Teutonic Tomboy T-GirlYeah, I do think "inspired by" is the watchword, not "similar to." One question I've wondered about is, does/should the definition of Expy allow for more than one inspiration? A couple comics-based examples I've wondered about:
edited 16th Jun '11 6:49:38 AM by suedenim
I've seen some people declare "Character Y" an expy of "Character X" simply because they have a few traits in common. This is while sometimes ignoring other traits that make the two characters different.
The 11th GroverNeither of those examples would be expies... the first is a Captain Ersatz created via Composite Character. The second is one Captain Ersatz in a standard Power Trio. Unless we're giving up and merging Captain Ersatz and Expy, considering how often the two are misused.
Teutonic Tomboy T-GirlThat's not how Captain Ersatz works, though. As I understand it, Captain Ersatz is for exact (or damn close) copies.
I don't see why not. I'm not familiar with your examples, but it is possible to get inspired by multiple characters to create a new one, and I don't see any reason why not to. And that's another reason why we need to focus on the fact that the inspiration is there, not that they are perfectly the same. For exampe House is a very obvious Holmes expy, and that shouldn't be ignored just because he also happens to be a Doctor Jerk. The inspiration is there, even if the writers played with it, that is almost an expectation of a Expy, that is what makes it different from Captain Ersatz. and And that's also not how Composite Character works either. That is a trope for when the two original characters should, by all rights, appear in an adaptation or sequel, in the same setting, but they are written out and replaced by one new. The only way Jet Dream could be a Composite Character of them, would be if it would take place in a Bond/Blackhawk crossover universe, where you could expect Blackhawk and Pussy Galore to show up, and you would get her instead of them.
Jet Dream example used the word "or" beetween the examples(ok, it actually used "and/or", but...) It is a bad signal...
edited 16th Jun '11 4:59:10 PM by MagBas
Dragon WriterTRS is a forum, not bumper-cars.
Bump with content, I think reverting back to the old defintion and creating a new trope of "this character is similar to a character in a work by another author" would keep the clutter out and narrow the criteria.
Cosmic Star TroperThe thing is, it would be more in line with how we do things to instead keep Expy how it is and maybe add the old definition as a Sub-Trope, though I don't think we need to do that.
Narrowing a criteria isn't always useful. That "clutter" you are talking about is already part of the definition, and it is used consistently for that. There is no reason at all to change it. There is a reason why the page was expanded, namely that it was used like that anyways.
Word of God, neither Lyra is inspired in Kris, neither Willie is inspired in Marion. Both are "while they are different enough that if you would put them near each other, they wouldn't be that similar" examples.
edited 23rd Jun '11 9:28:59 AM by MagBas
Okay, I've been following this thread the entire time, and I'm confused. Is Expy supposed to be characters written by the same author? I thought that was Star System. But if that's the definition, I'm still curious what a similar character written by another author would be. The little sister in Nogizaka Haruka no Himitsu by Igarashi Yuusaku looks exactly like Nana of To Love-Ru written by Kentarou Yabuki, complete with Cute Little Fangs. So what would that fall under?
No. When it was launched, Expy was about characters written by the same author, but it got expanded, because everyone misused it for all authors copying characters, and we made the description fit that usage.
@64, if you're going to use more than three arrows, put @#of the post you're replying to rather than making people try to figure out how many you're going up. This also helps prevent ninjaing.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick
Rabid FujoshiFrom what I gather with this, Expy has now become basically Captain Ertaz or really damn close, where the original definition was more like Recycled Character. If that's the case I say merge Captain Ertaz and Expy with Expy as the title (because it's use more and is easier to spell) and then re-trope the original as Recycled Character, or whatever the original intention was.
edited 30th Jul '11 7:03:24 PM by NoirGrimoir
SPATULA, Supporters of Page Altering To Urgently Lead to Amelioration (supports not going through TRS for tweaks and minor improvements.)
Except expies are their own characters, rather than just carbon copies.
Teutonic Tomboy T-GirlYeah - IMO, it's not a particularly complicated distinction:
edited 30th Jul '11 8:25:00 PM by suedenim
The Egg-ManI think the definition of Expy and Captain Ersatz are pretty clear at this point. If we really want a trope for the old definition (and I think it would be useful) I think we ought to make it as a new trope, and then move the appropriate examples from Expy to the new trope.
edited 8th Aug '11 6:06:56 PM by MagBas
Love extends the boundaries of what people can accept, but don't depend on it.
Word of God and in-universe lampshading) belong to Captain Ersatz(or have Captain Ersatz level of similarity) or belong to Suspiciously Similar Substitute or belong to one Shadow Archetype(or a subtrope) to a character(if was created after said character), a Distaff Counterpart(off course, it regularly have in-universe lampshading or are Word of God examples) . In other words, lots of "undeniably based" examples already belongs to a sub-trope. Other opinions?
TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from firstname.lastname@example.org.