This is discussion archived from a time before the current discussion method was installed.
Caswin: I removed the entry on The Bad Guy Wins. The ending is a textbook Xanatos Gambit — it's exactly the kind of thing I could see Xanatos himself doing, in fact. However, that doesn't fit the bill in this case.
Ayries: Is it just me that thinks the shout outs are getting ridiculous? Portraying the character with traits he had in what you're adapting isn't a shout out, surely.
Paul A: I don't think you mean the shout outs; there's only two listed, which is well on the reasonable side of ridiculous, and neither has anything to do with character traits.
Ayries: Sorry, yeah, I meant Continuity Nods.
- But House and Wilson was based off of the Holmes and Watson from the books, how is that decay?
- Because House and Wilson are not exactly like Holmes and Watson from the books, they are based of their arquetypes, but aren't the carbon copies many assumed them to be.
- But House and Wilson was based off of the Holmes and Watson from the books, how is that decay?
Lale: True, Doyles' Holmes can be arrogantly critical of Watson's deductive skills sometimes, but he never does anything to deliberately hurt him. He never tried to sabotage his relationship with Mary, he never drove him up the wall with cruel pranks, he never played a Manipulative Bastard escalating war for the sheer joy of being a Jerkass like House. Holmes never treated Watson as cruelly as House does Wilson. Holmes tries not to show his emotion openly, but you can still detect nothing but the deepest affection and respect for his friend, whom he constantly reminds (and informs other people of) that he loves having a reliable friend by his side; his disdain for relationships seems limited to romance/women (which is fine, unless you're his Fangirl). Holmes' eccentricities often worried Watson, but he never made him as frustrated or miserable as the Holmes and Watson in the film. Their relationship in the film is much more combative and rocky than the intimate friendship of the stories.
This is not a bad thing, just a different interpretation (preferable to many in the past) that is closer to the interpretation of the writers of House than Arthur Conan Doyle's. My theory is that modern viewers' obsession with Belligerent Sexual Tension in romances has made only belligerent friendships acceptable to audiences, too. Or maybe it was because it's stereotypically unacceptable for men today to be as openly affectionate as the original Holmes and Watson unless I'm going to stop now.
Anon: This is royally pissing me off. Since when are Crowning Moment and Fridge Logic/Brilliance examples listed on their respective pages alone? I've tried time and time again to list them here, and they've been removed because they supposedly cannot be listed here. Please, for the love of fuck, don't let TV Tropes become like The Other Wiki.
That's the reason I love this site! There Is No Such Thing As Notability, there's no rules, and you can find whatever you want.
But if you start policing it and saying that this can't go here and that can't go there, you'll completely ruin the site altogether. There is absolutely, ABSOLUTELY, no reason as to why Crowning Moment and Fridge Logic/Brilliance examples can't go here. NONE.
Charred Knight: It clutters the page, especially Crowning Momentof Awesome where we would get about 10 examples from this movie, and heaven forbid if we allows people to post Crowning Moment Of Awesome on something like the Naruto page, it would take forever to load.
Fast Eddie: And they're not gone, they're just elsewhere. If you enjoy the 'crowning' stuff, it puts it where you can more easily find it. It also helps in keeping the works articles from turning into reviews-in-disguise.
Anon: @Charred Knight: That would be the breaking point where you'd make a separate page for the film/series in question. And it does not clutter the page. @Fast Eddie: It does NOT make them easier to find. It most definitely makes it ten times as difficult. Do you know how much I hate scrolling through the C Mo A page just to find one example?
Plus, I find it unfair that you're accusing one single C Mo F to be cluttering the page, yet both of you have failed to mention the mess that is Continuity Nod on this page.
Paul A: Well, it's not as if we can move the list of continuity nods away into the Continuity Nods namespace, because there isn't one.
Speaking as the person who actually moved your funny moment, I say it's necessary to be consistent — having established a principle that Crowning Moments go in the Crowning Moments namespace, not on the work page, then all Crowning Moments need to go in the Crowning Moments namespace. If we start making exceptions because there's only one Moment listed, then do we also need to make an exception when there's only two? Only three? Where's the cut-off point?
I agree that some of the Crowning Moments pages could stand to be better organised, but I don't think that's a reason not to have them at all. And until somebody gets worked up enough to actually tidy them, there are workarounds — I myself never have to spend ages scrolling through a page looking for a specific example or a specific work, because my web browser has a "search inside this page" tool (and yours probably does too).
Hamtatam: I added a "tempting fate" for blackwood in the end.
