharmed, don't you think it's the writer's job to explain to the viewer how Bond survived the blast? Did he eject at the last split second? Was the car a decoy all along? Does he have a twin brother? It's bad enough when writers use ridiculously unlikely and convenient explanations to resolve situations (see also: deus ex machina), but if they don't even bother to provide any explanation, you think that doesn't constitute bad storytelling?

In Trek, we don't see or hear every instance of beaming, every instance of warping, every instance of phaser fire being exchanged. Each time something like that happens, the viewer basically assumes it happens, and yet they're never considered plot holes. Why is that? After all, beaming and warping are ways of almost literally moving our heroes ahead in the plot, and phaser fire in battle obviously denotes conflict and confrontation -- they're all important to the overall plot.

Pick your favorite episode or movie and you'll find these shortcuts and then some. Do they reduce your appreciation for those episodes? I bet they don't.

 

[Set Harth]

I don't have to.

Yes, you do. Otherwise you're criticizing a situation which cannot be proven to hold true in the film. If all you manage to do is show that your own rewriting of the film has problems, maybe you should stop rewriting the film.

If it wasn't in the film then it didn't happen.

Wrong. This imaginary rule fails any conceivable logical test.

( Not coincidentally, that's why it's your imaginary rule. )

Your reasonings are not canon and are not part of the story.

Wrong. The Hobus supernova occurred in 2387, not 2258. That is explicitly "part of the story" and canon.

Your farcical assumption that a deadline 130 years in the future must be equivalent to a deadline one day in the future is not only "not part of the story" but also a full-scale assault on common sense and reality.

It wasn't ignored it was meticulously and efficiently dismissed as all of your irrelevant excuses have been.

I don't think so. Provide a quote.

Nero can't "say Romulus" without red matter. Unless you think he can destroy the Hobus star just by crashing into it. You've provided no explanation whatsoever regarding how Nero could possibly "say Romulus" between 2233 and 2258. The fact is that he couldn't. This fact hasn't been "meticulously and efficiently dismissed"; the word you're looking for is still ignored.

So, how do we explain this blatant incongruity between your position and things like "facts" and "reason"? It's not difficult. As has been proved time and again on various issues, your recall and comprehension of the specifics of the film range from poor to nonexistent. The answer to the "riddle" is that you made a mistake about the film and simply refuse to own up to it. Instead you're doubling down on the original mistake.

Let me know how that works out for you.