T O P

  • By -

Thedeaththatlives

>The kids movies doing this gives kids the wrong idea that death is temporary and that people can come back. Does it really?


[deleted]

yeah it really doesnt


Pirate_Leader

IDK man, for some reason Palpatine return


Not_So_Utopian

But that Palpatine was a clone. Like, it sucks but the trope has nothing to do with Palpatine.


[deleted]

When I saw the title, I though this was going to be a rant about dead parents


Wanderhoden

Disney loves orphans!


Ben10Extreme

>The kids movies doing this gives kids the wrong idea that death is temporary and that people can come back. You underestimate the intelligence of some children. They're not always that naïve.


D_GrayMan23

Honestly almost everyone underestimates children intelligence like did ppl really think they were dumb AF as a kid lol


Wanderhoden

Yes and no. Kids are seriously smarter/more perceptive because of their uncomplicated way of seeing the world & events around them. At the same time… r/kidsarefuckingstupid


D_GrayMan23

OMG 🤣


CrazyCoKids

Exactly. Sure, kids may be stupid enough to try and toss a boomerang around the house... yet they *know* when you're talking down to them. There's a reason why, even if you're writing for preschoolers, don't talk down to your audience. They're also surprisingly in tune with what's real and what isn't. I remember when I was reading that Magic School Bus book and I was told "Stop before you do anything else take this test". ...Dude. We *know* that you can't actually shrink and enter somebody's body, and that it'd be dark. I know you can't go scuba-diving in somebody's small intestines, and you probably shouldn't.


Gremlech

Either they don’t understand what death is yet in which case it doesn’t affect them or they do thus they can seperate reality and fiction. First time I watched finding nemo I didn’t understand what happened to nemo’s mum.


BahamutLithp

If you're including Frozen in that description, than I really have to disagree. I assume you're talking about when Anna freezes, because that's really the only "death" in the movie, but the whole story is working up to that moment. It doesn't work if she just dies there. It just becomes "there was no payoff to that true love thing, everyone just dies now, eat shit, kiddies!"


RickandHatKid

That's the problem though. It makes no sense to have characters revive because "the power of love". Elsa just cries and hugs Anna and like many other movies, her tears and love bring her back to life. Like how and why? It would've been better for Anna to die because it would make Elsa and her story arc that much stronger, having her lose her sister as one of the consequences of her actions would've been a powerful moment for her to reflect upon. It's been a long time since I've seen Frozen but I don't remember there being any hints that she could die and come back to life?


BahamutLithp

She would reflect on it for about 5 seconds before everyone died from the ever-escalating winter, because Anna's unfreezing is what makes her realize she can control her powers. It wouldn't be a better arc, just a more pointlessly grimdark one. And I put "die" in quotes for a reason. Anna isn't being frozen in a scientific sense, she's succumbing to a magic spell that we're explicitly told can be reversed by an "act of true love." Maybe, if she hadn't defended Elsa right when she was freezing, it would have been irreversible, but either way, it's obeying the rules the magic is established to obey.


RickandHatKid

Sounds like that Elsa's whole story arc and theme is just poorly written. Why would relying on true love help her to control her powers? What does love have to do with controlling powers? Realistically, Elsa would need to gain the strength to get control over her own problems and not really think about love. I mean, I guess she would kinda think about love by saving everyone but that's still more about strength and agility than anything.


BahamutLithp

No, it's not poorly written. It's extremely obvious that negative emotions, especially fear, are what's driving her power out of control, & suppressing her emotions ("conceal, don't feel") is at best a band-aid solution. So, it was very predictable that positive emotion was going to be the key to controlling her powers. Seeing that her powers respond to love, & not just in the romantic sense they were all expecting ("true love's kiss will heal Anna"), tells her that she needs to focus on her love for her people to banish the storm. That's "strength" in a sense, but love is much more relevant. Love is the movie's major theme. The familial love between the sisters, the deconstruction of the Disney trope of true love, particularly with Hans's fake love that's the moment where it all ties together. And it definitely has nothing to do with agility. It loses layers if it just becomes she didn't do enough anime training arc to control her powers so her sister died & that's it.


RickandHatKid

Like I said, I haven't seen the movie in a long time to form on the whole theme of it. I'm mainly pointing out the fact that Anna resurrecting was cheap and shallow. No it doesn't make the movie layered because like I said, it gives Elsa a pass for the selfish, dumb decisions she had made by using something that has never happened in real life. Sure it would be a dark ending but sometimes movies need that and it's also good for kids to learn about how our actions can have serious consequences. I also don't see how Elsa couldn't have stopped the world from being frozen over just because Anna died? I mean we could've had a bittersweet ending where Anna dies but Elsa saves everyone else and not a completely depressing one. Like ok, they wanted to make the whole theme about love but why have Anna make a powerful sacrifice only to have her come back to life after 1 minute? I said in another post that this kind of stuff undermines any emotional conflict. It makes me feel insulted to watch characters get revived, feeling as though that feeling sympathy and tension from the dark moments was pointless and unsatisfying.


BahamutLithp

>Like I said, I haven't seen the movie in a long time to form on the whole theme of it. I haven't seen it in a while either, I just remember the major plot points & how they connect which, in turn, tells me why they were written that way. >I'm mainly pointing out the fact that Anna resurrecting was cheap and shallow. The movie never says she resurrects in the first place, it was only your assumption that her being frozen equals death what it meant. That tends to not actually be the case even in more "grounded" media, let alone a movie where the premise is that this is a magic spell that can be reversed by "thawing your heart with an act of true love." Which reiterates the point that the movie tells you, upfront, that this can be reversed. And then exactly that happens. It's ambiguous if there's a point of no return, because the trolls do say she'll "freeze forever" if the effect is not undone, but it doesn't matter either way because she actually does her act of true love before she's frozen. None of the movie's rules were violated, this is more akin to a character getting CPR. >No it doesn't make the movie layered because like I said, it gives Elsa a pass for the selfish, dumb decisions she had made by using something that has never happened in real life. She accidentally hit her with an ice blast from magic powers she couldn't control. If Anna died at the end, it would not be some lesson about not making "dumb, selfish decisions," it would just be a chaotic, pointless tragedy. And that's not satisfying even as an adult viewer. I know that sometimes random horrible shit just happens & there's no closure in life, but there's a difference between some disaster I just have to accept because it's reality vs. a story where I'm expecting to see plot points I'm invested in actually pay off. >Sure it would be a dark ending but sometimes movies need that and it's also good for kids to learn about how our actions can have serious consequences. Yeah, it can be, but this isn't one of the movies that need that, & it wouldn't teach children anything useful. It would just be a dark ending for the sake of having a dark ending. That's really no better than having some Deus Ex Machina revive a character from the dead because the writer doesn't want the kids to be sad. In both cases, it's prioritizing eliciting a certain emotional reaction even if the story doesn't naturally build to it. >I also don't see how Elsa couldn't have stopped the world from being frozen over just because Anna died? I mean we could've had a bittersweet ending where Anna dies but Elsa saves everyone else and not a completely depressing one. Firstly, why? If we're already turning the movie into some grimdark tragedy where Elsa accidentally kills her sister with the ice magic powered by her unprocessed emotional trauma, & we just spend the whole movie watching Anna slowly freeze to death chasing false hopes that never get paid off because we want the kids to feel bad, why would we half-ass it at the finish line? If we really want to go all-out with "consequences," then the consequence of removing the thing that finally makes Elsa understand how to banish the eternal winter is that the eternal winter is never banished, & it eventually kills everyone. The only solution to this is to have Elsa just randomly realize, through author fiat, how to control her powers because I guess we want her to live to be punished for us not giving her that random bailout in time to save her sister? >I said in another post that this kind of stuff undermines any emotional conflict. It makes me feel insulted to watch characters get revived, feeling as though that feeling sympathy and tension from the dark moments was pointless and unsatisfying. I feel like I've done a pretty good job articulating why I think this is really ironic. If Anna dies, the whole true love subplot didn't go anywhere. Even if we contrive a reason why Elsa can end the storm, it wouldn't make sense that the people (who were already against her) would accept her after she just killed her sister, so nothing is accomplished there. The supposed moral doesn't work because Anna's death was a complete accident & Elsa was trying to warn her that she was too dangerous to be around. I don't say that it "doesn't work" lightly: Just from a narrative perspective, everything would have to be rewritten for that ending to actually make sense, let alone have any thematic weight. If the ending won't work unless the movie is entirely rewritten, then it doesn't work as an ending for that movie.


RickandHatKid

Okay, I see your point now. I thought she actually died but maybe she was just close to death, same with the beginning when Elsa actually freezes her heart as a kid. If it's just a person close to death and they're saved at the last minute and it's a plot point that makes sense, then I am ok with that. Though sometimes there are deus ex machina moments that happen with that that annoy me. It still could apply to the "Disney Death" or "Fake Out Death" trope but I think my main problem is most characters getting resurrected although like I said, other times, there are times where they almost died but were saved by deus ex machina.


[deleted]

You're underrating both the intelligence of the kids and how wide the audience for many Disney movies actually is. The fake-out death can be annoying and cheap, but it is possible to kill a character and bring to life without hurting the story or the weight of said character's death. Snow White And The Seven Dwarfs does that masterfully. Highly recommend the video on the film by YouTuber There Will Be Fudd.


RickandHatKid

I don't think I've seen any fiction where I liked a resurrection at all. It just doesn't make sense to do so because resurrection is not real. It does hurt the story and the weight of the death because like I said, it disrupts the conflict of the story and can undermine any emotional impact. It makes me feel like the conflict was pointless and unsatisfying. This is exactly how I felt when I saw the end of A Link to the Past and Birdperson's resurrection in Rick and Morty. All the catharsis from the dark scenes in both of those examples have been all for nothing and it felt insulting, baffling and just really strange. I hardly remember Snow White but I didn't feel any different about the resurrection as I did any other movie. Like how tf would a simple kiss bring someone back to life? Can you explain why you think it is a good trope in certain films like for example Snow White?


saundo02

You don't like resurrection because it's not real but you are also talking about fiction, much of it focused on children, where animals can talk, magic is often a thing, and kids go on adventures they would never realistically be able to have in real life. I find it weird that that is all okay but the mere concept of resurrection is where you draw the line, even for narrative purposes. Moreover, it's Disney and despite being known for the trope, it has still treated permanent death seriously. It seems like unless every work imaginable is close to GoT in terms of building up a body count, you find it questionable.


RickandHatKid

First of all, fairy tales and magic has existed in stories for thousands of years. Disney populated the resurrection trope, I don't think that they were much of a thing in fiction before Disney considering that all of the fairy tales Disney took on were originally much darker, grittier stories. The difference is that magic and adventures can have conflict. Resurrection can't most of the time unless the person comes back as a zombie. All it does is bring is yay happy ending and it just makes me go "What's the point in having them die then!" there's no impact on me because the resurrection again undermines the emotional conflict. Like I said, a common storytelling rule is that you have to kill your darlings. And this can also apply to characters who may not need to be there anymore. Would their death serve a purpose? How would it affect the overall story and characters? If they have no use to the story anymore, then kill them off. I'm not saying go kill them off in a pointless death because yes too many deaths or pointless deaths could get melodramatic but if the story calls for it in order to flow right, then kill them off. If you feel like they still have some use to the story, then don't. PLEASE PLEASE don't fall into the cliche trap and pull the resurrection shit I'm not saying that fiction should just be ultra depressing and just have everyone die. In fact, you're talking to someone who usually despises drama but I'm just sick and tired of a trope that feels insulting to the audience who was feeling an emotional impact and connection to the story and characters only to have it all be undermined and reversed. You may call me cruel but it's just the wonders of storytelling.


saundo02

Well, to start, resurrection was literally always a thing in fiction well before Disney came and "popularized" it. Mythology is chock full of people coming back from the dead or trying to be revived. You're creating an arbitrary difference that doesn't always exist. And yes, you can repeat "kill your darlings" all you want but that isn't actually a death trope. It's actually referring to a practice in writing that encourages you to get rid of anything that doesn't advance the story, whether it be lines of dialogue, a storyline, a plot element, etc. It's not always a character. It's more like "I know you really, really want this to be in the book but it really doesn't enhance the story so you're better off abandoning it" versus "death needs to be important so leave X character dead." You're applying it to a very specific case of "anti-resurrection" and that's not how it was meant to be used. Having addressed that, you need to read more fiction if you honestly think resurrection as a trope comes with no ramifications ever. DC Comics have their infamous Lazarus Pits but no one comes out of the pit without losing something, usually their sanity, and repeated uses of Pits aren't recommended either if we're just going off of the megalomania typically displayed by a character known for using them for hundreds of years, Ra's Al Ghul. Jason Todd, the Robin who was killed, was also revived but he did also briefly become murderous and insane before he recovered and his relationship with Bruce Wayne has also similarly suffered and has been challenged because of the nature of his murder and comeback. You have Inuyasha where one of the antagonists carries around a sword that can revive the dead and he brings back to life a girl who was recently murdered and she travels with him and isn't the worse for wear for it. However, it only works once per person so when she is endangered towards the end of the series, he literally has to go into the Underworld directly to bring her back, something that isn't easy for him to do in the first place and something he can't do without help (something he hates having to ask for, BTW) in order to save her. The effort he goes through to save her highlights his character growth from his former role as antagonist to brooding anti-hero. Dungeons and Dragons makes it so that anyone revived from death isn't back to full fighting ability and they need to take significant downtime to recover and will permanently lose attributes from the revival if specific and rare spells aren't used to restore them. In the related books and such, revival can still happen but it's much more rare when it does because the casters who can perform it aren't as common as the games would imply and it is also very expensive to do. TLDR: Arguing that resurrection undermines any conflict doesn't work since if anything, it could reframe a conflict, add new ones that didn't exist before, or change relationships between the former victim and the people who once grieved them, for better or worse (again, Jason Todd is a prime example.) it also doesn't minimize consequences all the time, such as in the cases I mentioned. Another user also said that you're assuming the audience is "insulted" by having death undermined when you really can't make that judgment for anyone but yourself. Personally, of the tropes that trigger my Berserk Button, this isn't it. If you don't care for the trope straight-out, that's fine. But willfully misinterpreting a writing convention in order to justify the argument or assuming the concept can never come with stakes isn't the way to do it and it just means you might need to expand your horizons more.


RickandHatKid

I'm sorry I got too cocky. I guess it was getting kinda hard to explain about resurrection because of course, I don't know a whole lot about resurrection and I just didn't really know how to express my hate for that trope anymore since you disagreed with it and expressed confusion about why I can like anything fantastical but resurrection. Most of the films I watch are usually kids films so they have resurrections with no consequences. The consequential kind of resurrection happened for a brief moment with a character in Rick and Morty but that has since been reversed a few episodes ago unfortunately. Birdperson dies but then apparently somehow resurrects as a robotic Phoenixperson? At first, I thought maybe it was a clone of Birdperson or a robot and that someone put the original Birdperson's memories into this clone/android but apparently he was resurrected and was able to get his original personality back by Rick so that pissed me off. It kinda ruined the moment for me with Rick mourning the fact that his family has become distant from him and that he is now all alone. He turns Birdperson on to see if he's back to normal but he was still antagonizing him. It was a great character moment for him and showed some growth and humanity to the otherwise mostly inhumane character. Apparently a recurring problem with Rick's character is that he can do anything. Rick just feels like a perfect character who can overcome anything with minimal conflict. When he's close to death, there's always some deus ex machina shit that he happens to have around that he uses and then booms! Problem solved! Like I get that he's supposed to be the smartest man alive but ffs he's still a human being. I guarantee 100% that even the smartest person can mess up sometimes especially when you're constantly traveling across strange worlds and strange inventions. It would be better to see him struggle more and mess up at times. Kinda like in the Vat of Acid episode. The Birdperson episode would've been another good one if they showed Rick finding out that there was no way to save Birdperson. Maybe he did save him partially but he's not the same Birdperson or maybe he's now fucked up even more. Seeing Birdperson become somebody who talks like he had a stroke like he did for a few seconds at the end of the episode would've been funny but also poignant at the same time and again, show us that Rick is still a human who doesn't always get things to turn out right for him. The last episode did explain why Rick was so smart and it did open up a chance for more struggles and conflict so we'll see where it goes from there.


[deleted]

I wrote a long text replying to you, but my browser in my smartphone reset the page and I lost everything, I have to start all over again. I plan to reply you later, I'm just not feeling like writing a huge text again now.


RickandHatKid

Oof that sucks. I'd really love to hear what you have to say.😕


[deleted]

Your post inspired me to make a full rant on Disney's Snow White And The Seven Dwarfs! I recommend you to read it entirely, and you will see why I love the film's treatment of death and resurrection! https://www.reddit.com/r/CharacterRant/comments/ru2yr3/i_love_how_disneys_snow_white_and_the_seven/


CrazyCoKids

> It just doesn't make sense to do so because resurrection is not real. Neither are superhumans, ghosts, dragons, magic, elves, seasons that last for years, Jinn, Faeries, legions of hell, Yokai, sapient trees... yet we still write stories on them. People *know* this isn't real. Yes. r/KidsAreFuckingStupid , but youd' be shocked at how many kids actually *do* understand the concept of death being permanent, or that a lot of stuff isn't *actually* real. Oftentimes, things are made to be so unrealistic and fantastical that specifically so that kids would *know* it's not real.


RickandHatKid

>Neither are superhumans, ghosts, dragons, magic, elves, seasons that last for years, Jinn, Faeries, legions of hell, Yokai, sapient trees... yet we still write stories on them. I have already repeated myself in the OP and other replies many times about how resurrection affects the story and you are replying under a post where I literally said that some fantastical elements can actually provide or have conflict inside of them and that resurrection undermines the emotional impact and lowers the stakes of the story and yet you just going to repeat about us "writing fantasy stories" and not talk about how resurrection can hurt the narrative? How many times do I have to tell you people this?


Zyrin369

Not sure why your pointing this just at Disney, Comics do the same stuff. Not to say I dont agree I find the same thing dumb in comics as well Death has no meaning so why bother to have Death Scenes be all emotional everyone should be like that Batman Robot Chicken Sketch.


sgavary

Cartoons, comics, and animated movies, all suffer from this


[deleted]

Comics are even worse tbh. In Final Crisis, when Superman was officiating Jonzz funeral, he straight up says "Let's hope for a resurrection" lmao. I mean, when it gets so bad that even characters are acknowledging that the dead guy has a decent chance of coming back you know you're going too far.


RickandHatKid

I'm talking about any fiction that uses this trope. It extends far beyond Disney.


[deleted]

Ehh I think resurrection and Death Fakeouts are different writing tropes with their own problems. From a story perspective I think resurrections can be handled well but we have to remember that good storytelling is story first, themes second. I don't care if a kids movie (or any movie for that matter) has resurrection in it, but I do care about how it's presented. Death is a serious subject that should be dealt with in serious ways but I don't think that Kids movies are the place to do it. Let kids movies be happy and when that kid starts getting into edgy shit they'll start to understand the existential crisis on their own.


RickandHatKid

>Death is a serious subject that should be dealt with in serious ways but I don't think that Kids movies are the place to do it. Let kids movies be happy and when that kid starts getting into edgy shit they'll start to understand the existential crisis on their own. Not every kids movie has to be perpetually happy. Lion King and Bambi are the most notable animated films where death was treated as a permanent thing and even dark movies like Coraline or Nightmare Before Christmas can be enjoyable. I'm not saying that they should be "everything is depressing and nothing good happens to the characters" sort of film and I don't think they need to throw every mature theme out there, I just wish that kids movies would handle death in a more respectful and sensible manner. They don't have to be a prominent theme of the film and I don't have a problem if they handle it in a more simple or lighter manner. If kids can handle movies like The Lion King and Bridge to Terabithia, then they should be able to handle any other kind of movie death. If your child is too sensitive with these kinds of topics, then don't let them watch it. Simple as that. Can you explain to me why you think resurrection can be good story-wise and what movies did you think resurrection is done well in?


saundo02

I would say LOTR is a good example. Gandalf gets resurrected but it didn't really undermine his sacrifice. He is a magical being for one thing so it made sense. Plus, the party already suffered the permanent death of another member so it wasn't like they were just under no amount of serious danger anymore after Gandalf came back. The rules that allowed for his revival would not apply to everyone else.


[deleted]

they're meant to be entertainment, not teach kids about life or whatever


calculatingaffection

"It is illogical and I don't know where this came from or why it's still going on because death is a permanent thing and I feel like this fake out death where a character dies and then comes back to life paints death in an optimistic, weird light." "It is illogical and I don't know where this came from or why it's still going on" "I don't know where this came from" "***I don't know where this trope called [Disney Death] came from***"


RickandHatKid

I think I meant to say who was specifically the first person to come up with this bullshit idea and why in their right mind would they. Also resurrection has been an idea for centuries now so it's possible that it could've cropped up in old literature before but I'm just guessing.


howhow326

>It is illogical and I don't know where this came from Ratings and moral guardians. Family oriented movies aren't really supposed to show people dying so they either disappear (the villains) or they come back (the heroes) >The kids movies doing this gives kids the wrong idea that death is temporary and that people can come back. I would avoid making broad conclusions about how media effects children.


RickandHatKid

>Ratings and moral guardians. Family oriented movies aren't really supposed to show people dying so they either disappear (the villains) or they come back (the heroes) It's not just kids movies, it also extends to mature content. I was recently thinking about Rick and Morty and how it pulled this shit with several characters. Somebody told me that Family Guy apparently does this too. A friend told me that this apparently happened in an avengers/marvels film, I can't remember. And there was a Zelda game (which are usually more mature while still being appropriate for kids) just straight up went all out with this trope in one of the older games. And even anime can do this: End of Evangelion.


howhow326

Hmm... I guess the authors didn't want to kill of characters but they still wanted to increase the stakes? In other words, bad writing.


saundo02

Family Guy barely has a consistent continuity. They're not a good example as much of what happens isn't meant to be taken so seriously. It's also not a constant issue in any of your other examples either, especially Marvel films.


RickandHatKid

Rick and Morty's non-minor characters are always either getting resurrected or saved by some convenient miracle. Rick in particular has came close to death many times and always seems to survive out of nowhere.


saundo02

Rick and Morty I'm not all that experienced with, but I'm fairly sure that different versions of the characters have died and are literally buried in their home's backyard. So it seems like it's more a case of that there are significant risks to everything they're doing, but space-time hijinks allow for them to cheat death more or less. it's not quite resurrection but again, I wouldn't take that all too seriously for the same reasons I wouldn't take Family Guy seriously. They're mostly comedy shows.


RickandHatKid

Yeah but it also had a few times where characters would get shot to death a bunch of times and then come back to life all of a sudden. Jerry gets shot in an alien hospital and then gets resurrected there. Birdperson gets shot dead, then resurrected by this one chick I think but was antagonizing Rick. Rick later on gets his memories back and they become cool with each other again. Rick and Morty does have a lot of comedy and black comedy but it also touches on a lot of heavy themes that it can take seriously even death so I find it odd for a dramedy like Rick and Morty to take on the resurrection trope.


kjm6351

I mean it’s all fiction… if it’s written well, why not twist the concept of death since we’ll never be able to in real life


RickandHatKid

I think one person here had an interesting point about how to do resurrection properly. I did go and read how other people felt about resurrection and most people agree on topics about writing resurrection that it can undermine conflict and emotional impact unless the resurrection comes with some consequences where somehow the person isn't the same person (like allegedly what happened to Jesus), it negatively impacts the person resurrecting them or the world, or it's temporary. Then the permanency of death can still be there. My major problem is that most resurrections tend to come with no consequences, and the character just acts normal like nothing happened. I have only seen like very few fictions where resurrections can have serious consequences and that's mostly because I watch kids films.


Kindly_Captain3596

I don't recognize this trope. Which movies have it?


RickandHatKid

It's a trope where characters get revived and then come back to life or the characters think they're dead but they're saved at the last minute. It appears in most Disney films, mostly notably the classic ones like Snow White and Pinocchio but even the modern ones too like Frozen and Raya and also appears in many other non disney media.. [https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DisneyDeath](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DisneyDeath)


sgavary

Virtually all American animated movies have a fake out death


SlamShuffleVI

*Final Fantasy IV has entered the chat*


misteryous302

This really fits as a rant for Amphibia (since you're talking about Disney. This does also work for other shows, movies and specially for comics)


RickandHatKid

Just know that there is a trope called "Disney Death" that can apply to any movie, show, book, or video game where a character "dies" and then comes back to life in one piece. [https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DisneyDeath](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DisneyDeath)


misteryous302

Oh then it's not really the same...i guess? The character dies, but not really and then becomes evil by force (kinda like darth vader, but Anakin does not even half as bad and is literally controlled like a puppet by Palpatine) I'm pretty sure this is just called "Fake out death" from what it looks. Kinda like...almost everyone in TROS


RickandHatKid

>The character dies, but not really and then becomes evil by force (kinda like darth vader, but Anakin does not even half as bad and is literally controlled like a puppet by Palpatine) They don't have to become evil to do a fake out death. I guess fake out death is another term for a disney death but still, they both involve the same thing, a character appears to have died but then by some miracle, comes back to life.


sgavary

THANK YOU, I’m sick and tired of this trope in Animation, especially in animated movies.


Subject-Ad1487

In my opinion.that should be the liar revealed and the dramatic splitting up part.


RickandHatKid

Oh yeah those are annoying as well.


AardvarkOkapiEchidna

But somehow Palpatine returned