The WHY? Thread

[In Search of Username]

Spoiler: Heavy Rain spoilers

Why did Ethan black out and wake up with origami in his hand, despite having never done origami in his life, if he wasn't the Origami Killer? And how did the actual killer know to time his kidnap of Ethan's son for the exact moment when Ethan is having this blackout? I suspect the answer is 'because the writers didn't think it through'.

Spoiler: This response contains Heavy Rain Spoilers

I think the explanation for this was based off of an idea that when Ethan got in the car accident trying to save Jason and Shelby was right there, they formed a psychic link that would cause Ethan to have weird dream like sequences whenever Shelby was kidnapping a kid. This was where the whole "Bodies in the water" thing Ethan talks about would of come from. Somewhere in the middle of making the game they decided to remove that idea, and they decided instead of rewriting everything they just made it blackouts. Yes, I am aware that doesn't excuse it and it still doesn't make sense, but it might of just been that they didn't have enough time to change everything so they just left it in.
That, or they just wanted to try to make the players think Ethan did it with little explanation, just like how Shelby's thoughts sometimes act like he is actually trying to find the origami killer.

Spoiler: Yet more Heavy Rain spoilers

Wow, that's weird. Kind of glad they cut out that plot point, it does sound pretty stupid, but I wish they'd actually put some effort into changing it. And yeah, I liked the fact that they had the possibility of Ethan being the killer as a red herring, but the thing with red herrings is you have to explain away all that misleading evidence before revealing who the actual culprit is. Honestly I would have liked them to just say Ethan WAS the killer, it would have made for a far more interesting plot.

 

[Lionsfan]

In Inception why aren't they allowed to do all the cool mindbending stuff like folding the street over on top of itself when they're inside the dreams?

I mean I know why they say they shouldn't. Because then the projections will notice them in the dream and try and attack them or whatever.

But come on! You're making a movie about going inside peoples DREAMS! Why would you make up a plot point that prevents you from doing all sorts of awesome mindblowing effects that kind of setting allows and just end up doing a bunch or boring gun fights at the end?

Especially since the "conscious police" show up anyways. There's really no good excuse for them not to have more dream altering beyond the rotating hallway

 

[Mister K]

Spoiler: Heavy Rain spoilers

Why did Ethan black out and wake up with origami in his hand, despite having never done origami in his life, if he wasn't the Origami Killer? And how did the actual killer know to time his kidnap of Ethan's son for the exact moment when Ethan is having this blackout? I suspect the answer is 'because the writers didn't think it through'.

Well, that's because many scenes were cut from the final version of the game. It was revealed in a video. I saw it very long time ago and am not sure if it will answer your question, but still:

 

[King Billi]

Why dosen't Sauron turn invisible when he's wearing the one ring?

 

[Mikejames]

Why are the Gothamites incited to instant rioting by Bane's recitation of a letter of dubious origin regarding an event that happened eight whole years ago? Why do the Gothamites listen to Bane at all? They've never heard of him before.

Why do the Blackgate inmates follow Bane immediately?

I don't think this would have bothered me as much if not for some of the themes handled better in The Dark Knight. Always felt one of the best scenes was with the convicts on the boat.

Spoiler

With neither ship blowing up the other, essentially proving Joker wrong.

But in Dark Knight Rises, there isn't any attempt to humanize any of the convicts, it was just the blunt idea that given the chance the city would turn to immediate chaos.

So, why did Bane and associates want this? At least when Liam Neeson wanted to destroy the city it was a corrupt crime-ridden place, but when Bane came Gotham was at peace. Did they figure the concept of destroying the police force to result in riot was proving a point?

 

[lechat]

vampire diaries
why the hell is it that everytime it's the end of the world and all they have to do is sacrifice a single friend or relative does noone step up to the plate. say what you will about buffy and angel but as soon as there was a pending apocalypse and someone had to give their life they dived right the fuck in

 

[Johnny Impact]

Why are the Gothamites incited to instant rioting by Bane's recitation of a letter of dubious origin regarding an event that happened eight whole years ago? Why do the Gothamites listen to Bane at all? They've never heard of him before.

Why do the Blackgate inmates follow Bane immediately?

I don't think this would have bothered me as much if not for some of the themes handled better in The Dark Knight. Always felt one of the best scenes was with the convicts on the boat.

Spoiler

With neither ship blowing up the other, essentially proving Joker wrong.

But in Dark Knight Rises, there isn't any attempt to humanize any of the convicts, it was just the blunt idea that given the chance the city would turn to immediate chaos.

So, why did Bane and associates want this? At least when Liam Neeson wanted to destroy the city it was a corrupt crime-ridden place, but when Bane came Gotham was at peace. Did they figure the concept of destroying the police force to result in riot was proving a point?

Bane's attitude was pure entitlement. They have everything, They are keeping it from us, therefore They must be brought down to our level. His speech reminded me of the Occupy movement: "oppressed, 99%, blah blah, give me free stuff," only with more guns.

 

[Little Woodsman]

The peter pratt version of the master (doctor who). When you see his version of the character you can?t help but asking ?why. Why did they make him like that, why would you do that writers? Why?
Okay. The master is a timelord and they regenerate instead of dying. When they regenerate they change physical form but usually they still look human.

Spoiler: Here is a picture over all the masters in the correct order. (guess which one I am talking about, it should not be difficult)

it is nr. 2 if that wans't clear. why does he look like a rosted ken doll.the master is supposed to be a slick bastard not a nightmare monster

I agree that the versions of the Master where he is slick, suave, debonair and even charming are much better--and
much more frightening--the Peter Pratt version is definitely the weakest. But plot-wise it's explained in the serial
"The Deadly Assassin". Basically either the Roger Delgado version was the 13th Master
(he having used up 12 bodies before then) or he off screen used up the regenerations left after the Roger Delgado
version. (Tom Baker's Doctor said that the Master had been using regeneration continually as a means of disguise).
It was at that time that the 12-regeneration limit was established. And the Peter Pratt version is what happens if
a time lord tries to go past that limit--well if s/he survives at all. I believe that at some point shortly after
that (in "The Five Doctors" maybe?) it was established that

Spoiler: this spoils some episodes from Tom Baker's run

the Anthony Ainley version of the Master would have to take over another person's body (again)
in order to effect a regeneration. Presumably he got this problem fixed sometime before the new series.

But yes, the decision to make the Master a disfigured wreck for a while is a big WTF.

 

[Little Woodsman]

Still makes me think Batman's a dick. Yeah he's cool, but the more I read the comics the more I realize that he's not doing anything out of good. He's a selfish little punk who beats criminals up so HE can feel better. He never breaks his moral code so HE can be better for it. It doesn't matter to him that the entirety of Gotham and the world as a whole would be better off if he just killed these incurable psychopaths who kill more people than cancer. He just wants to make himself feel better.

Personally, I've always thought that Batman is just as insane as the people he faces-off against. It's like there's something in the water that just brings out the maniac in each individual - everyone has a theme, everyone has their own obsessions. I've always seen Batman as a fortunate accident: seeing his parents killed made something inside him flip and, thankfully, he decided to put that obsession into vengeance against criminals of the city and not just the city itself.

Uh, the guy dresses up like a flying rat and jumps around on rooftops beating up muggers....
I think that it's a pretty *safe bet* to say that he's FREAKING INSANE.....
(I think that is in fact one of the major points of "The Killing Joke" particularly the joke that the Joker
tells Batman at the end....)
Anyway, as to the main point--read "Kingdom Come". No, seriously. Just read it.
Done? Now you know why the DCU heroes don't cross that line.
Also I think that part of Batman's insanity is a deep seated phobia of becoming the thing that he hates most,
someone who will consciously and intentionally take another human being's life.
Of course there's also the point of if he crosses that line he can no longer cooperate with the police or any
other authorities/heroes again, and those authorities/heroes would have to take resources away from trying to track/capture the other criminals to try and track/capture Batman.
I think the more pertinent question is why in the heck don't the authorities lobby for an exception to the
"we don't execute the insane" principle for the Joker, or at least come up with some way to keep him held
securely. Make a prison in Antarctica or have the Big Blue project him in to the phantom zone or something....

 

[solemnwar]

I may be wrong about him teaching it to the Humans. I thought those rocks said Kyne gave man the voice and the Dragons taught them how to master it but I may be wrong and am too lazy to look.

Ohdaving seemed pretty confident that most Dragons would not follow the way of the voice, and Parthosnorlax even said himself it took a hell alot of work to supress his natural Davoahassholeishness so like getting 2 guys on his team would probably be the best he does.

He tells you you need an Elder Scroll and that's about it. Esbern or Arngeir are the ones who tell you where to find it.

I still think he needs to be punished, if I was in a cult that set 1000 Cats on fire, but then decide that's totally not cool and betrayed all of my cultist chums to save the rest of the Cats I should still be punished for setting Cats on fire. Just replace "Cats" with "Humans" and suddenly you have Paarthurnax.

That and the translation for Paarthurnax is "Ambition Overlord Cruelty" I mean how can you NOT kill a guy with a name like that?

When the Player comments about the Blades wish for vengeance this is Paarthurnax's reply.

"Dov wahlaan fah rel. We were made to dominate. The will to power is in our blood. You feel it in yourself, do you not? I can be trusted. I know this. But they do not. Onikaan ni ov dovah. It is always wise to mistrust a dovah. I have overcome my nature only through meditation and long study of the Way of the Voice. No day goes by where I am not tempted to return to my inborn nature. Zin krif horvut se suleyk. What is better - to be born good, or to overcome your evil nature through great effort?"

He has spent four Eras denying his nature. He could have spent that time being a dragon, but he didn't. He could have emerged after the death of Martin or the destruction of the Blades, but he didn't.

He realised that killing humans/mer was wrong, helped train those who would eventually defeat his brother, spent the rest of his time afterwards going against his very nature and assisting others with the Voice and gives you the information you need to stop Alduin.

And you advocate killing him because

1) He didn't give you the exact location of an incredibly powerful artefact (I'm sure after spending hundreds of year atop a mountain and out of circulation old Parthy knows where the best loot is kept)

2) He did some (admittedly seriously) evil things in the distant past when he didn't know any better and in fact in his very nature to do so.

I'm reminded of this web-comic for some reason

Spoiler

I can't imagine why.

If someone has killed someone in the past, no matter how "nice" and remorseful they may be now, they still need to be brought to justice. Basically going "Sorry" doesn't undo the horrible things you did.

Same with Parthaanux. He may have spent many eras denying his nature, but he could possibly one day go "naaah it's way more fun being a dick /yol tor SHUUUUULLLL". I really don't blame the Blades for not trusting him. Maybe it's not necessarrally FAIR, but shit like that happens IRL all the time.

"Oh man this guy is a convicted murderer let's shun him forever and not let him have any decent roles in society despite the fact he deeply regrets his actions and is doing all he can to make right with the world blahblahblah."

 

[Ed130 The Vanguard]

-snip-

When the Player comments about the Blades wish for vengeance this is Paarthurnax's reply.

"Dov wahlaan fah rel. We were made to dominate. The will to power is in our blood. You feel it in yourself, do you not? I can be trusted. I know this. But they do not. Onikaan ni ov dovah. It is always wise to mistrust a dovah. I have overcome my nature only through meditation and long study of the Way of the Voice. No day goes by where I am not tempted to return to my inborn nature. Zin krif horvut se suleyk. What is better - to be born good, or to overcome your evil nature through great effort?"

He has spent four Eras denying his nature. He could have spent that time being a dragon, but he didn't. He could have emerged after the death of Martin or the destruction of the Blades, but he didn't.

He realised that killing humans/mer was wrong, helped train those who would eventually defeat his brother, spent the rest of his time afterwards going against his very nature and assisting others with the Voice and gives you the information you need to stop Alduin.

And you advocate killing him because

1) He didn't give you the exact location of an incredibly powerful artefact (I'm sure after spending hundreds of year atop a mountain and out of circulation old Parthy knows where the best loot is kept)

2) He did some (admittedly seriously) evil things in the distant past when he didn't know any better and in fact in his very nature to do so.

I'm reminded of this web-comic for some reason

Spoiler

I can't imagine why.

If someone has killed someone in the past, no matter how "nice" and remorseful they may be now, they still need to be brought to justice. Basically going "Sorry" doesn't undo the horrible things you did.

Same with Parthaanux. He may have spent many eras denying his nature, but he could possibly one day go "naaah it's way more fun being a dick /yol tor SHUUUUULLLL". I really don't blame the Blades for not trusting him. Maybe it's not necessarrally FAIR, but shit like that happens IRL all the time.

"Oh man this guy is a convicted murderer let's shun him forever and not let him have any decent roles in society despite the fact he deeply regrets his actions and is doing all he can to make right with the world blahblahblah."

Okay... Lets take things from the top.

Parthaanux didn't say 'sorry for killing you guys,' he went against his own brother, pretty much oversaw the destruction of of this own race, then went into self-imposed exile for several millennia teaching various students including one Tiber Septim, aka the mortal who would become Talos. I put up that webcomic for a reason, only instead of a kid who didn't know right from wrong Parthaanux is more a mix of indoctrinated cult member and carnivore who goes vegan. Even if he did it to save his skin he has kept at it as well as providing training to other Dragonborn.

I wouldn't want to live in your world, just because life screws people over doesn't mean that you need to also screw others as well. (Unless your role-playing as a complete dick, or achievement hunting, or wanting to take out your frustrations out on a virtual world) The Blades obsession over 'justice' (you could put in a fair argument that they are after vengeance against a reachable target) will not bring those he killed back to life. It's better for him to try and atone for his Sins by helping now, even if Paarthurnax himself knows he can never truly make up for what he did. It would be foolishness to kill him when he has done so much already and is willing to do more.

Captcha: kitten mittens

 

[Tanis]

There's a lot of those 'WHY' moments in action movies/series.

WHY let the villain live is something I'll never 'get'.

The Joker should have been shot YEARS ago, but Batman doesn't kill him because...whatever.

So, the Joker goes around killing even MORE people...
Over and over and over again.

I'd say Batman is a BIGGER murder then any of his rouges because of his inaction.

.
Let me tell you something...
Awesome flick. It also answers your question quite well.

It IS a good movie, but I do think it's kind of a cop-out.

Batman is still a mass murder by proxy as far as I'm concerned.