Follow TV Tropes
Multiple entries reference Thanos\' big move as either the Blip or the Snap. Should we use a single one or just leave it to preference?
I think officially it should be “the snap” when talking about everyone dying due to Thanos, and “the blip” when referring to how Hulk brought everyone back.
Since there seems to be a sort of an edit war going on, I\'m pulling the contested example here:
I believe it is valid and I see no reason why it is being removed.
A list of tropers who edited / deleted / readded this example over time: HighCrate, x_countryguy, KingClark, StFan, Tropetastic1995, costanton11, AaronHong, TeamTony, Asherinka, madius. This is not even funny.
I believe that it is not valid because the intentions are very different. Hydra intended project insight to murder millions whereas Tony intended EDITH to be protection for the Earth in case of another villain like Thanos.
Project Insight was opposed and criticized by Steve Rogers even before HYDRA did it. So there is merit. It\'s also true that Project Insight was intended for a different purpose.
So either rephrase it or move it to YMMV
I only re added it because I mistakenly removed it thinking that it was the YMMV page. I put it back when I realized my mistake.
However Tony created a weapon capable of mass destruction, no oversight and intelligence harvesting tools. Allowing instant kills and invasion of privacy. While his intent was noble his actions mirrors theirs. Creating something destructive capable of mass murder and used to gather information without permission. A disturbing mirror action but he considers himself a good man for it or a \"hero\". Disturbingly none of the characters in the movie question its use or moral implications of its existence. I think the example is valid but agree that to be safe placing it in YMMV would be safer.
There certainly would be ground for mentioning something here if it was more carefully worded; however considering the amount of back-and-forth there has been over this example already, I usually default to the Examples Are Not Arguable rule and advocate cutting it altogether to avoid controversy.
^^ We don\'t put \"main page\" examples on the YMMV page on TvTropes just because they are arguable. Only the tropes that belong to the YMMV namespace can be moved there. So it is either restore (and possibly reword) or cut completely.
The question is does the example apply? Hydra tried to use Project Oversight to police the world that’s bad. Tony created EDITH to do the same thing, strike down threats go through private DATA to determine threats it’s a good thing. If the shoe fits and all that.
I personally believe it applies, regardless of the characters\' intent the means to achieve it were similar, and they were not \"good\". But since so many tropers edited this example, I\'d rather wait a bit for others to reply. Democracy and all that :-)
I think it fits the trope, and it applies and it should stay here. But emotionally many Tony Stark fans will have problems and so forth.
Yeah, it does fit. Tony does have well meaning Intention, but some of the results aren\'t ideal.
my opinion is that the scale of coverage is completely different for Edith. no oversight? whoever gets the glasses is the oversight. global scale? how far do you think those drones can realistically travel?
They\'re launched from orbit, so a global range is a pretty reasonable assumption.
Also, \"whoever has the glasses is the oversight\" is not exactly reassuring. I wouldn\'t consent to give a 16-year-old boy, no matter how well-intentioned, unlimited surveillance and the power of life and death over every human being on the planet, and I doubt the citizens of the MCU would either. But even if some would, they were never asked.
Sorry, Tony Stark fans, but this is an easy keep. It\'s not even a little bit arguable.
Even worse unlike Project Oversight you don\'t need a crew of people to operate various systems. Just a point and click interface.
I think that the example is valid, but the intent and level of execution is different enough that it is not a 1:1 case here.
So the example is valid?
That appears to be the consensus. A couple of people have mentioned the possibility of wording tweaks, but nothing specific has been proposed.
The example is valid. Just that it needs qualifications. I ask Asherinka to give us a draft.
I don\'t know about the comic books but I have been watching the spiderman cartoons since the 1990\'s. J. Jonah Jameson has always been a ruthless jerk who went after someone with out verifying the validity of a source. It got him into huge trouble when Eddie Brock faked a photo of spiderman robbing a bank. He was constantly shooting his mouth off in the 1990\'s cartoons only to be proven wrong yet again. Ruthless, vindictive. J. Jonah Jameson hasn\'t changed the the rest of the news world has.
Community Showcase More
How well does it match the trope?