|
Post by Jerk on Feb 27, 2017 18:48:49 GMT
Who taught Luke Skywalker how to build a brand new lightsaber for ESB? His father's was left behind with Obi-Wan's robes on the Death Star. Lol. What? Obi-Wan fights Darth Vader with own lightsaber. It's the same one he uses in the cantina. Luke did not give his fathers lightsaber back to Obi-Wan at any point in the movie. He has it by his side during the medal ceremony at the end of the first movie.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2017 19:43:37 GMT
In Terminator II, the man who used the robot hand to create the technology that eventually created Skynet is killed BEFORE he can do any of that. The second he died, the future should've been changed. Sarah Connor would have reverted back to being a waitress, she'd never have had John Connor, and there'd be no terminator from the future sent back to 1984 to kill her. Yet, strangely, nothing like that happened!
Why would that happen? It's really clearly stated in the movie that merely killing the guy himself would most likely change nothing. He's just a guy, someone else would have continued the research.
Also, why would the past (from the perspective of T II) be altered? They changed the future, not the past. Irrelevant that their original future shaped the past, and that this couldn't happen anymore, as that past had already happened.
|
|
|
Post by naterdawg on Feb 27, 2017 19:44:32 GMT
The past was altered. Didn't you see the movie? That was the entire point.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2017 19:55:44 GMT
The past was altered. Didn't you see the movie? That was the entire point.
I doubt after all those movies anyone really knows what the hell the point was of the whole series.
Originally the point was that the future shaped the past. And that it could not be altered, which was something that was made very clear with certain scenes that did not make it into the movie.
The second movie tried the whole 'the future is what you make of it' approach, it is not set in stone. Which failed as the third movie just threw that out of the window. No idea what the other movies tried to make of it, alternate dimensions shaping the past in all other dimensions? Who knows?
You can only change the past when you go to that past itself. By the time of T2, the past in that movie is set. If you want to change that past, you would need to go back in time again. Which they didn't, so why would their past be altered? It already happened and no one went to the past to alter it again.
|
|
filmfan95
Sophomore
@filmfan95
Posts: 383
Likes: 141
|
Post by filmfan95 on Feb 27, 2017 20:13:04 GMT
The past was altered. Didn't you see the movie? That was the entire point.
I doubt after all those movies anyone really knows what the hell the point was of the whole series.
Originally the point was that the future shaped the past. And that it could not be altered, which was something that was made very clear with certain scenes that did not make it into the movie.
The second movie tried the whole 'the future is what you make of it' approach, it is not set in stone. Which failed as the third movie just threw that out of the window. No idea what the other movies tried to make of it, alternate dimensions shaping the past in all other dimensions? Who knows?
You can only change the past when you go to that past itself. By the time of T2, the past in that movie is set. If you want to change that past, you would need to go back in time again. Which they didn't, so why would their past be altered? It already happened and no one went to the past to alter it again.
And that's why I stand by my opinion that the first Terminator film was the only good film of the franchise. The sequels undermined the point that the first film was trying to make, and I just can't forgive that. It's one of those films where I really only watch the first one, and I ignore the sequels.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2017 20:18:47 GMT
I doubt after all those movies anyone really knows what the hell the point was of the whole series.
Originally the point was that the future shaped the past. And that it could not be altered, which was something that was made very clear with certain scenes that did not make it into the movie.
The second movie tried the whole 'the future is what you make of it' approach, it is not set in stone. Which failed as the third movie just threw that out of the window. No idea what the other movies tried to make of it, alternate dimensions shaping the past in all other dimensions? Who knows?
You can only change the past when you go to that past itself. By the time of T2, the past in that movie is set. If you want to change that past, you would need to go back in time again. Which they didn't, so why would their past be altered? It already happened and no one went to the past to alter it again.
And that's why I stand by my opinion that the first Terminator film was the only good film of the franchise. The sequels undermined the point that the first film was trying to make, and I just can't forgive that. It's one of those films where I really only watch the first one, and I ignore the sequels.
I completely agree. It stands on its own perfectly. Fast paced, excellent action, solid and simple enough story, a great Schwarzenegger. Quite a depressing movie really, something that seems more 70's than 80's, but great on its own.
I liked the second one, at the time, but unlike the first one, it didn't age all that well.
And let's forget the other movies in that series, they were horrible.
|
|
|
Post by twothousandonemark on Feb 27, 2017 23:19:32 GMT
Who taught Luke Skywalker how to build a brand new lightsaber for ESB? His father's was left behind with Obi-Wan's robes on the Death Star. Lol. What? Obi-Wan fights Darth Vader with own lightsaber. It's the same one he uses in the cantina. Luke did not give his fathers lightsaber back to Obi-Wan at any point in the movie. He has it by his side during the medal ceremony at the end of the first movie. I need another drink, & probably to watch SW again.
|
|
|
Post by Jerk on Feb 27, 2017 23:22:53 GMT
Lol. What? Obi-Wan fights Darth Vader with own lightsaber. It's the same one he uses in the cantina. Luke did not give his fathers lightsaber back to Obi-Wan at any point in the movie. He has it by his side during the medal ceremony at the end of the first movie. I need another drink, & probably to watch SW again. He does lose it in ESB and builds another by RotJ. His lightsaber wasn't seen again until TFA.
|
|
Artemis
Sophomore
I'm not weird, I'm just limited edition...
@artemis
Posts: 137
Likes: 37
|
Post by Artemis on Feb 28, 2017 14:08:01 GMT
Star Wars- If Darth Vadar's children were supposed to be a secret, how come Luke got to keep the surname Skywalker?
Aliens- How come Ripley can hold onto a ladder and not be pulled off when the space doors were open?
|
|
|
Post by naterdawg on Feb 28, 2017 15:43:12 GMT
And why does Ben call Vader "Darth?"
|
|
|
Post by Archelaus on Feb 28, 2017 20:12:09 GMT
"Citizen Kane": the whole plot revolves around Kane's dying word "Rosebud" but he dies alone so how does anyone know what he said? That's not a plot hole. When Kane found his long lost snow globe after destroying Susan's room, he said "Rosebud" before he walked to his bedroom where he eventually died. His house servants, who were outside in the hallway, heard him say it.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Mar 3, 2017 15:49:43 GMT
And why does Ben call Vader "Darth?" Because Lucas pulled the entire Anakin backstory out of his ass after the fact and, if anything, only had vague outlines about the backstory between those characters. Guinness is so good, though, that you can sort of pretend Kenobi is just being a smug, condescending douche by referring to his former pupil by his Sith "title," and it works and remains consistent with Ben's characterization for the remainder of the OT.
|
|
|
Post by miike80 on Mar 3, 2017 17:24:57 GMT
And why does Ben call Vader "Darth?" I think that in the first movie Darth was supposed to be a name, not a title. Lucas changed his mind afterwards
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Mar 3, 2017 17:29:21 GMT
And why does Ben call Vader "Darth?" I think that in the first movie Darth was supposed to be a name, not a title. Lucas changed his mind afterwards Correct. It's that and what I already said above.
|
|
|
Post by naterdawg on Mar 3, 2017 17:53:10 GMT
I think that in the first movie Darth was supposed to be a name, not a title. Lucas changed his mind afterwards Correct. It's that and what I already said above. Just like he changed his mind about all that kissing between brother and sister. Yech!
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Mar 3, 2017 17:59:12 GMT
Correct. It's that and what I already said above. Just like he changed his mind about all that kissing between brother and sister. Yech! Yeah, I like to think that if he'd planned any of that in advance there'd been at least a little less TONGUE involved...
|
|
|
Post by london777 on Mar 4, 2017 2:04:48 GMT
"The Big Sleep": who killed Owen Taylor? There's a huge set piece in which Taylor's car is pulled out of the bay but afterwards he's all but forgotten. Neither Raymond Chandler nor John Huston could work it out. Although someone claims to have killed him, neither book nor film ever clarify it. I thought the naughty younger sister killed him in a rage or when high because he refused her advances. Is that not what Doghouse Reilly and Bacall were covering up by getting her sent to a nuthouse? Long time since I watched it, though, so I could be wrong. Anyway, I do not consider loose ends, unresolved sub-plots, or people acting out of character to be plot holes. Only things that are logically impossible or contradict other events.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Mar 4, 2017 3:13:36 GMT
Anyway, I do not consider loose ends, unresolved sub-plots, or people acting out of character to be plot holes. Only things that are logically impossible or contradict other events. Wow, so that means that, apart from being a steaming turd of a film, the entirety of The Force Awakens is pretty much one gigantic plot hole given the movies that preceded it. Great, that's one more reason to hate it!
|
|
ironjade
Sophomore
@ironjade
Posts: 183
Likes: 80
|
Post by ironjade on Mar 4, 2017 11:06:21 GMT
"The Big Sleep": who killed Owen Taylor? There's a huge set piece in which Taylor's car is pulled out of the bay but afterwards he's all but forgotten. Neither Raymond Chandler nor John Huston could work it out. Although someone claims to have killed him, neither book nor film ever clarify it. I thought the naughty younger sister killed him in a rage or when high because he refused her advances. Is that not what Doghouse Reilly and Bacall were covering up by getting her sent to a nuthouse? Long time since I watched it, though, so I could be wrong. Anyway, I do not consider loose ends, unresolved sub-plots, or people acting out of character to be plot holes. Only things that are logically impossible or contradict other events. The sister killed Sean Regan.
|
|
|
Post by airborne3502 on Mar 4, 2017 19:28:45 GMT
The end of War of the Worlds with Tom Cruise.
His son takes off and the entire side of the mountain, where he was headed, goes up in a giant fireball.
Yet, at the end of the movie, there's Robbie waiting for dad at mom's house.
|
|