Why do SO many plots fall apart when you ask 'but what if they TALKED'?

I was actually reinforcing your point.

 

It depends on the execution, honestly, even more so than any other trope.
It's really annoying when an otherwise confident character (not just personality, but how they carry themselves and how people percieve them) suddenly shift to a 'what would they think' mindset for literally zero reason.
If it was with people the character just met, I give it more leeway, but if it's something like Shulk and Ryne from Xenoblade, who have known eachother their whole lives. it's agonizing, especially when one of the friends is like 'is something fucked dude, you ain't yourself' and they go 'it's nothing' when the entire plot for the last half hour has made it abundantly clear it is something.
Not so much a big deal when it doesn't cause problems in forwarding the plot, it just annoys me when the plot literally cannot proceed unless the poor communication kills trope is in play.

 

My theory is this.

You have better story with flawed characters not perfect characters.

Boromir really wanted the Ring from Frodo but he didn't tell him until it was too late to save him from a bad fate. Boromir was FLAWED.

George on Seinfeld is constantly lying and getting in trouble because of his lies. George is FLAWED.

Batman fights the urge to cross the line and kill Joker instead of capturing him alive. He doesn't talk about it to a counselor he bottles it up inside. Batman is FLAWED.

 

As has been said several times already, this isn't just a 'trope', it's real life. Most people won't open up and talk honestly about their worst issues or weaknesses, instead they clam up, or just say "Don't worry about it", or they have some way of rationalizing things so it isn't them, it's always somebody else causing the problem, or whatever.

As has also been said seveal times in several different ways, (for instance by @Thomas Larmore just above me) characters are flawed, and it's because people are flawed. If your characters have overcome all their issues and are perfectly mature reasonable beings, then you won't have much of a story. It also wouldn't reflect reality very well.

What you're saying is true in LIFE, not just in stories. So many problems would be avoided or not exist at all if people were willing to honestly accept their own flaws and actually do something about it, but instead they often insist the problem isn't with them, it's somebody else or something outside of their control. And even when somebody gives some tough love and makes them see the problem they're causing, they just shift tactics or get their feelings hurt and go all self-destructive or passive aggressive. People use all kinds of unconscious mechanisms to avoid seeing the problems they create over and over again. It's frustrating as hell, but it's a fact of life.

But yeah, what you said is also true—it's in the execution (it often is, with many writing problems). This kind of thing can be done in a really heavy-handed way like you might see in a sitcom or a kid's anime, or in a more subtle and realistic way. In fact that's probably the main difference in whether it comes across as a trope or as the way people really are. Because it is the way people really are.

 

Ok, what if somebody would say "Dude—we gotta talk. I mean, if you're gonna be honest, it's your attitude that's causing the problem here"?

Is he likely to accept that and work on himself? Be for real. He'll deflect, project, get all weepy like suddenly he's 3 years old and his feelings desperately need to be protected, or any number of other avoidance mechanisms. Some of the best stories and movies present this stuff pretty realistically. For instance Rebel Without a Cause. Imagine how different it would be if James Dean, instead of having his big emotional breakdown and sobbing "You're tearin' me APART!" had said "Yes, I see... there's something inherently wrong with my tough-guy persona, doubtless caused by the childhood trauma I suffered. I see it all clearly now. Henceforth I shall be a stalwart and upstanding citizen!" Then he becomes a perfectly well-adjusted lad and in fact starts straightening out all his tough-guy friends. I don't think it would be the landmark classic of method acting it's known as today.



In fact now that I look at it, there's a lot of projection and deflection going on from Jim Backus too, playing dear old dad. Imagine if neither of them had played those deflection games (now it looks like it was actually the dad doing the deflection and causing the issues, I admit I wasn't very familiar with the movie). With the games it's a pretty hard realistic look at the way people interact in these terrible situations. If they had instead sat down and been totally honest with each other, well, their lives would go a lot better but it wouldn't be much of a movie because it wouldn't reflect real people very well.

 

I don't mind it when it makes sense. (batman is one of the ones that makes sense, The Hulk is one that absolutely makes sense)
It's just sometimes, it really doesn't make sense.
Those are the times where I'm like 'you could just you know, trust your friends'
There are ways to have flaws and also have them talk about those issues with people they trust. Talking about the 'thing' can sometimes be a major part of character growth and forward the plot/relationship.
Not everyone is brave enough to do it, but people can and do do it.

The only time I take an actual issue with it, is when the character in question is otherwise depicted as self confident, and generally kind of open about just about everything.

I feel like there are probably more interesting ways to handle the situation than to say 'it's nothing' that's what I expect normal, real life people to do.

 

The interesting thing is, a lot of the people who project and deflect a lot like to put on a super-confident air. In that sense it's almost good psychology, but I'm sure frequently it isn't done with that in mind, but just because it's a trope.

 

It's just annoying when a character trusts just about any rando stranger with almost every secret.
Then the big plot 'thing' happens and suddenly they clam up and don't trust anyone.
I get what writers are going for when they do this, but I still feel there are better ways to do it than the 'it's nothing' bit.
The only time it's actually annoying is when it drags the group into mortal peril, sometimes multiple times.

 

Yeah, unless the character has very clear, strong reasons for why they aren’t communicating, I would consider that poor storytelling. Poor for me at least. Excluding comedies, I never want an important conflict to have an easy and obvious solution.

 

I think you found why some of these situations just don't 'work' for logical thinkers.
The problem is that some of the reasons are either obtuse, confusing, or come out of nowhere sometimes.
In real life, people have logical, sound, and believable reasons not to communicate.
But when the 'plot demands it' it's nearly always for something silly or for some simple thing that the character doubting themselves is (usually) overthinking.
I like it more when these hinderances are foreshadowed a bit, but usually they aren't.

 

Wheel of Time books, anyone?

 

Doesn't matter. It's like asking who would win a fight, the Hulk or Superman. The writer decides.

 

What would have happened if they told the Marines on LV426 that if they used live rounds that it cause bad things to happen in a nuclear reactor they were going into?