Discussion
KTF said:
London424 said:
How about the Director of the CIA opening the vault door to give the terrorists the informant list. I'm sorry, but that is never in a million years happening.
Exactly. Just like the weak security on the 'secret' back door that all US embassy obviously have.
London424 said:
How about the Director of the CIA opening the vault door to give the terrorists the informant list. I'm sorry, but that is never in a million years happening.
That's not a plot hole, and his actions were foreshadowed by previous statements. It's very well written in that regard.Have to say the discussions between Carrie and her boss, and the Director and the Ambassador were brilliant, concerning terrorism, how to deal with hard questions. Not heard dialogue that good dealing with this sort of situations since BSG.
Also liked the discussion between the Pakistani spy woman and the Pakistani army bloke.
Halb said:
London424 said:
How about the Director of the CIA opening the vault door to give the terrorists the informant list. I'm sorry, but that is never in a million years happening.
That's not a plot hole, and his actions were foreshadowed by previous statements. It's very well written in that regard.Have to say the discussions between Carrie and her boss, and the Director and the Ambassador were brilliant, concerning terrorism, how to deal with hard questions. Not heard dialogue that good dealing with this sort of situations since BSG.
Also liked the discussion between the Pakistani spy woman and the Pakistani army bloke.
To advance the plot of the story it relied on the Director of the CIA opening the vault (endangering everyone in it) to give the terrorists who have already killed/executed the convoy of cars, the marines, the personnel in the building, and the ones outside the vault door a list of informants in the country that would then be killed.
Not to mention the fact he's the current Director of the CIA who know's everything about the US intelligence operations and could/would be tortured.
London424 said:
It's a massive plot hole.
To advance the plot of the story it relied on the Director of the CIA opening the vault (endangering everyone in it) to give the terrorists who have already killed/executed the convoy of cars, the marines, the personnel in the building, and the ones outside the vault door a list of informants in the country that would then be killed.
Not to mention the fact he's the current Director of the CIA who know's everything about the US intelligence operations and could/would be tortured.
You might think it's poorly written, but it's no plot hole. His personalty in that regard has been built over this series.To advance the plot of the story it relied on the Director of the CIA opening the vault (endangering everyone in it) to give the terrorists who have already killed/executed the convoy of cars, the marines, the personnel in the building, and the ones outside the vault door a list of informants in the country that would then be killed.
Not to mention the fact he's the current Director of the CIA who know's everything about the US intelligence operations and could/would be tortured.
London424 said:
How about the Director of the CIA opening the vault door to give the terrorists the informant list. I'm sorry, but that is never in a million years happening.
Really, why not?Lockhart is a political appointee, not an ex-military or even ex-CIA operative with experience of life-threatening situations and cold-blooded murder.
I suspect that many people n real life would cave in pretty quickly once people they worked with were being shot (remember, at least two embassy staff had been executed prior to the beheading threat). Not everyone is a single-minded and mentally and physically invulnerable as Hollywood likes to make out in films
Halb said:
London424 said:
It's a massive plot hole.
To advance the plot of the story it relied on the Director of the CIA opening the vault (endangering everyone in it) to give the terrorists who have already killed/executed the convoy of cars, the marines, the personnel in the building, and the ones outside the vault door a list of informants in the country that would then be killed.
Not to mention the fact he's the current Director of the CIA who know's everything about the US intelligence operations and could/would be tortured.
You might think it's poorly written, but it's no plot hole. His personalty in that regard has been built over this series.To advance the plot of the story it relied on the Director of the CIA opening the vault (endangering everyone in it) to give the terrorists who have already killed/executed the convoy of cars, the marines, the personnel in the building, and the ones outside the vault door a list of informants in the country that would then be killed.
Not to mention the fact he's the current Director of the CIA who know's everything about the US intelligence operations and could/would be tortured.
London424 said:
It's not poorly written...it's complete rubbish and is a massive massive plothole!
Incorrect, not a plothole. Having watched the last 4/5 episodes in a binge, it was predictable something of that nature might occur. I also think it is great writing.If the Director has acted against his personality and history, the possibly you may have an argument, but he didn't, he acted as he had all along, and the nuances of his character are part of the plot.
boyse7en said:
London424 said:
How about the Director of the CIA opening the vault door to give the terrorists the informant list. I'm sorry, but that is never in a million years happening.
Really, why not?Lockhart is a political appointee, not an ex-military or even ex-CIA operative with experience of life-threatening situations and cold-blooded murder.
I suspect that many people n real life would cave in pretty quickly once people they worked with were being shot (remember, at least two embassy staff had been executed prior to the beheading threat). Not everyone is a single-minded and mentally and physically invulnerable as Hollywood likes to make out in films
Halb said:
London424 said:
It's not poorly written...it's complete rubbish and is a massive massive plothole!
Incorrect, not a plothole. Having watched the last 4/5 episodes in a binge, it was predictable something of that nature might occur. I also think it is great writing.If the Director has acted against his personality and history, the possibly you may have an argument, but he didn't, he acted as he had all along, and the nuances of his character are part of the plot.
Of course it was predictable that something like that was going to happen...but it had to rely on a completely ridiculous scenario happening to further the plot of the story.
Exactly the same as at the end of the episode leaving Carrie 5 days to find Quinn. Absolute f
king rubbish. Blonde haired, blue eyed woman, speaking no local language being left in the country with no protection or diplomatic cover to find someone...never going to happen.
Legend83 said:
'A plot hole, or plothole is a gap or inconsistency in a storyline that creates a paradox in the story that cannot be reconciled with any explanation'
As Halb says, Lockhart is a politician, a business-man; not a soldier or agent (now or historically). His political hard-act and bluster has been the ying to the yang of him stting himself when it comes to a life-threatening situation. Crapping his pants and handing the info over is highly plausible - ergo, no plot hole.
I was more concerned with the fact Haqquani didn't instantly try and take Lockhart as a hostage rather than the little 'briefcase stand-off'.
Exactly, thanks for the definition.As Halb says, Lockhart is a politician, a business-man; not a soldier or agent (now or historically). His political hard-act and bluster has been the ying to the yang of him s
tting himself when it comes to a life-threatening situation. Crapping his pants and handing the info over is highly plausible - ergo, no plot hole.I was more concerned with the fact Haqquani didn't instantly try and take Lockhart as a hostage rather than the little 'briefcase stand-off'.
The character of the Director holds up to how he has been built up and adheres to the internal logic of the show.
London424 said:
How about because he's likely to be tortured for a very long time by the terrorists who have killed 10's of people getting into the building not to mention all the other deaths of the informants on the list.
What do you mean? I'm not arguing that Lockhart made a rational decision, I'm saying he made an emotional decision (maybe he thought it the courageous thing to do) to try and rescue Fara. It's like when people jump into rivers to help people in difficulty – not many look at the situation and think "hmm, they are in trouble, but if I dive in there could be two of us in danger, which will be harder for the emergency services to handle. On, balance, I'll leave them to drown..."
London424 said:
That's complete and utter nonsense.
Of course it was predictable that something like that was going to happen...but it had to rely on a completely ridiculous scenario happening to further the plot of the story.
Exactly the same as at the end of the episode leaving Carrie 5 days to find Quinn. Absolute fking rubbish.
Blonde haired, blue eyed woman, speaking no local language being left in the country with no protection or diplomatic cover to find someone...never going to happen.
Not nonsense no, accurate summation.Of course it was predictable that something like that was going to happen...but it had to rely on a completely ridiculous scenario happening to further the plot of the story.
Exactly the same as at the end of the episode leaving Carrie 5 days to find Quinn. Absolute f
king rubbish. Blonde haired, blue eyed woman, speaking no local language being left in the country with no protection or diplomatic cover to find someone...never going to happen.
See above for definition of plothole.
I feel Carie allowed for Quinn to nip off, knowing it was her 'in' to hang around.
Kinda agree with both points of view.
On the one hand if we are to believe Lockhart is a selfish coward (which has been pretty how he has been presented so far) he would have settled with allowing the other hostages to die if it meant preserving his own safety. Instead, he has a moment of conscience and tries to save the hostages by opening the door? Not sure...
...BUT, perhaps as Halb says, it is good character writing and shows that he can't deal with high pressure situations and had a massive moment of weakness without having time to think it through. He must have known his attempt to appease the terrorists would fail and they would all die but in the panic could not think straight and the visual impact of seeing further deaths made him act foolishly?
Whichever way you look at it, the show is awesome.
On the one hand if we are to believe Lockhart is a selfish coward (which has been pretty how he has been presented so far) he would have settled with allowing the other hostages to die if it meant preserving his own safety. Instead, he has a moment of conscience and tries to save the hostages by opening the door? Not sure...
...BUT, perhaps as Halb says, it is good character writing and shows that he can't deal with high pressure situations and had a massive moment of weakness without having time to think it through. He must have known his attempt to appease the terrorists would fail and they would all die but in the panic could not think straight and the visual impact of seeing further deaths made him act foolishly?
Whichever way you look at it, the show is awesome.
Halb said:
London424 said:
That's complete and utter nonsense.
Of course it was predictable that something like that was going to happen...but it had to rely on a completely ridiculous scenario happening to further the plot of the story.
Exactly the same as at the end of the episode leaving Carrie 5 days to find Quinn. Absolute fking rubbish.
Blonde haired, blue eyed woman, speaking no local language being left in the country with no protection or diplomatic cover to find someone...never going to happen.
Not nonsense no, accurate summation.Of course it was predictable that something like that was going to happen...but it had to rely on a completely ridiculous scenario happening to further the plot of the story.
Exactly the same as at the end of the episode leaving Carrie 5 days to find Quinn. Absolute f
king rubbish. Blonde haired, blue eyed woman, speaking no local language being left in the country with no protection or diplomatic cover to find someone...never going to happen.
See above for definition of plothole.
I feel Carie allowed for Quinn to nip off, knowing it was her 'in' to hang around.
Impossible events - The Director of the CIA giving himself up to terrorists.
boyse7en said:
London424 said:
How about because he's likely to be tortured for a very long time by the terrorists who have killed 10's of people getting into the building not to mention all the other deaths of the informants on the list.
What do you mean? I'm not arguing that Lockhart made a rational decision, I'm saying he made an emotional decision (maybe he thought it the courageous thing to do) to try and rescue Fara. It's like when people jump into rivers to help people in difficulty – not many look at the situation and think "hmm, they are in trouble, but if I dive in there could be two of us in danger, which will be harder for the emergency services to handle. On, balance, I'll leave them to drown..."
Why would he care about Fara...he doesn't know who she is any more than any of the first 2 or 3 people that were killed.
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff