Talk:Principle of Evil Marksmanship

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Star Wars Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Star Wars, which aims to build an encyclopedic guide to the Star Wars saga on Wikipedia. To participate, you can improve this article or visit the project page for more information.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and leave a message on the talk page to explain the ratings and to identify possible improvements to the article.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 25/9/2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on August 4, 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep.


This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Principle of Evil Marksmanship article.
Article policies
Principle of Evil Marksmanship was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: No date specified. To provide a date use: {{FailedGA|insert date in any format here}}

Contents

[edit] Leave the equation

The equation gr8ly enhances the article, imho. —HopeSeekr of xMule (Talk) 16:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The equation overly complicates a simple explanation and doesn't actually represent any real effect. What does it enhance? --Bulwark 00:10, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
I don't care if it goes or stays. If anyone can "cleanup" and/or "copyedit" this page please go ahead and do so, don't even bother discussing it. --BerserkerBen 00:30, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
I think the equation is an appropriate humorous explanation of the effect. The problem with this article is not so much with the writing as to with the organization. --Circeus 03:03, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
Are you talking about the way the "Examples and correlations" section really expands on what the effect actually is, or just the fact that that section is a mess that makes itself more confusing than it needs to be? The latter is also my objection to the equation, but at least the equation's funny. BerserkerBen, if you want to keep the examples and details, it makes more sense to put them at the end of the concise descriptions as logical expansions. If not, they'll need to be rewritten anyway. --Bulwark 03:55, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
Well then why don't you do that instead of cutting them out? --BerserkerBen 05:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, chiefly because I don't have the time at the moment, but also because I don't think they're particularly useful at clarifying anything. The Stormtrooper example is mentioned in the first paragraph, the Last Action Hero example is muddled because it's a play on the effect more than the effect in action, and both the "extreme death method" and "exaggerated hit motion" (with Noir example) details seem completely unrelated to the effect beyond that they also tend to appear in cheesy films. A new "Examples" or "Appearances" section describing some of the various movies, shows, etc. that the Stormtrooper effect has been apparent in would be a much better way to flesh out the article. --Bulwark 06:43, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
I don't believe they are completely unrelated to the effect, if they are then they would have the been mentioned as effects of there own category, as tehy are exteremly common in the action media forms. In the vast majority of cases of the stormtrooper effects first criteria of being extremely pathetic, unrealistically easy to kill and unstoppable protagonist are also seen, that and other places where the stormtrooper effect is explained these other two criteria usually also mentioned with it. --BerserkerBen 11:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Then you're expanding the definition of the Stormtrooper effect from the one currently in use to a catch-all umbrella for action cliches. Not that that's necessarily inaccurate, but it's too easy to end up with nothing of more substance than dueling opinion, because the term nowhere near commonly used enough to have any sort of clear-cut answer. I personally favor keeping the definition to simple ineffectiveness. If we're talking about dramatic deaths for primary antagonists, I think we're pretty clearly outside the territory of Stormtroopers. Bulwark 12:17, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
I disagree, if the 3 criteria usually happen together why not classify them together in one category? Or do you want to make three separate articles for events that are rarely seen alone? --BerserkerBen 13:25, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
tag, that's simply the way things are headed. If an article needs to be copyedited, it *obviously* needs to be cleaned up as well (as copyedit is a subset of cleanup); and by using the Cleanup-date tag as I had it also aids in the archiving of work needing to be done. —HopeSeekr of xMule (Talk) 13:29, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
BerserkenBen, they happen together because they're action cliches, not because they're all part of what I consider to be the Stormtrooper effect. Mutation and natural selection are always together, but they're completely separate functions with distinct articles that have only passing reference to each other. As for three separate articles, I don't think it's particularly pressing to document that sometimes cannon fodder in fiction die with exaggerated motions, but a general "action cliches" article would probably work better if you want to list them off.
From how much additional crap has been added by others I think my position has be validated. --BerserkerBen 20:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
HopeSeekr of xMule, eh. I don't think the equation adds anything, but I'm dry, and it doesn't detract if it's just included as a humorous sidenote. As for The Last Action Hero, I don't really know what you mean. Star Wars doesn't have the Stormtrooper effect front and center? Regardless, the reason I removed it was because the "Examples and correlations" section was more a muddled description of different ways the effect manifests than anything else, and the examples didn't help clarify anything after I rewrote it as "Manifestations". I'm all in favor of keeping references of the effect in action, but in an actual "Examples" or "Appearances" section. --Bulwark 23:46, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
I don't mind whether the equation stays or goes, but it formally doesn't make sense. There is no reason why e shouldn't be of dimension c*m^-1, so the constant k is superfluous. It might as well be 1. 81.83.148.128 13:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I vote for the equation to return, as it adds an air of science to an otherwise excessively bosh article regarding movie phenomenon. 68.189.82.81 08:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I also vote for a return of the equation. It accentuates the humor value by demonstrating a much greater deal of previous thought and scrutiny than would be warranted by any realistic examination of this topic. Without the equation the explanation is not as ridiculous, and therefore, not as funny. 208.22.104.18 14:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Negative. Apparantly some of you mistook this for Uncyclopedia. It's not supposed to be funny, it's supposed to be informative. Having a psuedo-sophisticated unverifiable unencyclopedic "formula" in the article detracts from the informative nature of the article. --tjstrf 15:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Informative? This article describes the Stormtrooper Effect and Inverse Ninja Law. The motives behind the article's conception can't be attributed to anything other than humor. 208.22.104.18 16:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Remove the equation. The purpose of the article is too inform readers of a popular entertainment phenomena. If this is just a joke article, it should be deleted. 66.167.145.218 01:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Matrix

I personally am not entirely sure that the Stormtrooper effect actually applies to The Matrix, because technically there's an explanation for the protagonists' ability to take down multiple squads of police and military officers, viz. they've "freed their minds" from the Matrix and have greatly enhanced abilities. My question is, am I splitting hairs too finely here? --Yar Kramer 07:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The in-universe explanation is irrelvant- the effect is what counts. --maru (talk) Contribs 17:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Right, just checking. --Yar Kramer 02:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
the explanation is indeed irrelevant, in fact something very common on big budget movies, is that after the movie has been released and millions of dollars have been gained, viewers discover that the movie was made almost just as well as it could had been made (and rushed to summer release), and that numerous plotholes inhabit the movie. In the matrix, despite that the whole virtual world is dominated by one super giant sofisticated computer (and i mean the whole damn virtual world), people who are immigrants to that world have all the super powers and are able to walk around freely through it (couldn't had the virtual earth open and eat them?, and how come if the computers regulated all that happened in the matrix they NEVER EVER EVER knew where the guys were... were security cameras overly expensive there?), all these questions lead us to obvious answers, and the most obvious of those: it was just a summer flick. But that's when fanbase, movie producers and the hoards of people who have been hired by the producers to make up answers on the spot appear. For example, in Spielberg's War of the Worlds, despite numerous plotholes, it seems that they can all be answered using this quick-answer-it-was-the-devil!-logic, for example, "why did the guy's camera still work after the EMP wave?", answer: he was out of town at the time/he had a super camera!/the aliens special magical EMP doesnt affect videocameras/it was the devil I tell you/camera...what camera?, etc, etc. (log into any IMDB forum about these issues, the answers made up on the spot are simply unbeliavable)

What happens in the Matrix isn't the Stormtrooper effect, it's a simple skill ratio. Soldiers entering a world in which they have super powers, can easily best security guards. And there's the fact that whenever they face people in such mass, they're nothing but security guards, meaning poorly trained cops, assuming they would be actual cops and not rent-a-cops. A soldier, even one without superpowers, can overrun bumbling cops. Hell, one was even sleeping on the job, they're security guards, they aren't used to action, they're used to just sitting down chilling, guarding something which is rarely disturbed, and never disturbed with as much force as the supersoldiers, evidenced by the fact that the guards assumed Neo had lose change as opposed to being armed to the teeth, the guards saying "what the hell happened in here?" when seeing a bunch of dead people, etc. Also, the Stormtrooper effect is only the Stormtrooper effect, when soldiers who should be very well trained (like Stormtroopers) and should be very good shots, can't hit a character (like a Stormtrooper). When poorly trained, lazy guards can't stop better trained soldiers, that's not the Stormtrooper effect, but just sucky guards trying to take down well trained soldiers with super powers. Also, just in conclusion, the few things in the Matrix that the heroes face that actually should possess skill, the heroes do indeed have difficulty. Such things include the Sentinels, and the agents. The sentinels rape all human forces on the battle field, as they should, and the agents kill any target that can't outrun them, including Neo, before he became godlike, and they even got Trinity and Morpheus, both would've died if their people hadn't caught them, and even then, it's not the agent's fault that their target was saved at the last minute when they succeeded in tossing them off what should be a fatal fall. Even when Smith mass produced himself, he had no difficulty in taking Morpheus and the keymaker. In conclusion, the Matrix should not be on the list.--Voicingmaster 03:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the Matrix *should* be in the list. I agree there's an explanation in the movie why the protagonist can defeat the bad guys so easily and in such big numbers. But still, the effect is visible. Take the scene in the Matrix Reloaded where Neo fights all those agents. If you look closely, some agents are doing nothing but waiting their turn at some moments (or at least fighting at less-than-full-power-and-speed); which is a clear incarnation of the Stormtrooper effect if you ask me. I admit, the effect is less visible than in some other movies, such as in Kill Bill 1 where the girl fights the huge group of ninjas. Here, the effect seems to be exaggerated by the director, as the movie seems to be somewhat of an ode (and a parody at the same time) to the classic eastern fighting movies. But still, the effect can be detected in the Matrix aswell if you look closely. (RagingR2 11:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC))
Fortunately for us, wikipedia policy forbids Original Research, so the entire issue becomes academic. --tjstrf 15:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but what exactly does this have to do with the issue of original research, and why is this a reason to delete my addition to the article? I was just naming a manifestation of the stormtrooper effect, just as other people have done before me, and as it was a manifestation that hadn't been adressed yet, I really don't understand why it shouldn't be in the article and why you had to delete it. (RagingR2 14:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC))
...I think what he's complaining about is citing a primary source (a movie) rather than a secondary source (someone writing about a movie), which is a misunderstanding of the 'original reaserch' guideline. Both are acceptable- carry on. -Toptomcat 01:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Unless there's a book on "Stormtrooper Examples" I don't see a problem with playing it by ear. There aren't going to be many sources that would normally be Wiki-worthy with a subject like this.

The explanation is irrelevant. Batman and Bruce Lee both beat the shit out of hordes of enemies because of a supposed skill differential. The same with most video games. The question is if the enemies act in a reasonable manner with a level of competence consistent with their character. 66.167.145.218 02:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not the same with the Matrix. The Matrix will be left out.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 06:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Annie Hall

I just noticed that Annie Hall was listed as one of the movies considered to exhibit the Stormtrooper effect. Could anyone explain how that movie does? If not I would like to remove it from the list.--Jonthecheet 05:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Serenity?

There's two scenes in the movie which might vaguely qualify - the final Reaver/Alliance battle and River fighting the Reavers. The first hardly qualifies for the simple reason of what shape Serenity and her crew are by the end of it (also, they're not being specifically targeted by most of the ships there), and the second involves an engineered uber-skilled melee fighter taking on untrained berserkers. If whoever added Serenity to this list can justify its inclusion here within, say, a week, I won't delete it from the list. Unigolyn 13:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The worst I have ever read is the John Carter of Mars books by Edgar Burroughs. It is also older than any of the books you mention. The only older example I can remember is the Judges in the Old Testament.

[edit] SG-1 ?

Why is Stargate SG-1 on this list? Yes, against entire regiments of Jaffa, SG-teams often survive unscathed, but this is explained in canon: A Jaffa Staff Weapon is considerably less accurate than the FN P90. "[The staff weapon] is a weapon of terror: it's made to intimidate the enemy. This [A P90] is a weapon of war: it's made to kill the enemy."-O'Neill. See Staff Weapon for details. I think SG-1 should be removed from this list. --69.158.65.248 22:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


I fully agree. Unlike, say, the Emperial Strormtroopers who are supposedly well trained soldiers, the Jaffa are poor shots because their weapons are completely void of aiming aids. It should be noted that they are a lot more effective in close combat and they have frequently injured important characters severly. SG-1 should be removed from the list.

- I would argue that a rationalization of the effect does not nullify the effect's presence in that series. HamillianActor 16:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA

It needs a good half dozen footnotes/references before it can really be a GA candidate. — Deckiller 22:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Curses.

And I thought my Law of Ninja Strength was original.

  • Thankfully, it wasn't. Otherwise it wouldn't be here. ^_^ SAMAS 00:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Red Dwarf

I believe Red Dwarf makes a fleeting reference to 'the stormtrooper effect' in series 5 (I think)

I seem to recall the dialog going

Lister: "Why do we always meet crazy people?" Cat: "Why can they never shoot straight?"

Not sure if it was significant enough to add though.

[edit] Sources?

I have to say that this is one of my favorite pages, but it just doesn't have any sources. I've tried looking online to find something solid enough to note, but all I end up with are forums. Can anyone find some sources to bring this page back to featured status?

The sources would be the movies, comics, etc, themselves. I don't think there are any official experts on observed media phenomena that can be quoted or have produce primary research on this, at best there are forums and unoffical web sites.

[edit] Credit where due

It might be appropriate, in addition to noting that George Lucas did not originate this phenomenon, to point out that Star Wars was originally written as a bemused homage to the Saturday serials such as "Flash Gordon" in which the same rabble of guards could seem a daunting squad of crack shots one week, then a mob of bumbling buffoons the next. Lucas wouldn't have plugged that particular logic hole even if he could. Too bad the irony disappeared as the titles got longer.

You are suggesting that the Stormtrooper effect, the fact that minor characters can't even hit major characters once, even if they are in considerably large numbers, wasn't an error in the Star Wars movies, but rather added on purpose. Well in my opinion that is the case for most movies, although different directors may have different reasons. (Take for instance Kill Bill, in which both the inverse ninja law and the stormtrooper effect can be found: it's quite obviously an effect that was added on purpose as part of the movie being an ode to / parody of Asian fighting movies).
Directors are flesh and blood people with brains just like us: they probably *know* it's not really credible to have minor characters shoot so poorly (EVEN the directors of those silly classic Asian ninja movies) just as any other sensible person knows it. So isn't it rather weird to treat the "Stormtrooper effect" as a logic error? Isn't it much more interesting to consider why the effect was added, and to keep up a certain level of Suspension of disbelief? The protagonists in for instance the Star Wars movies are *supposed* to be fantastic heroes who do exceptional things, even when they aren't entirely credible in our world. That's what makes them exceptional and fantastic isn't it? The whole trench thing with Luke destroying the Death Star was far from credible in our world, but it's explained in the story isn't it. In my opinion it's the same with Stormtroopers: it's not so much them being poor gunmen that matters, the whole reason they are in the movie is to establish the protagonists as exceptionally skilled, lucky, powerful, etc. So yes, stormtroopers can easily kill lesser enemies, while they have a hard time hitting any protagonist. It's all just a way of establishing the hierarchy. It wouldn't make much sense to film an entire 6-movie Star Wars saga about a random boy from Tatooine who had just about as much Force potential or shooting skill as any average boy in his galaxy, now would it?
That's just my 2 cents. I'm not trying to kill the right of existence of this article on the Stormtrooper effect, I'm just advocating that people don't see the Stormtrooper Effect as a (logic) error so much. Greetings.(RagingR2 11:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Inverse Ninja Law

I notice that "Inverse Ninja Law" redirects here, but aren't they separate things? Stormtrooper effect is how minor characters cannot hit major characters... inverse ninja law is where the more enemies there are, the weaker each one is, so that even a single minor minion can pose the same amount of challenge as a horde of minions. Should this be added to the article, or made separate?

  • Since I just restored the section on the law (and put it there in the first place), I'll explain.
Basically, I wasn't sure if it was big or informative enough to warrant its own page. Futhermore, it's based in most of the same reasons, production-wise, that the Stormtrooper Effect comes from.
And for the record, I belive the Google Search Results under Inverse+Ninja justify its re-introduction, even not counting those pages copied from previous versions of this article. SAMAS 00:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
That part seems to be gone again? You are still getting redirected here, though. I was searching for the law on Google, ended up here and nothing on the law in the article - so either remove the redirect or restore the part about the Ninja Law. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 149.211.153.97 (talk • contribs) 12:36, 18 May 2007.
Plentiful Google results aren't any good as a reliable source - if just one of those results was a magazine, newspaper or academic paper discussing the concept, though, that's all we'd need. (The phenomenon could even get its own article, if there was enough to be said about it.) --McGeddon 20:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
If the Ninja Law is going to redirect here, the article should at least have some mention of how these rules can also apply to ninja. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.72.21.221 (talk • contribs) 2 July 2007.
That's an argument for deleting the redirect, rather than adding an unsourced section to the article. --McGeddon 08:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hellsing

Should Hellsing be considered to use the Stormtrooper Effect? I mean, most of the time, the grunts and mooks actually do hit their targets....it just doesn't matter, seeing how Alucard and all the other major vampires instantly regenerate the damage. Peptuck 08:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

No, this article deals with how bad the minions of the antagonist are at fighting, not how good the protagonist is at surviving being shot. If that was the case, we should probebly also had added The Hulk, Superman, X-Men... etc etc. Atzel 19:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Origin of "Imperial Stormtrooper Marksmanship Academy"

I first encountered this phrase in a GURPS rulebook as an optional "cinematic rule" -- I believe it was the Martial Arts one but I am not sure -- in the early-to-mid '90s. Is it possible that this is the origin of the phrase?

I'm sure it appeared in quite a few Gurps source books I was able to find it in my copy of Gurps Special Ops, page 123 by Greg Rose published 1989 by Steve Jackson games and I've used that as a citation.KTo288 09:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WWE

Why is the WWE mentioned in here, bad guys win a lot in wrestling.

I believe the term "Jabroni" is actually a term for Stormtrooper type wrestlers. Small name wrestlers who are consistently brought in to lose to big name wrestlers. I remember when I was a kid there was a guy named Barry Horowitz who served this role in the WWF. 66.167.145.218 02:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Deletion

This article, while humorous, is not in any way encyclopedic and doesn't belong on wikipedia. There are no sources, there is WAY too much that's not npov, and it's not up to standards. Please refer to what wikipedia is not. This kind of thing belongs on a site like Everything2. 209.0.48.138 14:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm of the opinion that it should be kept. Such clichés do exist in film, and the given titles are what's traditionally used to describe them in the modern day. That said, the article does need a major overhall. POV abounds, my friends. POV abounds. - Brother Dave Thompson 18:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Since there is interest in debate on this article's merits I created the AFD discussion, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stormtrooper_effect. Crypticgeek 03:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
KeepEverett3 06:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Keep on condition they find more references... Deathbunny 18:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Keep because there are sufficient independent references in pop culture and citation of all of them is hardly necessary. Darcyj 07:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Keep. I'm a little late, but the person calling for deletion hit a specific point. However, the "stormtrooper effect" is a recognized concept as a simple way to move a story or action sequence along. Lesson to aspiring writers: you want to make an impact on your reader, create three-dimensional antagonists :) Shadowrun 05:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Wish I had known about this article when the deletion vote was going on. It is unencyclopedic, unreferenced original research, with several elements (like the equation) that are jokes. Does not belong here. I am going to remove lots of unref'd elements. Wachholder 16:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Keep as a definition of term only

I can see someone who comes across the phrase 'stormtrooper effect' wanting a definition of the term and using Wikipedia expecting to find a definition. For this reason, I think the article should be retained, but the purpose of it should be to present a dispassionate, simple definition of the term. It seems to me that the first one or two paragraphs should suffice. Everything past that point, in my opinion, seems to be either points in a supporting argument, or intended as original humorous prose.

  • Nobody ever said that humourous prose has no place in a reference article :) But seriously, the Obi-Wan Kenobi quote "Only Imperial Stormtroopers are so precise" belongs in the very first paragraph, otherwise there is no real anchor to explain why this "effect" is called the "Stormtrooper effect". Further down the article, specific and verifiable references - such as the one from The Family Guy - are enough to justify the existence of the article but much of the rest is waffle. Darcyj 07:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Added tag

Tagged as 90% of the content of this article is not verified by reliable sources.--Isotope23 13:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Why delete a perfectly good article?

[edit] Lucas's Use of Stormtropper Effect for Comic Purposes

Nobody's mentioned it yet AFAIK, but right at the beginning of "A New Hope", during the battle aboard Leia's ship where Imperial forces have broken in and are battling her own forces, R2D2 & C3PO cross a corridor (with C3PO going at a tip-toey kind of pace) unscathed despite a withering fire of blaster bolts shooting up and down it.

i have actually heard this explained as since droids were so common and they werent partisan to either side, preserving their utilitarin function was more important than taking them out; everyone just shot around them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 20:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Big weapon curse

This is somewhat related. I've notised that in most movies, the guy with the big gun or a big sword is always defeated vary easly, like in Indiana Jones when Indy has to fight hand to hand with a bunch of guys, then just shoots the guy with the big sword. Do you think this should be added or what? Also, sorry about the spelling.Kingjoey52a 12:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles should not include things that random editors have "noticed", only verifiable observations from reliable sources. --McGeddon 10:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Luke's Glove

There is mention of Luke's glove being a result of him having his hand shot. Did I read this the wrong way because this is completely wrong as far as I can remember. His hand was cut off by Vader at Cloud City, am I right? Not really being a part of the fandom, I thought I'd post here before I made any corrections.207.68.251.25 07:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I had the exact same thought - I've seen those older movies a dozen times at least, and I've always attributed the black glove to Luke losing his biological hand to Vader.71.222.53.135 07:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)matt

After Darth Vader cut off Luke's biological hand, Luke had an artificial hand attached. It was damaged after being shot, so he covered it with a glove.Mustang6172 05:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Luke never shows his mechanical hand, AFAIK, so I don't know why you would say that. 66.167.145.218 02:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

(see my talk section about the effect being more complex.) Fusion7 23:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
the mechanical hand is shown - 21b is poking at it with a needle and Luke says 'ow' then he closes the artificial skin hatch and puts the glove back on. it's pretty cheesy

[edit] Proportional Pirate Law vandalism

This seems to have gone from being "created as a direct affront to the Inverse Ninja Law" (an obvious artefact of the Pirates versus Ninjas Internet meme) into a well-established cliche that pre-dates the Star Wars films, according to one user. There's obviously no reason why "large numbers of troops being more of threat than an individual" would be specifically unique to pirates.

The book that NubianPrince seems to have randomly chosen as a source for his edits is fully searchable on amazon.com, and only makes two passing mentions of "pirates", both in the sense of copyright piracy. And there are only 33 Google results for the phrase at all, all of them looping back to recent Wikipedia activity. --McGeddon 17:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted this segment entirely because MORE pirates being a BIGGER threat actually makes sense in a real-world context. In fact, MORE of virtually anything dangerous is a BIGGER threat, which is why armies routinely deploy forces of several thousand men.GutterMonkey 04:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Quite. Note that NubianPrince's readdition of the Pirate Law was actually a revert to his last edit of almost a month ago (destroying all intervening edits), rather than a simple addition - I've reverted the article to how it was before his edit. Any future mentions of the Pirate Law should be checked for this sort of vandalism. --McGeddon 10:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aliens?

Could the stormtrooper effect or inverse ninja law be seen in the Alien saga? The more there are aliens, the easier they are to kill. A lone alien, however, is almost impossible to kill. Wopr 20:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It is also true that in MMORPGs, like World of Warcraft, it is much harder to defeat an actual player than a NPC monster of the same level. Fusion7 18:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Alien/Aliens - just different films. There's no saga any more than there's a james bond saga. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 20:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Notable uses" needs to go

The list is already about a fifth of the article, and I doubt many of the recent additions have been verified. It's also not of much use; the Stormtrooper effect has essentially become a film cliché and is bound to show up in a large number of action works. æ² ✆ 2006‑12‑29t02:30z

Probably a good idea. Does anyone think the list illuminates the notion of the Stormtrooper effect? Goldfritha 02:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PR

This rule doesn't really apply in Power Rangers (And probably other shows like it) in the fact that the heros are protected by a suit anyway. So they can (and do in the sentai counterpart) take a large amount of fire before either fighting back or losing. --58.6.1.178 03:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
EDIT: Through I have noticed that the heros are easy to beat during certain plot points, but manage to get the upper hand on their attackers AFTER the point is over. Even through no one was added to their mini-battle.

[edit] Video Games

"The Stormtrooper effect often manifests itself in computer games, given that it is easier for the game creators to program a single non-intelligent enemy and insert many of them into a level than it is to create even a single very intelligent enemy."

Most games feature several "intelligent" enemies called bosses. Plus most recurring enemies aren't incompetent or incapable of dealing damage. They're simply weaker than the protagonist which is usually perfectly reasonable 9n the context of the story. The premise of the ST effect is that enemies behave in an unreasonably incompetent manner. It doesn't apply when they're simply over-matched by a Super-Hero type protagonist. 66.167.145.218 01:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Bosses are often not very intelligent, only tougher. Bosses are actually often less smart since they don't move around much. // Liftarn

[edit] See also addendum

Could we mention woookieepedia as another see also? Just in case someone didnt know about it and noticed that at the bottom. Eh, unlikely but still i think it should be mentioned. Chef Evon 04:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Principle of Evil Marksmanship

Roger Ebert already coined a term for the "stormtrooper effect" before the "stormtrooper academy of marksmanship" thing in GURPS. Unless someone can find an actual real live use of the term "stormtrooper effect" in a suitable (non-blog non-fansite non-wookiepedia) source, I am going to change the name and redirect, since I believe "stormtrooper effect" is an OR neologism. Wachholder 18:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The effect is much more complex

While it is true that sometimes a lone untrained hero or band of heros can often defeat a larger group of trained antiagonists, it should also be noted that the signifigence of each individual character also contributes to the effect. For example, in the Battle of Endor from Return of the Jedi, why is it that the Melenium Falcon avoids being destroyed while other rebel ships both larger and smaller than the Melenium Falcon are completely Obliterated? Also, a band of secondary heros (i.e. unnamed Rebel soldiers) are almost completely unable to kill a key antagonist. (i.e. Darth Vader or Bobba Fett) Another phenomenon is that when a group of such unamed heros fight a gourp of equally individually unimportant villians, it is also true that the villians may kill slightly more of the unamed heros than vice versa. (i.e. the boarding of Taintive IV from A New Hope) at the same time, any important characters, especially if they are on the "good" side, are much more likely to survive the same conlfict. In my opinion, the stormtrooper effect is real, but it is more complex than what this article states. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fusion7 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

He's got a point. I added a paragraph for the Animorphs book series where that happened and for some reason it was deleted. -Rukifelth


[edit] Where did Inverse Ninja Law go?

Inverse Ninja Law is a distinct topic from The Stormtrooper Effect. While The Stromtrooper Effect is all about the effectiveness of antagonists varying by the importance of their targets (literally, that Stormtroopers are extremely accurate when attacking the Jawas, while incapable of hitting Han and Chewbacca in a narrow corridor), Inverse Ninja Law is about how any group of characters (antagonist or protagonist) in a martial arts film or manga is always a massive threat on their own, while grossly incompetent in large numbers.

They used to have separate pages. Then the pages were merged and INL had a section of this page. Now its been reduced to a single sentence. Why? Can we please restore the expanded section? I see no discussion on this page about removing it. 82.69.37.32 19:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Checking the article history, an editor explained that "all content must be verifiable - please don't reintroduce without including sources" - we need reliable sources that document the Inverse Ninja Law, rather than a heap of unsorted Google results. --McGeddon 20:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Hell, I'm putting it back in, seeing as I can't see any discussion about it. If someone has a good argument for keeping it out, state it here for discussion before wiping it out again. If theres good reason, sure lets take it out. But judging by the tone of this whole article, it has as much merit for inclusion as any of the rest. 82.69.37.32 19:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Yup, the "good argument" is that content should be verifiable. Addhoc 20:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
How about this article? SpectrumDT 18:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
A Google search for "inverse ninja" reveals the term is in common use. It should go back in. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

How about these:

In any case, if the Inverse Ninja Law is not re-added, then the redirect should be removed!

Agthorr 16:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Two comic references and an open wiki aren't enough for WP:RS. I'll get the redirects removed. --McGeddon 16:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New name of article

Since there seems to be a considerable amount of support for keeping and renaming this article in its AfD, I'm opening up this section to discuss possible new titles. Mandsford moved the article to (Ebert's) Principle of Evil Marksmanship earlier — I've reverted because I think it's a bad idea to make such a change while an AfD is ongoing and no consensus has been reached on what to call the article. That being said, I don't think Mandsford's move is in itself bad; perhaps just "Principle of Evil Marksmanship" without the parenthetical? æ² ✆ 2007‑08‑09t21:06z

Agreed, "Principle of Evil Markmanship" is the obvious choice. --McGeddon 21:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I think Principle of Evil Marksmanship should be the new name (even though I don't really like that term, but it does have a source). I guess Stormtrooper effect would be turned into a redirect. --Pixelface 00:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I did a fair bit of research in an attempt to source or substantiate this article, and all I found was the related Ebert material on TPoEM, which I added. I cannot find any good source which uses the term "stormtrooper effect," and it seems the phrase TPoEM was likely formulated first to describe this phenomenon. I will go ahead and change the name/redirect the article. Wachholder 17:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Whoa! Don't perform copy-and-paste moves. I've placed a move request on WP:RM. æ² ✆ 2007‑08‑12t19:46z

[edit] SNL: Ninjas

Saturday Night Live had a ninja sketch on May 7th, 1994 that used this subject. I'm not quite sure how to find a better reference for than this link.
Ninja Leader: Okay, guys, pointing fingers won't solve anything. Now, if we want to get out of this rut.. we have to learn from these little disasters. Now, before the fight, how did we all agree we should attack the guy?
Group: All together!
Ninja Leader: And how did we attack?
Group: One at a time.
—Noah 06:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)