Adamantium is indestructible, right?

I know we're discussing pseudoscience, but even in fiction there needs to be rules set and followed in order to make the thing believable and enjoyable.

Agreed. Easily the weakest part of The Wolverine. The overall film is great in my opinion, so I am more forgiving of this criticism. Xmen Origins: Wolverine is not that good, so I am not nearly as forgiving of it's adamantium bullet that can penetrate adamantium! 

- - - - - - -
I am not a fan. I just happen to enjoy movies. Fans are embarrassing.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

They specifically state it in X-men 2! What more proof do you need! ... and it's fact in the movies. Get over it.

As I explained to you, that was stated by Stryker, a character who had not tried every possible method to destroy adamantium and thus would have no way to know if it was indestructable or not. Therefore, that does not prove the claim to be true and the fact that you think it does is laughable. You either are taking anything you hear at face value without any critical thought or you are assuming that character dialogue is always used to relay accurate information that the writer(s) wants the viewer/reader to have.

Stryker also told Wolverine in "X2" that he thought he was unique until he found Lady Deathstrike. Had they made a movie set before the events of "X2" prior to its release (meaning, had such a movie come out before 2003) where he said to Wolverine; "You are unique. Nobody has healing powers like you do," very matter of factly would you now be on here saying that Lady Deathstryker shouldn't exist and asking what more proof I needed to say that it's nonsense to take his belief as gospel?

We may not have seen him originally say that, but he provided for us an example of where something he used to think was proven wrong. So why is it that you think he is infallible on his adamantium claim?

It is fact in the comics

It's also not literally indestructible in the comics either. It's only virtually indestructible.

For one, there are all these different types of adamantium and they have a penchant for revealing that the adamantium someone is using is a weaker version when it is shown to have vulnerabilities. It's rather convoluted. Basically, the notion that adamantium was "indestructible" or "unbreakable" was shown to not be the case so many times that they labeled the most common form of adamantium seen as Secondary Adamantium, which is a weaker variant that is more cost effective to produce, whereas True/Primary Adamantium is harder to produce and closer in form to the impossible to reproduce Proto-adamtium. True Adamantium, however, is not quite as durable as Proto-adamantium which has been damaged/destroyed on four occasions by very powerful forces (e.g. Thanos while wielding the Infinity Gauntlet). So there is no version that is literally indestructible.

Oh it all makes sense now. It's NEW. That makes it ok. No, the idea is still stupid. Now anyone can be a mutant if they want? Anyone can get rid of their powers if they want? Rogue's powers are meaningless? It's ridiculous. Doesn't matter when the idea was created if its a crappy idea for a movie.

Okay, you're welcome to that opinion, but the idea of technology striving to take mutant powers and the mutant struggle against that technology is not limited to this one movie, nor is it limited to the movies, period (the comics get into it as well).

Now that at least makes sense. They NEEDED Rogue in order to replicate powers. I hate that he was able to just able to recreate this with a drill.

They needed her power to steal powers, not mimic them. Even in the Rogue Cut, there's nothing to suggest that they didn't figure out how to do that by tampering with Mystique's DNA, which I'm sure is something that you also dislike. What happens in the Rogue Cut is that Bobby says they're experimenting on Rogue in order to learn how to steal all their powers. However, they're already able to mimic powers without being able to steal them (which is not Rogue's power) and the movie still points to Mystique as the source for that.

Definition of Plot Hole:"A plot hole or plot error is a gap or inconsistency in a storyline that goes against the flow of logic established by the story's plot, or constitutes a blatant omission of relevant information regarding the plot."

Okay, first of all, that is the wikipedia definition. Second of all, that was recently updated erroneously and should be corrected. The part "or constitutes a blatant omission of relevant information regarding the plot," comes entirely from this recent edit and is not supported by any valid source, nor is it accurate. The source used is another wiki. If you go there (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/plot_hole) you'll see that there's no source for that claim whatsoever. So you unfortunately happened to look up the wikipedia definition for the term when it was improperly messed with and before someone else has had a chance to realize and revert it.

Omissions are a normal part of storytelling (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceberg_theory) and are not plot holes. A plot hole is a type of gap in the story that is contradictory or illogical. A gap in the story that confuses the reader/viewer or makes them think is a mystery and mysteries are not plot holes. The wikiedia page does accurately note that, in contradiction to the improperly edited part that you quoted: "While many stories have unanswered questions, unlikely events or chance occurrences, a plot hole is one that is essential to the story's outcome." However, that's not sourced either and needs to be so the article is a bit of a mess as is.

Third of all, contradiction of character dialogue is not a plot hole either. A plot hole is considered a flaw in a story. A character lying or being mistaken is not a flaw and is a perfectly valid technique that is used in much of fiction. Children, however, who have a problem with nuance also seem to have difficulty grasping this concept and like to take the simple course of assuming that whatever characters say is gospel. In reality, you can only rely on what you actually see occur (in most cases). If you see a character trying every possible method to destroy adamantium and then you see another character succeed using one of those methods then that's a plot hole because it contradicted an established fact.

Contradictions of conjure or boastful claims made by characters is not a plot hole because characters should never be considered to be entirely reliable. The reason being that people in real life are not entirely reliable themselves and it's common in fiction to want to imitate that aspect of the human experience. It's not a "real life plot hole" when your mother tells you that if you get cold you will catch a cold and then you find out that's not how colds work. This hypothetical mother was just mistaken and understanding that that is possible because she is not omnipotent is a part of growing up. So too is understanding that writers do that with their characters and thus not everything a character says should be taken literally.

reply share

add reply

formatting help