[002]
JBK405
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
First off, let me explain why my above post is suddenly so much shorter, I felt the need to remove my links at the end because...well, because I feel like an idiot for putting those links in. They add nothing to my argument, it looks condescending (\
to:
First off, let me explain why my above post is suddenly so much shorter, I felt the need to remove my links at the end because...well, because I feel like an idiot for putting those links in. They add nothing to my argument, it looks condescending (\\\"Oh, and here\\\'s some other stuff you don\\\'t know\\\") and it was just bad debating and bad writing. I\\\'m sorry, I don\\\'t know what I was thinking, and I hope it won\\\'t happen again.
Anyway, you\\\'re right the trope refers to character being killed because of their gay ways, but it doesn\\\'t say that their gay ways are the immediate cause of their death, but that that was why the writers \\\'\\\'decided\\\'\\\' to kill them. To get them out of the story, to \\\"teach us a lesson,\\\" to appease the censors, etc. The actual cause of death could be any and everything, not necessarily actually related to being gay; the page picture for the trope was a vengeance murder for past superhero rivalries, she was not targeted \\\'\\\'because\\\'\\\' she was gay anymore than Maggie Sawyer was targeted by Intergang for being gay (For those wondering \\\"WTF?\\\" the \\\'\\\'{{Watchmen}}\\\'\\\' comic goes into a bit more detail on what happened in the interim and gave more details on hero deaths than we saw in the five-minute opening montage). The trope refers to the way gay characters \\\"happen\\\" to die instead of straight ones, it doesn\\\'t necessarily have to be as a direct result of their gayness (They can be shot in a holdup, they don\\\'t need to cath AIDS or be murdered by a jilted lover).
Regarding the technicalities of subversion, I\\\'ve again got to point out that the trope definition says it\\\'s all about set up and payoff. The example the page itself gives is about cars going through plates of glass in a car chase; even if you turned to your buddy and said \\\"That\\\'s such a clich, there is no way the car will actually go through that plate of glass\\\" and you are correct, it is still a subversion because they set up that trope, even if you didn\\\'t fall for it. Here, even if the audience didn\\\'t know it, the writers still set up the trope, and then swerved aside.
As a \\\"For example,\\\" take that car chase example again. Show the film to a culture that has not been previously exposed to Hollywood cinema, so they would have no expectation of a car driving through a plate of glass, they don\\\'t even think about it, and when the movie shows the car driving towards the glass nobody makes any connection at all. It is \\\'\\\'still\\\'\\\' a subversion, even though nobody in the audience got it, because the \\\'\\\'writers\\\'\\\' got it and were setting it up and then said \\\"No, we won\\\'t do it.\\\"
Whether it was deliberate or not, the writers set up the trope exactly: They took the one gay character and gave her a mortal wound and had the straight character weep over her corpse, implying that she, the one gay character, is dead before any of the straight characters, and then swerve to the side and say \\\"No, it\\\'s not that.\\\"
Anyway, you\\\'re right the trope refers to character being killed because of their gay ways, but it doesn\\\'t say that their gay ways are the immediate cause of their death, but that that was why the writers \\\'\\\'decided\\\'\\\' to kill them. To get them out of the story, to \\\"teach us a lesson,\\\" to appease the censors, etc. The actual cause of death could be any and everything, not necessarily actually related to being gay; the page picture for the trope was a vengeance murder for past superhero rivalries, she was not targeted \\\'\\\'because\\\'\\\' she was gay anymore than Maggie Sawyer was targeted by Intergang for being gay (For those wondering \\\"WTF?\\\" the \\\'\\\'{{Watchmen}}\\\'\\\' comic goes into a bit more detail on what happened in the interim and gave more details on hero deaths than we saw in the five-minute opening montage). The trope refers to the way gay characters \\\"happen\\\" to die instead of straight ones, it doesn\\\'t necessarily have to be as a direct result of their gayness (They can be shot in a holdup, they don\\\'t need to cath AIDS or be murdered by a jilted lover).
Regarding the technicalities of subversion, I\\\'ve again got to point out that the trope definition says it\\\'s all about set up and payoff. The example the page itself gives is about cars going through plates of glass in a car chase; even if you turned to your buddy and said \\\"That\\\'s such a clich, there is no way the car will actually go through that plate of glass\\\" and you are correct, it is still a subversion because they set up that trope, even if you didn\\\'t fall for it. Here, even if the audience didn\\\'t know it, the writers still set up the trope, and then swerved aside.
As a \\\"For example,\\\" take that car chase example again. Show the film to a culture that has not been previously exposed to Hollywood cinema, so they would have no expectation of a car driving through a plate of glass, they don\\\'t even think about it, and when the movie shows the car driving towards the glass nobody makes any connection at all. It is \\\'\\\'still\\\'\\\' a subversion, even though nobody in the audience got it, because the \\\'\\\'writers\\\'\\\' got it and were setting it up and then said \\\"No, we won\\\'t do it.\\\"
Whether it was deliberate or not, the writers set up the trope exactly: They took the one gay character and gave her a mortal wound and had the straight character weep over her corpse, implying that she, the one gay character, is dead before any of the straight characters, and then swerve to the side and say \\\"No, it\\\'s not that.\\\"
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
First off, let me explain why my above post is suddenly so much shorter, I felt the need to remove my links at the end because...well, because I feel like an idiot for putting those links in. They add nothing to my argument, it looks condescending (\
to:
First off, let me explain why my above post is suddenly so much shorter, I felt the need to remove my links at the end because...well, because I feel like an idiot for putting those links in. They add nothing to my argument, it looks condescending (\\\"Oh, and here\\\'s some other stuff you don\\\'t know\\\") and it was just bad debating and bad writing. I\\\'m sorry, I don\\\'t know what I was thinking, and I hope it won\\\'t happen again.
Anyway, you\\\'re right the trope refers to character being killed because of their gay ways, but it doesn\\\'t say that their gay ways are the immediate cause of their death, but that that was why the writers \\\'\\\'decided\\\'\\\' to kill them. To get them out of the story, to \\\"teach us a lesson,\\\" to appease the censors, etc. The actual cause of death could be any and everything, not necessarily actually related to being gay; the page picture for the trope was a vengeance murder for past superhero rivalries, she was not targeted \\\'\\\'because\\\'\\\' she was gay anymore than Maggie Sawyer was targeted by Intergang for being gay (For those wondering \\\"WTF?\\\" the \\\'\\\'{{Watchmen}}\\\'\\\' comic goes into a bit more detail on what happened in the interim and gave more details on hero deaths than we saw in the five-minute opening montage). The trope refers to the way gay characters \\\"happen\\\" to die instead of straight ones, it doesn\\\'t necessarily have to be as a direct result of their gayness (They can be shot in a holdup, they don\\\'t need to cath AIDS or be murdered by a jilted lover).
Regarding the technicalities of subversion, I\\\'ve again got to pointout that the trope definition says it\\\'s all about set up and payoff. The example the page itself gives is about cars going through plates of glass in a car chase; even if you turned to your buddy and said \\\"That\\\'s such a clich, there is no way the car will actually go through that plate of glass\\\" and you are correct, it is still a subversion because they set up that trope, even if you didn\\\'t fall for it. Here, even if the audience didn\\\'t know it, the writers still set up the trope, and then swerved aside.
As a \\\"For eample,\\\" take that car chase example again. SHow the film to a culture that has not been previously exposed to Hollywood cinemae, so they would have no expectation of a car driving through a plate of glass, they don\\\'t even think about it, ad when the movie shows the car driving towards the glass nobody makes any connection at all. It is \\\'\\\'still\\\'\\\' a subversion, even though nobody in the audience got it, because the \\\'\\\'writers\\\'\\\' got it and were setting it up and then said \\\"No, we won\\\'t do it.\\\"
Whether it was deliberate or not, the writers set up the trope exactly: They took the one gay character and gave her a mortal wound and had the straight character weep over her corpse, implying that she, the one gay character, is dead before any of the straight characters, and then swerve to the side and say \\\"No, it\\\'s not that.\\\"
Anyway, you\\\'re right the trope refers to character being killed because of their gay ways, but it doesn\\\'t say that their gay ways are the immediate cause of their death, but that that was why the writers \\\'\\\'decided\\\'\\\' to kill them. To get them out of the story, to \\\"teach us a lesson,\\\" to appease the censors, etc. The actual cause of death could be any and everything, not necessarily actually related to being gay; the page picture for the trope was a vengeance murder for past superhero rivalries, she was not targeted \\\'\\\'because\\\'\\\' she was gay anymore than Maggie Sawyer was targeted by Intergang for being gay (For those wondering \\\"WTF?\\\" the \\\'\\\'{{Watchmen}}\\\'\\\' comic goes into a bit more detail on what happened in the interim and gave more details on hero deaths than we saw in the five-minute opening montage). The trope refers to the way gay characters \\\"happen\\\" to die instead of straight ones, it doesn\\\'t necessarily have to be as a direct result of their gayness (They can be shot in a holdup, they don\\\'t need to cath AIDS or be murdered by a jilted lover).
Regarding the technicalities of subversion, I\\\'ve again got to pointout that the trope definition says it\\\'s all about set up and payoff. The example the page itself gives is about cars going through plates of glass in a car chase; even if you turned to your buddy and said \\\"That\\\'s such a clich, there is no way the car will actually go through that plate of glass\\\" and you are correct, it is still a subversion because they set up that trope, even if you didn\\\'t fall for it. Here, even if the audience didn\\\'t know it, the writers still set up the trope, and then swerved aside.
As a \\\"For eample,\\\" take that car chase example again. SHow the film to a culture that has not been previously exposed to Hollywood cinemae, so they would have no expectation of a car driving through a plate of glass, they don\\\'t even think about it, ad when the movie shows the car driving towards the glass nobody makes any connection at all. It is \\\'\\\'still\\\'\\\' a subversion, even though nobody in the audience got it, because the \\\'\\\'writers\\\'\\\' got it and were setting it up and then said \\\"No, we won\\\'t do it.\\\"
Whether it was deliberate or not, the writers set up the trope exactly: They took the one gay character and gave her a mortal wound and had the straight character weep over her corpse, implying that she, the one gay character, is dead before any of the straight characters, and then swerve to the side and say \\\"No, it\\\'s not that.\\\"
