A Nuclear Error really needs fixing. However it's not something I want to go wholesale chainsawing at without a bit of a discussion about what to leave in and what to take out.
For starters, I think we can condense it down to about two or three bullet points:
- (note about degradation of the electronics, silo water problems aggravating same)
- (dual key control at the silo proper)
- (preprogrammed mission profiles may not be easily changeable)
Thoughts?
Strawman Political: would this apply to the militia's law that "only the militia is allowed to have guns" as a commentary on the argument used by many second amendment "Individual Gun Rights" opponents use in Gun Control debates that the second amendment only applies to militias?
Hide / Show Replies
The rule seems to apply exclusively to the Monroe Republic, which is an outright dictatorship. Not many dictatorships are going to let their citizens have guns; even their conscript troops are only getting black powder muskets (and those without bayonets).
In Anyone Can Die entry, it describes one example as "who's abduction was the main driving point of the first half of Season 1"
I've seen this particular subtrope of Anyone Can Die elsewhere — Prison Break comes to mind immediately. Is there a subtrope for "killing off someone that a lot has been invested in"? Especially when someone is killed off that many people lost their lives in trying to save?
Edited by 69.172.221.4 Hide / Show Replies
Well, there is a trope called Shoot the Shaggy Dog. I think that sounds pretty close to what you're describing.
Oh, Equestria, we stand on guard for thee!
There has been scattered discussion about the power-coming-back-on realism. Just for comparison, I took two screenshots:
1. Just before the Blackout: http://i.imgur.com/E6WKudo
2. After the power comes back on 15 (16?) years later: http://i.imgur.com/Hy2Yntm
Even allowing for the fact that it is early dawn in the second picture, so the lighting contrast is different, you can definitely see the effect of years of lack of maintenance on the electrical infrastructure: the lighting patterns are clearly much sparser than pre-Blackout conditions.
Edited by 69.172.221.6
Okay, so we have the trope Motive Decay and the following description:
- Charlie's search for Danny. She says she needs to get to him as soon as possible so as to avoid him being in danger too long, but sees it necessary to save literally every person they come across along the way who isn't with the militia, putting herself and her group in danger every time for people who they'll most likely never see again. This would be an In-Universe trope, but, over time, the rest of the cast doesn't even call her out on it.
I understand that Motive Decay is often considered a bad thing, but I don't think it's that bad here. A number of reviews apparently think the "search for Danny" storyline is terrible and they can't wait for it to be wrapped up so they can focus on more fun stuff. Besides, if the show focused on that storyline at the expense of everything else, it would just detract from the show. So it makes sense to me that this storyline is falling by the wayside!
Oh, Equestria, we stand on guard for thee! Hide / Show Replies
Besides, in a decidedly transportation-limited world as that of Revolution, one almost expects twists and turns in the overarching journey since they need to travel on their feet. Look at the by-the-wayside (good and bad) events that take place in the White Mountains book of Tripods, for example.
It seems more like Dudley Do-Right Stops to Help than motive decay which is kind of a staple for any adventure story that is planned to go follow a protagonist for a long time.
Edited this out. It's no longer relevant now that the series has established Randall's capabilities.
Edited by 69.172.221.4
How much is Charlie really a Useless Protagonist? It's true that Miles had to save her a few times. But...she's been pulling her weight a few times too. She killed off two guys in episode 2. She managed to knock a former cop unconscious in episode 6. She managed to kill off that Complete Monster militia officer in episode 7. Episode 9 had her kill a Bitch in Sheep's Clothing with the bow and arrow.
I'm pointing all this out in the spirit of fair-mindedness.
Oh, Equestria, we stand on guard for thee!
So for Charlie, this trope is listed:
Took a Level in Jerkass: As of recent episodes, seems to be heading down this road, contrast to Miles taking levels in kindness.
I'm not sure TALIJ is the right trope to describe what's happening. Granted, she did act like a Jerkass in at the end of episode 5 and the whole of episode 6, but the Jerkass part vanished in subsequent episodes.
Wouldn't Jerkass Ball be a better trope to describe what happened there?
Oh, Equestria, we stand on guard for thee!
So, there are these two tropes listed that go into shilling:
- Character Shilling: Miles can't seem to call Charlie out on anything without hearing about how great she is or what she's been through or made to look like a bastard.
- Shilling the Wesley: Done by Nora on behalf of Charlie, just in case we had forgotten how "speshul" she was.
So, wait, how many times has Charlie been shilled? I know for a fact that Charlie has received no shilling at all in episodes 5, 6, and 7. In fact, Aaron has been calling out Charlie a couple of times, and not just Miles. Honestly, it's like one instance of shilling gets treated as crossing the Moral Event Horizon by viewers!
Oh, Equestria, we stand on guard for thee!
I have a question regarding the following entry:
No Ontological Inertia: Drexler's gang. Seriously, they just let Aaron and Nora walk away after killing their boss and patron? Not just that, but the moment Aaron lifted his gun at Drexler he should have been filled with lead, yet Aaron shoots Drexler dead, takes several minutes to pull the "saved by the cigarette case" schtick, and then raises his gun again, this time towards the heavily armed men, and they do nothing, with one mook seemingly so intent on aiming his gun at the girl, he seems oblivious that his boss just died. The only possible rationale for this (lack of) behavior is that they're drugged up, just as Drexler was.
The Laconic section of No Ontological Inertia states that "Something disappears because whatever brought it into existence disappears, even though it makes no sense." Is the situation being described above really this trope? I don't think so, and it might be better termed as Fridge Logic.
Besides, I would argue that the thugs' intelligence levels have not been stated, and that they were so shocked and surprised that Aaron just killed their boss that they probably didn't know what to do!
Oh, Equestria, we stand on guard for thee! Hide / Show Replies
I was thinking the same thing and I really do not see how that trope applies to the situation. Drexler's men don't disappear when he dies, they simply fail to react. The way I see it they are used to a Klingon Promotion system and are still processing whether Aaron is their new boss. When he says that he is leaving, they probably start thinking about whether they want to take over themselves or if they want to grab as much loot as they can and leave themselves. The longer they hesitate, the less likely they are to try to kill the protagonists.
No Ontological Inertia can apply to gangs and such, but this isn't an example. A correct one would be if they all threw down their guns and cried "We don't want to fight! No one's paying us any more!" Anyway, I'm gonna delete it.
It most certainly not the case. Thugs wouldn't win anything from shooting Aaron. And one of them would likely get shot in process - who would want to be shot?
Here's another trope that I'm finding myself question:
Idiot Ball: Charlie runs with it in "Sex and Drugs" when she agrees to assassinate O'Halloran for Drexler in exchange for saving Nora. She learns that unlike the Sociopath drug lord Drexler, O'Halloran is a former police officer and family man—and yet attempts to go through with the plan anyway! Yes, Charlie, kill off a potential ally who has a strong enough force at his disposal to destroy Drexler's fields...it's not like you can't talk to the man, tell him everything you know about Drexler's operation, and form a plan to free your friends, after all...
The laconic description for Idiot Ball states, "Keep the plot going by making someone do something uncharacteristically stupid."
Charlie has been given the designation of Idiot Hero, which states "A hero who acts like an idiot all the time."
So the question is this: how can Charlie be acting uncharacteristically stupid when it is in character for her to act stupid all the time?
Oh, Equestria, we stand on guard for thee! Hide / Show Replies
And it really that stupid? Fulfilling your deal with a person who holds your friends hostage isn't stupid. Suddenly change side is arguably worse.
Really, both paths are equally reasonable and one should choose based on their preferences.
Whats the "is reality really real?" trope. Where you think the characters are in the true reality then the shows tricks you and reveals they are not.