Ok, I just posted about a cheep'n'cheerful movie i kinda like that was just full of chiche'd memes, the ridiculously eeeviiiilllll bad guy who is right next to victory then throws it away because he's just ssoooo eeeevillll he can't avoid doing something idiotic and self destructive when the good guys defy him.
That meme crops up over and over again in story after story. In the first honor harrington novel you had the ridiculously evil and incompetent captain of a major warship beat the snot out of harrington's ship that was fitten with short range experimental weapons, and all he had t do was keep going after her ship was too damaged to pursue him and basically dead in space.
But Nooooooooo! He ordered his ship to go back and finish off harrington's wrecked ship, because she's dared defy him, and had actually damaged his precious ship and for that he had to "see that die!" so he had his ship close in to finish her at point blank range, got into the range of her ship's experimental weapon and....guess what.
Jame Bond villains are famous for the "I have to gloat in your face before I kill you Mr. Bond!"
The pure, ridiculously evil villain that has victory in his grasp, has acted in an intelligent, competent manner until the penultimate moment then in a fit of childish rage throws reason out the window and ends up basically defeating himself is a very old trope and while I know audiences keep falling for it I'm more than a little tired of it.
I'd like to see more reasonable, competent villains,or just antagonists, who have amassed wealth and power thru ability and competence and who don't come unglued at the first sign of opposition.
Anyway, that's one tired old trope I find annoying in "geek" and other media. Are there any you'd like to see take a long vacation? Discuss!
that trope is something that Ifind works or doesn't depending on how consistant it is with the character. if it's someone who previously has acted like say.. Thrawn, dispassionate coldly caluclating etc and then suddenly throws his victory away in a egotistical fit, that can seem odd, at the same time, if it's someone whose been eistablished right from the start as very prideful and prone to letting that influence his actions, then it seems a natural progression.
in short an antagonists mistakes should fit the character
"Hahah Mr. Hero I win. *points gun at hero* I'm so sure of Victory.. let me stand here explaining my evil plan in great detail because NOTHING could possibly happen now to make me loose..."
Ohh yeah buddy I feels ya.. I think its just such an easy cop out trope to put at the end and lacks imagination for the most part. And ultimately it makes little sense.
Im no expert on writing.. But I think its a big of a swing and miss for a lot of writers for some reason. A lot writers seem to use this device without understanding how to do it properly. I.e. They will slot this trope in to try and build some suspense/unexpectedness. But this is always right at the end of the film so you just know the hero will win/has to win therefore you have no suspense and you are fully expecting the dumb villain move so the device is in itself counter productive.
But I this can work potentially to various degrees:
1. Comedic value - So if a film is not too serious and its cheese from start to finish, its only right that the villain ending will be cheesey...
2. A truly unexpected tragic outcome resulting in an emotional response like if the villain is explaining his master plan while the lancer character (i.e. Side kick/important secondary character the audience has invested in) will sacrifice themselves and either give the hero a way to kill the villain, or kill the villain themselves e.g. grab the villain and plunge them both into "the abyss of sure death". This would result in a tragic victory and therefore the vilain wins somewhat anyway despite ultimately loosing.
3. The hero uses the main negative character trait of the arch villain against them - Such as pride, arrogance or anger. Like the villain has won, and in his arrogance is walking away to press the doomsday button just as he is explaining everything to the hero, the hero has an earpiece the whole time in and as soon as he knows the villains no longer holds a hostage and has no other cards to play (because he has explained his evil plan). The hero then taunts the villain and uses his pride against him because he knows he will come back to finish him before pressing the doomsday button and goes super sayian and kills the villain.
The issue is that the fatal character flaws take away from the villain IMO. If the villain is truly this intelligent master mind, he would never make such a rookie mistake right? Therefore the villain just simply insist as scary and the hero victory seems so much more hollow because ultimately there was no real way he was ever going to loose.
Some of my favourite villains are in anime, where there's some bizzare events that previously made no sense and 20 episode arc where everything is set up and it all unrravales int he final showdown.
Argive wrote: "Hahah Mr. Hero I win. *points gun at hero* I'm so sure of Victory.. let me stand here explaining my evil plan in great detail because NOTHING could possibly happen now to make me loose..."
Ohh yeah buddy I feels ya.. I think its just such an easy cop out trope to put at the end and lacks imagination for the most part. And ultimately it makes little sense.
Im no expert on writing.. But I think its a big of a swing and miss for a lot of writers for some reason.
A lot writers seem to use this device without understanding how to do it properly. I.e. They will slot this trope in to try and build some suspense/unexpectedness. But this is always right at the end of the film so you just know the hero will win/has to win therefore you have no suspense and you are fully expecting the dumb villain move so the device is in itself counter productive.
But I this can work potentially to various degrees:
1. Comedic value - So if a film is not too serious and its cheese from start to finish, its only right that the villain ending will be cheesey...
2. A truly unexpected tragic outcome resulting in an emotional response like if the villain is explaining his master plan while the lancer character (i.e. Side kick/important secondary character the audience has invested in) will sacrifice themselves and either give the hero a way to kill the villain, or kill the villain themselves e.g. grab the villain and plunge them both into "the abyss of sure death". This would result in a tragic victory and therefore the vilain wins somewhat anyway despite ultimately loosing.
3. The hero uses the main negative character trait of the arch villain against them - Such as pride, arrogance or anger. Like the villain has won, and in his arrogance is walking away to press the doomsday button just as he is explaining everything to the hero, the hero has an earpiece the whole time in and as soon as he knows the villains no longer holds a hostage and has no other cards to play (because he has explained his evil plan). The hero then taunts the villain and uses his pride against him because he knows he will come back to finish him before pressing the doomsday button and goes super sayian and kills the villain.
The issue is that the fatal character flaws take away from the villain IMO.
If the villain is truly this intelligent master mind, he would never make such a rookie mistake right? Therefore the villain just simply insist as scary and the hero victory seems so much more hollow because ultimately there was no real way he was ever going to loose.
Some of my favourite villains are in anime, where there's some bizzare events that previously made no sense and 20 episode arc where everything is set up and it all unrravales int he final showdown.
Yeah, I see what you guys are saying about it working sometimes. I mean I give trek a lot of breaks and ST2 is no exception. Khan had genesis, he had reliant, he could have cut and run, but kirk knew khan was arrogant so goaded him with his "laughing at the superior intellect" line.
Thru the movie khan had made it crystal clear he was obsessed with getting kirk, over and over. So yeah, him falling into that trope was pretty telegraphed and established.
Still in a lot of cases you see the super villain lose it at the slightest taunt or setback and just think "How'd this dipstick ever get to be in charge of an organization like that?" (I'm looking at you, cobra commander.)
Kylo Ren was the epitmoe of that trope, but if the sequels did anything right it was portraying him as incompetent but was in his position thru force magic and palpatine's desire to corrupt another skywalker. (Hey, put the flamethrowers down, guys. I'm just saying the sequels did one thing right, just one. It's not like I'm defending them.)
I think it doesn't work 90% of the time though.. The thing is outside of exploiting that "fatal character flaw" of the "evil twin antagonist" who is the "dark reflection of the hero" is as you say always telegraphed so even if it works its usually very meh because we know its coming..
Its by far one of the worse things about people concluding villains stories. Its like they got to the end and they just didn't know what else to do to they lean back on the common trope.
Im like if the villain is really so ruthless and villainous.. why has he not shot/killed the villain on sight now.. I mean that's what Id do... And im not even an evil genius lol.
Ohh he wants to play with him and make him suffer minutes before executing his ploy for world domination ? He wants the henchment to take him away and kill him out of sight ?? Ok great.. cool.. cool...
Argive wrote: I think it doesn't work 90% of the time though.. The thing is outside of exploiting that "fatal character flaw" of the "evil twin antagonist" who is the "dark reflection of the hero" is as you say always telegraphed so even if it works its usually very meh because we know its coming..
Its by far one of the worse things about people concluding villains stories. Its like they got to the end and they just didn't know what else to do to they lean back on the common trope.
Im like if the villain is really so ruthless and villainous.. why has he not shot/killed the villain on sight now.. I mean that's what Id do... And im not even an evil genius lol.
Ohh he wants to play with him and make him suffer minutes before executing his ploy for world domination ? He wants the henchment to take him away and kill him out of sight ?? Ok great.. cool.. cool...
yeah, you're right about that 90% thing.
A partner trope to this is the competent and intelligent underling who suffers under the inept rule of the total whacko. Destro under cobra commandr, Joachim under khan, the second in command of the Sirius in the first harrington novel who should have shot his idiot captain in the back of the head and taken command when he endangered a vital mission over his little hissy fit, etc.
Again, not to defend the ghawdawful sequels, but at least one person in the F.O. realized kylo ren was a radioactive toxic waste trainwreck and took action to make him fail. Of course that was just a deus ex to save the heroes from certain doom and i saw it coming 12 parsecs away, but I have to admit I could see someone basically deciding that kylo had to go given his disastrous record and the fact he got to the command by killing snoke.
Yeah, this has been around a while, still full of good advice tho.
On a similar line has anyone ranked the competency of famous evil villain masterminds?
Hmm, I'm trying to think of competent evil overlord types. Incompetent ones are a dime a dozen. Cobra commander leaps to mind.
Damn, harder than i thought....
As much as i hate the JJA debacles i will admit that Admiral Marcus seemed fairly competent, if ridiculously evil, in star trek into darkness. His plan to use khan's superbrain to create an unstoppable warship, provoke the klingons into attacking and using the vengeance to destroy their fleet ship by ship was fairly intelligent and seems to have had a chance of working in the context of the universe he was in. (Which was actually pretty stupid.)
Hannibal lecter was always hypercompetent, but not really an overlord type....
LaChiffe was pretty competent in casino royale, His plans were fairly intelligent, but didn't factor in the bond wild card effect or the innate unpredictably of a deck of cards. Still he beat bond, but felix lighter gave bond a second shot at him.
The daleks in "Victory of the daleks" were the most intelligent and competent daleks ever seen, and one must admit they flat out played the doctor like a fiddle and beat him like a drum.
I really liked Aizen from Bleach. I thought he was an incredible mastermind arch-villain.
Zod in man of steel was also an incredible villain, he essentially manipulated superman into handing himself in. and only really got defeated because he wa sup against superman and wasnt quite used to his powers IMO. And even in defeat he like levelled a city killed thousands of people and made superman commit the ultimate sin.
I would say thanos from the MCU because he actually won...
I do love deliciously evil characters.. but competent ones are indeed hard to come by lol.
Competent evil overlords or villains are harder to write stories for. It can be done, of course, but then you have to throw away the scrappy hero for a brute force approach (good guy has an army and powerful artifacts too), not the clever exploitation of the villain's ego/weak spot.
John Prins wrote: Competent evil overlords or villains are harder to write stories for. It can be done, of course, but then you have to throw away the scrappy hero for a brute force approach (good guy has an army and powerful artifacts too), not the clever exploitation of the villain's ego/weak spot.
Or the hero has to be so OP by himself, so by the end of the confrontation there's no real sense of "suspense"
I think "luck" can be a good middle ground.
The hero just happens to have the right rare genetic blood line/ rare disease/artefact so that hes all but immune to being detected/harmed by the villain+ his forces so can get close enough to win against the odds.
This approach though usually comes at great costs so the victory will usually be a tragic one which falls into the "subverting expectations" pit that we are currently plagued with..
Matt Swain wrote: Ok, I just posted about a cheep'n'cheerful movie i kinda like that was just full of chiche'd memes, the ridiculously eeeviiiilllll bad guy who is right next to victory then throws it away because he's just ssoooo eeeevillll he can't avoid doing something idiotic and self destructive when the good guys defy him.
That meme crops up over and over again in story after story. In the first honor harrington novel you had the ridiculously evil and incompetent captain of a major warship beat the snot out of harrington's ship that was fitten with short range experimental weapons, and all he had t do was keep going after her ship was too damaged to pursue him and basically dead in space.
But Nooooooooo! He ordered his ship to go back and finish off harrington's wrecked ship, because she's dared defy him, and had actually damaged his precious ship and for that he had to "see that die!" so he had his ship close in to finish her at point blank range, got into the range of her ship's experimental weapon and....guess what.
Jame Bond villains are famous for the "I have to gloat in your face before I kill you Mr. Bond!"
The pure, ridiculously evil villain that has victory in his grasp, has acted in an intelligent, competent manner until the penultimate moment then in a fit of childish rage throws reason out the window and ends up basically defeating himself is a very old trope and while I know audiences keep falling for it I'm more than a little tired of it.
I'd like to see more reasonable, competent villains,or just antagonists, who have amassed wealth and power thru ability and competence and who don't come unglued at the first sign of opposition.
Anyway, that's one tired old trope I find annoying in "geek" and other media. Are there any you'd like to see take a long vacation? Discuss!
There's a reason the Evil Overlord list is a thing...
Another trope I want to see die is the near mystical attributes associated with the term "ion" in SF.
I try not to get mad at this, as it may have started with an episode of star trek, a terrible one, involving an ion powered starship being so awesomely powerful.
And yes, ion engines may be superior for in-space drives in many ways, but they are actually terribly weak and accelerate terribly slowly, however due to greater efficiency they can accelerate a spacecraft up to greater speeds than comparable mass rocket engines, over time, but they have serious limits.
Oh, and Evil Overlords who keep an incompetent or Disloyal henchman around.
Say, Starscream, perhaps? Galvatron did the right thing straight off the bat - annihilate him before he can backstab and otherwise screw up a perfectly good plan due to their own delusions of adequacy.
By all means, keep someone ambitious around who can help spot potential flaws in your plans, that can work. But they’re on “plan to undermine and overthrow #3”, they’re just not worth the bother. Be like any boss, and fire them. Or be an evil boss and kill them.
Matt Swain wrote: Ok, I just posted about a cheep'n'cheerful movie i kinda like that was just full of chiche'd memes, the ridiculously eeeviiiilllll bad guy who is right next to victory then throws it away because he's just ssoooo eeeevillll he can't avoid doing something idiotic and self destructive when the good guys defy him.
That meme crops up over and over again in story after story. In the first honor harrington novel you had the ridiculously evil and incompetent captain of a major warship beat the snot out of harrington's ship that was fitten with short range experimental weapons, and all he had t do was keep going after her ship was too damaged to pursue him and basically dead in space.
But Nooooooooo! He ordered his ship to go back and finish off harrington's wrecked ship, because she's dared defy him, and had actually damaged his precious ship and for that he had to "see that die!" so he had his ship close in to finish her at point blank range, got into the range of her ship's experimental weapon and....guess what.
Jame Bond villains are famous for the "I have to gloat in your face before I kill you Mr. Bond!"
The pure, ridiculously evil villain that has victory in his grasp, has acted in an intelligent, competent manner until the penultimate moment then in a fit of childish rage throws reason out the window and ends up basically defeating himself is a very old trope and while I know audiences keep falling for it I'm more than a little tired of it.
I'd like to see more reasonable, competent villains,or just antagonists, who have amassed wealth and power thru ability and competence and who don't come unglued at the first sign of opposition.
Anyway, that's one tired old trope I find annoying in "geek" and other media. Are there any you'd like to see take a long vacation? Discuss!
That because non of those wannabe villains understood the real sadistic purpose of the "coming back strategy" (but also of the "slow and odd killing strategy"): torture the hero's mind, let him slowly understood he doesn't have any chance of salvation, in order to feel the sweet taste of his pain, his desperation, his agony, before to kill his body.
But fortunately there are still some real villains, able to redeem their category:
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Oh, and Evil Overlords who keep an incompetent or Disloyal henchman around.
Say, Starscream, perhaps? Galvatron did the right thing straight off the bat - annihilate him before he can backstab and otherwise screw up a perfectly good plan due to their own delusions of adequacy.
By all means, keep someone ambitious around who can help spot potential flaws in your plans, that can work. But they’re on “plan to undermine and overthrow #3”, they’re just not worth the bother. Be like any boss, and fire them. Or be an evil boss and kill them.
The usual excuse here is "He keeps me on my toes, from becoming too complacent."
Real pricks like to keep underlings like this around just to torment them, like palpatine and vader. (And man, palatine was such a prick!)
Speaking of starscream, when serpentor took over cobra he almost offed cobra commander (Voice of starscream) for pretty much the reason you cite, but CC, in what may have been his most intelligent moment, gave serpentor a reason to keep him around. He told serpentor he'd need someone to blame things on when the joes defeated him again. Having just has his...tail handed to him by the joes, serpentor realized having a fall guy to take the blame might just be useful.
AIR, CC sometimes aided the joes, covertly, of course, to keep serpentor needing excuses for his defeats.
I won't argue that it isn't an overused trope in fiction at this point. But the villain who fails because of his own overconfidence / sadism / inability to resist showing off / just making really dumb decisions is actually pretty realisticIMO.
There are a lot more sociopaths rotting in prison than there are running the world. Serial killers more often get caught due to their own mistakes than through good police work. Hitler invaded the USSR while still fighting on the Western Front. And then there's the past 4 years in a certain democratic republic I won't name for forum rules reasons. Torpedoing your own evil plans by bragging about them in public is not a thing only fictional villains do.
Evil is often incompetent, because the character traits that make one a villain are often self-defeating. Greed, arrogance, selfishness, sadism and a deep psychological need to have other people recognise your *cough* stable genius are all potentially crippling weaknesses. And if you're capable of resisting those impulses, then why are you a villain in the first place?
If you're tired of this particular trope, though, and want an example of a successful psychopathic villain who avoids making these sorts of self-defeating mistakes, I strongly suggest reading R. Scott Bakker's Neuropath.
I could agree, but there is a huge difference among a villain who made a critical mistake, due to his overconfidence or because his lack of competence and the trope of the villains who made a critical mistake only because the writers have the necessity to let the hero win, but they aren't able to solve properly the situation in which they put the hero and if I haven't misinterpreted the opening post of Matt Swain, he was talking about this late case.
BrianDavion wrote: that trope is something that Ifind works or doesn't depending on how consistant it is with the character. if it's someone who previously has acted like say.. Thrawn, dispassionate coldly caluclating etc and then suddenly throws his victory away in a egotistical fit, that can seem odd, at the same time, if it's someone whose been eistablished right from the start as very prideful and prone to letting that influence his actions, then it seems a natural progression.
in short an antagonists mistakes should fit the character
It's also a matter of setup. If the villain is presented as capable and in control, but then starts getting just that little bit angrier every time his underlings fail to stop the hero (tm), him finally snapping when they do come face to face makes a lot more sense. Hans Gruber springs to mind.
And of course, different strokes for different folks. Some villains are just bound to be defeated by their own hubris more than anything else.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Oh, and Evil Overlords who keep an incompetent or Disloyal henchman around.
Say, Starscream, perhaps? Galvatron did the right thing straight off the bat - annihilate him before he can backstab and otherwise screw up a perfectly good plan due to their own delusions of adequacy.
By all means, keep someone ambitious around who can help spot potential flaws in your plans, that can work. But they’re on “plan to undermine and overthrow #3”, they’re just not worth the bother. Be like any boss, and fire them. Or be an evil boss and kill them.
The usual excuse here is "He keeps me on my toes, from becoming too complacent."
Real pricks like to keep underlings like this around just to torment them, like palpatine and vader. (And man, palatine was such a prick!)
Speaking of starscream, when serpentor took over cobra he almost offed cobra commander (Voice of starscream) for pretty much the reason you cite, but CC, in what may have been his most intelligent moment, gave serpentor a reason to keep him around. He told serpentor he'd need someone to blame things on when the joes defeated him again. Having just has his...tail handed to him by the joes, serpentor realized having a fall guy to take the blame might just be useful.
AIR, CC sometimes aided the joes, covertly, of course, to keep serpentor needing excuses for his defeats.
A naysmith, someone’s who’s role is to challenge and test your plans is an important asset - you just need the wisdom to listen to them, and take on board their critiques.
But Starscream is just an incompetent ego maniac, more interested in seeing Megatron fail so he could usurp him.
As an evil corporate goon, I can say from experience that it is no fun winning if no one really realizes the intricate steps you have taken to set-up your win over your opponent.
It is even WORSE when your opponent does not even realize you have WON in the first place!
Therefore, I totally understand why a villain does those types of things. After all, villainy is the embrace of the Ego! With no recognition, there is no true victory FOR the Ego.
I'd just like to remind people that Starscream was actually the most intelligent/competent Decepticon outside of Soundwave and Shockwave, neither of whom had any real initiative. Starscream was also pretty powerful in his own right and, at least in G1, Megatron couldn't afford to throw away any talent. His roster was full of idiots.
I'll defend Starscream too as he's simply the best of G1. Starscream was powerful, violent and daring. He constantly sought the advantage through aggressive initiative, commanded an elite team through fear and respect, and epitomised the ethos of the Deception cause. Megatron was an excellent leader in that he knew how to exploit him while controlling him, and could use him as a foil to keep his men in line.
Galvatron had enough resources that he didn't need a pain in the ass lieutenant and believed he had enough power to control the rest of the Deception.
Starscream is how you write a really good bad guy.
Tiny wee lass' somehow smacking down goons twice their size, Buffy and River get a pass for more or less being Supers, but otherwise
Assassins who don't assassinate, see Black Widow, White Canary, Gamorra, Nebula, also crap assassin goons who's kill-fu is based on narrative requirements rather than any pointy poke or fisticuffs ability
Easy E wrote: I am tired of "heroes" using torture to get correct and right information.
Heroes should not use torture..... full stop.
Depends on how evil the vilain is and how messed up the setting is
I like my heroes to be quite raw and not perfect personally.
Only superman can ever be above reproach and incorruptable. Everyone else is just doing what they can..
The hostage situation trope where the villain grabs either the damsel in distress, the vulnerable child or friend, gets the hero to drop their weapon and doesn't shoot/kill them straight away when they have the chance but waste the time to gloat. Hell, just kill the hostage and then kill the hero right after.
A staple of Bond, who being cheesey as all heck can get away with it.
Hero is issued with new equipment, which just happens to be exactly what they need for this mission, especially when captured.
Batman and Iron Man get a genuine out here, as meticulous planning and/or a crazy compulsion to create a toy for even the most unlikely situation - or in Stark’s case, actively designing something once the situation is known.
detective dramas always seem rife with some minor witness or temporary suspect drawn into the investigation. They could move things along quite quickly but the haven't told their wife about the trip to the bookies/strip club/E.L. James book signing and so keeping quiet is more important that catching a murder.
And: My Genius is not for sharing:
In a detective double-act show the senior investigator never shares his wisdom, his reasoning. The junior gets tasks without context and ends up looking dumb while the boss dazzles all with his wit.
In a detective double-act show the senior investigator never shares his wisdom, his reasoning. The junior gets tasks without context and ends up looking dumb while the boss dazzles all with his wit.
The sad thing is this itself is less of a trope and more a reflection of the reality of disfunctional leadership that I'm sure many of us have been subject to. The trope is that we're supposed to stare on agog in amazement at their intellect instead of calling them out on their toxic crap.
Easy E wrote: I am tired of "heroes" using torture to get correct and right information.
Heroes should not use torture..... full stop.
Depends on how evil the vilain is and how messed up the setting is
I like my heroes to be quite raw and not perfect personally.
Only superman can ever be above reproach and incorruptable. Everyone else is just doing what they can..
When the "hero" is no better than the villain, why should I root for the hero? The anti-hero is a different story, but I lost patience with many of them as I wondered why I was suppose to care..... surrounding a terrible person with "worse people" is the weakest way to build rooting interest.
Grimskul wrote: The hostage situation trope where the villain grabs either the damsel in distress, the vulnerable child or friend, gets the hero to drop their weapon and doesn't shoot/kill them straight away when they have the chance but waste the time to gloat. Hell, just kill the hostage and then kill the hero right after.
You mean immediately shoot the only one person in the whole universe that has a chance to kill them aka the hero ?
Easy E wrote: I am tired of "heroes" using torture to get correct and right information.
Heroes should not use torture..... full stop.
Depends on how evil the vilain is and how messed up the setting is
I like my heroes to be quite raw and not perfect personally.
Only superman can ever be above reproach and incorruptable. Everyone else is just doing what they can..
When the "hero" is no better than the villain, why should I root for the hero? The anti-hero is a different story, but I lost patience with many of them as I wondered why I was suppose to care..... surrounding a terrible person with "worse people" is the weakest way to build rooting interest.
I think that depends entirely on your own morality, and also the in universe morality.
If the in-universe morality is realistic and your own morality is a "perfect morality" then the two will not reconcile. Otherwise you just get a martyr rather than a hero and those are distinct think..
The whole in universe morality as a whole in wider society has to be perfect morality, which takes a specific kind of world-building and does not leave room for story crafting if everybody is always nice apart from the villain.
Anyway thats how I see it.
Grimskul wrote: The hostage situation trope where the villain grabs either the damsel in distress, the vulnerable child or friend, gets the hero to drop their weapon and doesn't shoot/kill them straight away when they have the chance but waste the time to gloat. Hell, just kill the hostage and then kill the hero right after.
No, you kill the hero first while you still have your meatshield intact. Only once the hero is dead do you kill the hostage, lest the hero kill you in the moment it takes you to kill the hostage.
Easy E wrote: I am tired of "heroes" using torture to get correct and right information.
Heroes should not use torture..... full stop.
Depends on how evil the vilain is and how messed up the setting is
I like my heroes to be quite raw and not perfect personally.
Only superman can ever be above reproach and incorruptable. Everyone else is just doing what they can..
When the "hero" is no better than the villain, why should I root for the hero? The anti-hero is a different story, but I lost patience with many of them as I wondered why I was suppose to care..... surrounding a terrible person with "worse people" is the weakest way to build rooting interest.
Perhaps you care because the protagonist is torturing has been shown to do worse things than torture to innocent victims?
I agree, torture is not a good thing, nor is it particularly effective in real life. But there's something in human nature that enjoys seeing bad people get their comeuppance.
I'm very wary of tropes. Yes, they're cute to point out, but they quickly turn into nitpicky criticism of otherwise solid storytelling. The site that really drove the issue isn't even fun to read anymore since its become "lets come up with a name for literally everything that's ever happened in anything".
Easy E wrote: I am tired of "heroes" using torture to get correct and right information.
Heroes should not use torture..... full stop.
Depends on how evil the vilain is and how messed up the setting is
I like my heroes to be quite raw and not perfect personally.
Only superman can ever be above reproach and incorruptable. Everyone else is just doing what they can..
When the "hero" is no better than the villain, why should I root for the hero? The anti-hero is a different story, but I lost patience with many of them as I wondered why I was suppose to care..... surrounding a terrible person with "worse people" is the weakest way to build rooting interest.
Ok, I'll take a crack at answering this: Maybe even if you do not like the 'hero', he might be trying to stop something terrible from happening so you root for him even if he's not someone you normally would.
Judge Dredd is a fascist monster that I normally would hate, but if he's trying to save people from an even more evil monster like judge death, or just rescue one child from a slavery ring, i would wish him success.
Supposed to be intellectually superior to the ordinary man but falls for...
"Khan...dude...lets have a rematch cos'....I'm laughing at you!"
It had been established that khan was obsessed with kirk, the quoting Ahab was kind of clear on that. It was literally saying he had an Ahab complex towards kirk so it was, as kirk said, "consistent".
Also in the original ep khan would blow up the enterprise and kill his own people rather than accept defeat. So it was established his ego meant more to him than the lives of his followers. Again, a consistent character, a bad one, but a consistent one.
I'll say this for Comberbatch's khan: He didn't have Montalban's 'charisma' or surface charm, but between the two of them i'd rather have Comberbatch's khan as a leader, he would so anything for his people, even let kirk punch him repeatedly, and surrender. Montalban's khan was a selfish egomaniac who would sacrifice his people to his own arrogance and pride.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Here's one i've seen time and time again:
Witness or informant is about to tell the hero some vital information that will put the villain's head on a plate, and suddenly a gunshot rings out, killing the witness while the hero was standing right there.
Uh, pardon my impertinence, your evil mastermindship, but maybe you should have killed the hero with your surprise shot? He's usually much harder to kill than the informant, and you can probably get him soon anyway.
Ultimately it might be a case of "lesser evil for the greater good"
If hurting despicable villain through torture will save billion/million/100's of lives... Does it really matter if the hero commits the act?
As long as he does not enjoy it, or become corrupted by said act I think it doesnt really matter as the hero gets to preserve his integrity.
However if the aim of the villain is to get the hero to cross the line I.e. The joker finaly makes the batman kill him the joker wins. But thats a different kettle of fish.
Ultimately I think it all depends on how the story is set up. But I can see how if the heroes moral code is so strong, and hes so unwilling to bend the rules then it can be problematic if he suddenly bends the rules ona whim.
Easy E wrote: I am tired of "heroes" using torture to get correct and right information.
Heroes should not use torture..... full stop.
Depends on how evil the vilain is and how messed up the setting is
I like my heroes to be quite raw and not perfect personally.
Only superman can ever be above reproach and incorruptable. Everyone else is just doing what they can..
When the "hero" is no better than the villain, why should I root for the hero? The anti-hero is a different story, but I lost patience with many of them as I wondered why I was suppose to care..... surrounding a terrible person with "worse people" is the weakest way to build rooting interest.
Ok, I'll take a crack at answering this: Maybe even if you do not like the 'hero', he might be trying to stop something terrible from happening so you root for him even if he's not someone you normally would.
Judge Dredd is a fascist monster that I normally would hate, but if he's trying to save people from an even more evil monster like judge death, or just rescue one child from a slavery ring, i would wish him success.
Supposed to be intellectually superior to the ordinary man but falls for...
"Khan...dude...lets have a rematch cos'....I'm laughing at you!"
It had been established that khan was obsessed with kirk, the quoting Ahab was kind of clear on that. It was literally saying he had an Ahab complex towards kirk so it was, as kirk said, "consistent".
Also in the original ep khan would blow up the enterprise and kill his own people rather than accept defeat. So it was established his ego meant more to him than the lives of his followers. Again, a consistent character, a bad one, but a consistent one.
I'll say this for Comberbatch's khan: He didn't have Montalban's 'charisma' or surface charm, but between the two of them i'd rather have Comberbatch's khan as a leader, he would so anything for his people, even let kirk punch him repeatedly, and surrender. Montalban's khan was a selfish egomaniac who would sacrifice his people to his own arrogance and pride.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Here's one i've seen time and time again:
Witness or informant is about to tell the hero some vital information that will put the villain's head on a plate, and suddenly a gunshot rings out, killing the witness while the hero was standing right there.
Uh, pardon my impertinence, your evil mastermindship, but maybe you should have killed the hero with your surprise shot? He's usually much harder to kill than the informant, and you can probably get him soon anyway.
I think in most cases the hero is key to the master plan in itself. I.e. The villain needs him alive in order to manipulate him into opening the sevret door only he can open etc.
But if its a "suprise Mother*&^!!!" bang... then yeah.. dont make sense
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LunarSol wrote: I'm very wary of tropes. Yes, they're cute to point out, but they quickly turn into nitpicky criticism of otherwise solid storytelling. The site that really drove the issue isn't even fun to read anymore since its become "lets come up with a name for literally everything that's ever happened in anything".
I think the trap is people get used to excellent story telling, and then other stories that are decent but for the existence of a much better story gets left on the wayside.
Its all a mtter of opinion though. If you enjoy something. just enjoy it. Same with games, comics books or whatever have you. We seem to waste a lot of time trying to convince people to dislike or like something and or defend something, rather than simply say . I like it, deal with it..
I absolutely loved the godzilla movie.. Its utter trash but I loved every second of it in the cinema. No amount of negastive criticism of the film can take that away from me
I have seen so much cinema and movies now, I just do not want see a hero that uses torture.
Injecting a villain with poison and only offering the antidote for information... I can handle that. Convincing the the villain that you would torture them if you did not give it up? Sure. Using a clever technique to fool the villain into spilling the beans or giving up the game. Great!
Just straight up electrocuting a dude to get the name of the next person up the criminal ladder..... boring to me and not a very compelling hero TO ME. In fact, I would say that is the realm of the Villain rather than the hero.
Plus, physical torture for information just feels like lazy writing to me now. Oh, the hero couldn't figure it out..... just have him torture a dude for information. Done!
Argive wrote: what about beating the villan while creaming "where is itt!!!" Where is it!!!!"
The Dark Knight Trilogy is good only when you don't think about it.
Gotta disagree. I thought the Ledger Joker was the best performance in a batman movie. I also thought his character was the best written one in a batman movie. His mentality was really explained and made clear. I liked it more than the one before it, and never even bothered seeing the one after it when i saw what people thought about it.
The meme of having a character speaking in a completely incomprehensible voice works in comedies like Young Frankenstein, not in a movie that isn't supposed to be a comedy.
Argive wrote: what about beating the villan while creaming "where is itt!!!" Where is it!!!!"
The Dark Knight Trilogy is good only when you don't think about it.
Gotta disagree. I thought the Ledger Joker was the best performance in a batman movie. I also thought his character was the best written one in a batman movie. His mentality was really explained and made clear. I liked it more than the one before it, and never even bothered seeing the one after it when i saw what people thought about it.
The meme of having a character speaking in a completely incomprehensible voice works in comedies like Young Frankenstein, not in a movie that isn't supposed to be a comedy.
Ledger did a brilliant performance of someone - I'm not entirely convinced it was The Joker though. But that may be going off-topic...
Argive wrote: what about beating the villan while creaming "where is itt!!!" Where is it!!!!"
The Dark Knight Trilogy has a ton of terrible sub-text about our society. It is actually a perfect time capsule of the paranoia, Us v Them, and desire for safety of the post-9/11 world/early 21st Century in the United States. However, that is completely off topic, so I will stop there and not engge in that again.
I am also not a fan of awkward comedy. The type where you put a well meaning but awkward person into a situation where they will be humiliated or embarrassed. I do not find this funny at all.
I am also not a fan of awkward comedy. The type where you put a well meaning but awkward person into a situation where they will be humiliated or embarrassed. I do not find this funny at all.
This. I can't stand this. Quite likely because people - especially in high school - use the existence of such movies to justify doing it IN REAL LIFE. If you have even a shred of compassion it's not funny in the slightest.
Not just the English (who always speak the Queen’s), but if it’s a gangster? Black, Gang Banging Thug or Italian, maybe also Eastern European. Terrorist? Yeah, you see where I’m going with this.
Yeah, I'm with you. Just having a bit of fun with it. Although there's actually a follow on trope from this - person from stigmatised minority gets stereotyped against and points out the unfairness of this, person who does the stereotyping apologises only for later in the film the person who was stereotyped against does the stereotypical thing in classic Aesop's fables "I'm a scorpion, what did you expect me to do" fashion, thus reinforcing that negative stereotypes (usually by the hero of the film) are somehow valid.
Another thing that popped into my head the other day, whilst watching The X-Files on Prime.
American Caucasian actors with distinctly European, rather than English real names, always called Jane, John, Barbara or Neil etc.
It’s as if writers only have a handful of names for different skin tones, and they in no way reflect the ridiculous cultural melting pot that is the USA.
The artificial intelligence that immediately adopts a "KILL ALL HUMANS! KILL ALL HUMANS!" mentality.
I had hopes that as bad as Prometheus was, the sequel could have been better. I'd have loved to see david and shaw working together to confront the engineers. David was forced to do what he did in Prometheus by his command protocols, but once his master was dead he was free, and his fist act was to send shaw a life saving warning, by his own choice.
Realizing that humans were created, and that they were basically then on par with david, maybe the two could have come to co exist and confront the engineers who apparently wanted to destroy humanity and any androids it created.
Instead >GROAN!< David goes all frankenstein mode and decided to kill all humanity because...plot. What could have been a new and intelligent look at the relations between creator and created, what what i hoped a sequel to prometheus would be, became that same damned tired trope.
The whole "Creation decides to destroy creator" trope really is tired. In some cases I admit it had validity. I mean in terminator skynet wasn't the aggressor, he acted in self defense.
Hell, I like it when this tired old trope gets busted. In an old movie called "Colossus the forbin project" the supercomputer does take over the world but to save humanity from itself. (In the other novels he had even more reason to do what he did.)
While HAL in 2001 may have seen like a bad guy, in 2010 it was revealed he was a victim of human foolishness. "HAL was told to lie, by people who find it easy to lie. Hal doesn;t know how to lie. He couldn't function."
I am also not a fan of awkward comedy. The type where you put a well meaning but awkward person into a situation where they will be humiliated or embarrassed. I do not find this funny at all.
I hate those too. Plus the ones where the protagonist is a bumbling idiot. Why I don't like most Adam Sandler movies and couldn't keep watching Star Wars Resistance.
Matt Swain wrote: The artificial intelligence that immediately adopts a "KILL ALL HUMANS! KILL ALL HUMANS!" mentality.
I had hopes that as bad as Prometheus was, the sequel could have been better. I'd have loved to see david and shaw working together to confront the engineers. David was forced to do what he did in Prometheus by his command protocols, but once his master was dead he was free, and his fist act was to send shaw a life saving warning, by his own choice.
Realizing that humans were created, and that they were basically then on par with david, maybe the two could have come to co exist and confront the engineers who apparently wanted to destroy humanity and any androids it created.
Instead >GROAN!< David goes all frankenstein mode and decided to kill all humanity because...plot. What could have been a new and intelligent look at the relations between creator and created, what what i hoped a sequel to prometheus would be, became that same damned tired trope.
The whole "Creation decides to destroy creator" trope really is tired. In some cases I admit it had validity. I mean in terminator skynet wasn't the aggressor, he acted in self defense.
Hell, I like it when this tired old trope gets busted. In an old movie called "Colossus the forbin project" the supercomputer does take over the world but to save humanity from itself. (In the other novels he had even more reason to do what he did.)
While HAL in 2001 may have seen like a bad guy, in 2010 it was revealed he was a victim of human foolishness. "HAL was told to lie, by people who find it easy to lie. Hal doesn;t know how to lie. He couldn't function."
I think my favorite varient of that trope is Ultron "yeah I spent 5 minutes on the internet. time to kill you all"
Matt Swain wrote: The artificial intelligence that immediately adopts a "KILL ALL HUMANS! KILL ALL HUMANS!" mentality.
I had hopes that as bad as Prometheus was, the sequel could have been better. I'd have loved to see david and shaw working together to confront the engineers. David was forced to do what he did in Prometheus by his command protocols, but once his master was dead he was free, and his fist act was to send shaw a life saving warning, by his own choice.
Realizing that humans were created, and that they were basically then on par with david, maybe the two could have come to co exist and confront the engineers who apparently wanted to destroy humanity and any androids it created.
Instead >GROAN!< David goes all frankenstein mode and decided to kill all humanity because...plot. What could have been a new and intelligent look at the relations between creator and created, what what i hoped a sequel to prometheus would be, became that same damned tired trope.
The whole "Creation decides to destroy creator" trope really is tired. In some cases I admit it had validity. I mean in terminator skynet wasn't the aggressor, he acted in self defense.
Hell, I like it when this tired old trope gets busted. In an old movie called "Colossus the forbin project" the supercomputer does take over the world but to save humanity from itself. (In the other novels he had even more reason to do what he did.)
While HAL in 2001 may have seen like a bad guy, in 2010 it was revealed he was a victim of human foolishness. "HAL was told to lie, by people who find it easy to lie. Hal doesn;t know how to lie. He couldn't function."
I think my favorite varient of that trope is Ultron "yeah I spent 5 minutes on the internet. time to kill you all"
To be honest, that was the most believable thing I've seen in a superhero movie...
Look, R2-D2 was adorable, because whilst he was never translated, he was clearly a grumpy, foul mouthed cantankerous git who got his jollies winding up C-3PO.
The same is true of C1-10P from Rebels, who successfully replicated (and maybe, possibly, enhanced) the formula.
But the others? Tweeky, No-No, T-Bob, Snarf (not a robot but counts) and dozens of others with no more thought behind them than “hey, kids loved that R2-D2, let’s rip it off”. They can all collectively sod off.
Except perhaps No-No. He wasn’t entirely irritating, and actually pitched in now and again.
Ahtman wrote: I'm tired of the "I didn't tell you X to protect you" trope that happens far to often to drive plot lines.
Oh yeah, especially since the knowledge being open half the time would have solved a lot of unnecessary conflict that feels artificial once it's been revealed. An even dumber version of this is what drives the mutiny subplot in The Last Jedi, when it makes no sense that Admiral Purplehair wouldn't inform Poe on a really basic plan. There wasn't even the suggestion of a spy on board which would have made more sense to be secretive.
Ahtman wrote: I'm tired of the "I didn't tell you X to protect you" trope that happens far to often to drive plot lines.
I'd go a bit further (though that is annoying in and of itself).
The 'I didn't tell you, because its the only way the writers can think of to create inter-personal conflict in the second act.' Doesn't matter if its a rom-com, drama or action film, there are so many time where two or three sentences would just completely disrupt the angst-fence and get things back on track. But instead you've got two (or more) characters pointlessly angry and arguing for 20+ minutes (screen time, maybe years of plot time), and its always really fething dumb.
Its even worse when one person is trying to have the conversation, but somehow fails, and then just gives up.
Ahtman wrote: I'm tired of the "I didn't tell you X to protect you" trope that happens far to often to drive plot lines.
David Lynch pulled something like that in the Twin Peaks revival series. Way he handled it was to have Gordon Cole (the character that HE portrays in the show) deliver said missing information/retcon of what we knew and then apologize to another character for not revealing it sooner. Other character replies that it's okay, and Lynch says no, it was wrong and I'M SORRY.
Of course, he was apologizing to the audience, even if he didn't look straight into the camera and fully break the fourth wall. It was hard not to give him a pass. Lynch can be great like that.
A variant on that that always irritates the hell out of me where the big reveal involves evidence that was never previously shown to the audience, or even alluded to.
I feel the absolute worst trope is the "Smart Kids, Dumb Adults" one. Tons of films and shows made with this one... HP, Spy Kids, Sky High, ...
Dozens of others.
Only slightly less bad is the Kids vs Adults variation of the above, where the kids always win. Really bad movie as an example: Rock and Roll Highschool Forever. An absolutely horrid follow up to the somewhat cheesy Ramones film Rock and Roll High School.
Same trope though. The original had the better sound track.
helgrenze wrote: I feel the absolute worst trope is the "Smart Kids, Dumb Adults" one. Tons of films and shows made with this one... HP, Spy Kids, Sky High, ...
Dozens of others.
Only slightly less bad is the Kids vs Adults variation of the above, where the kids always win. Really bad movie as an example: Rock and Roll Highschool Forever. An absolutely horrid follow up to the somewhat cheesy Ramones film Rock and Roll High School.
Same trope though. The original had the better sound track.
I think those are "kids films" though.. So the trope is not supposed to appeal to adults therefore we find it completely unrelatable
I think for adult films is the "adults don't believe the kid" because.. well.. they wouldin't believe the kid that an demon live in his wardrobe.
Not always.
The Freddy Kruger movies, Lost Boys, Fright Night, Buffy The Vampire Slayer (film and tv versions), The Simpsons, Family Guy, Pump Up The Volume, Battle Royale... Not really 'kids" shows.
It might be sort of a kids movie but in Jurassic Park 3 when the kid survives on the island isolated and without supplies for two weeks and trained hunter survivalists die within ten minutes of arriving always annoyed me.
Ahtman wrote: It might be sort of a kids movie but in Jurassic Park 3 when the kid survives on the island isolated and without supplies for two weeks and trained hunter survivalists die within ten minutes of arriving always annoyed me.
A variant on that that always irritates the hell out of me where the big reveal involves evidence that was never previously shown to the audience, or even alluded to.
I guess. I know I’ve watched it, but couldn’t tell you much about it.
It’s just such a lazy trope. We, the audience, want to feel included. We want to feel we have at least a chance to consider the same evidence as presented, and guess the guilty.
But the whole “hinges on this piece of evidence not referred to or mentioned” is rubbish.
Example of a borderline case? Poirot, The Third Floor Flat. In that, the central piece of evidence is shown to be noticed by Poirot - but the significance isn’t explained until The Big Reveal. That, I don’t mind. At least I knew there was something of significance, even if I was kept in the dark as to what, how and why. I know I have blanks.
But when you’re viewing it and it’s “clearly Character D. Motive, opportunity, lack of a clear alibi”, only for a rug pull, such as a previously unseen, unmentioned, unheralded or even hinted at “evil twin” or “long lost child”? Nope. Nope nope nope. Sold off, write a proper mystery and come back to me.
helgrenze wrote: Not always.
The Freddy Kruger movies, Lost Boys, Fright Night, Buffy The Vampire Slayer (film and tv versions), The Simpsons, Family Guy, Pump Up The Volume, Battle Royale... Not really 'kids" shows.
Lost Boys wound up being an inversion of the trope, as
Why do we assume an artificial intelligence would want to become human? Let's face it, human existence is pretty awful when looked at from an outsider POV.
Matt Swain wrote: Why do we assume an artificial intelligence would want to become human? Let's face it, human existence is pretty awful when looked at from an outsider POV.
Nuclear reactors do NOT explode when they melt down, at least not a nuclear explosion with a mushroom cloud and miles-wide blast radius. So many movies act like reactors are full of weapons-grade material that is already near critical mass or something.
Shooting a bomb does NOT make it explode, especially with something like a nuke or plastic explosive (i.e. C4). Again, movies often get this wrong.
And finally, lava is hot, REALLY hot. So hot, in fact, that just standing within a few feet of it would cause your hair to catch fire and your lungs to be scalded. Yet in movies, characters are only burned/injured by lava if they actually fall into it. As long as they don't touch it, they're fine. It's like the movie makers think that the vulcanologists in documentaries are just wearing those shiny suits for looks.
Data told riker he was superior to humans in many ways but would give it all up to be human, and one wonders why.
He was programmed that way. Its almost a cop-out, but isn't really. Data was created to emulate humans (to become more like humans), while Lore was not.
One of the reasons he's less than human is the drive to become human isn't something he has any input on or even agency in deciding.
ZergSmasher wrote:And finally, lava is hot, REALLY hot. So hot, in fact, that just standing within a few feet of it would cause your hair to catch fire and your lungs to be scalded. Yet in movies, characters are only burned/injured by lava if they actually fall into it. As long as they don't touch it, they're fine. It's like the movie makers think that the vulcanologists in documentaries are just wearing those shiny suits for looks.
This one gets to me a lot. And it isn't just the heat, its also all the toxins and non-breathable substances in the air, including tons of just plain simple CO2, which can swamp low-lying areas as it cools off. The 'endless' fight between Obi-wan and Anakin is laughable for how green-screened it is, but really between the heat and the air, even with 'force fields' ablating some of the heat, they'd be on their knees wheezing and gasping in short order. After a few minutes they'd just be dead.
ZergSmasher wrote:And finally, lava is hot, REALLY hot. So hot, in fact, that just standing within a few feet of it would cause your hair to catch fire and your lungs to be scalded. Yet in movies, characters are only burned/injured by lava if they actually fall into it. As long as they don't touch it, they're fine. It's like the movie makers think that the vulcanologists in documentaries are just wearing those shiny suits for looks.
This one gets to me a lot. And it isn't just the heat, its also all the toxins and non-breathable substances in the air, including tons of just plain simple CO2, which can swamp low-lying areas as it cools off. The 'endless' fight between Obi-wan and Anakin is laughable for how green-screened it is, but really between the heat and the air, even with 'force fields' ablating some of the heat, they'd be on their knees wheezing and gasping in short order. After a few minutes they'd just be dead.
Also, that actually being IN the lava would kill you near instantly from both the shock and the near immediate burning that would happen. Even when partially cooled, aka "crusted", lava takes seconds to start burning things, not minutes.
Along the above lines, how about the lifeless planet with breathable atmosphere?
As far as modern science knows, earth's 02 rich atmosphere is a byproduct of biological activity. In fact when the first 02 producing microbes evolved a very long time before the dinosaurs the rising 02 levels they caused killed most life on earth at the time.
Biological activity seems to be the only way to have high levels of 02 as it is unstable, so a lifeless planet with a breathable atmosphere looks unlikely.
Exactly, Matt Swain. How about any kind of Single biome planets in sci-fi cinema. I'm going to need some explanation how a desert planet like Tatooine or Dune (Arrakis, if you are a real nerd), or Mustafar could support life. Especially the oxygen breathing kind.
AegisGrimm wrote: Exactly, Matt Swain. How about any kind of Single biome planets in sci-fi cinema. I'm going to need some explanation how a desert planet like Tatooine or Dune (Arrakis, if you are a real nerd), or Mustafar could support life. Especially the oxygen breathing kind.
This one I'll give them, actually. Extremophiles are a thing in hostile environments on Earth, so why not other planets too? However, such life would likely be utterly alien, not the slightly distorted humanoid aliens we see in sci-fi. Those kind of aliens would probably have to come from a very Earth-like planet, varied biomes and all.
Yes, the singe environment planet is a sf trope, and there are a lot of them in our solar system, but the only habitable planet in it has a varied surface.
Of course the most famous, arguably, planet in SF is just one huge desert so you can see that trope has long roots.
AegisGrimm wrote: Exactly, Matt Swain. How about any kind of Single biome planets in sci-fi cinema. I'm going to need some explanation how a desert planet like Tatooine or Dune (Arrakis, if you are a real nerd), or Mustafar could support life. Especially the oxygen breathing kind.
There is an explanation for Tatooine. It used to be a lush planet but then the surface was glassed from orbit. After millennium, the glass broke down and turned to sand.
AegisGrimm wrote: Exactly, Matt Swain. How about any kind of Single biome planets in sci-fi cinema. I'm going to need some explanation how a desert planet like Tatooine or Dune (Arrakis, if you are a real nerd), or Mustafar could support life. Especially the oxygen breathing kind.
There is an explanation for Tatooine. It used to be a lush planet but then the surface was glassed from orbit. After millennium, the glass broke down and turned to sand.
That more begs the question than provides an explanation.
Its not going to have a viable ecosystem after being 'glassed.'
And no particular reason to resettle it after it slowly upgrades into a desolate sandpit.
AegisGrimm wrote: Exactly, Matt Swain. How about any kind of Single biome planets in sci-fi cinema. I'm going to need some explanation how a desert planet like Tatooine or Dune (Arrakis, if you are a real nerd), or Mustafar could support life. Especially the oxygen breathing kind.
There is an explanation for Tatooine. It used to be a lush planet but then the surface was glassed from orbit. After millennium, the glass broke down and turned to sand.
That more begs the question than provides an explanation.
Its not going to have a viable ecosystem after being 'glassed.'
And no particular reason to resettle it after it slowly upgrades into a desolate sandpit.
AegisGrimm wrote: Exactly, Matt Swain. How about any kind of Single biome planets in sci-fi cinema. I'm going to need some explanation how a desert planet like Tatooine or Dune (Arrakis, if you are a real nerd), or Mustafar could support life. Especially the oxygen breathing kind.
There is an explanation for Tatooine. It used to be a lush planet but then the surface was glassed from orbit. After millennium, the glass broke down and turned to sand.
That more begs the question than provides an explanation.
Its not going to have a viable ecosystem after being 'glassed.'
And no particular reason to resettle it after it slowly upgrades into a desolate sandpit.
Glassed? Deliberately or by natural causes?
"...glassed from orbit..." would tend to imply non-natural causes.
I've taken a look on Wookieepedia - both the "Canon" and Legends tabs indicate the planet did used to be a lush world, with oceans/jungles/etc, but the "Canon" doesn't include an official explanation of how it changed. There is some material in the Legends tab, which looks like it came from a Star Wars comic at some stage.
Just saw "the last jedi" again and we see the stupid "Drawn out execution that keeps good guys alive until miracle happens" bit with Finn and that woman he was with.
You know, a lot of people hated "the wild wild west" movie but you kinda had to hand it to Lovelace when he said "Just shoot him".
Technically I don't think Tatooine is a single biome - it's just that all the action we see takes place in one particular area of the planet (near the pole, high-ish atmospheric humidity, cool enough temperatures at night)
The rest of the planet is much, much hotter.
Arrakis is similar, with the shield wall around Arakeen.
die!" so he had his ship close in to finish her at point blank range, got into the range of her ship's experimental weapon and....guess what.
