I get the hijackings, I get the guy with the gun at the house, but I don't get what was the motivation behind the salesman getting knocked out and then getting hauled to some dump area. Because the first two have logical explanations for not being organized actions, but I don't get the third one.
shareTo send a message I guess, I was a little confused on that. Excellent movie regardless. A top notch performance from Isaac as expected.
shareYeah, but who did it?
shareIt could have been any one of his competitors who was organizing the beatings on the salesman. Abel was pushing into their territory and this would have been their response. Even the one who he (seemingly) trusted, Peter, ended up "showing his true colors" when Abel asked him for a loan.
What we found over the course of the movie was that everyone had something to hide and everyone was telling lies to Abel. His competitors, his wife, his business partner, the DA - they were all lying or hiding something.
Not knowing exactly who was ordering the beatings just emphasizes that Abel was under attack from all sides and could not trust anyone - but this didn't seem to scare him or dampen his ambitions.
Sure, sure, sure. Listen, I think that you have most of it covered but look, this salesman's ambush was a fairly decent sized plot hole. You can attempt to explain away with conjecture and fact rooted imagination but this particular development wasn't addressed at all. Furthermore, the moment that basically backs my assertion up, the platform scene where Abel corrals the hijacker, is also confusing. I mean, my god, the tension of finally getting his hands on the guy who has been dogging him and the ability to ultimately find out who has been doing this to him...and he allows the guy to walk away. It was then simply a matter of good fortune that the guy stops long enough to tell Abel what the plan was all along. Confusing. If it were me, that guy would be telling me everything while still planted on his back. THEN, I might have let him go but probably not.
Basically, that part dealing with the salesman's abduction was meant to lead the viewer down a certain path and was never properly reconciled ultimately. Just admit it.
That is not what plot hole means. You are assuming everything was organized by the one party. This isn't necessarily the case. It was made very clear in the film that almost all the companies involved in that industry are dirty. It could've been any number of people that attacked the salesman (likely one of the businesses getting their customers "poached" by Abel's company).
Re the hijacker, it was not you that caught him, it was Abel. He was an honest guy and didn't want to go down the path of beating and possibly killing somebody. And besides, his decision actually got him the information he needed. The hijacker clearly appreciated his lenience and decided to help him out.
Your second paragraph is a fine example of, pardon the phrase, a fanboy doing his best to explain and apologize for the scrip writers and directors of a movie that he happens to like and is partial toward. In doing so, there a number of things wrong with your defense of the inconsistent script and it's execution. If one is able to exhibit restraint in allowing the hijacker to go, it stands to reason that Abel will also be able to show restraint in the beating of the hijacker and thus, not kill the guy. Furthermore, he didn't know that the guy would fess up. He had no idea..he just got lucky. It was a preposterous episode and that's all there is to it.
shareIt was a preposterous episode and that's all there is to it.
You are incorrect in what and why I have taken this viewpoint but in reviewing the previous posts, I realized that the hijacker could have expressed his appreciation for Abel's lenience by confessing and offering up some 411 for him...
However, this was not in thanks to you because you aren't the one that came up with the insight.
the platform scene where Abel corrals the hijacker, is also confusing. I mean, my god, the tension of finally getting his hands on the guy who has been dogging him and the ability to ultimately find out who has been doing this to him...and he allows the guy to walk away. It was then simply a matter of good fortune that the guy stops long enough to tell Abel what the plan was all along. Confusing.
You can go ahead and tell yourself whatever you want, which is exactly what you're doing, but I don't buy it the same as I wouldn't buy a wool scarf at retail on a July in Georgia. It was contrived. He had a third option which you somehow overlooked and that was to stop beating the mofo and then simply asked him what was going on...it was too much of a risk to just let the guy go without finding out the one thing that positively dogged him all movie. It's pretty basic.
It's a plot hole for sure in so much as that particular scene was neither credibly explained nor was it ever really intimated into the context of the plot schematics. We'll clearly have to disagree with each other here, but I won't worry about it too much as the way that you attempted to explain away the platform scene in your first paragraph was quite watered down. Your logic there is quite reductive and convenient. You must have really liked this movie or more importantly, "wanted" to like this movie.
No, I didn't like it that much, though I thought the acting was good. LOL that you assume I like it, just because I disagree with you. Great demonstration of your powers of logic.
He had a third option which you somehow overlooked and that was to stop beating the mofo and then simply asked him what was going on.
In a piece of fiction, a Plot Hole is a completely implausible occurrence or series of events that contradicts logic or previously established events in the story. Includes things such as unlikely behaviour or actions of characters, illogical or impossible events, events happening for no apparent reason, or statements/events that contradict earlier events in the storyline.
A Plot Hole is NOT a simple omission of information or unanswered question. These can only be considered a Plot Hole if said omission has no plausible explanation AND is essential information to the overall story's outcome.
Nah, you're going all cinema super nerd when you cling to the technicality about this "plot hole" business. In either, case it's patently easy to understand what I mean about that particular part of the script. You can argue the exact meaning of the nomenclature all you want, it won't change the fact that it doesn't fit. I don't care that it may or may not be the correct use of the phrase, Sheldon.
Anyhow, that platform scene was ridiculous as it was an integral part of the movie. So you didn't like the movie as much as I thought that you might have, oh well, it wasn't a poor assumption based upon your defense of it since most people who do so, happen to be fans of the particular movie. It's allgood. I just don't like that platform scene because it just doesn't make sense that a character would behave that way..or, at least not my character, anyhow.
The alternatives at this point are to either kill him or let him go.
Or turn him over to the police?
Or turn him over to the police?
the salesman is probably the most important part of the company itself.
The reason they treated him they way they did- he represents the company.
sh-t on the rep you sh-t on the company itself.
I completely agree. I'm still wondering about that. It just seems so random that they dropped him to a landfill site. What's even more curious is that when Abel sees the hurt salesman they just go have a beer and it's never addressed again in the film. Odd.
share