Devil's Advocate: Media Edition

[Drathnoxis]

A great Harry Potter example is the time-tuner. It actually would solve every problem they have in the story... and the only time it is used is to let a kid use it to attend some extra classes? But it really isn't a plot hole because the Harry Potter series was better than a short story about some old wizard time traveling to an orphanage and strangling some psycho kid in his bed... The End.

Time turners aren't a plot hole.

Spoiler: Harry Potter spoilers

You can't change the past with a time turner, this is established in the very book they are introduced. Harry Potter time travel runs on 'no paradox' rules. Everything they do with the aid of the time turner already happened before they do it. Buckbeak was never killed, Sirus had already escaped, and Harry had already saved himself from dementors by the lake before they went back in time.
Here's more in depth look at the text. You can't go back and kill Voldemort because if you could, he'd already be dead. There's no inconsistencies on time turners in the books as far as I'm aware of.

Anybody who calls time turners a plot hole clearly did not understand how they were established to work in the first place.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

SNIP

If you want an example of what happens when the X-men are government controlled then you should watch Darker Than Black. If I may overly simplify it, it's X-men with Autism. It's probably the best example of what you're describing here because almost every single Contractor and Doll (The two types of super powered individuals in the show) is either being used by the governments of different nations and kept largely secret from normal people or being used by criminal organizations.

 

[Asita]

Again, that you invoke something so simple to explain suggests to me that you don't actually understand the concept. You've invoked scenes where things simply weren't directly explained at length, you've invoked one character contradicting another, you've invoked characters not acting like you might. Hell, you seem to have cited fictional creatures like zombies as a potential example in stories that contain them. You have invoked thinking of it in terms of any contradiction - including things as simple as one character contradicting another - or things that a person disagrees with rather than moments in the story that defy explanation in accordance with the internal logic of the story. There is quite the difference.

Not really. NOTHING defies explanation in fiction... because its fiction. There aren't any limits, internal logic or otherwise. Should a writer chose to, anything can be explained (whether it should be or not which is the better discussion.)

...Spoken like someone who never took a creative writing course in their life. I apologize for my tone, but as someone with a great passion for writing and storytelling, that train of thought is enormously frustrating to me. It's a downright nihilistic perspective of narrative that insists internal consistency and a writer's skill in crafting and staying within the rules of their work are ultimately valueless because a writer can - to borrow game terminology - cheat and either ignore the rules or make up new ones purely on a whim. So I'm sorry that I'm going to have to leave this discussion hanging, but I'm getting a bit too hot under the collar on this topic.

 

[BrawlMan]

Again, that you invoke something so simple to explain suggests to me that you don't actually understand the concept. You've invoked scenes where things simply weren't directly explained at length, you've invoked one character contradicting another, you've invoked characters not acting like you might. Hell, you seem to have cited fictional creatures like zombies as a potential example in stories that contain them. You have invoked thinking of it in terms of any contradiction - including things as simple as one character contradicting another - or things that a person disagrees with rather than moments in the story that defy explanation in accordance with the internal logic of the story. There is quite the difference.

Not really. NOTHING defies explanation in fiction... because its fiction. There aren't any limits, internal logic or otherwise. Should a writer chose to, anything can be explained (whether it should be or not which is the better discussion.)

...Spoken like someone who never took a creative writing course in their life. I apologize for my tone, but as someone with a great passion for writing and storytelling, that train of thought is enormously frustrating to me. It's a downright nihilistic perspective of narrative that insists internal consistency and a writer's skill in crafting and staying within the rules of their work are ultimately valueless because a writer can - to borrow game terminology - cheat and either ignore the rules or make up new ones purely on a whim. So I'm sorry that I'm going to have to leave this discussion hanging, but I'm getting a bit too hot under the collar on this topic.

I understand your reasons and I agree. Though I feel the word plot hole has been used and abused too much, by things that are not, there are plenty of stories either it be books, movies, tv, or games were inconsistencies with fiction or lore they created plot holes. That and the usual ass pull. Honestly, I think we should go talk about something else, as it's obvious no ones changing their stances on this.