Plotholes exist, to me, it's only a problem If you actually notice them during the watching. If the movie makes you stop and go "wait what?" and knocks you out of the enjoyment, then the plotholes a problem. If you can go the whole movie enjoying it and the plothole never seems to catch your interest or make you pause, then it's not a problem.
Completely agree. There is actually an indicator to know when a plothole is too much or not, though it depends much on your individual tastes and experiences : the willing suspension of disbelief. If a plothole is so glaring that despite your best efforts you start disbelieving the whole movie, then it is too big of a hole. And this is even worse when talking about franchise movies (except for those like James Bond without continuity), for it carries consequences for the next installements.
@@Cancoillotteman Last Jedi bothers me because i can see the ideas behind it and the potential it had, and watch all of it get wasted behind poor execution. Infact Cinemawins finally touched on it and pointed out things that both make me enjoy the movie a bit more, but also hate the failures that much more. So many good ideas SOOO much potential, and it's such a bloody mess so many little things cut out or not included that would of made the movie actually good.
"Characters that act logically make for a boring movie." The Martian. Every character in that movie is at peak competency and it still manages to have drama in it.
Great example. Smart people can still make mistakes because of bureaucracies and rushing through construction. I believed every choice that each character made and that is excellent writing.
John Carpenter's The Thing is a good example. The characters are smart and think of the best way they can solve their problem, with tension coming from misteps and miscalculations (plus a very creepy and unpredictable alien creature) rather than just straight up dumb decisions.
Yeah, I think the key is to make sure characters act in ways that make sense considering what they know at the time (sometimes in combination with their personality). When people talk about characters acting "illogically", nine times out of ten they're talking about a character acting in ways that someone in their position realistically wouldn't/shouldn't. Like if a medical professional saw a patient with a rash and immediately told them it was a deadly disease without considering that it might just be poison ivy or something.
This is not to mention that perfectly logical solutions are absurd. The best way to end murder is to blow up Earth. It is just think about it, it even cures all illness. This is because everyone is dead. This is even a good reason for the motive of most villains, their solution is *purely* logical. Hardly a novel concept in that it is so often used a decent writer can show how it is cliche but we tend not to notice and or forgive it as it can be simple human error.
Yeah! Human brains are what make people do what they do, even if it's seems to not make sense. You don't even need to make them that complex, but if there is a war general character, you cannot make them act illogically otherwise how the feck this character is a war general!
@@ComfortsSpecter Well if that's what defines them as a character: A character that acts randomly and without reason. Then that's really not a plot hole anymore, it's simply a character trait.
@@DeathKitta you can make a general illogical, it just means there more likely to be a shit General and their characters depth probably has something to do with their punishment for that I get your very obvious point but a general can be shit, we’ve seen tons of those in history
It kinda bothers me that Patrick says movies aren’t like puzzles, when movies and puzzles are really similar. You buy a puzzle and expect all the pieces to fit together, but when one of the pieces is missing doesn’t fit, it can be dissatisfying.
The kids engineering toy, Meccano, used to deliberately print mistakes in the instruction (destruction?) manual. This was to see if any of the kids were smart enough to catch the mistake and work out the solution by themselves.
@@chikipichi5280 That is exactly as dissatisfying as a missing piece in a puzzle. Unless leaving that piece out actually serves a purpose such as having a question to be answered by a sequel (if it is properly thought out that is).
I just teleport to work which is the length of a continent and if anyone asks I mumble something about flying on a dragon, even though no time passed somehow.
To paraphrase/steal from a certain disgraced critic of nostalgia; ALL stories have flaws, but if the audience is complaining they can see the strings, it just means the puppets haven't properly distracted them.
@@michaelhixson6939 Excellent quote. I have to hand it to Game of Thrones, they did a good job of distracting me all the way to season 7. Granted I watch most films pretty openly and usually just use Game of Thrones as an excuse to hang out with friends, but still the problems with season 5-7 weren't bad enough for me to notice without someone else pointing them out. Season 8 however.....well that was just brazen.
@@Shademastermcc I agree. I didn't notice until it was pointed out to me that Tyrion becomes a totally static character after killing his father. Reference: Macabre Storytelling's debut video. He was a very distracting puppet... Until like season 7/8... Rip.
Voldemort wanted to make a grand entrance and show all of Hogwarts that he had killed 'the boy who lived'. It's not 'stupid' it's just his personality. He's kind of a diva
Moldy Voldyfart also had other things to line up, like the other ingredients in that cauldron, his father's bones, etc. It was a whole big ritual thing. Heck, he didn't even need Harry's blood! Anybody would have worked, but he WANTED it to be Harry, and Dumbledore eventually explains that when Moldywart did that, he linked Harry's life to his own, which helped Harry survive in Deathly Hallows. FFS, I'm not even a Harry Potter fan! My wife is the HP fan, and she listens to the audiobooks so much that I've become deeply knowledgeable about HP lore.
Exactly! This is Moldyvort's downfall SEVERAL times in the series; his own ego and love of symbolism has him makes decisions that either offer him no objective benefit or are outright disadvantageous. See the rest of Voldymoldy's resurrection magically tying himself to Harry, or his personal pissing contest to prove something by "challenging" Harry to a duel, which lets Harry escape.
well there’s another reason he chose Harry though. If he wanted to be able to touch Harry without causing physical pain to himself as a result of Lily dying for her son, then he needed to have the same protection running through his own blood. Voldemort’s own downfall is a result of his ignorance and his abuse of magic. The entire prophecy coming to fruition was all on him. For someone as smart as he was proclaimed to be, he was an absolute idiot. He refused to recognise magic that existed outside of his range of knowledge which resulted his first downfall and his final one. And Voldemort’s characterisation was perfectly on brand throughout the series. Everything was a spectacle to show how superior he was. Like it was stated, Voldemort had planned to use Harry’s death at the end of tournament to showcase his return and highlight his power. He despised the idea of anyone thinking he’d been bested by an infant and decided to put on a show for his followers.
Death Star didn’t have a design flaw. It was a tiny exhaust port that was necessary. 2 meters wide, guarded, and the odds of some small fighter getting a precise shot into it was almost impossible. And the plans where secret also. So for this maneuver to actually be pulled off required an almost supernatural assistance. Hence using the force and trusting feelings, etc.
Tamari Bond exactly. That’s why “Rogue One” was so contrived. That’s like saying I designed a muffler in such a way that if you stick a potato in it, the car will blow up!
Leonid Denisenko lol right. “We’ve discovered a weak spot on this car, a design flaw! It’s of course not gonna be easy to get away with, but clearly this integral, needed item is a flaw!”
It actually was a flaw, at least according to the EU before Disney wrecked it. One of the engineers that worked on the Death Star intentionally put in a weak spot that was unnecessary.
@@Bldyiii Rogue One is based off an idea that was in the EU before Disney got rid of it as canon. Which was supposedly an explanation why they were able to find that attack point for Episode 4. Rogue one just cinematically fills that gap (though it does have several of it's own problems).
Like the several bad rom coms where the generic lead guy says "I should stop listening to my brain and start listening to my heart" is the dumbest shit ever. Being open and understanding of your emotions doesn't you should act like a morron.
He references a franchise where one of the lead characters struggles with the balance between his logic and emotions and seems to function best when both work hand in hand ( at least in the newer movies sorry I was too young to get into OG Star Trek when I was younger don’t shoot me if I misinterpreted Spock) it’s ironic that he can’t see that movies themselves are a construction of both emotion and logic.
@@jaywalkin1793 From my understanding (as a very casual Star Trek fan) the Vulcan had emotions, they simply didn't let it take precedence over logic. But yeah the big take away was that its good when you have a balance between the two. There is nothing wrong with wanting your big emotional payoff but that won't happen (for most people) if it doesn't make sense too. Despite what people like Patrick like to pretend, most people like things to make logical sense, even when it requires some suspension of disbelief.
You shouldn't be required to turn your brain off to enjoy a movie. Watch Guardians of the Galaxy: Volume 2. You can appreciate the theme of relationships and family, how it uses music to make you feel something, and then reuses music to connect that feeling to something different. Or you can turn your brain off and enjoy the space comedy with a talking raccoon. Either one is fine. There's nothing wrong with a movie that's fun to watch with your brain off, but if that's a requirement then there is a problem.
You can enjoy Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 only if you turn your brain off, because not only its plot is bad, but its themes are forced and don't make sense either. First, why would Ego tell his supposed son that he killed his mother? Second, how exactly is Yondu Peter's "daddy" if that blue schmuck wanted to kill him in that first movie for nothing? Their father-son relationship is so forced, it's comical.
@@badmoviestudios8099 I'm going to respond to those in order: 1. Ego's been trying to manipulate Peter into agreeing that everyone else is beneath them; i.e. getting Peter to go along with Ego's expansion. The character Ego is aptly named; he's arrogant, and he has a massive god complex. By the time he tells Peter that part, he believes he has succeeded in completely winning Peter over to his side, so he didn't realize that revealing that he killed Peter's mom because he saw her as a distraction from his goal would make Peter snap out of it. 2. Yondu didn't want to kill Peter. Both films made it clear that, for all Yondu's talk about being a hard captain and wanting to get vengeance for Peter walking away with the orb, he has an extremely soft spot for Peter and wouldn't actually harm him. This was made clear in film 1 when he just smiles after seeing that Peter swapped the power stone for another doll for Yondu's collection, and made even more clear in film 2 when his perspective on everything that happened between him and Peter is shown to the audience. Yondu was assigned to deliver Peter to his dad, but when he realised that Ego was killing all his kids, Yondu decided to keep Peter. He then raised him as one of the Ravagers and had a soft spot for him ever since. He was terrible at showing it, but he genuinely cared about Peter like a father would for a son. He even admits in the end that he was terrible at showing how he really cared; saying, "I'm sorry I didn't do one bit of [raising Peter] right".
“If she just told him the plan finn wouldn’t have grown as a character, there would be no conflict, and we wouldn’t have a story” I will refer back to my favorite Jenny Nicholson quote: “but it’s fiction! They could have written literally anything else!”
Thank God this Patrick-Clown is proven wrong more and more by 'Good-Faith-Criticism-Essays' getting more and more popular recently. I mean, look at Jay Exci covering Doctor Who, Madvocate covering The Flash and Hbomberguy covering Sherlock, RWBY and various Concepts, with hour-long Videos that are so damn-good that people comment seperately from each other: Wow, i do not even know this show this video is about but i watched it all. What i'm trying to say here, i guess, is: Dont miss out and check those out, as well as various people talking about High Guardian Spice and Santa Inc.
Not to mention it's a complete lie. Finn would have grown just in different ways. He doesn't trust people in command so if she'd been upfront with her plan he could have grown more trusting and assisted in other ways. Some people may say her telling him later makes for a good reveal but her sacrifice at the end could still be a great reveal. He could go off same as he did, keep helping the rebellion, and discover later that the first commander he respected and trusted is no longer alive and he attempts to be more understanding and respectful towards his future commanders in memory of her respect towards him. "There's always another way." - The Key Maker, The Matrix Reloaded
@@slevinchannel7589 I was just trying to recall who else I had seen tear this video apart, and your comment reminded me it was Jay Exci. It may be a year late, but thank you! Trying to remember whose video it was would have driven me crazy for the whole runtime of this video if it weren't for you pacifying my mind goblins.
Holdo not telling Fin her plan, is what lead to Poe and Rose going to Canto-Byte & and the First Order getting her plan. So, in the end, Holdo caused a lot of resistance members to get killed.
If you choose to focus on them, then you choose to ruin the experience for yourself. Enjoy things for what they are, not what you think they should be.
@@Incrementium - That's a terrible argument. By that logic, movies should just stop having stories at all, because it's your choice to notice it. You can just choose to not think about it and look at the pretty colours instead.
@@Incrementium Just imagine if you went to a restaurant and got food poisoning from eating spoiled food and some guy told you it was your fault for focusing on how how much you were throwing up. That is the argument you're trying to make.
I don't think that is oversight. I think that was the point. He is looking down. How can I be watching a movie "wrong"? If I am using my eyes the rest is up to my own opinion of the value.
I'm so triggered by the Die Hard 'plot hole'. They didn't just need the power out, they also needed the time to break into the vault and to keep the police from rushing in on them. If they just cut the power they would be found out before they even got close to getting in.
That's what i was thinking as well! Die Hard is my favourite action movie of all time, but that "plot hole" was just wrong and it could be explained very easily.
Yeah, the real plot hole is in the second installment - where there are several airports within easy reach of those planes. But again, you wouldn't notice while watching the movie - it's engaging that way.
As a writer, I only agree that the culture of “nitpicking” has fostered a slight overeagerness in finding plot errors or holes that perhaps don’t matter, or which may well have been left due to technical issues. If it doesn’t majorly detract from the story logic or flow, I’m more inclined to ignore it and just enjoy the story. But to say that plot holes don’t matter at all is to invalidate all writers and the art of writing entirely. Plot holes DO matter, it’s our F*CKING JOB TO MAKE SH*T WORK and work WELL! This is the equivalent of me saying “well, RUclips commentators are just average non-experts sitting at home making videos, ergo their arguments don’t really matter so you shouldn’t really think about their work so much.” Both statements are bullsh*t. Going overboard with anything can result in the point getting lost, but just because a few people get too excited with it doesn’t mean that suddenly all similar discourse is invalid. TL;DL: Plot holes matter, now get off my lawn.
Eh, I still fail to see how plot holes matter. I've never seen a movie or read a book or watched a tv show and have EVER thought about potholes. I wouldn't know of such a thing without the internet complaining about things I've never thought about or considered in my life. I've never disliked anything because of it. I find it very hard to believe anybody sane would give a shit about such a thing. Stories are not meant to be logical. That's not how they work, nor how they should ever work. They're primal, instinctual, emotional creations.
@@TheGeorgeD13 Who you are to say what stories are meant to be? Your philosophical opinion is just that, a opinion. I will say a fact: there are people who cares if fictional stories make sense or not. And I'm glad the amount of people like that is increasing lately. That will only push storymakers to create more realistic worlds.
@@TheGeorgeD13 That's weird. You are not directly wrong but IF you find something illogical then you would question the story. That's the whole point. And sometimes it is fun to hear the opinion of experts in a certain field and that there is a plot hole you didn't notice at first. Of course, this could distract you from the story. But that's the whole point: if you notice a plot hole - it will distract you from the story (ie. movie). That's why plot holes matter.
Any lazy writer can throw something together that contains plotholes; A skilled writing team can come up with a coherent, internally consistent narrative that reduces or outright eliminates them. STOP EXCUSING BAD WRITING!!!
A world, a story, that has massive plot holes is a story that doesn't make sense. My one english teacher once told me to never forget the most basic of basics: Who what why when where Who is it about What is going on Why is it happening When did it happen Where is it happening. Plot holes tend to ignore these, and our brain catches on to that. Our subconcious will nag at us and we can't focus on the movie and merely let it flow.
I guess that’s why, even as an adult, I still appreciate movies like Finding Nemo, whose characters are beautifully developed and whose plot is coherent, easy to follow, and has a meaningful impact on all of the major characters. We need more of that in movies.
Finding Nemo is amazing... though I will never forget about child!me puzzling about the turtles talking underwater. Because for fish it made sense, because they breathe water. But sea turtles are reptiles and have to come up for air. Hand wave it, right? But then immediately after the first turtle scene, you have dolphins only talking to each other when they come out of the water. Because they’re mammals that breath air. And now that I’ve said it, it’s quite possible that you’ll never forget it. Sorry. XD
Patrick is arguing that the examples of “plot holes” he gives are not substantive, and so they are not important points of criticism. Most amount to surface-level nitpicks, result from not paying enough attention to a movie, or are simply complaining that a character didn’t do the thing they wanted them to do. For instance, Holdo doesn’t trust Poe because he is reckless and just got a lot of people killed. She doesn’t need MORE reason to not divulge her plan to him. Nor should the audience expect Holdo to be a soothsayer and realize by not telling Poe the plan he’s going to indirectly inform the First Order of their plan and get even more people killed.
@@ryangilly5096 Holdo not telling Poe isnt a plot hole it's just bad writing, and makes her look incompetent Why would she not tell the person she knows is a loose canon. There was no reason for her not to and doing so would have actually made Poe have an arc, it would have solidified the "Heroic intentions don't always end well" point.
@@supervamp78 Holdo was justified in not sharing her plan with Poe, a man who had just defied Leia’s orders and got most of their pilots killed. The moment called for a carefully executed escape plan, not guns a-blazing heroism. And Poe had a perfectly fine arc, even without a fan rewrite.
@@ryangilly5096 So she doesn't share a plan with the guy she knows is a loose canon and will likely go against her anyways? Huh? It makes her look incompetent Did she expect him to just do nothing the entire time?
I'm sick of hearing the "if everyone made logical decisions, there'd be no conflict!" argument. It's an excuse of the lazy, as well as amateur storytellers. They're essentially saying that they can't introduce conflict without making a character do something stupid. It completely ignores the real-world fact that not every situation can be solved by making logical decisions. In fact, the best conflicts in fiction are when the situation is explicitly regarded as one that can't just be solved by making the "right decision". Political drama. War conflicts. Resource shortages. These are all scenarios where logic - while necessary to perpetuate, is incapable of resolving. Even something as simple as two people wanting the same thing is explorable without resorting to character lobotomy. Final note: If you believe there can't be conflict if everyone makes logical decisions, then you have a poor understanding of what makes good storytelling.
I somewhat agree, but I think for a different reason. I think that you CAN have people all making logical decisions and still have conflict, as long as it's logical TO THAT CHARACTER. Everyone has their own internal logic that is different from everyone else's. People hold up "logic" as though it's some sort of unchanging monolith of thought that exists outside of experience and emotion, but it's not. Every person's sense of logic is shaped by their own experiences and life, so no two people are going to have exactly the same way of thinking "logically". So it's completely possible for a movie to have two people in conflict while both of them are behaving "logically", because each one has a different viewpoint of what is logical to do in that situation.
We can take the Vulcans from Star Trek, or the Kryptonians from Man of Steel. They live/lived in a rigid society dictated by logic and science. In the case of the Vulcans, they lost their planet due to not being prepared in case of an attack, since they are basically on the western front of this space Berlin Wall. For the Kryptonians, Snyder and Nolan based the idea of their society on Plato's Republic with the cast system. (Leaders, Guardians and Workers) Because they abandoned their plans for colonies, their society stuck and they drain the resources of their planet, making it unstable. They followed logic, but it created more problems than it solved.
David Huntsinger I remember reading a Star Trek novel a while back that had a similar structure to the narrative conflict. In the novel, a colony of Klingons was going to be wiped out by a meteor swarm or something like that, and the conflict arose when a Klingon ship was sent to evacuate the colony. Most of the colonists didn't want to leave because their personal interpretations of honor made it impossible. Some felt it was cowardly to run away from the impending disaster and honor demanded they face it head-on, others saw the disaster as a challenge or enemy to be defeated in (metaphorical) combat by building stronger dwellings or setting up a forcefield network to protect the colony, others felt that a Klingon's honor and heritage were tied to the homes they built and preferred to wait it out in some nearby caves then rebuild when the disaster passed. The crew of the ship felt that dying to a natural disaster was not a noble enough death and would rather rescue their fellows from an ignoble death so they could die honorably in combat later. Technically, none of them were wrong in their interpretations of Klingon honor, as each interpretation was a singular facet to the concept of honor the Klingons practice, but it was in the application of each facet and refusal to accept other facets where the meat of the story rested, and it made for a really interesting and good story.
It is fairly simple to acknowledge that people have different priorities. So they could make different decision that are logical for their set of priorities. On a sidenote. The definition of "Idiot Plot" is "a Plot that hangs together only because the main characters behave like idiots. A single intelligent move or question by any of the characters, and all problems would be resolved.". So at least that video confirms that TLJ is based on IdiotPlot.
"movies aren't puzzles" thriller and crime movies which rely on a puzzle-like plot to work and have a compelling ending because that's how the genre works:
All art is a puzzle for the brain. Art relies on pattern recognition. If the brain can't recognize a pattern to make sense of it, then it's registered as noise, not art. This is evident most commonly in extreme metal genres or modern art. The more versed one is in art conventions, the more likely it is that one will recognize art when they see it. In movies, patterns can be: story structure, character archetypes, characterizations, scene blocking, scene transitions, audio cues, mood lighting etc. etc.
But that’s just one kind of genre. And sometimes those films feel too much like puzzles rather stories with any real depth. And even if they are puzzles, there needs to be compelling drama and characters.
@@MrShakespearefan Every story is a puzzle. You got your characters, plot, suspense of disbelieve, POV, writing style and more all needing to be slowly fitted together like puzzle pieces to make something good. If you want another comparison, it's baking. A lot of sweets and pasteries are extremely dependent on measurements and what kind of things work together and what does not work at all. It's why you can't just exchange milk from a cake with brandy and expect that abomination to work. Even if brandy is good. It doesn't fit in that part of the recipe and makes problems for the end result. Some genres mix and mix well and then you got others that where mixed in the wrong order.
Jurassic Park "Before we take massive, random risks (like going into a paddock just because we "think" the Indo escaped and run around with our heads cut off) maybe we should try some other options first."
As a writer, I work pretty freaking hard for plot holes in my stories. Can't count the times I've been doing something then stop and go, "Wait... What did I do earlier about this?" then go back read, slap myself in the forehead, and go to edit so it all works.
I actually make a list with important points and a world building rule book for every action any of the characters take too. So I don't have to figure out in what chapter I mentioned an established rule. So it's a bit similar. xD
In film school, a teacher told us : "The three elements to make a good movie are the story, the story, and the story" Edit : omg I didn't know there would be so many answers!!! btw he was teaching scenario so he was obviously biased. Plus, I didn't say I literally agreed with him hahaha
1) Plot or goal 2) Conflict 3) Resolution You can have things/fillers in between, but that's basically it. Plot, conflict resolution. Your teacher is wrong.
I always hear the opinion that life has so much stupid twists and turns and coincidences that would classify as a plot hole in a story. But most people forget that life moreoften than not writes terrible, boring and unsatisfying stories.
@@deniseklemm6612 Respectfully, I doubt you: "always hear the opinion that life has so much stupid twists and turns and coincidences that would classify as a plot hole..." but... Plot holes are more than just stupid twists or one's life taking an unexpected turn as you said. Plot holes are incongruent, inconsistent, or conflicted connected facts claimed in a story, and related to the plot. Which is quite different than a plot twist and the plot changing direction. So, as examples, plot holes are traveling lost and unintentionally on the wrong path to a desired destination, while plot twists are intentionally changing your course and destination.
@@MarkLewis... "The Story is not important but specific parts of the story?" so we can safely ignore Character, introduction, rising action, theme and tone? if the middle to the end part of the story is good?
People say that the Star Wars fanbase are very testy and would have been disappointed with the new movies no matter what they did. But my argument is people weren't disappointed because it wasn't perfect, people were disappointed because it wasn't good
I am not a star wars fan, but all I can say is I had a real hard time paying attention to any of the new movies. I didn't have the same problems with the originals.
The sequel trilogy's defenders are convinced that people only hate them because their theories about the films didn't come true. When really it's because the ST sucked. Disney thinking that killing off characters from the original trilogy would force people to like the new ones by default was stupid.
@@doktordiklegz The way they seemed to think portraying Luke out of character, having Rey beat him up then had him die from the supposed "strain" of a Force projection would somehow make people accept Rey as the new protagonist it certainly seems like it.
Patrick here gives me the vibes of a certain kind of person. Someone who's had experiences liking movies that people around him didn't, or just universally unpopular movies in particular. Now there's absolutely nothing wrong with liking an unpopular movie. You shouldn't dislike anything solely because a lot of other people dislike it. But this guy takes a huge issue when people point out why they think that these movies are crap. Point out very blatant flaws that are there due to incompetence or carelessness of the filmmakers. Then instead of conceding "yeah, I can see your point, but I still like it so, eh" he needs to defend these flaws. In his insecurity he needs to validate his tastes to other people to seem like a person to be taken seriously. But the guy isn't quite as smart, or at least good in explaining himself as he hopes, and doesn't get the desired reaction from those people. Insecurity grips his chest harder. It's starting to hurt a little. He grows resentment on the people giving legitimate criticism. But surely they can't be right. This movie is great! They're just nitpicking. They're nitpicking about plotholes that make the story he loves so much possible. Could the story exist without those plotholes? No... he can't figure a way, so probably not. So he can't validate himself with his way, so... offense is the best defense... Let's INvalidate the others. Now we just need to put serious thought and figure out detailed explanations on how the existence of these plotholes actually help the movie exist. Now we need a cool suit, a stern tone of voice and a manner of speech that appears one sound smart so people will get the impression of a pro who knows what they're talking about. This is how he puts down those mean nasty nitpickers who made him feel uncertain of himself, when they nitpicked on his favourite movies that defined his youth and inspired him. That's the vibe that Patrick gives me.
Yes, what you say reminds me of (the vastly over-rated) Pauline Kael, who would get righteously upset if someone liked a film that she didn't, or disliked one that she liked.
Thank you. Just...thank you. As a writer myself, it enrages me whenever I hear shit like this. Willem's basically saying "good writing doesn't matter". It's exactly the same argument used by bad fanfic writers whose work totally ignores basic spelling, grammar, & composition: "it's just fanfic, it doesn't matter, stop being so nitpicky". It does matter. It's all the basic building blocks of storytelling. Without them, the entire story/film collapses into unreadable, unwatchable slush.
I absolutely agree, as a fellow writer but really as a reader. I’ve had people respond to my book reviews on Amazon arguing that I shouldn’t “read like an English teacher”. Well, I’m when I’m paying for something I expect at least the bare minimum of BASIC quality. Like when you buy food at a restaurant you at least expect it to be edible. So when I critique a book for being so lazily written that it’s an insult to readers, because the author doesn’t even care to put in MINIMAL effort, it pisses me off even more to have people claim I’m reading the book wrong. Or worse, come at me with “I’d like to see you try to write a book” or “you’re just jealous”. And they’re not even defending shitty fanfic, they’re defending something someone is trying to sell to an audience. They’re completely missing the fundamental point of user reviews as well as missing the fundamentals of writing. It drives me mad.
My point with the Indiana Jones submarine plot hole is that it really isn't. German subs in and before WWII (and Raiders takes place in 1936) weren't nuclear-powered where they could run underwater for weeks at a time. They ran on diesel engines, which needed air to combust the fuel, and you can't run those engines underwater, or you suck all the oxygen out of the cabin in minutes. Underwater, German U-boatswould use silent electric battery-powered engines...that were a lot slower than the diesel engines that could only run at the surface. In transit, U-boats would mostly run on the surface for the sake of speed, and only dive when they were in danger or getting ready to fire. So given that I imagine the U-boat in Raiders is trying to get somewhere fast...yeah, they're running along the surface for most of the trip. Watch Das Boot sometime, it's a phenomenal film.
You're right. The U-Boat was used mainly like a boat, but that includes deckservice too. There is no place to hide for Indy when couple of crewmen do their duty on deck and/or fin resp sail.
@@axelboltz3077 That is one of my biggest problems with the scene. They could have stayed on the service the whole time, but if they did then there would be German sailors above deck and as you pointed out where would he have hidden.
Even if they never dove underwater (which is implied that they did through the dive alarms and use of the periscope), redrawing the subs path on Google earth, it would have been approximately 580 nautical miles. At full speed it would have took the sub 34 hours to get there but in all likelihood they would have been going at cursing speed which was 8 knots. Any faster and things tend to break sooner than later plus with everything locked down/sealed the diesel engines would have caused ear injuries. At 8 knots it would have took 3 days to get to that island. 3 days for Dr Jones in the sun, no shade, food or water... and no bathroom. "Wait, why is the deck covered in poo?"
But even if that were so he would have been hanging on to that skinny boat for God knows how long with pout food or water and expecting no one to come out on the conning tower????
I mean, they kinda even set up for it with the whole "How are they tracking us through light speed thing?"-thing, so they just failed at letting us know that the characters know or at least believe. One could even argue that Poe thought of purple-hair to be a mole and sending their all to their doom because of it. And it would have been better than "I think she is incompetent." But still, Poe would have been the least likely to be a mole, given that he was the one to enable the destruction of the deradnought. So she could have just grabbed him and told him in private. Given that his demotion was BECAUSE he acted rouge so hit the First Order, that would have made a lot of sense. Or she could have locked him up, just in case!
It wasn't plothole. The fact that Holdo was keeping her plans secret and one guy was questioning her... was meant to show that the guy was a extremely villainous person. It is... bad writing, but it was written EXACTLY the way it was intended to. But then again I guess that is the thing, writing SO bad that the audience cannot accept it could be anything BUT a plothole.
@@riselin did not agree that it was a plothole, though it might be depending on how you interpret the characters actions. But it still should be out off chatacter for an Elite admiral to not realize the danger that a rogue soldier like Poe poses if he is left in the Dark or unobserved.
The whole 'acting logically' thing is absolutely a strawman, and not a particularly good one at that. No, characters don't have to be 'logical.' What they have to be is *internally consistent.* The best characters are complicated, messy, and have an internal logic that drives them. Dorothy from Wizard of Oz wants to get back home. If she'd gotten to the Wicked Witch's castle and been like 'hey can we team up I don't care about my friends and want to stay in Oz' that would be a plothole - internally inconsistent. I mean, characters can change, evolve, and have traumatic or watershed moments that alter their core beliefs and goals (eg: Anakin Skywalker), but if you're going to do that, you need to have *some* reason shown or explained for it. Mechanical plotholes, ones that may or may not 'break' the story, would be something like SW VII where the super deathstar destroys several planets and you can see the attack and the destruction *in realtime* from systems light years away. Does this materially affect the plot? No. Is it a plothole? Absolutely. Do I care about it? ....not as much as some of the other BS they pull in that movie, but yes! Because that's not one of the established ways that Star Wars breaks physics - it's not internally consistent.
Yes, when people say 'acting logically' it usually means 'acting according to their established character'. We don't want to see the characters always doing the objectively best possible thing - we want to see their reasons for acting the way they do.
I wonder what he'd say if the Super Mario movie ends with Princess Peach being rescued and saying "Thanks bro. I owe ya one. Peace" then walked back to Bowser's Kingdom. Would he excuse it because people don't think logically and carry on with that nitpicky "plot hole"? We still got the story we got so if we should just enjoy it because a story can happen
Yea Basically a character has to act in accordance with how the Writer has defined them unless they experience a set of events which change them as a person so for instance Luke Skywalker should not be writing off his Nephew and considering killing the boy in his sleep considering he did his best to redeem his own father who on screen had done much worse!
Holdo never needed to tell him the details of the plan. She just needed to say that a plan existed. Poe sent people on a mission behind her back and organized a mutiny because he and all the crew members who mutinied with him were given the impression that there was no plan, that Holdo was just sending them to their deaths through inaction. She instead gave Poe a saying of Leia's, about how "hope is like the sun, if you only believe it when you can see it, you'll never make it through the night." But you know what, if it was 10 in the morning and the sun hadn't risen yet, I'd be demanding an explanation. The Resistance had lost their base planet, had most of their fighters blown up, lost almost every leader they had, and were low on fuel and unable to escape from a fleet trying to blow them all up. Telling them that they aren't hoping hard enough is insanely stupid and arrogant.
You got it exactly right. A competent leader inspires loyalty. Holdo provoked a mutiny. No commander owes any of his or her subordinates an explanation. But knows when morale is low and people need reassuring. No vague speech about hope does that. People tend to speak of hope when things are fucking dire. That only heightens tensions. A simple "you are out of line! We are proceeding as outlined by the confidential orders of admiral (or whatever she was) leia!" would have cleared it up. Or, you know, when poe begged her to tell him they had a plan she could have said "yes we do". The way she acted she betrayed leia's trust and endangered what was left of the resistance. The one and only time i saw TLJ I was convinced she was a traitor for quite some time. The alternatives: she is stupid or incompetent as a military leader. Or the people who made the film are...
@@Baalur I watched it twice. The first time I waited the entire movie for her to be revealed as a traitor because her behavior all through the movie made her feel like a villain. The weird defense I've heard for Holdo keeping the plans secret was that she was worried about traitors or spies, but on the second viewing of the movie, I noticed that no one ever suspects that. I assumed that the first order was following them because a traitor leaked their destination, and I think this is where that suspicion came from in the rest of the audience. But no one thinks of traitors, they all immediately jump to the conclusion that hyperspace tracking technology is a thing. So that entire argument is invalid.
Voldemort's plan is forgiveable because he and Crouch Jr had to wait until he was ready. And it was the Triwizard Cup because it separated Harry from anyone who could've helped him. And they knew Harry would reach it because Crouch was helping him and even took down two of the other champions to help ensure Harry would get there. There's nothing about that that is a plot hole
It's also the fact that Voldemort always had a sense for the dramatic and killing Harry on his return, in front of his Death Eaters, on the night of the Final Task of the Triwizard would be more impactful in his eyes. There's also the additional fear that would be invoked by the idea that he could just take Harry and kill him with such ease during the final of an international tournament right from under Dumbledore's nose. You can also see plenty of real world examples where terror attacks are targeted like this in terms of time and/or place. Using the triwizard cup only reinforces this idea, if he had succeeded I'd imagine that everyone else would be EVEN MORE terrified by him.
Also, Cedric would have been taken down if Harry hadn't chosen to help him when he got caught by the branches. Harry would have been the only one who reached the cup if he HIMSELF hadn't helped his competition.
With the Voldemort cup: not only is there sentimental value that deeply matters to the Dark Lord, there is at least one other reason it had to be the cup. The Triwizard Cup involves many exemptions to usual magical restrictions and rules, in particular Hogwarts had magical guards that stop any apparition in or out, including portkeys; Hermione explains this many times throughout the books. The maze in the Triwizard Cup was the best place to bypass this usual guard. This is because the 3 (well, 4 that year) school Champions need to use otherwise illegal magic to fight dragons or breath underwater and talk to mermaids or battle a sphinx. The other good reason to use the Cup is that Barty Crouch Jn, via Mad Eye Moody’s body, was able to secretly help Harry win throughout the year, so that only he would touch the cup, and not some other random witch or wizard. It had to be Harry, as Voldemort needed Harry’s mother’s blood. Finally: when Harry touches the cup, he was going to disappear and ideally be killed. This couldn’t happen elsewhere in the school year because other students and teachers would see him missing and immediately warn Dumbledore, Voldemort’s only magical rival. But while in the maze, all 4 champions are hidden from view, so Harry going missing for an hour or so wouldn’t have raised the alarm, giving Voldemort time to regain his body, kill Harry, and then escape before Dumbledore knew anything.
I didn't want to go into too much detail about that example (because I don't actually know that much about Harry Potter), but the point was that he's using an example of a plot hole and saying it doesn't matter, when in fact it's not a plot hole in the first place. He makes genuine and non-existent plot holes look exactly the same. A small point, but one of many, many flaws in his video.
Oh yeah, I get that. I just love Harry Potter and wanted to defend it! (The movies do have a few plotholes, and even the books have a couple if you really think about it, but on the whole it's a pretty coherent narrative.)
All which Patrick seemingly, or deliberately, ignored in his video. The thing here is that Patrick framed all plot holes as irrelevant, painting it in a broad stroke, whereas the relevance of these inconsistencies are in a case-to-case basis.
I'm not that in to Harry Potter, although I have seen most of the movies. But ever since I've seen Dishonored Wolf, Mauler and Rags dissect this video I've been curious if there was any lore-related reason why they didn't just make any random object a portkey. Thank you for the explanation!
Being a writer myself, plotholes, especially in major Hollywood productions, completely ruin my watching experience, because I just know that there are sooo many good writers out there that could've easily solved this problem, but they won't get hired and, consequently, end up financially unstable, bc they don't have the connections. In most cases, plotholes are indirect evidence and a side effect of elitism.
Still creating fiction is incredibly hard to do and plot holes are pretty much inevitable when creating it. It defiantly something any storyteller should always try to avoid at any point to make their story as thoroughly written as possible but it will never really be completely devoid of any flaws really.
"Humans do stupid stuff sometimes so it makes sense you see that in films" You know what else humans do all the time yet never happens in movies unless it has a point? Stuttering and tripping on your words. It's not shown in movies because it's not interesting, no matter how realistic it is.
I will posit one, SINGLE exception. In Willard, Crispin Glover's character gets heated essentially one time, and during this conversation, messes up a line. They kept it in. I don't mind it became a sort of impromptu character moment. He was so unused to conflict and outward expression that he can't even get it out right.
Martin Scorsese famously has his actors do a lot of improv in order to heighten the stuterry palpable realism of the scene. You're still right though. Because THAT is a stylistic choice and something he first needed to understand was usually unapealing in order to better play around with it.
All stupid things characters do in films are smart from their point of view and if the movie does not show why they are smart from their point of view: That's a plothole.
I t is shown in some movies, but it has a purpose, you won't see a determined character stutter despite it being really common to see a determined person stutter irl, because it would be conflicting with the idea that is being conveyed or trying to be conveyed. But you WILL see doubtful characters stutter, to show you how doubtful they are.
I notice the way that he is LITERALLY looking down at us the viewers. You wanna come across as pretentious? Cause that's how you come across as pretentious. (And the sunglasses. That comes across as pretentious as well) Also there is a difference between constructive and destructive criticism. The line is not very well defined, but we need to recognize constructive criticism and realize it is not a bad thing
Alfred Bester has a phrase about constructive criticism: Editor: Have you heard of constructive criticism? Bester: Yes. I've also heard of fairies and unicorns. That doesn't mean I believe in them. Jokes aside, I'm all in favor of constructive criticism. What I'm not in favor of is condescension (like what Patrick does in his videos) and dick-sucking (what fanboys do). So this Cynical Review is right on the money for me. But that's just my opinion (mandatory 2019 excuse restating the obvious for the snowflakes).
Yeah hes a prick but throwing around the word pretentious just makes you sound unwilling and incapable of understanding subject matter. But you are 100% right, hes a total ass hat.
It IS a plot hole sometimes. especially in something like 24, where you see an entire day in one go. just have 2 other characters talk andthen see Jack Bauer come out of the mens room.
Because we don’t have to spend time seeing characters go to toilets because they probably did and the films rightfully skipped over it by cutting from when they have breakfast to appearing at work. In some films that can be a bit of a problem, if we saw a character get out of bed and just go straight to work. I am not at all backing Patrick’s ridiculous arguments since they always make me laugh, but complaining about just simple little things like this is going overboard. In some films where we do see characters doing household chores or just certain home routines, they are often done in montages. American Psycho is a great example of that, where Patrick Bateman monologues about his morning routine.
@@jamesduffy7549 I will defend the Dark Knight Rises example because it was shown in Batman Begins, that Bruce managed to travel all the way to China in his twenties before he became Batman and the Dark Knight had him hiring South Korean Smugglers to smuggle him into Hong Kong. Bruce knows people and that was established in the movies already. Complaining about that scene is like complaining about Tony being an idiot for creating Ultron when he already made Jarvis who turned out fine.
Nickkiller -07 if I catch it on the first viewing it’s bad and lazy writing if I notice it on second viewing it’s not good writing and meh if it’s after that I don’t care that much and can forgive them if they aren’t huge or completely world breaking
Thank you very much for posting this. I'm actually trying to write short stories, but always panic about whether there's something I've missed that's out of place, in terms of the plot or characterisation. It's annoying to see someone like Patrick Willems claim that internal logic and consistency don't matter, because it tells aspiring writers and creators that their efforts don't matter, as you and YMS pointed out. I'm very interested in developing my own writing and it's great to watch someone talk about storytelling and criticism in this way. Great video and very much appreciated.
I'l wright you a short story without internal logic and consistency, then let let me me know who will be the better writer you or me: Attempt short history of the keyboard endevors part 6. Working on his second language skills a Man has some time to kill and procedes to do so. Hoping to write a senseable story without corralation. yeah no, does not work.
It also tells people like you that plot inconsistencies don't matter and will in turn make you a worse writer. Plot holes should only occur due to lack of oversight and incompetence.
I've been writing for just a few years, but one thing I realized early on was the fact that I'm responsible for every word, every comma, every thought that gets transmitted to the reader. Kind of obvious. But to your point, Silver - I do quite a bit of re-writing, which involves a ton of re-reading, to the point where I've basically memorized a whole short story, even an entire novel. When you know your story that well, the inconsistencies and flaws become more and more obvious - so it's easy to seek them out, and polish the story 'til it hits the mark for you. Takes a lot of hours, though - sometimes I even put a story aside for months, and come back to it with fresh energy and perspective. All the best with your writing (Seems wrong to say good luck:)
Voldemort being sentimental with certain objects are actually fitting for a person like him. Psychologists have found that many if not all psychopaths, or in case of Voldemort, unloving murderers tend to give sentiment on objects instead on people. So yes Voldemort making the Tri-wizard cup a portkey make sense, it's the same thing with his horcruxes and with the film, how he handles the elder wand
Karl Beltran yes. And Voldemort is theatrical asf. And I found his mentioning of any HP film to be ridiculous but GOF especially. They’re based off of pretty solid books and GOF Definitely left out the most. So....I don’t know; it was a dumb attempt at an example for me
@@seybertooth9282 Hey I'm just here to point out something and if you don't like it you can just leave sir... Anyways have you actually written a book? It's so easy to insult somebody's product/s and just neglect the amount of work he/she has to put through to get things done. Say what you want about Rowling's work but give some time to acknowledge not just her but all creator's the work that they've put on just to make it all happen. Easy for you to say, if you actually do writing then good for you and you'll understand this point, but if you don't why don't you write something and stop bitchin about someone else's work.
And if we couldn't watch movies wrong then Indiana Jones would have drowned on his ride on submarine because yeah, EVERYBODY knows subs are made for underwater movement and the fact that german submarines of that time were actually much better off on the surface would not matter at all. And the fact that soldiers in the army that is in the receiving end damagewise tend to stop fighting when their military leaders make big blunders and the only way around that problem is to let civilian leaders say :"We have plan" does not matter because everybody knows Holdo should have said they had a plan. And so on.
A piece of media is like a clock. Plot holes are minor imperfections - if there is few (to an acceptable degree) plot holes, then the clock works fine. If there is too many... Well, that clock's utterly shagged.
Exactly. THE KARATE KID works perfectly and beautifully. Who cares that they let a loose piece of dialogue through that contradicted the end move? Nobody.
@@SPVFilmsLtd and it still works however you cut it, at that point it wasn't even about the tournament bout, it was all about the two kids and their conflict, Daniels victory was his own over other character who's name I can for the life of me remember right now. The tournament's just a window dressing to the real conflict at that point.
@@username12120 he was an 80s antagonist so it probably started with a B. Edit: it was Johnny, and yet I still want to say it was something like Butch.
actually that Die Hard reference is wrong. the bad guys can't shut down the power grid until they break into the vault. the black guy with the glasses that was working on the vault said so. if they shut down the power 1st. the city workers & police would be all over them before taking over the building. so even Patrick's plotholes have plotholes.
I always assumed that the power lines to the vault were secured so you wouldn't be able to simply cut the power. After all the company owns the building. They could have built it so that the power lines for the vault are surrounded by cement and if you used explosives, you'd blow a hole into the building. Back then that sounded reasonable considering the unreasonably secured vault. 7 locks, really?
It wasn't his plot hole. It was a "plot hole" from movieplotholes.com. He shows this in his video. It is shown in this video. And this argument proves one of Patrick's points. That many so called plot holes are explained in the movie if you actually watch it.
I actually had this same argument with a friend of mine regarding She-Ra. The final season opened so many plot holes it blew my mind. Plot holes can be really important to our enjoyment of a story.
At 11:50 the "plot hole" in The Wizard of Oz is explained at the end of the movie. Glinda specifically says: "She wouldn't have believed me, she had to learn it for herself."
Still a bit contrived though and it took me out of the movie. Why did she need to learn to tap her shoes together? Was it because she needed to learn to want home? She already wanted to go home.
@@joshuabell7761 It's not exactly perfect, but the movie does spend the entire first act with Dorothy looking away from home and seeking something better. She even tries to run away. In her mind home is the source of all her problems. I also took the "She wouldn't have believed me" part as Dorothy wouldn't have believed that she actually had the ability to take herself home. She had to learn about her own strength of character first. In terms of plot holes, I always figured the one part that was never resolved was that the sheriff's order to have Toto destroyed was still standing by the end of the film.
It's a plot hole MGM created when they decided to turn the Good Witches of the North and South into one character. In the Munchkin Village, it was the Good Witch of the North who told Dorothy to see the Wizard. After the Wizard leaves without her, it was the Good Witch of the South who told Dorothy that her shoes have the power to take her home.
@@v1de0gamr23 I read the book like 30 years ago so I could be completely wrong on this, but I thought Dorothy was named queen of the flying monkeys and they flew her home? Or something like that. For some reason I seem to remember that the slippers don't take her home in the book.
Funfact, the acid blood not going through the shop all the way isn't odd or a plothole. Think about it, if you drop acid on the ground, does it burn all the way to the core? Ofcourse not, the longer a acid spends corroding material, the less effective it becomes till it doesn't corrode anymore.
hasábburgonya Precisely. Acid is a compound that changes the compound itself in a chemical reaction. A finite amount will react until it there’s nothing left to react (provided there’s something for it to react with). IOW: Acid burning through everything would be like a candle that never stops burning.
@Seymon Mart It would be extremely hard to predict what an entirely independent species evolving for who knows how long that's supposedly the perfect hunter is capable of. Who knows what kinds of compounds it could great through all that time. And also there is Fluoroantimonic Acid is pretty crazy but if that were what was used anytime a character got alien blood on them it would completely melt them and flood the air with poisonous gas and causing them to explode. Makes the aliens blood seem nice lmao
@@lzdrake6455 That's the price and utility of working out a dormant muscle. Keep training that brain to process heavier burdens, don't let the damn oppressive thought policing zeitgest zealots subjugate your seminal automonous sentient volition! )
I will say this. You at most minimum level, have at least made good-faith arguments. You presented the opposing claims in full and gave your opponent a logical out. Moving upward, you also made good empathetic arguments by going into each claim and rebutting them in detail one by one, as well as considering his rationale and mentioning both valid and invalid arguments they have used. I respect that. I love seeing critical-thinking based critiques where whether or not i agree with the critique, i come out even just a little bit wiser. Great job.
Thank God this Patrick-Clown is proven wrong more and more by 'Good-Faith-Criticism-Essays' getting more and more popular recently. I mean, look at Jay Exci covering Doctor Who, Madvocate covering The Flash and Hbomberguy covering Sherlock, RWBY and various Concepts, with hour-long Videos that are so damn-good that people comment seperately from each other: Wow, i do not even know this show this video is about but i watched it all. What i'm trying to say here, i guess, is: Dont miss out and check those out, as well as various people talking about High Guardian Spice and Santa Inc.
While I agree with that, all that basically means is that all characters make decisions off of their own internal logic. This is something they teach you in acting, that way you know why your character makes their decisions and they don’t feel hollow. The thing is though, their logic can help drive the plot, but it must be consistent and well stated, otherwise it’s just plot convenience. Good writers know that a story is pushed and pulled by the ideology of the characters, and that’s what makes the these specific characters essential.
As a sort of hobbyist storywriter that actually tries to research how to make good stories, this is an extremely infuriating man and I can only imagine how irritated those who like reviewing stories are right now.
As a writer who makes stories for fun and as a hobby, I've been doing research on how to properly write a story good enough to stand on it's own. This reviewer is making me wonder if he has actually done research on how to write a story.
@@dawnbreaker4217 You would be surprised how little real storytelling is appreciated nowadays. Based off the drek vomited out into theaters, tv, and streaming nowadays, most people in Hollywood couldn't recognized a good story if it crapped on their $500,000 car. While the majority of writing is solitary, improving as a writer requires outside input. There is only so far you can advance on your own before you need a critique group and beta readers. The 'writers' that fight against basic things like plot holes being a problem are probably the people who don't listen to criticism and think they are always right.
Exactly, don't allow your movie or book to be incoherent just because you didn't pay enough attentionwhile making it. Strive for absolute perfection, and I'll meet you halfway there
In other words, characters don't have to act logically, but the way that they act should be logical to us (or make sense to us) even if it's an emotional reaction from their perspective.
People finding detailed plot holes in movies shows that they care about them. It's better than forgotting a movie you just viewed the same minute it ends.
@@ZenoDLC True. I meant by "believable" to emphasize "consistency". I might not actually believe a story or believe in its theme, but I should be able to follow it and at least see how someone might believe it.
@@ZenoDLC there's different ways to achieve the goal, if you're making a really surreal film for example, other rules will apply and people's expectations will be different; but otherwise I agree
Well, apparently great writing and story-telling, the reasons I started loving movies, isn’t important. Cool, I’ll just passively watch stuff like a vegetable now.
i think the part that for some reason infuriates me the most is the camera shot used for 'you're watching movies wrong' its a shot where he is actually looking down at you.
That's funny,when I 1st saw the scene something about it just bugged me,but it wasn't until I read your comment that it clicked,and it just became clear why I couldn't take it serious,if anyone ever want me personally to listen to what they have to say,that sure isn't the way to do it.
People don't act entirely rational all the time, but that doesn't mean when we don't it doesn't make sense. Emotions can get the better of us in situations where it appears obvious to everyone else not to lash out or do something stupid. You can have an otherwise perfectly rational character act irrational provided there is context (i.e. someone they strongly cared about just died) for them to do so. But if you have characters act (radically) different for no discernible reason in/between scenes, that isn't a reflection of how people behave. That's bad writing/storytelling.
And depending on the severity of the break in logic and the amount of logic breaks that happen, is ultimately what I think most people really have a problem with. We can overlook and forgive inconsistencies when they're minor and/or aren't that many of, but when the whole movie's littered with them (like TLJ), it's virtually impossible not to notice and be frustrated by. Like you said, "degrees".
I'm reminded of trial 4 in Danganronpa Trigger Happy Havoc. If I recall correctly, Ashaina was tryna punish everyone for pressuring Ogami into killing herself, and Byakuya made the mistake of thinking that those who kill/mislead want to benefit themselves, so he fell for Asahina's lies as she played on his logical thinking pattern to lure him to death. Also I think Kyoko said something about Byakuya failing to solve the case becuz not everyone acts according to cost-benefit diagrams? Also, there's another cost-benefit diagram (designed to help the world instead of the self) found in SDR2: Goodbye Despair where Nagito learned that he and his classmates were evil and forgot that truth, so he tried to make sure Monokuma can't guide them back to that evil path by trapping them in an unsolvable murder case, knowing they'd try to rely on logic and deductions and fail when the evidence is revealed to be insufficient. Other logical factors of Nagito's plan involved the traitor. Logically, if the traitor is the enemy of those who would induce despair, there is no reason to protect those enemies, so the traitor should use Nagito's luck to try to survive alone and make sure hope can live on. Everything up to the case 5 summary goes according to Nagito's plan: Nagito prepares to die while everyone looks for bombs that are actually fireworks; as the time of fire ignition in warehouse draws near, he mutilates himself so at first everyone will think he suicided; everyone threw extinguisher grenades randomly, not knowing one was poisoned, with the traitor ending up throwing the bad one; the traitor not revealing themselves during the scare and continuing to protect their identity afterwards; learning that the killer killed by random chance and can't be traced. However, when encouraged to give up and vote for the killer randomly, which would still give the killer a high chance of survival, the traitor says it's too early to give up in spite of insufficient evidence. Then, logic gets thrown out the window after the case 5 summary, and even though the traitor reveals herself and talks nonsense (sudden robot talk and suspicious attempts to hurry everyone's votes) she convinces everyone (in less than an hour) to go on an irrelevant tangent and trust her enough to vote for her, in spite of logic saying "She is the enemy and is still acting suspicious so don't listen" and "Assuming she is the killer just cuz she's the traitor is foolish" and "Hajime says it doesn't matter who the traitor is, and yet we talked about it for minutes". The traitor knew what the others were before Nagito did and acted against her better judgment, knowing that she can't be a guardian of the world if she died. As much as I despise the logical fallacies of this trial, it is what it is: a list of decisions made by emotions and wild assumptions and calculations are deliberately dismissed because the story wouldn't be interesting if the most logical path was followed. Another example from the Last Airbender and Legend of Korra series: When Katara bloodbent that puppetmaster, she didn't do anything wrong (unless waterbending in the fire nation is wrong) becuz she used that power to hold her target in place (not something she hasn't done before even though blood wasn't used before), killed nobody that night, didn't lose Aang or Sokka, ended up being the one person to defeat an unstoppable force of terror that no one else could beat (and I'm certain a lot of people were relieved to know the puppeteering charade was done), and if we assume her actions were correct in this moment, did she logically analyze whether or not her actions were correct/righteous? *No.* She focused on the fact that she bent blood (ok fine, maybe also the fact that the puppetmaster tried to imply that she's not different), and went on to make a law against the same power that she possesses. If what she did that night was correct, then her reactions are emotionally irrational. Not sure if that was bad writing or part of her character. Personally, I think making that law goes against some of her character traits, such as her supposed desire for bending freedom (an issue discussed in season 1 of A:TLA). It's just... not like her. Is what I wanna say, but like you said MisterA: "You can have an otherwise perfectly rational character act irrational provided there is context."
You don't "watch movies wrong." That's the thing, movies elicit reactions from viewers, and if plotholes are the size of the Milky Way, it will elicit negative reactions no matter what. If it's a minor one, it won't interfere with the audiences' suspension of disbelief.
I am right there with you. When someone tells me to turn off my brain and just be entertained by a story, that just tells me they're excusing lazy writing. While yes, characters can act impulsive and illogically, they can't act out of character or randomly. For example, Guts in Berserk is one of the most impulsive characters I know, yet he always acts in a way that makes sense. Same with Walter White from Breaking Bad. The whole show is essentially a case study of what happens when you act irrationally. Walter is an extremely impulsive character, but every time he acts in a way that's consistent with his character, and makes sense in the story's logic.
I prefer your definition of a plot hole. “Plot hole” would literally mean a lapse in the plot, or a kind of chasm in the storytelling or world building
Voldemort wanted to return to the one home he ever really knew, triumphantly and the winner of the tri wizard tournament and in front of a crowd of witnesses to fight and have join his wizardry hitlary there were familes that attended, so that would make his terror even larger and he would influence the wizards world
I mean, in the first book he wanted to have his triumphant return on Halloween, the day he was defeated. The second, he wanted to come back with a giant snake. The most consistent part of Voldemort's plans is that he is a giant drama queen with a flair for the dramatic.
@@alexross1816 I would point that really Voldemort's plan in the first four books was get a new body. Hence he wanted the stone in the first book. The second book he had no real involvement in the main story other than giving Lucius his old Diary. He figured he could cause some chaos and kill a few more muggleborn's while he was waiting to get another body. Plus I honestly saw him wanting to kill Harry as his main goal. He was perfectly willing to go stay relatively under the radar in the next book where didn't seem to mind the Ministry of Magic was denying he is back until the ending where they see him in person.
The reason he used the triwizard tournament is because, as is stated (no exaggeration) at least 20 times in the books, and I KNOW at least twice in the movies, there is no transport in or out of hogwarts by magical means. There are exactly two exceptions. The pair of vanishing cabinets from year 5 were able to transcend this likely due to an oversight in hogwarts defenses, or that particular kind of transportation being unable to be blocked, and is controlled simply by banning them, however the room of hidden things is a pretty good place to hide such contraband. The second time was movie exclusive, where in movie 6 Dumbledore says on no uncertain terms that being the headmaster makes him immune to the castles defenses, so he can apparate in and out of hogwarts, but only him. The tri-wizard cup was chosen because it was to be a portkey that was specifically allowed past all of the transportation requirements of hogwarts, given special privileges, and made immune to all of hogwart's defences. Therefore it's actually pretty much the opposite of a plothole if you ask me.
He could have done it earlier still. And what you say is merely assumption as far as I know, it isn't explained in the book, Voldemort's plans usually make sense, but this one was too risky, when he could have instead have fake Mad-eye Moody be friendly to Harry, invite him in his office, make him touch a portkey and kaboom! we are all in the cementery, let's make it they way it was in the book. What JKR should have done is provide a reason or reasons why that couldn't be done, or why the characters didn't want to do it
@@Doctor_Straing_Strange Character flaws are not the same as story flaws. In addition his plan wasn't that risky. He needed Harry to disappear without raising red flags. A tournament known to be lethal with the task taking place in a maze is a perfect cover. He also took the precaution of having Crouch as Moody use the Imperious curse on Krum to make sure Harry reached the cup first. The fact he choose the cup was also foreshadowing for his fatal flaw vanity. It is mentioned in Half-Blood Prince that Voldemort could have made himself invincible by making a random rock a horcrux, but he was too vain to do that. Each Horcrux was an important object for him personally and most were also important magic objects with three being personally connected to the wizards who founded Hogwarts.
Using Pulp Fiction’s scene where Butch and Marcellus have their mouths blocked was a genius idea to illustrate the way Patrick wants people to approach films.
Full disclosure - I am probably one of those people who can look at a movie and be completely satisfied with all the plot holes and mistakes presented so long as they got big shiny effects. (Apparently, I am nuts for liking the x-men movies and the transformer movies XD). So plot holes rarely come to mind. That being said, I can completely understand pointing out plotholes and the likes. Since at the end of the day, if the film-makers that do care listen, it will hopefully ultimately lead to better stories and movies for us to enjoy in the future.
That's exactly it. I don't have a problem with people enjoying movies with big plot holes or people overlooking plot holes because they like the movie. Enjoy stuff all you want! I was just trying to argue the point that plot holes (where valid) do affect the quality of a film.
As the video states, part of the problem is Patrick Willem runs way too fast and loose with the definition of "plot hole." Continuity errors are not plot holes unless they are so egregious, they actually derail the plot. I would say continuity errors don't normally effect the story and aren't a problem beyond a small distraction. Real plot holes leave you thinking, "Well, that was stupid" and if they go too far, it makes the whole story stupid.
ressljs - This is likely where Patrick would say "You are watching movies wrong" he is (imho) arguing that continuity errors are *not* plot holes, and getting angry that people call them as such, Cynical points this out by saying he conflates this with things that actually ARE plot holes so as to lessen the damage that real plot holes do to the integrity of the film itself. I myself enjoy a lot of films with a lot of plot holes, purely because when I go to watch a film, be it an amazing film like The Shawshank Redemption, or something silly and amusing like Mr Deeds (note - I am not saying these films have plot holes, they might, but IDK if they do or not), I have an ability to turn of the critical thinking part of my brain, and watch the film in its entirety and enjoy it without having to analyze the plot and its subsequent holes. I consider this to be one of my greatest assets as it allows me to be satisfied with a lot of things that most people dislike. So when I watch or play something, I almost always get value for my money when it comes to entertainment, the people who nitpick the plot holes are left bitter because they paid for something and are not satisfied on what they "wasted" their money on. There could be hundreds of reasons people think this way, but seeing as I don't think this way I can't presume to tell people why they think in a certain way, but from my perspective, being able to enjoy any type of media without worrying about plot holes means I get a lot more value for my money than a lot of other consumers, so to me I could say "you are consuming (insert media) wrong" in a bid to try and get you to be more satisfied with what you spend your money on, it wouldn't be me saying you're wrong for thinking this, it would be me trying to make you see it from my perspective so you would find more satisfaction with your choice of media. What you do from there is entirely up to you.
Good points. And even though I disagree with a lot of what Willems said (I think a lot of it had to do with his tone more than the message), I do sort of agree with some of his overall argument. I've stopped watching "Everything wrong with (insert movie here)!" videos because they are looking for ANYTHING to complain about. So you get relatively small plot holes blown out of proportion. For example, I heard people make a big deal about the two guys who got lost in Prometheus included the guy with the mapping equipment. Does it make sense that they would be the ones to get lost? No, but it really doesn't impact the story much. I didn't even notice the first time I watched it. But to say plot holes in general don't matter is a bit excessive. General Holdo's plan of letting the First Order pick off the fleet until they're down to one ship, and then everyone flees to a nearby planet in escape pods... The first order can track ships throw hyperspace but wouldn't notice escape pods or a fricken planet?! That just makes the whole movie seem dumb.
You remember that scene in the Simpsons where Skinner tells Edna, "I've always admired your ability to get personally offended by broad social trends."? Well, that's what we have here. Some jackass doesn't like videos that criticize aspects of films that he considers trivial (I'm thinking he specifically doesn't like the Everything Wrong With series), and decides the time has come to set the world to rights. Christ, what a dingleberry. Plot holes DO matter, just as every other mistake or deficiency in a film (or any other art form) do. It's a matter of DEGREE. Some plot holes are minor, some are lethal. This is basically the same argument we went through when Abstract Expressionism became the dominant genre in painting. "Hell, my five-year-old nephew can paint as well as that!" It's a matter of TASTE; neither the painter nor the philistine is objectively "wrong" in such a conflict.
Don't know if anyone has noticed but, can we all take a moment to appreciate that this video has more views than the actual Patrick Willems Plot Holes video?
5:30 Actually, the Indiana Jones "plot hole" isn't a plot hole. Subs back then only dove into the water if they had to, and the rest of the rest of the time they coasted along the service. If I were to guess, that used to be a commonly known fact that just got lost to time as submarine technology improved, and coasting was no longer necessary. If I posted this already, sorry, I have a bad memory.
Wait, do we see the submarine actually diving during the film? Because that explanation is perfect, u-boats were diese powered and indeed neded to stay afloat most time
@@juanordonezgalban2278 I think we see it pop up right at the end of the montage, but that could have easily been a very shallow dive for a brief amount of time. My friend told me the explanation. He knows a lot about history and military technology so I trust him.
This is something that not only *I* knew about, but a lot of people back in 1981 also knew about. And this is literally the point that Patrick is making that Cynical Review cynically misses; cinematic language isn't absolute - it evolves, changes and is made for a certain time and era. Likewise the DARK KNIGHT RISES point is basically an issue of viewers being out of step with the language of the film (granted a very flawed and messy film). How did Bruce Wayne get back to Gotham City? Coz he's the goddamn Batman, that's why. Patrick's point is that film fans make the same mistake that Cynical Review makes across his entire rebuttal; he thinks movies are some kind of inert, absolute, objective language when in fact they're nothing of the sort. Some films only have plot holes NOW because younger audiences don't know what is going on whereas the audience at the time of the film's release were able to understand the contextual short-hand. I like Cynical Review's content, but he's completely wrong in this instance. Or maybe he's just very young and hasn't seen enough films across a variety of eras to see Patrick's point (I also don't completely agree with Patrick's points or some of his examples in his original video, but on the whole he's correct in terms of why people see plot holes where none exist and also why people DON'T see obvious plot holes when they DO exist).
Also, for me, the hole Indiana Jones series, even starting from Raiders, is FULL of impossible stuff. Indy is superhuman, as are other people in the movie. The tone of this is set at the very opening scene, and it never backs away from that. So the sub thing is just another entry in the stack of "awesome things that happen or Indy does, just because it's awesome". This, the fridge scene from crystal skull, and being 100% okay after falling from a plane with an inflatable raft are all in this same category of "it's okay because we've already established that these films are not grounded in reality".
@@misfit119 Wait. Let me get this straight. You think that a movie where a man dressed in kevlar armor with physics-defying hang-glider/wingsuit device strapped to his back, armed with computer and battle technology that doesn't even exist yet and who is capable of beating up countless number of armed thugs and trained mercs single-handedly.... ...AND who owns what is ostensibly a gravity-defying, black FLYING SAUCER.... ...and has a portable EMP device that can blackout streetlights and other electrical devices around him while not affecting his own highly sensitive and electronic vehicles... ...is in a movie that's SO REALISTIC...that you can't fathom why said man, who is shown to be not only a survival expert, but also a trained ninja and one of the most richest people on the planet, could possibly have gotten back from some backwater part of the Indian Desert and to Gotham City unless it SHOWED you how he did it? I mean...even if the Nolan films were 'realistic' (they aren't)...given what is established about his character within those three films, it is very well established that you NEED to break his back AND stick him in a hole he cannot escape from in order to INSURE that he won't get back to Gotham and spoil the villains plains. Like the movie shows you the extent that they have to imprison him in order to make sure he doesn't just come back. I'm not sure you've watched the movie as carefully as you think you might have?
Urgh, Patrick is the guy who comes to tell you you're playing Magic wrong, after he just lost to you, cause his 'mechanics' were too 'advanced' for you.
@@Kryptnyt There's a certain level of complexity where very few human beings can truly understand everything without looking stuff up. Hell there are rules made just because the game has literal paradoxes involved (opalescence/humility)
It's been a while since I've seen it but I'm not sure there are huge plot holes in That story. More badly written characters, acting, and whole bunch of other things that go into making a movie. The overall plot did technically make sense a guy who thinks he's going to be promoted and marry the love of his life is passed over and his fiance doesn't love him spreads rumors about him and fucks his best friend so he becomes depressed and kills himself.
The one point he's trying to make. Badly, but he's trying to make it is that dropped plot threads aren't plot holes. Again, bad writing does not equal plot hole.
I remember the first time I saw the movie "Ready Player One" I was completely blown away with the plot holes in there. I don't normally try to call out plot holes in movies unless theyre really glaring . But man that movie had some awful ones, and it wouldn't matter so much if the movie didn't prove to me so hard that it had an explanation for it's plot holes in the form of "true gamer" Tye Sheridan. I think I noticed all of the plot holes in that movie on the first viewing, they are that glaring. And It really fucks up the rest of the movie because of how interwoven it is with the setting, and the world building. I was immediately taken out of the movie and couldn't get immersed in it afterwards
Like the biggest plot hole: every single "Easter egg" challenge you have to do is something that regular people would've figured out within an hour. The first one is driving backwards in a racing game
The Beauty and the Beast remake was basically an attempt to answer some minor nitpicks from the animation version (wasn't the prince little kid when he got cursed? why the servants got cursed too? where is Belle's mom?)... by creating huge plot holes!
Unraveler I'm curious what you mean by that? I'm glad that they addressed some of those points as it expanded the wolrd a lot more, but I wasn't aware that it created plot holes. Could you elaborate what those plotholes were, because this has really peaked my interest.
@@annjowolfe1561 The servants were cursed because they claimed they didn't do jack shit to make the prince a better person. But after all - they were just servants, and they said that the prince was influenced by his father, which was a cruel king (and in a Monarchy society - it simply translates into a tyrant) so how much power did the servants have to begin with in order to change the prince's personality? What happened to Belle's mom (A question that only the nitpickiest type of people are asking)? Well, let's me introduce you to that convenience plot item - a book which let you teleport anywhere, to show you that she's dead, happy? BTW, that teleportation book is never going to be mentioned again! Hey, also remember the good enchantress? She is still a good person, even though she has raised the stake by making that if the curse wouldn't be broken in time, all servants would change from enchanted objects to inanimate objects (Basically - they would die)! By the way, did I mention that the enchantress is still a good enchantress? A RUclipsr named Lindsay Ellis explains in details all the problems in the new remake!
Personally I think them trying to "fix" B&B and ended up making a less interesting movie, with less interesting characters... As the great Lindsey Ellis said "thanks. I hate it"
Game of Thrones has taken the mantle of (Plot Holes don't Matter). To be fair I never watched a single episode of Got, I'm just picking this up from what I've seen...
This argument existed long before the last few years with Star Wars. I know I've been hearing it for the last 20 years myself over a vast array of movies and I'm not usually that harsh about them.
There's a huge discussion about what can be considered "plot hole" and what is, in actuality, too many cooks spoiling the broth during pre-production, and in committee, no less. FOR EXAMPLE, I get the distinct impression that many fans consider Luke throwing the light-saber away to be some form of plot hole. I can *almost* see why this could be considered true, but it's *NOT* really a plot hole. It is an unexplained *REQUIREMENT* which may have even been something which George Lucas himself presented to Disney / the development team, when he sold the Ranch. It does actually make a kind of sense to have Luke take a radically different stance to his Jedi-ness (without a saber!) especially considering how his primary Master was Obi-Wan, Mr. Don't Lose Your Lightsaber (for all the good it does him). I can even find written reasons in places like the Tao Te Ching for this artistic decision, which also makes sense, given the various influences SW had, including Kurosawa.
I actually don't consider the light saber thing a plothole because it's not. it's a misunderstanding of action. his leaving his lightsaber where it was speaks of a classic archetype and action of the warrior who lays aside his sword to no longer fight. This usually means that it is kept somewhere safe but not within easy reach to be used and the ex-warrior takes on a more sage-like role and position from that point. John Wick to some extent is built along this same archetype with his promise to his wife and his weapons sealed below the basement floor in cement. It's actually an important archetype to some kinds of stories and cultures. I have issues with several other parts of the movies myself.
I've always loved the way that voldemort was written, at least in the sense that his "plot holes" were more a way to show how stupidly egotistical and symbolic he was, despite being so intelligent. I mean, he was so full of himself that he could not stand that a baby survived with magic he did not understand, and in turn spent the rest of his life trying to torment and toy with Harry's life, rather than straight up killing him at any point. He needed it to be symbolic, to cause as much pain as he could, despite the fact that he could have just let the singular baby he could not kill go and continue with his original plan of becoming the dark lord. No... he was so blinded with embarrassment and rage that he had to kill Harry.
The real plot hole of 'Goblet of Fire' is why Harry competed at all? He knew he didn't put his name in the goblet, nobody he knows put it in for him, and none of the faculty know how anyone could have gotten around the goblet's magical security system to put his name in. Obviously somebody wanted him in the tournament, and there had been several attempts on his life over the previous three years. That seems to me like enough red flags for Harry to refuse to set one foot on the competition field 👍
@@v1de0gamr23 Harry just doesn't seemto realize he have a choice in the matter, and no one tell him so, I guess it's just imposible to refuse to participate ^^'
@@v1de0gamr23 you cant refuse to participate in TriWizard tournament. It is like unbreakable wow, if you refuse something bad happened. This was explain in book.
@Adrijana Radosevic 1. Gotham City is not a real city. It's a fictional city in a fictional world.The CIA might not even be the same as the one we both know.. since it's a fictional entity... y'know ? ;) 2. Isn't it made clear in the movie that the government(s) have decided not to act because the risk of being discovered is too great? - you might think their decision is stupid, but it's not a plot hole since it's explained. Bane isn't holding them off, he simply told them if anyone tried to cross, he'd make the bomb explode.
@@timothebouchard679 Also I would point the plot point was taken somewhat from storyline from Batman's No Man's Land where the government pretty said Congress to Gotham Drop Dead. It was viewed as unrealistic at the time, but Hurricane Katrina had a very similar reaction from the government. Sometimes things that seem unrealistic can actually happen. Some based on a true story movies have to tone down stuff because they expect them to be seen as too absurd. Like Public Enemies. Dillinger actually tricked almost two dozen people with that that painted block of wood he acted was a gun.
CinemaSins claims they're not reviewers but, if you watch their actual reviews, then compare them to a sins video, there's alot of similarities, which leads me to believe that their sins videos are what they actually think of the movie.
I honestly don't know anymore - the lines between their serious criticisms and their "funny" nitpicks have become so blurred that I don't know what to think. Either way, I'm not a fan of theirs.
Eh.. I dunno. They sinned movies that they obviously loved. And why not. It's really just entertainment, with varying degrees of quality and success IMHO.
Thats because it can be both. They nitpick movies but at the same time if they notice general themes being done over and over and over and over again it really does effect the enjoyment of movies. They have a youtube channel dedicated to picking on cliches and fuck ups. Of course a movie with nothing but cliches is not going to be enjoyable to them. They've already seen it 100 times before.
GOD BLESS YOU 🙏, also as a filmmaker, I TRULY appreciate your passion for convincing and coherent storytelling! The story of any film, in my perspective, is ALWAYS the BACKBONE to make me care about watching the film! If the plot extremely lacks key story elements, then I'll stop watching the film. PERIOD! Keep these coming!
I'm not a filmmaker myself, but I do enjoy writing and telling stories, so plot holes and lazy writing get on my nerves too. That's part of the reason I hated A Quiet Place and skipped the last 20 or so minutes; the entire concept started to break down around halfway through. It felt to me like the writers took a script that was meant to be a 15-20 minute short film and tried to stretch it into a feature length movie without thinking the concept all the way through.
Dargonhuman I'm very glad you can sympathize with me, and I do wish you the best, if you decide to make a career in telling great stories. You also can be a great executive producer! Plus, THANK YOU for saving me time from watching A Quiet Place 😂!
Only because how Modern NC is like. In the old days are stuff that was he deliberately exaggerating and he made three videos acknowledging fuck-ups he did.
18:00 The thing here is that, characters having poor motivation, characters being static, characters not growing, the stuff that he thinks matter... All of those can be caused by plot holes in the story!
@@savage1267 Stories are not real life, not every character must have an arc, but characters in stories tend to be more changeable, yet also more logical and predictable than real people.
What's more, he complains about the "massive contrivance", despite listing contrivances as a thing that doesn't matter in his montage of punching out the strawman guy.
I think the worst part is that captain sunglasses is ignoring the difference between rationale and logic. Characters don’t always act logically but they should act rationally, like you said, they should act with purpose but they don’t have to act logically. Ironically enough...that’s how people work. We don’t always act logically and that’s fine, but most people do act rationally. The difference between real life and fictional media is that the media has to show that rationale while in real life we don’t always see the rationality that defines someone’s logic. But it is there, it has to be in order for most people to make a decision. For all good and bad decisions people have made some form of rationale to justify what they see as a logical decision even if objectively it isn’t. So in essence....movie characters are human BECAUSE of their illogical rational behavior not in spite of it.
Agreed, but it's also in the writers creative freedom to decide who 'should act rationally' and make the movie however he/she likes. So inserting more or less subjective 'logic' to a movie - after the fact - doesn't really make it better, just different.
Dirface If world building is done correctly and all the logic remains consistent then the characters still must act rationally per that universe, the logic being subjective at least to me implies world building. Being that if the logic is subjective it isn’t what we come to expect in the real world, still must remain internally consistent.
@@romanlegion5837 Not really - then you would have to define 'correctly'. Film makers have the creative freedom to make whatever films they please (mostly). So they can apt to make the most irrelevant, illogical characters out there, if they so wish. At this very moment millions of people on RUclips are enjoying films that make little or no sense. So logic, rationale, plot holes etc makes little sense, if any, when used as a yardstick for art. Just like Patrick's video stated. Unless you are a Millennial, of course. But then all bets are off because you were basically born into the The Affective Fallacy.
There's something that's been left un-mentioned: Suspension of disbelief. Movies that are not based on a true story requires the watcher to suspend his disbelief. Even more so in fictional stories. No one can levitate a feather with a few words, but that disbelief is suspended in Harry Potter otherwise the books and movies become inconsistent... if you compare them with reality. So, to enjoy a movie, the audience will suspend their disbeliefs on multiple points. The problem rises with plot holes. We can, with a lot of suspension of disbelief, believe that Bruce lost all his fortune in a very visible, very public and very witnessed assault on Gotham's Wall Street. But if we accept that, we then plant in our head the concept that now, Batman is poor. So when he gets shipped in a hole in the middle of LITERALLY NOWHERE, our disbelief starts to creep up. How long did it takes for Bane to bring Batman there? It's not mentioned. How far is it? No idea. There's a pass-by line about it possibly being in the middle of Asia, but that makes us disbelieve even more how he goes from the hole to a town (that when he leaves the well, we don't see any in the shot shown), and then from the town he manages to obtain a ride to a city with an airport, Go where his cache of batman stuff is outside of Gotham (which was never established) spend precious hours building the flaming bat symbol (There's no way it was pre-made. There's no reason to make it on that particular bridge) and do all of that before the bomb explodes. With the setup that's already been told in the movie, they're not only stretching our suspension, they're literally going against it. Someone who cares about the progression of the story will be thrown out of it by all the inconsistencies, and the enjoyment of it will disappears.
Fictional does not mean it should have, or is okay to have, plot holes. You seem to be equating a solid plot with realism, that is very ignorant. Inversely, just because a plot is pure fantasy and includes unicorns and dragons, a good writer still manage a plot that makes fucking sense.
Suspension of disbelief, I do not like it. I do not need to suspend my disbelief when reading a good fictional story. Why? Because of secondary belief. The writer should create a believable world not in comparison to reality but in itself, so he should strife to create an internally consistent story, and an internally consistent world. Immersion is broken with plotholes not because you compare them to reality, but because they do not add up to the world as described. Ever noticed most people are trying to explain plotholes from an in-universe perspective? The moment you need to suspend your disbelief, is the moment the writer failed to create a secondary belief in the mind of his audience. It requires an action from the audience instead of the writer. Well, this is according to Tolkien, and I have to agree with him.
Why everyone is wrong. 5:10 Nowhere in the Karate Kid does it say no kicks to the Head. If you watch the tournament closely you'll see that it is not banned & happens in almost in all previous rounds. The real plot hole the crane kick is easily defeated by a leg swipe
„Shut up about Plot Holes“ is said unironically nowadays, which is crin-e beyond crin-e. Those people should be deeply-embarassed saying such stuff unironically. And then people wonder why we get many bad movies/shows/books literally written by ignoring BASIC Writing-Techniques and Author-Requirements, like ‚Show, dont tell’ and all such. I dont even know what to say: I genuinly, genuinly believe that Neckbeards and In-els are less crin-ey than people that say that Logic and Consistence dont matter and can just go away. I think one is bigger than the other.
One thing that irritated me about The Last Jedi: Everyone acts like Poe is a terrible person for disobeying Leia's orders when he blew up the dreadnought, but if he hadn't blown up the dreadnought THEY ALL WOULD HAVE DIED BECAUSE IT WOULD HAVE FOLLOWED THEM THROUGH HYPERSPACE AND BLASTED THEM WITH ITS CANNONS. Him blowing up the dreadnought when he had the chance literally saved the entire fleet. At no point does anyone mention this. Poe doesn't even mention it in his defense after they get followed and Holdo treats him like a moron. So what's the lesson here? Even when you save everyone's lives it doesn't matter if you didn't totally follow a rigid chain of command? That seems pretty authoritarian and unromantic for a fucking Star Wars movie. The problem with The Last Jedi is that there are certain characters they want to make wrong every time (like Poe and Finn) until they supposedly have character development at the end, but Poe and Finn were actually right several times throughout the movie...and the film treated them like they were wrong anyway and had every other character deride and mock them.
Jon I The lesson is don’t question female leadership even if they fuck up. Not even if they reduce the rebellion to a bunch of guys who fit in the Millennium Falcon
@@satireknight A hack writer does not write something like Brick or Knives Out or even Looper. That takes a pretty creative mind. What he is, though, is inconsistent.
The lesson is that he's a man, and his opinion doesn't matter just because he's a man. Even though that's not why his opinion should matter. Regular feminist propaganda
The lesson is that Poe is a hothead and needs to think like a leader and not a hero. Poe, throughout the whole movie, feels justified because his exploits helped destroy Starkiller Base and the dreadnaught. What he didn't know was the cost of that. He disobeyed orders and got an entire bombing fleet destroyed. The lesson he needed to learn was to think practically and think about the people under him first and not to plunge headfirst into the trenches like he always had. The strawman arguments about this being a feminist message doesn't hold up because the movie would have played out exactly the same way if you flipped the gender of his superiors. The reason Holdo didn't tell him was because he was demoted by Leia, ergo was not allowed to be in the loop. The ironic thing was had he just stuck to his post and followed Holdo's orders, she probably would have told him. Instead, he acted impulsively and sent Finn on a secret mission that only got more people killed and led the FO to discovering their secret base on Crait. So yes, Poe was definitely in the wrong on this one. Not Holdo. The only "plothole" that's legitimate, which I haven't seen anyone bring up, is why didn't Holdo throw him in the brig when he continued to lash out at her.
Can't stand that Patrick Willems guy. Thinks he's a genius when really he's just defending Hollywood in every way possible. "Don't like something a movie did? We'll you're just too stupid to understand it! Now I'll explain why by talking down to you." It doesn't help that in one of his videos, he full on looked into the camera and said he would be willing to be a writing consultant to "fix" scripts for major studios. And he tries way too hard to set up conspicuous shots so you notice his camerawork (which is pretty crappy in my opinion). All of this hints that he's begging for a job in Hollywood. His videos are a shameless way for him to market himself to Hollywood. And thus, he's not talking to a youtube audience. He's talking to any Hollywood producer, writer or director who might happen to see his videos. "Look at me, I'm ever so smart about the business. Please hire me!" In short, he's criticizing the intelligence of the audience so he can get in the good books of the industry he wants to work in. And in that way, he would fit right in with modern Hollywood.
Smells like a shill. Or maybe he's just so in love with his own voice that he does the defense of mindless Hollywood free of charge. Either way, he seems like someone that repels people sitting around him at parties when discussing movies.
"If in one shot im inside and the next im outside and we dont see me going outside, thats a plot hole" a plot hole would be in one shot you being inside and the next you being in the white house, just elected president and being suddenly jacked.
I think they are both wrong about Die Hard. If the robbers simply set off explosives and cut the power, police would be there in no time and have SWAT teams enter and surround the building. Having a hostage situation, the cops stay outside in order not to endanger the hostages.
Yah, watched it and their entire point was to make sure they had some time at first, to set up ambushes on Swat teams and get started on breaking the vault. This ain’t PayDay 2 where you can blow up the front entrance and then fight your way through endless amounts of cops
The problem isn't noticing plot holes. The problem is that most people misuse the term. A plot hole is not just something you find implausible or something that goes against your understanding. It is not merely something that doesn't make sense to you. IT is not a character acting in a way you think it stupid. A plot hole is an actual hole: a seeming impossibility that, if it could possibly happen, would need to be explained. It is a contradiction in the story being told that cannot be solved based on normal assumptions or assumptions that have been given in the work. Plot holes are actually much rarer than people make them out to be. That doesn't necessarily mean the things people call plot holes aren't flaws, but they very often are not plot holes. It is extremely frustrating when people talk of plot holes like they occur in every work of fiction--when it's just a catch-all term for things they didn't like. For goodness sake, people call production continuity mistakes plot holes now.
You hit the nail on the head here. I do find the stuff he's talking about worthy of criticizing, but the label is obnoxious and a misunderstanding of the term. It also tends to be a blanket statement shield for self-identified critics on the internet to hide behind without truly divulging what they mean. "Plot hole" is on the same level of overused pseudo-intellectual nonsense as "mary sue" for me.
to be fair when people talk about a character doing something stupid in a film, it is normally referring to a moment in which the character directly contradicts themselves in what their character was previously written to be, and there for it is a whole in the plot of there character and ideals. for instance, in the case of Holdo we are lead to believe that she wants her crew to have faith and loyalty, but also disregards having faith in them by telling them they have a plan and to stay calm.
Yes, absolutely right. Charakters don't have to act logically, of course. But the audience NEEDS to understand the charakters motivation, as you pointed out. Motivation ist the key for plausible and believable charakters. People critisizing an unbelievable charakters, don't always mention illogical actions but emphasize the lack of motivation.
I feel like no matter what a piece of media does you're going to have a few people who notice inconsistencies and get bothered by them. But if a LOT of people notice and are bothered by the same thing then maybe that's a legitimate problem
Mr. 'Objective Criticism Doesn't Exist' Patrick Willems tells you you're watching movies wrong. Hmmm. That YMS was bang on. Great video, man. I hope you grow bigger than Pat here. Insta-subbed.
Opinions and feelings of a film are subjective, that I can agree with. Objective measurable flaws and errors, however, are not. There are two types of critique, objective, and subjective. Objective critique is based on factual elements of a film. Story writing, plot, character consistency, rules of the universe, logic etc. Subjective critique is that of opinion and feeling. 'I feel the film was this." 'My opinion of the film was this." So no, not all film criticism is subjective.
"Objective critique is based on factual elements of a film. Story writing, plot, character consistency, rules of the universe, logic etc." Well...sort of... Saying "The movie has an inconsistent plot" is an objective statement yes, because the veracity of the claim is demonstrable, but saying "The movie has an inconsistent plot therefore it is bad" is not an objective statement, it's based on the subjective claim that "Movies with inconsistent plots are bad". There is no way to prove logically or empirically if the statement "Movies with inconsistent plots are bad" is true or not. The very term bad is subjective in nature. For something to be objective it would need to be demonstrable and verifiable, it would need to be a testable feature of the universe.
@@BlueSun_ Dumbing it down, "You can enjoy bad films." Seriously, why does no one get that anymore? I mean, I watched a video about Spiderman Homecoming where someone points out that Peter's mistakes in the film don't have any weight, because he doesn't suffer any consequences. After I got over my initial kneejerk reaction, I found myself agreeing with most of the videos points. And then I rewatched Homecoming for the third time, and still enjoyed myself. Because movies are primarily entertainment, and entertainment is subjective.
Great video. I remember seeing another video that made the same sorts of arguments about people and plot holes, so it was nice to see a video that finally dug into all the little doubts I felt about that and brought them to the surface. Also, I've got to admit, it's impressive how you came across as the relatively civil one in this video, despite being the one on offense.
![Wiz Khalifa - Khalifa's Home [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wnrLCTe0Nz4/mqdefault.jpg)
![Chino Pacas - Smith (ft. Junior H & Fuerza Regida) [Video Visualizador Oficial]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/BVK6k56X30Y/mqdefault.jpg)
If you enjoy my videos and would like to support my channel, do consider becoming a Patron: www.patreon.com/CynicalReviews
Just discovered your channel via EFAP, good stuff.
Cynical Reviews Patrick contradicts himself a couple times throughout this video, kinda jus being an ostentatious prick
Cinemasins is just shit.
why are you a dog man? are you a furry?
Did he ever reply
Plotholes exist, to me, it's only a problem If you actually notice them during the watching. If the movie makes you stop and go "wait what?" and knocks you out of the enjoyment, then the plotholes a problem. If you can go the whole movie enjoying it and the plothole never seems to catch your interest or make you pause, then it's not a problem.
Completely agree. There is actually an indicator to know when a plothole is too much or not, though it depends much on your individual tastes and experiences : the willing suspension of disbelief. If a plothole is so glaring that despite your best efforts you start disbelieving the whole movie, then it is too big of a hole. And this is even worse when talking about franchise movies (except for those like James Bond without continuity), for it carries consequences for the next installements.
@@Cancoillotteman Yeah, I'm one of those who tend to only really notice things after watching a movie twice as well, unless they are reaally glaring
@@KenshiImmortalWolf well if you could bear The Last Jedi I guess inconsistencies don't angry you too much, I get real agressive on that subject ^^
@@Cancoillotteman The one with the Female protagonists? After I saw that first installment, I dropped it like a hot potato.
@@Cancoillotteman Last Jedi bothers me because i can see the ideas behind it and the potential it had, and watch all of it get wasted behind poor execution. Infact Cinemawins finally touched on it and pointed out things that both make me enjoy the movie a bit more, but also hate the failures that much more. So many good ideas SOOO much potential, and it's such a bloody mess so many little things cut out or not included that would of made the movie actually good.
"Characters that act logically make for a boring movie."
The Martian. Every character in that movie is at peak competency and it still manages to have drama in it.
Great example. Smart people can still make mistakes because of bureaucracies and rushing through construction. I believed every choice that each character made and that is excellent writing.
John Carpenter's The Thing is a good example. The characters are smart and think of the best way they can solve their problem, with tension coming from misteps and miscalculations (plus a very creepy and unpredictable alien creature) rather than just straight up dumb decisions.
Yeah, I think the key is to make sure characters act in ways that make sense considering what they know at the time (sometimes in combination with their personality). When people talk about characters acting "illogically", nine times out of ten they're talking about a character acting in ways that someone in their position realistically wouldn't/shouldn't.
Like if a medical professional saw a patient with a rash and immediately told them it was a deadly disease without considering that it might just be poison ivy or something.
This is not to mention that perfectly logical solutions are absurd. The best way to end murder is to blow up Earth. It is just think about it, it even cures all illness. This is because everyone is dead. This is even a good reason for the motive of most villains, their solution is *purely* logical. Hardly a novel concept in that it is so often used a decent writer can show how it is cliche but we tend not to notice and or forgive it as it can be simple human error.
John Carpenter's The Thing.
"Characters do not have to act logically, but they cannot act randomly." Well said!
I'm going to write that down.....
That rule also applies to writing.
Yeah! Human brains are what make people do what they do, even if it's seems to not make sense. You don't even need to make them that complex, but if there is a war general character, you cannot make them act illogically otherwise how the feck this character is a war general!
I can like a spontaneous character
@@ComfortsSpecter Well if that's what defines them as a character: A character that acts randomly and without reason. Then that's really not a plot hole anymore, it's simply a character trait.
@@DeathKitta you can make a general illogical, it just means there more likely to be a shit General and their characters depth probably has something to do with their punishment for that
I get your very obvious point but a general can be shit, we’ve seen tons of those in history
It kinda bothers me that Patrick says movies aren’t like puzzles, when movies and puzzles are really similar. You buy a puzzle and expect all the pieces to fit together, but when one of the pieces is missing doesn’t fit, it can be dissatisfying.
I would also point mystery films or stories with twist endings are designed to be puzzles.
The kids engineering toy, Meccano, used to deliberately print mistakes in the instruction (destruction?) manual. This was to see if any of the kids were smart enough to catch the mistake and work out the solution by themselves.
but what if the movie purposely leaves a piece out as a mystery
@@chikipichi5280 That is stupid.
@@chikipichi5280 That is exactly as dissatisfying as a missing piece in a puzzle. Unless leaving that piece out actually serves a purpose such as having a question to be answered by a sequel (if it is properly thought out that is).
People aren't logical. Yep, which is why I always leave my house by leaping from the upstairs window, instead of using my front door.
I just teleport to work which is the length of a continent and if anyone asks I mumble something about flying on a dragon, even though no time passed somehow.
@@bobtheyob haha good one!
To be fair, doors are for people with no imagination.
Do you familiar with a game named "Free Fire", it is a mobile game where a concept of door is never exist at all...
People aren't rational, but they aren't fucking stupid
To paraphrase/steal from a certain disgraced critic of nostalgia; ALL stories have flaws, but if the audience is complaining they can see the strings, it just means the puppets haven't properly distracted them.
applause
@@michaelhixson6939 Excellent quote. I have to hand it to Game of Thrones, they did a good job of distracting me all the way to season 7. Granted I watch most films pretty openly and usually just use Game of Thrones as an excuse to hang out with friends, but still the problems with season 5-7 weren't bad enough for me to notice without someone else pointing them out. Season 8 however.....well that was just brazen.
@@Shademastermcc I agree. I didn't notice until it was pointed out to me that Tyrion becomes a totally static character after killing his father. Reference: Macabre Storytelling's debut video. He was a very distracting puppet... Until like season 7/8... Rip.
Or sometimes the audience is smarter than the puppeteers.
Stealing this
Lmao this dude really just went “Bad writing isn’t the problem. The real problem is bad writing!”
Cynical reviews?
@@harrietr.5073 I think he means the guy Cynical Reviews is criticizing.
@@williamstark9568 Shit, the anti-plot-hole guy had a god point, even if the video's bad.
@@harrietr.5073 No he didn't. He made bauxite no good points and his video was dumb
@@akhwalters9784 But what about the message?
Voldemort wanted to make a grand entrance and show all of Hogwarts that he had killed 'the boy who lived'. It's not 'stupid' it's just his personality. He's kind of a diva
Yes! This! Someone who finally gets it! Voldemort has a GIANT ego.
Moldy Voldyfart also had other things to line up, like the other ingredients in that cauldron, his father's bones, etc. It was a whole big ritual thing. Heck, he didn't even need Harry's blood! Anybody would have worked, but he WANTED it to be Harry, and Dumbledore eventually explains that when Moldywart did that, he linked Harry's life to his own, which helped Harry survive in Deathly Hallows.
FFS, I'm not even a Harry Potter fan! My wife is the HP fan, and she listens to the audiobooks so much that I've become deeply knowledgeable about HP lore.
Exactly! This is Moldyvort's downfall SEVERAL times in the series; his own ego and love of symbolism has him makes decisions that either offer him no objective benefit or are outright disadvantageous. See the rest of Voldymoldy's resurrection magically tying himself to Harry, or his personal pissing contest to prove something by "challenging" Harry to a duel, which lets Harry escape.
Characters can make stupid decisions if its in their character.
well there’s another reason he chose Harry though. If he wanted to be able to touch Harry without causing physical pain to himself as a result of Lily dying for her son, then he needed to have the same protection running through his own blood. Voldemort’s own downfall is a result of his ignorance and his abuse of magic. The entire prophecy coming to fruition was all on him. For someone as smart as he was proclaimed to be, he was an absolute idiot. He refused to recognise magic that existed outside of his range of knowledge which resulted his first downfall and his final one. And Voldemort’s characterisation was perfectly on brand throughout the series. Everything was a spectacle to show how superior he was. Like it was stated, Voldemort had planned to use Harry’s death at the end of tournament to showcase his return and highlight his power. He despised the idea of anyone thinking he’d been bested by an infant and decided to put on a show for his followers.
Death Star didn’t have a design flaw. It was a tiny exhaust port that was necessary. 2 meters wide, guarded, and the odds of some small fighter getting a precise shot into it was almost impossible. And the plans where secret also. So for this maneuver to actually be pulled off required an almost supernatural assistance. Hence using the force and trusting feelings, etc.
Leonid Denisenko thank you! Finally someone gets why an exhaust part isn’t some design flaw
Tamari Bond exactly. That’s why “Rogue One” was so contrived. That’s like saying I designed a muffler in such a way that if you stick a potato in it, the car will blow up!
Leonid Denisenko lol right. “We’ve discovered a weak spot on this car, a design flaw! It’s of course not gonna be easy to get away with, but clearly this integral, needed item is a flaw!”
It actually was a flaw, at least according to the EU before Disney wrecked it. One of the engineers that worked on the Death Star intentionally put in a weak spot that was unnecessary.
@@Bldyiii Rogue One is based off an idea that was in the EU before Disney got rid of it as canon. Which was supposedly an explanation why they were able to find that attack point for Episode 4. Rogue one just cinematically fills that gap (though it does have several of it's own problems).
Some people seem to think that logic and emotion are mutually exclusive things.
Like the several bad rom coms where the generic lead guy says "I should stop listening to my brain and start listening to my heart" is the dumbest shit ever. Being open and understanding of your emotions doesn't you should act like a morron.
Well in some situations they are but in others their not so I guess its both.
These people seem to have no emotional intelligence.
He references a franchise where one of the lead characters struggles with the balance between his logic and emotions and seems to function best when both work hand in hand ( at least in the newer movies sorry I was too young to get into OG Star Trek when I was younger don’t shoot me if I misinterpreted Spock) it’s ironic that he can’t see that movies themselves are a construction of both emotion and logic.
@@jaywalkin1793 From my understanding (as a very casual Star Trek fan) the Vulcan had emotions, they simply didn't let it take precedence over logic. But yeah the big take away was that its good when you have a balance between the two. There is nothing wrong with wanting your big emotional payoff but that won't happen (for most people) if it doesn't make sense too. Despite what people like Patrick like to pretend, most people like things to make logical sense, even when it requires some suspension of disbelief.
You shouldn't be required to turn your brain off to enjoy a movie. Watch Guardians of the Galaxy: Volume 2. You can appreciate the theme of relationships and family, how it uses music to make you feel something, and then reuses music to connect that feeling to something different. Or you can turn your brain off and enjoy the space comedy with a talking raccoon. Either one is fine.
There's nothing wrong with a movie that's fun to watch with your brain off, but if that's a requirement then there is a problem.
Requirement sounds too strong of a word.
But there is defiently some questionable logic here.
You can enjoy Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 only if you turn your brain off, because not only its plot is bad, but its themes are forced and don't make sense either. First, why would Ego tell his supposed son that he killed his mother? Second, how exactly is Yondu Peter's "daddy" if that blue schmuck wanted to kill him in that first movie for nothing? Their father-son relationship is so forced, it's comical.
Bad Movie Studios Oh, for the love of...
IT’S CALLED AN OPINION, M8!
@@badmoviestudios8099 I'm going to respond to those in order:
1. Ego's been trying to manipulate Peter into agreeing that everyone else is beneath them; i.e. getting Peter to go along with Ego's expansion. The character Ego is aptly named; he's arrogant, and he has a massive god complex. By the time he tells Peter that part, he believes he has succeeded in completely winning Peter over to his side, so he didn't realize that revealing that he killed Peter's mom because he saw her as a distraction from his goal would make Peter snap out of it.
2. Yondu didn't want to kill Peter. Both films made it clear that, for all Yondu's talk about being a hard captain and wanting to get vengeance for Peter walking away with the orb, he has an extremely soft spot for Peter and wouldn't actually harm him. This was made clear in film 1 when he just smiles after seeing that Peter swapped the power stone for another doll for Yondu's collection, and made even more clear in film 2 when his perspective on everything that happened between him and Peter is shown to the audience.
Yondu was assigned to deliver Peter to his dad, but when he realised that Ego was killing all his kids, Yondu decided to keep Peter. He then raised him as one of the Ravagers and had a soft spot for him ever since. He was terrible at showing it, but he genuinely cared about Peter like a father would for a son. He even admits in the end that he was terrible at showing how he really cared; saying, "I'm sorry I didn't do one bit of [raising Peter] right".
“If she just told him the plan finn wouldn’t have grown as a character, there would be no conflict, and we wouldn’t have a story” I will refer back to my favorite Jenny Nicholson quote: “but it’s fiction! They could have written literally anything else!”
Thank God this Patrick-Clown is proven wrong more and more by 'Good-Faith-Criticism-Essays' getting more and more popular recently.
I mean, look at Jay Exci covering Doctor Who, Madvocate covering The Flash and Hbomberguy covering Sherlock, RWBY and various Concepts,
with hour-long Videos that are so damn-good that people comment seperately from each other: Wow, i do not even know this show this video is about but i watched it all.
What i'm trying to say here, i guess, is:
Dont miss out and check those out, as well as various people talking about High Guardian Spice and Santa Inc.
Not to mention it's a complete lie. Finn would have grown just in different ways. He doesn't trust people in command so if she'd been upfront with her plan he could have grown more trusting and assisted in other ways. Some people may say her telling him later makes for a good reveal but her sacrifice at the end could still be a great reveal. He could go off same as he did, keep helping the rebellion, and discover later that the first commander he respected and trusted is no longer alive and he attempts to be more understanding and respectful towards his future commanders in memory of her respect towards him.
"There's always another way." - The Key Maker, The Matrix Reloaded
@@slevinchannel7589 I was just trying to recall who else I had seen tear this video apart, and your comment reminded me it was Jay Exci. It may be a year late, but thank you! Trying to remember whose video it was would have driven me crazy for the whole runtime of this video if it weren't for you pacifying my mind goblins.
Holdo not telling Fin her plan, is what lead to Poe and Rose going to Canto-Byte & and the First Order getting her plan. So, in the end, Holdo caused a lot of resistance members to get killed.
I'll shut up about plot holes when they stop ruining my viewing experience.
Lol😂😂,
that’s what he sounds like.
If you choose to focus on them, then you choose to ruin the experience for yourself.
Enjoy things for what they are, not what you think they should be.
@@Incrementium - That's a terrible argument. By that logic, movies should just stop having stories at all, because it's your choice to notice it. You can just choose to not think about it and look at the pretty colours instead.
@@Incrementium Just imagine if you went to a restaurant and got food poisoning from eating spoiled food and some guy told you it was your fault for focusing on how how much you were throwing up. That is the argument you're trying to make.
@@Incrementium Believe it or not, but plot holes can ruin the viewing experience for a lot of people even without focusing on them.
The way the guy films himself in the street makes it look like he’s looking down on his audience.
That or he's insecure about his height.
Though listening to him I'd assume this is how he wants to look more authoritative.
That’s exactly what I thought too.
yuh
I guess because of that he’s looking down on us both figuratively and literally
I don't think that is oversight. I think that was the point. He is looking down.
How can I be watching a movie "wrong"? If I am using my eyes the rest is up to my own opinion of the value.
Him suddenly being outside is not a plothole as he opened his vid OUTSIDE.
A plot hole would be him making a valid argument.
*Simulation breaks*
Illuminati! Stay right where you are!
Ohhhhhhhhh snap
That would not be a Plothole that would be an alternative world where nothing makes sense :D
@@Ugly_German_Truths - So...a world hole? Plot world?
I'm so triggered by the Die Hard 'plot hole'. They didn't just need the power out, they also needed the time to break into the vault and to keep the police from rushing in on them. If they just cut the power they would be found out before they even got close to getting in.
Methinks that Patrick was being a little too desperate in calling out his opponents. This is what the debating crowd would call a 'whataboutism'.
That's what i was thinking as well! Die Hard is my favourite action movie of all time, but that "plot hole" was just wrong and it could be explained very easily.
Yeah, the real plot hole is in the second installment - where there are several airports within easy reach of those planes. But again, you wouldn't notice while watching the movie - it's engaging that way.
As a writer, I only agree that the culture of “nitpicking” has fostered a slight overeagerness in finding plot errors or holes that perhaps don’t matter, or which may well have been left due to technical issues. If it doesn’t majorly detract from the story logic or flow, I’m more inclined to ignore it and just enjoy the story. But to say that plot holes don’t matter at all is to invalidate all writers and the art of writing entirely. Plot holes DO matter, it’s our F*CKING JOB TO MAKE SH*T WORK and work WELL! This is the equivalent of me saying “well, RUclips commentators are just average non-experts sitting at home making videos, ergo their arguments don’t really matter so you shouldn’t really think about their work so much.” Both statements are bullsh*t.
Going overboard with anything can result in the point getting lost, but just because a few people get too excited with it doesn’t mean that suddenly all similar discourse is invalid.
TL;DL: Plot holes matter, now get off my lawn.
Eh, I still fail to see how plot holes matter. I've never seen a movie or read a book or watched a tv show and have EVER thought about potholes. I wouldn't know of such a thing without the internet complaining about things I've never thought about or considered in my life. I've never disliked anything because of it. I find it very hard to believe anybody sane would give a shit about such a thing. Stories are not meant to be logical. That's not how they work, nor how they should ever work. They're primal, instinctual, emotional creations.
@@TheGeorgeD13 Who you are to say what stories are meant to be? Your philosophical opinion is just that, a opinion.
I will say a fact: there are people who cares if fictional stories make sense or not. And I'm glad the amount of people like that is increasing lately. That will only push storymakers to create more realistic worlds.
No I don't wanna get off your lawn.
@@TheGeorgeD13 That's weird. You are not directly wrong but IF you find something illogical then you would question the story. That's the whole point. And sometimes it is fun to hear the opinion of experts in a certain field and that there is a plot hole you didn't notice at first. Of course, this could distract you from the story. But that's the whole point: if you notice a plot hole - it will distract you from the story (ie. movie). That's why plot holes matter.
@@marconotonfacebook3480 Except they don't. They simply do not distract you from the story.
Any lazy writer can throw something together that contains plotholes; A skilled writing team can come up with a coherent, internally consistent narrative that reduces or outright eliminates them. STOP EXCUSING BAD WRITING!!!
Very true. Although entertainment comes first, that isn't an excuse to not put in the effort.
Or have a story so entertaining, you don't notice on the first viewing.
True. I often overlook plot holes - even major ones - if the story is really good.
A world, a story, that has massive plot holes is a story that doesn't make sense.
My one english teacher once told me to never forget the most basic of basics:
Who what why when where
Who is it about
What is going on
Why is it happening
When did it happen
Where is it happening.
Plot holes tend to ignore these, and our brain catches on to that. Our subconcious will nag at us and we can't focus on the movie and merely let it flow.
biostemm The audience has imagination. They should USE it to FILL IN the plot holes.
I guess that’s why, even as an adult, I still appreciate movies like Finding Nemo, whose characters are beautifully developed and whose plot is coherent, easy to follow, and has a meaningful impact on all of the major characters. We need more of that in movies.
This is a perfect example. Finding Nemo was such a well-crafted, deep and powerful film...
Yeah Finding Nemo is a childhood favourite. Just don't bring it's sequel...
Nah. It's not very interesting.
@@HermanFalckHow That's it, boys. Cancel any commentary on this film, it's officially branded for life.
Finding Nemo is amazing... though I will never forget about child!me puzzling about the turtles talking underwater.
Because for fish it made sense, because they breathe water. But sea turtles are reptiles and have to come up for air.
Hand wave it, right?
But then immediately after the first turtle scene, you have dolphins only talking to each other when they come out of the water. Because they’re mammals that breath air.
And now that I’ve said it, it’s quite possible that you’ll never forget it. Sorry. XD
Is Patrick’s entire argument “I don’t care about them personally, so it objectively doesn’t matter”?
Yeah, pretty much. They don’t bother him, the intellectual, so they shouldn’t bother anyone.
Patrick is arguing that the examples of “plot holes” he gives are not substantive, and so they are not important points of criticism. Most amount to surface-level nitpicks, result from not paying enough attention to a movie, or are simply complaining that a character didn’t do the thing they wanted them to do. For instance, Holdo doesn’t trust Poe because he is reckless and just got a lot of people killed. She doesn’t need MORE reason to not divulge her plan to him. Nor should the audience expect Holdo to be a soothsayer and realize by not telling Poe the plan he’s going to indirectly inform the First Order of their plan and get even more people killed.
@@ryangilly5096 Holdo not telling Poe isnt a plot hole it's just bad writing, and makes her look incompetent
Why would she not tell the person she knows is a loose canon.
There was no reason for her not to and doing so would have actually made Poe have an arc, it would have solidified the "Heroic intentions don't always end well" point.
@@supervamp78 Holdo was justified in not sharing her plan with Poe, a man who had just defied Leia’s orders and got most of their pilots killed. The moment called for a carefully executed escape plan, not guns a-blazing heroism. And Poe had a perfectly fine arc, even without a fan rewrite.
@@ryangilly5096 So she doesn't share a plan with the guy she knows is a loose canon and will likely go against her anyways? Huh?
It makes her look incompetent
Did she expect him to just do nothing the entire time?
I'm sick of hearing the "if everyone made logical decisions, there'd be no conflict!" argument. It's an excuse of the lazy, as well as amateur storytellers. They're essentially saying that they can't introduce conflict without making a character do something stupid. It completely ignores the real-world fact that not every situation can be solved by making logical decisions. In fact, the best conflicts in fiction are when the situation is explicitly regarded as one that can't just be solved by making the "right decision".
Political drama. War conflicts. Resource shortages. These are all scenarios where logic - while necessary to perpetuate, is incapable of resolving. Even something as simple as two people wanting the same thing is explorable without resorting to character lobotomy.
Final note: If you believe there can't be conflict if everyone makes logical decisions, then you have a poor understanding of what makes good storytelling.
I'm not fond of that argument either. If nothing else, it's a bit of a strawman.
I somewhat agree, but I think for a different reason. I think that you CAN have people all making logical decisions and still have conflict, as long as it's logical TO THAT CHARACTER. Everyone has their own internal logic that is different from everyone else's. People hold up "logic" as though it's some sort of unchanging monolith of thought that exists outside of experience and emotion, but it's not. Every person's sense of logic is shaped by their own experiences and life, so no two people are going to have exactly the same way of thinking "logically". So it's completely possible for a movie to have two people in conflict while both of them are behaving "logically", because each one has a different viewpoint of what is logical to do in that situation.
We can take the Vulcans from Star Trek, or the Kryptonians from Man of Steel.
They live/lived in a rigid society dictated by logic and science.
In the case of the Vulcans, they lost their planet due to not being prepared in case of an attack, since they are basically on the western front of this space Berlin Wall.
For the Kryptonians, Snyder and Nolan based the idea of their society on Plato's Republic with the cast system. (Leaders, Guardians and Workers)
Because they abandoned their plans for colonies, their society stuck and they drain the resources of their planet, making it unstable.
They followed logic, but it created more problems than it solved.
David Huntsinger
I remember reading a Star Trek novel a while back that had a similar structure to the narrative conflict. In the novel, a colony of Klingons was going to be wiped out by a meteor swarm or something like that, and the conflict arose when a Klingon ship was sent to evacuate the colony.
Most of the colonists didn't want to leave because their personal interpretations of honor made it impossible. Some felt it was cowardly to run away from the impending disaster and honor demanded they face it head-on, others saw the disaster as a challenge or enemy to be defeated in (metaphorical) combat by building stronger dwellings or setting up a forcefield network to protect the colony, others felt that a Klingon's honor and heritage were tied to the homes they built and preferred to wait it out in some nearby caves then rebuild when the disaster passed. The crew of the ship felt that dying to a natural disaster was not a noble enough death and would rather rescue their fellows from an ignoble death so they could die honorably in combat later.
Technically, none of them were wrong in their interpretations of Klingon honor, as each interpretation was a singular facet to the concept of honor the Klingons practice, but it was in the application of each facet and refusal to accept other facets where the meat of the story rested, and it made for a really interesting and good story.
It is fairly simple to acknowledge that people have different priorities. So they could make different decision that are logical for their set of priorities.
On a sidenote. The definition of "Idiot Plot" is "a Plot that hangs together only because the main characters behave like idiots. A single intelligent move or question by any of the characters, and all problems would be resolved.". So at least that video confirms that TLJ is based on IdiotPlot.
"movies aren't puzzles"
thriller and crime movies which rely on a puzzle-like plot to work and have a compelling ending because that's how the genre works:
Rug roh raggy!
Literally any mystery film ever:
All art is a puzzle for the brain.
Art relies on pattern recognition.
If the brain can't recognize a pattern to make sense of it, then it's registered as noise, not art.
This is evident most commonly in extreme metal genres or modern art. The more versed one is in art conventions, the more likely it is that one will recognize art when they see it.
In movies, patterns can be: story structure, character archetypes, characterizations, scene blocking, scene transitions, audio cues, mood lighting etc. etc.
But that’s just one kind of genre. And sometimes those films feel too much like puzzles rather stories with any real depth. And even if they are puzzles, there needs to be compelling drama and characters.
@@MrShakespearefan Every story is a puzzle. You got your characters, plot, suspense of disbelieve, POV, writing style and more all needing to be slowly fitted together like puzzle pieces to make something good.
If you want another comparison, it's baking. A lot of sweets and pasteries are extremely dependent on measurements and what kind of things work together and what does not work at all. It's why you can't just exchange milk from a cake with brandy and expect that abomination to work. Even if brandy is good. It doesn't fit in that part of the recipe and makes problems for the end result.
Some genres mix and mix well and then you got others that where mixed in the wrong order.
"Characters that act logically make for a boring movie."
The Thing
lol, great example
Great film
Spock
Was spock a boring character.
Jurassic Park
"Before we take massive, random risks (like going into a paddock just because we "think" the Indo escaped and run around with our heads cut off) maybe we should try some other options first."
But they don't act logically. Macreedy straight up shoots his team member in the head....
As a writer, I work pretty freaking hard for plot holes in my stories. Can't count the times I've been doing something then stop and go, "Wait... What did I do earlier about this?" then go back read, slap myself in the forehead, and go to edit so it all works.
What have you written ?
I actually make a list with important points and a world building rule book for every action any of the characters take too. So I don't have to figure out in what chapter I mentioned an established rule. So it's a bit similar. xD
In film school, a teacher told us : "The three elements to make a good movie are the story, the story, and the story"
Edit : omg I didn't know there would be so many answers!!! btw he was teaching scenario so he was obviously biased. Plus, I didn't say I literally agreed with him hahaha
1) Plot or goal
2) Conflict
3) Resolution
You can have things/fillers in between, but that's basically it. Plot, conflict resolution. Your teacher is wrong.
I always hear the opinion that life has so much stupid twists and turns and coincidences that would classify as a plot hole in a story. But most people forget that life moreoften than not writes terrible, boring and unsatisfying stories.
@@deniseklemm6612 Respectfully, I doubt you: "always hear the opinion that life has so much stupid twists and turns and coincidences that would classify as a plot hole..." but... Plot holes are more than just stupid twists or one's life taking an unexpected turn as you said. Plot holes are incongruent, inconsistent, or conflicted connected facts claimed in a story, and related to the plot. Which is quite different than a plot twist and the plot changing direction. So, as examples, plot holes are traveling lost and unintentionally on the wrong path to a desired destination, while plot twists are intentionally changing your course and destination.
Plot, characters, and setting.
@@MarkLewis... "The Story is not important but specific parts of the story?" so we can safely ignore Character, introduction, rising action, theme and tone? if the middle to the end part of the story is good?
People say that the Star Wars fanbase are very testy and would have been disappointed with the new movies no matter what they did. But my argument is people weren't disappointed because it wasn't perfect, people were disappointed because it wasn't good
I am not a star wars fan, but all I can say is I had a real hard time paying attention to any of the new movies. I didn't have the same problems with the originals.
@@saisameer8771 Not going to lie, I considered ending it all when I saw CGI Palpatine. That scarred me.
The sequel trilogy's defenders are convinced that people only hate them because their theories about the films didn't come true. When really it's because the ST sucked. Disney thinking that killing off characters from the original trilogy would force people to like the new ones by default was stupid.
@@Xehanort10 Did they actually think that? Is that legit?
@@doktordiklegz The way they seemed to think portraying Luke out of character, having Rey beat him up then had him die from the supposed "strain" of a Force projection would somehow make people accept Rey as the new protagonist it certainly seems like it.
Patrick here gives me the vibes of a certain kind of person.
Someone who's had experiences liking movies that people around him didn't, or just universally unpopular movies in particular.
Now there's absolutely nothing wrong with liking an unpopular movie. You shouldn't dislike anything solely because a lot of other people dislike it.
But this guy takes a huge issue when people point out why they think that these movies are crap. Point out very blatant flaws that are there due to incompetence or carelessness of the filmmakers. Then instead of conceding "yeah, I can see your point, but I still like it so, eh" he needs to defend these flaws. In his insecurity he needs to validate his tastes to other people to seem like a person to be taken seriously.
But the guy isn't quite as smart, or at least good in explaining himself as he hopes, and doesn't get the desired reaction from those people. Insecurity grips his chest harder. It's starting to hurt a little. He grows resentment on the people giving legitimate criticism. But surely they can't be right. This movie is great! They're just nitpicking. They're nitpicking about plotholes that make the story he loves so much possible.
Could the story exist without those plotholes? No... he can't figure a way, so probably not. So he can't validate himself with his way, so... offense is the best defense... Let's INvalidate the others. Now we just need to put serious thought and figure out detailed explanations on how the existence of these plotholes actually help the movie exist. Now we need a cool suit, a stern tone of voice and a manner of speech that appears one sound smart so people will get the impression of a pro who knows what they're talking about. This is how he puts down those mean nasty nitpickers who made him feel uncertain of himself, when they nitpicked on his favourite movies that defined his youth and inspired him.
That's the vibe that Patrick gives me.
Yes, what you say reminds me of (the vastly over-rated) Pauline Kael, who would get righteously upset if someone liked a film that she didn't, or disliked one that she liked.
That's pretty dead on
Pretty much yeah
Nailed it. 💯
@@satireknight That is very reasonable. I respect that.
Thank you. Just...thank you.
As a writer myself, it enrages me whenever I hear shit like this. Willem's basically saying "good writing doesn't matter". It's exactly the same argument used by bad fanfic writers whose work totally ignores basic spelling, grammar, & composition: "it's just fanfic, it doesn't matter, stop being so nitpicky".
It does matter. It's all the basic building blocks of storytelling. Without them, the entire story/film collapses into unreadable, unwatchable slush.
I absolutely agree, as a fellow writer but really as a reader. I’ve had people respond to my book reviews on Amazon arguing that I shouldn’t “read like an English teacher”. Well, I’m when I’m paying for something I expect at least the bare minimum of BASIC quality. Like when you buy food at a restaurant you at least expect it to be edible. So when I critique a book for being so lazily written that it’s an insult to readers, because the author doesn’t even care to put in MINIMAL effort, it pisses me off even more to have people claim I’m reading the book wrong. Or worse, come at me with “I’d like to see you try to write a book” or “you’re just jealous”. And they’re not even defending shitty fanfic, they’re defending something someone is trying to sell to an audience. They’re completely missing the fundamental point of user reviews as well as missing the fundamentals of writing. It drives me mad.
As a fan fic writer myself, thank you. That's exactly how I feel.
Its a fanmf.ic y do it mater
Y r u sooooo meen
So besides that Anubis x Jesus sfw romance fanfic would 89.752% read.
Give fwnfiction writers some credit though. They're defendin thier own shit and aren't some pretentious douchebag like Patrick presents himself as.
the reason why so many people hate the book ACE which can be read on a fan fiction site is not because of the plot, but because of the writing
My point with the Indiana Jones submarine plot hole is that it really isn't. German subs in and before WWII (and Raiders takes place in 1936) weren't nuclear-powered where they could run underwater for weeks at a time. They ran on diesel engines, which needed air to combust the fuel, and you can't run those engines underwater, or you suck all the oxygen out of the cabin in minutes. Underwater, German U-boatswould use silent electric battery-powered engines...that were a lot slower than the diesel engines that could only run at the surface. In transit, U-boats would mostly run on the surface for the sake of speed, and only dive when they were in danger or getting ready to fire. So given that I imagine the U-boat in Raiders is trying to get somewhere fast...yeah, they're running along the surface for most of the trip.
Watch Das Boot sometime, it's a phenomenal film.
You're right. The U-Boat was used mainly like a boat, but that includes deckservice too. There is no place to hide for Indy when couple of crewmen do their duty on deck and/or fin resp sail.
@@axelboltz3077 That is one of my biggest problems with the scene. They could have stayed on the service the whole time, but if they did then there would be German sailors above deck and as you pointed out where would he have hidden.
Even if they never dove underwater (which is implied that they did through the dive alarms and use of the periscope), redrawing the subs path on Google earth, it would have been approximately 580 nautical miles. At full speed it would have took the sub 34 hours to get there but in all likelihood they would have been going at cursing speed which was 8 knots. Any faster and things tend to break sooner than later plus with everything locked down/sealed the diesel engines would have caused ear injuries. At 8 knots it would have took 3 days to get to that island. 3 days for Dr Jones in the sun, no shade, food or water... and no bathroom. "Wait, why is the deck covered in poo?"
But even if that were so he would have been hanging on to that skinny boat for God knows how long with pout food or water and expecting no one to come out on the conning tower????
Yep yep yep
That plot hole in The Last Jedi could've been solved with ONE extra line:
"There may be a mole on the ship."
I mean, they kinda even set up for it with the whole "How are they tracking us through light speed thing?"-thing, so they just failed at letting us know that the characters know or at least believe. One could even argue that Poe thought of purple-hair to be a mole and sending their all to their doom because of it. And it would have been better than "I think she is incompetent."
But still, Poe would have been the least likely to be a mole, given that he was the one to enable the destruction of the deradnought. So she could have just grabbed him and told him in private.
Given that his demotion was BECAUSE he acted rouge so hit the First Order, that would have made a lot of sense. Or she could have locked him up, just in case!
It wasn't plothole. The fact that Holdo was keeping her plans secret and one guy was questioning her... was meant to show that the guy was a extremely villainous person. It is... bad writing, but it was written EXACTLY the way it was intended to. But then again I guess that is the thing, writing SO bad that the audience cannot accept it could be anything BUT a plothole.
Gabre, as Patrick said, we can easily fill in the gap. So that's not a plot hole.
@@riselin did not agree that it was a plothole, though it might be depending on how you interpret the characters actions.
But it still should be out off chatacter for an Elite admiral to not realize the danger that a rogue soldier like Poe poses if he is left in the Dark or unobserved.
Actually Genious
"except season 7". This was clearly made before GOT 8
Oh damn, yeah! I was also like: "Season 7? What about season 8?!"
The whole 'acting logically' thing is absolutely a strawman, and not a particularly good one at that. No, characters don't have to be 'logical.' What they have to be is *internally consistent.* The best characters are complicated, messy, and have an internal logic that drives them. Dorothy from Wizard of Oz wants to get back home. If she'd gotten to the Wicked Witch's castle and been like 'hey can we team up I don't care about my friends and want to stay in Oz' that would be a plothole - internally inconsistent. I mean, characters can change, evolve, and have traumatic or watershed moments that alter their core beliefs and goals (eg: Anakin Skywalker), but if you're going to do that, you need to have *some* reason shown or explained for it. Mechanical plotholes, ones that may or may not 'break' the story, would be something like SW VII where the super deathstar destroys several planets and you can see the attack and the destruction *in realtime* from systems light years away. Does this materially affect the plot? No. Is it a plothole? Absolutely. Do I care about it? ....not as much as some of the other BS they pull in that movie, but yes! Because that's not one of the established ways that Star Wars breaks physics - it's not internally consistent.
Yes, when people say 'acting logically' it usually means 'acting according to their established character'. We don't want to see the characters always doing the objectively best possible thing - we want to see their reasons for acting the way they do.
I wonder what he'd say if the Super Mario movie ends with Princess Peach being rescued and saying "Thanks bro. I owe ya one. Peace" then walked back to Bowser's Kingdom. Would he excuse it because people don't think logically and carry on with that nitpicky "plot hole"?
We still got the story we got so if we should just enjoy it because a story can happen
Yea Basically a character has to act in accordance with how the Writer has defined them unless they experience a set of events which change them as a person so for instance Luke Skywalker should not be writing off his Nephew and considering killing the boy in his sleep considering he did his best to redeem his own father who on screen had done much worse!
@@chickencurry420She just can't quit the B.
Holdo never needed to tell him the details of the plan. She just needed to say that a plan existed. Poe sent people on a mission behind her back and organized a mutiny because he and all the crew members who mutinied with him were given the impression that there was no plan, that Holdo was just sending them to their deaths through inaction. She instead gave Poe a saying of Leia's, about how "hope is like the sun, if you only believe it when you can see it, you'll never make it through the night." But you know what, if it was 10 in the morning and the sun hadn't risen yet, I'd be demanding an explanation. The Resistance had lost their base planet, had most of their fighters blown up, lost almost every leader they had, and were low on fuel and unable to escape from a fleet trying to blow them all up. Telling them that they aren't hoping hard enough is insanely stupid and arrogant.
Didnt help that she was talking down to Poe like he was a Child.
Ask a commanding officer in real life on how that should be handled and I'm sure they would say holdo was wrong
I believe real-life military commanders have been asked, and have said Holdo was wrong. So yes, you're right.
You got it exactly right. A competent leader inspires loyalty. Holdo provoked a mutiny.
No commander owes any of his or her subordinates an explanation. But knows when morale is low and people need reassuring. No vague speech about hope does that. People tend to speak of hope when things are fucking dire. That only heightens tensions.
A simple "you are out of line! We are proceeding as outlined by the confidential orders of admiral (or whatever she was) leia!" would have cleared it up. Or, you know, when poe begged her to tell him they had a plan she could have said "yes we do".
The way she acted she betrayed leia's trust and endangered what was left of the resistance. The one and only time i saw TLJ I was convinced she was a traitor for quite some time. The alternatives: she is stupid or incompetent as a military leader. Or the people who made the film are...
@@Baalur I watched it twice. The first time I waited the entire movie for her to be revealed as a traitor because her behavior all through the movie made her feel like a villain. The weird defense I've heard for Holdo keeping the plans secret was that she was worried about traitors or spies, but on the second viewing of the movie, I noticed that no one ever suspects that. I assumed that the first order was following them because a traitor leaked their destination, and I think this is where that suspicion came from in the rest of the audience. But no one thinks of traitors, they all immediately jump to the conclusion that hyperspace tracking technology is a thing. So that entire argument is invalid.
Voldemort's plan is forgiveable because he and Crouch Jr had to wait until he was ready. And it was the Triwizard Cup because it separated Harry from anyone who could've helped him. And they knew Harry would reach it because Crouch was helping him and even took down two of the other champions to help ensure Harry would get there. There's nothing about that that is a plot hole
It's also the fact that Voldemort always had a sense for the dramatic and killing Harry on his return, in front of his Death Eaters, on the night of the Final Task of the Triwizard would be more impactful in his eyes.
There's also the additional fear that would be invoked by the idea that he could just take Harry and kill him with such ease during the final of an international tournament right from under Dumbledore's nose.
You can also see plenty of real world examples where terror attacks are targeted like this in terms of time and/or place. Using the triwizard cup only reinforces this idea, if he had succeeded I'd imagine that everyone else would be EVEN MORE terrified by him.
and that crouch jr had used the imperius curse on chrom
Also, Cedric would have been taken down if Harry hadn't chosen to help him when he got caught by the branches. Harry would have been the only one who reached the cup if he HIMSELF hadn't helped his competition.
But there's no gurantee that would happen.
@Haku infinite Didn't Voldemort want to use Harry in order to neutralize the blood magic protection from his mom's sacrifice.
With the Voldemort cup: not only is there sentimental value that deeply matters to the Dark Lord, there is at least one other reason it had to be the cup. The Triwizard Cup involves many exemptions to usual magical restrictions and rules, in particular Hogwarts had magical guards that stop any apparition in or out, including portkeys; Hermione explains this many times throughout the books. The maze in the Triwizard Cup was the best place to bypass this usual guard. This is because the 3 (well, 4 that year) school Champions need to use otherwise illegal magic to fight dragons or breath underwater and talk to mermaids or battle a sphinx.
The other good reason to use the Cup is that Barty Crouch Jn, via Mad Eye Moody’s body, was able to secretly help Harry win throughout the year, so that only he would touch the cup, and not some other random witch or wizard. It had to be Harry, as Voldemort needed Harry’s mother’s blood.
Finally: when Harry touches the cup, he was going to disappear and ideally be killed. This couldn’t happen elsewhere in the school year because other students and teachers would see him missing and immediately warn Dumbledore, Voldemort’s only magical rival. But while in the maze, all 4 champions are hidden from view, so Harry going missing for an hour or so wouldn’t have raised the alarm, giving Voldemort time to regain his body, kill Harry, and then escape before Dumbledore knew anything.
I didn't want to go into too much detail about that example (because I don't actually know that much about Harry Potter), but the point was that he's using an example of a plot hole and saying it doesn't matter, when in fact it's not a plot hole in the first place. He makes genuine and non-existent plot holes look exactly the same. A small point, but one of many, many flaws in his video.
Oh yeah, I get that. I just love Harry Potter and wanted to defend it! (The movies do have a few plotholes, and even the books have a couple if you really think about it, but on the whole it's a pretty coherent narrative.)
Fair doos. Pretty much every film/book etc has at least some plot holes. It all just depends how serious they are.
All which Patrick seemingly, or deliberately, ignored in his video. The thing here is that Patrick framed all plot holes as irrelevant, painting it in a broad stroke, whereas the relevance of these inconsistencies are in a case-to-case basis.
I'm not that in to Harry Potter, although I have seen most of the movies. But ever since I've seen Dishonored Wolf, Mauler and Rags dissect this video I've been curious if there was any lore-related reason why they didn't just make any random object a portkey. Thank you for the explanation!
Being a writer myself, plotholes, especially in major Hollywood productions, completely ruin my watching experience, because I just know that there are sooo many good writers out there that could've easily solved this problem, but they won't get hired and, consequently, end up financially unstable, bc they don't have the connections. In most cases, plotholes are indirect evidence and a side effect of elitism.
„Shut up about Plot Holes“ is said unironically nowadays, which
is crin-e beyond crin-e.
Still creating fiction is incredibly hard to do and plot holes are pretty much inevitable when creating it. It defiantly something any storyteller should always try to avoid at any point to make their story as thoroughly written as possible but it will never really be completely devoid of any flaws really.
Ur a writer? What movies have u written
"Humans do stupid stuff sometimes so it makes sense you see that in films"
You know what else humans do all the time yet never happens in movies unless it has a point? Stuttering and tripping on your words. It's not shown in movies because it's not interesting, no matter how realistic it is.
I will posit one, SINGLE exception. In Willard, Crispin Glover's character gets heated essentially one time, and during this conversation, messes up a line. They kept it in. I don't mind it became a sort of impromptu character moment. He was so unused to conflict and outward expression that he can't even get it out right.
>stuttering and tripping on your words
what is mumblecore
Martin Scorsese famously has his actors do a lot of improv in order to heighten the stuterry palpable realism of the scene. You're still right though. Because THAT is a stylistic choice and something he first needed to understand was usually unapealing in order to better play around with it.
All stupid things characters do in films are smart from their point of view and if the movie does not show why they are smart from their point of view: That's a plothole.
I t is shown in some movies, but it has a purpose, you won't see a determined character stutter despite it being really common to see a determined person stutter irl, because it would be conflicting with the idea that is being conveyed or trying to be conveyed. But you WILL see doubtful characters stutter, to show you how doubtful they are.
I notice the way that he is LITERALLY looking down at us the viewers. You wanna come across as pretentious? Cause that's how you come across as pretentious. (And the sunglasses. That comes across as pretentious as well)
Also there is a difference between constructive and destructive criticism. The line is not very well defined, but we need to recognize constructive criticism and realize it is not a bad thing
Kimball Belliston yeah that really bothered me, that and his tone
Alfred Bester has a phrase about constructive criticism:
Editor: Have you heard of constructive criticism?
Bester: Yes. I've also heard of fairies and unicorns. That doesn't mean I believe in them.
Jokes aside, I'm all in favor of constructive criticism. What I'm not in favor of is condescension (like what Patrick does in his videos) and dick-sucking (what fanboys do). So this Cynical Review is right on the money for me. But that's just my opinion (mandatory 2019 excuse restating the obvious for the snowflakes).
Yeah hes a prick but throwing around the word pretentious just makes you sound unwilling and incapable of understanding subject matter. But you are 100% right, hes a total ass hat.
The video was supposed to be satirical. That's why.
When I was 6 I thought that the characters in movies almost never going to the toilet is a plothole.
Seems like Patrick never got past 6...
SAVAGE, loved it
Wait but that doesn't make sense. Patrick is saying plot holes don't matter.
It IS a plot hole sometimes. especially in something like 24, where you see an entire day in one go. just have 2 other characters talk andthen see Jack Bauer come out of the mens room.
Because we don’t have to spend time seeing characters go to toilets because they probably did and the films rightfully skipped over it by cutting from when they have breakfast to appearing at work. In some films that can be a bit of a problem, if we saw a character get out of bed and just go straight to work. I am not at all backing Patrick’s ridiculous arguments since they always make me laugh, but complaining about just simple little things like this is going overboard. In some films where we do see characters doing household chores or just certain home routines, they are often done in montages. American Psycho is a great example of that, where Patrick Bateman monologues about his morning routine.
Efftup Smith
Maybe in their universe they don’t have to use the bathroom
Patrick - "Movies are not math!"
Christopher Nolan - "Hold my beer."
I appreciate this comment. A lot.
*whispers* one of the biggest examples focused on here is from a christopher nolan movie
@@jamesduffy7549 I will defend the Dark Knight Rises example because it was shown in Batman Begins, that Bruce managed to travel all the way to China in his twenties before he became Batman and the Dark Knight had him hiring South Korean Smugglers to smuggle him into Hong Kong. Bruce knows people and that was established in the movies already. Complaining about that scene is like complaining about Tony being an idiot for creating Ultron when he already made Jarvis who turned out fine.
@@emberfist8347 you don't need to defend it to me, I don't give a shit how he got to Gotham
@@emberfist8347 which is the point, plot holes are irrelevant
Nitpicks don't really matter
But Plotholes definitely do
So a nitpicky plothole...
eh, i give up. it's conditional.
Well put
AMEN TO THAT!!!
Nickkiller -07 if I catch it on the first viewing it’s bad and lazy writing if I notice it on second viewing it’s not good writing and meh if it’s after that I don’t care that much and can forgive them if they aren’t huge or completely world breaking
No they don't
Thank you very much for posting this. I'm actually trying to write short stories, but always panic about whether there's something I've missed that's out of place, in terms of the plot or characterisation. It's annoying to see someone like Patrick Willems claim that internal logic and consistency don't matter, because it tells aspiring writers and creators that their efforts don't matter, as you and YMS pointed out.
I'm very interested in developing my own writing and it's great to watch someone talk about storytelling and criticism in this way. Great video and very much appreciated.
Glad you liked it!
I'l wright you a short story without internal logic and consistency, then let let me me know who will be the better writer you or me:
Attempt short history of the keyboard endevors part 6.
Working on his second language skills a Man has some time to kill and procedes to do so.
Hoping to write a senseable story without corralation.
yeah no, does not work.
It also tells people like you that plot inconsistencies don't matter and will in turn make you a worse writer. Plot holes should only occur due to lack of oversight and incompetence.
I've been writing for just a few years, but one thing I realized early on was the fact that I'm responsible for every word, every comma, every thought that gets transmitted to the reader. Kind of obvious. But to your point, Silver - I do quite a bit of re-writing, which involves a ton of re-reading, to the point where I've basically memorized a whole short story, even an entire novel. When you know your story that well, the inconsistencies and flaws become more and more obvious - so it's easy to seek them out, and polish the story 'til it hits the mark for you. Takes a lot of hours, though - sometimes I even put a story aside for months, and come back to it with fresh energy and perspective. All the best with your writing (Seems wrong to say good luck:)
Well said!
Voldemort being sentimental with certain objects are actually fitting for a person like him. Psychologists have found that many if not all psychopaths, or in case of Voldemort, unloving murderers tend to give sentiment on objects instead on people. So yes Voldemort making the Tri-wizard cup a portkey make sense, it's the same thing with his horcruxes and with the film, how he handles the elder wand
Karl Beltran yes. And Voldemort is theatrical asf.
And I found his mentioning of any HP film to be ridiculous but GOF especially. They’re based off of pretty solid books and GOF Definitely left out the most. So....I don’t know; it was a dumb attempt at an example for me
But Voldemort didn't make it a portkey. Barty Crouch Jr. did.
Oh no, here comes the Harry Potter fans to defend Rowling's poor writing. It was only a matter of time.
@@seybertooth9282 Hey I'm just here to point out something and if you don't like it you can just leave sir... Anyways have you actually written a book? It's so easy to insult somebody's product/s and just neglect the amount of work he/she has to put through to get things done. Say what you want about Rowling's work but give some time to acknowledge not just her but all creator's the work that they've put on just to make it all happen.
Easy for you to say, if you actually do writing then good for you and you'll understand this point, but if you don't why don't you write something and stop bitchin about someone else's work.
Reminds me of Harvey Weinstein, who treated women like objects. Boom boom tish.
“The only growth comes from a plot contrivance”. In other words, what some might call a plot hole
a plot contrivance is something possible, but VERY unlikely. A plot hole is worse, it is downright impossible
Wait... if plot holes would not matter AT ALL, wouldn't that lead to a situation, where writers could just write something almost totally random?
it'd be like if shakespeare completely ignored hamlet being sent away and had him come back with no explanation at all.
And we got Disney SW.
And if we couldn't watch movies wrong then Indiana Jones would have drowned on his ride on submarine because yeah, EVERYBODY knows subs are made for underwater movement and the fact that german submarines of that time were actually much better off on the surface would not matter at all. And the fact that soldiers in the army that is in the receiving end damagewise tend to stop fighting when their military leaders make big blunders and the only way around that problem is to let civilian leaders say :"We have plan" does not matter because everybody knows Holdo should have said they had a plan. And so on.
We're getting closer and closer to testing the Infinite Monkey Theorem for real aren't we
that's just not the argument at all. agree or disagree, but playing dumb to the argument is just, well dumb
A piece of media is like a clock. Plot holes are minor imperfections - if there is few (to an acceptable degree) plot holes, then the clock works fine. If there is too many...
Well, that clock's utterly shagged.
Exactly.
THE KARATE KID works perfectly and beautifully. Who cares that they let a loose piece of dialogue through that contradicted the end move? Nobody.
@@SPVFilmsLtd and it still works however you cut it, at that point it wasn't even about the tournament bout, it was all about the two kids and their conflict, Daniels victory was his own over other character who's name I can for the life of me remember right now. The tournament's just a window dressing to the real conflict at that point.
@@username12120 he was an 80s antagonist so it probably started with a B.
Edit: it was Johnny, and yet I still want to say it was something like Butch.
@@fantasticmrmonk Thanks mate, Johnny, that's it. Man, I should watch those movies again, the one where they go to Japan I remember being pretty good.
I’m not happy, Bob. I’m not happy.
actually that Die Hard reference is wrong. the bad guys can't shut down the power grid until they break into the vault. the black guy with the glasses that was working on the vault said so. if they shut down the power 1st. the city workers & police would be all over them before taking over the building. so even Patrick's plotholes have plotholes.
I feel like if someone brought that up to him he start shouting.
I WENT TO FILM SVHOOL SO I KNOW BETTER THEN YOU!
@@spacebutter1121 i guess going to film school doesn't make him knowledgeable about films.
I always assumed that the power lines to the vault were secured so you wouldn't be able to simply cut the power.
After all the company owns the building. They could have built it so that the power lines for the vault are surrounded by cement and if you used explosives, you'd blow a hole into the building.
Back then that sounded reasonable considering the unreasonably secured vault. 7 locks, really?
Lol, Patrick actually said if you look deep enough, you would find plotholes in his video. :D
It wasn't his plot hole. It was a "plot hole" from movieplotholes.com. He shows this in his video. It is shown in this video.
And this argument proves one of Patrick's points. That many so called plot holes are explained in the movie if you actually watch it.
I actually had this same argument with a friend of mine regarding She-Ra. The final season opened so many plot holes it blew my mind. Plot holes can be really important to our enjoyment of a story.
Which plot holes in particular?
At 11:50 the "plot hole" in The Wizard of Oz is explained at the end of the movie. Glinda specifically says: "She wouldn't have believed me, she had to learn it for herself."
Still a bit contrived though and it took me out of the movie. Why did she need to learn to tap her shoes together? Was it because she needed to learn to want home? She already wanted to go home.
@@joshuabell7761 It's not exactly perfect, but the movie does spend the entire first act with Dorothy looking away from home and seeking something better. She even tries to run away. In her mind home is the source of all her problems. I also took the "She wouldn't have believed me" part as Dorothy wouldn't have believed that she actually had the ability to take herself home. She had to learn about her own strength of character first.
In terms of plot holes, I always figured the one part that was never resolved was that the sheriff's order to have Toto destroyed was still standing by the end of the film.
It's a plot hole MGM created when they decided to turn the Good Witches of the North and South into one character.
In the Munchkin Village, it was the Good Witch of the North who told Dorothy to see the Wizard. After the Wizard leaves without her, it was the Good Witch of the South who told Dorothy that her shoes have the power to take her home.
@@v1de0gamr23 I read the book like 30 years ago so I could be completely wrong on this, but I thought Dorothy was named queen of the flying monkeys and they flew her home? Or something like that. For some reason I seem to remember that the slippers don't take her home in the book.
@@JoeSyxpack my recollections are probably as spotty as yours, but however it happened, I know it involved the Witch of the South, not the North
Funfact, the acid blood not going through the shop all the way isn't odd or a plothole. Think about it, if you drop acid on the ground, does it burn all the way to the core? Ofcourse not, the longer a acid spends corroding material, the less effective it becomes till it doesn't corrode anymore.
hasábburgonya
Precisely. Acid is a compound that changes the compound itself in a chemical reaction. A finite amount will react until it there’s nothing left to react (provided there’s something for it to react with).
IOW: Acid burning through everything would be like a candle that never stops burning.
People consider it a plot hole? Mah education (I'm not sure if such strong acid can exist in the first place, though)
@@friendlylaser What can and can't exist is irrelevant, all it needs to do act like its real world counterparts.
@Seymon Mart It would be extremely hard to predict what an entirely independent species evolving for who knows how long that's supposedly the perfect hunter is capable of. Who knows what kinds of compounds it could great through all that time. And also there is Fluoroantimonic Acid is pretty crazy but if that were what was used anytime a character got alien blood on them it would completely melt them and flood the air with poisonous gas and causing them to explode. Makes the aliens blood seem nice lmao
What struck me more is the fact Dallas says 'molecular acid' and nobody asks wtf did you just said.
Plot-Hole: a relevant logical inconsistency to the plausible progression of an established narrative's integrity.
Thats what my dad called me
Not bad.
I think you hurt my brain
@@lzdrake6455
That's the price and utility of working out a dormant muscle. Keep training that brain to process heavier burdens, don't let the damn oppressive thought policing zeitgest zealots subjugate your seminal automonous sentient volition! )
@@Geronimo_Jehoshaphat well makes a change from all the feminist and right wing shit online we need more insane originality
I will say this. You at most minimum level, have at least made good-faith arguments. You presented the opposing claims in full and gave your opponent a logical out. Moving upward, you also made good empathetic arguments by going into each claim and rebutting them in detail one by one, as well as considering his rationale and mentioning both valid and invalid arguments they have used.
I respect that. I love seeing critical-thinking based critiques where whether or not i agree with the critique, i come out even just a little bit wiser. Great job.
Thank God this Patrick-Clown is proven wrong more and more by 'Good-Faith-Criticism-Essays' getting more and more popular recently.
I mean, look at Jay Exci covering Doctor Who, Madvocate covering The Flash and Hbomberguy covering Sherlock, RWBY and various Concepts,
with hour-long Videos that are so damn-good that people comment seperately from each other: Wow, i do not even know this show this video is about but i watched it all.
What i'm trying to say here, i guess, is: Dont miss out and check those out, as well as various people talking about High Guardian Spice and Santa Inc.
in real world, people DO act logically. it's just that everybody has different values and goals. that's where real conflict is coming from.
They don't always act logically, but yes, a good conflict has to be grounded in competing objectives. Not just in convenience
the thing about logic is that it works with known variables, so what seems logical to one person can be illogical to another, and vice versa.
While I agree with that, all that basically means is that all characters make decisions off of their own internal logic. This is something they teach you in acting, that way you know why your character makes their decisions and they don’t feel hollow. The thing is though, their logic can help drive the plot, but it must be consistent and well stated, otherwise it’s just plot convenience. Good writers know that a story is pushed and pulled by the ideology of the characters, and that’s what makes the these specific characters essential.
yes, consistency of rules is paramount.
I don't understand why it was necessary to write a two page essay on such a trivial matter, but fair enough.
As a sort of hobbyist storywriter that actually tries to research how to make good stories, this is an extremely infuriating man and I can only imagine how irritated those who like reviewing stories are right now.
As a writer who makes stories for fun and as a hobby, I've been doing research on how to properly write a story good enough to stand on it's own. This reviewer is making me wonder if he has actually done research on how to write a story.
@@dawnbreaker4217 You would be surprised how little real storytelling is appreciated nowadays. Based off the drek vomited out into theaters, tv, and streaming nowadays, most people in Hollywood couldn't recognized a good story if it crapped on their $500,000 car.
While the majority of writing is solitary, improving as a writer requires outside input. There is only so far you can advance on your own before you need a critique group and beta readers. The 'writers' that fight against basic things like plot holes being a problem are probably the people who don't listen to criticism and think they are always right.
Exactly, don't allow your movie or book to be incoherent just because you didn't pay enough attentionwhile making it. Strive for absolute perfection, and I'll meet you halfway there
In other words, characters don't have to act logically, but the way that they act should be logical to us (or make sense to us) even if it's an emotional reaction from their perspective.
Yea, they don't have to be logical just internally consistent.
Yep, there always has to be a reason why they're doing something that fits their character
People finding detailed plot holes in movies shows that they care about them. It's better than forgotting a movie you just viewed the same minute it ends.
Yes, a film is essentially a book. If the book has to be consistent and beleiveable, why not a movie?
Believable is relative, but consistency is critical
@@ZenoDLC True. I meant by "believable" to emphasize "consistency". I might not actually believe a story or believe in its theme, but I should be able to follow it and at least see how someone might believe it.
@@ZenoDLC there's different ways to achieve the goal, if you're making a really surreal film for example, other rules will apply and people's expectations will be different; but otherwise I agree
Because consistency would make a book really f***ing boring. Hahahahaha. Just kidding. That guy is simply stupid.
You're "kinda" watching movies wrong. Wait, but "movies is not math". Last I checked, math has a definitive right and wrong.
WHICH ONE IS IT?
Well that's where the "kinda" comes in!
@@Blaze6108 He didn't say "kinda" the first time.
Is math the only thing that has a definitive right and wrong? Is everything that has a definitive right and wrong math?
Bård Ræstad
Hahahahaa! Yes.
Then show your work for that conclusion.
Well, apparently great writing and story-telling, the reasons I started loving movies, isn’t important. Cool, I’ll just passively watch stuff like a vegetable now.
Yeah, its not like you wanna use your brain or anything, lets not be ridiculous here
@@randomguy6679 woah woah woah, if we think about movies we might form an opinion about them. Gotta watch out for those
i think the part that for some reason infuriates me the most is the camera shot used for 'you're watching movies wrong' its a shot where he is actually looking down at you.
That's funny,when I 1st saw the scene something about it just bugged me,but it wasn't until I read your comment that it clicked,and it just became clear why I couldn't take it serious,if anyone ever want me personally to listen to what they have to say,that sure isn't the way to do it.
People don't act entirely rational all the time, but that doesn't mean when we don't it doesn't make sense. Emotions can get the better of us in situations where it appears obvious to everyone else not to lash out or do something stupid. You can have an otherwise perfectly rational character act irrational provided there is context (i.e. someone they strongly cared about just died) for them to do so. But if you have characters act (radically) different for no discernible reason in/between scenes, that isn't a reflection of how people behave. That's bad writing/storytelling.
Indeed. Their acting illogically has to be believable or make sense. Otherwise it's just an excuse to move the story forward and breaks the immersion.
And depending on the severity of the break in logic and the amount of logic breaks that happen, is ultimately what I think most people really have a problem with. We can overlook and forgive inconsistencies when they're minor and/or aren't that many of, but when the whole movie's littered with them (like TLJ), it's virtually impossible not to notice and be frustrated by. Like you said, "degrees".
Not to say you can't still enjoy the movie, of course. To each their own there.
Boom and boom.
I'm reminded of trial 4 in Danganronpa Trigger Happy Havoc. If I recall correctly, Ashaina was tryna punish everyone for pressuring Ogami into killing herself, and Byakuya made the mistake of thinking that those who kill/mislead want to benefit themselves, so he fell for Asahina's lies as she played on his logical thinking pattern to lure him to death. Also I think Kyoko said something about Byakuya failing to solve the case becuz not everyone acts according to cost-benefit diagrams? Also, there's another cost-benefit diagram (designed to help the world instead of the self) found in SDR2: Goodbye Despair where Nagito learned that he and his classmates were evil and forgot that truth, so he tried to make sure Monokuma can't guide them back to that evil path by trapping them in an unsolvable murder case, knowing they'd try to rely on logic and deductions and fail when the evidence is revealed to be insufficient. Other logical factors of Nagito's plan involved the traitor. Logically, if the traitor is the enemy of those who would induce despair, there is no reason to protect those enemies, so the traitor should use Nagito's luck to try to survive alone and make sure hope can live on. Everything up to the case 5 summary goes according to Nagito's plan: Nagito prepares to die while everyone looks for bombs that are actually fireworks; as the time of fire ignition in warehouse draws near, he mutilates himself so at first everyone will think he suicided; everyone threw extinguisher grenades randomly, not knowing one was poisoned, with the traitor ending up throwing the bad one; the traitor not revealing themselves during the scare and continuing to protect their identity afterwards; learning that the killer killed by random chance and can't be traced. However, when encouraged to give up and vote for the killer randomly, which would still give the killer a high chance of survival, the traitor says it's too early to give up in spite of insufficient evidence. Then, logic gets thrown out the window after the case 5 summary, and even though the traitor reveals herself and talks nonsense (sudden robot talk and suspicious attempts to hurry everyone's votes) she convinces everyone (in less than an hour) to go on an irrelevant tangent and trust her enough to vote for her, in spite of logic saying "She is the enemy and is still acting suspicious so don't listen" and "Assuming she is the killer just cuz she's the traitor is foolish" and "Hajime says it doesn't matter who the traitor is, and yet we talked about it for minutes". The traitor knew what the others were before Nagito did and acted against her better judgment, knowing that she can't be a guardian of the world if she died. As much as I despise the logical fallacies of this trial, it is what it is: a list of decisions made by emotions and wild assumptions and calculations are deliberately dismissed because the story wouldn't be interesting if the most logical path was followed. Another example from the Last Airbender and Legend of Korra series: When Katara bloodbent that puppetmaster, she didn't do anything wrong (unless waterbending in the fire nation is wrong) becuz she used that power to hold her target in place (not something she hasn't done before even though blood wasn't used before), killed nobody that night, didn't lose Aang or Sokka, ended up being the one person to defeat an unstoppable force of terror that no one else could beat (and I'm certain a lot of people were relieved to know the puppeteering charade was done), and if we assume her actions were correct in this moment, did she logically analyze whether or not her actions were correct/righteous? *No.* She focused on the fact that she bent blood (ok fine, maybe also the fact that the puppetmaster tried to imply that she's not different), and went on to make a law against the same power that she possesses. If what she did that night was correct, then her reactions are emotionally irrational. Not sure if that was bad writing or part of her character. Personally, I think making that law goes against some of her character traits, such as her supposed desire for bending freedom (an issue discussed in season 1 of A:TLA). It's just... not like her. Is what I wanna say, but like you said MisterA: "You can have an otherwise perfectly rational character act irrational provided there is context."
You don't "watch movies wrong." That's the thing, movies elicit reactions from viewers, and if plotholes are the size of the Milky Way, it will elicit negative reactions no matter what. If it's a minor one, it won't interfere with the audiences' suspension of disbelief.
This is wrong. If you're watching a movie and you don't want to like it you're watching it wrong.
@@HermanFalckHow Late and random strawman.
Im so tired about the "turn off your brain" Argument, is literally brain dead.
School in a nutshell
I am right there with you. When someone tells me to turn off my brain and just be entertained by a story, that just tells me they're excusing lazy writing.
While yes, characters can act impulsive and illogically, they can't act out of character or randomly. For example, Guts in Berserk is one of the most impulsive characters I know, yet he always acts in a way that makes sense.
Same with Walter White from Breaking Bad. The whole show is essentially a case study of what happens when you act irrationally. Walter is an extremely impulsive character, but every time he acts in a way that's consistent with his character, and makes sense in the story's logic.
Please tell me this was pun intended
@@itacirfeuserjr.6244 yeah fam
That's not the argument.
I prefer your definition of a plot hole. “Plot hole” would literally mean a lapse in the plot, or a kind of chasm in the storytelling or world building
“None of these matter...because they’re not what a movie is about”.
Well if that’s not the stupidest argument I’ve ever heard!
noel090909 understatement of the century
"im telling you to worry about what matters" and here lies the problem
WHO GETS TO DEFINE... what matters
Apparently, that Willems guy.
@@AdamRelayson 😂🤣😂🤣🤣🤣
Voldemort wanted to return to the one home he ever really knew, triumphantly and the winner of the tri wizard tournament and in front of a crowd of witnesses to fight and have join his wizardry hitlary
there were familes that attended, so that would make his terror even larger and he would influence the wizards world
I mean, in the first book he wanted to have his triumphant return on Halloween, the day he was defeated.
The second, he wanted to come back with a giant snake.
The most consistent part of Voldemort's plans is that he is a giant drama queen with a flair for the dramatic.
@@alexross1816 I would point that really Voldemort's plan in the first four books was get a new body. Hence he wanted the stone in the first book. The second book he had no real involvement in the main story other than giving Lucius his old Diary. He figured he could cause some chaos and kill a few more muggleborn's while he was waiting to get another body. Plus I honestly saw him wanting to kill Harry as his main goal. He was perfectly willing to go stay relatively under the radar in the next book where didn't seem to mind the Ministry of Magic was denying he is back until the ending where they see him in person.
The reason he used the triwizard tournament is because, as is stated (no exaggeration) at least 20 times in the books, and I KNOW at least twice in the movies, there is no transport in or out of hogwarts by magical means. There are exactly two exceptions. The pair of vanishing cabinets from year 5 were able to transcend this likely due to an oversight in hogwarts defenses, or that particular kind of transportation being unable to be blocked, and is controlled simply by banning them, however the room of hidden things is a pretty good place to hide such contraband. The second time was movie exclusive, where in movie 6 Dumbledore says on no uncertain terms that being the headmaster makes him immune to the castles defenses, so he can apparate in and out of hogwarts, but only him.
The tri-wizard cup was chosen because it was to be a portkey that was specifically allowed past all of the transportation requirements of hogwarts, given special privileges, and made immune to all of hogwart's defences. Therefore it's actually pretty much the opposite of a plothole if you ask me.
He could have done it earlier still. And what you say is merely assumption as far as I know, it isn't explained in the book, Voldemort's plans usually make sense, but this one was too risky, when he could have instead have fake Mad-eye Moody be friendly to Harry, invite him in his office, make him touch a portkey and kaboom! we are all in the cementery, let's make it they way it was in the book. What JKR should have done is provide a reason or reasons why that couldn't be done, or why the characters didn't want to do it
@@Doctor_Straing_Strange Character flaws are not the same as story flaws. In addition his plan wasn't that risky. He needed Harry to disappear without raising red flags. A tournament known to be lethal with the task taking place in a maze is a perfect cover. He also took the precaution of having Crouch as Moody use the Imperious curse on Krum to make sure Harry reached the cup first. The fact he choose the cup was also foreshadowing for his fatal flaw vanity. It is mentioned in Half-Blood Prince that Voldemort could have made himself invincible by making a random rock a horcrux, but he was too vain to do that. Each Horcrux was an important object for him personally and most were also important magic objects with three being personally connected to the wizards who founded Hogwarts.
Using Pulp Fiction’s scene where Butch and Marcellus have their mouths blocked was a genius idea to illustrate the way Patrick wants people to approach films.
Full disclosure - I am probably one of those people who can look at a movie and be completely satisfied with all the plot holes and mistakes presented so long as they got big shiny effects. (Apparently, I am nuts for liking the x-men movies and the transformer movies XD). So plot holes rarely come to mind. That being said, I can completely understand pointing out plotholes and the likes. Since at the end of the day, if the film-makers that do care listen, it will hopefully ultimately lead to better stories and movies for us to enjoy in the future.
That's exactly it. I don't have a problem with people enjoying movies with big plot holes or people overlooking plot holes because they like the movie. Enjoy stuff all you want! I was just trying to argue the point that plot holes (where valid) do affect the quality of a film.
As the video states, part of the problem is Patrick Willem runs way too fast and loose with the definition of "plot hole." Continuity errors are not plot holes unless they are so egregious, they actually derail the plot. I would say continuity errors don't normally effect the story and aren't a problem beyond a small distraction. Real plot holes leave you thinking, "Well, that was stupid" and if they go too far, it makes the whole story stupid.
ressljs - This is likely where Patrick would say "You are watching movies wrong" he is (imho) arguing that continuity errors are *not* plot holes, and getting angry that people call them as such, Cynical points this out by saying he conflates this with things that actually ARE plot holes so as to lessen the damage that real plot holes do to the integrity of the film itself.
I myself enjoy a lot of films with a lot of plot holes, purely because when I go to watch a film, be it an amazing film like The Shawshank Redemption, or something silly and amusing like Mr Deeds (note - I am not saying these films have plot holes, they might, but IDK if they do or not), I have an ability to turn of the critical thinking part of my brain, and watch the film in its entirety and enjoy it without having to analyze the plot and its subsequent holes. I consider this to be one of my greatest assets as it allows me to be satisfied with a lot of things that most people dislike. So when I watch or play something, I almost always get value for my money when it comes to entertainment, the people who nitpick the plot holes are left bitter because they paid for something and are not satisfied on what they "wasted" their money on.
There could be hundreds of reasons people think this way, but seeing as I don't think this way I can't presume to tell people why they think in a certain way, but from my perspective, being able to enjoy any type of media without worrying about plot holes means I get a lot more value for my money than a lot of other consumers, so to me I could say "you are consuming (insert media) wrong" in a bid to try and get you to be more satisfied with what you spend your money on, it wouldn't be me saying you're wrong for thinking this, it would be me trying to make you see it from my perspective so you would find more satisfaction with your choice of media. What you do from there is entirely up to you.
Good points. And even though I disagree with a lot of what Willems said (I think a lot of it had to do with his tone more than the message), I do sort of agree with some of his overall argument. I've stopped watching "Everything wrong with (insert movie here)!" videos because they are looking for ANYTHING to complain about. So you get relatively small plot holes blown out of proportion. For example, I heard people make a big deal about the two guys who got lost in Prometheus included the guy with the mapping equipment. Does it make sense that they would be the ones to get lost? No, but it really doesn't impact the story much. I didn't even notice the first time I watched it. But to say plot holes in general don't matter is a bit excessive. General Holdo's plan of letting the First Order pick off the fleet until they're down to one ship, and then everyone flees to a nearby planet in escape pods... The first order can track ships throw hyperspace but wouldn't notice escape pods or a fricken planet?! That just makes the whole movie seem dumb.
"XD"
You remember that scene in the Simpsons where Skinner tells Edna, "I've always admired your ability to get personally offended by broad social trends."? Well, that's what we have here. Some jackass doesn't like videos that criticize aspects of films that he considers trivial (I'm thinking he specifically doesn't like the Everything Wrong With series), and decides the time has come to set the world to rights. Christ, what a dingleberry. Plot holes DO matter, just as every other mistake or deficiency in a film (or any other art form) do.
It's a matter of DEGREE. Some plot holes are minor, some are lethal.
This is basically the same argument we went through when Abstract Expressionism became the dominant genre in painting. "Hell, my five-year-old nephew can paint as well as that!" It's a matter of TASTE; neither the painter nor the philistine is objectively "wrong" in such a conflict.
Im going to say this before someone else beats me to it;
Why does he dress like a poor man's nostalgia critic?
I thought he was till he started be annoying
@@prakonekeophanthavady7934 Are you implying that the Nostalgia Critic isn't annoying?
The old advice: "Dress for the job you _want_ , not the job you're applying for."
It's aspirational. Which is suitably pathetic.
@@warlords5724 However. YOUR critique of CR's critique handwaves the incontrovertible objective fact that Patrick is, indeed, a massive wanker.
Patrick Willems is like the nostalgia critic but whithout the whining and screaming.
Don't know if anyone has noticed but, can we all take a moment to appreciate that this video has more views than the actual Patrick Willems Plot Holes video?
5:30 Actually, the Indiana Jones "plot hole" isn't a plot hole. Subs back then only dove into the water if they had to, and the rest of the rest of the time they coasted along the service. If I were to guess, that used to be a commonly known fact that just got lost to time as submarine technology improved, and coasting was no longer necessary. If I posted this already, sorry, I have a bad memory.
Wait, do we see the submarine actually diving during the film? Because that explanation is perfect, u-boats were diese powered and indeed neded to stay afloat most time
@@juanordonezgalban2278 I think we see it pop up right at the end of the montage, but that could have easily been a very shallow dive for a brief amount of time. My friend told me the explanation. He knows a lot about history and military technology so I trust him.
This is something that not only *I* knew about, but a lot of people back in 1981 also knew about. And this is literally the point that Patrick is making that Cynical Review cynically misses; cinematic language isn't absolute - it evolves, changes and is made for a certain time and era.
Likewise the DARK KNIGHT RISES point is basically an issue of viewers being out of step with the language of the film (granted a very flawed and messy film). How did Bruce Wayne get back to Gotham City?
Coz he's the goddamn Batman, that's why.
Patrick's point is that film fans make the same mistake that Cynical Review makes across his entire rebuttal; he thinks movies are some kind of inert, absolute, objective language when in fact they're nothing of the sort. Some films only have plot holes NOW because younger audiences don't know what is going on whereas the audience at the time of the film's release were able to understand the contextual short-hand.
I like Cynical Review's content, but he's completely wrong in this instance. Or maybe he's just very young and hasn't seen enough films across a variety of eras to see Patrick's point (I also don't completely agree with Patrick's points or some of his examples in his original video, but on the whole he's correct in terms of why people see plot holes where none exist and also why people DON'T see obvious plot holes when they DO exist).
Also, for me, the hole Indiana Jones series, even starting from Raiders, is FULL of impossible stuff. Indy is superhuman, as are other people in the movie. The tone of this is set at the very opening scene, and it never backs away from that. So the sub thing is just another entry in the stack of "awesome things that happen or Indy does, just because it's awesome". This, the fridge scene from crystal skull, and being 100% okay after falling from a plane with an inflatable raft are all in this same category of "it's okay because we've already established that these films are not grounded in reality".
@@misfit119 Wait.
Let me get this straight.
You think that a movie where a man dressed in kevlar armor with physics-defying hang-glider/wingsuit device strapped to his back, armed with computer and battle technology that doesn't even exist yet and who is capable of beating up countless number of armed thugs and trained mercs single-handedly....
...AND who owns what is ostensibly a gravity-defying, black FLYING SAUCER....
...and has a portable EMP device that can blackout streetlights and other electrical devices around him while not affecting his own highly sensitive and electronic vehicles...
...is in a movie that's SO REALISTIC...that you can't fathom why said man, who is shown to be not only a survival expert, but also a trained ninja and one of the most richest people on the planet, could possibly have gotten back from some backwater part of the Indian Desert and to Gotham City unless it SHOWED you how he did it?
I mean...even if the Nolan films were 'realistic' (they aren't)...given what is established about his character within those three films, it is very well established that you NEED to break his back AND stick him in a hole he cannot escape from in order to INSURE that he won't get back to Gotham and spoil the villains plains. Like the movie shows you the extent that they have to imprison him in order to make sure he doesn't just come back.
I'm not sure you've watched the movie as carefully as you think you might have?
Urgh, Patrick is the guy who comes to tell you you're playing Magic wrong, after he just lost to you, cause his 'mechanics' were too 'advanced' for you.
He might actually then try to cast magic on you.
There's a lot of people who play Magic wrong, that's what judges are for
@@Kryptnyt magic has no many weird mechanics thats very hard to know them all.
@@kowikowi465 Gets easier after about 16 years of playing, and Magic Online really helped me learn the structure of the game
@@Kryptnyt There's a certain level of complexity where very few human beings can truly understand everything without looking stuff up. Hell there are rules made just because the game has literal paradoxes involved (opalescence/humility)
If he Really Doesn't think Plot holes matter, he clearly hasn't watched The Room.... Or he's just watching it wrong.
There are far more issues with the Room than just plot holes. It's not called the "Citizen Kane of bad movies" just because its plot is awful.
It's been a while since I've seen it but I'm not sure there are huge plot holes in That story. More badly written characters, acting, and whole bunch of other things that go into making a movie. The overall plot did technically make sense a guy who thinks he's going to be promoted and marry the love of his life is passed over and his fiance doesn't love him spreads rumors about him and fucks his best friend so he becomes depressed and kills himself.
The one point he's trying to make. Badly, but he's trying to make it is that dropped plot threads aren't plot holes. Again, bad writing does not equal plot hole.
I remember the first time I saw the movie "Ready Player One" I was completely blown away with the plot holes in there. I don't normally try to call out plot holes in movies unless theyre really glaring . But man that movie had some awful ones, and it wouldn't matter so much if the movie didn't prove to me so hard that it had an explanation for it's plot holes in the form of "true gamer" Tye Sheridan. I think I noticed all of the plot holes in that movie on the first viewing, they are that glaring. And It really fucks up the rest of the movie because of how interwoven it is with the setting, and the world building. I was immediately taken out of the movie and couldn't get immersed in it afterwards
And it's really disappointing in comparison to the book for that and a million other reasons.
Like the biggest plot hole: every single "Easter egg" challenge you have to do is something that regular people would've figured out within an hour. The first one is driving backwards in a racing game
The Beauty and the Beast remake was basically an attempt to answer some minor nitpicks from the animation version (wasn't the prince little kid when he got cursed? why the servants got cursed too? where is Belle's mom?)... by creating huge plot holes!
Unraveler I'm curious what you mean by that? I'm glad that they addressed some of those points as it expanded the wolrd a lot more, but I wasn't aware that it created plot holes. Could you elaborate what those plotholes were, because this has really peaked my interest.
@@annjowolfe1561 The servants were cursed because they claimed they didn't do jack shit to make the prince a better person. But after all - they were just servants, and they said that the prince was influenced by his father, which was a cruel king (and in a Monarchy society - it simply translates into a tyrant) so how much power did the servants have to begin with in order to change the prince's personality?
What happened to Belle's mom (A question that only the nitpickiest type of people are asking)? Well, let's me introduce you to that convenience plot item - a book which let you teleport anywhere, to show you that she's dead, happy? BTW, that teleportation book is never going to be mentioned again!
Hey, also remember the good enchantress? She is still a good person, even though she has raised the stake by making that if the curse wouldn't be broken in time, all servants would change from enchanted objects to inanimate objects (Basically - they would die)! By the way, did I mention that the enchantress is still a good enchantress?
A RUclipsr named Lindsay Ellis explains in details all the problems in the new remake!
Personally I think them trying to "fix" B&B and ended up making a less interesting movie, with less interesting characters... As the great Lindsey Ellis said "thanks. I hate it"
@@adiveler Didn't she die during the Black Death?
@@chrys9621 Yep, and how did that contribute to the story?
Best critique of Patrick's video, I've seen so far. Subbed.
Thank you! That's much appreciated.
The whole "plot holes don't matter" trend is partly just to protect the Star Wars disaster.
Game of Thrones has taken the mantle of (Plot Holes don't Matter).
To be fair I never watched a single episode of Got, I'm just picking this up from what I've seen...
This argument existed long before the last few years with Star Wars. I know I've been hearing it for the last 20 years myself over a vast array of movies and I'm not usually that harsh about them.
There's a huge discussion about what can be considered "plot hole" and what is, in actuality, too many cooks spoiling the broth during pre-production, and in committee, no less.
FOR EXAMPLE, I get the distinct impression that many fans consider Luke throwing the light-saber away to be some form of plot hole. I can *almost* see why this could be considered true, but it's *NOT* really a plot hole. It is an unexplained *REQUIREMENT* which may have even been something which George Lucas himself presented to Disney / the development team, when he sold the Ranch.
It does actually make a kind of sense to have Luke take a radically different stance to his Jedi-ness (without a saber!) especially considering how his primary Master was Obi-Wan, Mr. Don't Lose Your Lightsaber (for all the good it does him). I can even find written reasons in places like the Tao Te Ching for this artistic decision, which also makes sense, given the various influences SW had, including Kurosawa.
What Star Wars disaster? You not liking The Last Jedi doesn't mean there were plot holes.
I actually don't consider the light saber thing a plothole because it's not. it's a misunderstanding of action. his leaving his lightsaber where it was speaks of a classic archetype and action of the warrior who lays aside his sword to no longer fight. This usually means that it is kept somewhere safe but not within easy reach to be used and the ex-warrior takes on a more sage-like role and position from that point. John Wick to some extent is built along this same archetype with his promise to his wife and his weapons sealed below the basement floor in cement. It's actually an important archetype to some kinds of stories and cultures.
I have issues with several other parts of the movies myself.
I've always loved the way that voldemort was written, at least in the sense that his "plot holes" were more a way to show how stupidly egotistical and symbolic he was, despite being so intelligent. I mean, he was so full of himself that he could not stand that a baby survived with magic he did not understand, and in turn spent the rest of his life trying to torment and toy with Harry's life, rather than straight up killing him at any point. He needed it to be symbolic, to cause as much pain as he could, despite the fact that he could have just let the singular baby he could not kill go and continue with his original plan of becoming the dark lord. No... he was so blinded with embarrassment and rage that he had to kill Harry.
The real plot hole of 'Goblet of Fire' is why Harry competed at all? He knew he didn't put his name in the goblet, nobody he knows put it in for him, and none of the faculty know how anyone could have gotten around the goblet's magical security system to put his name in. Obviously somebody wanted him in the tournament, and there had been several attempts on his life over the previous three years. That seems to me like enough red flags for Harry to refuse to set one foot on the competition field 👍
@@v1de0gamr23 Harry just doesn't seemto realize he have a choice in the matter, and no one tell him so, I guess it's just imposible to refuse to participate ^^'
@@v1de0gamr23 you cant refuse to participate in TriWizard tournament. It is like unbreakable wow, if you refuse something bad happened. This was explain in book.
@@v1de0gamr23 once you were picked from the goblet of fire, you were forced to participate in the games.
@@v1de0gamr23The characters had this conversation immediately after his name came out lol
Yes, Patrick.
The literal unexplained *hole* in the *plot* of The Dark Knight Rises, is not actually a *plot hole.*
_Slow clap._
Yes, because plot hole doesn't mean there's literally a hole in the plot. If that was the case, any jump in time would be a plot hole.
@@timothebouchard679 I'm pretty sure he was joking dude lol
@@timothebouchard679 I'm pretty sure he was joking dude lol
@Adrijana Radosevic 1. Gotham City is not a real city. It's a fictional city in a fictional world.The CIA might not even be the same as the one we both know.. since it's a fictional entity... y'know ? ;)
2. Isn't it made clear in the movie that the government(s) have decided not to act because the risk of being discovered is too great? - you might think their decision is stupid, but it's not a plot hole since it's explained. Bane isn't holding them off, he simply told them if anyone tried to cross, he'd make the bomb explode.
@@timothebouchard679 Also I would point the plot point was taken somewhat from storyline from Batman's No Man's Land where the government pretty said Congress to Gotham Drop Dead. It was viewed as unrealistic at the time, but Hurricane Katrina had a very similar reaction from the government. Sometimes things that seem unrealistic can actually happen. Some based on a true story movies have to tone down stuff because they expect them to be seen as too absurd. Like Public Enemies. Dillinger actually tricked almost two dozen people with that that painted block of wood he acted was a gun.
CinemaSins claims they're not reviewers but, if you watch their actual reviews, then compare them to a sins video, there's alot of similarities, which leads me to believe that their sins videos are what they actually think of the movie.
I honestly don't know anymore - the lines between their serious criticisms and their "funny" nitpicks have become so blurred that I don't know what to think. Either way, I'm not a fan of theirs.
Eh.. I dunno. They sinned movies that they obviously loved. And why not. It's really just entertainment, with varying degrees of quality and success IMHO.
no. they claim it's satire when they're wrong and everything else is "comedy". there's a difference.
That is a leap in logic that is sadly too common the similar parts only tell you when they are serious they do not mean that is all they can be
Thats because it can be both. They nitpick movies but at the same time if they notice general themes being done over and over and over and over again it really does effect the enjoyment of movies. They have a youtube channel dedicated to picking on cliches and fuck ups. Of course a movie with nothing but cliches is not going to be enjoyable to them. They've already seen it 100 times before.
GOD BLESS YOU 🙏, also as a filmmaker, I TRULY appreciate your passion for convincing and coherent storytelling! The story of any film, in my perspective, is ALWAYS the BACKBONE to make me care about watching the film! If the plot extremely lacks key story elements, then I'll stop watching the film. PERIOD! Keep these coming!
I'm happy you liked it! I couldn't imagine how I would feel if I were a filmmaker. Probably not much good.
I'm not a filmmaker myself, but I do enjoy writing and telling stories, so plot holes and lazy writing get on my nerves too. That's part of the reason I hated A Quiet Place and skipped the last 20 or so minutes; the entire concept started to break down around halfway through. It felt to me like the writers took a script that was meant to be a 15-20 minute short film and tried to stretch it into a feature length movie without thinking the concept all the way through.
Cynical Reviews I hear you 😂, but you do have the potential to be a GREAT executive producer 💯!
Dargonhuman I'm very glad you can sympathize with me, and I do wish you the best, if you decide to make a career in telling great stories. You also can be a great executive producer! Plus, THANK YOU for saving me time from watching A Quiet Place 😂!
Is it a coincidence that this guy looks like the Nostalgia Critic?
Only because how Modern NC is like. In the old days are stuff that was he deliberately exaggerating and he made three videos acknowledging fuck-ups he did.
Even modern NC would rolling his eyes at this
18:00 The thing here is that, characters having poor motivation, characters being static, characters not growing, the stuff that he thinks matter... All of those can be caused by plot holes in the story!
And in turn they can also cause plot holes in the story if they're used to move the story forward in some unbelievable way.
They aren't just caused by plot holes or cause plot holes...
They can also BE plot holes, themselves!
Some characters are static. Some people are static. A LOT of people have VERY poor motivation. Almost no one grows, ever. Lol
@@savage1267 Stories are not real life, not every character must have an arc, but characters in stories tend to be more changeable, yet also more logical and predictable than real people.
What's more, he complains about the "massive contrivance", despite listing contrivances as a thing that doesn't matter in his montage of punching out the strawman guy.
I think the worst part is that captain sunglasses is ignoring the difference between rationale and logic. Characters don’t always act logically but they should act rationally, like you said, they should act with purpose but they don’t have to act logically. Ironically enough...that’s how people work. We don’t always act logically and that’s fine, but most people do act rationally. The difference between real life and fictional media is that the media has to show that rationale while in real life we don’t always see the rationality that defines someone’s logic. But it is there, it has to be in order for most people to make a decision. For all good and bad decisions people have made some form of rationale to justify what they see as a logical decision even if objectively it isn’t. So in essence....movie characters are human BECAUSE of their illogical rational behavior not in spite of it.
RomanLegion You have a really good point. This is a case where precision in our wording is important, and you explained why beautifully.
Amara Jordan That’s very sweet of you thank you I appreciate that.
Agreed, but it's also in the writers creative freedom to decide who 'should act rationally' and make the movie however he/she likes. So inserting more or less subjective 'logic' to a movie - after the fact - doesn't really make it better, just different.
Dirface If world building is done correctly and all the logic remains consistent then the characters still must act rationally per that universe, the logic being subjective at least to me implies world building. Being that if the logic is subjective it isn’t what we come to expect in the real world, still must remain internally consistent.
@@romanlegion5837 Not really - then you would have to define 'correctly'. Film makers have the creative freedom to make whatever films they please (mostly). So they can apt to make the most irrelevant, illogical characters out there, if they so wish. At this very moment millions of people on RUclips are enjoying films that make little or no sense. So logic, rationale, plot holes etc makes little sense, if any, when used as a yardstick for art. Just like Patrick's video stated. Unless you are a Millennial, of course. But then all bets are off because you were basically born into the The Affective Fallacy.
There's something that's been left un-mentioned: Suspension of disbelief. Movies that are not based on a true story requires the watcher to suspend his disbelief. Even more so in fictional stories. No one can levitate a feather with a few words, but that disbelief is suspended in Harry Potter otherwise the books and movies become inconsistent... if you compare them with reality.
So, to enjoy a movie, the audience will suspend their disbeliefs on multiple points. The problem rises with plot holes. We can, with a lot of suspension of disbelief, believe that Bruce lost all his fortune in a very visible, very public and very witnessed assault on Gotham's Wall Street. But if we accept that, we then plant in our head the concept that now, Batman is poor. So when he gets shipped in a hole in the middle of LITERALLY NOWHERE, our disbelief starts to creep up. How long did it takes for Bane to bring Batman there? It's not mentioned. How far is it? No idea. There's a pass-by line about it possibly being in the middle of Asia, but that makes us disbelieve even more how he goes from the hole to a town (that when he leaves the well, we don't see any in the shot shown), and then from the town he manages to obtain a ride to a city with an airport, Go where his cache of batman stuff is outside of Gotham (which was never established) spend precious hours building the flaming bat symbol (There's no way it was pre-made. There's no reason to make it on that particular bridge) and do all of that before the bomb explodes.
With the setup that's already been told in the movie, they're not only stretching our suspension, they're literally going against it. Someone who cares about the progression of the story will be thrown out of it by all the inconsistencies, and the enjoyment of it will disappears.
N
Fictional does not mean it should have, or is okay to have, plot holes. You seem to be equating a solid plot with realism, that is very ignorant. Inversely, just because a plot is pure fantasy and includes unicorns and dragons, a good writer still manage a plot that makes fucking sense.
Suspension of disbelief, I do not like it. I do not need to suspend my disbelief when reading a good fictional story. Why? Because of secondary belief. The writer should create a believable world not in comparison to reality but in itself, so he should strife to create an internally consistent story, and an internally consistent world. Immersion is broken with plotholes not because you compare them to reality, but because they do not add up to the world as described. Ever noticed most people are trying to explain plotholes from an in-universe perspective?
The moment you need to suspend your disbelief, is the moment the writer failed to create a secondary belief in the mind of his audience. It requires an action from the audience instead of the writer.
Well, this is according to Tolkien, and I have to agree with him.
@@forn8473
I agree as well. You make a great point.
Why everyone is wrong. 5:10
Nowhere in the Karate Kid does it say no kicks to the Head. If you watch the tournament closely you'll see that it is not banned & happens in almost in all previous rounds.
The real plot hole the crane kick is easily defeated by a leg swipe
„Shut up about Plot Holes“ is said unironically nowadays, which
is crin-e beyond crin-e.
Those people should be deeply-embarassed saying such stuff unironically.
And then people wonder why we get many bad movies/shows/books literally
written by ignoring BASIC Writing-Techniques and Author-Requirements, like ‚Show, dont tell’ and all such.
I dont even know what to say: I genuinly, genuinly believe that Neckbeards and In-els are less crin-ey than people that say that Logic and Consistence dont matter and can just go away. I think one is bigger than the other.
One thing that irritated me about The Last Jedi: Everyone acts like Poe is a terrible person for disobeying Leia's orders when he blew up the dreadnought, but if he hadn't blown up the dreadnought THEY ALL WOULD HAVE DIED BECAUSE IT WOULD HAVE FOLLOWED THEM THROUGH HYPERSPACE AND BLASTED THEM WITH ITS CANNONS.
Him blowing up the dreadnought when he had the chance literally saved the entire fleet. At no point does anyone mention this. Poe doesn't even mention it in his defense after they get followed and Holdo treats him like a moron.
So what's the lesson here? Even when you save everyone's lives it doesn't matter if you didn't totally follow a rigid chain of command? That seems pretty authoritarian and unromantic for a fucking Star Wars movie.
The problem with The Last Jedi is that there are certain characters they want to make wrong every time (like Poe and Finn) until they supposedly have character development at the end, but Poe and Finn were actually right several times throughout the movie...and the film treated them like they were wrong anyway and had every other character deride and mock them.
Jon I The lesson is don’t question female leadership even if they fuck up. Not even if they reduce the rebellion to a bunch of guys who fit in the Millennium Falcon
@@satireknight A hack writer does not write something like Brick or Knives Out or even Looper. That takes a pretty creative mind. What he is, though, is inconsistent.
The lesson is that he's a man, and his opinion doesn't matter just because he's a man.
Even though that's not why his opinion should matter.
Regular feminist propaganda
The lesson is that Poe is a hothead and needs to think like a leader and not a hero. Poe, throughout the whole movie, feels justified because his exploits helped destroy Starkiller Base and the dreadnaught. What he didn't know was the cost of that. He disobeyed orders and got an entire bombing fleet destroyed. The lesson he needed to learn was to think practically and think about the people under him first and not to plunge headfirst into the trenches like he always had. The strawman arguments about this being a feminist message doesn't hold up because the movie would have played out exactly the same way if you flipped the gender of his superiors. The reason Holdo didn't tell him was because he was demoted by Leia, ergo was not allowed to be in the loop. The ironic thing was had he just stuck to his post and followed Holdo's orders, she probably would have told him. Instead, he acted impulsively and sent Finn on a secret mission that only got more people killed and led the FO to discovering their secret base on Crait. So yes, Poe was definitely in the wrong on this one. Not Holdo. The only "plothole" that's legitimate, which I haven't seen anyone bring up, is why didn't Holdo throw him in the brig when he continued to lash out at her.
I would care if the last Jedi wasn’t complete garbage.
Can't stand that Patrick Willems guy. Thinks he's a genius when really he's just defending Hollywood in every way possible. "Don't like something a movie did? We'll you're just too stupid to understand it! Now I'll explain why by talking down to you." It doesn't help that in one of his videos, he full on looked into the camera and said he would be willing to be a writing consultant to "fix" scripts for major studios. And he tries way too hard to set up conspicuous shots so you notice his camerawork (which is pretty crappy in my opinion). All of this hints that he's begging for a job in Hollywood. His videos are a shameless way for him to market himself to Hollywood. And thus, he's not talking to a youtube audience. He's talking to any Hollywood producer, writer or director who might happen to see his videos. "Look at me, I'm ever so smart about the business. Please hire me!"
In short, he's criticizing the intelligence of the audience so he can get in the good books of the industry he wants to work in. And in that way, he would fit right in with modern Hollywood.
he is basically asking the viewers to become... NPC's!!
or Michael Bay
He should have never trusted Hollywood.
Aditya Nigam Michael Bay comes from the old school of filmmaking, not like these amateurs the industry is hiring these days.
Smells like a shill. Or maybe he's just so in love with his own voice that he does the defense of mindless Hollywood free of charge. Either way, he seems like someone that repels people sitting around him at parties when discussing movies.
The first thought I had when Patrick Williams was shown was in the Cinema Sins narrator voice saying "Discount Matt Murdock" *ding!*
"If in one shot im inside and the next im outside and we dont see me going outside, thats a plot hole" a plot hole would be in one shot you being inside and the next you being in the white house, just elected president and being suddenly jacked.
I think they are both wrong about Die Hard. If the robbers simply set off explosives and cut the power, police would be there in no time and have SWAT teams enter and surround the building. Having a hostage situation, the cops stay outside in order not to endanger the hostages.
Yah, watched it and their entire point was to make sure they had some time at first, to set up ambushes on Swat teams and get started on breaking the vault. This ain’t PayDay 2 where you can blow up the front entrance and then fight your way through endless amounts of cops
The problem isn't noticing plot holes. The problem is that most people misuse the term. A plot hole is not just something you find implausible or something that goes against your understanding. It is not merely something that doesn't make sense to you. IT is not a character acting in a way you think it stupid.
A plot hole is an actual hole: a seeming impossibility that, if it could possibly happen, would need to be explained. It is a contradiction in the story being told that cannot be solved based on normal assumptions or assumptions that have been given in the work.
Plot holes are actually much rarer than people make them out to be. That doesn't necessarily mean the things people call plot holes aren't flaws, but they very often are not plot holes.
It is extremely frustrating when people talk of plot holes like they occur in every work of fiction--when it's just a catch-all term for things they didn't like.
For goodness sake, people call production continuity mistakes plot holes now.
And you are, as I suspected, bringing up a lot of things that aren't plot holes.
You hit the nail on the head here. I do find the stuff he's talking about worthy of criticizing, but the label is obnoxious and a misunderstanding of the term.
It also tends to be a blanket statement shield for self-identified critics on the internet to hide behind without truly divulging what they mean. "Plot hole" is on the same level of overused pseudo-intellectual nonsense as "mary sue" for me.
to be fair when people talk about a character doing something stupid in a film, it is normally referring to a moment in which the character directly contradicts themselves in what their character was previously written to be, and there for it is a whole in the plot of there character and ideals. for instance, in the case of Holdo we are lead to believe that she wants her crew to have faith and loyalty, but also disregards having faith in them by telling them they have a plan and to stay calm.
Yes, absolutely right. Charakters don't have to act logically, of course. But the audience NEEDS to understand the charakters motivation, as you pointed out. Motivation ist the key for plausible and believable charakters.
People critisizing an unbelievable charakters, don't always mention illogical actions but emphasize the lack of motivation.
Syco Cinemas wouldn’t they be acting logically in that case or acting in accordance with there own internal logic?
I feel like no matter what a piece of media does you're going to have a few people who notice inconsistencies and get bothered by them. But if a LOT of people notice and are bothered by the same thing then maybe that's a legitimate problem
Mr. 'Objective Criticism Doesn't Exist' Patrick Willems tells you you're watching movies wrong. Hmmm.
That YMS was bang on. Great video, man. I hope you grow bigger than Pat here. Insta-subbed.
Thanks man, much appreciated!
Opinions and feelings of a film are subjective, that I can agree with. Objective measurable flaws and errors, however, are not.
There are two types of critique, objective, and subjective.
Objective critique is based on factual elements of a film. Story writing, plot, character consistency, rules of the universe, logic etc.
Subjective critique is that of opinion and feeling. 'I feel the film was this." 'My opinion of the film was this."
So no, not all film criticism is subjective.
"Objective critique is based on factual elements of a film. Story writing, plot, character consistency, rules of the universe, logic etc."
Well...sort of...
Saying "The movie has an inconsistent plot" is an objective statement yes, because the veracity of the claim is demonstrable, but saying "The movie has an inconsistent plot therefore it is bad" is not an objective statement, it's based on the subjective claim that "Movies with inconsistent plots are bad".
There is no way to prove logically or empirically if the statement "Movies with inconsistent plots are bad" is true or not. The very term bad is subjective in nature.
For something to be objective it would need to be demonstrable and verifiable, it would need to be a testable feature of the universe.
@@BlueSun_ Dumbing it down, "You can enjoy bad films." Seriously, why does no one get that anymore? I mean, I watched a video about Spiderman Homecoming where someone points out that Peter's mistakes in the film don't have any weight, because he doesn't suffer any consequences. After I got over my initial kneejerk reaction, I found myself agreeing with most of the videos points. And then I rewatched Homecoming for the third time, and still enjoyed myself. Because movies are primarily entertainment, and entertainment is subjective.
Is Patrick Willems looking for a development deal? And why is he dressed like Angus Young? Why so snide?
Great video. I remember seeing another video that made the same sorts of arguments about people and plot holes, so it was nice to see a video that finally dug into all the little doubts I felt about that and brought them to the surface.
Also, I've got to admit, it's impressive how you came across as the relatively civil one in this video, despite being the one on offense.
Thanks! I'm glad you liked it.