|
All of the "plot holes" mentioned in this thread aren't really plot holes, they're just comments on how things could have been done differently, or why something was done a certain way, some things were done inefficiently, etc. Those aren't plot holes. Just because something happens in a sci-fi movie doesn't mean it's considered the best way. Maybe they loaded up a gigantic bomber with TNT in a big pallet because that's all they had. Or maybe someone just had a really bad idea. The corporation wasn't really known to make good decisions, right? Why is it the director or screenwriter's job to explain every single little event in the movie and why it's a great idea? I hate movies that have dialogue that exists simply to move the plot forward and that's what it seems like some people in this thread wish for.
If you look at most movies today, even the good ones, all of the plots can be boiled down to something that's happened before. I don't get how people can walk into a movie and simply pick apart the plot and lines. If the movie works, it works, and if it doesn't, it doesn't. I love this line so I will say it again: it's not what a movie's about, it's how it's about it.
__________________
"A Darwinian attacks his theory, seeking to find flaws. An ID believer defends his theory, seeking to conceal flaws." -Roger Ebert
|