Devil's Advocate: Media Edition

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

altnameJag:
It's this season's "dark and edgy" anime, like Made in Abyss or Attack on Titan before it.

It's implausibly popular. I don't get it.

Unlike Made in Abyss and Attack on Titan though, this just seems to be popular due to the controversy. It got really popular over night because of that first episode, and it's pretty much been coasting on that. That or I just really don't get it. I mean, I've enjoyed my fair share of trash anime, like Highschool of the Dead, but it at least has some energy and flair to it. Goblin Slayer couldn't get any more flat if it was run over by a steamroller.

Hawki:

The Marvel Cinematic Universe has never produced anything particularly good and at least some of the earlier movies had obvious conservative subtext

...such as?

I can maybe think of Iron Man 2, with Tony refusing to hand over his suit to the government, but that's about it.

The first Avengers is a movie about a war profiteer, a nordic god and an american soldier from the 40s saving the world (but mostly America) from alien invaders brought there by a swarthy looking dude. There's some subtext there. It took them until... pretty much Winter Soldier to do anything remotely critical of the military industrial complex. And then there's stuff like them taking ten years to have a black lead, 11 years to have a female lead and their weird obsession with attractive blonde men named Chris.

To be fair, they have gotten better about this stuff. I went into Black Panther, expecting them to go all out on portraying nationalism positively but it actually turned out quite critical of it.

PsychedelicDiamond:

The first Avengers is a movie about a war profiteer, a nordic god and an american soldier from the 40s saving the world (but mostly America) from alien invaders brought there by a swarthy looking dude. There's some subtext there.

"Swarthy" is defined as "dark complexioned." Which Loki isn't. He's another Nordic god. And that's hardly sub-text, that's just a mismatch of heroes from different genres fighting aliens.

It took them until... pretty much Winter Soldier to do anything remotely critical of the military industrial complex.

They were critical of it in the first Iron Man.

And then there's stuff like them taking ten years to have a black lead, 11 years to have a female lead

That's not really "conservative themes," that's just Hollywood casting and/or the nature of the comics. I can't speak for everyone, but looking at Phase 1 for instance, as someone who never collected superhero comics, I was still familiar with Iron Man, Captain America, and the Hulk. If you'd asked me about people named "Black Panther" or "Captain Marvel" however, I'd have gone "huh?"

You can lament it took the MCU that long to cast such leads if you want, but the lack of such leads is hardly "thematic."

Both Aliens and Terminator 2 are noisy, obnoxious sequels that severely lack the charm and personality of the originals, even if they are fun.

Tarantino is a competent director but his films are generally meaningless drivel. His last really decent film was Jackie Brown.

Am I doing it right?

Casual Shinji:
It kinda makes sense for there to be racism and racial profiling in Zootropolis, seeing as just a few thousand years ago one race lived off eating the other. And then there's the fact that certain species are 100 times weaker/stronger than other species. Sure, maybe for a rabbit you can make an exception to join the police force, but what if a mouse wants to join or one of those sloths?

And while were at it, it makes sense in the X-Men universe too.

Staying with superheroes, the romance between Harley Quinn and Poison Ivy doesn't work. Harley Quinn is too infatuated with the Joker to ever care about anyone else. If she stop caring about Joker she'd stop being Harley Quinn. And Poison Ivy hates and looks down on humans, so I doubt she'd ever get physically involved with one. They work great as a criminal duo, but lovers.. no.

Samtemdo8:
Deadpool ruined Superheroes. Because of him Superheroes will never be taken seriously and will forever be stuck as always being seen as silly thus it must act silly and only silly. Because of Deadpool we got an obnoxious amount of jokes and fourth wall breaking references in every Superhero thing ever and whatever attempts at actual seriousness they try to tell their story is ruined by a quick gag that completely ruins the tension and tone.

Uuuhm, Spider-Man says hello.

Harley's own creator, Paul Dini, wrote her as being capable of getting over the Joker. And how much Ivy hates humans depends on the writer. She once made her garden a shelter to runaway children.

The first Matrix film wants you to think it's deep and philosophical but doesn't really do anything with the philosophical themes it's setting up, just using them as an excuse for how a programmer knows Kung Fu. The best Matrix film is therefore the second one which utilises the Plato's Cave metaphor a lot more

twistedmic:
I don't know how contrary this opinion is but, I think that the MCU has done more harm to the movie industry (superhero movies in particular) than good, or at the very least has changed the industry in a negative way.
It seems to me that before the MCU started if a movie made at least twice it's budget back it was considered a success and most movies were their own contained stories that had a clear beginning, middle and end and the occasional mild sequel hook (think 'Bond Will Return' or the Joker card scene in Batman Begins. But following the MCU a lot of movies strike me as half-finished stories and setups for further sequels. And they have to make an obscene amount of money globally to even be considered an adequate film.
Plus there's the issue that any movie that doesn't follow the MCU pattern of being light-hearted and filled with sarcastic and snarky quips being thrown out by every character it's immediately lambasted as being 'grimdark' and subsequently savaged by movie critics.

As much as I like most MCU movies, this I can agree with. We are plagued by so many franchises trying to set up their own "cinematic universe" that many of them forget to do a self-contained movie first with developed characters. Sadly, it the industry following another trend without understanding why it worked. A problem with the film, gaming, and music industry as well. Also, pandering to Chinese audiences have hurt the blockbuster side of the industry as a whole. Hell, judging from Transformers: Last Knight, even Chinese audiences are getting sick of it too.

Capcom straying from survival horror makes sense as up till that point, RE5 was the best selling RE title (not best in the series). ReRemake nor the Outbreak series were not setting the world on fire. RE4 was making tuns of money no matter what console it was put on. RE6 would have been okay, had it not been for the overabundance of QTEs. While RE7 is the return of Capcom going back to its roots, they are still following another trend. Hello, Outlast and Condemned.

Despite doing well, Capcom claims 7 sold "below expectations". Whatever the fuck that means. To the big AAA companies, stop saying that. If your games aren't selling that great, either you need to lower those expectations or quit the industry and do something else. It sure as hell ain't the consumers fault.

Re2Remake seems like a better return to form for the RE series with a nice compromise between the over-the-shoulder camera system and the tension from 1 to Code Veronica.

Agent_Z:
Harley's own creator, Paul Dini, wrote her as being capable of getting over the Joker. And how much Ivy hates humans depends on the writer. She once made her garden a shelter to runaway children.

Yet we never really see it. Not in the animated series anyway. She always goes back to the guy, even when he knocks her out of a 4-story window. She could get over him, but then she wouldn't be Harley Quinn anymore; Everything about her, from her voice, her demeanor, her name, her outfit, and her face paint is all either shaped by the Joker or something she did to appeal to the Joker. That's what makes her classic outfit so great; it completely covers every inch of her to make her look like Joker's own personal toy. Even her voice is shaped to accomedate this. That's why I was never a fan of all-white skinned Harley.

And Poison Ivy not only hates humans, but her whole persona is about using seduction and sexuality as a weapon. This feels so ingrained in her mind that I don't see her ever having genuine romantic feelings for anyone. You can say it depends on who writes her, but the relationship between her and Harley is stated to be canon. Like I said, I do like the two together. I like the idea of Ivy maybe seeing Harley as this dying plant that just needs a little love, and Harley seeing Ivy as another dominate personality whenever Joker has gotten tired of her and kicked her out. But genuine romatic love.. no. I feel they're both too fucked up to be capable of that.

CoCage:
Despite doing well, Capcom claims 7 sold "below expectations". Whatever the fuck that means. To the big AAA companies, stop saying that. If your games aren't selling that great, either you need to lower those expectations or quit the industry and do something else. It sure as hell ain't the consumers fault.

Just breaking even is unthinkably far from enough. Making a profit is unacceptably far from enough. Making a good profit is far from enough. Only the greatest possible profit is just barely enough. And only once, because that level of profit will no longer be enough next time around. Not for their customers.

Chimpzy:

CoCage:
Despite doing well, Capcom claims 7 sold "below expectations". Whatever the fuck that means. To the big AAA companies, stop saying that. If your games aren't selling that great, either you need to lower those expectations or quit the industry and do something else. It sure as hell ain't the consumers fault.

Just breaking even is unthinkably far from enough. Making a profit is unacceptably far from enough. Making a good profit is far from enough. Only the greatest possible profit is just barely enough. And only once, because that level of profit will no longer be enough next time around. Not for their customers.

Sucks to be them. not my fault they have overly high expectations. They can only blame themselves.

My other point to their problems.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9F96FOn3R7w

CoCage:

Sucks to be them. not my fault they have overly high expectations. They can only blame themselves.

They should, but they won't. Not while blaming the consumer remains easier and in most cases free of consequence.

Casual Shinji:

altnameJag:
It's this season's "dark and edgy" anime, like Made in Abyss or Attack on Titan before it.

It's implausibly popular. I don't get it.

Unlike Made in Abyss and Attack on Titan though, this just seems to be popular due to the controversy. It got really popular over night because of that first episode, and it's pretty much been coasting on that. That or I just really don't get it. I mean, I've enjoyed my fair share of trash anime, like Highschool of the Dead, but it at least has some energy and flair to it. Goblin Slayer couldn't get any more flat if it was run over by a steamroller.

You don't get a full fledged TV series without already being a very popular series. You'd be in OVA territory if you were sufficiently niche.

And about the alleged quality of AoT and MiA...

altnameJag:
You don't get a full fledged TV series without already being a very popular series. You'd be in OVA territory if you were sufficiently niche.

Well, I don't really know what bar on the popularity scale needs to be met in order to get an anime adaptation, but it was that first episode of Goblin Slayer that really got people talking about it.

And do singular OVA's get made anymore? Not that I'm that much into current anime anymore, but I can't remember the last time I saw one.

And about the alleged quality of AoT and MiA...

I wasn't making a judgement on their quality, although both are certainly better than Goblin Slayer, just that their popularity wasn't due to controversy. Attack on Titan was great up until episode 8. Once you-know-what gets introduced I completely lost interest. And Made in Abyss has an absolutely genius concept, very refreshing visuals and music, but is kneecapped by its creepy fetishizing of naked children, and cute, innocent children suffering through graphic physical torture. As well as a stupid main character. Shame.

Sylens just wanted information. Yes, he was willing to make deals that would sacrifice all life everywhere including himself for it, which, yes, is somewhat illogical. But we all have our flaws.

Casual Shinji:

Agent_Z:
Harley's own creator, Paul Dini, wrote her as being capable of getting over the Joker. And how much Ivy hates humans depends on the writer. She once made her garden a shelter to runaway children.

Yet we never really see it. Not in the animated series anyway. She always goes back to the guy, even when he knocks her out of a 4-story window. She could get over him, but then she wouldn't be Harley Quinn anymore; Everything about her, from her voice, her demeanor, her name, her outfit, and her face paint is all either shaped by the Joker or something she did to appeal to the Joker. That's what makes her classic outfit so great; it completely covers every inch of her to make her look like Joker's own personal toy. Even her voice is shaped to accomedate this. That's why I was never a fan of all-white skinned Harley.

And Poison Ivy not only hates humans, but her whole persona is about using seduction and sexuality as a weapon. This feels so ingrained in her mind that I don't see her ever having genuine romantic feelings for anyone. You can say it depends on who writes her, but the relationship between her and Harley is stated to be canon. Like I said, I do like the two together. I like the idea of Ivy maybe seeing Harley as this dying plant that just needs a little love, and Harley seeing Ivy as another dominate personality whenever Joker has gotten tired of her and kicked her out. But genuine romatic love.. no. I feel they're both too fucked up to be capable of that.

It's been done in the comics by her own creator and the current comics are following suit. Her independence from the Joker has bern stated to be one of the best writing decisions DC has ever made.

Characters can and should be allowed to change and evolve. Ivy was initially a misandrist who targeted men before being reinvented as a misanthropic ecoterrorist. Then later writers showed she wasn't so misanthropic.

Jason Todd was every bit as heroic as any other Batfamily member and blaming him for his own death is disgusting.

If Black Canary wasn't booted off the Justice League for mindwiping Batman, then Huntress should have been allowed to stay after trying to kill Prometheus.

Ultron wasn't Tony's fault. He had created AIs before and after Ultron that didn't try to commit genocide. By his own admission Ultron wasn't even likely to have become active. Wanda is far more to blame for Ultron being the one who makes Tony restart the project.

There is no such thing as spoilers.

If knowing the plot ruins the plot, then it's a bad plot.

Agent_Z:
It's been done in the comics by her own creator and the current comics are following suit. Her independence from the Joker has bern stated to be one of the best writing decisions DC has ever made.

Is it though, because from what I've seen they seem to have just turned her into Deadpool, breaking the fourth wall and all that, when that was never what her character was about. And just because her own creator changed her doesn't mean it's a good change - there's plenty of examples of creators handling their own creations poorly.

Casual Shinji:

altnameJag:
You don't get a full fledged TV series without already being a very popular series. You'd be in OVA territory if you were sufficiently niche.

Well, I don't really know what bar on the popularity scale needs to be met in order to get an anime adaptation, but it was that first episode of Goblin Slayer that really got people talking about it.

Having no warning whatsoever about what happens there is gonna do that, yeah. The TV:MA rating's a bit broad, as it turns out. The description and screen shots did nothing.

Casual Shinji:

And do singular OVA's get made anymore? Not that I'm that much into current anime anymore, but I can't remember the last time I saw one.

They certainly exist, but they're harder to monetize and exploit outside of Japan by folks like Crunchyroll. Kase-san and Morning Glories caught my eye by pure random chance, and a lot of properties from my childhood (Vampire Hunter D, Slayers, Patlabor, Tenchi, Lodoss War, etc) have got something in the works for various anniversaries, but unless they're getting a full release, there's usually just too many to actually report on. Same problem as with, say, Indie games.

https://www.crunchyroll.com/anime-feature/2018/08/01/kase-san-and-morning-glories-is-a-uniquely-sweet-story-of-high-school-girls-in-love

Casual Shinji:

Agent_Z:
It's been done in the comics by her own creator and the current comics are following suit. Her independence from the Joker has bern stated to be one of the best writing decisions DC has ever made.

Is it though, because from what I've seen they seem to have just turned her into Deadpool, breaking the fourth wall and all that, when that was never what her character was about. And just because her own creator changed her doesn't mean it's a good change - there's plenty of examples of creators handling their own creations poorly.

Deadpool wasn't even about breaking the 4th wall when he was created. That isn't a gimmick unique to him. They've also touched on her dealing with her trauma as an abuse survivor, her relationship with Ivy, friendships she's had etc. She's become a far more three dimensional character than when she was just the Joker's minion and abused girlfriend.

As for whether it is a good move, the sales and critical reception say "yes".

Agent_Z:
Deadpool wasn't even about breaking the 4th wall when he was created. That isn't a gimmick unique to him. They've also touched on her dealing with her trauma as an abuse survivor, her relationship with Ivy, friendships she's had etc. She's become a far more three dimensional character than when she was just the Joker's minion and abused girlfriend.

As for whether it is a good move, the sales and critical reception say "yes".

No, but the 4th wall breaking feels like a pretty blatant attempt to cash in on the popularity of Deadpool. And I don't feel Harley needs it, because she was always fun enough of her own.

And this might sound incredibly stubborn, but.. I don't necessarily need Harley to become a more three dimensional character. Same as I don't need it for Batman or the Joker. I "like" her as is (or was). I find the concept of her being this Gollum-esque character - doing bad things and trying to gain the favor of someone who is evil, while part of her knows how terribly wrong it and how awful her situation is - facinating enough. That doesn't mean that's all her character needs to consist of, but I like that it is at the core of her personality and that she'll always struggle with it like an addiction.

Casual Shinji:

Agent_Z:
Deadpool wasn't even about breaking the 4th wall when he was created. That isn't a gimmick unique to him. They've also touched on her dealing with her trauma as an abuse survivor, her relationship with Ivy, friendships she's had etc. She's become a far more three dimensional character than when she was just the Joker's minion and abused girlfriend.

As for whether it is a good move, the sales and critical reception say "yes".

No, but the 4th wall breaking feels like a pretty blatant attempt to cash in on the popularity of Deadpool. And I don't feel Harley needs it, because she was always fun enough of her own.

And this might sound incredibly stubborn, but.. I don't necessarily need Harley to become a more three dimensional character. Same as I don't need it for Batman or the Joker. I "like" her as is (or was). I find the concept of her being this Gollum-esque character - doing bad things and trying to gain the favor of someone who is evil, while part of her knows how terribly wrong it and how awful her situation is - facinating enough. That doesn't mean that's all her character needs to consist of, but I like that it is at the core of her personality and that she'll always struggle with it like an addiction.

Fair enough.

Cirque du Freak: The Vampires Assistant was a cinematic triumph and everyone was too dumb to enjoy it. Kidding. Sort of. The movie was clearly banged out in an attempt to jump on the sudden "teenagers like vampires" thing that blew up around 2010, but it had a surprising amount of heart and soul and writing that may have diverged from the book but was clearly done to improve the viewing experience for new and old fans. It got dumped on for not being Twilight, and for not being Harry Potter, and was firmly trumped by the moist garbage that was Hunger Games and Divergent which came several years later. Ultimately the story was solid and imparted reasonably good morals, and did so in a funloving non-weirdly-sexual way. However you felt about the various book based offerings of the age, its hard to deny that there was an uncomfortable number of teenage boners in the audience for basically all of the named series above, except maybe Harry Potter but even then, come on, professor mcgonagall amirite.

Spirit - the movie that looked like Sin City but wasn't and everyone got pissy about it - was a three year late attempt to cash in the moderate success of a previous edgy comic book movie. And it rocked and you all suck for not thinking that. Although the movie borrowed the cinematic style used in Sin City, it dropped the pretense of a deep dark story in favour of a fun-loving noir format, matching the Dick Tracy feel of the hero. Rather than the brooding crazy of Batman's Joker from the same year, or the attempt to uncomfortable the audience into submission found in Sin City, Spirit brings a bombastic villain with a penchant for interesting costumes and entertaining monologues. Although the motivations of all parties are fairly simple, the entertainment comes through in beloved comic book camp, without the excessive cheese found in similar offerings from the 80s/90s (ice to meet you).

EvilRoy:
Cirque du Freak: The Vampires Assistant was a cinematic triumph and everyone was too dumb to enjoy it. Kidding. Sort of. The movie was clearly banged out in an attempt to jump on the sudden "teenagers like vampires" thing that blew up around 2010, but it had a surprising amount of heart and soul and writing that may have diverged from the book but was clearly done to improve the viewing experience for new and old fans. It got dumped on for not being Twilight, and for not being Harry Potter, and was firmly trumped by the moist garbage that was Hunger Games and Divergent which came several years later. Ultimately the story was solid and imparted reasonably good morals, and did so in a funloving non-weirdly-sexual way. However you felt about the various book based offerings of the age, its hard to deny that there was an uncomfortable number of teenage boners in the audience for basically all of the named series above, except maybe Harry Potter but even then, come on, professor mcgonagall amirite.

Tonks was where it was at, you heretic

image

That little stinger at the end of "Antman and the Wasp" was more shocking, than entire ending of "Infinity War". And yes, i saw the latter first.

There's no such thing as a "plot hole." They simply don't exist. Because every time they are brought up, they are accused of being in a work of fiction. And in ALL fiction the only reason anything happens is because the author SAYS it happened that way. What everyone who makes the accusation of "plot hole" is actually saying... "I don't like the way the author says this happened, so I'm highlighting how that doesn't work in MY reality to make it seem like the author made a mistake writing his own fictive work." Because it looks "smarter" somehow rather than just admit they don't like whatever bit of media they are critiquing. In the end, "plot holes" cannot exist because the author of a fictive work can write in whatever contradictions to their own internal "rules" they want. Because they MAKE those rules. "But that can't happen because..." NOPE, it just did. Deal with it. The Simpsons said it best. "Anytime you notice something like that... a wizard did it." It is a statement that resolves all so called "plot holes." It doesn't mean there isn't terrible writing out there. There is far more bad than good. But "plot hole" isn't a valid criticism. Its just a mask for someone to rationalize a personal dislike in an attempt to seem less petty.

Kyrian007:
There's no such thing as a "plot hole." They simply don't exist. Because every time they are brought up, they are accused of being in a work of fiction. And in ALL fiction the only reason anything happens is because the author SAYS it happened that way. What everyone who makes the accusation of "plot hole" is actually saying... "I don't like the way the author says this happened, so I'm highlighting how that doesn't work in MY reality to make it seem like the author made a mistake writing his own fictive work." Because it looks "smarter" somehow rather than just admit they don't like whatever bit of media they are critiquing. In the end, "plot holes" cannot exist because the author of a fictive work can write in whatever contradictions to their own internal "rules" they want. Because they MAKE those rules. "But that can't happen because..." NOPE, it just did. Deal with it. The Simpsons said it best. "Anytime you notice something like that... a wizard did it." It is a statement that resolves all so called "plot holes." It doesn't mean there isn't terrible writing out there. There is far more bad than good. But "plot hole" isn't a valid criticism. Its just a mask for someone to rationalize a personal dislike in an attempt to seem less petty.

Honestly, I blame the angry critic style of reviewing and Cinema Sins for that one. More so the latter, but it had to start somewhere. Channel Awesome, Redletter Media, Movie Bob, they have all done it. Hell, even Double Toasted has done it sometimes, though some cases were justified.

You have uneducated reviewers or those too stupid to notice important plot details or making up criticism for the sake of a joke, and then hiding behind the "it's satire" excuse. Which is definitely Cinema Sins main problem. There is a such thing as bad satire you fucknut. Own up to your shitty mistakes. With that said, it there is clear retcon or voodoo shark whether it be a game, movie, or TV show, that makes zero sense, I will call that shit out.

Ok, here we go.

In the X-men franchise, mutant registration is not only just but very very necessary. It in no way is comparable to the plight of real-world minorities. If gay people or Jews could melt skyscrapers with their eyeball-lasers I'd be demanding government involvement and LOTS of it.

#senatorkelleywasrightallalong

CoCage:
You have uneducated reviewers or those too stupid to notice important plot details or making up criticism for the sake of a joke, and then hiding behind the "it's satire" excuse. Which is definitely Cinema Sins main problem. There is a such thing as bad satire you fucknut. Own up to your shitty mistakes. With that said, it there is clear retcon or voodoo shark whether it be a game, movie, or TV show, that makes zero sense, I will call that shit out.

And that's fine, as long as whomever is calling it out is just honest and says they don't like the retcon, rather than trying to say that somehow the writer is somehow "wrong." Example, the whole "Brotherhood of Steel" complaint against Fallout 76. There's hundreds of very valid reasons to hate Fallout 76, but "The Brotherhood couldn't be there" isn't a valid one. They're there because Bethesda SAYS they were there. If they want to explain how, they can, but regardless they ARE there... deal with it. Why are they there... a wizard did it.

Kyrian007:
There's no such thing as a "plot hole." They simply don't exist. Because every time they are brought up, they are accused of being in a work of fiction. And in ALL fiction the only reason anything happens is because the author SAYS it happened that way. What everyone who makes the accusation of "plot hole" is actually saying... "I don't like the way the author says this happened, so I'm highlighting how that doesn't work in MY reality to make it seem like the author made a mistake writing his own fictive work." Because it looks "smarter" somehow rather than just admit they don't like whatever bit of media they are critiquing. In the end, "plot holes" cannot exist because the author of a fictive work can write in whatever contradictions to their own internal "rules" they want. Because they MAKE those rules. "But that can't happen because..." NOPE, it just did. Deal with it. The Simpsons said it best. "Anytime you notice something like that... a wizard did it." It is a statement that resolves all so called "plot holes." It doesn't mean there isn't terrible writing out there. There is far more bad than good. But "plot hole" isn't a valid criticism. Its just a mask for someone to rationalize a personal dislike in an attempt to seem less petty.

The current overuse of the word is absolutely abysmal. People use it to refer to anything just wasn't in the movie period. I saw an article for Solo's "biggest plot hole" which ended up being just the writer wondering what Qi'ra was doing during the time skip.

The original concept of a "hole" in the "plot" still holds true and can be a genuine problem in storytelling though. The example I would always point to is in The Lost World: Jurassic Park, where the boat holding a T-rex crashes because it's crew was apparently eaten despite the T-rex still being in the holding area and being way to big to fit into the still relatively undamaged passage ways of the vessel. That's actual in-universe story progression logic that is broken by this scene.

Lesser examples would be how Harry never learns who Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot and Prongs are in the movies despite the name 'Padfoot' playing some significance in a later movie (which in terms makes the movies companion pieces to the books as opposed to standalone things but that's another issue).

Gatx:
The example I would always point to is in The Lost World: Jurassic Park, where the boat holding a T-rex crashes because it's crew was apparently eaten despite the T-rex still being in the holding area and being way to big to fit into the still relatively undamaged passage ways of the vessel. That's actual in-universe story progression logic that is broken by this scene.

It used the same genetic T-Rex-Teleportation ability that the one in the first film used to get into the visitor's center without anyone noticing.

Kyrian007:
There's no such thing as a "plot hole." They simply don't exist. Because every time they are brought up, they are accused of being in a work of fiction. And in ALL fiction the only reason anything happens is because the author SAYS it happened that way. What everyone who makes the accusation of "plot hole" is actually saying... "I don't like the way the author says this happened, so I'm highlighting how that doesn't work in MY reality to make it seem like the author made a mistake writing his own fictive work." Because it looks "smarter" somehow rather than just admit they don't like whatever bit of media they are critiquing. In the end, "plot holes" cannot exist because the author of a fictive work can write in whatever contradictions to their own internal "rules" they want. Because they MAKE those rules. "But that can't happen because..." NOPE, it just did. Deal with it. The Simpsons said it best. "Anytime you notice something like that... a wizard did it." It is a statement that resolves all so called "plot holes." It doesn't mean there isn't terrible writing out there. There is far more bad than good. But "plot hole" isn't a valid criticism. Its just a mask for someone to rationalize a personal dislike in an attempt to seem less petty.

What? No. There are definitely times when the writer accidentally breaks their own established rules. It doesn't even mean you have to not like something. I like Dragon Ball but that doesn't mean there aren't plenty of plot holes in it.

I don't see how you can describe what happens there as anything other than Goku falling into a plot hole for 4 months.

Silent Protagonist:
There is no such thing as spoilers.

If knowing the plot ruins the plot, then it's a bad plot.

Even if it's still a good plot, I've been deprived of ability to be surprised by it, and I like to be surprised.

jademunky:
Ok, here we go.

In the X-men franchise, mutant registration is not only just but very very necessary. It in no way is comparable to the plight of real-world minorities.

You also note that the minorities tend to be on the Team Evil side, at least in the movies. Many of them can be summed up as "straight white people fight an evil Jew". Oops.

jademunky:
Ok, here we go.

In the X-men franchise, mutant registration is not only just but very very necessary. It in no way is comparable to the plight of real-world minorities. If gay people or Jews could melt skyscrapers with their eyeball-lasers I'd be demanding government involvement and LOTS of it.

#senatorkelleywasrightallalong

I'm actually inclined to agree there.

The X-Men are repeatedly claimed to be a stand-in for minorities, but within the setting, mutants are basically uber-humans, with plenty among their number possessing incredibly dangerous abilities, and at times, the will to use them. People have every reason to at least be cautious of mutants in the setting. Basically, you're trying to use an analogy for disempowerment by making the disempowered superpowered.

Hawki:

jademunky:
Ok, here we go.

In the X-men franchise, mutant registration is not only just but very very necessary. It in no way is comparable to the plight of real-world minorities. If gay people or Jews could melt skyscrapers with their eyeball-lasers I'd be demanding government involvement and LOTS of it.

#senatorkelleywasrightallalong

I'm actually inclined to agree there.

The X-Men are repeatedly claimed to be a stand-in for minorities, but within the setting, mutants are basically uber-humans, with plenty among their number possessing incredibly dangerous abilities, and at times, the will to use them. People have every reason to at least be cautious of mutants in the setting. Basically, you're trying to use an analogy for disempowerment by making the disempowered superpowered.

To say nothing of how the franchise tends to revolve around good looking white people who live in a large mansion and can easily pass for human.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 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