It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Logic Flaws in the Star Wars Trilogy (long)

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 10:52 AM
link   
Another one:

Star Wars A New Hope

- When the Falcon escaped from the Death Star, Leia tells Han, "They let us go. They're tracking us." So that means that Leia was knowingly leading the Death Star to the Rebel Base. Yet she seemed unsure though hopeful about whether the stolen data plans would reveal a weakness in the Death Star. So why would she willing take such a huge gamble, knowing that if she lost, then the whole Rebel base would be destroyed? How could her conscience and allegiance to the Rebel Alliance let her do that?

Return of the Jedi

Look how big a Star Destroyer is. Here is a Rebel Cruiser being captured by one and taken into the hangar of its underside.



Yet compared to the Imperial flagship Executor, the Star Destroyer looks very small.



Yet in Return of the Jedi, Lucas tells us that the Executor was destroyed by one single fighter ramming itself into the bridge? lol. That's like an insect crashing into a castle or mansion and destroying it. lol. So dumb. Lucas must not have all his marbles to expect everyone to buy that. Or he has a fondness for cheesy stupid scenes. He definitely isn't into logic. I guess if Lucas wants something out of the way, he gets it out of the way any way he can, including the dumbest ways. He has no respect for anyone's intelligence.

Here is that stupid scene from Return of the Jedi.

www.youtube.com...
edit on 21-8-2011 by WWu777 because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 12:42 PM
link   
I thought this was going to be a link to Red Letter Media's awesome dissection of the new trilogy. Of course there's going to be logic flaws in Star Wars, it's popcorn sci-fi. They're meant to be entertaining, to tell a cool story with interesting characters and mysterious concepts. It's about taking a journey and emotion, not about being airtight.

Now, granted, I'm saying this because I love the original trilogy. If I don't like a movie, I'm not willing to suspend my disblief. I'm not sure if you enjoy Star Wars or not. It kind of seems like you don't. And if you don't that fine and you're entitled to make this list, but if you do maybe you should try watching it without looking for holes. There aren't a lot of movies that are like the original trilogy that are as good. Most sci-fi movies are about scaring people or bringing up weighty topics for contemplation. Star Wars is about the continuing adventures of a set of strong characters who are fun to watch.

I think all Star Wars fans should check out the Red Letter Media's new trilogy videos. They're long, but I guarantee that if most people start watching them, they'll get hooked. Watch out, there's a lot of harsh language, so if that's not your bag you might want to abstain.

This videos are great because they talk about why the movie failed by pointing out problems with the story. Not just logic flaws and plotholes (he does that), but huge problems with he characterizations. They're really entertaining and intelligent, even if they don't seem it at first.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by WWu777
I agree that Dark Knight was awesome, in a lot of ways, but sound logic and being realistic wasn't one of them. lol

Anyway, here is my list of logic flaws about it.

Implausibilities and logic flaws in Dark Knight

The Batman film Dark Knight is an artfully made masterpiece about psychological chaos. However, there are numerous implausibilities and logic flaws in it. I just saw it again, so here are the ones I noticed.

- At the beginning, during the bank heist scene organized by the Joker, the masked robbers were all ordered to shoot each other so that each of them could keep a bigger share of the fortune. Then the Joker himself joins them, unknown to his own henchmen. Why would he do that, when there was a high probability that one of them would shoot him, since they were told to shoot each other? Yet in spite of this high risk, the Joker walks through it as though he were invincible and super confident that he wouldn't get hurt.


Because each man was told who they would shoot as even he says to one of them before killing him.


- The abilities and powers of the Joker are completely implausible. He has no super powers and is not bullet proof. Yet he can blow up hospitals, ferries, rip off mob bosses, kill random people, terrorize all of Gotham City, etc. yet not one person can point a gun at him and shoot him. lol. That's crazy. Technically, any average Joe can point a gun at the Joker and shoot him, since he is only human. Yet no one ever does. Instead, everyone fears him as if he were some immortal invincible villain immune to danger. This is totally implausible and makes no sense. Normally, if you rip off the mob, they will kill you and get away with it, since everyone fears them and all the right people are paid off by them. This was established in the first film, Batman Begins, when the mob boss explains the depth of power he wields over the whole city to Bruce Wayne, and why that made him untouchable. But the Joker is able to rip off mob bosses routinely, and get away with it cause no one has the gal to just shoot him. Not the police, not the mob, nor anybody, including Batman, is able to just shoot and kill the Joker. No reason is given for this, other than that he is the Joker and everyone is afraid of him. lol. Go figure. Yet the invincible Joker treats the whole city and everyone in it like they are his toys. He can walk by all his enemies out in the open while remaining unharmed. Yeah right.


Joker's a lunatic, they're more about being organised. They want a piece of him and what he can bring to the criminal underworld so they stay by him almost loyally to get what they can out of him. Remember, until Joker came along the mob was holding meetings during the day in secret and almost hiding at night, with him around they could walk around at night again thanks to Joker's lack of rules and fear.


- The scene where Batman goes to Hong Kong and kidnaps the Chinese bank thief was very unrealistic. When Batman grabbed him and was surrounded by the Hong Kong police and SWAT team, his shoulder and head were exposed enough for them to take a shot at. They could have easily shot Batman's shoulder or head and freed the Chinese guy, as they do in other movies. But they did nothing and waited. Then Batman takes his captive and swings out the window using a rope or wire attached to a cargo plane overhead, flown by his teammates, and escapes Hong Kong with his prisoner. Yeah right. One cannot dangle from rope or wire from a plane and be simply pulled in. I have never heard of anyone doing that before. And there's probably a reason for that. It is probably too dangerous as the plane would be flying too fast for anyone dangling from it to be safe and survive. All in all, that was a very unrealistic breakout scene in Hong Kong.


Maybe not wanting to risk Batman's hostage by shooting to kill until they knew the businessman was safe and away from harm. Can't speak for the plane part though but since Nolan likes realism, he probably spoke to experts beforehand and then took a few liberties.


- The woman who played Rachel was only average looking. (Katie Holmes, who played Rachel in Batman Begins, was replaced by her for some reason) Yet the handsome billionaire Bruce Wayne expresses an interest in a serious relationship with her, which she rejects?! Yeah right. Bruce Wayne was used to dating super models and Russian ballet dancers, as shown in this film. Yet he's interested in having a serious relationship with this average looking Rachel? Yeah right. No way. She was way under his league and social status. If Rachel had still been played by Katie Holmes, this might have been more plausible. But not with that woman playing her.

Also, why would Rachel reject a handsome billionaire who happens to be her best friend whom she grew up with, and whom she also knew was a brave daring super hero? Right. Does she think she could ever do better than that?


I find Maggie Gyllenhal a lot more attractive than Katie Holmes and besides, Katie refused to sign for The Dark Knight because she was pregnant or shooting another movie, one of the two.

Anyway, she turned down Bruce because she knew he was Batman and didn't want to be at home worrying what might happen to him when she could have a popular, rich and attractive DA instead who had death threats against him too but life with him would've had a lot less complications than life with Bruce Wayne.

Rachel had told Bruce that she'd be waiting for him once he gave up being Batman, until he did she could never be in a relationship with him.


- Police Chief Gordon was shot down by the Joker's henchmen, who were attempting to assassinate the Mayor, when he dove to save his life. But later in the movie, Gordon suddenly reappears and comes back to life. Yet there is no explanation for how he survived that fatal gunshot. When he appears again, he does not even look injured.


Well he dived in front of the Mayor and was hit in the back or shoulder so I'm sure depending where he was hit, he would've survived. Also depends how much time passed and the scope of his injuries for the last thing about not looking hurt.


- In the police interrogation room, Batman punches the Joker many times, and bashes his head against the wall many times as well, while he's trying to get him to reveal where Harvey Dent was. Yet the Joker never bleeds or gets injured from all that bashing? WTF? He should have been bleeding badly after all that. Why doesn't the director want to show the Joker bleeding? Because he's invincible and larger than life? lol


I've experienced being hit on the head and having it hit things on purpose and by accident, never bled from them. I've only ever bled above the neck when I was punched in the mouth. Shouldn't be too hard to imagine the same for that scene too.


- A top criminal like the Joker should have been placed in maximum security prison, not in a simple cell with a bunch of other thugs, with only a few policemen around. Come on now. After finally catching such a powerful master criminal capable of causing mass destruction, why would they put him in a simple cell with minimal security? And why did the police let one of their men stay in the interrogation room with the Joker, which they should have known the Joker could easily incapacitate and use as a hostage, given his proven incredible abilities? His escape was way too easy. He just blew up one of the other inmates using a phone, whom his henchmen probably placed bombs inside, and then he was free? Huh? If the blast didn't kill the Joker, then why would it have taken out all the other policemen there to let him get away? That was too easy and contrived.


County was the only space available for him as they explained in the movie. They put Joker in a holding cell until they could get more information about himself as well as where Harvey and Rachel were.

Why leave him in interrogation with one man? Because Joker was unarmed and until then had shown no capacity for fighting hand to hand plus I'm sure the cop would've been armed or at least trained in unarmed combat and never expected Joker to try anything. Besides, remember, they had as many police as they could afford going in two directions across the city to get Harvey and Rachel.

As far as the phone bomb, enough explosive inside to kill or injure those in the holding cells and blow the wall but not to kill or injure Joker is plausible.


- When Batman pushes the mob guy he grabbed from the disco off the balcony, and then questions him, he tells Batman that no one will ever betray the Joker. But why? The Joker is not honorable or noble. He randomly kills his own men, as he did in the beginning of the film during the bank heist scene, so why would anyone be steadfastly loyal to him, to the point of never betraying him? There is no reason why anyone would be that loyal to such a psychopathic character. The mob guy never gave a valid explanation for that claim.


Goes back to what I said before, temporary loyalty to get what they could out of him. Help a psycho like him and you get a piece of the pie, go against him and you end up dead.


- There was no plausible reason for Harvey Dent to have fallen from being a White Knight of Gotham and turning into a ruthless killer who revels in chaos. Just because the Joker tells him that everything is determined by chance and chaos, and that making plans was vain, is not enough to turn a good man into an evil man. That simply is not sufficient or plausible.


He'd lost his girlfriend/fiance in an explosion, blamed the police and Batman and was then told Joker's twisted logic. Like Joker hinted at in the movie and explained in The Killing Joke, everyone is capable of one bad day to make them snap. In The Killign Joke he kidnaps Barbara Gordon then when he holds her father hostage, shows him pictures of her in varying states of undress and looking scared and broken in an attempt to make Jim snap like he did when he became The Joker.

All it takes is a little push to make someone mad enough to slip into insanity. You get it in real life when someone is murdered and a relative snaps and kills that person in retaliation.


- When the Joker visits Harvey Dent in the hospital and gives him a gun to shoot him with, Harvey should have immediately shot him. We are not told whether the gun was loaded or not, but if it was, why would the Joker do that, knowing that there was an almost 100 percent chance that Harvey would shoot him? Why does the Joker take the most dangerous reckless risks with 100 percent confidence? For some reason, Harvey flipped a coin and spared the Joker's life. There was no reason for that. The Joker and his henchmen were the cause of Rachel's death and abduction, as well as his. There was no way Harvey would have spared the Joker just cause of his cheap talk. He knew the Joker was a psychopathic liar, so why would he listen to anything he says?

Furthermore, Harvey should have known from Batman that the Joker was the one who knew the location where Harvey and Rachel were being held, so obviously, he and his henchmen must have had something to do with it.


Harvey left it to chance, deciding on the toss of a coin whether to kill Joker or not. What Joker was saying up until that point scarily made a lot of sense and using the coin more than before was a part of his newfound insanity. He also never knew (or at least the audience never gets the hint) that people were sent to save Rachel. All he knew was that Batman came to save him instead and so blamed Batman for Rachel's death for not going to her instead.

As for Joker's trust and logic in not being shot.....He's a psychopath who only cares about panic and fear in others. As you can see by his appearance, he doesn't care about himself, nor did he in the interrogation room. To quote Ivan Drago, "if he dies, he dies", he doesn't care.


- At the end, Batman tells Gordon to blame the murders that Harvey Dent committed on him, so that the people of Gotham would not lose faith in what Harvey stood for, which may cause the criminals he put away to be released. However, there was no need for Batman to be the fall guy for those murders, which would only make his life more difficult. Gordon could have just blamed those murders on the Joker, his henchmen, or any other criminal in the crime infested city of Gotham. There was no reason why only Batman could be the fall guy to save Harvey Dent's reputation.

Furthermore, why subject Batman to a chase, especially when he just got shot and took a high fall from that building, which probably injured him and put him in no condition to run from a chase by the police?


No evidence to tie Joker to the crimes, especially because Joker had been captured the previous night by police and the murders and kidnapping by Harvey happened while Joker was in captivity for the second time.

Plus Batman was a vigilante in a costume, Harvey was Gotham's DA and was legally allowed to capture criminals through the courts rather than hunting them down in streets and alleyways at night. Batman could easily be seen as a possible criminal working outside the law.

Why subject him to a chase? Batman himself suggested it. Cops were already there. Might as well claim he held the Gordons captive and then send the forces on the scene after Batman than let him slip quietly away and raise suspicion.



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 09:56 AM
link   
I didn't read all of it, as another poster answered many of the questions pretty well....

On the issue of TIE Fighters and other ships in space, and range...

It's much clearer in the books, but I'm pretty sure they mention it in at least one of the films. TIE fighters are cheap, because they lack shields and lack a hyperdrive for long travel.

The empire doesn't need them though, as they rely on the tactic of superior numbers.

Vader's TIE Advanced, on the other hand, DID have a hyperdrive.

The Rebel's fighters pretty much ALL have hyperdrives and shields, including Luke's X-Wing, which is how he got around so much. At the time of the films, the X-Wing was the most advanced fighter... The INCOM designers pretty much fled to the rebels, with the designs.

The big plot hole for me is this...(and another above mentioned it too)

At one point, Leia distinctly mentions the ship is being tracked...but, instead of going somewhere and getting on another ship...they all make a beeline for the secret Rebel base, leading the Death Star right to it.

Would she really have just trusted Han's word that it isn't being tracked? No.


You're right about the rebel strategy on Endor, having a small squad try and assault the generator was stupid. They had intel about the fleet around the moon, the workings of the death star and the fact that the Emperor was there. Just knowing the fleet was there and the ability for them to deploy a huge landing force would have gotten this mission scrubbed in the first place. They had to know that the moon was also garrisoned with legions of troops...


I think the ground troops were only increased after Vader sensed Luke, as I recall.


Yet in Return of the Jedi, Lucas tells us that the Executor was destroyed by one single fighter ramming itself into the bridge? lol. That's like an insect crashing into a castle or mansion and destroying it. lol. So dumb. Lucas must not have all his marbles to expect everyone to buy that. Or he has a fondness for cheesy stupid scenes. He definitely isn't into logic. I guess if Lucas wants something out of the way, he gets it out of the way any way he can, including the dumbest ways. He has no respect for anyone's intelligence.


This was more about the sacrifice of Luke's friend, than taking out the ship. It's assumed that the fighter in the bridge was really just the deathblow, and that repeated attacks from other capital ships did the bulk of the damage... Of course, there is a high cheese factor, but if you consider the inspiration for Star Wars (i.e. Saturday sci-fi shorts), it's to be expected....
edit on 22-8-2011 by Gazrok because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 04:23 PM
link   
The only damn flaw I see is that the 3 original ones come before the newer ones and they all have worse technology than the newer ones.



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by DivineBeing
 


Well, one could explain this as the Imperial dominance forced more standardized tech on the populace, but really, that's more of a by-product of the film technology of the times. In the original SW movies, Lucas pioneered many different special effects techniques, but he didn't have the tools then that we have now.



new topics

top topics
 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join