Main Just Eat Gilligan Discussion

Collapse/Expand Topics

03:38:12 PM Jan 20th 2016
  • In Arrow, the police can just charge Oliver with the crimes he's committed because he was caught on CCTV knowing exactly where to find his vigilante gear (and no doubt placing it there earlier). But they let him go because the investigator had a personal grudge against him, because apparently there wasn't a second investigator to look over the very definitive evidence, and because a hooded archer showed up when Oliver was under house arrest, which only proves he has an accomplice when you consider the footage they already have.

Put this here for discussion since it seems to be debatable at best to me. Hood had pulled some crazy stunts at the time and was always seen alone, so there being accomplice is unprovable theory, and the tape caught his just grabing a bag with a hood, which seems circumstantial at best. I'm not expert on US law but the guilt have to be proven beyond doubt, and having just that tape for guilt and airtight alibi for at least one of Hood's escapades and zero evidence of existence of an accomplice makes this case tough at best unless prosecutor in charge is Manfred von Karma. Then in a few episodes case seem murkier since cops are less and less wiling to capture the Hood, since some of them think he's doing more good than harm soe they have even less reason to actually eat said Gilligan.
03:01:35 PM Jul 20th 2015
In Episode III, Yoda loses to Palpatine and escapes. He doesn't even think to try again this time teaming up with Obi-Wan to take on the emperor. If they did, they could've ended the story here and now, rather than just have complete faith that Luke and Leia will be the new hope and wait 19-20 years. While it does work out in the end, what if it didn't? The Empire would've continued ruling the galaxy forever!

I cannot comprehend the amount of holes in this example. Should it be deleted?
04:21:26 PM Jul 20th 2015
Really, it sounds as misuse.
05:28:15 AM Jul 21st 2015
I remember having this discussion with someone about a What an Idiot entry saying the same thing.

... basically, Yoda just lost when he was at his most powerful. The Emperor has since gotten even stronger. There is no way that "just going back and trying again" is anything but suicide.
08:43:13 PM Nov 5th 2014
edited by
I removed the example of killing Damon in The Vampire Diaries. Why? One, because it would have been very hard at that point, since Bonnie hadn't really come into her powers yet and Stefan was much weaker due to not drinking human blood. Two, getting rid of Damon wouldn't have gotten rid of Anna, the vampires inside the tomb, Katherine, Isobel, John Gilbert, the Originals, you get the idea. Remember that a huge amount of the conflict comes from Elena's very existence as a doppelganger. So no, killing Damon is neither a simple solution nor one that would make things much better.
08:55:02 AM Mar 16th 2014
This trope is usually called "Kill Gilligan," not "Just Eat Gilligan." It refers to inexperienced writers who, if assigned to write an episode of "Gilligan's Island," would kill off Gilligan in an attempt to make it unique and interesting, not realizing the much bigger point that you have to stay within the confines of the Word of God; you don't change the established parameters of the show's story and characters.
09:32:53 AM Feb 5th 2012
edited by KinkLink5
Why Don't You Just Shoot Him? had its examples put in Headscratchers. Either this should be too or Why Don't You Just Shoot Him? should have in-universe examples listed. I personally don't like blatant hypocrisy.
04:13:01 PM Aug 6th 2011
Shouldn't it be "Just eat, Gilliagn"? With a comma? "Just eat Gilligan" sounds like your telling somebody to eat Gilligan
02:05:28 PM Jun 21st 2012
They are. The trope title is proposing that the characters on Gilligan's Island were stupid for not resorting to cannibalism.

Tropers in the past are really scary people and I will never get on a boat with any of them.
Collapse/Expand Topics