Chaos Theory April 18, 2015 Share April 18, 2015 Yep, this is becoming a big movie and TV trope for a character to sacrifice many, sometimes hundreds, thousands or millions for one person. Who would do this? It's not a trope per se more a question movies and television shows like to ask especially "hero" shows or action ones? The nature of sacrifice. Does the needs of the many always outweigh the needs of the one? Would you let the world burn to save the one you love? Link to comment
supposebly April 18, 2015 Share April 18, 2015 Would you let the world burn to save the one you love? I think the trope is that it seems (at least to me) that a lot of shows or movies tend to lean towards presenting choosing one person over the many as the morally better choice. Or at least the choice that gives the movie the happy ending. Or get everything saved. The one AND the many. I'm not sure that's what's happening here, though. Ramse and Aaron certainly were presented as antagonistic or opposing forces but Cole's choice just happened to be the one that saves his loved one AND billions of people. So, not so much the rock-and-the-hard-place kind of choice. So, he really has no leg to stand on when it comes to arguing about BILLIONS OF PEOPLE! when his choice wasn't really one. He was prepared to sacrifice himself at the beginning and probably still is but he's not prepared to let Cassie die while he had no problem shooting that young doctor Cassie was close to. I hope they can keep the quality up. I really liked the scene when Cole beat up Aaron. Because there was some stellar acting going on when Aaron finally gave up. I could see in his eyes the moment when he finally gave up. When he realized that there was nothing coming from Cassie anymore and that his attempt to save her was all for nothing and that she would go down with Cole no matter what he would do. Link to comment
Rhetorica April 18, 2015 Share April 18, 2015 Yep, this is becoming a big movie and TV trope for a character to sacrifice many, sometimes hundreds, thousands or millions for one person. Who would do this? It's not just a trope, it's a philosophy. Utilitarianism - most times attributed to Jeremy Bentham. I taught this for philosophical debate well before Spock ever spoke it. The philosophy claims "it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong". Or, the good of the many outweigh the good of the few - or the one. Students thought I stole it from Star Trek. 3 Link to comment
FurryFury April 18, 2015 Share April 18, 2015 (edited) Yep, this is becoming a big movie and TV trope for a character to sacrifice many, sometimes hundreds, thousands or millions for one person. Who would do this? An idiot or a villain. It can be used well if justified (like a character being on the verge of a mental breakdown a la Buffy circa season 5 finale, which she admits and laments later), but otherwise, it's a stupid trope that needs to be killed with fire, at least for characters who are supposed to be viewed as unambiguously heroic. It's not a trope per se more a question movies and television shows like to ask especially "hero" shows or action ones? The nature of sacrifice. Does the needs of the many always outweigh the needs of the one? Would you let the world burn to save the one you love? I'd say it's definitely a trope. One I'm glad they've decided to explore and deconstruct. High time for that. (It has been notably subverted a couple of times, though - my favorite example is Angel's heartwrenching duology "Hole In The World/Shells"). Edited April 18, 2015 by FurryFury Link to comment
Rhetorica April 18, 2015 Share April 18, 2015 An idiot or a villain. It can be used well if justified (like a character being on the verge of a mental breakdown a la Buffy circa season 5 finale, which she admits and laments later), but otherwise, it's a stupid trope that needs to be killed with fire, at least for characters who are supposed to be viewed as unambiguously heroic. I'd say it's definitely a trope. One I'm glad they've decided to explore and deconstruct. High time for that. (It has been notably subverted a couple of times, though - my favorite example is Angel's heartwrenching duology "Hole In The World/Shells"). "Always Save the Girl"? Even Disney is getting away from this tried and true trope. A girl can save herself, thank you very much... Link to comment
FurryFury April 18, 2015 Share April 18, 2015 (edited) "Always Save the Girl"? Even Disney is getting away from this tried and true trope. A girl can save herself, thank you very much... Just read the description. It's not necessarily about a girl. It's just a title. Edited April 18, 2015 by FurryFury Link to comment
Rhetorica April 18, 2015 Share April 18, 2015 Just read the description. It's not necessarily about a girl. It's just a title. I know, I read it. I was trying sarcasm. Not well, evidently. But in this case, it is about the two main characters, which would be a boring trope, to me. It fills the characters with such angst. I just don't want to see it with Cole and Cassie. Are you glad they've decided to explore this because of Cassie and Cole, or the other characters? What do you hope develops as a storyline? Link to comment
FurryFury April 18, 2015 Share April 18, 2015 I love it that BOTH Cassie and Cole are all "saving the world > saving each other". It makes them both so much more admirable, imho. It makes them real heroes. In contrast, we have Aaron and Ramse, both of whom are so obsessed with saving Cassie and his son respectively that they lose sight of everything else. I think the show tries to tells us that yeah, one person isn't worth the whole world. Which is how it should be. Fiction, in general, is basically built on us emphasizing with characters, so often we don't even try to question why the protagonists place an important character's life over tens or hundreds or millions of redshirts or offscreen people. But I think that we should. Because being a hero isn't about making the easy choice or following your heart, damn the consequences. It's following your conscience. And if your conscience doesn't tell you that prioritizing one life over lots of others isn't the wrong choice... then maybe you aren't a hero after all, no matter what you think. Link to comment
Cardie April 19, 2015 Share April 19, 2015 Even Kat Jones's determination to save those wiped out in the past, even to the extent of laying waste the ability to inoculate against the plague and rebuild a future society from the surviving remnant, really only stems from her desire to regain Hannah. Link to comment
FurryFury April 19, 2015 Share April 19, 2015 Yeah, and it really rubbed me the wrong way. But considering she's still alive, though, I have to wonder if one day she'll have to choose between Hannah and the humanity. I'm not 100% sure of her choice, too. Link to comment
Rhetorica April 19, 2015 Share April 19, 2015 I'm going to share here, so no judgement. My daydreams, fantasies, whatever you call them, always have me saving the world. But everyone is a stranger. No family or loved ones in play. I cannot imagine sacrificing my children. Selfish, I know. That's why I think Jones, Cassie, and Cole ring true. Ramses, not so much because he doesn't seem to have even bonded with his son. Link to comment
KaleyFirefly February 3, 2016 Share February 3, 2016 I like this show, but I don't want them to drag it out too long. I hope that the writers have an ending in mind that they are writing towards, and it's not going to be like "Lost" where they just kept going without any plan. I want to see a happy ending for all these characters, especially Cole and Jones. Link to comment
Jordan27 June 2, 2016 Share June 2, 2016 On 4/18/2015 at 5:08 PM, Rhetorica said: "Always Save the Girl"? Even Disney is getting away from this tried and true trope. A girl can save herself, thank you very much... Buffy would agree. 1 Link to comment
Recommended Posts