Reply to Topic
Well the bad guys had rocket launchers, so couldn't they just laugh those towards the powerlines, and the generators and destroy all the power that way?
The biggest plot holes
No. I'm maintaining fidelity to the specific meaning of the term "plot hole."
It deals with logical possibility in terms to the rules of the film's universe. This relagates 99% of the semantic debate you're attempting to pointless.
It deals with logical possibility in terms to the rules of the film's universe. This relagates 99% of the semantic debate you're attempting to pointless.
OK, so we're aiming for "coherence" (within-universe) and not "verisimilitude" with the "real world." Unfortunately, this starts to unravel when we consider how much fictional worlds borrow from the real world. Another post in this thread comments, for example, that Poltergeist has a plot hole in that the audience is told that the developers moved the headstones and not the graves, but then also shows that backyards in the development have swimming pools. The Rodent comments that this is a plot hole, because graves are only six feet underground, but we are told that a pool in a back yard is three-meters deep (so why didn't they find skelebones earlier?). We were not told, however, what the standard depth of a grave is in this world. This is a bit of exterior real-world knowledge being brought in as a quality check. I have no objection to this, but it does not strictly meet your definition of what we're explicitly told about the world. We are not told, in this world which is otherwise apparently identical to our own, to what depths graves are dug out, so it is not a direct violation of coherence.
In short, coherence does not really work, because fiction depends on our knowledge of the real world (e.g., folk psychology, heavy objects tending to fall, "bigger" being better or more threatening, human beings recoiling in pain from being burned). Indeed, it is only if we are explicitly told that the rules of our world do NOT apply (e.g., we are told that vampires are real, so we roll with it for the next 90 minutes), that we stop the importation of real world considerations on that particular aspect. But this does not stop (cannot stop) our real world expectations from operating elsewhere (in part, to help us make sense of the conceit that "X").
Now, let's return to those graves that The Rodent rather cleverly noted. Is it logically impossible to dig a grave deeper than six feet? No. Is it physically impossible to do so? No. Is it, nevertheless, a fact that graves are typically dug at a depth between four to six feet, that this is the norm in the real world (i.e., graves shallower than three meters). More than this, as a folk-fact, people believe that they "know" graves are dug to a standard depth of six feet (this is not true, many graves are shallower in the U.S.). So, by law of typicality of what people believe they know of the real world and what is actually true of the real world, Poltergeist is not logical in terms of what a reasonable person would expect.
In short, coherence is polluted real-world assumptions and real-world assumptions involve typicality conditions as logical tests (not mere logical or physical possibilities).
Again, I believe your definition is a little too stringent and I would like to persuade you to loosen it up a bit.
Does it?
OK, so we're aiming for "coherence" (within-universe) and not "verisimilitude" with the "real world." Unfortunately, this starts to unravel when we consider how much fictional worlds borrow from the real world. Another post in this thread comments, for example, that Poltergeist has a plot hole in that the audience is told that the developers moved the headstones and not the graves, but then also shows that backyards in the development have swimming pools. The Rodent comments that this is a plot hole, because graves are only six feet underground, but we are told that a pool in a back yard is three-meters deep (so why didn't they find skelebones earlier?). We were not told, however, what the standard depth of a grave is in this world. This is a bit of exterior real-world knowledge being brought in as a quality check. I have no objection to this, but it does not strictly meet your definition of what we're explicitly told about the world. We are not told, in this world which is otherwise apparently identical to our own, to what depths graves are dug out, so it is not a direct violation of coherence.
In short, coherence does not really work, because fiction depends on our knowledge of the real world (e.g., folk psychology, heavy objects tending to fall, "bigger" being better or more threatening, human beings recoiling in pain from being burned). Indeed, it is only if we are explicitly told that the rules of our world do NOT apply (e.g., we are told that vampires are real, so we roll with it for the next 90 minutes), that we stop the importation of real world considerations on that particular aspect. But this does not stop (cannot stop) our real world expectations from operating elsewhere (in part, to help us make sense of the conceit that "X").
Now, let's return to those graves that The Rodent rather cleverly noted. Is it logically impossible to dig a grave deeper than six feet? No. Is it physically impossible to do so? No. Is it, nevertheless, a fact that graves are typically dug at a depth between four to six feet, that this is the norm in the real world (i.e., graves shallower than three meters). More than this, as a folk-fact, people believe that they "know" graves are dug to a standard depth of six feet (this is not true, many graves are shallower in the U.S.). So, by law of typicality of what people believe they know of the real world and what is actually true of the real world, Poltergeist is not logical in terms of what a reasonable person would expect.
In short, coherence is polluted real-world assumptions and real-world assumptions involve typicality conditions as logical tests (not mere logical or physical possibilities).
Again, I believe your definition is a little too stringent and I would like to persuade you to loosen it up a bit.
OK, so we're aiming for "coherence" (within-universe) and not "verisimilitude" with the "real world." Unfortunately, this starts to unravel when we consider how much fictional worlds borrow from the real world. Another post in this thread comments, for example, that Poltergeist has a plot hole in that the audience is told that the developers moved the headstones and not the graves, but then also shows that backyards in the development have swimming pools. The Rodent comments that this is a plot hole, because graves are only six feet underground, but we are told that a pool in a back yard is three-meters deep (so why didn't they find skelebones earlier?). We were not told, however, what the standard depth of a grave is in this world. This is a bit of exterior real-world knowledge being brought in as a quality check. I have no objection to this, but it does not strictly meet your definition of what we're explicitly told about the world. We are not told, in this world which is otherwise apparently identical to our own, to what depths graves are dug out, so it is not a direct violation of coherence.
In short, coherence does not really work, because fiction depends on our knowledge of the real world (e.g., folk psychology, heavy objects tending to fall, "bigger" being better or more threatening, human beings recoiling in pain from being burned). Indeed, it is only if we are explicitly told that the rules of our world do NOT apply (e.g., we are told that vampires are real, so we roll with it for the next 90 minutes), that we stop the importation of real world considerations on that particular aspect. But this does not stop (cannot stop) our real world expectations from operating elsewhere (in part, to help us make sense of the conceit that "X").
Now, let's return to those graves that The Rodent rather cleverly noted. Is it logically impossible to dig a grave deeper than six feet? No. Is it physically impossible to do so? No. Is it, nevertheless, a fact that graves are typically dug at a depth between four to six feet, that this is the norm in the real world (i.e., graves shallower than three meters). More than this, as a folk-fact, people believe that they "know" graves are dug to a standard depth of six feet (this is not true, many graves are shallower in the U.S.). So, by law of typicality of what people believe they know of the real world and what is actually true of the real world, Poltergeist is not logical in terms of what a reasonable person would expect.
In short, coherence is polluted real-world assumptions and real-world assumptions involve typicality conditions as logical tests (not mere logical or physical possibilities).
Again, I believe your definition is a little too stringent and I would like to persuade you to loosen it up a bit.
A relation to the real world and it's dictates doesn't make something an impossibility.
You're using the term wrong when you use it outside of logical impossibility, especially when you're injecting false assumptions, like graves automatically being six feet (there's no actual mandate for grave depth, yada yada yada).
You're arguing that I be more imprecise with my terminology rather than simply using the word "contrivance" yourself n
X
User Lists
You're not convincing me because you're not correct.
Nevertheless, I think your definition of possibility is too stringent (e.g., it excludes The Rodent's plot hole).
A relation to the real world and it's dictates doesn't make something an impossibility.
If a "realistic" movie violates real-world logic, then this is an impossibility. Moreover, all films are "realistic" about some aspects of reality. You have to go to really for the far out surrealist stuff to really prevent real world considerations from leaking in.
You're using the term wrong when you use it outside of logical impossibility, especially when you're injecting false assumptions, like graves automatically being six feet (there's no actual mandate for grave depth, yada yada yada).
Let's say we were watching another film, perhaps a sequel to Thelma and Louise, with Thelma and Louise returning to the screen. Now, most of us would object that this is impossible, because we saw them drive off a cliff in the first movie. What is to stop you from saying that this is "just bad writing"? After all, we do not see them hit bottom. This is a fictional universe which only needs to cohere to it's own rules! We are never explicitly told what the rules of physics are in the universe! If they're still alive in the sequel, then we've learned about the rules of the Thelma and Louise universe --if they're back, then we must just assume that their car is Chitty-Chitty Bang-Bang or that they have Adamantium skeletons or that they somehow implausibly made the jump, etc. Hell, in the real world, people have survived plane crashes so it is not a matter of physical/biological impossibility that they would live relatively unharmed. And yet just about anyone would call this a "plot hole" unless some very convincing explanation for their implausible survival were supplied (e.g., the end of the first film was just a dream).
You're arguing that I be more imprecise with my terminology rather than simply using the word "contrivance" yourself n
Now that I know the graves were deeper than industry standard, I don't think I can take Poltergeist seriously anymore.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
I can understand the desire for a precise boundary to rule out "bad writing" from legit plot holes. Moreover, I think you're absolutely right in saying a plot hole is NOT "I have a better idea."
Nevertheless, I think your definition of possibility is too stringent (e.g., it excludes The Rodent's plot hole).
I am sorry, I don't quite know what you mean here.
If a "realistic" movie violates real-world logic, then this is an impossibility. Moreover, all films are "realistic" about some aspects of reality. You have to go to really for the far out surrealist stuff to really prevent real world considerations from leaking in.
I don't think so. I think we're arguing about the proper definition of a term. To say that I am using wrong terms is just to say that you prefer your own definition.
Let's say we were watching another film, perhaps a sequel to Thelma and Louise, with Thelma and Louise returning to the screen. Now, most of us would object that this is impossible, because we saw them drive off a cliff in the first movie. What is to stop you from saying that this is "just bad writing"? After all, we do not see them hit bottom. This is a fictional universe which only needs to cohere to it's own rules! We are never explicitly told what the rules of physics are in the universe! If they're still alive in the sequel, then we've learned about the rules of the Thelma and Louise universe --if they're back, then we must just assume that their car is Chitty-Chitty Bang-Bang or that they have Adamantium skeletons or that they somehow implausibly made the jump, etc. Hell, in the real world, people have survived plane crashes so it is not a matter of physical/biological impossibility that they would live relatively unharmed. And yet just about anyone would call this a "plot hole" unless some very convincing explanation for their implausible survival were supplied (e.g., the end of the first film was just a dream).
You appear to have cut yourself off in mid-c
Nevertheless, I think your definition of possibility is too stringent (e.g., it excludes The Rodent's plot hole).
I am sorry, I don't quite know what you mean here.
If a "realistic" movie violates real-world logic, then this is an impossibility. Moreover, all films are "realistic" about some aspects of reality. You have to go to really for the far out surrealist stuff to really prevent real world considerations from leaking in.
I don't think so. I think we're arguing about the proper definition of a term. To say that I am using wrong terms is just to say that you prefer your own definition.
Let's say we were watching another film, perhaps a sequel to Thelma and Louise, with Thelma and Louise returning to the screen. Now, most of us would object that this is impossible, because we saw them drive off a cliff in the first movie. What is to stop you from saying that this is "just bad writing"? After all, we do not see them hit bottom. This is a fictional universe which only needs to cohere to it's own rules! We are never explicitly told what the rules of physics are in the universe! If they're still alive in the sequel, then we've learned about the rules of the Thelma and Louise universe --if they're back, then we must just assume that their car is Chitty-Chitty Bang-Bang or that they have Adamantium skeletons or that they somehow implausibly made the jump, etc. Hell, in the real world, people have survived plane crashes so it is not a matter of physical/biological impossibility that they would live relatively unharmed. And yet just about anyone would call this a "plot hole" unless some very convincing explanation for their implausible survival were supplied (e.g., the end of the first film was just a dream).
You appear to have cut yourself off in mid-c
Your hypotheticals exclude in-film explanations and ad populum fallacies aren't particularly persuasive on the use of the word. Just because a creationist says "that's just a theory" doesn't mean they have a grasp of the scientific meaning of the term.
X
User Lists
Well when it comes to plot holes, this my opinion but there are some I can accept and some not. I guess the Die Hard one, the cutting of the power is not a plot hole then, and I don't have a problem with that one, but thought it was interesting, nonetheless 
.
However, Die Hard 2, where you have planes being held hostage while flying in the air, by preventing them from landing, those planes could just go to other airports, and it seems that is way to big of a plot hole to accept maybe, to the point of silly? So maybe that's an actual plot hole then?
.However, Die Hard 2, where you have planes being held hostage while flying in the air, by preventing them from landing, those planes could just go to other airports, and it seems that is way to big of a plot hole to accept maybe, to the point of silly? So maybe that's an actual plot hole then?
Now that I know the graves were deeper than industry standard, I don't think I can take Poltergeist seriously anymore.
A side note...My favorite scene from the film. Friggin' scary!
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Mentioned BTTF a couple times... including the second time machine in BTTF3...
BTTF2 though...
2015 Marty would know about everything going on... so seeing his 1985 self would make no difference to the space time continuim.
If anything, it would be the 2015 Marty making sure his son didn't get into trouble.
BTTF2 though...
2015 Marty would know about everything going on... so seeing his 1985 self would make no difference to the space time continuim.
If anything, it would be the 2015 Marty making sure his son didn't get into trouble.
__________________
Rodent's Reviews: Delivering The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly In Film
Rodent's Reviews: PART DEUX!
Rodent's 1950-Present Sci-Fi And Futuristic Fantasy Movies
Rodent's Reviews: PART DEUX!
Rodent's 1950-Present Sci-Fi And Futuristic Fantasy Movies
Resident Evil: Retribution was my one-pointer
X
Favorite Movies
Also mentioned A Quiet Place earlier as well... and I can't understand why Evelyn and Lee would even contemplate having a new baby.
X
Favorite Movies
Also, in the DCEU...
Superman comes back from the dead.
How the hell do they explain Clark Kent's return?
He was also declared dead, and even featured in the newspaper as one of the casualties of the city's destruction.
Superman comes back from the dead.
How the hell do they explain Clark Kent's return?
He was also declared dead, and even featured in the newspaper as one of the casualties of the city's destruction.
X
Favorite Movies
In Aladdin (1992)... why does Jafar need the lamp/genie?
He has the power to hypnotise the Sultan... and also probably Jasmine as well.
He already has the power to control the kingdom through his control of the Sultan.
Not only that... Aladdin's first wish was to be a Prince.
It came true.
Aladdin's third wish though... the Genie offers to make Aladdin a Prince so he can marry Jasmine, but Aladdin selflessly sets Genie free instead.
So... Aladdin's first wish technically didn't come true?
He has the power to hypnotise the Sultan... and also probably Jasmine as well.
He already has the power to control the kingdom through his control of the Sultan.
Not only that... Aladdin's first wish was to be a Prince.
It came true.
Aladdin's third wish though... the Genie offers to make Aladdin a Prince so he can marry Jasmine, but Aladdin selflessly sets Genie free instead.
So... Aladdin's first wish technically didn't come true?
X
Favorite Movies
My view on the whole ‘plot hole’ debate is that if a scenario takes you out of the viewing experience because of how impossible or implausible it may be within that world and narrative then I’d have it down as a plot hole. I guess Implausibility is varied on the viewer watching so I don’t see there as necessarily being a right or wrong.
__________________
"If you're good at something never do it for free".
"If you're good at something never do it for free".
In the Angelina Jolie Tomb Raider movie...
She has to find 2 halves of a magic artefact before the bad guys.
If the two halves are put together, they lead to world domination and destruction.
She finds the first half... then fights the bad guys to get to the second half.
Why doesn't she just destroy the first half when she got it, rendering the second half useless?
She has to find 2 halves of a magic artefact before the bad guys.
If the two halves are put together, they lead to world domination and destruction.
She finds the first half... then fights the bad guys to get to the second half.
Why doesn't she just destroy the first half when she got it, rendering the second half useless?
X
Favorite Movies
Luke Skywalker:
Killed dozens of enemies face to face, using a laser sword.
Killed hundreds of thousands of people when he bombed the Death Star.
Can't use his lightsabre against Vader or the Emperor, because violence will make him evil.
Killed dozens of enemies face to face, using a laser sword.
Killed hundreds of thousands of people when he bombed the Death Star.
Can't use his lightsabre against Vader or the Emperor, because violence will make him evil.
X
Favorite Movies
This is an old one... but Indiana Jones didn't need to fight the Nazi's in Raiders Of The Lost Ark.
They woulda died anyway when they opened the Ark.
They woulda died anyway when they opened the Ark.
X
Favorite Movies
Forrest Gump was an All American Footballer
A Shrimp franchise billionaire
Had an army of followers when he ran coast to coast several times
Was on the US Ping Pong team
Was part of Watergate
Won the Medal Of Honor
Nobody he talks to at the bus stop has heard of him.
A Shrimp franchise billionaire
Had an army of followers when he ran coast to coast several times
Was on the US Ping Pong team
Was part of Watergate
Won the Medal Of Honor
Nobody he talks to at the bus stop has heard of him.
X
Favorite Movies
Scarlet Witch says to Thanos "You took everything from me"
Tony Stark killed her parents and all her friends
Ultron, created by Stark, killed her brother
All Thanos did was shut down a piece of machinery when he pulled its power supply out.
Tony Stark killed her parents and all her friends
Ultron, created by Stark, killed her brother
All Thanos did was shut down a piece of machinery when he pulled its power supply out.
X
Favorite Movies
Scarlet Witch says to Thanos "You took everything from me"
Tony Stark killed her parents and all her friends
Ultron, created by Stark, killed her brother
All Thanos did was shut down a piece of machinery when he pulled its power supply out.
Tony Stark killed her parents and all her friends
Ultron, created by Stark, killed her brother
All Thanos did was shut down a piece of machinery when he pulled its power supply out.
Dang dude. That's dark.
X