[003]
lakingsif
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
a new account removed this example, but I'm pretty sure it counts -- we have to add to the blackmail
to:
a new account removed this example, but I\'m pretty sure it counts -- we may have to add to the blackmail \"because of his sexuality\":
[[quoteblock]]\'\'Series/{{Quantico}}\'\' went into its winter break with the death of its sole gay recurring character, Elias, who is blackmailed into helping the BigBad carry out an attack and then chooses to leap out a window to his death rather than be arrested.[[/quoteblock]]
[[quoteblock]]\'\'Series/{{Quantico}}\'\' went into its winter break with the death of its sole gay recurring character, Elias, who is blackmailed into helping the BigBad carry out an attack and then chooses to leap out a window to his death rather than be arrested.[[/quoteblock]]
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Yes. This trope is certainly TruthInTelevision in the sense that it would take remarkable strength of will to ''not'' have a breakdown if you're on the losing end of some sort of high-stakes conflict. Having one's dreams, ambitions, and desires be brutally denied is bound to be tough on one's psyche. So it's not surprising that bad guys and good guys alike would react poorly to facing utter defeat (and a high likelihood of getting some [[HumiliationConga rough treatment]] from their victorious enemy). It's just that, at least in fiction, [[TheGoodGuysAlwaysWin this situation is]] ''[[TheGoodGuysAlwaysWin far]]'' [[TheGoodGuysAlwaysWin more commonly faced by villains]], and villains being, by definition, those who seek to get ahead at the expense of others and/or are willing to cause harm to others if it means they get what they want, will react to defeat much differently than a hero (who by definition is selfless and seeks to defend the innocent) would. Hence the trope being VillainousBreakdown and not something more general like
to:
Yes. This trope is certainly TruthInTelevision in the sense that it would take remarkable strength of will to \'\'not\'\' have a breakdown if you\'re on the losing end of some sort of high-stakes conflict. Having one\'s dreams, ambitions, and desires be brutally denied is bound to be tough on one\'s psyche. So it\'s not surprising that bad guys and good guys alike would react poorly to facing utter defeat (and a high likelihood of getting some [[HumiliationConga rough treatment]] from their victorious enemy). It\'s just that, at least in fiction, [[TheGoodGuysAlwaysWin this situation is]] \'\'[[TheGoodGuysAlwaysWin far]]\'\' [[TheGoodGuysAlwaysWin more commonly faced by villains]], and villains being, by definition, those who seek to get ahead at the expense of others and/or are willing to cause harm to others if it means they get what they want, will react to defeat much differently than a hero (who by definition is selfless and seeks to defend the innocent) would. Hence the trope being VillainousBreakdown and not something more general like \"[[Music/{{Queen}} Look What They\'ve Done To My Dream]]\".
And, yes, the whole \"could lead to flame wars\" thing is right on the money. Unlike a fictional story, which can clearly indicate which characters are good and which characters are bad, in RealLife, who\'s \"good\" and who\'s \"bad\" is very much a matter of individual perspective. Also, real people don\'t neatly fit into the labels of \"hero\" or \"villain\", and to the extent that a real person \'\'can\'\' be considered a villain, well, them being a CardCarryingVillain is \'\'highly\'\' unlikely. In general, a person is not going to make other people\'s lives hell just for its own sake. A person committing immoral acts is likely either desperate, [[WellIntentionedExtremist trying to do something they think will help people even though it might hurt someone else]], or [[ObliviouslyEvil not even aware that they\'re doing something wrong]]. Sometimes they aren\'t even trying to do something that could be considered bad -- keep HanlonsRazor in mind. And, yes, it is true that some people are just [[{{Jerkass}} assholes]], but it\'s far too easy to fall into the trap of calling someone an \"asshole\" and not giving it any more thought, when there could in fact have been a good (or at least excusable, or just sympathizable) reason for their bad behavior. No, seriously, there\'s [[BuffySpeak a psychological thing]] about people tending to ascribe their own actions largely to their circumstances and other people\'s actions largely to their character, when in fact everyone\'s actions are driven both by circumstances and by character. I just can\'t recall the name of that principle. But this is getting to be a WallOfText, so I\'ll cut myself off here.
The point I\'m trying to make is, people in RealLife are complex. And morality is also complex... very, \'\'very\'\' complex. Many brilliant people have dedicated their entire lives to trying to comprehend the subject of morality. So, you can\'t really neatly fit the label of \"hero\" or \"villain\" on a RealLife person like you can on a fictional character. You\'re welcome to form your own opinions, but other people can and will disagree with you. Look at Donal Trump -- a whole lot of people consider him the savior of America come to make our nation \"great again\", and a whole lot of others think he\'s the worst guy to walk the planet since UsefulNotes/AdolfHitler. And then there\'s a huge bunch of people who are somewhere in between. This is all a matter of perspective. And when you try putting a RealLife example on this page... well, look at the name again. It\'s \"Villainous Breakdown\". Putting a RealLife example here is implicitly calling the subject of that example a villain. And that is pretty much a red flag for everyone who doesn\'t agree with that call to vehemently complain about it. We really don\'t want to have to deal with {{Edit War}}s and {{Flame War}}s and crap like that. If you think you have a real life example, take it here first. We will most likely tell you that your example doesn\'t really belong on account of it being far too debatable as to whether or not the subject is actually a villain. There are people who most of the planet would likely agree counts as a villain. I want to say Kim-Jong Il (the ruler of UsefulNotes/NorthKorea) is such a person -- the way he treats his subjects is just freaking barbaric and cruel. But I\'m probably going to have a whole bunch of people from Communist nations (China and North Korea itself come to mind) [[strike:howling for my blood for saying that]] vehemently proclaiming that I am completely wrong. And I very well might be. Which brings me back to my point -- bring it here first. If we think there\'s even a tiny chance that there\'s gonna be a flame war over your example, sorry, but we just can\'t have it.
And, yes, the whole \"could lead to flame wars\" thing is right on the money. Unlike a fictional story, which can clearly indicate which characters are good and which characters are bad, in RealLife, who\'s \"good\" and who\'s \"bad\" is very much a matter of individual perspective. Also, real people don\'t neatly fit into the labels of \"hero\" or \"villain\", and to the extent that a real person \'\'can\'\' be considered a villain, well, them being a CardCarryingVillain is \'\'highly\'\' unlikely. In general, a person is not going to make other people\'s lives hell just for its own sake. A person committing immoral acts is likely either desperate, [[WellIntentionedExtremist trying to do something they think will help people even though it might hurt someone else]], or [[ObliviouslyEvil not even aware that they\'re doing something wrong]]. Sometimes they aren\'t even trying to do something that could be considered bad -- keep HanlonsRazor in mind. And, yes, it is true that some people are just [[{{Jerkass}} assholes]], but it\'s far too easy to fall into the trap of calling someone an \"asshole\" and not giving it any more thought, when there could in fact have been a good (or at least excusable, or just sympathizable) reason for their bad behavior. No, seriously, there\'s [[BuffySpeak a psychological thing]] about people tending to ascribe their own actions largely to their circumstances and other people\'s actions largely to their character, when in fact everyone\'s actions are driven both by circumstances and by character. I just can\'t recall the name of that principle. But this is getting to be a WallOfText, so I\'ll cut myself off here.
The point I\'m trying to make is, people in RealLife are complex. And morality is also complex... very, \'\'very\'\' complex. Many brilliant people have dedicated their entire lives to trying to comprehend the subject of morality. So, you can\'t really neatly fit the label of \"hero\" or \"villain\" on a RealLife person like you can on a fictional character. You\'re welcome to form your own opinions, but other people can and will disagree with you. Look at Donal Trump -- a whole lot of people consider him the savior of America come to make our nation \"great again\", and a whole lot of others think he\'s the worst guy to walk the planet since UsefulNotes/AdolfHitler. And then there\'s a huge bunch of people who are somewhere in between. This is all a matter of perspective. And when you try putting a RealLife example on this page... well, look at the name again. It\'s \"Villainous Breakdown\". Putting a RealLife example here is implicitly calling the subject of that example a villain. And that is pretty much a red flag for everyone who doesn\'t agree with that call to vehemently complain about it. We really don\'t want to have to deal with {{Edit War}}s and {{Flame War}}s and crap like that. If you think you have a real life example, take it here first. We will most likely tell you that your example doesn\'t really belong on account of it being far too debatable as to whether or not the subject is actually a villain. There are people who most of the planet would likely agree counts as a villain. I want to say Kim-Jong Il (the ruler of UsefulNotes/NorthKorea) is such a person -- the way he treats his subjects is just freaking barbaric and cruel. But I\'m probably going to have a whole bunch of people from Communist nations (China and North Korea itself come to mind) [[strike:howling for my blood for saying that]] vehemently proclaiming that I am completely wrong. And I very well might be. Which brings me back to my point -- bring it here first. If we think there\'s even a tiny chance that there\'s gonna be a flame war over your example, sorry, but we just can\'t have it.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Yes. This trope is certainly TruthInTelevision in the sense that it would take remarkable strength of will to ''not'' have a breakdown if you're on the losing end of some sort of high-stakes conflict. Having one's dreams, ambitions, and desires be brutally denied is bound to be tough on one's psyche. So it's not surprising that bad guys and good guys alike would react poorly to facing utter defeat (and a high likelihood of getting some [[HumiliationConga rough treatment]] from their victorious enemy). It's just that, at least in fiction, [[TheGoodGuysAlwaysWin this situation is]] ''[[TheGoodGuysAlwaysWin far]]'' [[TheGoodGuysAlwaysWin more commonly faced by villains]], and villains being, by definition, those who seek to get ahead at the expense of others and/or are willing to cause harm to others if it means they get what they want, will react to defeat much differently than a hero (who by definition is selfless and seeks to defend the innocent) would. Hence the trope being VillainousBreakdown and not something more general like
to:
Yes. This trope is certainly TruthInTelevision in the sense that it would take remarkable strength of will to \'\'not\'\' have a breakdown if you\'re on the losing end of some sort of high-stakes conflict. Having one\'s dreams, ambitions, and desires be brutally denied is bound to be tough on one\'s psyche. So it\'s not surprising that bad guys and good guys alike would react poorly to facing utter defeat (and a high likelihood of getting some [[HumiliationConga rough treatment]] from their victorious enemy). It\'s just that, at least in fiction, [[TheGoodGuysAlwaysWin this situation is]] \'\'[[TheGoodGuysAlwaysWin far]]\'\' [[TheGoodGuysAlwaysWin more commonly faced by villains]], and villains being, by definition, those who seek to get ahead at the expense of others and/or are willing to cause harm to others if it means they get what they want, will react to defeat much differently than a hero (who by definition is selfless and seeks to defend the innocent) would. Hence the trope being VillainousBreakdown and not something more general like \"[[Music/{{Queen}} Look What They\'ve Done To My Dream]]\".
And, yes, the whole \"could lead to flame wars\" thing is right on the money.
And, yes, the whole \"could lead to flame wars\" thing is right on the money.
