Dreammaster1
Does anyone lose have a problem with Doctor Sleep's entry for Ant- Man?
"Doctor Sleep: Ant-Man managed a DM with just a trailer. There's a scene where Scott Lang is goading Hope into showing him how to punch. Hope responds by punching him right in the face. You don't have to picture that moment with the genders reversed, because that exact same thing happened in the comics when Hank Pym smacked his wife. By playing a woman bashing a man as a punchline when the opposite is considered abhorrent just shows how low Marvel Studios is willing to sink for the sake of a joke. No wonder they lost a comedic craftsman like Edgar Wright. " Adding to this is the fact that Hope ultimately gets with Scott in the end. Iron Man had Tony and Pepper take things slow. Thor, Captain America and The Incredible Hulk ended with the heroes not getting with their love interests due to their overwhelming responsibilities. Ant-Man ends with Scott falling for the woman who attacked him, simply because she's there. Way to speak out against domestic violence.
I mean:
a) That's two moments
b) It's referring primarily to a reaction to the trailer, not the film
c) It wrongly claims that Wright didn't actually write the scene, when we don't actually know that. To the contrary, quiet a lot of his script was used.
d) It stunningly misrepresents what happened in the comics - in either the 616 or Ultimates verse.
Edited by Dreammaster1
Mmmyeah, I'm gonna debate CaptainEquinox's entry for Mars Attacks. It doesn't say anything, at all, about what was so bad about the burning cows at the beginning. It just says "this happened, it was supposed to be funny, instead it made me leave". What didn't you like about the scene? Was it a dumb joke that proved in your mind that the rest of the movie wasn't worth watching? Are you an animal rights activist who doesn't like seeing animals get harmed? What?
Not cutting (yet), just contesting.
Hide / Show Replies
I have no problem with you deleting it if it doesn't fit. I probably didn't understand the exact nature of the DMOS trope. I'll cop to being an (non-vegetarian) animal rights supporter, but not against showing animals getting hurt in film if it advances the plot or proves a point. (e.g. kick the dog, etc.) But in this case I thought it was, as you said, a dumb, pointless joke that convinced me the rest of the picture wouldn't be worth watching.
I have found that it is the small everyday deed of ordinary folks that keep the darkness at bay. Small acts of kindness and love. - Tolkien
- Brony Of The Octaves: Drag Me to Hell. Everyone's already raged and ranted about this film, and there's a split base on whether or not it's a good film. I personally hate it, because of it's Idiot Plot. The story is this: A banker goes to hell by a Romani because she was going to foreclose her for money she owes. That's the best Sam Raimi can come up with? The guy who gave us Evil Dead comes back to the horror genre with this? Not only does the movie try to make it seem like our protagonist deserves to go to hell, but it portrays the Romani as psychos who will send ya to hell for little to no reason! The beginning even shows a little boy getting dragged to hell for stealing a necklace, which the parents gave back to the gypsies! The film itself wouldn't be insulting if it (was as stated in the YMMV section) was all in the character's head, pretty much filled with guilt and such. Instead we have a film that focuses more on comedy instead of horror, making our character look bad just because she did her job (although she does a certain thing that enraged viewers..) and then gives us a Cruel Twist Ending just to boot. Sam Raimi, what the hell?
- Scarletnebula: and that's not even getting into the abusive jump scares (of which there are over 20 of them!) This movie was by far Sam Raimi's weakest.
I deleted because it was ranting about the movie as a whole and not a specific moment.
- This is a small moment but it really struck me the wrong way. After seeing Pepper kick some butt with Extremis powers, Tony asks her why she never dresses like this at home, referring to the fact she's rather scantily clad. Yeah Tony, that's totally what you should say to your girlfriend who was kidnapped, held hostage, and is in totally different clothes. Yes, we as an audience know nothing happened, but Tony doesn't.
Unsigned moment in Iron Man 3 entry.
- Model Omega: Argo: not so much a specific moment or the movie itself, but the idea around the movie, turning one of Canada's greatest kick-ass moments in recent history into an entirely American endeavour where the Canadians are barely secondary to it, as well as the original ending spiel where they claim that Ken Taylor took the credit of the American efforts. Seriously Ben Affleck, screw you.
- Not a specific moment. + Writer Bashing
- In the original Gremlins there was the scene of the genuinely nice couple from earlier in the film look like they get run over by the gremlins on their snowplow. What the fuck was up with that scene, why the cruelty to nice people?
- Will B Good: It's a holdover from earlier drafts of the script, when the film was meant to be more serious horror (in which case killing off nice people is practically de rigueur).
- RS Lee: If it makes you feel any better, that couple survives the attack to make an appearance in the sequel. They are a bit traumatized by the incident, but ultimately are left perfectly healthy and alive.
- In the original Gremlins there was the scene of the genuinely nice couple from earlier in the film look like they get run over by the gremlins on their snowplow. What the fuck was up with that scene, why the cruelty to nice people?
Natter and unsigned.
I'm not quite sure if this counts. I mean, it's not really a moment, it's more lack of a moment.
- Crow T R0bot: One DMOS is a distinct absence of something in The Dark Knight Rises, specifically, The Joker. It's understandable not to want to replace the one-of-a-kind Oscar Gold-winnder that was Heath Ledger, given his tragic death and thus write The Joker out of the story (though this troper would have jumped for joy if Nolan had taken a chance with Scott Mc Clure. However, it's irresponsible from a writing standpoint to go to the opposite extreme and pretend he never existed. It just leaves a glaring Elephant in the Living Room when the characters seem to actively forget or neglect his role in the previous film, especially since the all we saw of his fate last time was getting arrested by some SWAT cops. Not the most fitting bow-out for one of the greatest onscreen appearances by one of comic books' most iconic supervillains. Would it have been disrespectful of Ledger's memory at all to include some sort of real closure to The Joker's fate? The explanation provided by the novelization don't cut it, as Mr. Plinkett explained in his review of the Star Wars prequels. There are times where being a Sacred Cow can backfire horribly and this is one of them.
Two months and no objections? Okay, well, like I said, it's not any pinpointed moment, just the lack of one. Removing.
- Rai Gen Jin Hai: In the Company of Men. Howard goes along with Chad in their plan to find a woman and wreck her emotionally just to gratify themselves. Howard's not meant to be a saint(which a viewer of course realizes sooner or later). However, his stupidity does seem too stretched to the limits of believability. Why does he trust Chad for a moment? Chad has outright openly admitted he doesn't care about anyone other than himself. That's a big screamingly red flag right there and Howard takes it lightly. You'd expect Howard at least to think 'Okay, Chad's all for his own gain, so I better stay away from him', except Howard doesn't, he just barely even registers it before forgetting about it just like that. Yes, sociopaths can be very great at appearing trustworthy and normal and thus win trust. Chad, however, basically comes across as a walking, talking neon sign saying 'I'm a sleazy, arrogant, lying prick'. Listening to him you can tell he thinks lowly of most people simply by the virtue of not being him. Chad's even painstakingly unsubtle about his vile scheme. In fact, he outright advocates finding some random woman, who has nothing to do with Howard's girlfriend breaking up with him and Chad allegedly being left by his girl, and ruining her emotionally to the point she's going to take sleeping pills]]. Even if Howard had a strong inclination towards taking his anger out on some unrelated woman, he could at least sense Chad isn't someone to trust and achieve what he wants without taking part in Chad's scheme. Chad doesn't even try to come up with euphemisms or mislead by insinuating and being a tad ambiguous. Still no warning bells ring in Howard's head, when they should, familiar from college times or not.
I've sent the poster a PM about it (and my topic on his/her Dark Knight entry above). If the poster doesn't respond, I'm gonna say they should be deleted.
It's been over a week, has he/she given any response? If not, it may be safe to just remove it. We've given him/her sufficient warning.
The poster did respond saying to was okay to pull them if they went against the rules. Both have since been pulled.
Is anyone else bugged by the sheer Double Standard sexism in this one?
- Mightymoose101: Bane's defeat in The Dark Knight Rises. . The film builds up Bane as the biggest threat Batman has ever faced, possibly even more so than The Joker. He figures out his secret identity, he breaks into his armoury and steals all his equipment, he ruins him financially, and he even beats him physically and nearly breaks his spine. So of course you'd expect the film to give him an extremely satisfactory and epic showdown at the end? No. After getting thoroughly beaten by Batman, Talia is revealed to be the Bigger Bad and the child who escaped the prison, not Bane.. This undoes practically all the mystic and buildup behind Bane's character, revealing him to instead be some lovesick puppy. Bane himself is demoted to a Giant Mook, and is ultimately killed by being shot with his pants down by Catwoman of all people. This was by far the most anticlimactic final showdown in the Batman film history, and an extremely unfitting way to send off one of the best villains in The Dark Knight Saga
So...a WOMAN is the Bad Ass child of Ras who escaped the prison on her own, and not Bane? SHE'S the Bigger Bad of the film? Bane did everything out of devotion to her...THE HORROR! He has emotions and feelings like a HUMAN BEING? That makes him nothing more than a "lovesick puppy!" And he's killed by Cat WOMAN, OF ALL PEOPLE? Because she's totally not a character at all likely to do anything that majorly Bad Ass, 'cause she's a mere WOMAN! It should have been Bat MAN who finished him off!
It's phrases like "lovesick puppy" and "of all people" that really make the sexism stand out. Y'know what I mean? If not, then I think this
puts this misogynistic phenomenon into better words.
I was merely referring to the fact that the big bad of the film, the man who broke Batman's back and brought Gotham to his knees, was ultimately shot in the back like a punk and died wordlessly, and by a side-character, at that. It would be like if in The Empire Strikes Back, Darth Vader was duelling Luke to the Death, only for Lando to burst in suddenly and shoot him in the back, Vader falling down dead without a word. I would've reacted with the same disappointment if Gordon or Blake had delivered such an anticlimactic finale instead.
The second half was more in referral to the fact that Bane was quickly rendered a glorified Giant Mook, effectively a James Bond Henchmen with one whole line who gets gunned down and quickly forgotten about, the moment this twist was revealed. This has nothing to do with Talia's gender, it's the fact that the barely-developed love story and revelation of her as the bigger bad essentially undermined him as a villain. Ironically enough, the same thing happened with The Scarecrow and Ra's in Batman Begins. The only difference being that it was easier to stomach because Ra's and the League of Shadows were better established and foreshadowed beforehand.
I'm sorry if I've offended you in some way, but you're getting angry at something that isn't there. The guy who wrote the article, and clearly yourself, disagree with my feelings on the matter, and I respect that. But we're both adults here, please behave like one and shelve your attitude, put the pitch-fork down and get off your high-horse. If you continue communicating in such a hostile and obnoxious manner, then I'll consider this discussion over.
Edited by Mightymoose101
Is it just me, or is this entry complaining about a character and not an actual moment:
- fluffything: While Return To Neverland is your typical medicore Disney-sequel, it has, in my opinion, one of the worst DMOS in animated film. Namely, they replaced Tick Tock the crocodile (My all-time favorite Disney character) with an octopus. Why? There was no need to replace the crocodile. The crocodile was a perfect foil to Captain Hook. And, this wasn't just some minor detail. The crocodile was an important plot element and character in the original story (Remember, the reason why Hook has, well, a hook, is because the crocodile ate his hand and it wants to eat the rest of him). Plus, how they replace the crocodile is also sloppy. Yes, Hook mentions that he "got rid of it", but it's never explained what happened to it. Did it die? Did Hook trick the crocodile into chasing someone else? Did the crocodile just get tired of chasing Hook? Finally, the octopus replacing the crocodile is pointless because the octopus pretty much acts the same as the crocodile for no other reason other than...um....there is no other reason! Why? Why replace such an iconic character with something that's little more than a cheap imitation?
It's not a moment and goes against the rules. Pulled.
That was the amazing part. Things just keep going.
This one's problematic for a few reasons:
Rai Gen Jin Hai: The Dark Knight. Everyone knows it's the Joker, who committed those murders. Why does Batman take all the blame on himself? They could just as easily say the Joker tortured and murdered Harvey Dent as well. It's not like everyone else has seen Dent kill anyone else. Why so concerned about Dent's image being tarnished, when there is no realistic possibility of such? Why does Gordon worry about it, when he has seen Dent threaten his child right in front of his eyes with Gordon being able to do nothing about it? Besides, if Batman's already reviled, what good could taking the blame for the Joker's crime possibly give? People of Gotham would no longer buy him saving them from criminals. Wouldn't crime skyrocket seeing that Batman's not even seen as a savior? Why not at least try to soften the bad publicity? Why, why, why, why, why ?! Why not just declare to Gotham they are now safer and that he'll be protecting them? Why?!
-They were covering up Dent's murders, not the Joker's.
-They'd have a hard time blaming the Joker for those murders. Considering that he had an alibi for most of them, he'd easily be able to deny it.
-"Why so concerned about Dent's image being tarnished, when there is no realistic possibility of such?" Gordon actually says that there are too many murders to cover up. Since Dent killed those people, it would eventually come to light, unless they laid the blame elsewhere.
-Gordon worries about Dent's reputation not for Dent's sake, but so that the people of Gotham don't lose hope in the lawmen of the city (if the White Knight can turn evil, what hope is there for the law at all?).
-What good does Batman taking the blame do? It means that Dent doesn't have to die in vain, but as a martyr.
-"People of Gotham would no longer buy him saving them from criminals. Wouldn't crime skyrocket seeing that Batman's not even seen as a savior?" Considering that all the people that were murdered by Dent were criminals or corrupt cops, this one seems pretty obvious. Crime wouldn't skyrocket since criminals now think that Batman is capable of killing them. That's part of why Batman did it.
-"Why not just declare to Gotham they are now safer and that he'll be protecting them?" What good would that do? You can't just tell people they're safe when they know they're not. They already know Batman's protecting them but it's not doing a whole lot of good. That's why they need him to seem more dangerous to criminals and for Dent to still be on the right side of the law as an inspiration.
This one's got a few of the facts wrong and pretty much all of the issues brought up actually were addressed (albeit briefly) in the final moments of the film. I'd suggest you maybe watch it again cause it seems like you missed a few things. If you still don't like the way they ended it after that, that's fine, but at that point I'd suggest you modify your entry to be more accurate.
Also, note the last rule of DMoS: No ASSCAPS, no bold, and no italics unless it's the title of a work. We are not yelling the DMoSs out loud.
Edited by SickBoy
Who deleted my Star Trek: Nemesis entry? No, not the one ranting about Shinzon, I mean my entry ranting over Data's death! Why was it deleted? Darth Wiki is not for defending Brent Spiner's decision writing his own character's death! I've restored it anyway.
And for future reference, casting choices are not an event in fiction (not referring to my entry, referring to something I found in the edit history).
Edited by triassicranger
Burn
- Agreed. The whole "Spino VS. T. rex" battle was little more than for Jack Horner (the Paleontologist who helped with the so-called "accuracy" of the dinosaurs in the films) to show off his dubious "Tyrannosaurus was a scavenger" hypothesis. Apparently, the filmmakers (and Horner himself) have forgotten that there's (though limited) fossil evidence that T. rex was a social animal (It may have lived in small family groups)... which means that Spinosaurus would've had to deal with not just one Tyrannosaurus but several. All these inaccuracies just makes the "T. rex VS Spino" scene all the more a DMOS.
Was this ever even confirmed in the production commentary or anywhere else? I always thought they just subscribed to the "bigger is better" idea (Especially since the scavenger theory, wrong as I believe it is, does not exlude the idea of a stronger T. Rex bite).
On a sidenote, I dislike how the entry implies that Jack Horner is responsible for the films' inaccuracies; many of the changes were done for dramatic purposes (Such as Dilophosaur's frill/venom), and Horner himself is a respected figure.
Fight. Struggle. Endure. Suffer. LIVE.
Many if not all of the pages under Dethroning Moment Of Suck need to be revised to fit with the new rules that have been developed since its creation. The rules that need to be posted on each page and followed are as follows.
1. Sign your entries
2. One moment to a troper, if multiple entires are signed to the same troper the more recent one will be cut.
3. Moments only, no "just everything he said, " "The entire show, " or "This entire season, " entries.
4. No contesting entries. This is subjective, the entry is their opinion.
5. No natter. As above, anything contesting an entry will be cut, and anything that's just contributing more can be made its own entry.
6. Explain why it's a Dethroning Moment Of Suck.
So everyone, please look at the rules and make the appropriate edits to your examples. Examples that fail to comply will be edited or cut.
Hide / Show Replies
- Peteman: In Serenity, when we find out just how deep the corruption and particularly the incompetence runs in the Alliance, and given how tired and overused that theme is in Joss Whedon franchises, I felt like he was reaching out of the screen to insult me personally.
Like I said, it's too overused, especially in his franchises. The fact that he went that extra mile of anviliciously beating us over the head with it (with them creating the Reavers) is what makes it dethroning. This isn't Star Wars, where we have unambiguously good and evil forces, and the creation of the Alliance as that unambiguously evil force just frustrates me.
Edited by Peteman
That's strange, because in the Serenity film I watched, the Alliance is portrayed as benevolent in principle but intrusive and far too inclined to let the ends justify the means. Joss Whedon himself says in the commentary that the Alliance isn't evil, it just goes too far in trying to control the people.
Yeah, and the Serenity I saw portrayed the Alliance as never actually doing any good. So they're Well Intentioned Extremists, who are either useless, or killing God knows how many people through their negligence (Reaver attacks), incompetence (Miranda), or outright murderous intentions (Operative attacks on Serenity hideouts).
Negligent, incompetent, and outright murderous when hunting for dangerous terrorists is still very far from unambiguously evil.
What about Mal, then? He personally kills three unarmed men, and causes the death of hundreds or thousands as a diversion.
There is no place at all for unambiguously good / evil in that film, and in case anyone missed that, the Operative's Aesop underlines that with a thousand flattened anvils and drops napalm on it for emphasis.
They murder hundreds of innocent people because they might have housed a group that could expose their negligent murder of millions, all while doing nothing to fix the Reaver situation.
Like I said, "when we find out just how deep the corruption and particularly the incompetence runs in the Alliance...".
I don't care about Mal in this case. My issue is with the Alliance portrayal. And the people Mal killed or got killed for the most part were soldiers participating in a coverup of millions of deaths. The people the Alliance killed were for the most part civilians.
And there is plenty of room for unambiguously evil in the film. The Reavers pretty much embody that. Maybe you're right that the Alliance isn't unambiguously evil, but they're still plenty evil for their role in the creation and continued existence of the Reavers.
Has the Alliance actually fulfilled any of their intentions to make the Verse a better place? From what I've seen in the show, they don't actually stop slavers, they allow rampant nepotism, they hire psychopaths or incompetents as law enforcers, kidnap and torture innocent teenagers to create psychic supersoldiers, created the Reavers, and caused millions of deaths. From what I've seen, this whole "make a better world" thing is a lie they tell themselves. I think there was one time where they actually did something nice, and that was in the pilot. Oh, and they provided those vaccines that when they lost them, didn't bother sending replacements.
Edited by Peteman
I haven't seen the series, so all my comments are about the film (this is after all the DM Film Discussion). And the Reavers aren't evil, they're mindless.
I don't disagree with you regarding the corruptness, incompetence, hypocrisy, brutality, etc of the Alliance, and I certainly don't claim that they have made the Verse a better place. The main point of my disagreement is the assertion that the film shows the Alliance as unambiguously evil, because the film bends over backwards to show that the Alliance's intentions are arguably good and that the heroes' actions and motives are questionable (they even question them themselves, in dialogue), and if that wasn't enough, the Operative is shown to believe that he is in a story of unambiguous good and evil, and is explicitly proven wrong.
Personally, I think a little less ambiguousness would have improved the film. The Operative's mix of honorable idealism and nazilicious evil should realistically have crashed against reality much sooner. While the heroes are wonderful characters, it would have been nice to see them behave as something other than cornered rats at least once. The turning point that Whedon describes where the crew decides to do the right thing and be heroic is in my mind weakened by the knowledge that they have nowhere to go and their only chance to survive is to bring down the Alliance. (And further weakened when we're told that the government's authority was only shaken, not shattered, by the broadcast, which implies that they will eventually be at it again. But hey, the Tams are off the hook, right?)
I guess unambiguously evil was the wrong term (but don't tell me the reavers are mindless, they are far too clever to be mindless). But unambiguously a bad thing is a better term. They haven't accomplished anything good from what I've seen. The only two times I've seen them even, try they end up getting tricked, and I don't buy "good intentions" when talking about mind control outside of self-defense (i.e.: Dominate Monster when playing DND).
And my issues are with the Alliance, and how every "authority" faction Joss Whedon has created ends up being evil, corrupt, and/or incompetent, and every "good" member of that "order" faction defects to the good guys (note, I have not seen Doll House nor read any comics). I consider it a Joss Whedon cliche, and this was just an over the top application of that cliche.
Edited by Peteman
The reavers may have been clever in the series, but in the film their minds were blasted by PAX.
"Unambiguously bad" — sure, works for me.
Joss Whedon cliche — <mythbusters>plausible</mythbusters>. I think it's mostly an artefact of him being better at writing small-group dynamics and lone, troubled champion scripts. I think it's less that he intends to make authorities evil than that he is really bad at making them neutral or good (D&D right back atcha :) ).
Dunno. I think we're done here now, though?
Edited by hoodiecrow
Sure (I know it's been months).
One last thing, I wouldn't mind that authority=evil cliche so much if he didn't also cripple them with incompetence. The Empire in Star Wars you could feel like they were a credible threat (before Return of the Jedi). With Joss Whedon works, I get the feeling if the heroes would just sit back and wait, the Alliance would choke to death on their own feet (assuming they didn't care about the people The Alliance would end up killing in the meantime through their own complete incompetence).
Edited by Peteman
Look at the Saving Private Ryan entry. When is it ever established in the movie that Ryan asked for his brothers to be killed? I'm pretty sure that's just entirely false. I mean, it's been a while since I saw the film, sure, but still, that just seems completely wrong. The entry in general just doesn't make sense.
Edited by 68.46.165.247 Hide / Show Replies
Actually, looking at it again I realized I was wrong, and just couldn't detect sarcasm, heh. So just disregard this, sorry.
Yes, sarcasm was intended but maybe not achieved. I've rewritten it to be more direct.
BWAAAH!
The Star Trek 2009 is just Complaining About A Show You Dont Like.
I TELL YOU HWAT!
I have a bit of a problem with this entry:
- Lady Crymsyn: In The Shawshank Redemption, the last shot of the movie. Actually showing that Red does make it across the border to see Andy rather completely overrides the Aesop that Stephen King had written.
Could anyone explain how this goes against the Aesop, or even how this scene could be a Dethroning Moment in general?
Hide / Show Replies
Darned if I know. You could try P Ming Lady Crymsyn, assuming she's still around.
See you in the discussion pages.
Somebody explain to me how the Pirates Of The Caribbean and Spiderman 3 examples were Complaining About Shows You Dont Like? I can understand cutting the Chow Yun Fat one from the former, but I don't understand the rest. They looked legit to me.
Edited by triassicranger
Taken from the Transformers Revenge of the Fallen entry. Can we resolve this here and not on the main page please:
- This troper is an avid ROTF fan and proud of it, but there is only one moment that he just cannot defend, and that was the brutal, pointless, and most of all, offscreen death of Arcee, which was done solely to satisfy the otherwise decent Bay's personal vendetta against the character. Even after the epic final few battles, Arcee's death still left a bad impression on what was otherwise an awesome (or at the very least, decent) action flick.
- Unless there's some supplementary material this troper has missed, it's not clear that Arcee actually dies. You see the pink and purple cycles get blasted, yes, but the blue one is okay the last time you see her.
- This troper is an avid ROTF fan and proud of it, but there is only one moment that he just cannot defend, and that was the brutal, pointless, and most of all, offscreen death of Arcee, which was done solely to satisfy the otherwise decent Bay's personal vendetta against the character. Even after the epic final few battles, Arcee's death still left a bad impression on what was otherwise an awesome (or at the very least, decent) action flick.
Just to explain a bit further, the movie's been on Cinemax nonstop, and I've seen it a few times. When Arcee shows up, yes, both the pink and purple bots get blasted, but the Blue one doesn't. You don't see what happens to her next, but the movie never confirms that she was killed, or that any of the Autobots died in the last battle. But for all I know, there's some sequel comic or other adaptation that confirms it.
I haven't seen Phantom Menace in forever but the Dastardly Whiplash bit sounds like Fridge Brilliance (if not necessarily executed well) considering Star Wars' roots in 1930s adventure serials.
This seems to be a moment on a single character. Is this acceptable?