What's Happening

Troperville

Tools

collapse/expand topics back to Wallbangers/Film

crazyrabbits
topic
09:51:39 AM Jul 7th 2013
Pulled this:

  • Man of Steel: In a Flash back, Clark saves his classmates when their bus gets an accident. Then his dad Jonathan Kent calls on him for using his abilities. Clark of course asks him " What was I supposed to do? Let them die?" which the "nice" father replies: "Maybe". Seriously???? yet we are suposed to sympathize with the character and be sad when he dies.

The way the scene is presented, Jonathan is not actively telling Clark he should have left his classmates to die, but presenting it as a hypothetical. It does tie into his character arc of not letting anyone find out about Clark because he believes the world isn't ready to see it, and that he may have to make a sacrifice for the "greater good" if it means protecting himself from the scrutiny of the government et al.

This is a major theme throughout the film - while it may seem flippant at first glance, it does tie in with his character goals.

Also, at some point I'm going to run through the page with a chainsaw - way too many fourth/fifth-level bullet points.
thatsnumberwang
11:39:09 AM Jul 7th 2013
Wouldn't it be better to try and combine the examples rather than deleting them? I don't personally agree with deleting something for the sake of deleting it if it makes a point that adds to the original example. Natter is only natter if it is pointless.
crazyrabbits
08:07:47 PM Jul 7th 2013
That's what I always do - merge as much as possible into one example. Sadly, there are instances where discussion is running out of control, and devolving into thread mode as a result.
Silverblade2
05:30:40 AM Jul 26th 2013
edited by 70.33.253.44
Thinking for a single second of letting people die from drownig for the sake of you secret is being soulless. The whole "the world is not yet ready" speech was also crapy. Nobody will ever expecting one day or another an alien coming out of nowhere. And sorry if I think "protecting Clark from the scrutiny of the government" is not worth a Bus Full of Innocents (moreso when Clark is overpowered and invulnerable). All i want to say is that Jonathan is a bad case of Unintentionally Unsympathetic and that's why I enjoyed his sacrifice for a dog (another bad executed scene) because for this troper, he already crossed the Moral Event Horizon. I thought the Wall banger was about personal opinions that couldn't be contested?
crazyrabbits
12:03:55 PM Jul 26th 2013
And yet, there are plenty who would dispute your interpretation of the scene. Even after Clark says to him, "Should I have let those people die?", he says, "...I don't know." His character arc is consistent, if nothing else, and trying to play off a brief moment when he's unsure of Clark doing the right thing as being "soulless" is being disingenuous. He's probably one of the most sympathetic and heroic characters in the movie, as he risked his life (whether needlessly or not) to save a dog.

Unless you can demonstrably prove otherwise, the example is incorrect. And that isn't even an example of Moral Event Horizon.
Silverblade2
07:50:21 AM Jul 27th 2013
edited by 70.33.253.42
I ask once again: Aren't supposed Wall Bangers to be made of personnal opinions that can't be contested? There's some entries in Wall Banger, Dethroning Moment of Suck or Narm that I disagree with but I'm not contesting by moving to the discussion tab like you do because I think it's our right to have personal opinions.
crazyrabbits
01:11:56 AM Jul 28th 2013
edited by 216.99.32.43
Again, you're dodging the point. Most of the examples on the page have some basis for why they don't work the way they were intended to in the film, usually via another trope. The ones you used to justify this example are not only incorrect (Moral Event Horizon has nothing to do with this, nor does Unintentionally Unsympathetic), but you've given a disingenuous argument that has no bearing on the character's actions in the film.

As for the page, examples are subjective, but they can also be wrong (and can be deleted). I'm not getting into an edit war with someone who's hellbent on putting out misinformation.
MagBas
05:32:23 AM Jul 28th 2013
Moral Event Horizon and Unintentionally Unsympathetic are not YMMV, with the former having no actual requisite(this is when someone in the audience says that This Is Unforgivable)and the latter having only "be intended as sympathetic" as requisite?
crazyrabbits
07:04:06 AM Jul 28th 2013
^ MEH is classified as YMMV on its page, with the description being that a character does something so irredeemably evil that it cements him/her firmly on the side of never being redeemed again. Likewise, UU (also classified as YMMV) is when character insecurities or quirks are supposed to inspire sympathy, but cause the audience to go against them because of the way they're displayed.

Neither of them have anything to do with the pulled example.
Candi
topic
10:03:00 PM Jun 16th 2013
"When one of the characters asks the kid why the person he's working for is sending a kid to buy all this stuff for him he answered by telling him how his "boss" never had a childhood and is doing all this stuff now because he's rich. How exactly does this answer the question?"

It's been a few years, but if I remember correctly, he tells this to the bank teller and undercover FBI agent he has a crush on. As in, law enforcement. There are so many things wrong that she didn't act on 'possible exploitation' immediately. Yes, they were in the middle of an investigation; but if her boss put 'reclaiming laundered money' over 'helping kid', that'd be his rear on a platter.
AnonymousMcCartneyfan
topic
09:43:50 PM Nov 29th 2011
Musing on Die Hard 2: Die Harder:

The reason they couldn't send planes to an alternate landing field was that it was night, so the planes were being landed by instruments, and the planes themselves had their altimeters haxxored. We see a trans-Atlantic plane crash because sea level was hit in real film without being hit by the altimeter, and continuing to go down from there led to Stuff Blowing Up...

Computer wizardry was already established long before Live Free or Die Hard, then.
Candi
09:57:45 PM Jun 16th 2013
edited by 69.172.221.8
That was at the airport in question, though, with the bad guys controlling the instruments. Going to the alternate landing field would have solved that problem. It doesn't answer most of the other questions, either.
AnonymousMcCartneyfan
topic
01:59:10 PM May 29th 2011
I cleaned up the Alien folder some. This removed a long digression on the script and direction of Alien: Resurrection, since that appeared to be a nice mix of Fan Dumb and Executive Meddling. We're most worried about the final product, not how it got there.
Shinobody
05:22:35 PM Jun 13th 2011
edited by Shinobody
Continued cleanup. Some of those seemed just about that they authors either don't get basic premises (complaining about Xenomorphs' Genetic Memory and LEGO Genetics is not making it Wall Banger, and making Ripley Half-Human Hybrid may be thought as Jumping the Shark or Dethroning Moment of Suck, but is not pure dumb writing.
AnonymousMcCartneyfan
topic
08:54:40 PM Sep 26th 2010
Cut an anti-Nazi film example for being too general by half.

67.223.208.204
topic
03:24:41 PM Sep 25th 2010
Why is this page white?
AnonymousMcCartneyfan
10:42:06 PM Oct 30th 2010
Fixed, unfortunately.
AnonymousMcCartneyfan
topic
05:59:57 PM Jul 19th 2010
Cut this and put it here for now. We must be careful about listing Wallbangers that are necessary because of the Anthropic Principle. Doubly so if Time Travel is involved.

  • Back to the Future: Why didn't Marty disappear the second he pushed his father out of the car's way? Even if he did eventually get his mom & dad together, and his Mom got pregnant at the same times as before, the possibility of the same sperms meeting the same eggs (especially the same sperms) is well-neigh impossible.
    • There's a theory about time change called temporal inertia, wherein the impact of shifts take a while to change due to the timeline's current motion. While it could explain Marty not fading instantly in the first movie, it goes against the rest of the trilogy's pattern for time alterations (everything dissolves to the new timeline within seconds than Marty's stay in the past for a week or so).
      • Well maybe the time it takes for the timeline to adjust decreases as more alterations are made.
      • As with "Old Biff", you have to return to your time to instantly sort the timelines, he returns from giving "Young Biff" the almanac, and disappears, because that version of him no longer exists, if you stay in the past/future, changes take longer to work themselves out, given a day, "Old Marty" would begin to fade, along with the rest of that reality.
    • As MAD Magazine pointed out: If Marty's dad wasn't hit by that car, then he wouldn't get together with Marty's mum, which eventually would mean that Marty would cease to exist. But if Marty never existed in the first place, he wouldn't have travelled into the past, and therefore he wouldn't be there to stop his dad from getting hit by that car. Temporal Paradox.
    • Because time travel does not work that way in fiction. If it did, you could never have a storyline about time travel, ever.
    • Perhaps Marty was still a possibility when he saved his father, albeit a remote one. If Marty had simply ignored the situation in favor of helping Doc fix the time machine, Lorraine might still have wound up with his dad eventually, but only after a failed relationship with Biff. That'd be why Marty's older siblings vanished from the photo while he remained: they'd been conceived at a time when Lorraine would've still been with Biff, had this alternate timeline ever played out. Note that Marty himself did start to disappear immediately, when Lorraine danced with an entirely different young man: one that she might've married in lieu of Biff or Marty's dad, had the latter not mustered the nerve to interrupt them.
AnonymousMcCartneyfan
topic
10:45:25 PM Jul 3rd 2010
Cut this and put it here, for now. What little I know about the Force suggests that that explanation is a Voodoo Shark — those motives are very human, but very un-Jedi.

  • Everyone has a breaking point and Obi-Wan has been bottling up his anger for most likely his entire life. Forty years of repression, culminating in a forced fight with the closest thing to a son he's ever had, who has betrayed and destroyed the Jedi order and slaughtered its toddlers before trying to kill Obi-Wan himself, might well make anyone go over the edge to the point of leaving a man to burn to death instead of administering a mercy killing. Besides, some people speculate that he might have sensed Emperor Palpatine and all his reinforcements coming.
AnonymousMcCartneyfan
topic
02:26:27 PM Jun 22nd 2010
Cut this from the original Star Wars trilogy discussion and put it here, for now. It just seems like the forces of good should be a little less personal than this.

  • Well, it DOES allow Leia to feel and rescue Luke at the end of Empire.
    • More than that, having them be siblings means Vader can threaten Luke that if he won't turn, then she will. Threaten Luke's sister and it's on, as is shown when Luke gives into the Dark Side and kicks the ever living shit out of Vader in seconds.
AnonymousMcCartneyfan
topic
02:01:43 PM May 7th 2010
Wielding a chainsaw on the Star Wars entries:
  • Justifications that do not justify have to go. Qui-Gon's learning the Force Ghost technique after he's dead and left a body borders on Voodoo Shark.
  • Leia either remembers her mom, or she doesn't. Memories of Padme aren't something Bail Organa can pass down.
back to Wallbangers/Film

TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org.
Privacy Policy