Remove ads

Cliches you can't stand

Night said:
It's not a compromise; it's a binary choice. You keep repeating this but trolley problems are the exact opposite of compromise because choices are clearly defined and you can only take one, which is kind of the opposite of a compromise, where you can take no clearly defined choice and have to work out some combination of their features.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The Trolley Scenario combining absolute certainty over the outcome of a choice, absolute helplessness about what choices are available, and a pointed disinterest in engaging with what led to this suspiciously artificial state of affairs, is what makes them so fishy. They're analogous to "Jack Bauer has no choice but to torture answers out of the terrorist before the ticking bomb goes off" or "we have no choice but to tighten our belts and cut welfare before we default on the budget". Trolley scenarios rarely exist in the real world, but false trolley scenarios are always popular among fascists, plutocrats, and anyone else who knows that the only way to sell their unpalatable ideas to the general public is by presenting it as the least bad of multiple bad options. People are entirely correct to look at a Trolley Scenario and smell a rat.

In real life you have scenarios more like "fireman must decide whether its safe enough to go into burning building to look for survivors", something with a lot of uncertainty. Its possible the building will hold up, there are survivors in there, and it would be best if the fireman should go in and rescue them. Its also possible that everyone still in there is dead, the building is teetering on the edge of collapse, and sending firemen in there will just get them killed. Triage situations do happen in real life, but they're inherently exercises in uncertainty both over what choices are available and what the outcomes of those choices are, and often lead to angry political hearings as to how the fuck-up happened in the first place playing a central role.
 
Last edited:
In a fight between a person acknowledged to be strong and a person who is as far as anyone knows rather weak, I'd like the strong person to actually win for once.
 
Pidl said:
In a fight between a person acknowledged to be strong and a person who is as far as anyone knows rather weak, I'd like the strong person to actually win for once.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I mean, far as I can tell that happens most times the weak person is not the protagonist. Of course, it's rarely really focused on.

For an exception to the lack of focus, though, I'm now remembering Gundam Build Fighters, where the kid from Osaka had an entire episode about trying to find a way to overcome the protagonists' super hax robot. He visited his old master, found inspiration, convinced himself that he had to try his best and try for a miracle.

And he still got absolutely crushed inside of three minutes once the fight started. There's a level of protagonist hax you just can't do shit about.
 
Drascin said:
I mean, far as I can tell that happens most times the weak person is not the protagonist. Of course, it's rarely really focused on.

For an exception to the lack of focus, though, I'm now remembering Gundam Build Fighters, where the kid from Osaka had an entire episode about trying to find a way to overcome the protagonists' super hax robot. He visited his old master, found inspiration, convinced himself that he had to try his best and try for a miracle.

And he still got absolutely crushed inside of three minutes once the fight started. There's a level of protagonist hax you just can't do shit about.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
On the other hand, Gundam Seed Destiny had the new protagonist research and exploit weakness in old one's fighting style (one that was kinda sorta foreshadowed *many* episodes earlier), thus successfully beating him in a way that seemed fairly plausible. Certainly more plausible than the common use of that trope, where "exploiting weakness" means "no selling an attack because they saw it before, which magically makes it non-lethal"... by which logic, seeing someone shoot a gun should make a person bulletproof.

Granted, the usual "protagonist immortality hax" kicked in shortly afterwards and made sure this didn't really have a lasting impact, but still. That's the kind of underdog triumph I can get behind (even if I hated the character), unlike the "stronger guy is actually a careless fool that should have lost ages ago".
 
That thing in Isekai where there are multiple summoned heroes but they all split up and all but one are side characters.

Not sure how common it is, but I've heard of at least two shows where it's happens (and frankly it's the least of one of their problems.)

It just annoys me because it sounds like gathering the magnificent seven, only we mostly end up only seeing one of them. And probably not even the most interesting, probably even the least of them.
 
Oh yes, group of interesting characters gets summoned to another world, and one made of cardboard, and ofcourse we follow the "adventures" of the one made of cardboard.
 
Pidl said:
In a fight between a person acknowledged to be strong and a person who is as far as anyone knows rather weak, I'd like the strong person to actually win for once.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Kengan Ashura did that well, where in one fight a weak and sickly Japanese underdog goes up against a heavy-weight world champion Thai boxer, and the underdog gets pummeled into oblivion but only on his own request that the heavy-weight champion fought him seriously instead of treating him like a cripple to be spared.

Also the main protagonist of the show loses the final match of the tournament despite his only shot at becoming champion, both because his heart had suffered terminal damage in previous fights and because the man he was fighting was just that insanely good having already beaten the reigning champion of the tournament and the protagonist's rival in the previous rounds and regrets he was not able to fight the protagonist at his full potential
 
Castor said:
I think it's best when both the pure of heart and the more hardened and world-weary are both treated as possessing something valuable.

If I had to pick a cliche I hate, TVtropes put it succinctly as "villains act, heroes react." All too often heroes have no real aim to better the world, they only fight the evils that fall into their lap. Which is still admirable...but they could often do so much more.

Conversely, villains are the ones actually trying to change things, and if they're written even somewhat sympathetically I tend to start rooting for them under those circumstances. I am tired of the status quo constantly winning, and a lot of villains seem to have good plans that are only evil for somewhat arbitrary reasons. Their plans are far more interesting too.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

THIS. There were times when I rooted for Lex Luthor more than I did Superman/Clark Kent for this exact reason... especially on the Smallville show and the JLA Unlimited cartoon. Mostly Smallville though, because Lex was more sympathetic on that show.

Also, tangentially related to this is the trope where "it's okay if the hero does it, but if the villain does it then it's bad." This kind of double standard really rustles my jimmies, if you get my drift.

Again, taking the TV show Smallville as an example... some spoilers ahead:
There have been instances where Green Arrow did the same exact thing that Lex Luthor was doing. example: having their company work with the United States military on certain projects. There was an ep where Oliver Queen was literally doing the same exact project as Lex Luthor was... working on some super-soldier serum for the US military. Oliver Queen was secretly taking the drugs because he felt like he couldn't keep up with the superheroes otherwise, and got addicted to the drugs. The real kicker was, he was constantly stealing from Lex Luthor's work while trying to sabotage Lexcorp so that his own company would come out on top with the US military.
Smallville being Smallville, everyone decides to blame Lex Luthor for creating the serum drugs in the first place... never mind that it was the US Military who asked him to make it and that Oliver Queen wasn't being forced to take the drugs... he actively seek it out and took it out of his own free will. Lex Luthor even called him out on that.
But of course, Because Lex is now the designated big bad on the show, it was never Oliver Queen's fault... because Oliver queen's the hero here!

And let's not get started on Lana Lang here. She's also the worst offender of this trope... heh. It's okay if it's her doing things... but god forbid anybody else ever do the same exact thing she did. Anybody else who did the same things is painted as a monster.
 
Way too often heroes do nothing but maintain the status quo, which can become a problem when the status quo kinda sucks.
One of my constant issues with FF 14 while i was still playing it was how the player character kept being proclaimed as this great selfless hero, but more often than not just acted to stop things from getting worse, while ignoring huge systemic problems in the factions they were protecting.
Same issue is a constant problem in super hero genre, especially marvel and dc comics main continuity (can't move too far from real world, for reasons).

And when the hero does try to actually fix things beyond the latest super villain plot or a monster attack, they instantly get turned into extremist who must be stopped.
 
Valmond said:
Way too often heroes do nothing but maintain the status quo, which can become a problem when the status quo kinda sucks.
One of my constant issues with FF 14 while i was still playing it was how the player character kept being proclaimed as this great selfless hero, but more often than not just acted to stop things from getting worse, while ignoring huge systemic problems in the factions they were protecting.
Same issue is a constant problem in super hero genre, especially marvel and dc comics main continuity (can't move too far from real world, for reasons).

And when the hero does try to actually fix things beyond the latest super villain plot or a monster attack, they instantly get turned into extremist who must be stopped.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It's very clear that they're just trying to accurately recreate the way moderates view US politics. :V
 
I would be very grateful if the 'bumbling dad/husband' trope goes to die in a fire at some point, especially when it involves relations that are borderline abusive. It's just trite and boring at this point with all potential humour having long since been dragged out of it. There's a point where you wonder why divorce hasn't been looked into, or murder at the very least.
 
Valmond said:
And when the hero does try to actually fix things beyond the latest super villain plot or a monster attack, they instantly get turned into extremist who must be stopped.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

There's a reason for that. Supervillain plots and monster attacks are morally unambiguous.

If you start using your powers to force people to do what you want where there's honest disagreement about whether you're right, you're a fascist.
 
arromdee said:
Why, because you're not a government? You're acting like one; you're being a dictator and making people obey you by using physical force, to work for society in the way dictated by you.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

First, why the heck are you using even a generic "you" for a discussion like this in this case. It's legitimately offputting.

Second, fascism has a definition. You can argue that using physical force to make others do what you want is bad, but that's not the same as arguing that it's fascist.
 
arromdee said:
There's a reason for that. Supervillain plots and monster attacks are morally unambiguous.

If you start using your powers to force people to do what you want where there's honest disagreement about whether you're right, you're a fascist.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It's funny you jump into using powers to force people to do what you want, instead of, i dunno, revealing corruption, dealing with homelesness, acting as a social activist to promote causes.
 
Valmond said:
It's funny you jump into using powers to force people to do what you want, instead of, i dunno, revealing corruption, dealing with homelesness, acting as a social activist to promote causes.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
...what?

He's answering to this.
arromdee said:
If you start using your powers to force people to do what you want where there's honest disagreement about whether you're right, you're a fascist.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

edit: read that quote wrong, sorry.
 
Last edited:
You know, heroes used to promote good causes.
Superman and Flash doing charity races were famous.
Batman appearing in a charity ball or rent a bachelor has happened.
We could use lot more of that kind of heroism, instead of just another grimderp mega event where some hero decides to become an actual fascist or fascist lite (i'm looking at you Captain "Hail Hydra" America).
 
I've never seen a story where a superhero was doing things like feeding the hungry, or doing charity races, and the superhero was portrayed by the writer as a dangerous extremist who needs to be stopped because he was doing that. The things that get a superhero portrayed as a dangerous extremist are the same kind of things that would have everyone recoil in horror if done by people in jackboots.

There's also the problem that superhero comics are unrealistic. Superheroing never goes wrong. The superhero doesn't do a warrantless search of someone's house, and discover he's innocent, leaving his window broken and his furniture smashed (unless he deserves it). The superhero never shoots an innocent man for grabbing at something during an arrest where it then turns out the man was trying to pull up his pants. And of course, nobody beat up by the superhero ever gets a concussion or any other form of permanent injury. If the superhero goes after targets that are too real-world, the superhero story turns into a story that justifies police brutality by imagining a fantasy world where there are no need for checks and balances on the police.
 
Last edited:
arromdee said:
I've never seen a story where a superhero was doing things like feeding the hungry, or doing charity races, and the superhero was portrayed by the writer as a dangerous extremist who needs to be stopped because he was doing that. The things that get a superhero portrayed as a dangerous extremist are the same kind of things that would have everyone recoil in horror if done by people in jackboots.

There's also the problem that superhero comics are unrealistic. Superheroing never goes wrong. The superhero doesn't do a warrantless search of someone's house, and discover he's innocent, leaving his window broken and his furniture smashed (unless he deserves it). The superhero never shoots an innocent man for grabbing at something during an arrest where it then turns out the man was trying to pull up his pants. And of course, nobody beat up by the superhero ever gets a concussion or any other form of permanent injury. If the superhero goes after targets that are too real-world, the superhero story turns into a story that justifies police brutality by imagining a fantasy world where there are no need for checks and balances on the police.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Why do you keep coming back to violence? How about having major heroes attending pride parades, speak up in favor of social justice policies, against police brutality, for transparency in government.
 
Valmond said:
Why do you keep coming back to violence? How about having major heroes attending pride parades, speak up in favor of social justice policies, against police brutality, for transparency in government.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
At that point we kinda run at a definition problem, though. Because if that's the focus, we aren't dealing with "superheroes" anymore, but with social activists. And as a rule, people don't want to read "social activists" comics.

Which doesn't mean superheroes can't do social activism. But they're superheroes by dim of doing vigilantism, not social activism.
 
arromdee said:
I've never seen a story where a superhero was doing things like feeding the hungry, or doing charity races, and the superhero was portrayed by the writer as a dangerous extremist who needs to be stopped because he was doing that. The things that get a superhero portrayed as a dangerous extremist are the same kind of things that would have everyone recoil in horror if done by people in jackboots.

There's also the problem that superhero comics are unrealistic. Superheroing never goes wrong. The superhero doesn't do a warrantless search of someone's house, and discover he's innocent, leaving his window broken and his furniture smashed (unless he deserves it). The superhero never shoots an innocent man for grabbing at something during an arrest where it then turns out the man was trying to pull up his pants. And of course, nobody beat up by the superhero ever gets a concussion or any other form of permanent injury. If the superhero goes after targets that are too real-world, the superhero story turns into a story that justifies police brutality by imagining a fantasy world where there are no need for checks and balances on the police.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Ummm... that's really not true. Hell, Hercules (marvel) actually got sued over excessive force causing lasting injuries. Spiderman has explicitly mentioned that Stark deals with collateral damage suits against the Avengers. The main reason the "warrantless search" scenario comes up rarely is that the type of hero who actually does those tends to be the sneaky kind who doesn't leave that sort of mess. But it does happen. Hell, one time Spiderman didn't do his fucking research and goes to "rescue" a "kidnapped" boy from a known mafia enforcer. Turns out the kid was a runaway, was living there because the guy was training him to be a bodybuilder like he had been before he'd gone bad. The kid actually screams for help from Marko to save him from Spiderman. (Not a fun fight, by this point Marko is such a gene-altered, roided up mass of muscle it actually hurts Spidey to punch him)
 
Susano said:
At that point we kinda run at a definition problem, though. Because if that's the focus, we aren't dealing with "superheroes" anymore, but with social activists. And as a rule, people don't want to read "social activists" comics.

Which doesn't mean superheroes can't do social activism. But they're superheroes by dim of doing vigilantism, not social activism.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'm not asking for super heroes to not fight super villains, i just would like them to do more than just punch things.
Also, i was not the one who started on super heroes, i wanted heroes who do more than just promote status quo, be they in scifi, fantasy, super hero stories.
Because it is way too easy for "heroes" to end up as nothing but enforcers of the current order. Not because the author intended it so, but just because of how the story frames itself. And if the current order is, less than optimal, that can cause some questions about the actual morals of the hero.

Note that this is only about actual heroes, not just a protagonist who is not a villain or anti hero, but actual people who would be referred to as a hero by people in story, or the narrative tries to place them in such a role.
 
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top