Follow TV Tropes

Following

Discussion History Series / JessicaJones2015

Go To

[004] MiinU Current Version

25th Jun '16 at 01:37:03 PM

Changed line(s) 1 from:

n

I'm disputing the {{Tsundere}} entry in Elma's section, because it seems like reaching at best and wishful thinking at worst.

to:

I\'m disputing the {{Tsundere}} entry in Elma\'s section, because it seems like reaching at best and wishful thinking at worst.

Changed line(s) 3 from:

n

It's said to be downplayed, but there's no indication that Elma has any attraction to Rook. The incident cited as evidence simply has her ask what type of pet Rook prefers. If you choose to reply that you're an

to:

It\'s said to be downplayed, but there\'s no indication that Elma has any attraction to Rook. The incident cited as evidence simply has her ask what type of pet Rook prefers. If you choose to reply that you\'re an \"Elma person\", she becomes [[JustifiedTrope mildly offended by it]] and [[DudeNotFunny asks why Rook would say something like that.]]

There\'s a similar heart-to-heart with Lin that allows Rook to say he thinks of her as a pet, [[DudeWheresMyRespect which she also takes offense to.]] But I doubt anyone\'s gonna say Lin\'s crushing on Rook because of it.

[003] MiinU

25th Jun '16 at 01:35:22 PM

Changed line(s) 1 from:

n

I'm disputing the {{Tsundere}} entry in Elma's section, because it seems like reaching at best and wishful thinking at worst.

to:

I\'m disputing the {{Tsundere}} entry in Elma\'s section, because it seems like reaching at best and wishful thinking at worst.

Changed line(s) 3 from:

n

It's said to be downplayed, but there's no indication that Elma has any attraction to Rook. The incident cited as evidence simply has her ask what type of pet Rook prefers. If you choose to reply that you're an

to:

It\'s said to be downplayed, but there\'s no indication that Elma has any attraction to Rook. The incident cited as evidence simply has her ask what type of pet Rook prefers. If you choose to reply that you\'re an \"Elma person\", she becomes [[JustifiedTrope mildly offended by it]] and [[DudeNotFunny asks why Rook would say something like that.]]

There\'s a similar heart-to-heart with Lin that allows Rook to say he thinks of her as a pet, which she also takes offense to. But I doubt anyone\'s gonna say Lin\'s crushing on Rook because of it.

[002] MiinU

25th Jun '16 at 01:34:07 PM

Changed line(s) 1 from:

n

I'm disputing the {{Tsundere}} entry in Elma's section, because it seems like reaching at best and wishful thinking at worst.

to:

I\'m disputing the {{Tsundere}} entry in Elma\'s section, because it seems like reaching at best and wishful thinking at worst.

Changed line(s) 3 from:

n

It's said to be downplayed, but there's no indication that Elma has any attraction to Rook. The incident cited as evidence simply has her ask what type of pet Rook prefers. If you choose to reply that you're an

to:

It\'s said to be downplayed, but there\'s no indication that Elma has any attraction to Rook. The incident cited as evidence simply has her ask what type of pet Rook prefers. If you choose to reply that you\'re an \"Elma person\", she becomes [[JustifiedTrope mildly offended by it]] and [[WhatTheHellHero asks why Rook would say something like that.]]

There\'s a similar heart-to-heart with Lin that allows Rook to say he thinks of her as a pet, which she also takes offense to. But I doubt anyone\'s gonna say Lin\'s crushing on Rook because of it.

[001] JBK405

17th Dec '15 at 09:18:21 AM

Changed line(s) 1 from:

n

You\'re missing my point: I\'m not asking you to convince me because I am the arbiter of what does or doesn\'t apply, I\'m asking you to convince me because up until the example you gave in your response (Which is exactly what I\'d asked for) you hadn\'t given any examples of where these things WOULD have helped. You had said \

to:

You\\\'re missing my point: I\\\'m not asking you to convince me because I am the arbiter of what does or doesn\\\'t apply, I\\\'m asking you to convince me because up until the example you gave in your response (Which is exactly what I\\\'d asked for) you hadn\\\'t given any examples of where these things WOULD have helped. You had said \\\"Why didn\\\'t they try XXXX?\\\" and I said \\\"When would trying XXXX have helped?\\\". My point (Well, one of my points, because we\\\'ve spun through half a dozen different things by now) was that they had in effect \\\"eaten Gilligan\\\" because they \\\'\\\'had\\\'\\\' taken precautions and they \\\'\\\'had\\\'\\\' tried these different options. My argument was that since they had taken different precautions, which \\\'\\\'did\\\'\\\' work, that just because they hadn\\\'t tried \\\'\\\'other\\\'\\\' precautions at \\\'\\\'other\\\'\\\' times was not the trope.

Now, in the specific example of Luke Cage\\\'s attack on Kilgrave, my retort as to why that wouldn\\\'t apply to the JustEatGilligan trope is that Luke Cage didn\\\'t really believe that Kilgrave could control him. He hadn\\\'t experienced it personally, just Jessica\\\'s say-so, and from their earlier encounter it was clear that he still held her at least partially responsible for his wife\\\'s death, he didn\\\'t accept complete domination. He thought he could resist, that Kilgrave wasn\\\'t \\\'\\\'really\\\'\\\' that powerful, which is why he just tried to bum-rush Kilgrave. We know he should have worn headphones, yes, but up until then he had no reason to believe they were necessary. If, for example, Luke \\\'\\\'had\\\'\\\' been controlled by Kilgrave earlier, and so therefore knew that Kilgrave \\\'\\\'was\\\'\\\' that powerful, I would absolutely agree that that scene would qualify for JustEatGilligan. As it stands, when up until then he wasn\\\'t even convinced that Kilgrave really could control people, it\\\'s not a question of \\\"Why didn\\\'t he try this?\\\" but is instead \\\"Why \\\'\\\'would\\\'\\\' he have tried it?\\\"

Top