Have a question about how the TVTropes wiki works? No one knows this community better than the people in it, so ask away! Ask the Tropers is the page you come to when you have a question burning in your brain and the support pages didn't help.
It's not for everything, though. For a list of all the resources for your questions, click here. You can also go to this Directory thread
for ongoing cleanup projects.
My disagreement with King Zeal stems from the part of the description that states "Idiot plots can often be avoided with a simple wave of the hand. If the audience would have spent the entire story wondering why the hero didn't try some obvious tactic, a hand wave at the beginning of the story as to why that wouldn't work would prevent an idiot plot, regardless of how contrived the excuse was. "
Civil war does much more than offer a contrived handwave, it offers several substantial reasons for why characters make the decisions they do and still come to an impasse. Having actual reasons for their actions seems to fly against the very definition irrationality, and even if it can be argued that 'emotions/bias/self-interest' have some effect on some of the decisions, they cannot be reduced to those things without caricaturing them to the point of being unrecognizable.
Like King Zeal said, read the discussion page for full details on the argument, but that's the laconic version of mine.
Edited by JerkassMy rebuttal to that is that each of those "hand waves" themselves involves the characters acting irrationally. Such as Captain America being willing to compromise at one point, but then huffing away in a rage after learning Tony did something he considered a dick move. While, yes, it makes sense given the character's disposition, nothing about the trope definition says that irrationality and an in-character choice are mutually exclusive.
Taking a look at a few (not a consensus by any stretch, but a commonalty nonetheless), many fans and reviewers also felt that the characters were behaving jerkish and self-serving.
King Zeal, lets not re-enact the debate here. People who are interested will look at the debate we had in the discussion section themselves. I was simply stating my basic position so both sides were clear, as you only gave a concise version for yours, and I believed it was fair for the other tropers to have bite-sized versions of both. If we start this "Well, my rebuttal to that was...", then all we've done is move the debate from where it was actually appropriate to have.
And to the readers here, while I won't restate my rebuttal to King Zeal's example so as not to be a hypocrite, but I do want to point out that there is in the discussion, and I don't feel his description completely accurately assess that particular scene.
Edited by JerkassIdiot Plot basically requires everyone to hold the Idiot Ball and act dumb because the plot says so. I have yet to see the movie, but I seriously doubt it qualifies.
If 'where we fall on the argument' involves reviewing each and every point, then we are essentially re-enacting the debate, which is what we'd do if we continue the "Any my rebuttal to that is..." chain. You gave the basic premise of your argument, and I gave the basic premise of mine. Anything further than that is unnecessary here.
Also, why are you debating the tropers? Isn't the premise of this page that we entrust the decision to others here?
Edited by JerkassI would say no.
Idiot Plot is not about people acting irrationally, it is a plot that only works because people are dumb.
And even then, the characters do not seem to be "irrational" as much as "fundamentally well-intentioned, but on opposite sides of a debatable issue that requires them to pick one."
Hm...Okay then. It's my first time here, so I didn't know. I just assumed this was you trying to find an impartial judge of the debate, not you looking for someone else to have the debate with.
I'm not interested in doing that, as I feel I've made every point I could make in the discussion. If anyone's interested, I say again they should check that out, but for me, I leave it to everyone else to discuss the merits of the arguments.
I look forward to the verdict.
Edited by JerkassSo just to put the matter at rest (since I'm almost unanimously out-voted)...
The trope is SUPPOSED to be Complaining About Shows You Dont Like?
No, it's supposed to be about when characters act irrationally/stupidly for the sake of only making the plot work, which is why CW doesn't qualify.
As I said in the debate, you're point about them being irrational hinges on defining irrationality as "having points of conviction one is unable to bypass", even if that action would be a betrayal of themselves and all they believe in. I and apparently most people don't agree that that definition qualifies. The characters have substantial reasons for why they won't bypass those points, and having substantial reasons, by most definitions of the word, by the very root the term stems from, makes them rational.
If you're going to concede to others here, don't act like we're skewing the terms that the trope provides in doing so when doing so. Just because our understanding of the terms doesn't identify with yours doesn't mean we're all just misunderstanding it's use. For any debate to work amicably, you have to accept that there is a possibility you're wrong, and storming off "WELL, I GUESS IT REALLY DOES JUST MEAN COMPLAINING ABOUT SHOWS YOU DON'T LIKE THEN, HUH" isn't very mature.
Edited by JerkassLook, don't attack me personally.
I need to know for future use how this trope is meant to be applied. Either it's meant to be a trope where Tropes Are Not Bad or it's meant to be a complaint about a plot run by "idiots". Going by the last response, if we're supposed to be "going by the first paragraph, not the last", then the trope's primary application is a complaint, or at the very least, the idea that the characters were being "idiots". So what does THAT mean, or are we going by "know it when we see it" rules?
You've been attacking me from the start of this whole thing, so seriously just take a chill pill.
Take this example:
- Lampshaded in Aliens.
Ripley: "Did IQs just drop sharply while I was away?"
- Which didn't stop the film itself from relying heavily on it: Pretty much all but one (possibly two) of the characters in the movie act, at all times, in a way that is entirely consistent with idiocy; the main exception is acting on hidden orders, but until you know what those orders are the character appears to be an idiot.
The Lampshading seems accurate, but the second part is a Zero Context Example for every character except one—and the context given there makes it Not An Example.
Edited by KingZealAttacking you? Hardly. The only time I've criticized your behavior is now, because it seemed like you were storming off. Everything else has been attacking your points and that alone. You're trying to frame this "Well, these characters are definitely acting irrationally, so if others say the definition doesn't fit, then it must be because we're not using irrationality as a metric, but rather just Complaining About Shows You Don't Watch!" That's not true, and the Spectral Time even went to say that he doesn't see the characters as acting irrationally. Which is to say, I think we all agree on the definition of idiot plot. We can all read the definition of the idiot plot just fine. What we disagree on the definition of what constitutes irrationality, and trying to reframe it as otherwise is disrespectful to the points people, not just me, have brought up. Which is why I objected to that post.
Sorry if you feel attacked for anything else, because that wasn't my intention. But for trying to reframe the disagreement as something else now that you lost, that I can't abide.
Edited by Jerkass...Except I'm not?
I accept that I'm outvoted about the Civil War example. My point now is to figure out whether this means I should clean up other examples that stretch the definition of "Idiot Plot". Again, like the aforementioned Aliens example. How is that an idiot plot? I actually watched that movie recently, and James Cameron actually stated that he went out of his way to have his soldiers behave in a way that was realistic for trained soldiers. Likewise, since we KNOW that the human villains value getting samples of the Alien at all costs, is it still an Idiot Plot when they were behaving exactly how they wanted to? Even the example says no.
And if THAT counts, what about the first movie, where the main characters specifically break protocol to let the Alien onboard the ship, or naively think everything's fine when the alien just falls off his face? And which ALSO had a company shill actively making the situation worse?
Misrepresenting me and what I'm trying to do IS attacking me.
Edited by KingZealUnless I'm mistaken, Dragon Ball Z has got an entry under Idiot Plot that doesn't fall under the mantle of Complaining About Shows You Don't Watch. It mentions that Cell only achieves his Perfect Form because a number of characters make very dumb decisions to help him do so.
But then, it mentions the pre-established character flaws that created a situation in which everyone acts like an idiot. (Piccolo has just become complete and believes he can destroy the androids, Krillin has fallen in love with one and refuses to destroy her, Vegeta is his usual arrogant-to-the-point-of-idiocy self, and Trunks both desperately wants his father's approval and doesn't want to overshadow his old man.
The decisions they make are dumb... but they're still in-line with their established characterization.
Conversely, Civil War features, on a simple level, a two-sided issue that every character simultaneously must take a side on and must come into contact with those that are not.
And I never said you're unaccepting of being outvoted. What I'm saying is your not accepting of being wrong in assessment of what constitutes irrationality. People here aren't disagreeing with you because they think Idiot plot is just complaining about shows you don't watch, which is what you brought up.
You said: "The trope is SUPPOSED to be Complaining About Shows You Don't Like?" Which sounds like to me trying to reframe the debate. So, I say again, it's not. It's supposed to be "about characters failing to act rationally", as you stated in your first post.
The disagreement is that CW characters have not acted irrationally. And if you still feel they have, well, that's fair enough, you're entitled to your opinion. But don't act like we have just redefined idiot plot. We haven't. What we did was analyze CW, and decided it wasn't an idiot plot because the characters weren't being irrational, The point of conflict here is the product analysis, not the trope, and trying to reframe it as otherwise is disrespectful to the effort others have put into having an honest debate.
I can't speak for the alien examples since I'm only interested in seeing the CW debate through, but whatever conclusion you come to on them isn't reflective of any change to the trope made by CW.
Edited by JerkassI suggest strongly that both King Zeal and Jerkass take a step back and let other people weigh in, since you both have made your side of the argument multiple times over, both here and on the Discussion page. Continuing in this vein is a nice straight path to suspension.
^^ I'm not specifically talking about Civil War anymore, but there's quite a few examples on the page that don't fit what we're talking about here. The Dragonball Z one may not be complaining about shows you don't like, but there are a LOT that are.
But this is probably not the right place to discuss this anymore.
Fair enough. As I said, I wasn't trying to attack anyone, and I apologize to King Zeal if he has felt attacked, and if I'm somehow misrepresenting what he's actually trying to do. I just don't feel that if he is trying to re-frame the argument that that's right. But yeah, every possible point has been laid out as best as can be, so I'm done then I guess.
At this point it's sounding to me like Idiot Plot needs a TRS thread (not, I suspect, for the first time).

There's an argument on 'Captain America: Civil War involving whether or not the film qualifies for "Idiot Plot".
According to the definition, and Idiot Plot is not literally meant to be an insult to the characters or story, although it has certainly been used for Complaining About Shows You Dont Like. My interpretation, especially given the final paragraph of the definition, is that a plot about characters failing to act rationally (whether due to emotion, bias, or self-interest) and thus making decisions that fail or worsen things makes up an "Idiot Plot". According to the definition, this can be deliberate, or used for tragic effect—which CERTAINLY fits that film.
Jerkass seems to disagree with that, and we've reached an impasse on the Discussion page.
Edited by KingZeal