Here's something that I see over and over again in movies. It seems very illogical and forced to me, and I am wondering if it is a known cliche with a name?
Basically, it's where two people have leverage against each other. However, the one who "wins" is the one who uses their leverage after the other person has used theirs. But this victory is illogical, since the other person still has their leverage, so nothing has changed.
The most typical example is the "drop your gun" example:
Person A points a gun at person B. Person C (who is a friend of person B) points a gun at person A, telling them to put down their gun. Person A is forced to put down their gun.
This is illogical, since the leverage person C has against person A is matched by the leverage person A has against person B (and also person C, since person C cares about person B). Person A is giving up their leverage by putting down their gun. This is an illogical action, and yet, you see it all the time in movies.
The fact that this is illogical is made even more apparent by the fact that if we change the order, then person A comes out on top, even though we are in the exact same situation:
Person C points a gun at person A. However, person A smugly reveals that a friend of person A (say: person D) has a gun pointed at person C's dear friend person B. Person C is then forced to drop their weapon.
Again, this is the exact same situation as the one described above, and yet, now A wins, because they were the last to use their leverage.