TV Tropes Org


Deadlock Clock: 12th Jan '13 11:59 PM
search forum titles
google site search
Kickstarter Message
TV Tropes Needs Your Help
Big things are happening on TV Tropes! New admins, new designs, fewer ads, mobile versions, beta testing opportunities, thematic discovery engine, fun trope tools and toys, and much more - Learn how to help here and discuss here.
View Kickstarter Project
Total posts: [95]
 2  3 4

Merge: ImplacableMan vs TheJuggernaut: The Juggernaut get usage counts

Looking at The Juggernaut, the very first line says "The Juggernaut is the already Nigh Invulnerable Implacable Man taken Up to Eleven." That sounds like it is just Implacable Man The Same but More. Is there a clearer distinction and can we clean the examples up to make that obvious, or should we just cut The Juggernaut?

 2 Omega Kross, Thu, 23rd Jun '11 5:35:20 AM from Nosgoth Relationship Status: Mu
Vae Victus
No, they're pretty distinct tropes. The Implacable Man is pretty much always human(oid) and can still be hurt, while The Juggernaut can be a 10 foot monstrosity that won't stop until it's completely destroyed.

Besides which, they're both old tropes that are pretty firmly rooted in the wiki. And there's no real misuse. If it isn't broken then theres no point fixing it.
[up]The Juggernaut don't need to be monstrous, although this is common. Anyway, the difference is that Implacable Man is the villainous hunting version of Determinator, he can be hurt, he can be stopped. But, no matter how much you stop him, he keep coming back. The Juggernaut, in the other hand, is literally unstoppable. He acts like a living version of Advancing Wall of Doom.

Anyway, the difference is that Implacable Man is the villainous hunting version of Determinator, he can be hurt, he can be stopped. But, no matter how much you stop him, he keep coming back.
That's not what the description for Implacable Man says at all. And neither Determinator nor Implacable Man say anything about whether the character is a villain or not.

Looking at the pages, the only real difference in usage seems to be that an Implacable Man is by definition a person, while a Juggernaut might or might not be. And both pages practically come right out and say that The Juggernaut is The Same but More version of the Implacable Man. And Implacable Man also seems to think it's The Same but More version of Made of Iron. Not good.

If we're revamping descriptions, I'd concentrate on the character's story role more than their abilities. I initially dismissed Heatth's "villainous hunter" comment, but I think that may be essentially correct. The Implacable Man has a goal, and no obstacle or enemy seems to be able to slow him down as he pursues it. (Superman and The Hulk really don't belong on the page, unless there are specific stories where they play Implacable Man, in which case those stories should be cited.) They aren't necessarily villains, but most of the time their target will in fact be either a protagonist or something or someone the protagonist wants to protect.

The Juggernaut, meanwhile, may not have a clear goal, or any goal at all. But they're unstoppable, and they inevitably cause a lot of property damage when they pass (which an Implacable Man may or may not).

In short: Implacable Man - unstoppable and chasing something. Juggernaut - unstoppable and destroys anything that gets in its way. There'll be a lot of overlap, but they're still distinct enough to be two different tropes. I think.

Final question: why is the main title The Juggernaut and not Juggernaut?

 5 shimaspawn, Thu, 23rd Jun '11 6:23:15 PM from Here and Now Relationship Status: In your bunk
Character type tropes are named The X where X is the archetype that they embody. It makes it clearer that it's talking about a character type and not the name of a work or a person.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.

-Philip K. Dick
[up][up]There was a line on Determinator before its description was worked. The same line is there, but it exclude the pothole to Implacable Man completely.

Reading back the page, you are correct. The definition is not quite what I said it was. It is close, however. Implacable Man is a hunter who won't give up on its prey no matter what you do to him. The Juggernaut is just someone who can't be stopped.

I propose we remove the The Same but More line from both tropes, since it is not the case. Also rework the Implacable Man to put less emphasis on him being indestructible and more on him being relentless. Finally, I believe The Juggernaut and Implacable Man are not mutually exclusive. A particularly vicious foe can be both.

Lastly I want to mention that, when I said 'villainous', I wasn't saying too literally. Both tropes are usually more associated to villains, but I don't think it is exclusive to them at all.

 7 Sal Fish Fin, Thu, 23rd Jun '11 6:53:27 PM from on top of Your Mum Relationship Status: I get a feeling so complicated...
Trolling Swordsman
[up][up]Funny enough, the guy in comic is called "The Juggernaut" more often than not, so the trope would be better titled "The The Juggernaut"

//Totally Joking Carry On

Anyway, I see two different, but very close tropes.

The Juggernaut can't be stopped. In the most literal sense. Once they start moving, there is nothing that can stand up to them.

Implacable Man and Determinator can be stopped, but simply will not until they reach their intended goal.

edited 23rd Jun '11 6:53:43 PM by SalFishFin

3DS FC for PKMN & Smash:5472-8792-6103
 8 Deboss, Thu, 23rd Jun '11 8:06:03 PM from Awesomeville Texas
I see the Awesomeness.
Or to shorten it a bit, Implacable Man and Determinator can be knocked down, but they'll get back up. The Juggernaut can't be knocked down.

Well, no need to be too literal with this. The Juggernaut can, theoretically, be stopped. And such will probably happen eventually during the story (likely in the climax of the storyline). It is just nigh impossible to do so.

 10 Cider, Thu, 23rd Jun '11 8:53:05 PM from Not New York Relationship Status: They can't hide forever. We've got satellites.
The Final ECW Champion
The Juggernaut should be cut, I've just been too lazy to get around to putting it on the cutlist.

Maybe the Juggernaut could be worked into a separate trope. The Implacable Man would be something that comes after the character while the Juggernaut would be something the character are simply trying to stop from getting somewhere, but the page should still be cut to allow time for the all red links to disappear before its started up again from scratch.

The Juggernaut page itself is pretty much Implacable Man, turned up to eleven.
Modified Ura-nage, Torture Rack
The page is wrong. The Juggernaut is a very different page. For one thing, Implacable Man is about hunting, The Juggernaut is not. This alone is a very clear difference.

 12 Silent Reverence, Thu, 23rd Jun '11 9:25:30 PM from 3 tiles right 1 tile up
adopting kitteh
I don't see how the two tropes are the same with one Only More So than the other. The Juggernaut simply goes conceptually beyond and sideways what Implacable Man or Determinator are.

A Juggernaut does not need to chase or hunt you. He simply needs to unstoppably go do something. An Implacable Man needs to insist on chasing, hunting, tracking or whatever to get to you.
Has this been resolved? The Juggernaut no longer describes it as The Same but More of the Implacable Man, at least.

It sounds like Implacable Man is closer to Determinator if anything.

 15 Cider, Sat, 10th Dec '11 10:25:08 PM from Not New York Relationship Status: They can't hide forever. We've got satellites.
The Final ECW Champion
Its still The Same but More. Implacable and Juggernaut have pretty much the same dictionary definition and the trope descriptions shamelessly admit that the Juggernaut is implacable man but more.

The Juggernaut
Compare Implacable Man which can be stopped but only temporarily. If you knock the IPM down, they'll always get back up. The Juggernaut can't be knocked down in the first place.

Implacable Man
Compare The Juggernaut, who is to this trope what a tank is to a hunting dog.

Same thing, only Juggernaut is more implacable than the implacable man. Merge em.

edited 10th Dec '11 10:25:18 PM by Cider

Modified Ura-nage, Torture Rack
 16 Silent Reverence, Sun, 11th Dec '11 11:43:51 AM from 3 tiles right 1 tile up
adopting kitteh
Those comparisons fail to explain why the Impacable Man tries to stand up again. That's the key difference between the tropes, and, being the one that makes them function in different contexts and with different meanings, makes them unmergeable tropes, according to my understanding.

Fix the comparisons.
"Implacable and Juggernaut have pretty much the same dictionary definition..."

They do?


1: chiefly British : a large heavy truck

2: a massive inexorable force, campaign, movement, or object that crushes whatever is in its path <an advertising juggernaut> <a political juggernaut>


1: not placable : not capable of being appeased, significantly changed, or mitigated <an implacable enemy>

Nazi Germany was a juggernaut. Churchill Britain was implacable.

Seem pretty different and in keeping with the distinctions being discussed above. Maybe the descriptions need to be fixed, but they are not the same thing.

edited 11th Dec '11 11:51:14 AM by Sackett

 18 Cider, Sun, 11th Dec '11 9:18:04 PM from Not New York Relationship Status: They can't hide forever. We've got satellites.
The Final ECW Champion
Yeah, pretty much. Juggernaut:Hard to stop. Implacable: Hard to stop.

The difference is harder too stop. The pages have been on the wiki a long time and they've been a poor example of trope distinction for a long time.

You know, if there was a significant difference in usage that'd be great. If implacable man was simply horror trope coming to get you and juggernaut was maybe just someone going somewhere else, I'd leave them but they are not. Any given time they are referenced on the site the two are potholed interchangeably. Take for example Planet Eater

Oddly, it's also an Implacable Man... err, planet

Pretty much anything with Nigh-Invulnerability that spends a lot of time getting damaging things tossed at it is an example. The distinction, if it looked affected at all implacable man, if it did not look effected, Juggernaut. That't not enough of a distinction not to merge them, the same trope is being described, hard to hurt thus hard to stop.
Modified Ura-nage, Torture Rack
 19 Silent Reverence, Mon, 12th Dec '11 11:31:17 AM from 3 tiles right 1 tile up
adopting kitteh
Compare The Juggernaut, who is to this trope what a tank is to a hunting dog.

This line states the key difference pretty concisely, but also too briefly for people to notice. An Implacable Man can be stopped, but it is very hard because he has to chase you. The Juggernaut, if it can be stopped temporarily, is because it is simply really hard to damage. From what I read from them, Implacable Man is a matter of the character having to chase you, whereas Juggernaut is a matter of the plot having to chase you. Again, too different meanings and contexts for a merge.
 20 Cider, Mon, 12th Dec '11 12:12:52 PM from Not New York Relationship Status: They can't hide forever. We've got satellites.
The Final ECW Champion
So one chases you, the other is just nigh invulnerable and hard to stop moving?

Why not just say these are often antagonists in horror shows then if implacable man is the Juggernaut but chasing you? It seems silly to have two pages describing the same thing, only difference being situation or degree, especially since the first distinction isn't even addressed in the examples.
Modified Ura-nage, Torture Rack
Also known as Katz
I would prefer a merge of Implacable Man and Determinator. I definitely think there isn't room for Implacable Man between Determinator and The Juggernaut.

 22 Cider, Mon, 12th Dec '11 1:32:16 PM from Not New York Relationship Status: They can't hide forever. We've got satellites.
The Final ECW Champion
The Determinator isn't about Nigh-Invulnerability, it's about never giving up. Honestly, I'm more prone to just remove the crap "determinators are only heroes" line when they clearly are not. From the trope page itself.

Contrast Implacable Man, who suffers no apparent damage to begin with

Implacable Man and The Juggernaut have been treated as The Same but More Specific for way too long. The very website does my arguing for me. Merge em.
Modified Ura-nage, Torture Rack
Seems to me like the difference is The Juggernaut No Sells everything and "never stops" in a much more literal fashion, where the Implacable Man merely refuses to give up. I think the hunting dog/tank comparison is very apt.

edited 12th Dec '11 4:17:48 PM by troacctid

Rhymes with "Protracted."
 24 Native Jovian, Mon, 12th Dec '11 4:33:09 PM from Orlando, Florida
Io vs Jupiter
The main difference seems to be that an Implacable Man is coming after the heroes specifically, while The Juggernaut is going after something else and the heroes put themselves in his way.

Implacable Man: "This is the threat that implacably, unrelentingly comes after you. This guy will hunt you down no matter what you do or where you go"

The Juggernaut: "It is often fixated on a goal, reaching somewhere that it shouldn't be, trying to accomplish something that the heroes don't want it to accomplish. In any case, it is moving ever and continually forward, letting no one and nothing stand in its path."

I'd say they're lumpable.
[up] For the The Juggernaut, is it "is" or is it "is often"?

Page Action: The Juggernaut
23rd May '12 4:37:27 PM
What would be the best way to fix the page?
At issue:
Total posts: 95
 2  3 4

TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from
Privacy Policy