Talk:Idiot plot

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alisab.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Unititled

I've encountered a slightly expanded version of this in the science fiction fandom community. As observed, a first order idiot plot is one that requires the protagonist to be an idiot; a second order idiot plot is one that works only because everyone in the story is an idiot, as in Ebert's usage. Has anyone else here encountered this form? Wyvern 18:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Deletion Proposal

On 22 August 2006 Shannernanner proposed deleting this page on NPOV grounds but didn't explain in detail. I for one would like to hear more justification; I've encountered the term outside Roger Ebert's work (in fact, I don't follow Roger Ebert) and don't think the page needs deletion. I will, however, leave the proposal in place for the moment as the question should be addressed and I think this page does need some attention. Wyvern 23:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

This page contains no references at all, other than a dead wikilink to Roger Ebert's Little Movie Glossary, and relies totally on one person's point of view. It seems much more appropriate to either make mention of on Ebert's page and/or on the individual movies' pages, with appropriate references, in my opinion. Shannernanner 06:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the page should be expanded and improved, but as I observed back in July the phrase is not unique to Roger Ebert; for example, a page at sfwa.org attributes it to James Blish[[1]]. A quick google turns up 12,700 occurances (including attributions to James Blish and Damon Knight in the first ten hits, although Roger Ebert has clearly popularized the term), so I don't think this is too obscure for a wiki page. Wyvern 10:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

If you feel that the subject is relevant and wish to expand upon it and reference it, I will remove the deletion tag and add the appropriate tags. I'll start on the editing too. Shannernanner 14:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Examples

Should novels and movies which are comonly considered to have "Idiot plots" be mentioned on this page? It seems that many stereotypical horror films seem to follow this plotline, and I was wondering wheter or not listing them would be too opinionated or subjective. 66.24.229.233 22:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• No, that'd be utterly POV, and there are far too many examples anyway. DS 02:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• It seems like there could be references to books/movies that have been described as having "idiot plots" by critics 137.22.97.20 (talk) 21:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Why isn't there any examples on the page, like Halloween II has an Idiot Plot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.164.89.66 (talk) 08:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I've done something about it. --Syzygy (talk) 12:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I've just reverted that. Great idea to include some examples, but it seems clear that TVTropes is a WP:USERGENERATED source, isn't it? Doctorhawkes (talk) 13:00, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Better now? :-) --Syzygy (talk) 14:43, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

All good. Thanks. Doctorhawkes (talk) 23:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Although with a bit of reflection -- the Obi Wan's folly isn't exactly an idiot plot, is it? I mean, it's a stupid thing to file Luke under his real name, but the plot of the movie would have gone on just the same if he had used a different alias for him. I'll see if I can come up with a better example. --Syzygy (talk) 08:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think Back to the Future 2 belongs here either, given that the "why Doc takes Jennifer along" idiocy is (as the writers have acknowledged) a result of their being hamstrung by the ending of the first film, which was written without thought to a sequel, rather than something that the writers were forced to add to Part 2 to keep its plot going. Since this paragraph was only sourced to a listicle blog, I've taken it out. --Lord Belbury (talk) 12:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Does it matter if it was a deliberate decision or an oversight on the authors' part? I understand that the core of the idiot plot is "one or more characters acting like idiots, without whose idiocy the plot wouldn't go on", so BTTF II would qualify. (I'm willing to look up a better source, but I first wanted to clarify if this instance is applicable.) --Syzygy (talk) 13:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

With you on the definition, and I think it's key is that the idiocy is ongoing. Knight and Ebert certainly both define an idiot plot as one which is kept in motion by characters behaving like idiots. A film where characters make one stupid mistake at the beginning and then spend the rest of the film reacting reasonably intelligently to its consequences would not be an idiot plot. This article and the grunge.com source was calling Back to the Future 2 an idiot plot on the grounds that the characters make one big idiotic decision at the start of the film. From memory I don't think it ever gets into Ebert's "misunderstandings could be ended by words that the screenplay refuses to allow them to utter" territory. --Lord Belbury (talk) 17:50, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Aren't you quite strict with your definition? (With "the plot going on" I meant "the film would be over if they didn't commit the idiocy," even if it's only a single act.) A film with the characters constantly acting like idiots ("Dumb and dumber") would automatically turn into a comedy where this behaviour would be okay. I'd be happy to include "Top Hat", but that is certainly a little obscure to most readers. Don't you think BTTF II qualifies? Again, I'm happy to look for a better source. --Syzygy (talk) 12:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I think that definition is consistent across the article and its sources here: an idiot plot is one that is "kept in motion" by the characters being idiotic, and where the film would be over if anyone said "wait, why don't we just..." - the film plot is only hanging together because the writers have decided that none of the characters will make that realisation. Once we're past the opening few minutes in Back to the Future 2, I don't think the audience has any "why don't you just..." to shout at the screen. If stronger sources say otherwise, though, let's see.

Top Hat seems a strong example given that Ebert has written about it specifically being an idiot plot: he says its plot "could be cleared up at any moment by one line of sensible dialogue". It might be an obscure film, but it's enough to explain that it's about mistaken identity and relies on a woman somehow wrongly assuming a stranger to be her best friend's husband, and all their dialogue somehow never revealing her misconception. --Lord Belbury (talk) 12:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I inserted "80 Days Around the World" as an example, because it's probably more accessible to people than Top Hat, and I think it qualifies. It's not perpetual idiocy, but certainly the book would end flat without it.--Syzygy (talk) 20:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

It's not a great example because the book would only end a few pages early without it. The definition we're setting up (and which is supported by sources) is where the entire story relies on a character being implausibly oblivious to something. I'll add Top Hat so that the section has at least one example of a full-length film with a fully idiot-plot narrative. --Lord Belbury (talk) 17:26, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I've removed the 80 Days example. As an act of plot-useful obliviousness that only happens in the last few pages of the story, it's a plot hole rather than something that makes the entire novel an idiot plot. --Lord Belbury (talk) 08:34, 28 October 2021 (UTC)