Board Thread:Series general discussion/@comment-18014300-20170124110033

Disclaimer: This review contains spoilers for the movie.

Alright welp, since I did begin this little "review" with a Part 1, I think I'm obligated to at least give a part 2.

The first one covered inconsistencies in relation specifically to Assassin's Creed II: Discovery, and this following will include inconsistencies and issues not in connection with that video game.

The fact of the matter though is that the film is no longer as fresh in my mind, so I might miss some things that I had originally wished to point out. Moreover, I'm not entirely sure that some of these are inconsistencies; and for this reason, I think the following list might be described as general issues that I noticed. Finally I've never written movie reviews before, so stylistically, this may turn out to be not very much like a typical review at all, but I will be largely free-writing this.

I. Tomás de Torquemada's Plot Armor.

Depending on your interpretation, this may be a plot hole which I suppose can be patched easily, but I still found it extremely glaring.

Because the real Tomás de Torquemada died in 1498, the movie could not allow Aguilar de Nerha to kill him. As a result, when Aguilar had Torquemada hostage and Ojeda the same with Maria, Aguilar could not have executed him. This produced the weird scenario where Ojeda kills Maria anyways! (or did Maria get herself killed? forgot), yet Aguilar, despite being grief-stricken and enraged, does not return the favor with Torquemada! Instead, he just tosses him aside o_o. It's almost like Ojeda knew that Torquemada had historical plot armor :DD.

Solutions :

Now, we can say that perhaps Aguilar just has an impressive degree of self-control, but I think in light of that, there should be a critical reason why he was not permitted to kill Torquemada. Since it is not explained, it's entirely possible that the Assassins did give strict orders not to kill him beforehand, and it's simply not shown in the movie. In fact, just before Ezio was ordered by Luis de Santangel to assassinate Torquemada, Ezio mentioned that Luis had earlier (off-scene) told him that killing Torquemada was unwise. Since Assassins at times do consider the delicate long term consequences of killing their targets (as they're supposed to though not every Assassin we know of does), perhaps for whatever reason, they determined that at that point, the death of Torquemada would have done more harm than good. Aguilar would have received the order, and he was able to maintain his control and not execute Torquemada in retaliation.

Even so, my main issue with this scene is not that it might be a plot hole or inconsistency of any sort, but that because Torquemada has historical plot armor, they should've avoided writing such an exact scene where he was extremely vulnerable and Aguilar had every realistic reason to execute him.

I think most hilarious is that this scenario appeared previously, in a lighter form, in Discovery, since Torquemada's survival of Ezio's assassination results from Raphael Sánchez advising Ezio to not just kill him but to talk to him first and ascertain his connections to the Templars. Since this meant Ezio didn't just assassinate him stealthily, confronting him first, it gave Torquemada an opportunity to prepare for his escape. I find it incredibly amusing that Torquemada survived two what should've been fatal encounters with Assassins because of historical plot armor.

'''II. It is heavily suggested that there is only one Apple of Eden'''

As we know, Abstergo Industries currently has 3 Apples of Eden, 4 before #2 was destroyed in some Denver airport incident. The way Alan Rikkin and Sophia talks about the Apple of Eden in the movie seems to heavily imply that there is only one Apple of Eden, the Apple of Eden, and that they have never gotten their hands on one. That was the impression my brother and I had watching the film. Alan's fascination with the Apple definitely gave that vibe to me especially upon presenting it to the Council of Elders, though I don't remember specific details. In fact, I don't remember too well what they said the Apple in the movie was meant to do, but they seemed to believe that using it could allow them dominate the entire world immediately. I could be entirely wrong.

Solutions :

This isn't an explicit plot hole because they never said that they thought that Apple was the only Apple of Eden. I suppose one might argue that in Assassin's Creed I from a certain perspective, it would've seemed like there was only one Apple of Eden as well, and multiple Apples of Eden have been called "the Apple of Eden" before. In this case, I really would need to review the script to determine if there was really a strong indication that Alan Rikkin was acting like there was only one Apple of Eden and that Abstergo doesn't already have multiple Apples in their possession already.

'''III. Callum Lynch’s assassination of Alan Rikkin shows the extent of his noobery'''

When Callum assassinates Alan, rather than performing the proper assassination technique, he slits his throat. Assassin techniques are meant to be extremely precise and specific, to ensure that the target dies swiftly and without making too much sound. I suppose that since Callum was performing the assassination in broad view of all the Templars, it doesn't matter anyways, not to mention that slitting a person's throat I suppose is also swift and silent... but there's more to it. When he performs the kill, he cuts directly onto the dude’s collar! He doesn't even slide his blade past that collar into his neck or stab through. Instead, he cuts across the rather thick collar, which I personally just think isn't an efficient way of delivering the kill. The blade would've encountered some resistance, even if it was negligible. What if he didn't cut deep enough? In any case, the effects were terrible. He cuts onto the collar, yet the collar does not even look like it was cut nor was it bloodied. You can clear tell the blade practically brushes by it. I don't know why I took so much note of this o___o. Maybe because at this point I really did no like Callum's character, and I was subconsciously going "ahhhh you nooob, ahhhh you nooob, I'm going to be extra judgy over your techniques now.... WHAT NOOBERY! WHAT KIND OF AN ASSASSINATION—aklsbeklabse!"

'''IV. Assassins are misrepresented'''

The Assassins in the film sorely misrepresent their order's principles, promote the image of cultism, and in the regressions, are the most backwater Assassins I have ever laid eyes upon. This can branch out into multiple points and was one of my greater misgivings about the movie. They're not strictly inconsistencies as in real-life, people of all factions and organizations can "misrepresent" or subscribe to different ideals than their parents or the mainstream of their group.

1) The Spanish Assassins still sever their ring fingers despite not needing to do so.

Again, this isn't strictly an inconsistency. It's entirely possible that a branch of the Assassins decided to keep this ancient tradition even after Altaïr's reforms did away with the practice. The argument for its abolition is as follows: it was impractical because it meant that Assassins in disguise could easily be identified by the absence of a ring finger, and it promoted a culture of dogmatism to traditions that do not have so much reason behind it other than the fact that it is tradition. It can be argued that it is a proof of commitment, but when we open our minds, we must ask ourselves, is this the only way to prove commitment? Is an Assassin that doesn't cut his or her ring finger necessarily unfaithful? And is it a necessary means of proving faithfulness. Is it a form of indoctrination and is this indoctrination contradictory to the principles that the Assassins fight for? Thus, Altaïr abolished the practice for these reasons but it seems that this branch retained it. Well, good for them I suppose.

It's also clear that it's not necessary for their Hidden Blades to function because Aguilar does not need to do it with his other hand. I think the OOU reason for him cutting his finger as part of the ceremony was for drama.

2) Maria speaks as though love is forbidden as an Assassin, that it makes one weak, and that it conflicts with the Creed

Well I'm sorry Maria, but it's tragic that you never realized that for most Assassins out there of your time, this was entirely not true, and love was permissible, even encouraged.

"We shall be allowed to love our children—and, in turn, to be loved. Al Mualim believed such attachments would weaken us – cause us to falter when our lives were on the line. But if we truly fight for what is just, does love not make such sacrifice simpler—knowing that we do so for their gain?""

- Altaïr's Codex

This was another old tradition that Altaïr had sought to reform. He believed that love actually fueled the Assassins' resolve, because to be an Assassin was to fight for the greater good, and that fight at its roots stems from a love for humanity.

"Love binds our order together. Love of people, of cultures, of the world."

- Ezio to Jun

However, I am generalizing. Not all Assassins had the same philosophy around these things. Even while they followed the same creed, it didn't mean their values were always identical, just like in real-life not everyone of the same religion, the same political party, from the same school, or from the same city, share exactly the same values. Though Altaïr and Ezio believed that love was at the heart of what it means to be an Assassin, it is conceivable that there were Assassins out there who did not share that same belief, or at least did not think of it in that light.

However, given the legendary status that both of these Assassins had, and the influence they had on the Assassins for many generations to come, especially because Altaïr carried the great reformation of the order, I found it... stupid that Maria was so convinced that love is incompatible with the Creed. Sure, it's one thing if that is her own personal belief, but she cites it as though it was mandated by the Creed not to love, that it declared for her that love was weak against what she truly felt or thought. From an IU-perspective, I found that tragic, especially considering you had Ezio just around the corner in Spain that year whose Italian branch did not think that way who might've taught her otherwise.

It seems that this is, however, consistent with the characterization of the Spanish Assassins being traditionalists. I suppose it's possible for Altaïr's reforms not to have spread this far.

3) The modern-day Assassins speak of the Creed like they worship it Seriously I came out of the theater with the impression that the Assassins from the Madrid facility were cultists or acolytes who didn't truly understand the Assassin's creed. There was a certainty about their convictions that was reassuring, that seemed empowering, but as with any fanatic, it is a façade meant to give the illusion of enlightenment. Maybe I'm describing in too strong of terms, but the way Nathan screamed "You're going to betray the Creed!" alongside their stoic, almost robotic mannerisms around the Creed made it seem more like they worshipped it. When Maria preaches that love is against the Creed, when she suicides so that Aguilar doesn't compromise the Creed, it carries the message that the Creed might as well be their god. The Creed is hardly even a dogma to ''follow'", much less a symbol to be worshiped, to revere.

"It would be [cynical] if it were doctrine. But it is merely an observation of the nature of reality. To say that nothing is true, is to realize that the foundations of society are fragile, and that we must be the shepherds of our own civilization. To say that everything is permitted, is to understand that we are the architects of our actions, and that we must live with their consequences, whether glorious or tragic."

- Ezio explaining the Creed to Sofia Sartor

"The Creed of the Assassin Brotherhood teaches us that nothing is forbidden to us. Once, I thought that meant we were free to do as we would. To pursue our ideals, no matter the cost. I understand now. Not a grant of permission, the Creed is a warning. Ideals too easily give way to dogma. Dogma becomes fanaticism. No higher power sits in judgment of us. No supreme being watches to punish us for our sins. In the end, only we ourselves can guard against our obsessions. Only we can decide whether the road we walk carries too high a toll."

- Arno on his revelations about the Creed

"It might be that this idea is only the beginning of wisdom, and not its final form."

- Edward Kenway on understanding what the Creed really is

The Creed is not even meant to be a final tenet to be obeyed without question, but rather a warning against dogmatism. As Edward said, it is the beginning of wisdom, not its final form, because it is a stepping stone, not the final product. As Ezio said, it is not a doctrine to be followed, but a mere observation of the nature of reality, from which you then compose your ideals.

The true contrast between the Assassins and Templars is that the former value uncertainty while the latter are afraid of it. They are afraid of uncertainty, equate it with chaos, and so seek the easiest way to solve it: through force, through the establishment of order and control without nuance, without subtlety, without education. In contrast, for an Assassin, chaos is accepted as a natural phenomenon of reality, and to combat chaos, one has to take the long, arduous path to acknowledging it, accepting it, accepting that everyone will think differently, that chaos is inevitable, and that one cannot simply force it away, but one must channel it into a means to encourage us to learn and adapt and educate ourselves towards peace. Use diversity as a means to nurture a world of greater understanding.

Ahem..... went off on a tangent there :3. BUT, my point is that being certain about your convictions. Being so certain that you are dogmatic, and forcing yourself to be so loyal, so dedicated to a cause that that becomes your object of dedication rather than the free-flowing principles behind it... that is contrary to what the Creed means.

Solution :

As it turns out, it seems that the the novel explained that these Assassins weren't actually trained as Assassins, but they adopted the identity after experiencing their ancestors' memories. That and the Bleeding Effect and perhaps the psychological affect imprisonment can have might have made them a bit more "cult-like" in their dedication to the Assassins, which they might've come to see as an exit, as an identity to give themselves meaning and empower themselves, to give themselves a new identity greater than the ones they led as criminals before their abduction. It has happened with criminals in real-life. It is why some criminals become religious fanatics. Since they were not trained as Assassins, it would make sense that they haven't discovered the finer meaning behind the Creed, especially since Altaïr himself didn't understand it until the end of AC1, Ezio didn't understand it until towards the end of AC2, Edward didn't understand it until the end of AC4, and it is literally Arno's last line in Unity.

I think this is actually a case of "fridge brilliance" in the film.

4) "Not everyone deserves to live.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Ohhh Callum, you and your [insert something amusing to finish this sentence].

What is the most amusing about this line is that, it's kind of true to Assassin beliefs... from a certain interpretation, but it's deliver so bluntly, so tactlessly, that it could mean what is completely contrary to Assassin beliefs.

Assassins theoretically worship the "sanctity of life" as Altaïr called it. Killing is never seen as something that is meant to be reveled, that is "right". Shaun pointed out to Desmond that being an Assassin doesn't necessarily mean that you're the good guy because they kill, and keep in mind Shaun is very loyal to the Assassins. I think that for an Assassin, it is acknowledged that ideally, life should not be taken, but in their eyes, it is often the lesser evil.

The line can be considered true to Assassin beliefs because from one angle, you might say that when an Assassin believes that they must kill someone to prevent greater suffering and tragedy of innocents, that that target has "forfeited the right to live". That's a matter of perspective whether that is what an assassination amounts to. From a different perspective though, that Assassin might believe that the target hasn't forfeited the right to live, but must die nonetheless to preserve the right to live of people who are innocent. It's a complicated matter of perspective and interpretation.

But as a base, as a foundation to their beliefs, all life is to be respected, one should not revel in death, though we often see that Assassins like Shao Jun and Ezio in his youth have struggled with this (which I see as just the series showing how difficult it can be because we're all human).

It is because an Assassin should respect life that they are taught to give respects and blessings to those they kill. Callum's line from a certain angle doesn't contradict Assassin beliefs, yet from another angle, especially from what it means when interpreted as simply as possible, is in complete contradiction of Assassin ethics.

It's not necessarily an inconsistency because Callum wasn't trained by the Assassins and obviously he's speaking from what he himself believes not what the Assassins believe, however, I just thought that this was a notorious example of the weakness of the movie script. It was a poorly worded line, and even if we push aside the association Callum has with the Assassins, I think it doesn't convince us, or at least me, that Callum is a good person. We don't have to sympathize with the protagonist, but I just take issue with the lack of nuance and insight to the line when Callum could be a representative for the Assassins in the movie.

5) Assassin hoods are not beaked

HOW COULD THEY MESS THIS UP. It's like when the elves in the movie adaptation of Eragon didn't have pointy-ears or the dwarves in that movie weren't short.

Well this isn't really a plot hole, but I'm just thinking "dishonor on your family Aguilar!" I think more than their cutting of their fingers or their adherence to Al Mualim's beliefs, this is what makes Aguilar's branch backwater to me. Okay, maybe that's a little extreme... I know it's just a hood.... >_> but if you're going to cut your ring finger to show devotion... can you at least beak your hood? It's obvious that it's not to make it less obvious that they're Assassins since they cut their fingers.....

V. Bleeding Effect way too extreme & shoddy Animus

Yeah, it seems like the new Animus 4.3 exacerbates the Bleeding Effect problem. Callum was already suffering from it pretty badly after one session though I will have to rewatch it to make sure. Either that, or he's just hyper-sensitive.

My brother pointed out that he thought another inconsistency is that Alan Rikkin didn't seem to understand the Bleeding Effect at all, but I'm not sure about this one since Alan has always been rather negligent about it.

I just thought that the Animus 4.3 is terrible. The users' movements aren't restricted as with previous models, causing to potentially hurt themselves. It's obviously less transportable and requires a crew to operate, and yet users seem far more susceptible to the Bleeding Effect than ever before. This isn't really a plot hole necessarily unless you think that there's no way Abstergo's Animus technology would've degraded this far. I'm sure there are some behind-the-scenes trade-offs that make it a superior model in some respects.

I don't actually dislike how it doesn't restrict the user's movements because I agree that this was a good choice on the producers' part to ensure that Callum wasn't just lying there the whole time, and there are more dynamism in his scenes.

However, from an IU-perspective, I think Rebecca makes far better Animi. :)

VI. Weapons are placed throughout the facility for the prisoner to use

In response to my question about why the guards never wielded firearms against the Assassin prisoners, my friends told me that given the Assassins' abilities, it was a smart decision since the ease at which they could've stolen the guns would've made them far deadlier. Assassins are known to be able to snap-shot entire groups of guards. All it would take is an Assassin to sneak up on a guard, steal his firearm, then shoot up all the other Templars in the facility while helping other Assassins obtain their own guns.

However, if Abstergo understood this danger, they sure didn't think it mattered too much to put antique weapons in display cases throughout the facility for the Assassins to easily retrieve and use. I don't actually remember clearly where the weapons were located, but if I remember correctly they were actually in places where the Assassins were allowed regular access to.

VII. '"Recess time for Assassin prisoners'''

Speaking of which, why do they let the Assassins have regular contact with one another, even hang-out whenever they want to outside of their Animus sessions so that they may conspire and plot a well-coordinated escape?

VIII. "Opening Text Crawl'''

Finally this last point has nothing to do with plot holes whatsoever.

I just found it surprising and cringey that they opened with text crawl, in the manner of Star Wars. Even when I first watched Star Wars when I was little, I thought it was a terrible idea and very unprofessional, but it was accepted for its time, and it became well-established enough that it's fine for Star Wars to keep on using it. But for other movies, no. What excuse do they have for introducing the movie with some simple text (in simple font even!)

If it is difficult to explain the background story, and it's obvious they had many issues with it, then the least they could do was show a scene of an eagle flying through some mountains and landscape while they have someone narrate those lines.

Conclusion I'm not sure if I'm actually going to write a real general review rather than listing these points out. This was already very extensive, I think, and admittedly, I've kind of lost interest, and there's too much work to do around this wiki. Furthermore, these do cover a lot of specific points I had about the movie already. Maybe I will edit this later when I'm not writing this out of insomnia at 3 am to give a general summary of my views on the movie. 