Writing Pet Peeve; Plot Induced Incompetence

[Valhalla Erikson]

Spoilers ahead for anyone who haven't seen Dune 2.

If there's a particular writing trope, I really don't like it's how a character, a group of characters, or a faction that was once introduced as a formidable threat and is established as such but then whatever competence they've had before is completely gone either in later installments of a story or during the later part of a film/tv show.

Take The Harkonnen Empire for instance. In the first installment they were established as a pretty ruthless empire with a cunning and effective military. Cunning enough to stage a successful coup and drive Paul into exile. But by Dune 2 they fought the Freeman like a bunch of amateurs. It was like I was looking at a different antagonist when compared to the first movie and the battle was so one sided in the Freeman's favor that it was hard for me to get emotionally invested when Paul managed to achieve his goal without the struggle that goes with it.

Why can't we have a story where both sides have their strengths and weaknesses? In the original Star Wars Trilogy, the rebel alliance's war with The Empire was no cakewalk. There have been times when they have to retreat from the empire or Vader and the casualties that befall upon them mattered because the rebels knew that if they lose then all hope is lost. Even in A New Hope, Luke won, and it was an awesome moment but boy was he lucky that Han arrived when he did, and Luke figured out how to use The Force.

If a villain is embarrassingly incompetent, then it removes the stakes for the protagonist to overcome. If the protagonist is a loser with no guarantee of a victory against the antagonist, then why should we care to root for him? 

I just hate it that a hero looks strong because plot says so and the same could be said for the villain.

[saintofm]

Idiot Ball: when you need to get a group of intelligent people to act like idiots for no reason at all.

I think an easy fix they should have had the Atadees Mentat (forget his name) survive and be forced to work with the Harkonens as this might have fixed part of this. In the Books, the Harkonens looked down and underestimate the Fremen, and so having them show this more and more this would have made the conversation the Mentate and the Baron have hit like mack truck: They kill millions of Fremen, but there are millions more to take their place. The Atrades understood they would be their Sadicar if they could earn their trust and harness their power. However, The Baron and his nephews constantly underestimate them, and the one played by Dave Baptista was considered a dumb meat head so was there to be a sacrificial lion for the other nephew to come and be a savior of sorts for the people of Dune.

I think alot of people had the same problem with the badguys in Battlefield Earth. Its one thing if John Travolta's charecter is a total tool, its another when its an entire race of people. Seriously, species you reduced to caveman levels managed to beat you with tech that failed the last time? Yeah they were ready for an extinction level event.

[Alatariel]

Oh yes, this happens so often in TV shows and movies (and books but lately it's been Hollywood who does this the most). 

A lot of superhero or supernatural shows do this. They introduce a villain or antagonist who is Extremely Powerful. The main characters struggle to conquer it/them. Sometimes this villain/antagonist is imprisoned or contained instead of killed off. The next season comes out and they introduce a NEW Big Baddie. The main characters enlist the help of the previous villain who was SO Ultra Powerful. Then they face the new Big Baddie and the old villain is basically useless, gets knocked out easily, or is otherwise rendered impotent. Or the previous villain has a redemption arc and becomes part of the good guy's team and is also basically useless. 

I hate it.

Going back to Dune 2...I was trying to figure out why the movie made less of an impact on me. I loved the first one. They did such a great job bringing the book to life while also updating some weird stuff that's in the books and didn't age well. Dune 2 made similar improvements but fell flat for me and I could NOT figure out why. So thank you! It was their portrayal of the Harkonnen's and their sudden incompetence and the miraculously untouchable Fremen. The struggles were not made clear and seemed insubstantial. That's the problem with Chosen One tropes and prophesies. It takes away a lot of the tension and conflict.

[Valhalla Erikson]

Anime is just as bad if not worse than Hollywood. In one particular arc the villain is introduced as this imposing obstacle for the hero to overcome and the villain is usually defeated by the power of friendship or whatever random power up the writer gives the hero. No build or training to make the hero earn it just given immense power to defeat the bad guy.

Going back to Dune 2...I was trying to figure out why the movie made less of an impact on me. I loved the first one. They did such a great job bringing the book to life while also updating some weird stuff that's in the books and didn't age well. Dune 2 made similar improvements but fell flat for me and I could NOT figure out why. So thank you! It was their portrayal of the Harkonnen's and their sudden incompetence and the miraculously untouchable Fremen. The struggles were not made clear and seemed insubstantial. That's the problem with Chosen One tropes and prophesies. It takes away a lot of the tension and conflict.

I felt like Austin Butler's character was wasted. Which is a shame, given how much his villain character was hyped up. He had one solid introduction scene then barely did anything noteworthy after that. I thought there was a missed opportunity to make him the new Darth Vader. The kind of villain that would put the protagonist through the ringer. Yet he got defeated in his first encounter with Paul due to plo-prophecy.

I thought a better fix would've been to have Feyd be the dark reflection of Paul. Establishing just what Paul could've become had he gone completely off the deep end. And there were several hints at that approach but wasn't executed well.

[saintofm]

I think part of the problem is that that people that create entertainment often follow a formula that works, and then copy paste it. Made worse when the studio heads are forcing the issue. It works for a while, but then either a couple major flops ruin it for the genre (What Hello Dolly was blamed for when the Musical stopped being as popular) or a spoof rips it a new one (Blazing Saddles for Westerns), or something new and exciting happens and takes people's attention, and mor importantly their money from the old hotness (What Nirvana and by extension Grunge Did to Hair Metal).

Supposedly competent people acting like a pack of idiots when its convenient to the plot, or certain pink haired girl in a popular Ninja anime (still like Naruto but man Sakura needed more time to cook in her development).


To add one things that bugs me in entertainment, when there are no consequences to violence, especially in kids cartoons. As much as GIGOE was a big part of my childhood growing up, it had a major problem: The violence was meaningless. The only time someone could actually hit something was when the robot soldiers on COBRA's side showed up, and they might as well have been target practice. But otherwise the battles were bloodless.

This is something one the main writer for the Marvel Comic and Carrecter backstory for the toys, Lary Hamma, hated. He served in the army, and based the JOE TUnnle Rat off of him and what he did in the military.

A number of kid-oriented stuff have delt with this surprisingly well. How To Train Your Dragon made Hiccup an amputee to show how intense the battle with the Red Death was. Gargoyles had an episode on gun violence, that handled that heavy subject very well and even delt with the hypocrisy of trading projectile fire arms for laser ones (because at the end of the day, a gun is a gun is a gun). Ang and the Gange in Avitar: The last Airbender have mental and physical scars from what they went through.

[Valhalla Erikson]

That is what I appreciated about RWBY, I'll never forgive WB for cancelling RT, because when Yang's arm got cut off that was a strong indicator that nobody is safe. In 1980s cartoons no matter how dire a character's situation is you know they'll get out of that situation unscathed but when Yang lost her arm that's when you know shit got real.

[havekrillwhaletravel]

An unpopular opinion, but I actually don't mind this trope. On an individual level, I think it's believable that people - even trained professionals - freeze up and make poor decisions, especially when placed in stressful, extraordinary circumstances. Characters that are portrayed as intelligent/competent suddenly dropping the ball is also fairly believable. History is littered with examples of intelligent people making an oversight or mistake that one time.

Somewhat related, a common complaint about comic books is that superheroes/villains constantly fluctuate in how powerful they are (e.g. Spider-Man is really powerful in this one issue and then pretty meh in the next) and I'm also fine with that. There's a ton of factors that affect a person's performance e.g. stress; exhaustion; lack of motivation; surprise; complacency; just having an off day. I'm not sure why characters need to have stable, constant "power levels". People are messy, unstable beings and that's okay.

I also don't mind when this trope is extended to structures. History and recent world events have shown us that powerful structures don't stay powerful. It might be true that a faction might've previously been dominant at some point in time, but their capabilities have since deteriorated and they've been coasting on their reputation. Or a nation/empire might still be very powerful, but their level of competence/power might not be uniform. Certain units might just be unmotivated, poorly trained/equipped, underfunded, have incompetent leadership etc. 

A lot of superhero or supernatural shows do this. They introduce a villain or antagonist who is Extremely Powerful. The main characters struggle to conquer it/them. Sometimes this villain/antagonist is imprisoned or contained instead of killed off. The next season comes out and they introduce a NEW Big Baddie. The main characters enlist the help of the previous villain who was SO Ultra Powerful. Then they face the new Big Baddie and the old villain is basically useless, gets knocked out easily, or is otherwise rendered impotent. Or the previous villain has a redemption arc and becomes part of the good guy's team and is also basically useless.

YES. This is the only permutation of this trope I dislike. I think this pattern of "power creep" is often indicative of unimaginative writing. The work relies on ... err conflict to drive conflict. And the only way to resolve this conflict is force. If they main character can't beat an antagonist, they just need to train harder or acquire something that lets them brute force the antagonist. So the next antagonist has to be stronger than anyone else the character has faced thus far. The character then has to brute force this new, stronger antagonist. So the next antagonist has to be even stronger than ...

[saintofm]

I can Imagin this happening well in story telling depending on how arrogant the character is. In the Dune example, this is the Harkonens. Better in the book peraps, but makes sense. Rabban the Beast, played by Dave Bautista, was always meant to be a sacrificial lamb. He thinks he is the lion, but in the books Baron's plan was to replace him with the much better younger brother Feyd, played by Austin Butler in Dune 2. He however is equally manipulative and has a long ways to go by both the Baron, and as seen in the book and the film his libido with the Benejeseret (and his I have to Imajin 40k Drukari inspired personal harem).

In this case, the Baron thinks he has everything planned out, and part of that is the mistake of underestimating both the Freman and the Emperor.

Same thing works in Star Wars. Weather its Emperor Palpatine who is a master chess player and is so used to being in Controle, or Tarkin that is now in charge of the most destructive weapon in the first Star Wars Movie. They are so comfortable in the amount of controle and power they have, they don't realize the danger they are in. In the real world, this is probably what lead to the eventual downfall of tyrants like Nero, and poor leaders like King Luise the XVI, and now with titans like Eppstein and Weinstein. Even Diddy, another Billionaire, is getting due justice for the crimes he and his sons have committed, and Vietnam have put A billionaire on death row for her efforts to tank their economy.


I think you have to make sure that flaw is noticeable and something enemies can exploit, so when they finally do fall its almost by their own hands.

[HDSimplicityy]

Huh, I never noticed that Harkonnen's like that. Nice catch. It might be due to the Fremen learning how to be better fighters after previous failures. Or it is incompetent commanders not listening to their bosses about finding the Fremen. They do know how to hide pretty well, and they do get hit pretty hard a couple of times.

[pelwrath]

I agree about it happening but didn't Herbert writeit that way? Haven't see #2 yet but we know how it ends, basically. So to what extent is it hollywood/screen writers or the author?

[Valhalla Erikson]

I haven't read the novels so I have no personal opinion regarding it.