"They Wasted A Perfectly Good Character" Cleanup

We could always do the "citation(review, person of note, ETC)."

We can start by getting references for the Live Action Movie examples currently listed.

Like A Star Wars Revenge of the Sith review/critique or similar talking about how Grievous was sparsely used.

edited 4th Aug '17 1:49:37 PM by Monsund

I think it's either got to be citations or an outright cut, yeah. There's just no way to prevent individual people with an axe to grind from overrunning the examples otherwise - "wasted" is impossibly vague even without factoring in the complaining issue.

I can look for citations for some examples.

I guess... but what's worth keeping about this trope that justifies all that effort?

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

I dunno if there's anything - I just think it's the only plausible suggestion for how it can be kept at all, because what's there right now does not work.

I feel there's enough talk and sources on that. Stuff like reviews(Phasma wasn't used in Force Awakens is something commonly written about even today) or even creators/actors saying "You know I would've used that character more if I did the story again" I've all seen.

I personally believe that this trope should be transplanted off the Main namespace at any cost. Maybe into the Darth Wiki, much like Ruined Forever and Idiot Programming/Design? The Wasted tropes are in my opinion, to put it simply, mere too-open-ended complaining by its very nature.

edited 9th Dec '17 8:27:56 PM by Albert3105

This is taken from Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice.

• They Wasted a Perfectly Good Plot:
  • The main driving force of the early part of the movie is people questioning if Superman can be trusted, as well as deconstructing Hero Insurance after Superman and Zod's fight. This plot line sets up the most interesting part of the movie save for the actual fight between Batman and Superman, yet this plot line is never fully developed beyond forced drama. In fact, the whole plot line really feels like a reason to motivate Batman to fight Superman for real. Cracked summed up the general view on the matter:
  There are plenty of great movies out there that don't take sides on deep issues like how we must handle the consolidation of power given its corrosive nature. One such movie is Rocky. Another is The Little Mermaid. While those movies have some differences, they do have one big thing in common: They don't spend their first 30 minutes underlining, bolding, and italicizing the question "Can you be moral and all-powerful?" only to end with, "Well, we sure killed that monster that came from out of nowhere. Please enjoy all eight of our spinoffs/sequels."
  • Some fans felt Superman's death and the apparent confirmation he'll be resurrected happened far too soon, with the DC Cinematic Universe barely being set up yet and therefore robbing most of the impact of Superman's death which could have been done better if handled in its own future film. It became especially obvious with Justice League (2017) that this was a weak foundation for a Shared Universe since the event in question distracts from the pantheon-forming earth-shaking event that the formation of the League should be.
  • Really, the basic premise of the film would've been enough to make an interesting movie: "an older, cynical Batman, finds his humanity again, because of a younger, more optimistic, Superman". If the film really needed a central antagonist (though that in itself is debatable), then that should've been Lex Luthor, manipulating both heroes into fighting each other without Doomsday. The actual movie is so weighted down by sub-plots and teasers, that they handicap a perfectly functioning plot.
  • Particularly in the extended cut of the movie, Lois has a significant subplot where she tries to figure out who framed Superman for the deaths in Nairomi, and why. However, to the viewers it's obvious right from the start that Luthor is behind it, so the scenes with Lois' investigation don't really work as Detective Drama. If Lois would've used her knowledge as a leverage against Luthor, either by confronting him herself or giving the information to Superman, that would've provided a satisfying conclusion to her arc. But as it happens, Luthor confesses what he's done to Lois and Supes before either of them can confront him with the fact.. The information Lois uncovered probably helps to get Luthor convicted at the end of the movie, but even that isn't made clear onscreen, so her subplot has no dramatic conclusion and gets pretty much forgotten once the big brawls in the finale begin.
  • Instead of having Wonder Woman wander through the film in her own self-contained sub-plot before arriving in the finale, it would have been interesting if she was secretly upholding the masquerade to hide other superbeings by working in the shadows, and that she infiltrated Luthor's party to suppress the videos he found. Gal Gadot herself noted that the film's take on Diana — that she turned her back on mankind — was a mistake, and this change could have seeded in the Worldbuilding for other heroes and villains more organically, and likewise diminish some of the weird issues about Wonder Woman participating in World War I but sitting out for World War II^note  Wonder Woman seems to retcon this, as she is not shown turning her back on the world, as this film claims she did . It would also give Superman's unmasking and The Reveal of superpowered beings on Earth, a major theme of the DCEU, a bigger scope, context, and depth.
  • With just a few minutes of footage, the opening scene in Metropolis perfectly demonstrates why some people might distrust Superman and see him as a threat to humanity, even though he was just trying to protect innocent people. But when we meet Lex Luthor (Superman's nemesis), that proves to be incidental to his characterization and motivation, and we never even get to see his reaction to Superman's battle with Zod—even though he lives in Metropolis, and was presumably there to witness it. At the very least, the movie could have shown how Luthor exploited other people's understandable reasons for distrusting Superman.
  • As a businessman in Metropolis, Luthor could have made a perfect Foil for Bruce Wayne, and had the two corporate honchos had a connection to the battle in Metropolis, such as if Bruce was the one to save Lex from the wreckage, rather than say Scoot McNairy's character, or if the two had some kind of open partnership and friendship (which does have precedent), it would have likewise made the film more streamlined and better explain Luthor's manipulation skills where in the film he claims to have played Batman and Superman against each other, when in fact, Bruce had already decided to take out Superman and murder him without any prompting from Luthor, and was already set on the task before the Capitol bombing, and Luthor's grandiose plotting and baroque scheming came off to many as Kudzu Plot and which was still unsatisfying to many in the Ultimate Edition which better filled most (but not all) plot holes of his scheme.

---

• They Wasted a Perfectly Good Character:
  • Many fans of the comic and animated versions of Mercy Graves were shocked to see her killed off so nonchalantly by Lex, especially since there could have been many potential plotlines involving her.
  • Fans learning that Lois's cameraman (who only appears for a minute or two before being executed by Knyazev) was Jimmy Olsen, and Zack Snyder admitting he did it because it'd be fun to shock the audience by so casually killing off an iconic character who he felt had no place in his film (even though most likely the majority of viewers didn't even realize the cameraman was Jimmy), despite making him a CIA spook who could have had a different and more interesting relation with Clark.
  • Even those who did like the film believe that Superman, despite being a titular character, was unfairly sidelined in focus by Batman and Wonder Woman. Much like Bilbo Baggins in The Hobbit Trilogy, Superman is practically Demoted to Extra in what should have been his movie.
    • However, said complaints minimized, once the Ultimate cut of the film was released. In the Ultimate cut, we not only see previously cut scenes that were solely centered on Superman and Lois Lane, but said scenes also helped provide a new found focus on Superman's place in the story line. As one critic said, "after the I saw the Ultimate cut, what was once a Batman movie that featured Superman, turned into the Superman/Batman two-hander we were promised."

Keep in mind this is a very controversial movie, so if you're gonna criticize it then do so in a constructive manner.

Is the following example from Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri being used correctly?:

• They Wasted a Perfectly Good Character: Peter Dinklage as James. He's one of the few genuinely nice guys in the film and has an interesting set-up for growth (his fondness of Mildred and constant alienation due to being a "midget"). However, aside from a few brief scenes and his date with Mildred, he doesn't get a lot of time to develop.

What I suggest might seem radical but maybe we should phase out, or at least heavily rework, They Wasted a Perfectly Good Character and They Wasted a Perfectly Good Plot. It seems to be inherently impossible to avoid complaining, and the concepts are really a little chairsy anyway, as just about every character/plot point imaginable has people out there who'd like to see more of them.

This was recently added to Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark:

• They Wasted a Perfectly Good Character: More like, they should have chosen better characters. The idea of bringing in the Sinister Six as a Quirky Miniboss Squad is not a bad one, but of all the options available to them from Spider-Man's rogues gallery, they chose some of the ones most ill-suited to doing in front of a live audience. Surely characters like Black Cat, Mysterio, Vulture and Doc Ock could be done easier than Swarm, Carnage, or the Lizard.

That's just complaining and doesn't even fit the trope.

Check out my fanfiction!

Bringing up this example from The New 52: Futures End:

• They Wasted a Perfectly Good Character: Any excitement or interest one might have in Terry's role is neutered by him being virtually In Name Only from the character in Batman Beyond.

Just complaining. Different works, so not an example.

Check out my fanfiction!

From YMMV.My Little Pony Equestria Girls 2013 Sunset Shimmer is listed as The Scrappy for their portrayal in the movie, They Wasted a Perfectly Good Character for having a intreating backstory and potential that she's a Scrappy for wasting, and Base-Breaking Character in part because of her backstory she listed as a Scrappy (already incompatible with BBC) for not utilizing. And this backstory did come up in the comics to mixed reception. Does it still count as wasted if it appears in some form of outside but canon media (this only explore part of her character).

This is such a mess I don't know where to start. Halp.

Starlight Glimmer and the changelings are listed as They Wasted a Perfectly Good Character for loosing the traits that made them interesting despite getting more screen time afterwards, I assume that's pure misuse.

"School Daze – Part 1" list Gabby (the last Griffon who'd need to attend) the Hippogriffs King who's existence is baseless fanon, and other characters who don't actually appear as opposed to limited screen time (and if there's a real-life reason they can't appear outside the writers control, does it cross into excessive complaining)?

How about renaming this trope "Underutilized Character", or something else that reflects the "Wasted" is only about screen time, anything else being a separate issue?

edited 12th Jun '18 2:05:12 PM by Ferot_Dreadnaught

I'm not sure I even understand that example, but They Wasted a Perfectly Good Character is not about backstories you don't like. It can however include characters where the backstory is in supplemental material, but the character isn't explored at all in the show proper.

If they're The Scrappy, I fail to see how they can be a "perfectly good character". It's a clear sign to the creator to get rid of or retool the character.

If they don't actually appear, then they don't count. I'd also be very reluctant to include any character who only appears in some backstory and dies there, unless there's some very extensive backstory being told, and then only for that.

Check out my fanfiction!

Bringing up this example from Saving Mr. Banks:

• They Wasted a Perfectly Good Character: Some of Julie Andrews' fans felt a little upset that she had no lines in the movie about the making of her first Hollywood film, aside from the Mary Poppins clips shown during the premiere scene. At the very least, the omission of Mrs. Travers' initial reaction to the casting of Andrews feels like a missed opportunity for a Heartwarming Moment, since she had (slightly) nicer things to say about her than she did Dick Van Dyke.^note Mrs. Travers told Julie Andrews that she looked too pretty compared to the books' depiction of Mary Poppins, but did have "the right nose".

So it's been 8 days, any chance I could get a response to the example I brought up above.

So it's been 2 weeks, any chance I could get a response to the example I brought up above.

Probably shouldn't count because she's not actually in the movie, and isn't a character, but a real person.

From The Legend of Korra:

• A common criticism of Asami Sato is that despite being a part of the main Krew, she largely remains an accessory Satellite Love Interest throughout the series regardless of whether she's with Mako or Korra. Most of the qualities that make her stand out, such as her business skills and technological prowess, are subsumed by other more proactive characters such as Varrick or relegated to the background. To be more specific:
  • Book 1: The social issue is about bender/non-bender relations where good, evil or Zuko-like Anti-Villain, Asami would have made a natural deuteragonist to touch on life as a non-bender in Republic City that a bender especially like Korra naturally wouldn't understand, how/why her being born from wealth affects her differently than someone like Gommu, how/why she doesn't hold anything against benders to the extent of being a pro-bending fangirl and dating two, etc. but noooo there's the Love Triangle and prematurely expecting Mako to be the new Zuko while she just awkwardly waits for Mako to break up with her.
  • Book 2: She's the only one with a natural sub-plot of having to save the tainted company she inherited and aligning with Korra that was only briefly touched on when both talked to Varrick as she obviously could also relate to Korra's issues with her father, but nooooo Mako hijacks that and Chickifies her to "Other Girl" that doesn't even fight in this season to instead either pilot/drive something while the benders do their thing or cheerlead Bolin instead of joining in to the real fight.
  • Book 3: A lesser case since the Love Triangle has been done away with and her friendship/teamwork with Korra's emphasized (ex. "Long Live The Queen") and the following season (see below) had the problem of juggling too many plots, but she only gives a brief mention of how her company being back in the black after Varrick was caught, but there are still episodes where she doesn't talk or do anything besides stand there while Mako gets more lines and focus despite this season being about deemphasizing his character after the first two seasons made him a Spotlight-Stealing Squad.
  • And Book 4: She is doing more than ever before in rebuilding the city when Korra couldn't, designing the hummingbird mechs to fight the Earth Empire, reconcile with her father and growing closer to Korra, but the season was both overloaded with too many subplots in general and Mako still somehow got more lines and screentime despite only babysitting the prince. So overall, it felt like the writers both accidentally made a character too potentially awesome to know what to do with and aren't willing to fully go out of their comfort zones of familiar male characters like Mako and Bolin.

The shear length alone makes this entry feel like a rant, and some of the later points read as shoehorning ("sure she's doing stuff and getting development, but...") and the line about her skills being made redundant by Varrick suggests a very "characters are only their abilities" approach to characterization. I also don't know if she fits the definition of Satellite Love Interest. However, I don't want to cut unilaterally and risk an edit war. Thoughts?

Edited by TheMountainKing on Jul 18th 2018 at 5:21:57 AM

Asami is definitely not a Satellite Love Interest, she's just as involved in the plot as any other character, especially in last two seasons. The whole thing reads less like a criticism of how they handled Asami's character, and more like a rant about how much screentime Mako got. I say cut it.

Any objections to a cut?

Cut that crap. It just reads as several paragraphs of whining and misappropriation.

Check out my fanfiction!

Bringing up this example from Web Warriors:

• They Wasted a Perfectly Good Character: Fans of Anya Corazón were quick to note how unfortunately underutilized she ended up being in the series, despite being Billy's Second-in-Command. This came off the heels of Anya's placement in the franchise already getting supplanted by newer characters like Miles Morales, Silk, and Spider-Gwen. The fact that Costa was also blatant in his Character Shilling of Gwen, as noted above, this left a lot of fans of Anya really frustrated.