Complexity Addiction found in: 45 articles, excluding discussions.
This title has brought 102 people to the wiki from non-search engine links since 20th FEB '09.
Bond Villain Stupidity found in: 203 articles, excluding discussions.
This title has brought 661 people to the wiki from non-search engine links since 20th FEB '09.
Why Don't Ya Just Shoot Him? found in: 1180 articles, excluding discussions.
This title has brought 12,630 people to the wiki from non-search engine links since 20th FEB '09.
I say just fold Complexity Addiction and Bond Villain Stupidity into Why Don't You Just Shoot Him?. That's how its being used, and its much healthier.
edited 15th Jun '11 2:16:28 PM by Discar
I despise uses of this for troper Fridge Logic and I say that they should be removed and curated to stay gone. There's nothing wrong with the trope, except its overuse as an Audience Reaction.
There is a problem in its similarity to Complexity Addiction and Bond Villain Stupidity, but it functions adequately as a Sub-Trope to both of those.
edited 15th Jun '11 2:37:30 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"The tropes themselves are fine, but I suspect that the quotability that gives Why Don't Ya Just Shoot Him? its high inbound and wick count is actively contributing to its misuse.
My inclination is to rename the trope, and keep Why Don't Ya Just Shoot Him? as a redirect to either Bond Villain Stupidity or Complexity Addiction, since that's what the troper reaction wicks think it means anyway.
I didn't write any of that.Meta's solution sounds like a good one, but what else do we name a stock phrase if we can't use the phrase itself because its too quotable?
...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.Yes, this is a problem with all Stock Phrases.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Frankly, I think this, as a Stock Phrase, is juuuust at the line of not being worthy of the status. I think it should just called out as a lampshading within the main trope itself.
Good, but I think Mundane Solution Suggestion is closer to the point of the trope.
I didn't write any of that.It's not restricted to when murdering is the proposed solution? Man, I've been using it wrong.
edited 16th Jun '11 2:37:23 AM by Deboss
Fight smart, not fair.Yeah, it's not restricted to shooting by any means. Why Don't Ya Just Shoot Him? involves three main components.
- A mundane solution to a problem is available.
- A character chooses instead to use an overly elaborate or risky solution.
- A different character points out the availability of the mundane solution.
Whether or not the first character listens is not strictly part of the trope, but typically they don't. When they do just shoot him, it's often played as a subversion.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Okay then. Mundane is better than Murderous in that case. So, Mundane Solution Suggestion y/n?
Fight smart, not fair.Again, Why Don't You Just Shoot Him? has huge use and inbounds. At the very least, it should be a supertrope to the other three (the suggestion, Bond Villain Stupidity, and Complexity Addiction). The Trope Namer involves all three, so you can see where the confusion came from.
edited 16th Jun '11 4:23:27 PM by Discar
I agree with Discar.
Fight smart, not fair.That could work.
I didn't write any of that.It's actually a Sub-Trope, in my opinion.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"It's a sub-trope now, but the idea would be to do a Trope Transplant in order to use the name, which has better inbounds then either of its parent tropes, as a super-trope and rename what currently uses the name to something else.
So should we get a crowner going?
Crowner made and hooked.
I didn't write any of that.Bump for more votes.
I didn't write any of that.If we do make it a supertrope, we'll need to strip all the examples and wicks and move them to the appropriate subtropes. Do we have any volunteers?
Also, I'm not a fan of Mundane Solution Suggestion as a name. I don't think it sounds good.
edited 21st Jun '11 6:22:16 PM by troacctid
Rhymes with "Protracted.""Make it a supertrope" seems to be way in the lead at the moment. 9+, 1-. All other options are negative.
I'll make an alt-titles crowner after this one is finished.
I didn't write any of that.Make it a supertrope won the page action crowner.
I've created and attached an alt-title crowner to find new titles for The Trope Currently Known As Why Don't Ya Just Shoot Him.
I didn't write any of that.BUNP. Because we need more votes or a better name option.
I didn't write any of that.Added Stating The Simpler Solution as a name suggestion.
Want to rename a trope? Step one: if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Crown Description:
We are looking for alternate titles for the trope currently known as Why Don't Ya Just Shoot Him (or TTCKAWDYJSH for short). The definition of this trope has three main components:- A mundane solution to a problem is available.
- A character chooses instead to use an overly elaborate or risky solution.
- A different character points out the availability of the mundane solution.
We have a trope about villains who have the hero at their mercy, but refuse to kill the hero right then and there, usually because if they did then the story would be over and the writers aren't having any of that. The name of that trope is Bond Villain Stupidity.
We also have a trope about villains who do decide to kill the hero, but feel the need to do so in a slow and ridiculously convoluted manner. The name of that trope is Complexity Addiction.
What then is Why Don't Ya Just Shoot Him? about? It's a Stock Phrase. From the article: The exact words may differ, but the stock phrase usually refers to using a Mundane Solution instead of milking the Rule of Drama. In other words, it's about characters lampshading Bond Villain Stupidity or Complexity Addiction.
But that's not how it's being used on the wiki. Here's the first 51 wicks I found via the "Related" search.
Correct
Does this trope even count for Heroes? Otherwise correct
Incorrect
Could go either way:
That's 34 definitely incorrect wicks. 34 / 51 = 66.67% of the wicks in my sample were incorrect. Tropers seem to be linking to the article to refer to any scene whatsoever that makes them ask "Why Don't Ya Just Shoot Him?" themselves—regardless of whether Bond Villain Stupidity or Complexity Addiction is in play.
Something needs to be done.
I didn't write any of that.