This is discussion archived from a time before the current discussion method was installed.
Andrew: Does "inner monologue" really work here? Michael's not really talking to himself during the voice-overs, saying things like, "Damnit Michael, pull it together." He's more narrating things to the audience.
KJMackley: I did a major rewrite of the description, both to trim it down a little and to reduce the level of obscure comments being made. Things like Donovan's career and role in Blair Witch 2 is interesting, but doesn't help describe the show that well.
Andrew: I'm OK with most of that re-write, but I went back and added a parenthetical about Donovan's role in Hitch. Two reasons:
1. I think it's hilarious. 2. It does tell the reader a little something about this show, which doesn't seem to have a lot going for it and still manages to grab a healthy audience. Donovan's sort of the prime example of that; the star's previous best role was sticking his head in a metal bull's ass. That says something.
KJMackley: I'm not going to fight you on that, I avoid arguments whenever possible. But I'm pretty sure no one reading the page will understand your reasoning behind that bit on information. Coming to the page as a newcomer that tidbit of info is really tangent to the rest of the description.
Andrew: I'm with you on avoiding arguments or turning this site into Serious Business. But just to hone this into an over-simplified posting philosophy: it's almost always better to know something than it is to not know something. Err on the side of including information. Obviously that can be taken too far, and it's not a license to include any and all worthless information. But in this context, with a description that isn't epic length (like the old Ninja Gaiden page), an additional parenthetical won't hurt anyone.
Tanto: Mega Troop X, you do realize that a "burn notice" is an actual-factual thing, right? It may or may not be dumb, but if so it's real life dumb, not fiction dumb.
CEOIII: Why does this entry seem to be one season behind? The Technical Pacifist entry (the spoliered part) talks about the season 2 finale, but it mentions something that happens in the Season 3 finale.
Andrew: The most recent episode was the season two finale. USA cut the second season into two parts. The third season starts in June.
Haven: Yeah. Michael jumping away from his exploding apartment was the Mid Season Cliffhanger.
Fifthman: Frak it. Victor's not Chaotic Evil. I'm taking him off the list.
Andrew: I really don't care either way, but I admit I'm heartily amused by a recent editor's obsession with changing every instance of "Mike" to "Michael."
CEOIII: Makes sense to me. Aside from Sam, who calls him "Mike"?
VoodooChild: And that, gentlemen, is why I had to do it. Sorry to whomever put the effort into creating all those entries with "Mike", but the character's name is "Michael". I've watched the show from the beginning, and seeing "Mike" completely threw me to the point I had no idea what character the example was referring to.
KJMackley: Just out of curiousity (partially because I've seen a lot of people on TV Tropes quick to claim Did Not Do The Research when they themselves didn't hear the dialogue correctly) but is there any difference between the trigger mechanism and the trigger assembly. Because there is a claim on the page that Michael planted fingerprints on the mainspring and said "trigger mechanism" while he actually said "trigger assembly." If the mainspring is part of the assembly then it is Shown Their Work, not Dan Browned. I'm just trying to make sure because fans can be very high and mighty when it comes to this stuff, thinking that because they took a semester of college that they know all the details of a certain subject.
Lenus - What if, and this is just a guess, Fiona was the one who ordered the Burn Notice on Michael, I mean we only have been told she was in the IRA, I mean, Mike went undercover too, that's how they met, and, what if she too was undercover (Pretty good American accent for a Irish lass) and ordered it in order to bring Michael to her out of love?
Elihu: I've been hoping someone else would bring this up and I wouldn't have to start a discussion but why is Michael on the Boring Invincible Hero page? If ratings and fans are to be trusted, Mike and Co are pretty definite Showy Invincible Hero material. I mean, you can tell after the first episode that this is not a man who can be stopped by anything short of the forces of hell and even the description of Showy Hero says "...with this trope, whether the heroes win or lose is not the point. It's them looking awesome when they do it..." Why is the description of this show on this site inherently slanted toward the negative?
Fast Eddie: Just pull those.
Andrew: I disagree with the Boring Invincible Hero argument, and as the guy who wrote most (though not all) of the narrative in this page, I strongly disagree with the idea that the description is "slanted toward the negative." We acknowledge the show has flaws, yes, but we also hold up for praise the elements that deserve praise. If you want to argue that the main text isn't the place for any kind of value judgment, I can listen to that. But to claim that this page is slanted against the show is just baseless.
As for the BIH vs. SIH arguments: this is the problem with Subjective Tropes. As much as I'm a fan of Burn Notice, I do find the almost complete lack of dramatic tension in the Client Of The Week arcs affects my enjoyment of the show. I know Michael's going to win. I know he's going to win with relative ease.
And I don't think you can point to ratings and fandom to argue that BIH is misguided. Superman is an exceptionally popular Long Runner, and in our earlier days of character specific trope naming we might well have called BIH something like "The Superman Conundrum."
Part of the appeal may be less in that he will win and more in how he does it and how the non-main cast acts. Most protagonists win, after all, it's the journey of the matter that's probably most interesting and the consequences of that victory.
Haven: FWIW—I'm the one who added him as Boring Invincible Hero, partly because we didn't have Showy Invincible Hero at the time. While I do think he fits the latter, none of the villains of the week are anywhere near Michael's league (I think Brennan would be the exception that proves the rule, and quite refreshingly so).
