It's happening again (Live-Action TLA announced)


#41

There are no plot holes in TLJ, only things people don’t like.


#42

image

There are, and there are more when you look at the film as a sequel to established SW canon. Some examples besides what I already listed about the Holdo debacle:

  • Snoke declares that he “cannot be betrayed,” and is then betrayed like 5 minutes later. That makes him seem incompetent and petty rather than the big bad he was hyped up to be; and it takes away the chance for him to become a more interesting character because, well, he’s dead now.
  • Luke dies after tricking Kylo. We never learn why, making his death seem pointless.
  • Snoke wasn’t able to predict that Rey might be influencing Kylo while he was linking them. He had the power to connect them in the first place, and he can easily read minds, but he wasn’t able to tell what effects he was having on his apprentice? Again, this just makes him look like a dumbass.
  • Luke’s first instinct on seeing the darkness in Kylo is to kill him. That’s out of character, considering how that same dilemma went down with his father. This doesn’t fuck with continuity so much as characterization, and it puts Kylo in a more justified position, thus lowering the weight of Luke’s failure to keep his nephew from the Dark Side.

That’s just off the top of my head, and I made sure to list plot holes that actually impacted the film in a meaningful way beyond “it didn’t make sense.” No shit, it doesn’t make sense; it’s about space wizards with laser swords. But that lack of sense can really be a problem.


#43

Not a plot hole.

Not a plot hole.

Not a plot hole.

Not a plot hole, also not out of character.

People seem to confuse “Not fully revealed” or “Not tacitly explained” to mean plot hole, and it’s infuriating to see it passed off as if it’s technical critical comment rather than “I didn’t really like it”, which would be 100% fine.


#44

That’s not a plot hole. That’s a humorous touch of writing showing how big his ego is.


#45

They are plot holes. Refer to the previously-posted definition. The Snoke bits are plot holes because they contradict what he’s established to be. How is he this hugely-influential leader who is not only OP as fuck, but also brilliantly manipulative; yet at the same time, a fucking dumbass? That makes him a weak villain, along with a lack of characterization. We don’t really learn what it is he wants. Sidious/Palpatine wanted conquest, but there’s not really signs of that in Snoke unless I forgot something.

Lack of given information is absolutely a logical inconsistency. If you make a claim, you must support it. We don’t know what Luke is doing, so it’s as if the movie is cheating when it kills him off. It’s as if he dies without cause.

I already explained why it’s out of character for him: he shouldn’t think that after the Vader debacle. His own worst enemy turned out to be his father, and he managed to redeem him. Somehow, he doesn’t think to do that when confronted with a similar issue.

But that’s not what I’ve done here. I’ve taken plot holes and gone into what they mean for the film overall. I’m not saying “I don’t like it, therefore it’s bad,” I’m saying "this film has problems with big ramifications for what it’s trying to say and for the characters whom we’re supposed to be invested in.

It comes at the cost of him being anything beyond a figurehead. In both TFA and TLJ, he’s consistently just…there. He’s not a person so much as a plot device, and that’s lazy writing. What does he want, and why? How did he get in his current position? What about his philosophy clashes with that of the protagonist, and what flaws does the protagonist have to overcome to get the upper hand? The answers to these questions are the makings of great antagonists, and if JJ can provide them with a 3rd sequel film, then I’ll probably have cause to retract at least some of my criticisms of Snoke as a character with respect to the whole trilogy. If he can’t, then Snoke is still a bobblehead with no fashion sense. (Seriously, what the fuck is he even wearing?)


#46

They contradict what the audience expects him to be. This is why it’s not a plot hole.

It isn’t out of character because a) We don’t know what his character became after ROTJ, and b) Because he acts emotionally as he always has done. In any case, being out of character as the audience would potentially expect is not a plot hole.

Spoiler: This is the point.

It’s called misdirection and is an established storytelling technique.

It doesn’t matter, because the movie isn’t about Snoke, and never was, no matter how much some in the audience may have wanted him to be a bigger part.

It doesn’t matter, because he isn’t, and was never, the antagonist.


#47

Nia already said anything I had to say. Nothing about that is a plot hole.


#48

A friendly reminder from your neighborhood Smeagol - This isn’t a Star Wars thread. You’ve kinda commandeered it.


#49

And it would be a good twist with a proper buildup. The issue is that it just sort of happens. He dies no sooner than we actually get to see him interact with one of the good guys. We never learn specifics that would stop this from being illogical. All we get is that he got cocky and Kylo killed him; but he says that he’s a skilled mind-reader, and he proves it when Rey tries to oppose him. Yet, all this time, he didn’t see what his own apprentice was doing? He was blindsided by something he proves himself capable of dealing with.

The principle of ceteris paribus is applicable to sequels. There’s a time gap between TESB and RotJ, but if Han Solo was inexplicably freed from Carbonite, that would be a plot hole because we were never shown why or how he got free. Sequels are supposed to pick up where their forebears left off. If things have changed, we should be told. WHY would Luke change the way he evidently did? Without any explanation, we’re left with a completely different character seemingly without cause except “the plot demands it.”

But I’ve already explained why this emotional behavior goes against what we already know about Luke. His experience with Vader was the focal point of his arc throughout the original trilogy. It’s meant to be the motive not only for his own change, but Vader’s change, and it defines him as a person. He is faced with the same problem in Kylo, just in reverse: someone he already knows is a blood relative has darkness in him. When he learned his father was literally Darth fucking Vader, his response was to say “Dad, I believe in you, I know you can be a better person.” When he learned his nephew, whom he was presumably already attached to, had similar darkness but had yet to do anything wrong, he does the opposite and gives up. Why? We never learn, and it’s left a hanging thread that doesn’t make any sense. It is, therefore, a plot hole.

Spoiler: that’s not a good thing. It leaves Snoke empty, shallow, unnecessary. He’s a plot device, not a man. That’s never a good thing for a character.

Him having no real identity whatsoever is not misdirection. Hyping him up as the power behind the throne and then having him be overthrown is misdirection, and it’s what the movie does. However, it holds little weight because we have no time to get to know Snoke at all. The resulting effect: when he dies, it’s more of a “well there goes that guy who didn’t really matter” moment, as if he were just some extra. We get a glimpse of the effect he has on Kylo but we don’t learn the specifics of why or how (again, unless I forgot, because I only saw it once and I have tried to push it to the back of my mind since), and that leaves a lot of ambiguity in Kylo’s character. It’s a domino effect: we learn nothing of substance about Snoke, so we learn less about other characters.

I didn’t really want him to be anything. I never had cause to care about him; I love a good villain, but Snoke came outta left field in TFA, so I didn’t get too invested in him. However, I recognize that he’s dead weight in the movie. He’s there, but he really doesn’t have an impact because the First Order could be led by Jake from State Farm and it would make no difference. It should matter that it’s Snoke in that position rather than anyone else. It’s a trope a lot of villains fall to and while Snoke’s role in the narrative makes it less impactful on the story as a whole that he falls to it, it’s still an empty void that would be more engaging if filled.

It does matter because he is and always was a character. He’s a person. What he wants and how he intends to get it can say a lot about the people he works with and the people he opposes. Main antagonist or secondary, it’s still necessary to show what the good guys are up against on not just a practical but also ideological level.

Sidious is a weak villain, but we learn a lot about what he is and wants: he’s a warlord who has given into base desires. He urges Luke and Vader, his subordinate, to do the same. He wants to see the Dark Side overtake the Light. The Dark Side isn’t stronger than the Light Side, but it is easier to embrace; this comes at the cost of ethics for a Force user, whereas the Light Side lets you have the best of both worlds if only you will work for it. That’s the ideology of Star Wars, or at least that part of it. Luke has to work to avoid giving into evil and to keep those around him from doing the same. By giving even a little detail into what Sidious, who himself is largely a figurehead but still a character in his own right, Star Wars can use that detail to emphasize what the protagonist and true antagonist’s arcs are all about.

Sorry for the trouble, then. Please accept this cursed image as payment.

Footage of me as I begin to derail this thread (colorized, circa 1951)

But yeah, I guess I’ve only kept this going because it’s kinda felt good to just articulate my thoughts on this movie in relation to what everyone else is saying. Like, it frustrated me even though I’ve never been super into SW, and now I got this outlet to kind of…vent, maybe? I’ll shut up now.

OT, let’s just all admit that we know nothing. The reboot might surprise us and be as great as the original, or it might (probably) be a waste of time. It’ll be time to bump this thread again when we have more dirt, and I honestly hope I’m wrong because a good TLA reboot would actually put me in a good mood.


#50

Don’t worry, it wasn’t only you. Either party could have stopped at any time. You did both manage to keep cooler heads, though.

Ultimately it was a civil discussion, just veered off the topic of TLA. No saying you can’t continue it in SSR or an entirely new thread. Hell, make a new “venting” thread if you want to. We had some of those back in the day.


I started watching the OG Avatar again recently. Nostalgic as it is, I am more than willing to give live action a shot. Even though every other series adaption for other shows has left me sorely disappointed in the past.


#51

Yeah, l said above I wouldn’t comment on TLJ, so I broke that promise a bit. But I definitely haven’t opened the floodgates on my views so we should be able to bring this back in line about Avatar :wink:

The thing that interests me about the live action adaptation is that it opens the possibility of making the story even more poignant, by making this something with (hopefully good) actors that less anime-fan types can connect to we can take an already deep and rich animated story to a new audience.

I think that’s all that I want people to do! Don’t let yourself get bogged down in being troubled or concerned about something and just wait to see what it is when it gets much closer to release. For me, my wife has managed to miss both the anime (she’s not an animation fan) and the film, and she’s interested in the potential of the live action series, given what I’ve told her and what she knows from the Korra board game we’ve got.


#52

You know, I don’t know how to interpret DiMartino and KonietkoSc’s statement that the series won’t be “whitewashed.” On the one hand, that foreign film that was supposedly an adaptation of Book 1 was absolutely whitewashed (except the Fire Nation, which went from white to not white? why was that a thing?) and that was shitty. On the other, today’s political climate has me worried if that’s something they’re making a big deal out of.

Maybe I’m just paranoid, and I hope I am; but I’d hate to see this show go into politics of any kind, and even if it has god-tier casting and whatever minority characters are added are meaningful additions to the narrative, you know it’s gonna get sucked into some kind of political BS from all sides. I do not look forward to that.


#53

Dude, the show is entirely political.


#54

I think I chose my words wrong there. I meant specifically hot-topic politics of this day and age. It’s a little hard to take politics out of a show where a band of multicultural rebels have to beat an oppressive oligarchy that wants to impose itself on the whole world. Thing is, the SJW crowd’s gonna hate it for one reason or another, and the anti-SJW crown will hate it for opposite reasons. I don’t wanna see a childhood favorite get wrapped up in all that, even if it is inevitable.


#55

I think we should all stop using SJW as a term, especially in the context of a show that has always had a central message of social justice, fairness and equality. Maybe if people could stop looking for an agenda, and accept storytelling will reflect to some degree the issues of the modern audience, we’d enjoy more stuff.


#56

TLA has never been “SJW” because it was genuine. It was actually about people from varied backgrounds coming together for a common cause and to bring other people together. It didn’t force the characters to be diverse for its own sake; that happened naturally and for reasons that worked in the show’s favor. Meanwhile, we have the Witcher reboot mandating that Ciri not be white under the false pretense that it combats some social injustice.

Part of what I’m afraid of is the possibility that this reboot will feign “going woke” in a similar fashion. It doesn’t have to do that; if it just follows the example of the source material, it’ll be legitimately woke, not fake, “whining on social media” woke.

If only everyone would just take that advice, we wouldn’t be talking about this. I know we technically dropped TLJ, but it’s sorta relevant again: there are, among others, 2 parties who either love or hate the film based on their and the film’s own supposed agendas. I wasn’t even thinking about agendas when I watched it, and while I can see why some might say it has one, I don’t have the opinions of it that I do for political reasons. I don’t want to think about politics, I want to watch a goddamn movie or some fucking TV; but one way or another, someone’s gonna make this reboot political, and it’s gonna be a big Twitter hashtag, and it just feels wrong to think about that happening to TLA.

In hindsight, I guess I shouldn’t be afraid of the original creators shoehorning in political messages irrelevant to the show’s identity, but I do worry that the corporate big wigs at Netflix will do something stupid for marketing. And if they don’t social media will still hate it, and that thought is simply dirty to me even if it turns out to be even worse than that foreign film about a kid named Ong (it won’t, of course, since that isn’t possible).


#57

Wow, they already leaked a trailer?


#58

Absolutely loved this when I was toddling around. Pretty excited


#59

The hell…? Toddling? How old are you?


#60

I’ll be happy if it’s only half as bad as the death nota LA