What An Idiot cleanup

Okay, so I hope no one minds me bringing up this example from The Berenstain Bears (the book in question is actually titled "The Berenstain Bears Learn About Strangers"):

• "The Trouble With Strangers"
  • Brother Bear notices that Sister is being overly friendly with the bears and animals they meet while going to the park. Instinct tells him that it could be dangerous due to her naivete if she gets lured away by a stranger.
    You'd Expect: He would just make sure that his little sister has some common sense. Tell her that saying "hello" is fine but don't walk off with someone.
    Instead: He equates her saying "Hello!" to everyone as "talking to strangers". Thing is that the two aren't the same at all, and wishing someone good morning or greeting them is basic manners. Sister is more focused on playing by herself in the park. In fact, he breaks his own internal rule by having a conversation with a model plane enthusiast that invites him to fly a high-definition model which makes the kid a Hypocrite.
    You'd Then Expect: When Sister asks him why it's a bad thing, that he would say talk to their mother. He knows that Papa Bear is an Overprotective Dad who goes overboard. Mama Bear is more reasonable about these things.
    Instead: He says for Sister to talk to Papa Bear, without thought for how their father will want to Scare 'Em Straight.
    Predictably: Papa Bear to illustrate his point shows Sister a news clipping of a kidnapped child who was found, with a suspect being questioned. Then he reads her a bedtime story about Wily Fox tricking Silly Goose into entering his lair, and eating the Goose in a few bites; Sister spends the whole night lying awake in bed, thinking about the story and the headlines. Mama Bear has to step in the next day to explain to Sister about common sense; you shouldn't be afraid of everyone, but trust your instincts. Society Marches On then happened; it's found that you are more likely to be hurt by someone you know than a stranger.

(Honestly, I am wondering if the incident between Brother and the other model airplane enthusiast might qualify- after Brother strikes up a conversation with him, he mentions that he's going to follow the plane in his car and invites Brother to come along. Brother actually considers doing so, but is stopped by Sister before he can)

WhatAnIdiot.Pixar could use some cleanup, as some pretty major plot points under the Incredibles movies and Coco are kinda...expressing shock at the villains being villains and not acting rationally at all times.

Edited by lalalei2001 on Jan 27th 2021 at 10:41:43 AM

WhatAnIdiot.My Little Pony Friendship Is Magic needs a look-over. A lot of the examples seem to be characters just acting like themselves, especially with a lot of the Rainbow Dash ones.

So Dragon Ball and Dragon Ball Super exist. A lot of those seem like weird Fridge Logic or forgetting that the characters like Goku aren't supposed to be geniuses.

{up]x4 ... That entire page feels really complain-ey to me. Also, most of those entries might fit better under Broken Aesop. Especially the Stranger-Danger stuff. That's less idiocy, and more a relic from before it was realized that a random stranger is statistically less dangerous than an evil-minded family acquaintance or relative. Plus, they're kids: They haven't had the opportunity to develop the subconscious "Read microexpressions and body language" ability that adults can pick up. (If they have, that says scary things about their own family.)

I do remember the "Learn about Strangers" one, and one of the key points was that, as soon as his own interests were engaged, Brother pretty much threw caution to the winds. (Again, kid.)

Edited by underCoverSailsman on Mar 9th 2021 at 4:06:11 AM

From South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut.

• What An Idiot:
  • The boys getting in trouble for saying "fuck" in class. Cartman slips when insulting Kyle, Kyle explains that he can't say it in school while saying the word itself three times, Stan points out that they said it again and Kenny says the word for no reason.

I don't think this is out of character for how the boys were written at the time. They're naive and impulsive eight-year-olds, and don't quite get that "fuck" is such a bad word. Also, Kenny was probably just trolling Garrison.

• Pretty much Sheila had, by far, created one of the most idiotic and disastrous acts. She went to extremes to make the world a better place for hers and everyone else's kids by having Terrance and Phillip executed and start a war against Canada, when she could've just created a petition to get the Terrance and Phillip movie banned from their country; or, alternatively, a petition to actually enforce the age restrictions that the movie already had.
  • Did we mentioned her adopted son Ike was CANADIAN? Even Kyle pointed this out, who knows how she would've reacted if Ike was put in a Concentrat... errr, a "Happy Camp".

I guess this could count, but the latter subbullet is nattery (and has bad grammar to boot).

Perhaps we should add some requirements to the page, and point when to avoid using it. For example, let's say that Joe does X, but we think he should have done Y. We should avoid WAI if:

• The danger of X and/or the convenience of Y is based on knowledge that has not been revealed to the character yet (even if it was to us, the audience). Example: Joe walks down the street, right where the villain has prepared a trap for him!
• The danger of X and/or the convenience of Y is based on real-world knowledge that only a specialist would know, and Joe is not such a specialist.
• For some reason, the character is not fully aware, nor can be expected to be, about the danger of X and/or the convenience of Y. Example: children, people with mental disorders, people whose hability to think clearly is compromised (such as drunk people), people who are just plain dumb as a character trait, people from a time period with less knowledge about those things, alien beings of any sort who are not fully familiar with human culture, etc.
• Not doing X or doing Y would be preferrable, but also out of character. If Joe is a Leeroy Jenkins, don't ask him to be patient and wait, because he won't.
• Joe did not have the time to actually consider the advantages and disadvantages of things, and had to react fast. It's easy to judge from the comfort and security of our side of the big screen.
• The explanation requires a Wall of Text, or a really contrived and complex explanation. Both the danger of X and/or the convenience of Y should be clear by sheer common sense.

These have been contested in the past. Unfortunately, the debate was solely between two people (the person who added the entries and me) and was therefore never resolved. Although we tried to get input from other tropers on this thread to reach a consensus, there was no further input (see the discussion that starts here and ends here without resolution).

So, I'd like to ask about them again, since it's been a couple of years, and later volumes have revealed some information that may be pertinent to the entries (including the most recently completed volume).

WhatAnIdiot.Web Original:

The biggest problem with the two entries is Speculative Troping, ignoring established character flaws, differences between what characters know compared to what this audience knows, and the audience effectively complaining about its own speculation.

• First example: Raven
  • This is basically a complaint that the argument between Raven and Yang didn't unfold as tropers wanted. This episode was also a case of Raven knowing things the audience didn't know (why the Big Bad is regarded in-universe as such an Invincible Villain) and the audience knowing things this entry ignores (we already know at this point that the Big Bad wants Ruby captured alive and will kill anyone who is with her that gets in the way) — so we do actually know that Raven is right to act like supporting Ruby and staying out of the Secret War is mutually exclusive.
  • Since this scene, we've had Yang confront her mother and call her out in-universe for things she's said, her character flaws and how she behaves; we've learned more about the truth of Salem and Ozpin (which promoted a collective fandom 'wait, was Raven right?' reaction — in short, yes and no); and in the most recently completed volume, we've learned part of the Awful Truth about why Salem is hunting Ruby. As a result, the more we learn about the plot and Raven's well-established character flaws, the more problematic this entry becomes.
• Second example: Ozpin
  • This suffers from from Speculative Troping and assumptions: Ozpin never promised to stopped keeping secrets; all he said was 'Understood', an obvious dodge to the audience but the kids interpreted it as a promise. The entry itself ignores that Ozpin admits a few times that he's been so burned by betrayal and mistrust before that he's struggling with trust issues now himself. It also depends on the belief that Ozpin prevented the heroes from finding better methods of travelling with the Relic (we have no idea if that's the case at all). It also assumes that the Relic definitely triggered the Grimm attack when Ozpin's issue isn't the Grimm attack but the solution the heroes come up with to stop the attack.
  • So, we have no idea why the Grimm initially attacked the train and no idea why Ozpin thought taking the Relic on the train was a good idea in the first place (Yang did challenge him about that, but he's interrupted before he can answer the question, leaving the fandom to speculate). So, this entry is basically a case of the fandom complaining about its own speculation while ignoring Ozpin's character flaws, which include a long history of being betrayed and a fear of becoming the Hope Crusher.

Edited by Wyldchyld on Apr 15th 2021 at 12:32:56 PM

Tomb Raider: The Last Revelation

• What An Idiot: Core Design never contacted Jean-Yves Empereur to ask if they can put an Expy of him in the game. Then they've passed the Idiot Ball to Eidos, so nobody in the management send laywers to salvage the situation. When the game was released, Empereur predictably sued Core and Eidos for using his likeness without his permission.

It's close to a real life example.

Yep, that's a meta/real life example.

From The Simpsons:

• In "Future-Drama" from the same season, Lisa in the future-projection starts dating Milhouse when he saved her from a fire. That she later finds out he started. Frink even shows Lisa's reaction where she's clearly much younger than in the rest of the simulation.
  You'd expect: Lisa immediately dumps Milhouse like a sack of bricks and likely turns him in for arson.
  Instead: She continues to date him for years after finding out. And no, it's not why she eventually breaks up with him. Milhouse basically pulled an idiotic stunt that could have gotten Lisa killed just to get into her pants and it worked! How is she even graduating at all if she's that stupid?

There's so much wrong with this entry. It's extremely negative, it refers to a Flash Forward episode (meaning we have no idea what happened in those years prior), and the "how is she even graduating at all" line neglects the fact that Lisa is academically smart, but not necessarily socially smart. Also, the entry seems to be more hostile to Lisa than to Milhouse, even though he's undeniably more at fault for pulling a blatant Engineered Heroics scheme in the first place.

I don't watch the show so I don't know the full context, but this doesn't sound like WAI.

The start of entry doesn't even bother to clarify that Millhouse specifically engineered it to be a hero; it just says "he saved her from the fire he started", and never really goes into more detail. In other words, without the extra context, the fire might as well have been an accident, thus not making him some horrible arsonist but just someone who made a mistake and had to save Lisa's life. It just assumes you know that part and thus would find Lisa stupid for dating him.

So even if this example did count, it's written horribly.

Edited by WarJay77 on Apr 17th 2021 at 2:21:34 PM

I've removed it and cited this thread.

This is on Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs:

• What An Idiot: As Cracked pointed out, the Queen could have just actually killed Snow White instead of betting on her sleeping forever. Especially since she would just retain her beauty that way. Subverted as the actual film has her lamenting the desire for Snow White to be buried alive and killed that way, just to give her a Cruel and Unusual Death. It was the dwarves not having the heart to bury her that kept Snow White alive but comatose.

Any feedback on the RWBY examples?

If we listed every "why didn't they just kill them" example, this page would be ridiculously long.

Plus, it's covered by tropes like Why Don't You Just Shoot Him? and Just Eat Gilligan.

Edited by WarJay77 on Apr 18th 2021 at 3:57:51 PM

This is on WhatAnIdiot.The Magic School Bus:

For The Magic School Bus Gets Lost in Space:

• Arnold pulls on at the same moment. He tells Janet that he and his friends believe that she's been on every planet of the Solar System.
  You'd Expect: Arnold would tell her that being on Pluto is extremely dangerous and cold and that living on it would not be a great idea. At the very least, he could suggest only take small samples of each planet they have been on.
  Instead: HE REMOVES HIS HELMET ON PLUTO JUST TO PROVE HOW DANGEROUS IT IS TO LIVE ON PLUTO!
  The Result: Arnold's head turns into a block of ice and he goes unconscious. Had it not be for Janet desperately getting him back to Earth, Arnold would have died of frostbite!
• After this, Janet has suffered a huge wake-up call about how her recklessness and arrogance nearly got Arnold killed. She tells the class that it doesn't matter who believes her about space because going on the trip was enough.
  You'd Expect: Janet would be nicer to the class, especially since they had to tolerate her shenanigans and Arnold had to risk his life to bring her back to her senses.
  Instead: Janet in future episodes Took a Level in Jerkass. She's not above manipulating her classmates, including Arnold, and engages in petty cruelty.

I was directed here regarding a question I had, so apologies if anyone has seen this question elsewhere.

In any case, several "What an Idiot" posts were recently added to Invincible (2021)'s YMMV page, and I thought I'd bring something up.

A week or so back I added the following What an Idiot examples to the same page:

• What An Idiot: Despite being shown to be a very competent team of heroes, several members of the Guardians of the Globe grab the Idiot Ball hard during their fight with Omni-Man.
  • The first thing Red Rush does when the fight starts is shove Immortal out of the way of Omni-Man's sneak attack, saving Immortal's life. Then when Omni-Man continues to attack, Red Rush counters Omni-Man's speed by moving his teammates out of the way at the last second, frustrating Omni-Man.
    You'd Expect: Red Rush, having seen how effective this tactic is, would continue to do support work, getting his teammates out of the way of Omni-Man's lethal attacks and helping them coordinate their offense.
    Instead: Red Rush decides to attack Omni-Man himself. Yes, the Fragile Speedster tries to engage the Superman Substitute in close quarters combat.
    Result: While Red Rush is faster than Omni-Man, the latter is able to react fast enough to grab Red Rush during one attack. And once he has his hands on Red Rush, it's a simple matter for Omni-Man to simply crush Red Rush's skull, killing him.
  • Darkwing functions as the team's Batman Expy, using stealth, gadgets, skill and intelligence to take out his opponents. During the early stages of the fight he uses his throwing weapons to stagger Omni-Man and set him up for Aquarus. At this point in the fight, he's just seen Omni-Man murder Red Rush.
    You'd Expect: Darkwing to realize how limited he is in a direct fight against someone like Omni-Man, and would continue use his weapons to distract Omni-Man from a safe distance to give his teammates openings to attack. Similarly, you'd expect Darkwing to try and get away, either to call for help or at least alert people to what's going on.
    Instead: Darkwing tries to sneak attack Omni-Man via a descending drop-kick. Yes, the Badass Normal tries to engage the Nigh-Invulnerable Flying Brick in close quarters combat.
    Result: Omni-Man catches Darkwing's leg mid-kick and then ragdolls Darkwing into the ground. Twice. Leaving Darkwing very, very dead.
    Even Worse: Omni-Man then throws Darkwing's corpse at Green Ghost, who instinctively solidifies to catch it. This leaves her solid and vulnerable when Omni-Man follows up with a punch to her face. Darkwing's foolishness not only got himself killed, but Green Ghost as well.

However, these edits were deleted using the following logic:

— Simply doesn't fit, as we barely know anything about the character before their deaths, claiming that they're holding the Idiot Ball is simply inaccurate as we need to know their typical behavior to call it as such, in addition as we see when the Guardians fight the Mauler Twins, the tactics used the by the characters to fight Omni-Man are pretty much the same so this —

I disagree with this reasoning for several reasons:

1: What An Idiot does not require that the character to be acting out of character, only that the character is doing something stupid. Thus, even if their actions are in character, it still qualifies as a "What an Idiot" moment because of how blatantly dumb they're being. As I pointed out, the two most physically vulnerable heroes tried to engage a Superman Substitute in close quarters combat, when there were A) More durable people around, B) Other ways they could help and C) They're supposed to be experienced heroes who should know better.

2: Red Rush and Darkwing demonstrate they they actually know better in their only other previous fight. During the fight with the Mauler Twins, who are both superstrong but neither as strong, tough or fast as Omni-Man, Red Rush doesn't attack them until Green Ghost and Martian Man had the Maulers restrained and immobilized, allowing him to safely pummel them. Likewise, Darkwing NEVER engages the Maulers in close quarters combat, always attacking from a distance and working with his allies to set them up for success. In short, the tactics they display in this fight make sense for two relatively fragile heroes, while their actions in the Omni-Man fight get them killed.

3: In the Omni-Man fight itself, both Darkwing and Red Rush actually do fight intelligently, helping in other ways that don't involve trying to punch the Nigh-Invulnerable Flying Brick, and are actually useful. Then they opt to try to punch Omni-Man and immediately get themselves them killed.

So, in summary: What an Idiot does not require the characters to be acting out of character, only that they do something stupid. Even without that, Red Rush and Darkwing do act contrary to their previous fight, doing something so stupid they get killed. And this was after contributing to the fight they were in via non-idiotic ways.

I apologize for the length, but my question remains: Are these two What an Idiot examples valid and I'm free to re-post them, or was the person who deleted them right to do so?

Edited by Ares101 on Apr 29th 2021 at 11:31:50 AM

Should all of the Game Show subpages of What An Idiot (e.g. WhatAnIdiot.Wheel Of Fortune) be axed? Don't those run afoul of No Real Life Examples, Please!?

I've argued that they're mostly misuse anyway.

I agree, and on that front they should all be deleted. Giving a laughably bad answer is not What An Idiot

The only game show examples that might qualify are stupid wagers in Jeopardy!, but it's better to just give the whole genre the axe and save ourselves the problem of sorting them out.

Even then, it's easy to judge contestants when you're sitting at home on your couch, because you're not the one with money or a prize or personal pride on the line. Everyone has had their mind blank in moments of stress; everyone has made dumb decisions on impulse or without having the chance to really think about it. So I don't think it'd even count anyway, not because the actions aren't stupid, but because in the heat of the moment, it's to be expected.