Things that Warrant a Logical explanation in Fiction

[KatG]

His visual appearence wasn't altered at all so very hard to convince persons that he's a different if nothing of his physical appearance is altered.

They come back only when it's been long enough that the people who knew them in the locale are dead and gone. They are then new people to people who don't know them. Except for the Native American tribe, who also have some long lived members (the werewolves,) and have a pact only with this particular group of vampires for this particular area. So it's very logical and how most vampires operate in stories.

Really that's very hard to believe because usually a character remains mostly consistent costume, occupation, powers abilities, mannerisms, personality and philosophy, where he or she operates, etc.

Um, that really isn't my understanding of comics at all. They change and revamp characters, aliases and powers all the time. Wonder Woman, for instance, has about fourteen different origin stories, all of which give her somewhat different sets of powers, and there have been times she has been a different person. Gwen Stacey is now alive, etc. Villains become heroes, heroes become villains. Superheroes who were adults go back to being teenagers because they just do it. The X-Men movies don't at all match the X-Men comics, except for the tie-in comics to the movies. Sometimes they'll throw in an explanation for a revamp like an alternate dimension, cloning, etc. but frequently they don't bother. The explanation simply is that he went looking for more power and found it, but those powers are dangerous. If the writers who came up with that plot idea then left writing for that character, then whatever origin explanation they would have for how he got the new powers might simply have been scrapped. Because these characters go on for decades and go through many different writers, artists and editors, as well as giant crossover events and whole universe revamps they do every ten years or so, there really isn't much consistency in comics beyond a bit for the major iconic superheroes.

Things that are a major part of the story, brought up but not elaborated.

Well that's a story decision, and it is much more likely to happen in movies, where they have two hours or so to tell the story. So they'll sideline side characters or not elaborate on them because they think it's sufficient for the story and most of the audience doesn't mind. In a novel, there's more space for getting into that sort of detail.

In the Aladdin the Disney animated movie version the Genie says he can't make people fall in love.
He never gives a explanation as to why so again that's very dumb and very lame.

The explanation is that this is pretty standard for some genie lore. The djinn are created by fire (and for Islam, by Allah.) The djinn have free will like humans, but can be trapped into serving humans, usually into a vessel of some sort. They are tricksters and will take advantage of wishes, including possibly getting their masters killed to free themselves (but in Aladdin, the genie likes Aladdin and doesn't do this.) In many genie stories/myths, genies have limits on their powers as servants, and one of those frequent limits is that they can't directly kill a human, nor resurrect anyone, as that interferes with Allah's laws for them. They also cannot change a human's free will, as this is also sacrilegious to Allah -- so no making someone fall in love against their will, making someone else kill, making someone else do something against their will. So the genie's three rules in Aladdin are mythologically standard. But the kids for whom the movie was made don't usually care. If there are rules, the genie states them and the audience accepts that this is how the genie's magic works.

In a book, you might have Aladdin ask the genie why the rules and get the genie to elaborate on the restrictions, but for a 90 minute cartoon, they don't have enough time to do it and don't need to do it for the audience to follow the story. The focus of the story isn't the genie and his background, but Aladdin and his adventure.

 

[theonefirestorm]

They come back only when it's been long enough that the people who knew them in the locale are dead and gone. They are then new people to people who don't know them. Except for the Native American tribe, who also have some long lived members (the werewolves,) and have a pact only with this particular group of vampires for this particular area. So it's very logical and how most vampires operate in stories.



Um, that really isn't my understanding of comics at all. They change and revamp characters, aliases and powers all the time. Wonder Woman, for instance, has about fourteen different origin stories, all of which give her somewhat different sets of powers, and there have been times she has been a different person. Gwen Stacey is now alive, etc. Villains become heroes, heroes become villains. Superheroes who were adults go back to being teenagers because they just do it. The X-Men movies don't at all match the X-Men comics, except for the tie-in comics to the movies. Sometimes they'll throw in an explanation for a revamp like an alternate dimension, cloning, etc. but frequently they don't bother. The explanation simply is that he went looking for more power and found it, but those powers are dangerous. If the writers who came up with that plot idea then left writing for that character, then whatever origin explanation they would have for how he got the new powers might simply have been scrapped. Because these characters go on for decades and go through many different writers, artists and editors, as well as giant crossover events and whole universe revamps they do every ten years or so, there really isn't much consistency in comics beyond a bit for the major iconic superheroes.



Well that's a story decision, and it is much more likely to happen in movies, where they have two hours or so to tell the story. So they'll sideline side characters or not elaborate on them because they think it's sufficient for the story and most of the audience doesn't mind. In a novel, there's more space for getting into that sort of detail.



The explanation is that this is pretty standard for some genie lore. The djinn are created by fire (and for Islam, by Allah.) The djinn have free will like humans, but can be trapped into serving humans, usually into a vessel of some sort. They are tricksters and will take advantage of wishes, including possibly getting their masters killed to free themselves (but in Aladdin, the genie likes Aladdin and doesn't do this.) In many genie stories/myths, genies have limits on their powers as servants, and one of those frequent limits is that they can't directly kill a human, nor resurrect anyone, as that interferes with Allah's laws for them. They also cannot change a human's free will, as this is also sacrilegious to Allah -- so no making someone fall in love against their will, making someone else kill, making someone else do something against their will. So the genie's three rules in Aladdin are mythologically standard. But the kids for whom the movie was made don't usually care. If there are rules, the genie states them and the audience accepts that this is how the genie's magic works.

In a book, you might have Aladdin ask the genie why the rules and get the genie to elaborate on the restrictions, but for a 90 minute cartoon, they don't have enough time to do it and don't need to do it for the audience to follow the story. The focus of the story isn't the genie and his background, but Aladdin and his adventure.

Yes characters get revamped but that isn't something that happens at a high rate. Superman and this powers abilties were the same for the Golden age, then greatly altered in the silver age, then altered so he wasn't very powerful.
You are going to get consistency in comics because changes including revamps don't occur at a high rate.

No excuse if it won't take that long to explain because it leaves the audience in the dark of why exactly does this character not trust the person, why this person

No freakin excuses he could simply say I can't interfere with the free will of a human, and asking a person to fall in love with him or some other person violates the free will of a human because it doesn't give them any choice but to love that person.
Wow that didn't take that long so yes they do have time to elaborate why exactly he can't make people fall in love.


It doesn't take that long so pretty dumb, Lame, and unacceptable. No freakin excuses to give likely at most maybe a 1 minute explanation for why he can't make people fall in love.

 

[KatG]

Yes characters get revamped but that isn't something that happens at a high rate. Superman and this powers abilties were the same for the Golden age, then greatly altered in the silver age, then altered so he wasn't very powerful.
You are going to get consistency in comics because changes including revamps don't occur at a high rate.

I beg to differ. Comics change characters frequently, especially their background material, and they don't always bother to explain it. It's simply a part of the comics storytelling tradition, especially the last two and a half decades. Now, we can see that as a storytelling flaw, not disputing that, but what happened with Shocker isn't unusual in comics.

It doesn't take that long so pretty dumb, Lame, and unacceptable. No freakin excuses to give likely at most maybe a 1 minute explanation for why he can't make people fall in love.

Except that a minute in an animated movie is a huge sum of money and labor. Every minute in animation is calculated and every minute takes weeks to do (and that movie was in 1992, when CGI in animation was not as advanced.) That's why animation movies take several years to make usually. The story has to be under a certain time limit, especially as it is for kids. And kids are used to being given rules without explanation by adults. They aren't going to question the rules or care. They aren't that interested. The bulk of an action animation movie will be spent on action sequences, secondary on jokes, and exposition is not a heavy focus. So they don't need an excuse from their type of storytelling perspective. It's extraneous. They don't need to get into genie lore as long as the rules are given.

Now if we're writing out the story of Aladdin and the genie, you can do five-ten pages on it and have Aladdin and the genie go to town. But in a 91 minute movie, if you don't absolutely need it and it doesn't provide visual spectacle or an extra Robin Williams zinger, out it goes. And that's part of how stories are framed differently from one another, depending on circumstances, medium, approach to the story, desire of the creators to have things very clear and well-developed or vaguer and more impressionistic. We like one style of a story or not according to our preferences. Things that bother us may not bother the next person. Total Recall, the Ar-nald version, is the silliest, most ridiculous movie I have ever seen outside of farce comedies that are supposed to be unrealistic and ridiculous. Prometheus is a close second. But the first movie has become iconic and the second still made a massive amount of money and will have a sequel of sorts they are currently working on. Now, could those movies have come up with logical explanations for the ridiculous stuff in them? No, because the ridiculous stuff isn't logical in the first place, so no explanation is going to do much. But that doesn't mean that they don't work as stories of a particular kind, at least for some people. Are there many movies where I would like more background information? Yes, but they are movies so seldom do you get it. Are there many movies and serials with plot holes? All the time.

So we can look at those and criticize them. But bear in mind, sometimes there is an explanation in the story (such as in Twilight where they do talk about it,) and it gets missed by an audience member who complains. Sometimes it isn't in the story but some audience members will know the outside context (genie lore.) And sometimes the material is a Macguffin and no explanation is going to make sense anyway. Sometimes it's just annoying. (See characters acting stupidly on The Walking Dead or other shows.) But there isn't going to be much agreement about what warrants or requires logical explanations in a story. In written fiction, it's a bit less of a problem, as they have more space, but even there, depending on the author's style and focus, some readers may have complaints. If it's a series, the author might address those complaints in a later story.

 

[theonefirestorm]

I beg to differ. Comics change characters frequently, especially their background material, and they don't always bother to explain it. It's simply a part of the comics storytelling tradition, especially the last two and a half decades. Now, we can see that as a storytelling flaw, not disputing that, but what happened with Shocker isn't unusual in comics.



Except that a minute in an animated movie is a huge sum of money and labor. Every minute in animation is calculated and every minute takes weeks to do (and that movie was in 1992, when CGI in animation was not as advanced.) That's why animation movies take several years to make usually. The story has to be under a certain time limit, especially as it is for kids. And kids are used to being given rules without explanation by adults. They aren't going to question the rules or care. They aren't that interested. The bulk of an action animation movie will be spent on action sequences, secondary on jokes, and exposition is not a heavy focus. So they don't need an excuse from their type of storytelling perspective. It's extraneous. They don't need to get into genie lore as long as the rules are given.

Now if we're writing out the story of Aladdin and the genie, you can do five-ten pages on it and have Aladdin and the genie go to town. But in a 91 minute movie, if you don't absolutely need it and it doesn't provide visual spectacle or an extra Robin Williams zinger, out it goes. And that's part of how stories are framed differently from one another, depending on circumstances, medium, approach to the story, desire of the creators to have things very clear and well-developed or vaguer and more impressionistic. We like one style of a story or not according to our preferences. Things that bother us may not bother the next person. Total Recall, the Ar-nald version, is the silliest, most ridiculous movie I have ever seen outside of farce comedies that are supposed to be unrealistic and ridiculous. Prometheus is a close second. But the first movie has become iconic and the second still made a massive amount of money and will have a sequel of sorts they are currently working on. Now, could those movies have come up with logical explanations for the ridiculous stuff in them? No, because the ridiculous stuff isn't logical in the first place, so no explanation is going to do much. But that doesn't mean that they don't work as stories of a particular kind, at least for some people. Are there many movies where I would like more background information? Yes, but they are movies so seldom do you get it. Are there many movies and serials with plot holes? All the time.

So we can look at those and criticize them. But bear in mind, sometimes there is an explanation in the story (such as in Twilight where they do talk about it,) and it gets missed by an audience member who complains. Sometimes it isn't in the story but some audience members will know the outside context (genie lore.) And sometimes the material is a Macguffin and no explanation is going to make sense anyway. Sometimes it's just annoying. (See characters acting stupidly on The Walking Dead or other shows.) But there isn't going to be much agreement about what warrants or requires logical explanations in a story. In written fiction, it's a bit less of a problem, as they have more space, but even there, depending on the author's style and focus, some readers may have complaints. If it's a series, the author might address those complaints in a later story.

When has Superman ever changed to be anything except a alien from.a fictional Planet? What about Wolverine anything other than a mutant with adamintum claws? Or the green Lantern power rings that are weapons that need to be recharged?
I'm pretty sure no to all of them because the Asinine stuff of Brainiac getting changed constantly with the new writer is not the norm.

Not like they're poor it's freakin disney they're pretty damn rich so you won't convince me it's freakin lazy and dumb to bring up something related to a story and not elaborate.
Also it can be said in under a minute. "Aladdin I can't make a person fall in love because it violates the free will of a human that I can't do, plus love involves a choice which they wouldn't have."
Wow that's under a freakin minute at most 13 secinds Disney has no damn excuse at all for not giving that kind of quick explanation.

Shocker is a example of untapped potential if he gets the right writer finally more information about him including why the hell exactly he never applied for legal jobs. The idiocy of well he's a plot device 1 of the dumbest things ever.
He's not a stone cold killer yet he accepts a job to kill a jury why the hell exactly?


Oh whether it's movies, tv shows, comic books, etc a character is shown in a sequel or another story and no damn explanation in the story for why that character changed.
That's a Cardinal sin, undeniably warrants a logical explanation and no damn excuses for not giving 1. It's extremely lazy and very dumb to give no explanation for why the character changed.

 

[N. E. White]

Sometimes, I rant about inconsistencies and illogical story lines. And when I do, I realize I don't really like the story. But if I really do like the story, every sin is acceptable. There's no rhyme or reason. And then there are stories I love to rant about and I love. Like The Walking Dead. There are SO many things wrong with that TV series, but I find myself coming back to it time and time again. And, frankly, I'm not sure why. I guess it's a combination of the characters and bits of their personal stories, because we know it is not because of the stunning plot.

 

[RX-79G]

When has Superman ever changed to be anything except a alien from.a fictional Planet? What about Wolverine anything other than a mutant with adamintum claws?

Superman couldn't originally fly. Wolverine's claws were cybernetic for the first 25 years. It is called a "retcon" in the comics industry.

Also, I was in the Navy and worked with SEALs. It is a secretive organization and there isn't going to be a "famous SEAL" on active duty.

That said, why are we discussing comic books and second rate movies on a writing forum? There is bad writing everywhere, and it shouldn't be surprising when it pops up in a bad action film or teen drama. It isn't just that the things don't make sense; the characters don't speak like real people, the costumes are bad, the technology doesn't work right, etc. Garbage.

(I love comic books, but they are written by multiple people over decades. "Superman" isn't one thing - he's a concept that many writers and artists have taken a crack at. Like paintings of Christ, some are amazing and others are on black velvet.)

 

[Andrew LH]

...some are amazing and others are on black velvet.)

Meaning, like, *super* amazing.

 

[N. E. White]

That said, why are we discussing comic books and second rate movies on a writing forum?

Because writers read comic books and watch second rate movies?

 

[RX-79G]

Because writers read comic books and watch second rate movies?

And I'm sure chefs sometimes eat Hershey bars. There just isn't a lot to learn from the most watered down and pedestrian forms of art.

A better thread title: Surprised that bad movies suck.

I'm not suggesting that the great Steven Segal is beneath us, but I am saying that if you are interested in how films handle consistency, you might at least start by looking at Ye Olde Tomatometer. Chances are that the poor filmmaking is something that effects every aspect of a film, from plot dynamics to acting to score. BUT, if you analyze films that are generally lauded, you're less likely to see the kind of glaring inconsistencies discussed.

 

[Andrew LH]

There just isn't a lot to learn from the most watered down and pedestrian forms of art.

Critical error there, in my opinion.

A better thread title: Surprised that bad movies suck.

Not so much there, though.

 

[RX-79G]

Critical error there, in my opinion.
Not so much there, though.

I understand where you're going with that, but specific to the topic and examples raised in this thread - my objections are reasonable.

 

[Av Demeisen]

A deep-fried Mars bar every now and then I can tolerate, but Steven Segal films are submental.

 

[N. E. White]

but Steven Segal films are submental.

Ha! I agree on that one.

But I can't talk. I LOVE Jackie Chan movies. I can watch those all day. Jackie can do no sin.

 

[RX-79G]

Ha! I agree on that one.

But I can't talk. I LOVE Jackie Chan movies. I can watch those all day. Jackie can do no sin.

I like Jackie Chan. Sometimes I even like Segal. I just wouldn't use either's movies to analyze the state of the art in film continuity and logic.

 

[N. E. White]

I just wouldn't use either's movies to analyze the state of the art in film continuity and logic.

That's true. Logical they are not. Nor do I think they are meant to be logical or have any continuity.

But that doesn't stop people from pointing out that their movies are illogical and have no continuity.

Okay, here's my rant:

Remember that (iconic) scene in GRRM's ASOIF A Game of Thrones where Bran catches the twins going at it? There was always something about that scene that just didn't fly with me. I always thought, why would the twins leave his death to chance? I mean, chucking him out the window seemed a fair sure-bet, but it's not like sticking a knife in someone to make sure they are dead. And then, really, why kill him? He's a kid! It would be their word against his (regarding the whole incest thing). Who would believe the kid? It just didn't seem like a good reason to throw the kid from the window. Of course, decision made in passion and what-not, but Jaime didn't WANT to do it, right? Anyway...

 

[KatG]

Okay, here's my rant:

Remember that (iconic) scene in GRRM's ASOIF A Game of Thrones where Bran catches the twins going at it? There was always something about that scene that just didn't fly with me. I always thought, why would the twins leave his death to chance? I mean, chucking him out the window seemed a fair sure-bet, but it's not like sticking a knife in someone to make sure they are dead. And then, really, why kill him? He's a kid! It would be their word against his (regarding the whole incest thing). Who would believe the kid? It just didn't seem like a good reason to throw the kid from the window. Of course, decision made in passion and what-not, but Jaime didn't WANT to do it, right? Anyway...

Reasons why they had to kill him: because there were massive rumors that they had an incestuous relationship and that the royal children weren't Robert's, which was contributing to the threat of political factions trying to attack the Lannister's hold on the palace and Robert's fears that the Lannisters had become a danger to him. Cersei had already had Bran's uncle (the Hand) just killed because the uncle was investigating Robert's illegitimate children and how they were always black-haired and the rumors of her incest with Jamie. Now here they were with Robert right there already suspicious, her blonde kids there and vulnerable, having Stark as the new Hand, and it being Stark's son who might talk, whom Stark would very likely believe and Stark and Robert might act on it. Having already done a massive conspiracy and a number of murders to keep the truth of her children's paternity down to only ugly rumors and take out Robert's biological children, Cersei certainly wasn't going to stop at killing a noble's kid who could bring eye-witness testimony about what was already suspected and put her own children at risk.

Reasons why Jaime pushed Bran out the window of the tower instead of more obviously murdering him: It had to look like an accident, like Bran was climbing the tower as he always did and this time slipped and fell. Sticking him with a knife would mean a massive investigation into who had stuck him with a knife, and suspicion would fall on Robert's people as the in-coming visitors. With him being Ned's son, and Ned about to be the King's Hand, it would have seemed a likely political assassination and someone might put two and two together. So they couldn't risk that. However, when Bran miraculously (and magically) survives the fall, Cersei is desperate enough to pay for an actual assassin to kill Bran before he recovers enough to tell what he saw and what happened, and frames her brother Tyrion in case there is a problem. (And later on, Cersei admits both decisions were bad ones.) But the initial problem required making it look quickly like an accident. If Jaime had been less unwilling to do it and given it more thought, he might have snapped Bran's neck first and then pushed him out, making it look as if Bran's neck had been snapped in the fall. However, there was a risk that in struggling with Bran to do that, Jaime might have been seen doing it, Bran might have shouted out, etc. The push was very quick, wouldn't be seen and it was logical to think Bran would not survive it.

 

[JonLaidlow]

There used to be a kind of shared filmmaker-audience assumption that we were capable of filling in the gaps, that some things would happen offstage and the audience would infer that they had occurred from everything else going on or said.

In the age of internet pages that list the "mistakes" in movies that assumption seems to have gone.

 

[N. E. White]

The push was very quick, wouldn't be seen and it was logical to think Bran would not survive it.

Good answer! When (if?) GRRM puts out another book in that series, will you recap the entire thing for us (me)?

 

[KatG]

Good answer! When (if?) GRRM puts out another book in that series, will you recap the entire thing for us (me)?

All one thousand pages or so? No. But Song has a pretty good wiki: http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Main_Page I often find it helpful when I can't remember names or the details of more minor characters and they cover the t.v. series stuff as well.

 

[theonefirestorm]

In the Movie Crocodile 2 Death Swamp (2002)
The banks robbers that robbed a bank on the same day drive to a local airport.
They are able to transport the stolen money plus freakin guns on a freakin Airplane with no inside person helping them.
Utterly not plausible at all that after 9/11 that persons could freakin transport a large amount of stolen money and guns with 0 problems from airport security because the freakin metal detectors would detect metal where the guns are located, and they would be detained after seeing the metal items are guns.

This scene is never shown no doubt because the writer couldn't think of a plausible explanation for how they transported the guns on the plane with no problems from airport security along with the stolen money.


Typically when persons usually terrorists or Criminals have guns on a airplane in a movie or other kind of fictional story it requires a logical explanation for how they got those guns transported since metal detectors are unavoidable which Passager 57 and Air Force 1 both great movies both provided while this 1 doesn't at all.