Subverting Expectations: The Megathread - Or How Baby Dick Creators ‘Sort of Forgot’ What an Anti-Climax Is

[Berrakh]

Mass Effect 3 was so bad one of its dumbest additions is frequently unmentioned in analyses of its failures. And while that makes sense, he's so irrelevant and tedious, it says something that Mass Effect 3 had this worthless obstacle to begin with.

 

[Poop A Loop]

I think people focus on the ending because it was such a glaring, terrible literary decision that basically overshadowed everything that came before it. So in contrast to what came before it was just amplified by magnitudes and people wanted to think they got SOME value out of it. Not to mention a lot of people just constantly played multiplayer. I think 3 was the least replayed game in the series as most people just beat it once and never touched it again. I know I played the multiplayer way more.

I was a Mass Effect FANATIC back in the fucking day. I beat 1 and 2 like 5 or 6 times. I played 3 exactly one time and never again. I didn't even touch any of the DLC for it, even when I did download mods to change the ending. The destruction of that franchise is something I'll never forget or forgive. I don't even know how Bioware plans on resurrecting it after Andromeda.

The Mass Effect Happy Ending Mod was the only reason I feel any closure over that series. Even if it was copy-pasted scenes and dialogue it still closed things out in a way that made thematic sense.

I still remember the silence after the RGB explosion and my wife's reaction afterwards that was simply "what the fuck was that?". If you can't even earn the approval of someone that was only passively interested in the series with your ending then you really messed up. I'm sure they'll make lotsa money from the series when they reboot it in whatever twisted, grotesque, whedon-esque form modern games storytelling molds it into, but it'll never be what it could have been because Casey Hudson liked the smell of his own farts too much.

 

[ZMOT]

I mean, the child is idiotic. Shepard has lost so many people MUCH closer to him than some random fucking kid. It would have been better to have the squad mate Shepard sacrificed as a hallucination.

the child is the stand in for all those squad mates. bioware was simply too lazy and cheap to do it properly in their "best time to jump into the trilogy" grand finale. depending on your choice you'd have to do a lot of redundant voiceacting etc, of which 90% is irrelevant for the individual player. simple cost/benefit. that's why I like to bring up the rachni queen so much, those fucking hacks couldn't even bother with a minor but memorable choice from 2 games earlier.

The major problem with ME3 is that all of the Reapers invaded. They're pretty much displayed as indestructible kill machines and there's really nothing the galaxy can do against them, so once they arrive, its game over. I mean we had trouble with ONE. So it kind of kills suspension of disbelief that they didn't just own the galaxy as soon as they arrived. I think that's really where ME 3 problems start. Honestly it should have been the Reaper's lighter, faster ships and armies that softened planets which arrived first. Infiltration, civil war, disorder, that whole thing.

I think the problem was they wanted a bombastic final game so they really didn't think it through. You needed the Reapers to send weaker forces that could actually be delayed or used to weaken the fighting strength of the worlds they wanted. With the Reapers coming in full force, there's really nothing at that point that can stop them from just ROFLstomping the whole galaxy. The problem was you needed to play it more like X-Com, infiltration and subversion and full civil unrest breaking out over the galaxy. You periodically go back to Earth to different locations to fight the Reaper infiltrators there, so Earth is the stage being set. Maybe you eventually find out how the Reapers are sending people, and the last mission is like the suicide mission in ME2, where you go right into Dark Space to the Reaper's mobile base of operations on a moving Mass Effect Relay. They could have went full bat-shit with it, make it so that you turn their moving 'Mass Effect' relay and used the Mass Effect to turn it into a gigantic fucking black hole in the middle of dark space that just sucks the entire Reaper Fleet in it.

You see what I did there? Use the titular title of the game and incorporate it into the finale of the plot into a batshit, but meaningful, way to wipe out the Reapers where there's no casualties? Yeah.

I think people focus on the ending because it was such a glaring, terrible literary decision that basically overshadowed everything that came before it. So in contrast to what came before it was just amplified by magnitudes and people wanted to think they got SOME value out of it. Not to mention a lot of people just constantly played multiplayer. I think 3 was the least replayed game in the series as most people just beat it once and never touched it again. I know I played the multiplayer way more.

I was a Mass Effect FANATIC back in the fucking day. I beat 1 and 2 like 5 or 6 times. I played 3 exactly one time and never again. I didn't even touch any of the DLC for it, even when I did download mods to change the ending. The destruction of that franchise is something I'll never forget or forgive. I don't even know how Bioware plans on resurrecting it after Andromeda.

I would have the reapers never show up, simple as that. the whole fucking point of the first game was to a) show how hard one reaper alone can wreck shit b) reapers are "beyond our comprehension" (remember sovereign's speech?) c) imply we can't defeat them if they ever show up in force, so all we can do is delay them and find another solution in the meantime. but nope, they still show up like 2 years later, the citadel mass relay apparently wasn't that important after all...

it's like having cthulhu show up no matter what you do and then it suddenly is an absolute retard so you can punch him in the face with a quip to save the day. yay!
the reapers after 1 would've worked far better as a looming threat in the background, which is one of the main fucking reason me2 actually works somewhat. it would also gave those hacks plenty of opportunity to simply ignore answering the how and why. it would be like trying to discern the motive of an eldritch god, and explain how it came into existence. no one wants to read about it spending time as a teen and shit (unless he's a cute animu girl).
since reapers can't be physically act for a long while, they have to try to influence the galaxy some other way, like your example, and since bioware pretty much did steal a lot of cues from lovecraft already (but in spaaaaaaaaace!) they can exactly follow a setup that has worked for the lovecraft mythos for literal decades; this would also work much better for normies when the scenario's are more grounded and believable, instead of downgrade and retconning your BBEG constantly after you wrote yourself into a corner.

not to mention this would also give bioware and EA the ability to milk the franchise literally forever, you could even have the same story beats but with a working trope this time of shepard fighting against some BBEG and then is missing afterwards. is he dead? will he come back? tune in next time and you might get an answer to that!

TLDR: hacks gonna hack, RIP the first victim of bioware's burning spree of crashing franchises.

EDIT: rewatching the virgil dialog, it dawned on me that there's a whole generation of zoombers who only know about me3 from the memes. I can't wait to see what happens when they finally finish the legendary edition and see the shitshow for themselves. this time with no multiplayer to distract them even.

Mass Effect 3 was so bad one of its dumbest additions is frequently unmentioned in analyses of its failures. And while that makes sense, he's so irrelevant and tedious, it says something that Mass Effect 3 had this worthless obstacle to begin with.
View attachment 2165033

I give kai leng a pass these days, because I can see what they were trying to do with the him, but failed on literally all fronts. it's not the characters fault the writers and people in charge were retarded hacks - like introduce him in a fucking novel, that novel being wendig-tier, then think it's a great idea to include a character which comes for most people out of fucking nowhere, and instead give him the proper development for that to work they double down with the most blatantly obvious plot armor you'd have trouble find an equivalent for, followed up by the mass effect version of xbox live butthurt hate mail, and die a stupid and uneventful death. probably one of the most unnecessary and shittily written characters I have the displeasure of knowing.

 

[Berrakh]

I give kai leng a pass these days, because I can see what they were trying to do with the him, but failed on literally all fronts. it's not the characters fault the writers and people in charge were retarded hacks - like introduce him in a fucking novel, that novel being wendig-tier, then think it's a great idea to include a character which comes for most people out of fucking nowhere, and instead give him the proper development for that to work they double down with the most blatantly obvious plot armor you'd have trouble find an equivalent for, followed up by the mass effect version of xbox live butthurt hate mail, and die a stupid and uneventful death. probably one of the most unnecessary and shittily written characters I have the displeasure of knowing.

For me it's less Kai Leng himself and more how he indicts the writers and developers. He wasn't necessary. He could have been good with a little bit more effort. And he was just silly. What it says is someone high up wanted a ninja and nobody had the ability or desire to shut the crap down. To me it says, on top of all the other failures, that when it came to Mass Effect 3 Bioware was incapable of making the right decisions.

It's similar to the Game of Thrones finale. Obviously anyone expecting a cathartic finale of tragedy and triumph was kidding themselves but the storytelling was so broken that they couldn't even deliver on a generic epic ending either. Or refrain from character assassination. I didn't like Danaerys either but D&D did not make her a mad queen to own feminists. They did it because they were stupid and didn't even care about the character they presented to the public. Generally it's a bad idea if the only people who could conceivably like a change are people who probably never liked the character much at all. Not sure why I digressed onto Danaerys but she's as good a microcosm of the bad writing as anyone.

 

[Commander X]

Subverting expectations is just another symptom of the disease that's been poisoning popular culture for years now, every other series or film or comic or whatever can't be earnest or serious, really, it all has to be "smart" and quippy and sarcastic to show off how "clever" the screenwriters and the directors are.

 

[AnOminous]

Subverting expectations is just another symptom of the disease that's been poisoning popular culture for years now, every other series or film or comic or whatever can't be earnest or serious, really, it all has to be "smart" and quippy and sarcastic to show off how "clever" the screenwriters and the directors are.

This is why now the main way to subvert popular culture is to be sincere and actually say what you really believe. Then watch as people desperately try to interpret it and figure out what hidden message you were trying to convey, when you actually just said what you meant.

 

[Starscreams Cape]

Subverting expectations is just another symptom of the disease that's been poisoning popular culture for years now, every other series or film or comic or whatever can't be earnest or serious, really, it all has to be "smart" and quippy and sarcastic to show off how "clever" the screenwriters and the directors are.

Whenever I hear people say this I think they should genuflect to Joss Whedon. It's such a clear lineage that I don't think anyone has even attempted to refute it. He was patient zero for the smarmy, quippy dialog. I curse myself for liking it in Firefly and Angel. And perhaps it was good in small doses, but damn is it annoying 20 years later and they're still copying it.

 

[Kane Lives]

Mass Effect 3 was so bad one of its dumbest additions is frequently unmentioned in analyses of its failures. And while that makes sense, he's so irrelevant and tedious, it says something that Mass Effect 3 had this worthless obstacle to begin with.
View attachment 2165033

Honestly, Mass Effect 3's ending was so bad that some (read: most people at first) people managed to retroactively justify the earlier parts as "good". The fact is the game had so many gaping holes and inexcusable additions that the entire game just falls apart on closer inspection. Honestly, I sometimes wonder if Hack Walters purposefully crash-landed the ending just to distract from the game's innumerable failures.

 

[Syaoran Li]

Whenever I hear people say this I think they should genuflect to Joss Whedon. It's such a clear lineage that I don't think anyone has even attempted to refute it. He was patient zero for the smarmy, quippy dialog. I curse myself for liking it in Firefly and Angel. And perhaps it was good in small doses, but damn is it annoying 20 years later and they're still copying it.

It only really worked in Buffy, since the snarky quippy dialogue he's known for actually fits well with a 90's Valley Girl protagonist. Firefly was never good to begin with and I never understood why it got this huge following.

Joss Whedon always was a one-trick pony whose first major project was a hit right out the gate and he eventually began to believe his own hype.

 

[AnOminous]

Joss Whedon always was a one-trick pony whose first major project was a hit right out the gate and he eventually began to believe his own hype.

I always viewed him as sort of a dime store version of Aaron Sorkin, except Sorkin's dialogue was a lot better. And Sorkin himself, I always viewed as a dollar store version of David Mamet, the only writer of dialogue like this worthy of respect.

 

[Berrakh]

I always viewed him as sort of a dime store version of Aaron Sorkin, except Sorkin's dialogue was a lot better. And Sorkin himself, I always viewed as a dollar store version of David Mamet, the only writer of dialogue like this worthy of respect.

I was gonna mention Sorkin but didn't have a point to make. Sorkin is notably more tolerable when it's not high production television. Movies that have to be punchy are best for him, but even then he can be just awful.

 

[AnOminous]

I was gonna mention Sorkin but didn't have a point to make. Sorkin is notably more tolerable when it's not high production television. Movies that have to be punchy are best for him, but even then he can be just awful.

He had a very good stock in trade of the "two characters walking and talking" in a tracking shot with a Steadicam or some shit with excellent dialogue. I have to admit I am an absolute sucker for Steadicam.

 

[kaien]

He had a very good stock in trade of the "two characters walking and talking" in a tracking shot with a Steadicam or some shit with excellent dialogue. I have to admit I am an absolute sucker for Steadicam.

Credit where due, the walk-and-talk style that's become associated with Sorkin is mostly the invention of producer/director Thomas Schlamme. He directed about a third of Sports Night, where it first became a regular part of the Sorkin toolbox.

 

[Secret Asshole]

Subverting expectations is just another symptom of the disease that's been poisoning popular culture for years now, every other series or film or comic or whatever can't be earnest or serious, really, it all has to be "smart" and quippy and sarcastic to show off how "clever" the screenwriters and the directors are.

That's really a big problem. You see this a lot with Western 'adult' cartoons. Its like they're absolutely PETRIFIED of being serious. Like "HAHAHA OH MY LOOK AT US, WE'RE A CARTOON LOLOLOLOLOL." Its complete insecurity that they can't handle it. Meanwhile anime has rape, gore, violence and ridiculous concepts that take themselves stone cold serious that it works in ways the West can't imagine.

The thing is the sort of sardonic dialogue works occasionally in super hero movies (only certain ones) because there are some scenarios that are just going to be absurd, and there's nothing wrong with them acknowledging it, especially if its their first go around.

Typically the smart and quippy stuff is a sign of insecurity in the material or a feeling that they're 'better' than the material itself. There's a big difference between a Joss Wheadon's Avengers and a James Gunn Guardians of the Galaxy. Both can be 'quippy', but in Guardians in feels in place while in Avengers, a lot of it is out of place. For some characters it works, for others it doesn't. The problem with Wheadon is its completely over used and detracts from the scenario.

The too-clever shit gets REALLY grating a lot of the time because it diffuses tension from the scene. It can also be an effective device to indicate to the audience shit is real. When in Civil War, Iron Man isn't making quips or being clever you know things are heavy. Like Wheadon would have him making stupid comments just after he found out his parents were murdered. Iron Man is extremely serious in that movie and it does help set the tone.

So while the quippyness can get annoying, it can also be used as a good device when its taken away. The key is to have that dynamic contrast and make it work for you. It also works in your favor as well, where you can make something seem not so 'serious' and then just do a 180 and stun the audience by having a civvie having his head blown off because someone was too busy being a smart ass (this would count as a subversion, and its an easy one to do, especially at the beginning of the film to establish tone and mood). It can ground your story, emphasize the seriousness of scenes and in other cases add sprinkles of levity to an otherwise dark story.

But in general, thanks to Wheadon, they've become EXTREMELY overused, to some films and features where they feel a need to have a flippant remark every other scene. In general, if this occurs it is because of insecurity in the strength of the material, being derisive of the genre, medium or subject matter or trying to imitate other, more successful films.

I always viewed him as sort of a dime store version of Aaron Sorkin, except Sorkin's dialogue was a lot better. And Sorkin himself, I always viewed as a dollar store version of David Mamet, the only writer of dialogue like this worthy of respect.

Well, Mamet came from the theater, which is why his dialogue is so fucking amazing. Which is why a lot of his movies have very few sets, because he is a theatre director and playwright by heart. I fucking love Mamet. Sorkin is usually pretty good too, though I think Sorkin is better when its a film or a shorter series (like 8 or 10 episodes) because he seems to get tired and worn out on longer shows and can get a tad repetitive.

Credit where due, the walk-and-talk style that's become associated with Sorkin is mostly the invention of producer/director Thomas Schlamme. He directed about a third of Sports Night, where it first became a regular part of the Sorkin toolbox.

I can't criticize this too much, because the alternative is just shot-reverse shot or just trying to get creative so its not just a static of two people talking which can get boring. And most people walk and talk so I don't find a problem with it.

 

[Berrakh]

What I love about Kai Leng's hatemail to you is it follows a battle where he has plot armor and so can't lose so he gets the stupid macguffin. It doesn't follow him murdering former companions when it would actually sting and demoralize you.

 

[JohnDoe]

House also was a show that tried to balance a procedural with a show that changed over time, which doesn't really work, because a procedural basically resets and a show that changes over time doesn't. Which is why you have to sort of pick one then the other, and House really didn't, so it wavered and it became this weird bag where there were plot points but they never really mattered because the show constantly reset because it was too afraid to grow.

You can have a procedural that changes over time which is also successful. The poster child for that is the original Law and Order. The solution there was pretty brilliant, and played to the strengths of their setup of having a large ensemble cast. With that cast they could focus development on one or two characters at a time, and rotate them out as their arcs completed. That way each individual episode maintained the same formula, but the gradual movements of the characters helped keep things fresh.

You can't really do the same thing with shows that have a central star that carries the series, though. That is one of the downsides of using a single actor as the keystone for a series.

Subverting expectations is just another symptom of the disease that's been poisoning popular culture for years now, every other series or film or comic or whatever can't be earnest or serious, really, it all has to be "smart" and quippy and sarcastic to show off how "clever" the screenwriters and the directors are.

Exactly. The majority, probably 98% of modern attempts at subversion are Dunning-Kruger on celluloid as writers fail epically to convince everyone that they are as smart as they think they are. The only way that anyone ever succeeds at bending or breaking the rules is by first mastering them, and almost nobody working today has the skill and dedication to reach that level of genuine artistry. It's another symptom of the post-modern thought and movement.

 

[Drag-on Knight 91873]

Subverting expectations is just another symptom of the disease that's been poisoning popular culture for years now, every other series or film or comic or whatever can't be earnest or serious, really, it all has to be "smart" and quippy and sarcastic to show off how "clever" the screenwriters and the directors are.

It's a very Gen X attitude to have. Which is why I consider the Battlestar Galactica remake to be the best non-strawman example of Gen X storytelling, which I wrote about in other threads.

 

[Berrakh]

It's a very Gen X attitude to have. Which is why I consider the Battlestar Galactica remake to be the best non-strawman example of Gen X storytelling, which I wrote about in other threads.

"People suck, they're selfish and stupid." The Gen-Xer cries out before paying his landlord to live in a building.
I have noticed this in a lot of works and fandoms I don't like. They can't stand things that are a little too on the nose with their quaint charm so it has to be deconstructed or devalued in some way. What good is something that's simple and perfectly communicable without words for fiction anyway?

 

[Berrakh]

Double-posting to share a story idea with a lot of potential

Misery except the author is planning some terrible ending/subversion so Annie Wilkes is the hero.

 

[Buttigieg2020]

Sherlock got REAL fucking annoying because it was utterly impossible to figure the mystery out. Like, there's absolutely no way to do it. Its not deduction, its just Sherlock being a psychic and shoving it in everyone's face. He's using his magical powers and conjuring the answer out of nowhere.

View attachment 2145902
Its all pointless if you look at it and the entire point of a mystery show is to try and figure out the mystery along with the MC. If you can't do that what's the fucking point? His performance, much like Hugh Laurie's 'House', gets EXTREMELY fucking grating after you watch enough of it. Which is another show that basically employs "Pull shit out of nowhere" to conjure up answers.

I honestly just prefer the procedural 'Elementary' with Lucy Liu. Laughably, this less popular show has better character development than Sherlock does, which HEAVILY relies on its gimmick of 'asshole protagonist' (NOT to be confused with anti-hero, which a lot of people and these shows do. Because your character is an asshole doesn't make him an anti-hero). Compartmentalization for memorization is a real technique, but its not fucking magic and like everything else, its subject to degradation if not constantly reinforced.

A large part of the problem is the insufferability of the asshole protagonist and the HEAVY reliance on that gimmick to carry the show. When in reality, House would have been fucking fired a thousand times over before the first season finished and ended up in some shithole clinic. Sherlock would NOT have been tolerated at all, no matter how fucking smart he was.

Sherlock survived because of the 'asshole' gimmick and the fujoshits and Tumblerites who wrote more Slash fan fiction of Sherlock than pages exist in War and Peace. That's by and large the major problem with the asshole protagonist. You can't change them because that's what makes people coming back. If they change, the whole thing falls apart and you can see that the show just doesn't have the substance of the plot to carry it. So it has to have all these characters remain flat and unchanged. You'll have the token 'BFF gets angry and breaks up with asshole protagonist' but how long does that last? Not really all that long.

So its basically a fake subversion, because there's all style no substance. Its sort of like dividing 0 by 0. There's just nothing there, you pull back the curtain and its just an empty room. It takes everything away and replaces it with, fundamentally, an illusion. It has to rely on the psychic plot elements (figuratively, not literally) because the protagonist is fucking unlikeable otherwise. I've not seen any media where the protagonist remains unchanged as half-way decent or anything but a bait and switch, forcing the audience to like the protagonist no matter what. Because if you find House loathsome and insufferable, the show has nothing for you, because its all it offers. He's not meant to change. And honestly, its a problem in the West. These characters, no matter what happens, essentially reset. Because the show has nothing else there. And the problem with these shows is the mystery HAS to be inscrutable and impossible to figure out, because if the audience can do it, so can anyone else in the show, and the asshole protagonist would quickly be cast aside. So they MUST have these impossible powers.

Nor does the show consider people who are just as smart but are, you know, likeable. If the show ever introduces one, it is always as a villain or a fraud, because again, that would compromise the show. That would be a hilarious subversion in and of itself. Have Moriarty be a genius, but nice and Sherlock turns out to be the villain in the end because he wants the fame and recognition or he just wants to be the smartest. Neither Sherlock nor House introduce a character like this to challenge the 'asshole protagonist' on their own turf without being slightly more evil than them or being a fraud. Wouldn't that be interesting where the MC to these shows must deal with someone as good as they are but have a better personality? Huh. Almost like they couldn't fucking compete at all. And it is pure laziness to say "Oh, anyone as smart as X would be just as much of an asshole or evil". Naw. Not true in the least. Its simply because you couldn't come up with a decent dramatic arc and have to rely on your protagonist being the miracle worker rather than showing them the TINIEST bit of change.

Like, look at 'Don't Bully Me, Miss Nagatoro' (both anime and manga). She treats this guy like her personal toy (in the manga she was outright fucking vicious, its a bit more toned down in the anime) but later on the protagonist grows a spine and even learns to quip back and its clear Nagatoro likes the protagonist and their relationship changes. A silly Japanese High-School comedy can go the 'asshole' route and have her change and still have the material be appealing, but the West can't even do that for high impact Crime or Medical dramas.

The creativity in the West is honestly really pathetic. And I'd just watch Elementary for a decent portrayal of a flawed, but brilliant Holmes who isn't just a fucking cunt who would be masturbating in his own shit with a Soncihu necklace because he's severely autistic. Fuck, Sherlock is stupid. And they wonder why the BBC didn't bother going back to it. 'Asshole Protagonist' is a retarded subversion in the West, which again, is all style and no substance. Its pure trash, relying on the protagonist to have magical powers outside of the realm of reality, no matter how grounded the show tries to be.

EDIT:
I'm reminded of the episode where Sherlock has to pretend to be nice and he CANNOT EVEN DO THAT FOR A FUCKING MINUTE. Like he just de-evolves into cunt mode, even though he understands this would be idiotic. Its played off as quirky "Hahah, isn't Sherlock so autistic?" but it came off as fucking cringe as they couldn't even make a single fucking setup with him even attempting to be normal. Just have him whip his cock out and start jerking himself off if he's THAT fucking clueless, which he isn't. Its so fucking terrible and it just shows how much they rely on him being a cunt to keep things interesting as they can't even create a single fucking scenario where he has to pretend to play nice and grit his teeth, he just gives up and becomes an asshole anyway, so what's the fucking point? A gag? Get fucked. Uncreative BBC trash.

Sherlock pulling shit out nowhere in a way that the audience literally can’t predict is actually pretty accurate to the novels. The idea that the reader should be able to figure out the mystery is definitely a post Doyle invention.