Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
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.
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/11/24 14:07:20
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.
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/11/24 16:44:22
AngryAngel80 wrote: I don't know, when I see awesome rules, I'm like " Baby, your rules looking so fine. Maybe I gotta add you to my first strike battalion eh ? "
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/11/24 21:13:57
"But the universe is a big place, and whatever happens, you will not be missed..."
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
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/11/24 22:17:13
AngryAngel80 wrote: I don't know, when I see awesome rules, I'm like " Baby, your rules looking so fine. Maybe I gotta add you to my first strike battalion eh ? "
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!
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
AngryAngel80 wrote: I don't know, when I see awesome rules, I'm like " Baby, your rules looking so fine. Maybe I gotta add you to my first strike battalion eh ? "
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/11/25 04:52:41
"But the universe is a big place, and whatever happens, you will not be missed..."
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.
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/11/25 17:47:41
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.
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
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.
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
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."
"But the universe is a big place, and whatever happens, you will not be missed..."
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"
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
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...
"But the universe is a big place, and whatever happens, you will not be missed..."
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.
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
Eldar- 4436 pts
