Things that Warrant a Logical explanation in Fiction

[Andrew LH]

I wonder if picking holes in the likes of Croc 2 Death Swamp is the most pressing use of your superpowers. It's a bit like, I dunno, Dr. Manhattan riding a bicycle generator.

 

[RX-79G]

They are able to transport the stolen money plus freakin guns on a freakin Airplane with no inside person helping them.

You can put guns AND ammunition in checked baggage. That has never changed.


On topic, I was watching some Bug Bunny earlier, and I don't think some of what is being shown is very realistic.

 

[theonefirestorm]

You can put guns AND ammunition in checked baggage. That has never changed.


On topic, I was watching some Bug Bunny earlier, and I don't think some of what is being shown is very realistic.

Cartoons rarely ever are meant to be any representation of the real world including physics, mortality, animals, and multiple other things.

When the pull out their guns it's located under their jeans or pants of the ankle area.
Evidence shown when they hijack the plane removing guns from their ankle area.


Undeniably lameass vague answers given by characters with no elaboration , or no answer at all to explain something related to the plot.

No explanation for why in the awful Fantastic 4 movie for why Doctor Doom decides to destroy earth.
The gangleader saying because the principle for why he's bullying the kid leaves it extremely vague lameass answer with no elaboration.
The Sheriff doesn't want Rambo in his small town Never a damn explanation for why exactly along with why the hell most cops are dreadful corrupt bastards.
Never given a damn explanation for why Louis doesn't trust Gigli to get the job done even with having done no problem everything he asked. Still he sends Ricki to replace him for no damn stated reason.

 

[RX-79G]

Cartoons rarely ever are meant to be any representation of the real world including physics, mortality, animals, and multiple other things.

When the pull out their guns it's located under their jeans or pants of the ankle area.
Evidence shown when they hijack the plane removing guns from their ankle area.


Undeniably lameass vague answers given by characters with no elaboration , or no answer at all to explain something related to the plot.

No explanation for why in the awful Fantastic 4 movie for why Doctor Doom decides to destroy earth.
The gangleader saying because the principle for why he's bullying the kid leaves it extremely vague lameass answer with no elaboration.
The Sheriff doesn't want Rambo in his small town Never a damn explanation for why exactly along with why the hell most cops are dreadful corrupt bastards.
Never given a damn explanation for why Louis doesn't trust Gigli to get the job done even with having done no problem everything he asked. Still he sends Ricki to replace him for no damn stated reason.

What is your fascination with bad films? That's why I compared this discussion to Bugs Bunny. How can you get hung up on plot holes when the film has bad acting, direction, editiing, sound, etc. They have have plot holes because they are sloppy crap.

(That said, First Blood is a good film, and it is pretty clear the Sheriff didn't want a homeless vet/hippy in his town where he is likely to do the illegal things homeless people do.)

 

[theonefirestorm]

What is your fascination with bad films? That's why I compared this discussion to Bugs Bunny. How can you get hung up on plot holes when the film has bad acting, direction, editiing, sound, etc. They have have plot holes because they are sloppy crap.

(That said, First Blood is a good film, and it is pretty clear the Sheriff didn't want a homeless vet/hippy in his town where he is likely to do the illegal things homeless people do.)

Or maybe he hates the USA fought in the Vietnam War which he believes never should have happened.
But nothing to suggest this which would be extremely plausible.


I'm giving examples of things that are undeniably inexcusable flaws that are utterly avoidable. I'm aware those are awful movies that doesn't change these awful mistakes that are avoidable, and I can use them as examples.


If a villain has no known motive that's a very flat character which makes the story boring.
Exceptions being monster animals, tornadoes plus other forces of nature, etc.

Also if a character changes for no stated reason in the story or a sequel how extremely dumb.
If a character is going to change give a damn plausible reason otherwise don't freakin do it at all.

I'll also add since marvel 616 Universe is spefically suppose to be same stuff as the real world including internet how the hell has facial recognition technology never been able to discover secret identies of Cyclops, Gambit, And any other character with a very exposed face?
If a person says suspension of disbelief it's a lameass answer that is a irrefutable copout.

 

[theonefirestorm]

I wonder if picking holes in the likes of Croc 2 Death Swamp is the most pressing use of your superpowers. It's a bit like, I dunno, Dr. Manhattan riding a bicycle generator.

That must be a joke a movie released to dvd is no damn excuse for this colossal not even trying terrible writing.

I'll add in Die Hard a amazing movie.
Carl was undeniably hung off the damn ground for more than 6 seconds yet somehow he escapes from that and isn't dead until being shot multiple times by a Cop.
This kind of stuff requires a damn explanation of how a undeniable human is able to not get killed by being hung along with who the hell saved him.

 

[RX-79G]

I'm giving examples of things that are undeniably inexcusable flaws that are utterly avoidable.

In a film full of inexcusable flaws, why select one type to get hung up about? There is a good reason you're using mostly bad movies as examples, and you ought to think about why that is. There is nothing instructive in paying attention the bottom of the barrel - of course bad films have bad realism and continuity. Why wouldn't they?


As far as Die Hard, when was the last time you heard of someone successfully being strangled with heavy chain?


I think you would have far less to be confounded by these kind of flaws if you paid attention to the Rotten Tomatoes ratings before you rented your next direct-to-dvd film. This discussion is like reviewing Jack-In-the-Box for a culinary magazine.

 

[theonefirestorm]

In a film full of inexcusable flaws, why select one type to get hung up about? There is a good reason you're using mostly bad movies as examples, and you ought to think about why that is. There is nothing instructive in paying attention the bottom of the barrel - of course bad films have bad realism and continuity. Why wouldn't they?


As far as Die Hard, when was the last time you heard of someone successfully being strangled with heavy chain?


I think you would have far less to be confounded by these kind of flaws if you paid attention to the Rotten Tomatoes ratings before you rented your next direct-to-dvd film. This discussion is like reviewing Jack-In-the-Box for a culinary magazine.

Again going to direct to dvd is no excuse for don't even try its beyond lazy.

And having no oxygen is utterly plausible to survive oh wait no it isn't.
Just because it's never freakin been recorded doesn't mean it can't kill you.

I'm sure if I took this to a doctor he would explain how this is a colossal factual error that a human could freakin survive being strangled by a chain with over 4 yards off the ground for more than 9 seconds.

Also the Fugitive a amazing movie why the hell did Sam continue to waste his bullets shooting at irrefutable bulletproof glass?
After 2 shots he can't say oh well I didn't know clearly he sees it's hollow yet he still continues to shoot.

 

[RX-79G]

Maybe another way of putting this: No one but you cares about these problems in these movies.

Additionally, what do any of these non-SFF movies have to do with writing SFF? Are you planning on writing SFF?

 

[theonefirestorm]

I wonder if picking holes in the likes of Croc 2 Death Swamp is the most pressing use of your superpowers. It's a bit like, I dunno, Dr. Manhattan riding a bicycle generator.

And what evidence supports I have superpowers?

Maybe another way of putting this: No one but you cares about these problems in these movies.

Additionally, what do any of these non-SFF movies have to do with writing SFF? Are you planning on writing SFF?

I'm pretty sure I could find multiple persons that care about these undeniable flaws.
Again those are flaws that require logical explanations.

Its a writing topic, and If you mean for sff this website no.

 

[RX-79G]

And what evidence supports I have superpowers?


I'm pretty sure I could find multiple persons that care about these undeniable flaws.
Again those are flaws that require logical explanations.

Its a writing topic, and If you mean for sff this website no.

I don't think anyone interested in writing on this forum is unaware of the need to produce work that is logical and consistent. It is one of the hallmarks of good writing - especially when dealing with fantastic worlds.

So far the interest in this thread appears to be people filling in your knowledge gaps about the history of Superman, Wolverine and Navy SEALs, rather than an actual interest in the topic as presented. But maybe someone will come along with in interest in Sharknado's near perfection, marred only by glaring continuity problems.

 

[Andrew LH]

And what evidence supports I have superpowers?

Maybe another way of putting this: No one but you cares about these problems in these movies.

I don't precisely agree with RX here, and my superpowers point is along exactly those lines: I think there is a validity to calling out stupidity or laziness in writing (and though we're on films here as a topic it's the plots/scripts that are at fault), so your mystical abilities make you the hero Hollywood needs*. However, using them against woefully inferior projects which we might safely presume are poor across the board, not just in passing details such as failing to show how guns reach an aeroplane, is a bit like Superman cutting warm butter with his laser vision when a teaspoon is handy.

The Sheriff doesn't want Rambo in his small town Never a damn explanation for why exactly along with why the hell most cops are dreadful corrupt bastards.

This is an example of a pointless flexing of your mighty thews. Are we supposed to take what is in many ways a highly plausible, if stripped-down, action-thriller and demand it also provide a detailed briefing on the motivations of every last player and the surrounding culture? Besides, First Blood is not about "how most cops are corrupt", it's about psychology and society; it dramatically explores casual small-town bigotry and America's treatment of mental illness in the context of war trauma, and does it very well (until it deviates from the book's ending and results in a bunch of sequels).

My point is, you need to pick your targets better. Bad films are bad for a whole host of reasons, and singling out some little idiocy of plot or action for a fix wouldn't have made them good. At the other extreme, you can reach for flaws that aren't there if you try hard enough... but what's the point of that?

* but not that it deserves

 

[theonefirestorm]

Again I'm going to repeat no doubt in the marvel 616 Universe the FBI plus possibly other law enforcement organizations have facial recognition technology so how the hell have Cyclops, Falcon, Gambit, and multiple others with very exposed faxlces including those with domino style masks not had their secret identies discovered?

 

[RX-79G]

Again I'm going to repeat no doubt in the marvel 616 Universe the FBI plus possibly other law enforcement organizations have facial recognition technology so how the hell have Cyclops, Falcon, Gambit, and multiple others with very exposed faxlces including those with domino style masks not had their secret identies discovered?

They have, many times over. And they have used counter technologies many, many times over the decades of publication as well.


Also, are you aware that this a is a children's fantasy comic book set in a world full of magic where 200 lbs characters can stop a car simply by being strong?

Kids' comic book.

 

[Matthew Hughes]

Again going to direct to dvd is no excuse for don't even try its beyond lazy.

Actually, there is an excuse, and it's a very valid one in Hollywood. It goes like this: "We're making money doing what we're doing, so we see no need to do it differently, especially if that means we might make less money."

 

[KatG]

Okay, so I think we can say at this point that the thread is concerned with screenwriting, not written fiction in books or magazines. The problem with that, partially, is that screenwriters have very little control over how their material is used. Most action movies, even B budget ones, have multiple screenwriters working on it and the final script is often a mish-mash of various versions, plus development, production and post-production editing decisions of the director(s), director of photography, cinematographer, film editors, plus ad-libs of the cast during the shoot, plus requirements of producers and funding studio who themselves often feel pressured to have certain things that marketing people believe (often for sad and unsupported reasons,) necessary to sell the film overseas or in certain domestic markets or for later DVD and streaming.

And then there are budget constraints. For instance, the t.v. series Heroes had a near perfect first season for many. But there were two illogical points -- one near the end of the first season and the other in the finale of the first season. And the reason for both turned out that they didn't have the money to do the bigger special effects that would have also been more logical on plot. So they came up with a bad compromise. That first season was still a success (but though they then got more money, the SF show was expensive and on network t.v. and so rapidly fell apart subsequently.) And this translates to movies as well, including even big budget ones because the bulk of the budget may be saved for some things while others get short-shrift and have to be changed, introducing poor logic. Sometimes a scene goes off -- there is an inconsistency that they didn't catch even with people whose job is to catch inconsistencies, and they simply don't have the money to go back and re-shoot the scene. So they leave it or try a cheaper fix that may not totally fix it. And sometimes things seem to make sense to them that don't make sense to a lot of the viewers, especially when it's SFF stories. But since consistency is not necessarily again the first goal in a movie/action movie versus spectacle, or for millions of possible movie viewers there to watch spectacle, this is not particularly considered a problem of the art form. It's a stylistic preference.

This is not to say that written fiction authors don't end up with illogical aspects in stories, even though they are the sole creator and may have no to substantial editing assistance. But trying to parse errors in movies which are the result of a hundred people or more working on a project does not put those errors in the "avoidable" group. Big projects like films and t.v. shows have bugs in them that will not get ironed out even in the best projects. So it's essentially shooting fish in a barrel pointing out the errors you may find. That being said, I did find this guy's analysis which come at things from a film editing and production stand-point, in this case the mess of a film Suicide Squad, to be very interesting and others may find it so:

 

[Windshadow]

that was very interesting youtube Kat, and i have watched a few others in particular he did about screen writing... he presents his opinions well and I enjoy his take on the tent pole films.

 

[Igor]

It does not matter as long as the story is good and fun. That's how I see it.

You don't read fiction for its reality. You read it because it's fiction!

The only thing that MUST be relatable are characters, because we cannot comprehend humanity that is different from ours. In fact, we cannot comprehend life that is different from ours. So that's your only focus. The rest is barding on your trapping (or the other way around).

Igor