People, some help here. What's the difference between this trope and Ontological Inertia? They sound too similar to me.
I think there's another version where you can change fate but the world will adjust itself to be equally as bad overall, like in that Gravity Falls episode where Dipper couldn't be with Wendy unless Mabel lost Waddles, to the point that the base ball defied physics when Dipper tried to throw it differently without Mabel's help.
And if the trailers are any indication it looks like the next Flash episode is headed that way too.
Citizen
Deleted the Minority Report example. It was getting Nattering, and it really isn't an example of this trope. The very premise of the film and book was that by knowing your destiny you can change it. Agatha says as much herself. "You still have a choice," she says.
The point of Precrime is to predict murders and then stop them before they happen. Chief Anderton even makes the choice not to kill Leo Crow when he has the opportunity, even though the precogs predicted that he did. That makes this an example of Screw Destiny.
What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.
Removed:
- This is the whole point of pinball games!
Pulling this example for violating Example Indentation. The second-level bulletpoint looks like someone is commenting on the example above, making it Conversation in the Main Page (and that's terrible). Since I don't comprehend the example, I can't rewrite it either.
- Lampshaded in Dead Again:
Franklyn Madson: This is fate we're talking about, and if fate works at all, it works because people think that this time, it isn't going to happen!
- Although, in this case, it's a subversion - Madson is talking about Mike and Grace, the reincarnated version of Margaret and Roman Strauss, respectively, whom he doesn't want to see get together because, he, Madson, killed Margaret.
Let's just say and leave it at that.