[ SECRET POST #2636 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2636 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.
[Pinocchio]













Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 04 pages, 086 secrets from Secret Submission Post #377.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 1 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Re: Tropes that irrationally annoy the hell out of you.

[case]

Zombie canons where literally none of the cast have ever seen a zombie movie or read a zombie comic or ever made plans in case of zombie apocalypse. Dramas where everything could be solved by a simple conversation but nobody ever has it even if they could, and no one ever suggests they do. Every single time a superhero lets a villain that is a huge threat to society live or escape (dozens and dozens of times, over and over again) and nobody starts up a huge negative PR campaign about said hero being totally ineffectual in the long run.

Basically: forced Genre Blindness

Re: Tropes that irrationally annoy the hell out of you.

[(Anonymous)]

I hate the trope wherein it is considered smart or clever to bitch about Superheroes acting like Heroes and not murderous bastards.

Re: Tropes that irrationally annoy the hell out of you.

[case]

Sure, me too!

There is a whole lot of grey area between Superhero and Murderous Bastard however, which is hardly ever recognized.

How many times does the same villain have to mass murder people before it becomes way more "good," consequentially speaking and thinking of all the poor mooks/civs that have to DIE every time it happens, to metaphorically shoot one guy in the face and end it?

Re: Tropes that irrationally annoy the hell out of you.

[(Anonymous)]

As many times as it takes to reach the next continuity reboot (or next senior editor, which is often the same thing, who'll have a fresh slate of stories and villains) and then we can start again.

Re: Tropes that irrationally annoy the hell out of you.

[case]

It was a rhetorical question, but the way you answered it kinda just proves the point that nothing matters besides making sure there are always people around to fight, regardless of what's good for the actual world or city they live in.

Most superheroes don't do it for me because I personally have a hard time considering them as truly "good" when they constantly (due to plot, writers, etc) end up putting their personal morals or their righteous self-image above what, in practice/utility, is safer for the whole (that they supposedly protect). No, I don't think superheroes should immediately go kill people, of course not. But seriously after like the 4th or 5th escape and mass murder in the same continuity, where they keep just not getting rid of the damn threat when they have the chance, it annoys me when people (as in the fictional civs who keep dying that writers gloss over and readers are supposed to ignore) STILL all think this hero is a great and wonderful person.

Re: Tropes that irrationally annoy the hell out of you.

[(Anonymous)]

The hero(ine) is a wonderful and morally upstanding person (excepting Frozone and Iceman, anyone that freezes things is automatically douche) the fictional courts on the other hand...are flawed as are our own so yay for realism I guess.

Re: Tropes that irrationally annoy the hell out of you.

[case]

So... we disagree? That's ok with me. I'm honestly not sure if you were trying to convince me that this supposed hero(ine) is good by just ?? informing me that in your opinion they are wonderful, but sorry, I think we're just going to have to keep disagreeing here.

Re: Tropes that irrationally annoy the hell out of you.

[(Anonymous)]

You gotta either accept genre conventions or get out of the genre Case.

Re: Tropes that irrationally annoy the hell out of you.

[(Anonymous)]

I disagree with this view. There's nothing wrong with wanting things to be well-written.

Re: Tropes that irrationally annoy the hell out of you.

[(Anonymous)]

There is well written, and then there is written to your own personal determination of what you feel ought to be right and wrong. Case is calling for the latter (an unsurprisingly authoritarian and judgemental approach really).

Re: Tropes that irrationally annoy the hell out of you.

[case]

Huh?

"Tropes that irrationally annoy the hell out of you."

I listed some. What's the calling anyone to do anything?

Re: Tropes that irrationally annoy the hell out of you.

[(Anonymous)]

first, you should probably set aside what i'm saying and what case is saying, because what case is saying is much more reasonable

second, i think there are probably some situations where genre conventions or cliches lead simply to bad writing

third, i guess i'm just uncomfortable with any iteration of "you don't like this thing? well either deal with it or GTFO of the genre." it's okay to have tastes and to like and dislike things. especially in the context of what Case was actually saying. he wasn't saying that no one should write like that, just that he personally disliked those things - and your response was that if he didn't care for that stuff, there was no point being in the genre at all. i mean, what the fuck is that

Re: Tropes that irrationally annoy the hell out of you.

[case]

That was a little confusing, yeah. "You don't like women in magic bikini armor? Stop playing video games!"

No...?

Re: Tropes that irrationally annoy the hell out of you.

[case]

Nah, that doesn't make sense. If we either accept every single convention or get out, then every single canon within the genre would have exactly the same tropes - no variation allowed, or else it's not "True ____"! There are plenty of zombie/superhero/soap opera conventions that don't rely on genre blindness to exist.

Re: Tropes that irrationally annoy the hell out of you.

[(Anonymous)]

You should read Kingdom Come! It's set in the future of the DCU, where most classic Golden Age superheroes have retired because the world sees them as dated after the Joker blew up the Daily Planet, killing Lois Lane, and Superman didn't kill him--another, new hero did. Everyone thinks this is the right choice, and Superman is disappointed and goes into seclusion.

Eventually, Superman says while he doesn't kill for many reasons, one of the most important is that they are NOT above society's laws. Judges are the ones who decide the sentence and the guilt, not superheroes. It is not their place to act like the gods of life and death.

Basically, if you want them dead so badly, then let it be by civilized laws, in court. This mostly applying to more human-level villains like Lex and the Joker.

Re: Tropes that irrationally annoy the hell out of you.

[case]

That actually annoys me on a separate level - the whole view that superheroes shouldn't be the gods of life and death and "superheroes don't get to decide that" - BUT when it comes to stopping human-level villains like Lex and the Joker by punching through walls and destroying buildings and forcing other people to deal with the collateral damage or accidentally causing gigantic explosions, that's fine. Even if nobody asked them to dive in and start violently heroing.

There's no reason at all to leave it to the cops or the military, because unlike cops and the military, human courts and judges and law systems are... infallible...? For some reason. Why do they respect one institution and not the other? If they respected both and stood down, that'd made sense. If they respected neither, that'd make sense. Respecting one but not the other seems arbitrary and hypocritical. If they're "not above society's laws" why the heck are they diving in to punch bad guys in the face when not officially authorized to do so? That's pretty much going directly above society's laws.

Like there's punching out a guy that's mugging you in self-defense, and then there's patrolling the streets looking for muggers to punch when you're not actually a police officer or anything like that. Not all, but most superheroes are basically vigilantes and vigilantes are kind of the definition of considering themselves above the law. To say they shouldn't be above the law, after doing everything they do, is pretty laughable.

Obviously supernatural SUPERPOWERED threats and all are a different thing, and I mean human-level villains only. But - usually, at least - the only reason a crack team of regular old military/etc can't stop Joker is because he has totally arbitrary Plot Armor that makes it so only Batman can do it. And just because Batman happens to be correct in jumping in when it comes to Joker and his Plot Armor, doesn't mean it's morally right on principle to do so ALL the time.

I get all the arguments for the Plot Armor - it's for the sake of the story et cetera et cetera and I agree with that. Without those tropes, a story of that kind wouldn't be possible. That doesn't mean a different story can't exist in the same genre. These are just things that personally annoy me about the genre as a whole.