ST Plot Holes In The ST

Technically, the first Rashomon moment was just an outright lie by Luke.

 

This is now incredibly tiresome, and not at all constructive.

And while I’m all for people having issues with a film, I think when people are gleefully looking for things about which they can complain, taking the worst possible interpretation at every turn in order to support the idea that an element doesn’t work, they kind of start to lose any real claim to be a “fan” acting in good faith/out of an attempt to comprehend

 

I'm fine with the Rashomon style, but maybe a small knife which does not emit light would have been more practical for the purpose.

 

This is the Plot Hole thread in case you haven't noticed. So you are tired of people presenting plot holes. This isn't the thread for you then.

 

Well, he’s not thinking about it rationally, or expecting to be confronted with full scale of the darkness that lack already taken Ben.

And if he hadn’t regained his composure and stayed the blade, Ben would be dead and the galaxy might not have been plunged into chaos. That’s the genius of the beat for me. He’s wrong to react as he does, but a lesser man than Luke might have done the galaxy a favour there by killing Ben Solo. There is no easy answer in that scene.

His lie by omission is the point.

Agree with @CEB this has nothing to do with constructive debate.

 

Jedi Jail. Jedi Trial. Jedi Prison

 

Further to that - if there had been no Jedi school, and if the Skywalker line had stopped with him and Leia, then there’s no Kylo Ren anyway.

This is the unavoidable truth of the sequel trilogy; any sequel trilogy has to, almost by definition, feature a failure of Luke in order to work.
This is the thing that the sequel trilogy has given a lot of consideration to, and they’ve come up with something that manages to “spread the blame” in a fairly believable way, AND have Luke return without ignoring the thematic build up to his returning.

Really, anyone who thought Luke was going to turn up and kick ass and take names wasn’t paying attention

 

The Jedi temple backstory driving Luke into haunted exile was part of the deal since George’s involvement as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Agree, especially when the response is "ok, fair enough, but..." and it's back to finding something else wrong.

On the points raised by MoffJacob, for what it's worth...
-Snoke being a seemingly unstoppable Dark Side user with legendary skills in telekinesis, mind-control and manipulation, foreseeing and even Force Lighting yet gets killed by a naive trick
I don't quite understand how it's a naive trick, perhaps you're thinking of some other word to describe this (simple?).

-Master Luke Skywalker gets defeated by a bunch of rocks falling on his head, unable to sense-stop them or to recover in time to SAVE his students, yet Ben Solo seems to be unscathed
Jedi Masters aren't superheroes. Why would he be able to stop the rocks falling on him in that split second while also very unfocused by what's going on with him and Ben in that moment? And the film shows the ceiling of the hut falling on him and not necessarily on Kylo.

-Leia can survive/fly in space yet is not wise/powerful enough to move rocks to escape through a back door
Leia's use of the Force when out in space was instinctive. Moving rocks isn't.

-Rey witnesses the rise of Kylo as the new Supreme Leader yet FORGIVES his life YET AGAIN (after a struggle that leaves him unconscious! Easy prey)
You want Rey to kill an unarmed and unconscious bad guy in cold blood?

 

The Rey thing isn’t even an issue - she escaped in the chaos, there’s no indication she even had the chance to kill him.

However, I LOVED Hux getting his pistol out

 

BTW - I can appreciate that if someone cannot get past Luke igniting his saber, much as I disagree, I totally see why that moment does not work at all and undoes all of Luke’s arc it’s absolutely make or break and if you don’t buy it, game over.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

It is the duty of the writer (and in this case, also director) to clarify why she opted to not kill him...pity? lack of guts? hope? love?
the script fails to specify it. Lazy writing

and by the way, the PT showed many times that the Jedi were WILLING AND ABLE to kill dangerous individuals, to fight to the bitter end if necessary. Duel of the Fates? Obi-Wan on Mustafar? Mace Windu against Palpatine? Yoda against Sidious?
Is the script trying to tell us that Rey is not (yet) a proper Jedi so she is still too emotional, unstable and merciful?
Do you realize that she had the chance to (twice!) kill off the greatest menace for galactic peace yet she did not deliver the final blow?
She sure had her reasons...yet TLJ fails to explain them. Lazy writing.

 

Can we please stop with the Trump-style rhetoric of saying a few simplistic things and then ending with a short declarative conclusion?

There's a world of difference between killing an enemy in combat versus killing him in his sleep. It's literally one of the most widespread complaints about this film that Luke would even consider stopping evil by doing this very thing. You can't have it both ways...

 

I don't think you're the best judge of what is and isn't "lazy writing". This applies to the majority of people using the term. It's become meaningless.

The only times we're shown a Jedi faced with a prone and unarmed opponent, it's shown as being "the wrong thing" to do to kill them. The only character to hold back from such a blow - twice - and do the right thing in the end is Luke Skywalker. On DS2, and in the Hut.

You cannot say Luke is a muderer for not killing his nephew, while calling Rey too emotional for not taking the same guy out while he's unconscious. That's an epic in double standards.

 

@redxavier
You are comparing a Jedi student sleeping that hasn't done anything evil to somebody that just used Rey as a device to kill an evil Supreme Leader so he can become the evil Supreme Leader?

Can we please stop with the simplistic and quite frankly incorrect conclusions?

"You can't have it both ways" - ending with declarative conclusion.

This is what always happens. A valid plot hole or problem with TLJ is provided in a thread where it is the theme of the thread and it quickly goes from not enough evidence, to too much evidence, to I don't care, to attacking the posters.

That is what is getting tiresome and actually should be blatant TOS violations.

 

This is also a discussion thread... for constructive discussion about possible plot holes. It’s not just for keeping a running tally of the count of what some consider to be plot holes, as your post above was apparently doing as a way of criticizing the movie.

 

You're right, but to be fair you are also using a sneaky rhetorical strategy when you blame him/her of something that other dissatisfied viewers said, like if they all came from the same Political Party of TLJ Haters.

Ok I partially agree with you on this, in the sense that IMO Rj has very good ideas but sometimes in order to put them on screen he tends to force a little bit the plot. I can understand that for someone he pushes too much.

 

As opposed to the countless times "So it seems there are no plot holes yet" again and again?

 

I think the problem is mileage as to what a plot hole is varies. By your count, there's a lot. By the count of others, none of these count.

 

And look how off the handle people got when it was stated in reverse.

Meanwhile, I took the time to explain in detail the problems with the plot, not the problems of the people that questioned it.

 

There probably are plot holes in TLJ... most movies and stories have some in them. But if people are constructively discussing them and giving their view on why something may not be a plothole, that’s still more constructive than saying the equivalent of “this movie sucks, we’re up to 27 plot holes now!”.

 

Who said that?

 

I said “the equivalent of” to make a point. But you posted that the count is in the double digits, and then tried to shut down discussion of it.

Anyway, back on topic.

 

Let's go through the steps to see which side was actually contributing to the Plot Hole theme.

I will use only Satipo so it doesn't look like I'm weaving in different people to get a desired result. And I was mostly responding to Satipo because they asked and also seemed open to the discussion.

So a desire to know the details (I had already given the Finn: That's impossible quote)

I explained the detail of what was discussed there. I thought about doing the dialogue, but it is actually quite a bit and I had no intent of warping what they said.

So we were asked for more detail, then the complaint was too much detail.

Ok. It is no longer about if it is or isn't a plot hole. Now we will just dismiss it because screw details. The details of a main plot point.

At that point, the plot hole was verified and those that doubted it no longer wished to discuss it.

This is a pattern. And it is a bit sad because I took @Satipo at their word that they were interested.

 

Ha, you still haven't transcribed the detail of the scene as presented, you gave me your version of it, which for some reason I felt might not be the most even-handed presentation of the scene, and now you're editing out the context of the back and forth. I conceded it's a bit of a stretch. I still don't concede it's a plot hole. So, if you want to discuss bad faith I present our own post above, which features several examples. And I'm sure you'll get over your sadness.