Archived Discussion

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

They also appear in an original movie to be aired on Sci Fi Channel; whether or not this can be considered a reward is debatable.

HeartBurn Kid: Considering that Feedback's "starring role" amounted to a minute-and-a-half of screentime in another horrible Giant Animal Movie, I'd say no, it's not a reward.
triassicranger: I would like to say that even though I put down the full name of the winner of the UK version of WWTBAS, I have my qualms about it, the reason being The Daily Mail (apparently) printed their full names and were criticised for doing so as it could put the children in danger. Wikipedia noted this and has not given the full names of the competitors. However, H2O Man hasn't had any qualms about using his full name on YouTube. What do I/we do?
Caswin: Doubting an ally's means and motives isn't a legitimate reason for (if-you-had-to-pick-one) picking them to be eliminated? As I recall, that was at the heart of most of Stan Lee's own judgments.

Caswin: Cutting it for now. Besides his reasons being no less "noble" than his teammates genre-savvily (as Fat Momma herself pointed out later) choosing themselves, knowing it would keep them in the game, the point is that Ty'Veculus was eliminated for answering the question honestly after Stan spent so much time harping on how a hero should be honest. The alternative would have been to lie — note that both he and Fat Momma were the only ones up for elimination.
  • Except that the reason he was eliminated is that he didn't have a noble reason for choosing an opponent. Fat Mommma did the same out of a concern for Feedback's sanity, while Ty'Veculus just had doubts on her emotions and motives.

Trope Kira: Okay, point. But I think Fat Momma's held more weight since she could tell that Feedback was really pushing himself too far. Sacrifivcing a teammate for their own good. I'm not sure on whether or not Ty'Veculus did the same.
The Gunheart: Okay, I'm at a bit of a loss exactly did the show work? I mean, they obviously can't use super powers in real life, so how did that figure into the show?

Ramenth: I assume they went the Badass Normal route.

Twilightdusk: Having watch the first season and part of the second: the tests were entirely tests of character, with the only mentions of their character's powers being hypothetical or expository (IE: first season with 3 people left had them present their characters to a class of grade schoolers.)
Mac Phisto: Let's be honest — who wanted to be a superhero?

Caswin: All of them.
Triassicranger: Cut from page:

Triassicranger: Bad? Bad?? Anyone consider there are people who actually enjoyed this not in the sense of being "bad"? At least those of us who watched the UK version genuinely enjoyed it.

Caswin: US, too. Just someone pasting their own opinion of the show onto the page and pretending to be witty about it.
Caswin: Call it ironic, but I'm cutting these from Broken Aesop:
  • Also, Stan telling the Iron Dark Enforcer that superheroes do not kill people. Uh, Stan, some Superheroes do sometimes have to kill...and I'm not just talking about the Nineties AntiHeroes either.
  • The Defuser is chastised at one point because, while the contestants are dining at a restaurant, he gives a small piece of his equipment to a star-struck child. Stan insists that superheroes never give their equipment to civilians. This troper is fairly certain that superheroes do not hold to this.
Broken Aesop isn't just a catch-all term for suspect morals. (Besides which, at least in the case of Iron Enforcer, he had a point — even if there are situations where superheroes are forced to kill, Iron Enforcer had a disturbing tendency to skip straight to it.) The Defuser's situation sounds a bit more on-the-ball, though I'm not sure if there's a trope for it.

Dominus Temporis: I agree with your view on the Enforcer's example, but the problem with the Defuser was that, as I recall, he told them it was a tool to be used to escape from someone who might want to harm them. So basically Stan was calling Defuser out on giving the kids a way to escape unharmed from a potential kidnapper or child molester. That definitely seems broken, at least to me.

Caswin: I agree that it's wrong, but the definition of Broken Aesop (on this site, anyway) is a lesson that is contradicted in the work itself. That's why I took it out and wondered if there was a trope for it.