Archived Discussion

This is discussion archived from a time before the current discussion method was installed.

Major Major: There was a great subversion in the more or less unlamented live action version of The Tick. The super villain's power was driving people to suicidal levels of depression via Hannibal Lecture. Captain Liberty (the live version of the animated American Maid) is assigned to guard him after picking them up—and finds talking about her pathetic love life therapeutic. While she blathers on and on, the supervillain wants nothing more than to find a way to shut her up. I'd write it up—if I could remember the name of the villain. Despairo or something?

Duckluck: "Destroyo," actually.

Tzintzuntzan: I don't think the example in spoiler text is a Hannibal Lecture, because it's either a subversion or a polar opposite. Instead of making the interrogator feel worthless (as the other examples do), the villain makes the interrgator so sure of himself that he never questions his own prejudices and gets sloppy. This is my first time doing spoiler text, so my apologies if it's visible.

Ununnilium: Much later: I'm taking it out, since having the name of the thing being spoiled in spoiler text is next to useless.

  • Some crooks push the interrogator in the other direction, allowing them to become overconfident and thus make a few lethal mistakes in the middle of questioning; the crook comes out ahead, often leaving with information he didn't have before, and the interrogator never even realizes the error. For a prime example see the film The Usual Suspects.

Tanto: I'd put it back in. It's useful, and relevant. Just leave off the last sentence, and it becomes just a general note instead of a specific example.

Ununnilium: So it is written, so it is done.

Levi: I'm wondering if someone should point out that the trope namer could be considered something of a subversion, as after Lector's little speech, Starling retaliates by asking if he has ever tried to deconstruct himself, and suggests that he may be afraid to (much to his displeasure).

Prfnoff: I'm pretty sure this isn't an example:
  • The fall of the human Kingdom of Numenor happens this way. The King of Numenor has captured Sauron and takes him back to the Numenorian continent. Sauron slowly convinces the old king to attack Valinor and attack the Valar (for all intents and purposes, Gods). Oh, did I mention that the continent the Kingdom of Numenor was on was specifically provided by the Valar? They took it back. Sauron escaped in the turmoil.

Haven: Took out some natter under the Code Geass example:
  • This Troper thinks it should have been translated Shut up!
  • "Never speak again!" fits with Lelouch's tone and way of speaking much better than "Shut up!" in the dub. Not to mention the lip flaps.

BritBllt: Death to the natter...

  • Data fired because Kivas blamed the death on Data, and threatened to keep on killing his assistants until Data submitted.
  • Which would still mean that Data can care about people.
  • Or that Data simply evaluated the threat, in accordance with his ethical protocol, and terminated the singular hostile life-form which endangered multiple non-hostile life-forms.
  • This wouldn't be ethical, since Data had Fajo at gunpoint, and wasn't in any danger himself; as a Federation officer, Data's ethical duty was to follow regulations, and simply arrest Fajo— not execute him. However it seems that Data's developing emotions simply overrode his ethical programming— just like he killed the Borg out of anger in Descent, when they used Lore's device for causing Data to feel emotions.

Removing it all and just leaving the bare fact that Data made the decision to shoot Fajo. The episode deliberately left the reason unsaid, and anything besides describing the scene is bound to be speculation.