Yes we do. The reason he jumped out is shown at the end of the chapter, the very same thing you're complaining about.
Except that I want to know how he came up with the idea for the disguise and fake Luffy role in general to maintain my suspension of disbelief. The goal was shown at the end of the chapter. The source of inspiration for Brook's unconventional and unstated role in the plan was not.
And that, as I've said, is unneeded exposition and where you should suspend your disbelief. The implication of what happened are clear: Whether or not it was part of Luffy's plan, Brook will disguise himself alongside the Mirror Luffys. It was explained and implied in three panels. Whether or not you dislike it doesn't change the very essence that it works regardless of whether you have a scene that shows him putting the clothes on or thinking of it. As I've said before. If something is not on-screen, then it is not part of the story. If Oda chose to skip out on a specific detail and would rather have the reader understand the scene by themselves, then it is irrelevant to the story. We know the fact and we know the reasoning behind it. If you understand that, then Oda did an objectively perfect job at that plot point because he got across what he wanted and he can move on.
Suspension of disbelief is not a switch that you can turn on and off at a whim whenever something in the plot seems inconsistent. That's an excuse for not criticizing flawed writing. I shouldn't have to suspend my disbelief if all of the necessary consistent information and build-up for plot events is presented. Nothing was explained about how Brook decided to become a Fake Luffy in this panels other than it was convenient and the idea came to his head off-panel. And are you really suggesting that the author can leave out any information he wants and leaving the reader to interpret and connect all of the missing dots, even when there's glaring inconsistencies, lack of causes, or even retcons present (not that this Brook situation is anywhere that bad, I'm merely speaking theoretically here), is completely fine? That's absolute nonsense. That should not and does not work in entertaining the reader, which is the point of making entertainment rather than letting the author do whatever they see fit if it solely benefits their perspective.
Brook's role was only shown/implied in three panels AFTER the plan started. That doesn't explain anything about how Brook came to embody this role other than the idea came to him off-panel. And that knowledge is not suddenly irrelevant just because the author decided to off-panel it, as if we can't criticize his decision for doing so in maintaining suspension of disbelief and immersion into the story making sense. We can possibly have a brief flashback showing when Brook came to the idea, but it would still be after the fact and would not benefit the twist as much as if it was hinted at beforehand. Stories do not boil down to simply showing the facts and reasoning. Presenting the how is and will always be a valuable essential component to effective entertainment.
Oda can move on, but that doesn't mean I'm not allowed to reflect on his past work and discuss how it could have been improved. Even if my opinion is subjective, that does not mean there is no merit or progress made in debating the rationality about it with others.
Numerous times this happens in those cartoons. When you skip the how, especially with familiarity we have with the character, then you can make the result or the failure as the punchline. This one of the things Chuck Jones mastered and what he called a "discipline". In the realm of this character, is what he does and what happens to him make total sense? In the case of Brook, it does. We've known him to be tactical and goofy. This very arc he shows that. After establishing that, then there are gags that can be told with just the result as a punchline.
That does not mean you should be allowed to skip out on showing how a character proves to be tactical and goofy simply because we are familiar with these aspects. Using familiarity as a crutch to skip showing or at least hinting at how these procedures come about is the point of utilizing a visual medium for its merits of depicting the story visually. Every situation these characters get into, even if they have similar results of success, have different circumstances, obstacles, and effects. You don't get to treat these plots as having completely expendable middle parts because you're used to how a character is utilized in a plot. If anything, because that's what makes them so entertaining, you would want to show more of it rather than less.
If we skip the how for everything in stories purely because we're familiar with it happening before, then how can we be expected to care about the results or stories in general? It completely misses the point of giving those results meaning, whether it is something realistic or absurd. One Piece is a very formulaic series, and this logic essentially states that we can skip out on showing many things like tragic childhood flashbacks, Luffy defeating the arc antagonist, a doomsday countdown, etc, merely because they have familiarity in the types of characters involved and plot structure. As the stakes keep increasing or being diversified, we need to see how the answers to these occur. It does not have to include every detail all of the time is certain things can be allowed to be left to assumption, but still enough to comprehensively make out the story and be entertained by the characters and plot.
The only times you skip the how of failures in cartoons is either when you want to keep something a mystery or make a meta parody or satire of what is typically expected on a show. Otherwise, it's making shortcuts in a plot for the sake of the author's personal convenience.
You're completely misunderstanding suspension of disbelief. Whether or not milk has calcium it cannot heal, a punchline even emphasized in the same panels with the joke. That is a suspension of disbelief. It is impossible real life and supposed to be impossible in One Piece, but we move on regardless because we accept it as is. Another example is that Mochi is suddenly a Logia. Whatever reasoning you may come up with it, all it is at this point is that it is fact that it is a Logia and we should suspend our disbelief and move on.
We accept it as such because we see how it's been used in action before. That is where the suspension of disbelief comes from. Normal characters may find it to be impossible, but we as the readers and even the main characters have witnessed this all of the time. It works off of common logic (that common logic being that milk/calcium is good for your bones/teeth) and tonal consistency (in how One Piece tends to exaggerate things for humorous or awe-inspiring effects on the reader's expectations). Moments like recovering teeth with milk are extremely minor and take place during periods of recuperation that have a funny execution instead of a "normal" sensical one, but still flows with One Piece's cartoony style.
This type of event was never taken seriously in this type of series. That does not apply for plot-heavy circumstances like executing an assassination plan or stealing Poneglyph scripts, where there needs to be sensible logic and diegetic consistency to promote suspension of disbelief.
That does not mean you can't criticize Oda's decision for making it a Logia if can be argued to be inconsistent, as well as how he creates other certain Devil Fruits in general.
And oh come on. There's no reason at all to fall back hindsight bias.
How is all of this clear as day plot build-up and character development shown in multiple chapters respectively hindsight bias in the slightest?
Nowhere did I say
"When Brook destroyed the picture, everyone went "Oh, that makes sense" and laughed it off. This is due to the amount of familiarity we already have with Brook. It is a form of suspending your disbelief for the sake of Brook in costume peeping out of frame with a hammer - aka, the gag. If anything, it's a testament to the amount of work Oda has put into the Straw Hats. Whether or not you prefer such information being said or not said is, again, irrelevant when the most important reaction is again, "Oh, that makes sense"."
Feel free to elaborate on how I misinterpreted this quote. A quote saying that I should suspend my disbelief for the sake of Brook's disguise-hammer gag, which isn't even meant to just be a gag but an actual twist that changes the tides of this arc's climax, because of familiarity of Brook being funny. Information, visual or verbal, is not irrelevant when it comes to having this twist make sense or have the gag be funnier.
That is an argument I did not make, and it is something I will not argue for or against. I simply stated that this gag need you to suspend your disbelief.
And I think that it could have improved on maintaining my suspension of disbelief. This scene is not merely a gag. It's actually two twists made at the same time. Brook being a Fake Luffy and Brook saving the day by smashing the picture after Luffy was inhibited.
And yes. I said it is pointless. The fact of the matter is we all understood how things came to be. Whether or not it is subjectively good or bad is irrelevant to the story in the end because everyone is on the same page and the story is moving on. That is discussion that irrelevant to a story that did its job. Everything else like the passive aggressive offense-taking to what I said is just what you assumed was the intent of my post. You put and are putting words in my mouth that I've never said or meant. Irrelevancy is not the same as validity. The discussion is valid yet irrelevant. If you take offense to that and still believe what my post is doing of no value to the discussion at hand then there is nothing else I can do.
Actually, we only understand that things came to be off-panel when it came to how Brook got inspired for his deceptive role. Familiarity in his characterization does not change that at all.
As I noted above, I didn't put any words in your mouth. And yet you're still going on accusing my opinion of being inferior due to being subjective, while your critical opinion of my opinion is somehow objective instead of also subjective, and now you're accusing me of being passive aggressive. Which is now becoming straight up insulting instead of keeping this as a civil discussion. It doesn't matter if the story is moving on. That does not mean we can't sit down and discuss criticisms we have in how chapter reveals were executed. It's simple as that.
I don't take offense to you thinking this discussion may be trivial as much as how patronizing your comments have been about me expressing criticism on the execution of a twist. And not only that, but your insistence on how criticism of flawed execution is irrelevant because it's already happened and we should move on seems to be missing the point of why we have forums to discuss our thoughts on our favorite entertainment media franchises. We can't change what's already happened, but that does not mean we can't learn and acknowledge how a story still could have been improved. It helps bring discussion. It helps bring different perspectives. It helps people learn. It helps bring better stories. It helps bring better creators. It helps bring better critics. It helps bring people together in fan bases like this. If you personally feel that there is not a point in discussing what has already happened, that is your subjective choice. That does not mean you can express that to others to silence criticism as if it is irrelevant objectively. It never is.
And no, not everybody understood how everything came to be. Actually, it's moreso that everybody is fine with not knowing everything because they feel that had enough. Except me, obviously. You keep criticizing me for harboring subjectivity and having hindsight bias on one occasion while you don't admit to your own subjectivity and keep utilizing ad populum. Your insistence on the discussion of opinions on entertainment being "irrelevant" in what is meant to be an forum thread dedicated to a social community expressing their thoughts on a chapter is what can really be described as irrelevant on top of redundancy.