Ferdinand Von Aegir fan
Is this really worth putting as a Trope anymore? It seems like YMMV in regards to Senseless Sacrifice.
Muramasa got. Hide / Show Replies
This is different. Senseless Sacrifice didn't accomplish watever it was supposed to, while Stupid Sacrifice was clearly unnessecary all along.
Agreed. Despite the fact the names are complete synonyms (seriously, wtf were we thinking?), they're both pretty different and generally objective.
Though I could be swayed into thinking this is YMMV. Sometimes it's difficult to decide whether an action was unnecessary or stupid.
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
The Harry Harrison/Daleth Effect entry is in the wrong category; it's an example of "Senseless Sacrifice", not "Stupid Sacrifice". Someone less clueless than me should move it over there. :)
There's a specific type of "Stupid Sacrifice" that I don't see represented as much as I thought here... yet I keep seeing it in fiction: a character uses their own body to shield another from an attack, but the attack would have been easy to stop in another way. In Spider-Man 3, as listed, for example.
Is there a trope specific to that?
Hide / Show Replies
- Although this is less a Stupid Sacrifice and more a better to die than let the enemy have our castle situation.
I deleted this because I think you're supposed to fix the example itself if there's something wrong with it, not argue with it.
I just want to say, whoever got the page image did a perfect job.
I'm just.. a guy....
The Tangled example is full of back-and-forth natter. We need to decide whether or not it belongs on the page, and then put a natter-free example on the page, if it's decided it belongs.
Here's the cut text:
- Flynn in Tangled cuts Rapunzel's hair with a pane of glass as she goes to heal him, removing its healing properties and freeing her from her mother. This also ends up killing him since he was stabbed with a dagger (he got better though). He never thought of cutting Rapunzel's hair after she healed him and therefore sparing her the trauma of watching him die?
- Flynn, at the time, didn't know that the magic of the hair was keeping Gothel alive, nor did he know if the power would disappear with it (thus killing him again). All he knew was that Rapunzel would willingly be Gothel's slave otherwise. When all is said and done, however, it was still a pretty stupid move. The only consequence he knew of was Rapunzel's word, which (while was a theme of the movie, albeit a small one) was rather flimsy for a climax situation.
- Fridge Brilliance: If he'd cut her hair after she'd healed him, Rapunzel would have to keep her word, because Gothel didn't break her end of the deal. By preventing Rapunzel from having a moral dilemma over whether or not to keep her word, he protected not just her freedom, but also everything about her personality that made him love her. Plus, there'd be nothing preventing Gothel from stabbing him again if he cut her hair after she'd healed him.
- Nothing? Maybe the fact that he's in a much better shape than the old hag? Being a thief also means he's quick on his feet. The only reason he got stabbed in the first place is because she surprised him.
- Maybe the fact that she CHAINED him to a column would have given her some advantage. Even if she didn't stabbed him again, she would probably have kept him chained, while starving to death.
- Flynn, at the time, didn't know that the magic of the hair was keeping Gothel alive, nor did he know if the power would disappear with it (thus killing him again). All he knew was that Rapunzel would willingly be Gothel's slave otherwise. When all is said and done, however, it was still a pretty stupid move. The only consequence he knew of was Rapunzel's word, which (while was a theme of the movie, albeit a small one) was rather flimsy for a climax situation.
And it started up again:
- Flynn in Tangled is stabbed fatally by Mother Gothel and Rapunzel offers to go with her forever if she is allowed to heal him. Flynn then cuts her hair, removing its healing properties and releasing her from Gothel's control. Of course this means he dies from his wound (though thankfully is saved by a Deus ex Machina). He never thought about cutting her hair after she healed him and you know, saving her from the trauma of watching him die?
- Earlier in the film, Rapunzel makes it very clear to Flynn (and the audience) that when she promises something, she NEVER goes back on that promise. EVER. If Flynn had cut Rapunzel's hair after being healed, she would have felt bound by the promise she made to Gothel (in which she swore to stay with Gothel forever if she would allow Rapunzel to heal Flynn). Even if Flynn found her, Rapunzel would abide by her promise not to run away. Remember, Flynn didn't know (nor did he have any way of knowing) that cutting Rapunzel's hair would kill Gothel and nullify Rapunzel's promise. Therefore, he was sacrificing himself to keep her from promising her life away.
I added a disclaimer about the difference between this and Senseless Sacrifice. I went through and deleted a few examples that belonged on that page instead, keep an eye out for any I missed.
This is a fairly common piece of Fridge Logic, but there are several reasons why it wouldn't work. For starters, by the time Harvey died, Joker was already captured, meaning he had an alibi. Secondly, if they accused the Joker, they'd give him a chance to defend himself which means he would have a chance to bring up attention to Harvey's crimes, exactly what Bruce and Jim wanted to avoid. The Joker wanted to ruin Harvey and had proven with the whole movie that he's good with psychological tricks and manipulation, which means they had to keep him as far away from Harvey's case as possible.