The Big Picture: Plothole Surfers

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

question:1)the next trend in going to be india-:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Rgqc-9MPIY&t=2s
so why not cover more indian content in your because we make 2000 movies a year and can you do review of ''2.0'' when it comes out because it is the most expansive film in india
2) do a review of ammoru it has english subtitles-:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXae6jK3Bfo
because it is unique horror genre excucive to india

Falseprophet:
snip

But, yeah as I said:

"Subverting expectations" essentially means nothing if you don't try to doing something emotionally meaningful with the act of "subversion" itself.

And this is important because these:

The damsel in distress is actually a take-charge military leader? The way to take out the massive technological terror isn't with technology but commitment to a higher spiritual purpose? The annoying green gnome is actually a legendary spiritual master? The hated villain is actually your long-lost father? Boba Fett is actually lame? [...] Victory over evil isn't through superior strength or mastery, but by showing mercy and compassion for those who least deserve it? The princess was your sister all along?

...are actually pretty examples of what I'm talking about (I somewhat disagree on other examples (they are good concepts in and off themselves, but I think they were executed poorly) but that is a whole other discussion). They are emotionally meaningful "subversions". I think our main disagreement here might actually be on whether or not TLJ has anything resembling them.

EDIT: And for the record, I think that Knights of the Old Republic II had already done all the most interesting things TLJ tried to do, and it also did it so much better that it isn't even funny.

darkrage6:
I enjoyed the movie, but yeah people like Angry Joe do have a point with at least some criticisms of the film. I remember back when people were praising Feast for "subverting expectations", I guessed every single twist that would happen in that film and was unimpressed to say the least.

People like AngryJoe would like the movie a lot more if they paid any attention when actually watching it. One of the points in the Patrick (h) Willems video is that people often don't pay close enough attention to things and then complain when they don't make any sense. That's about 90% of the problems people have with The Last Jedi.

I think AngryJoe is an excellent person, but his criticism is super shallow and bad, like he has no background in film crit and it shows.

Cinema sins doesn't really deserve the hatred just because you think it's serious. The more lighthearted one looks at it, the more lighthearted it becomes and it only becomes valid criticism if one accepts it as such.

Just because a movie has holes doesn't make it any less enjoyable, but then that's the point here. However it's also a thing to keep in mind when watching entertainers riff on a movie because it gets the views.

Devieus:
Cinema sins doesn't really deserve the hatred just because you think it's serious. The more lighthearted one looks at it, the more lighthearted it becomes and it only becomes valid criticism if one accepts it as such.

Just because a movie has holes doesn't make it any less enjoyable, but then that's the point here. However it's also a thing to keep in mind when watching entertainers riff on a movie because it gets the views.

The problem is that the guy who makes CinemaSins views it as legit criticism and he is serious. There are multiple videos on this.

YEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSS.

I love everything about this (including the title, which made me laugh) and can't wait to watch the others videos on the subject.

I'll just throw in a quick rant about so-called "plot holes": The Hunt for Red October isn't "ruined" for me because I don't understand why the cook's assistant shot up the cabin *before* going to the missile bay to blow up the sub, when it would have been much easier to just go there quietly and connect the damn wires. I didn't notice it the first few times I watched it, and I don't really care about it now either. It's an insignificant flaw in an otherwise superbly-executed action thriller. And every single one of the movies we love has flaws and blemishes and errors and the vast majority of them don't need to be blown up into "OMG PLOT HOLES!" rants on YouTube or -- worse -- goddamn listicles and slideshows.

Signed, a dedicated Star Trek fan who loves the reboots and no I don't care what you say about Nero's "patience" or the Enterprise being under water or any other "holes" you can think of.

I don't get the hate for Cinemasins honestly, i never took them seriously as film critics and i never expected nayone else to because they have sins like "scene does not include a lapdance" and "doctor Kurt Cockings". It's kind of like being mad that Monthy Python's The Holy Grail isn't a faithful retelling of the legend of King Arthur. I mean, does it look like they are even trying to be? It's poking fun at cliches and oversights, it's not like all the hacks reviewing TLJ claiming to know everything about cinematography

I am sorry, but when your film has logical inconsistencies the narrative and themes go from "moving" to "contrived" very quickly.

I mean Jesus Tapdancing Christ, how long was Leia in space for? A minute? Twenty seconds? That ship is constantly accelerating, otherwise why bother with thrusters-- never mind. I realize it's all about space magic but at the same time there comes a point and Last Jedi went way past it.

Rose's "This is how we win" is supposed to be emotional? She did the exact same thing Finn was trying to do but she sacrificed just as much for a far smaller result. If the message is that the rebels win by making mistake after mistake and just getting lucky, or being willing to sacrifice thousands of themselves so only 12-17 of them can get away? Uh, you really sold that.

darkrage6:
Personally I don't think Cage is a "hack" at all, I think he's a damn good writer, Laura Kate Dale did an excellent review on Detroit:http://www.kotaku.co.uk/2018/05/24/detroit-become-human-succeeds-by-focusing-on-small-timely-stories

I actually think most of what Bob said can apply to the people whining about Cage's writing having "plot holes", for me I was too absorbed into the storyline of his games to give two shits about plot holes.

No, Cage is a genuine hack both in game design and writing. I wasn't even getting into plot holes with Cage, more about his themes are dumb and he can't actually tell a story worth a damn. Like our own Yahtzee said in his review of Detroit, one of the twists he brings up is how the child the nanny bot runs away with also turns out to be a robot. That completely undermines and actual, interesting question of "can a robot mother truly love a human child." Why would you do that? It makes no sense.

And that's before you get into his uncomfortable writing, his treatment of women and minorities in his narratives, and his reliance on lazy cliches. And if we're going to do the "well, look at what this critic says!", I raise you Heather Alexandra, Kirk Hamilton, and Evan Narcisse:

https://kotaku.com/1826578490

https://kotaku.com/detroit-become-human-the-kotaku-review-1826277408

https://io9.gizmodo.com/the-casual-inhumanity-of-how-detroit-become-human-uses-1826776147

https://io9.gizmodo.com/the-opening-of-detroit-become-human-is-some-dumb-butt-1826270803

Yeah, I can play that game too, it's not hard. And the funny thing about Detroit's main theme: most of its fandom doesn't care, even admitting its political commentary is awful and just wants to ship characters:

https://kotaku.com/the-super-fans-of-detroit-become-human-hate-most-of-th-1828260985

Cage is not very good at his job.

daibakuha:

darkrage6:
I enjoyed the movie, but yeah people like Angry Joe do have a point with at least some criticisms of the film. I remember back when people were praising Feast for "subverting expectations", I guessed every single twist that would happen in that film and was unimpressed to say the least.

People like AngryJoe would like the movie a lot more if they paid any attention when actually watching it. One of the points in the Patrick (h) Willems video is that people often don't pay close enough attention to things and then complain when they don't make any sense. That's about 90% of the problems people have with The Last Jedi.

I think AngryJoe is an excellent person, but his criticism is super shallow and bad, like he has no background in film crit and it shows.

That is why I prefer his game reviews over all his film stuff, his review of Ghostbusters was pretty weak.

Aiddon:

darkrage6:
Personally I don't think Cage is a "hack" at all, I think he's a damn good writer, Laura Kate Dale did an excellent review on Detroit:http://www.kotaku.co.uk/2018/05/24/detroit-become-human-succeeds-by-focusing-on-small-timely-stories

I actually think most of what Bob said can apply to the people whining about Cage's writing having "plot holes", for me I was too absorbed into the storyline of his games to give two shits about plot holes.

No, Cage is a genuine hack both in game design and writing. I wasn't even getting into plot holes with Cage, more about his themes are dumb and he can't actually tell a story worth a damn. Like our own Yahtzee said in his review of Detroit, one of the twists he brings up is how the child the nanny bot runs away with also turns out to be a robot. That completely undermines and actual, interesting question of "can a robot mother truly love a human child." Why would you do that? It makes no sense.

And that's before you get into his uncomfortable writing, his treatment of women and minorities in his narratives, and his reliance on lazy cliches. And if we're going to do the "well, look at what this critic says!", I raise you Heather Alexandra, Kirk Hamilton, and Evan Narcisse:

https://kotaku.com/1826578490

https://kotaku.com/detroit-become-human-the-kotaku-review-1826277408

https://io9.gizmodo.com/the-casual-inhumanity-of-how-detroit-become-human-uses-1826776147

https://io9.gizmodo.com/the-opening-of-detroit-become-human-is-some-dumb-butt-1826270803

Yeah, I can play that game too, it's not hard. And the funny thing about Detroit's main theme: most of its fandom doesn't care, even admitting its political commentary is awful and just wants to ship characters:

https://kotaku.com/the-super-fans-of-detroit-become-human-hate-most-of-th-1828260985

Cage is not very good at his job.

No he is not a "hack" at all just cause YOU personally claim he is, that right there is total bullshit. His writing did not come off as "uncomfortable" to me at all, I don't feel like he did too much lazy cliches. Personally I feel like all those articles you came up with are very piss poor examples of "yellow journalism". Gizmodo in particular is a website I fucking despise, TotalBiscuit did a great Soundcloud where he ripped them apart(God I wish TB was still around) so anything they post I personally cannot take remotely seriously(their article on the Punisher TV show was particularly awful)

I think Cage does game design quite well, maybe it's because i'm sick to death of "live services" crap, but it's refreshing to see a person like Cage is still committed to making single-player focused experiences and not succumbing to the bullshit the infects most AAA games these days(I.E. multiple special editions, day one DLC, pre-order bonuses, season passes, microtransactions and lootboxes, etc).

He can too tell a story "worth a damn" I found Heavy Rain in particular to be highly compelling(as TotalBiscuit said about that story, it's more impactful if you have kids yourself)

I like Yahtzee but I strongly disagree with him on Cage's games, and I feel like too many people fail to realize that Yahtzee often exaggerates things in his reviews for the sake of comedy, as too many people take it at face value(the PC Master thing is a perfect example, far too many people didn't realize he was mocking arrogant assholes who wouldn't stop bragging about their PCs and insulting console users when he coined that term, people took it literally and Yahtzee eventually mentioned that he regretted coming up with the term in the first place in his Kingdom Come Deliverance video because of how many assholes took it literally).

Cage is very damn good at his job considering how well his games sell.

Exley97:
YEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSS.

I love everything about this (including the title, which made me laugh) and can't wait to watch the others videos on the subject.

I'll just throw in a quick rant about so-called "plot holes": The Hunt for Red October isn't "ruined" for me because I don't understand why the cook's assistant shot up the cabin *before* going to the missile bay to blow up the sub, when it would have been much easier to just go there quietly and connect the damn wires. I didn't notice it the first few times I watched it, and I don't really care about it now either. It's an insignificant flaw in an otherwise superbly-executed action thriller. And every single one of the movies we love has flaws and blemishes and errors and the vast majority of them don't need to be blown up into "OMG PLOT HOLES!" rants on YouTube or -- worse -- goddamn listicles and slideshows.

Signed, a dedicated Star Trek fan who loves the reboots and no I don't care what you say about Nero's "patience" or the Enterprise being under water or any other "holes" you can think of.

My mom grew up watching the original series when it first aired and she's also a big fan of the reboot series and she was utterly baffled when I told her about all the hatred some people have towards those films.

webkilla:
I will have to disagree with Bob on some of his points - but I'll agree to some of them too.

He complains that people want flowchart box-checking... but I don't think he quite realizes what kind of people want that. I'm thinking the people who want diversity checklists and whatnot. Equally, his point that theme and emotional investment in a movie is better - yes - but again, who exactly is it who's pushing for the other thing? I don't think its the people that Bob thinks it is.

He even uses the Beauty and Beast movie as example here... and I'm not quite certain what tropes and whatnot he's refering to, but the only drama I recall about the movie was the addition of a gay mini sub-plot in the movie. If this was done to satisfy anyone, then I would again question exactly who.

Also bob's redefinitions of what a plothole is - hasn't it always been a somewhat subjective issue, based on how much a consumer of a given media product has been paying attention to the plot, how genre savvy they are, and so on?

Equally, I think bob just straight up wrong when he puts forth the idea that people detailing plotholes are doing it as a cheap way of doing movie critique - I think you can do a youtube vid about plotholes without having to do movie critique, and conflating the two seems disingenuous.

And then Bob goes on to effectively claim - showing clips of star wars - that what you think is a plothole might not even be a plothole, because you might be "one of those people" who didn't like The Last Jedi. Come on Bob, that's low even for you. ...and you then go on complain about people who try to make their subjective opinion off to be actual fact? Dude, come on.

but then around the 3min mark Bob gets into something a little more interesting: he claims that "back in the days" of early geek culture, people were nicer and knew better than to debate each other into the ground. I think he's wearing some really rose tinted goggles there.

when he brings up the Titanic movie as example - again, he admits to as much that it was a really popular movie at the time (it was...) but I think his argument falls apart a bit here too. He's making it sound as if pointing out plotholes isn't allowed for the purposes of movie critique, or that it cheapens movie critique.

...and then he finally gets to Star Wars the last jedi. I get it bob, you liked it - and you're angry that other people don't like it - but for fuck's sake don't try to claim that it was some secret work of a genius.

Oh and "Zarbon of akkad" - Real subtle there Bob, its almost as if you're not coming off as a petty passive-aggressive child when you try to smear people like that. Hell, I'd probably be a lot more open to accepting your ideas if you didn't also use your platform here to smear to smear people.

You're coming off as the manchild here, anyone that honestly takes Sargon seriously needs to have their head examined, he has as much credibility as Alex Jones, he's a bigoted piece of shit who no sane person takes seriously.

Clearly you didn't watch Lindsay's video on Beauty and the Beast.

Anyone who complains about people wanting more "diversity" is someone who cannot be taken remotely seriously and is usually a closeted bigot.

Last Jedi isn't a secret work of genius, because most critics really liked it.

Sargon IS racist and stupid, anyone with half a brain can see that.

Abomination:
I am sorry, but when your film has logical inconsistencies the narrative and themes go from "moving" to "contrived" very quickly.

I mean Jesus Tapdancing Christ, how long was Leia in space for? A minute? Twenty seconds? That ship is constantly accelerating, otherwise why bother with thrusters-- never mind. I realize it's all about space magic but at the same time there comes a point and Last Jedi went way past it.

Rose's "This is how we win" is supposed to be emotional? She did the exact same thing Finn was trying to do but she sacrificed just as much for a far smaller result. If the message is that the rebels win by making mistake after mistake and just getting lucky, or being willing to sacrifice thousands of themselves so only 12-17 of them can get away? Uh, you really sold that.

Eh it worked fine for me.

I was thinking of the Hitchcock quote the whole time I saw this and Lindsey Ellis' videos; you don't need to watch movies for a 100% 'logical', no plot holes, no 'inconsistencies' in the most literal sense. They have that thing already, it's called watching/reading the news. Everything has to 'fit' in reality cause it actually happened, even if the story you're told is wrong, but there are no plot holes. Movies are supposed to be fun (and all that entails; sad-fun, scary-fun, ect)

Q/A Question:

You know more about the science of filmaking (theory) than say, the vast vast majority of people. So when you see a film about film-making (Scream comes to mind, which you've said way-back-when you hated more than any other movie) I assume you find yourself rolling your eyes at people who know a 1/10th of your background trying to claim knowledge of the film making process based on said film when it typically amounts to chapter/class titles rather than the actual premise and theory. So extending that logic to other fields, do you find that film critics can often be blinded by feigns towards fields of study that are not their own due to lack of depth of knowledge in said field.

Or, put simply, do you find that film critics can often be, 'blinded by the bullshit' of stuff they don't know? I ask because of more recent film and especially television fair that often makes motions towards scientific and mathematics literacy, and praised for that aspect, often times using it as a, "Well the rest of the show is mediocre but the science-y stuff is fascinating." As someone with a PhD in Chemical Engineering, I cannot tell you how shows are made worse by false claims to science, not because a 'plot hole' aspect, but because said claims are used to prop up what are typically shallow and pedantic plots, themes, and even worse characters.

Put another way: the Math jokes in (classic) Simpsons are infinity more indicative of scientifically literate writing staff adding actual nuance and layers to their already great characters/plots/themes than other recent fare that just happen to show examples of things that can be found in the table of contents of a Physical Chemistry text book.

webkilla:
He even uses the Beauty and Beast movie as example here... and I'm not quite certain what tropes and whatnot he's refering to, but the only drama I recall about the movie was the addition of a gay mini sub-plot in the movie. If this was done to satisfy anyone, then I would again question exactly who.

I guess you didn't watch the movie or any of the critiques of it, or at least not the ones I've seen. You could definitely benefit from seeing the specific video Bob referenced, the one by Lindsay Ellis. But to sum it up, the writers of the movie seem to have laser-focused their efforts on "fixing" the "plot holes" and "historical inaccuracies" of the original (e.g. "Why did no one in the village know about the prince who used to live in the nearby castle?" "How is Chip still a child if the curse happened a decade ago?" "Why are people in old-timey times OK with a girl learning how to read?" etc.) even though no one of consequence was demanding it. Personally I suspect they did it because you're expected to change something when you remake a movie, and Beauty and the Beast is such a beloved, universally-lauded classic that this was the only excuse they could think of. It's not like Bob Iger personally said "Bad news, everyone! People are complaining about plot holes in one of our most famous movies! We gotta spend millions of dollars making a new version so they'll shut up!"

darkrage6:
You're coming off as the manchild here, anyone that honestly takes Sargon seriously needs to have their head examined, he has as much credibility as Alex Jones, he's a bigoted piece of shit who no sane person takes seriously.

Clearly you didn't watch Lindsay's video on Beauty and the Beast.

Anyone who complains about people wanting more "diversity" is someone who cannot be taken remotely seriously and is usually a closeted bigot.

Last Jedi isn't a secret work of genius, because most critics really liked it.

Sargon IS racist and stupid, anyone with half a brain can see that.

Didn't bob just say that trying to pass off your own subjective opinion as fact is a bad thing?

Anywho, I see that you have certain opinions about Sargon. Good for you. That doesn't mean you should call me names though - that's not very mature, is it? I'm not claiming to be a saint myself, but you're equating Sargon to Alex Jones? Really?

And I did watch Lindsays video - but I was commenting on Bob's remarks about the movie.

Critics might have liked TLJ - but it still only has a 46% audience score on rotten tomatoes, and I think that the paying costumers who fork over money to see the movie - as opposed to professional reviewers - should have a say in this.

But clearly, I am but a poor lost soul with half a brain by your logic - though my three university degrees does make that a little weird. Anywho, no I don't think Sargon is racist and you're completely off topic in bringing that up, but whatever you do you.

For the Q&A:

Vaguely related to Lindsay Ellis's video about YouTube selling the authenticity of content creators, what factors into your decisions about how your curate your online persona? For example, you've at least implied in some episodes of Really That Good that you want to affect the general tone of movie criticism and consumption online in a more positive, thoughtful way; I assume you intend to do this by example?

EDIT: Also, did you bother counting how many people in the comments to your "people should stop trying to present subjective opinions as objective facts" argument responded by trying to present their subjective opinions as objective facts in order to "prove" you wrong?

From actions I would say Picard is the better captain but William Shatner was in MLP so I suppose I have to give it to Kirk.

webkilla:

darkrage6:
You're coming off as the manchild here, anyone that honestly takes Sargon seriously needs to have their head examined, he has as much credibility as Alex Jones, he's a bigoted piece of shit who no sane person takes seriously.

Clearly you didn't watch Lindsay's video on Beauty and the Beast.

Anyone who complains about people wanting more "diversity" is someone who cannot be taken remotely seriously and is usually a closeted bigot.

Last Jedi isn't a secret work of genius, because most critics really liked it.

Sargon IS racist and stupid, anyone with half a brain can see that.

Didn't bob just say that trying to pass off your own subjective opinion as fact is a bad thing?

Anywho, I see that you have certain opinions about Sargon. Good for you. That doesn't mean you should call me names though - that's not very mature, is it? I'm not claiming to be a saint myself, but you're equating Sargon to Alex Jones? Really?

And I did watch Lindsays video - but I was commenting on Bob's remarks about the movie.

Critics might have liked TLJ - but it still only has a 46% audience score on rotten tomatoes, and I think that the paying costumers who fork over money to see the movie - as opposed to professional reviewers - should have a say in this.

But clearly, I am but a poor lost soul with half a brain by your logic - though my three university degrees does make that a little weird. Anywho, no I don't think Sargon is racist and you're completely off topic in bringing that up, but whatever you do you.

You're clearly trying to pass your opinion off as fact, hypocrisy thy name is webkilla(oh boy is that an edgelord username if I ever saw one).

How do you know that the people who downvoted TLJ actually saw the damn thing? You don't, user scores are highly susceptible to downvoting campaigns, that's how come the Ghostbuster trailer got so many dislikes. So that userscore means fucking nothing.

Yes I am, Sargon engages in the same kind of bullshit conspiracy theory nonsense that Jones does, I don't think comparing the two is farfetched at all and i'm far from the only person to have done it(let me guess, you're one of those people who sends death and rape threats to people like Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian all the time right?)

Three degrees my ass, and even if that is true that still does not inherently make you smarter then someone who has not gone to college or who has less degrees, that's not how things work.

Trump has a degree too, but no sane person would argue that automatically means he's not a complete moron.

I'm not off topic at all saying that Sargon is racist, considering that was part of this video.

RC1138:
I was thinking of the Hitchcock quote the whole time I saw this and Lindsey Ellis' videos; you don't need to watch movies for a 100% 'logical', no plot holes, no 'inconsistencies' in the most literal sense. They have that thing already, it's called watching/reading the news. Everything has to 'fit' in reality cause it actually happened, even if the story you're told is wrong, but there are no plot holes. Movies are supposed to be fun (and all that entails; sad-fun, scary-fun, ect)

Q/A Question:

You know more about the science of filmaking (theory) than say, the vast vast majority of people. So when you see a film about film-making (Scream comes to mind, which you've said way-back-when you hated more than any other movie) I assume you find yourself rolling your eyes at people who know a 1/10th of your background trying to claim knowledge of the film making process based on said film when it typically amounts to chapter/class titles rather than the actual premise and theory. So extending that logic to other fields, do you find that film critics can often be blinded by feigns towards fields of study that are not their own due to lack of depth of knowledge in said field.

Or, put simply, do you find that film critics can often be, 'blinded by the bullshit' of stuff they don't know? I ask because of more recent film and especially television fair that often makes motions towards scientific and mathematics literacy, and praised for that aspect, often times using it as a, "Well the rest of the show is mediocre but the science-y stuff is fascinating." As someone with a PhD in Chemical Engineering, I cannot tell you how shows are made worse by false claims to science, not because a 'plot hole' aspect, but because said claims are used to prop up what are typically shallow and pedantic plots, themes, and even worse characters.

Put another way: the Math jokes in (classic) Simpsons are infinity more indicative of scientifically literate writing staff adding actual nuance and layers to their already great characters/plots/themes than other recent fare that just happen to show examples of things that can be found in the table of contents of a Physical Chemistry text book.

I sure hope Bob has changed his mind on Scream, cause boy were his reasons for hating it unbelievably shallow and weaksauce.

Q&A questions:

1) Was it hard to get back into "Big Picture" mode after such a lengthy hiatus?

2) Where are the various faces from? Were they drawn from photos? Do you have a favorite?

3) Do you have a favorite Kaiju video game, and if so, is it Rampage?

Mine is Shadow of the Colossus

4) Do you remember your 2012 election video from the "American Bob" series where you shouted out to the viewer about the importance of the SUPREME COURT? Because I do.

I'd also like to say your video explaining the Collector scene at the end of Thor 2 came in handy for Guardians 2 and Thor 3!

For the Q&A, here's a question:

Are there any reviews you've done where your opinion of the film has drastically changed (positively or negatively) as time has passed since your initial review?

Well, now I know why the other Escapist forums have been so quiet.

I never know what to ask in Q&A (and someone already ninja'd me the Big Picture's faces question). The only thing I can come up is:

"What's the weirdest question you ever answered in a Q&A?"

"What's the weirdest question you ever got answered in someone else's Q&A?"

darkrage6:

I was glad that the military were actually portrayed as competent in the Transformers films

I'm not surprised. The US military financed those movies.

daibakuha:
One of the points in the Patrick (h) Willems video is that people often don't pay close enough attention to things and then complain when they don't make any sense. That's about 90% of the problems people have with The Last Jedi.

But my chief problem with The Last Jedi is that literally everything involving Finn/Rose/Poe/Holdo/Leia is nothing short of a pure idiot plot. The more attention I pay to it, the worse it actually gets.

I don't give a shit about pedantic nitpicks regarding the feasability of FTL ramming or Rey being too powerful too quickly. I do care when the entire two-thirds of the plot is facilitated by one character refusing to divulge even the slightest amount of crucial information with no estabilished reason for them not do so - other than the fact divulging said information would collapse the entire story.

Holdo doesn't owe the recently-demoted Poe a detailed explanation, but the fact Poe isn't just throwing a fit by himself but instead successfully inspires a mass mutiny amongst a sizeable portion of the officers in charge who were also willing to go against Holdo speaks volumes about her failure as a leader. Yet instead of the theme being something about two flawed people trying to do their best and accidentally going against each other due to poor communication, the film is still seemingly trying to sell it as "Poe do a bad, Holdo right and good all along" which straight up doesn't work.

It seems to me they initially came up with two key themes, a fairly comprehensive idea of where they want those characters to end up, and zero clue how to get them there:

1) Subvert the classic archetype of authority-defying bad boy rebel character who says "screw the rules" and saves the day. Instead have Poe be in the wrong and inadvertently put in motion the events that screw everything up.

2) Don't be obvious about Poe doing something genuinely wrong or shady-looking. Don't even hint at it, either. Instead bait-and-switch the audience into fully sympathising with Poe's point of view and purposely paint Holdo as a bitch, before pulling a fast one on them.

Plenty of stories have done this kind of stuff before, but in order to do it succesfully you absolutely have to lay out a fair bit of narrative groundwork for the audience to buy into.

I understand what they were trying to do, the themes themselves are pretty excellent, and TLJ gets brownie points for actually trying something like that in the first place, yet at the end of the day they still completely failed narratively. Poe and his fellow mutineers are left looking like a bunch of people making the best choices based on bad information, while Holdo looks hopelessly incompetent.

I think this presupposes that people actually did like The Last Jedi due to its themes or whatever but convinced themselves not to like it because of plot holes, real or imagined. To me, The Force Awakens frustrated and angered me more than the prequels, but it wasn't because of plotholes or secret bigotry, I hadn't examined the movie enough to care about plot holes. But bitching about TFA is soooo pre-Trump-as-President, so I'll keep with the nontroversy du jour (spoilers ahoy for TLJ).

I came out of The Last Jedi mixed. I loved the Rey/Luke/Kylo plot thread, weird monster-milking and all, it was great. I enjoyed the Finn/Rose storyline quite a bit and thought it was necessary to change up the setting and tone, and remind us there's a world outside of these two ships.

But then there's the Leia/Poe/Holdo storyline, which felt strange and bad from the beginning to me. Is it because I hate the idea of women in positions of power? Well, no, I wouldn't have minded if Leia castrated Poe on-screen if she was doing it for a good reason. But that's why the whole thing felt wrong, the only thing Poe did that was so terribly wrong was disobey orders, which is something only the Empire would hold as extremely important. Luke couldn't have blown up the Death Star without disobeying his superiors. I was actually excited to see what special plan Holdo was holding from Poe that was going to put him in his place, but it ended up just being a suicide attack that she could have told to the entire crew at any time. Leia/Holdo was asking Poe to blindly follow orders and trust his superiors over his own sense of judgement and morality- something antithetical to the idea of being in a Rebellion, most of us our taught that blindly following orders no matter how cruel/nonsensical is a bad thing.

So am I just nitpicking plotholes? Well, no, this a serious thematic problem in the movie that is to the detriment of the central themes of the film. Rogue One, for its various flaws, was interesting because it portrayed a Rebellion that had to do unsavory things to stay alive, and portrayed some of the very difficult decisions that are posed in war.

At the same time, if someone felt really compelled by that storyline, I'm not going to try to tell them their objectively wrong, just as people want to tell me I'm wrong for liking the space casino.

JakubK666:

daibakuha:
One of the points in the Patrick (h) Willems video is that people often don't pay close enough attention to things and then complain when they don't make any sense. That's about 90% of the problems people have with The Last Jedi.

But my chief problem with The Last Jedi is that literally everything involving Finn/Rose/Poe/Holdo/Leia is nothing short of a pure idiot plot. The more attention I pay to it, the worse it actually gets.

I don't give a shit about pedantic nitpicks regarding the feasability of FTL ramming or Rey being too powerful too quickly. I do care when the entire two-thirds of the plot is facilitated by one character refusing to divulge even the slightest amount of crucial information with no estabilished reason for them not do so - other than the fact divulging said information would collapse the entire story.

Holdo doesn't owe the recently-demoted Poe a detailed explanation, but the fact Poe isn't just throwing a fit by himself but instead successfully inspires a mass mutiny amongst a sizeable portion of the officers in charge who were also willing to go against Holdo speaks volumes about her failure as a leader. Yet instead of the theme being something about two flawed people trying to do their best and accidentally going against each other due to poor communication, the film is still seemingly trying to sell it as "Poe do a bad, Holdo right and good all along" which straight up doesn't work.

It seems to me they initially came up with two key themes, a fairly comprehensive idea of where they want those characters to end up, and zero clue how to get them there:

1) Subvert the classic archetype of authority-defying bad boy rebel character who says "screw the rules" and saves the day. Instead have Poe be in the wrong and inadvertently put in motion the events that screw everything up.

2) Don't be obvious about Poe doing something genuinely wrong or shady-looking. Don't even hint at it, either. Instead bait-and-switch the audience into fully sympathising with Poe's point of view and purposely paint Holdo as a bitch, before pulling a fast one on them.

Plenty of stories have done this kind of stuff before, but in order to do it succesfully you absolutely have to lay out a fair bit of narrative groundwork for the audience to buy into.

I understand what they were trying to do, the themes themselves are pretty excellent, and TLJ gets brownie points for actually trying something like that in the first place, yet at the end of the day they still completely failed narratively. Poe and his fellow mutineers are left looking like a bunch of people making the best choices based on bad information, while Holdo looks hopelessly incompetent.

Holdo looked plenty competent to me.

JakubK666:
I understand what they were trying to do, the themes themselves are pretty excellent, and TLJ gets brownie points for actually trying something like that in the first place, yet at the end of the day they still completely failed narratively. Poe and his fellow mutineers are left looking like a bunch of people making the best choices based on bad information, while Holdo looks hopelessly incompetent.

If Holdo had even once mentioned that she fucked up I think the whole thing would have been far better. Some realization that she TOO was flawed would grant the theme or message they were going for a lot more weight.

Thinking about why he was demoted in the first place... the bombers were already in place. If they had attempted to turn around and run they would have been cut down just the same. At least this way they did some damage on the way out.

Is the theme or message that you should follow orders or understand that the chain of command exits for a reason? Because that was a piss poor way of delivering it.

darkrage6:
Holdo looked plenty competent to me.

So competent that she got overthrown by a chunk of her desperate direct subordinates who felt they had reasonable grounds to believe she was incompetent/insane/treasonous, her plan went completely sideways, hundreds of people died, and she was forced to launch a suicide attack.

All of which could have been avoided with almost literally six words - "Poe, I have a plan. Chill.".

I tend to ignore plot holes in films because I go to a movie to be entertained, not to expend my energy picking apart someone's hard work.

TLJ is not only bad, but it's entirely broken and borderline insulting.

People who actually think this is the best the Star Wars universe has to offer are either a) Uninformed, don't know of KOTOR, Jedi Knight series, or any of the books; b) Give zero shits about the Star Wars universe in general - for them it's just another action film; or c) Have either no standards or no thoughts of their own and just follow the crowd. Watch the pretty light: Boom! 10/10 best film ever! Reviews said so, must be true!

TLJ can burn in hell as far as I'm concerned. I'm hoping the downward spiral continues and the property get ruined so much that they regret ever putting their greedy paws on it. China banned it, toy sales are failing, fans left.

The only good thing to come out of this dumpsterfire is that I found out about Mauler and the crew.

I didn't even know 'The Big Picture' returned to Escapist till now. I was actually hoping for something odd and interesting to hear about, something like all the 'comics are weird' or similar. Instead all I got was this piece of... again talking how maybe, just MAYBE TLJ plot and themes aren't so bad? Being disappointed does not even begin to explain how I feel atm...

Falseprophet:
No, if you're in the moment, you don't care about the reasons for X and Y. Rather, the film has successfully pulled off its magic trick of making you care about these fictional people (or heavily dramatized real people) in this fictional (or heavily dramatized) situation without stopping to think "why?" or "how?" Any reasons you then come up with later are just rationalizations after the fact, but that doesn't change how you felt in the moment. And the door jokes didn't originate with a bunch of haters who never gave the film a chance--it was an in-joke among the superfans who saw it half-a-dozen in theatre and bought the DVD and knew every detail by heart.

TV Tropes uses the term "Fridge Logic" to describe moments that don't jangle your sense of logic, reason, or continuity until later (e.g., when you're away from the show/movie getting a snack from the refrigerator). The thing of it is, sometimes such contemplation does become like a hanging end that makes the whole sweater unwind, diminishing your memory of the experience- and other times, sometimes on the strength of your pleasure "in the moment", you put the matter aside as inconsequential.

Or you split the difference and come up with a reason why it might not be the problem your querying mind things it is- as in Bob's "shaken up by trauma, half frozen, not thinking clearly" excuse.

I've done this, too. One example is Tim Burton's Batman. I've convinced myself that Vicki Vale realized who Batman was when they exchanged glances in the Batmobile while he was driving her from the museum to the Batcave. But I'm pretty sure that Burton himself has admitted that he simply never made the linking scene where Vale finds out that Wayne is Batman before Alfred just escorts the curiously unsurprised reporter into the Batcave while un-masked Bruce Wayne is working amidst all his gear. Oops.

As far as Titanic goes, it's hard to pin down the origin of a joke, let alone twenty years or so after the release of the movie that inspired it. But I would certainly say that the joke does persist is a testament to the movie's impact and longevity, whatever the original intention.

Callate:
Arguably it's better for a critic to be nit-picky or adopt an unwarranted pedanticism than for them to be so caught up in a work (and/or whatever attendant buzz/controversy/real-world-parallels follow it) that they cannot produce criticism of value to someone who doesn't see the world in absolute parallel.

To what end? Neither the cineaste nor the average film-goer spares a second thought for the tiny bunch of pendantic never-satisfied nerds whinging about expanded universe/fanon/retconned continuity nitpicks. Which by the way--pot to kettle--is also being "so caught up in a work" but in a tedious, priggish way far fewer people can relate to. And I resemble that remark, I've just become more self-conscious of it over the years. So why should a critic bend over backwards to accommodate them? To alienate the majority of their audience in the attempt to please a minority who's never satisfied anyway? That doesn't make sense for the critic, and frankly nerds shouldn't seek validation for their opinions if they can't be mature enough to take the criticism with the praise.

I should clarify that I didn't mean that net-picky pedanticism is a good thing- "better" in this case is a value judgement not unlike whether it is "better" to be afflicted with bed bugs or lice.

I don't really find harm in things like "Cinema Sins" or "HISHE" or "Honest Trailers" or "Pitch Meeting". Often they're funny; sometimes they bring up interesting points.

But I also don't really think of them as "criticism" in the same way I think of what Siskel and Ebert used to do as criticism. They're their own form. I'd be far more distracted (and irritated) if in the middle of a paragraph about the protagonist's character arc a conventional film critic went off about how a scene used a POV shot when there was no one who could plausibly served as that camera's POV in the scene. The list-makers, I go in girded knowing what to expect. It's a bit like not going into Zero Punctuation not expecting to hear about a game's glorious scenery and stellar voice-over cast.

Aw, man. I can't think of what to ask when I'm on the spot.

OK, here go a couple ones off the top of my head:

1. Are you gonna do a video on THE VENTURE BROS? (I know you're a big fan).

2. Can we expect a return for INTERMISSION (Your weekly column)?

3. How do you think CAPTAIN MARVEL will tie into AVENGERS 4?

4. That new SPIDER-MAN game seems pretty awesome. Have you played it?

5. What is your favorite pre-comeback memory of working on THE ESCAPIST? Favorite video, column, etc.?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here