Suspension of Disbelief and Good Fiction.

Status
Not open for further replies.

DLPB

Banned Flunky
AKA
Seifer Almasy, DanielReturns
#51
I have already said I will watch it and review it. I am going to have fun exposing it. Even in its altered state the awful things in the original are still there and they are overwhelming.

But I will go into it and watch it first. And I will see what I think of it. I will get back to you.
 

Tifabelle

Pro Adventurer
AKA
Tifabelle, Nathan Drake, Locke Cole, Kain Highwind, Yamcha, Arya Stark
#52
If you go in with a closed mind, of course you are going to hate it.
 

Ⓐaron

Factiō Rēpūblicāna dēlenda est.
AKA
The Man, V
#53
as for theman, I ignored your whole post after the first sentence.
This doesn't do wonders for your position either.

The post I made was not an opinion. It was a fact.
Nothing in your post was factual. Repeatedly proclaiming that it was factual will make it any more factual. It will just make you look like an idiot.

Plot holes, and such are real things which can be demonstrated,
What one person regards as a plot hole may well be perfectly logical to another. There are no objective criteria for determining what constitutes a plot hole.

Stop arguing with that. Now.
How dare you tell me what to do. Stop proclaiming that you're right and refusing to even consider other people's arguments.
 
Last edited:

DLPB

Banned Flunky
AKA
Seifer Almasy, DanielReturns
#55
What one person regards as a plot hole may well be perfectly logical to another.
Do you even comprehend how stupid that is? A plot hole either exists or does not. It isn't some little dream opinion. If a plot hole makes sense to you, that's because you do not understand the plot.

I can't believe you even argued that, that's amazing. And someone asked me "how are you more qualified"

well compared to theman, who doesnt even know what a plot hole is... What more can I say? Watch the reviews theman. Please learn something. There are tons of things in films which are bad and which are FACTUALLY wrong. That isn't in debate. ISN'T IN DEBATE.
 
Last edited:

Lord Noctis

Harbinger of Darkness
AKA
Caius Ballad
#56
Really? You don't know what scenes have been added or changed, or which characters have been developed more and explained properly, but you can say beyond any doubt that it wouldn't make any difference? That seems kind of silly.

I agree that AC was downright terrible, but I enjoyed ACC. It was considerably better. Now maybe you could watch it and decide you still hate it, I wouldn't argue with you because it is still a flawed movie. But you shouldn't judge something without checking it out first.
 

Ⓐaron

Factiō Rēpūblicāna dēlenda est.
AKA
The Man, V
#57
Do you even comprehend how stupid that is? A plot hole either exists or does not. It isn't some little dream opinion. If a plot hole makes sense to you, that's because you do not understand the plot.
Or maybe if you perceive a plot hole, it's because you do not understand the plot. But of course you didn't stop to consider that, because in your mind you can't possibly be wrong. According to your explanation, if anyone perceives a plot hole it must be a plot hole. Because if the alleged "plot hole makes sense" it has to be because you don't understand the plot. It can't be because the person who perceives it doesn't understand the plot.

I'm not even going to respond to the rest of your ad hominem and name-calling except to note that it reveals to all who care to pay attention what kind of person you are. Though they probably figured that out a long time ago anyway.
 
Last edited:

DLPB

Banned Flunky
AKA
Seifer Almasy, DanielReturns
#59
Now maybe you could watch it and decide you still hate it,
I am doing.

Or maybe if you perceive a plot hole, it's because you do not understand the plot. But of course you didn't stop to consider that, because in your mind you can't possibly be wrong.

I'm not even going to respond to the rest of your ad hominem and name-calling except to note that it reveals to all who care to pay attention what kind of person you are. Though they probably figured that out a long time ago anyway.


On this, no I am not. And calling your post fucking retarded, because it is, is not calling you.
 
Last edited:

DLPB

Banned Flunky
AKA
Seifer Almasy, DanielReturns
#61
To be honest theman, people like you really irritate me, because you try to convince people that everything in the universe is opinion when it isn't and you try to use opinion as an excuse as to why 1 position can never be true. Well, that's nonsense. Opinion based arguments are often stronger on 1 side than the other, and often include many facts to make up their conclusion.

You need to learn this as well. Plot holes and such, are things you can point to as facts. They are not opinions. They never were. Watch that guys reviews and it will become clear. For example, if you are in a room with poison gas you do not wait 10 seconds before you head for the exit. That is bad storytelling. It isn't an opinion that that is illogical and looks stupid, it just is.

If you are watching a film and a person is shot in the head with a shot gun, and later on in the movie he is fine and the explanation is "it just skimmed me", you know that's bullshit and a plot hole. You saw the bullet hit his head. There are 100's of examples. It is not opinion.

In rare circumstances it may be but nearly always, plot holes and otherwise are easily distinguished as having happened.

This site makes it clear: http://www.moviemistakes.com
 
Last edited:

Ⓐaron

Factiō Rēpūblicāna dēlenda est.
AKA
The Man, V
#62
On this, no I am not.


You do realise I'm not talking about AC or ACC here, right? I've never even seen the films. I'm disputing your broad claims about fiction, about which you don't demonstrate even the remotest trace of comprehension.

And calling your post fucking retarded, because it is, is not calling you.
You claimed I didn't understand what a plot hole is. That is an attack on me. A person who doesn't even understand the implications of what he writes cannot possibly be an authority on anything related to literature.
 

Ⓐaron

Factiō Rēpūblicāna dēlenda est.
AKA
The Man, V
#63
To be honest theman, people like you really irritate me, because you try to convince people that everything in the universe is opinion when it isn't
I love how you just tell me what arguments I've made. Except that I've never actually made that argument. I've never claimed that everything in the universe is opinion. There are plenty of things that are a matter of factual record. Claims about literature, however, are opinion. Unless they're made by the creator, in which case they can be factual. Everyone else is making interpretations of the creator's work.

and you try to use opinion as an excuse as to why 1 position can never be true. Well, that's nonsense. Opinion based arguments are often stronger on 1 side than the other, and often include many facts to make up their conclusion.
Um this is a whole bunch of irrelevant bullshit that has nothing to do with any argument I've ever actually made.

You need to learn this as well. Plot holes and such, are things you can point to as facts. They are not opinions. They never were.
Except that interpretation of plot holes can be based on erroneous or differing interpretations of plots. You act as if there is only one valid interpretation of a plot. There isn't. Unless a creator has come out and stated exactly what he or she meant by writing a particular work, everything is open to interpretation.

Watch that guys reviews and it will become clear.
Appeal to authority. Noted.

For example, if you are in a room with poison gas you do not wait 10 seconds before you head for the exit. That is bad storytelling. It isn't an opinion that that is illogical and looks stupid, it just is.
The characters might have a good reason for waiting ten seconds, such as having been hit on the head, or not realising there's poison gas, or just being morons. I have no idea if you're referring to a specific scene in AC or not and I don't really care.
 

Ⓐaron

Factiō Rēpūblicāna dēlenda est.
AKA
The Man, V
#64
Goddamn it, stop adding to posts when people have already fucking responded to them. If you have something else to say, make a new post. I only saw this because I went back and reread the thread.

If you are watching a film and a person is shot in the head with a shot gun, and later on in the movie he is fine and the explanation is "it just skimmed me", you know that's bullshit and a plot hole. You saw the bullet hit his head. There are 100's of examples. It is not opinion.
I'm not going to argue with you that that's sloppy storytelling where it's done seriously with no trace of irony. On the other hand, it might be happening in a parody of bad storytelling, in which case it would be perfectly acceptable. ("She turned me into a newt! ... I got better"). In any case, occurrences like this where it's played straight are extremely uncommon in published works. Most of what people consider "plot holes" are completely open to interpretation, and nearly all of literary analysis isn't this cut-and-dry.
 
Last edited:

DLPB

Banned Flunky
AKA
Seifer Almasy, DanielReturns
#65
Appeal to authority. Noted.
Basically won't watch review. Won't learn anything.

The characters might have a good reason for waiting ten seconds,
There might be, but for it to be a plot hole there wouldnt be. That's why IT IS A PLOT HOLE.

If it could be rationally explained it wouldnt be a plot hole. But a lot of things CANNOT be explained logically and thus they are plot holes.

a PLOT HOLE is a factual problem with a film. If there is ambiguity it is not a plot hole. It is bad writing or whatever you want to call it.

Here is a classic one:

In Star Trek Generations. Picard is trying to stop a man who is ready to blow up a star. He wants to get into the ribbon where time does not exist. Picard IS TOLD that he can go back to ANY POINT at all in time to stop the man (once he had entered the ribbon).

He then leaves the ribbon and goes back to just a few minutes before the guy is gonna blow up the star again. INSTEAD OF GOING BACK A FEW DAYS when he was unarmed and unable to do anything.

That is a plot hole. It is clearly a plot hole and there is no ambiguity. It is bad writing...
 
Last edited:
AKA
Sonique, Quexinos, Pinkie Pie, Derpy Hooves
#66
It isn't going to make any difference whatsoever. It was a turd to begin with., It would be like changing a few edits in star wars PM and trying to claim its vastly better.
How are you in any position to come to that conclusion if you haven't seen it?
 

Ⓐaron

Factiō Rēpūblicāna dēlenda est.
AKA
The Man, V
#67
Basically won't watch review. Won't learn anything.
Lol how do you know I haven't watched the review? Oh that's right, you don't know. You're making assumptions again. Maybe I just want you to explain the premise in your own words rather than appealing to authority.

There might be, but for it to be a plot hole there wouldnt be. That's why IT IS A PLOT HOLE.

If it could be rationally explained it wouldnt be a plot hole. But a lot of things CANNOT be explained logically and thus they are plot holes.

a PLOT HOLE is a factual problem with a film. If there is ambiguity it is not a plot hole. It is bad writing or whatever you want to call it.
And once again, in nearly all cases you cannot objectively say that something is a plot hole. As stated above, most cases of people calling something a "plot hole" aren't as cut and dry as your example of someone getting shot in the head in a serious work and then being perfectly fine with no explanation. (Now that I've thought about it for a few minutes, it's actually a bad example as well. People have been known to get shot in the head and survive. Furthermore, if the character claimed the shot just grazed his head, it could be interpreted as a case of establishing the character as dishonest). Most cases of people declaring something "bad literature" are over completely subjective things.

Here is a classic one:

In Star Trek Generations. Picard is trying to stop a man who is ready to blow up a star. He wants to get into the ribbon where time does not exist. Picard IS TOLD that he can go back to ANY POINT at all in time to stop the man (once he had entered the ribbon).

He then leaves the ribbon and goes back to just a few minutes before the guy is gonna blow up the star again. INSTEAD OF GOING BACK A FEW DAYS when he was unarmed and unable to do anything.

That is a plot hole. It is clearly a plot hole and there is no ambiguity. It is bad writing...
Or maybe Picard is just impulsive and makes decisions without thinking them through fully.
 

DLPB

Banned Flunky
AKA
Seifer Almasy, DanielReturns
#69
How are you in any position to come to that conclusion if you haven't seen it?
because it is purely logical. And when I am back from watching ACC, you know what I am gonna say. I sure as hell do. It won't make a big enough difference because the large part of AC is in ACC. And the whole film was a failure.

Lol how do you know I haven't watched the review? Oh that's right, you don't know. You're making assumptions again. Maybe I just want you to explain the premise in your own words rather than appealing to authority.
I know you didnt.


He had eternity to figure it out. You are debating a stone wall plot hole. Stop it.
 
AKA
Sonique, Quexinos, Pinkie Pie, Derpy Hooves
#70
Because revised stuff always sucks or... ?

I mean half of your complaints were taken care of.

Dialogue is poor.
Exposition is poor
Story is basic
use of special effects is too long and at the expense of story
No attempts made to explain certain events (like Rufus surviving, and getting up from his wheel chair)

Characters are "just there", we dont know anything about loz or the others. All we know is they are there. We feel nothing for them. The only reason we can feel something for the established characters is because we played VII. That's not a good thing, if it has to rely on the previous installment. It is a flaw.

Denzel. Why should I feel anything for him? He is just some kid. Nothing explained.
1. Some scenes have completely new dialogue like the conversation between Cloud and Rufus. But if you mean the English dub, well don't watch it then. But just cause the dub script is bad doesn't mean the movie itself is bad.

2. I'm not sure what you expected.

3. Story is much more in depth.

4. Yeah, it's uh based on a video game that had a lot of fighting with special effects (limit breaks and summons and what not). So yeah there will be fighting with special effects. Again I'm not sure what you expected. Everyone to sit around talking?

It's shown how the SHM appear and Denzel's backstory is explained. So yeah ...
 

DLPB

Banned Flunky
AKA
Seifer Almasy, DanielReturns
#71
Because revised stuff always sucks or... ?
Because AC was AWFUL and massive parts of AAC are from AC.

You cannot polish a turd.
Yeah, it's uh based on a video game that had a lot of fighting. So yeah there will be fighting with special effects.
I expected a story and fighting for massive amounts of time is not it. THIS WAS NOT A GAME. You are getting round my argument by deliberately missing the point of it.
 
AKA
Sonique, Quexinos, Pinkie Pie, Derpy Hooves
#75
Nope you're wrong, people can rebuild things and make them better. Just because you say something, doesn't make it true I'm afraid.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom