[ SECRET POST #2527 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2527 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.












Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 042 secrets from Secret Submission Post #361.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[fscom]

10. http://i.imgur.com/kTVyRqY.png

[(Anonymous)]

Well, I know that in the case of the latest Superman movie people weren't so much annoyed at the damage as the fact that Superman did nothing to move the battle away from the city (which if memory served, he did in the Christopher Reeves films). It just felt like disaster porn.

[(Anonymous)]

Yes! At least the Avengers tried to keep it contained in a small area, since taking it out of the city was out of the question.

[(Anonymous)]

I thought he WAS trying to move it away? Just hard to keep moving when a superpowered enemy keeps punching you.

it has been a while since I've seen it...actually I'd like to do so again, I should get on that.

[(Anonymous)]

Didn't he try to fly into space at one point, but his enemy just kept barreling back? It was his first outing of sorts as a hero, he had more than a handful to deal with.

[comradesmiler]

Oh god, /co/'s Insufferable about Man of Steel.

[(Anonymous)]

Yep, or the time he made a GAS STATION explode, which had presumably people in it. I'm sure that could've been avoided.

[thezmage]

Well, my big problem with Man of Steel is that he more or less invited them there. I could live with the destruction provided that it would have happened even if Clark wasn't there in the first place.

[(Anonymous)]

Yes, I was going to say that I agree with the secret in general, except when it comes to Man of Steel.

[kaijinscendre]

*googles The Giant Chicken that ate Hoboken* Huh. And yeah, I don't get it either. Would you rather have some broken buildings or be DEAD.

[(Anonymous)]

you're joking, but serioustalk, I imagine there are people who would take the dead option over losing everything


hypothetically speaking

I'd take the staying alive option, tho

[(Anonymous)]

I don't like your reasoning. So if you avert a big bad thing, small bad things are okay and nobody should complain?

That's shitty. Ends can justify the means, but that doesn't mean the means or the negative impacts of the means should be ignored. You can easily justify killing someone else, but that doesn't mean that killing someone is something everyone should just "get over."

[(Anonymous)]

You're lumping several scenarios together, though.

We have the all-out attack by things which seem intent on destroying the city anyway, as in Avengers. Your point is completely correct.

On the other hand, suppose we have a bad guy with superpowers robbing banks. He doesn't want to destroy the city; he wants to rob banks. When the good guys with superpowers show up to apprehend him, the ensuing fight destroys half the city. This is where some nitpicking becomes more appropriate.

[diet_poison]

ugh, people do that?

I mean I get why some in-canon characters do it - they want a scapegoat and the person/being actually responsible for the damage is dead. But it's still a shitty thing to do. Do people actually think superheroes in big super fights are responsible for the damage caused while they were trying to save human lives??

[galerian-ash.livejournal.com]

There's a pretty good scene in One Punch-Man about this very thing!

[bringreligiontothewamwams]

Its more when they cause massive collateral damage, when a way to defeat the giant all devouring plot device without the collateral damage was staring them in the face. Or even the far more blatant, when everything points to their being an alternative, but the writer has invoked far too many coincidences or extreme circumstances to avoid it. Nothing pisses an audience off more than author fiat to remove alternatives even when those alternatives would grow naturally out of the circumstances the author has already written. Usually that is a sign of being written by committee and a shitty author doing a rewrite of a decent story to amp up the spectacle.

[likeadeuce]

I think it's less a Watsonian critique of the character choices than a Doylist critique of 'Why do they make movies that are so full of destruction and then we're supposed to cheer in the end because everything DIDN'T be destroyed."

I don't take the critique all that seriously -- it's how the genre works, in most cases I think people are being too literal -- but that's how I understand it.

[intrigueing]

No, but civilians in the Marvel universe are massive unfair whiny dickholes and always have been. It's one of my favorite things about that 'verse ;)

You're assuming the heroes are being honest

[(Anonymous)]

Fiction is all well and good because we get to follow the heroes around and actually understand what's going on. In the case of Avengers, we knew the invading aliens were planning mass destruction and genocide and all these things. In that example, some smaller amount of destruction to prevent all that makes perfect sense.

In most real life cases, though, we just get the destruction and then the heroes telling us afterwards that it was necessary. We're supposed to take them at their word without really knowing why, and that has backfired before, especially in the USA. All our "catch the terrorist" regulations, anyone?

So...the people claiming fictional heroes are destructive are probably just the people who don't really believe the heroes were completely right.

[(Anonymous)]

I think what bothers me more is that the hero/es with their superior strength, speed, or wealth don't use those attributes to immediately help recovery. Or at least, are rarely addressed as having done so or planning to.

It's been nearly a month since I've seen Thor 2 and I'm still mad Tony Stark and/or SHIELD didn't provide Selvig, Thor's girlfriend's beloved mentor, with the finest mental healthcare money can buy.

This is also something that comes up in real life.

[(Anonymous)]

Having to do with high-speed police chases and police stand-offs. Now, mostly, I blame the person(s) running from or shooting at the police for the damage that happens, but sometimes a police officer will make an extremely poor decision and I think something should be done about it (new training, new rules/regulations/procedures put into place, reprimand/suspension).

But honestly, since I'm not sure there are procedures in place for alien invasions, I'm not entirely sure I can blame someone who is in the fight against it for the decisions they make. Are there ways to minimize damage? Probably. Is that what someone will be thinking about when they make split-second decisions? Probably not. I'm sure they would be looking to minimize casualties, but how well they would be able to predict what actions would be best, I don't know.

[(Anonymous)]

I haven't read the comments yet, but I have a strong suspicion that this thread is going to turn into "Civil War 2: The Internet Version"

[(Anonymous)]

Have you ever thought about who has to pay everything that's been damaged (albeit this shit ain't real, but anyhow)? Read Marvel's Civil War and you get a better picture of everything.

[arcadiaego]

I think it's more pointing out that it's bizarre no one ever seems to mention it. (Except that we're post modern now so sometimes they do.) It's the family of the evil henchman joke from Austen Powers, basically.

Secret 10 - Accountability of urban destruction in superhero fights

[transcriptanon]

[Picture is Thor, as portrayed by Chris Hemsworth, and Steve Rogers, codename Captain America, as portrayed by Chris Evans, standing in the middle of a ravaged street with debris all around them. They are looking at the destruction, a little overwhelmed. Thor is wearing armor and a red cape and holding a huge hammer in one hand, while Steve is in his blue, red and white costume, holding a similarly decorated shield.]

I really don't get it when people talk about all the property destruction and human collateral damage that the heroes in action/disaster/sci-fi movies are "responsible for". Without the intervention of the heroes, the Giant Chicken that Ate Hoboken or whatever would kill everyone. Are they supposed to feel guilty for dropping ONE building on the Giant Chicken instead of letting said Chicken eat all the buildings? Would people really rather that the heroes hadn't been there?

Picture somewhat related, but this applies to multiple shows and fandoms.