Plot hole?
When the villain is tricked into thinking he's left Oasis when he's still IN it - how?
Wade has to put on the VR headset when he enters Oasis so doesn't the villain have to do the same thing?
Sorrento is tricked while he's coming OUT of the OASIS.
Normally, he'd exit by pulling off his visor. Before he could do that, Wade pulled a fake visor off of Sorrento's avatar.
Aech had created a duplicate office based on Wade's recollection.
Sorry, that doesn't make sense. I would think an OASIS user would FEEL the visor/goggles as it was coming off of their face. They should be aware that they're looking at tiny screens only millimetres from their eyes, it would definitely be like TV to them, just interactive. I think they can all tell the difference between OASIS and the real world.
Not according to the rules of the film. Sorrento was wearing a state-of-the-art head-to-toe body-suit, so they could make him feel anything anywhere. Remember the kick he got to the balls? They intercepted his feed at the moment he reached for his visor. They made his hands feel the visor, and his face feel it slip off, and then he saw a gun pointed at him in what looked like his office. It's completely believable to me that he would be in a state of fear, and focused on the gun and on what to say to stay alive, rather than scrutinizing every detail of the room just in case it was somehow a fake room. He believed he was in his office, and when you take something for granted your mind ignores evidence to the contrary, especially under duress.
shareI still don't buy it.
It's called selective attention. There's a test online that you can take to get an idea of how hard it is to pay attention while distracted. If you've already seen or taken the test, then this may not be of help, but if you haven't, and are willing to take it fairly, without cheating or pausing or Googling for any answers or tips ahead of time, try it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo
How about you stop trying to defend this movie instead?
Wouldn't say I'm defending the movie. You've pointed out something about the movie you dislike, and have mistakenly identified it as a plot hole. I'm merely pointing out that it's an element of the plot, and not a hole in the plot.
shareWow, how appreciative you were to someone who answered the question in your thread.
I'm betting they wished they had just let your thread die.
He didn't answer the question, that's my point.
You didn't accept the answer, nor do you appear capable of accepting any answer other than 'plot hole' more like it?
shareActually, he did answer the question. You're just unwilling to accept the answer, or incapable of comprehending the answer.
They hacked the system and made him believe he took his helmet off. It's not rocket science.
OK, maybe I didn't fully pay attention to the scene, but I really don't want to see this movie again: the CGI was so in-your-face it was difficult to follow at times, especially when you're required to both follow the action AND spot as many 80s cultural references as you can. To a 45-yo fart like me, that's almost too much, and the whole move just seemed to me to be Spielberg's Avatar. This is what this is: Spielberg's Avatar.
We're the same age. I'm sure I also spent too much time trying to catch the references. I literally laughed out loud when you called it Speilberg's Avatar. I said the exact same thing! Except I referred to it at his failed attempt at Avatar....
share