This is discussion archived from a time before the current discussion method was installed.
Idle Dandy: Yay! I knew I was short on examples, but I knew y'all would fill in a bunch. (That was really quick!)
Later, still Idle Dandy: I changed the Friends instance back to "subversion," even though I just said we're using "subverted" too much. That scene with Phoebe and Rachel is very much a subversion; indeed, it only works because we've seen the trope and are expecting it, making it funny when it doesn't happen.
Seth I can help you save face dont we have an entry on an Averted Trope?
Idle Dandy: Nope. This one is a subversion, period. The scene is only funny because the Stereo Fibbing trope exists in the viewers' minds.
Ununnilium: Hmmmm. Might want to add more details, then; as it stands, it just seems like they don't use it, rather then setting it up and then veering away.
Red Shoe: Wait a second. I've seen this one. It's not this trope. You don't expect them to give different answers. What makes the scene funny isn't the expectation of the Stereo Fibbing, but the fact that Joey buys their story when they are so obviously staging it.
Idle Dandy: Have to disagree. Joey clearly does not buy their story. He's trying to trip them up. We're expecting Stereo Fibbing, and then they have the story all worked out. Joey even says, very sarcastically, "Well, look how that worked out."
Paul A: The Wyrd Sisters scene may not be an example. As it's laid out in the book, it's also possible to interpret it as Granny saying "John" and then Nanny saying "Thomas", followed by Granny glaring at Nanny and clarifying that his name is "Thomas John", thus foiling Nanny's attempt to get him named "John Thomas
".
Ununnilium: It's obviously supposed to be an example, IMHO; it's just that it doesn't work quite as well in text.
