Standards for examples?: Everyone Owns A Mac

It occurred to me that this trope could very easily become "any example of a Mac appearing in anything ever."

How should we sort through examples to make sure that this trope stays tropeable? Should they be limited to disciplines and occupations where Windows or Linux use is the clear majority 90% or more of the time?

It's a tricky one. This trope suffers exactly the same problem as another more controversial (but no less factual) one I submitted around the same time.

Certain things are disproportionately represented in the media. How many TV shows about doctors? How many about coal miners? How many films about soldiers? How many about farmers? How many people in films use Macs, compared to how many in the real world?

In the other more controversial entry I had to explicitly state that it did NOT lend itself to a simple list of examples, and examples should be given only where the trope was particularly egregious, where it was lampshaded, or heavily subverted or averted. It sort of worked, although inevitably there were people for whom the mere existence of someone noticing the facts was offensive in itself.

I don't anticipate the same level of brittle sensitivity here - nobody has ever herded Mac users onto trains at gunpoint, so simply pointing out there are perhaps more them in films and TV than you might reasonably expect given the real world's demographics might not see me accused of only having one ball.

In summary - disproportionate representation tropes perhaps should limit their examples to:

• egregious representation - representation where it's EXTREMELY unlikely, unusual or indeed ridiculous
• lampshading - representation where there's a wink at the audience to say "hey, look, we've got one of these in the show - wacky huh?"
• subversion or aversion - representation where there turns out to be good reason, or no representation where you'd reasonably expect one.

I thought we had this on before? It was based around the idea that mac's have a larger proportion of usage in graphics and the set designers just use whatever PC they have to hand.

Fight smart, not fair.

Yes, but how do you show that's true, so you don't end up listing "every time a Mac has appeared on screen or in print"?

In fact, using that as a criterion would automatically negate all literature examples, which I don't think we want.

I'm drowsy, so do forgive if I missed something, but why would it negate any example? It would be a guess, but can't we just guess the appropriateness? "When personal computers are mentioned in Stephen King novels, they tend to be Apple products." Well. Who are these characters using them? Is it at a magazine office? If so, justified. Is it at a school? Then not so much. How is this mentioned? Does King mention that his run of the mill government agent uses a Mac? A bit gratuitous there. And so on.

The words above are to be read as if they are narrated by Morgan Freeman.

Isn't this really a situation where, highly improbably, everyone in the work uses the same brand of computer? Whether they be Macs, Dells, H Ps, whatever.

I think this one is specifically about Macs, and how they are overrepresented in the media?

The words above are to be read as if they are narrated by Morgan Freeman.

To explain, I was specifically referring to:

No set designers = not an example, thus negating literary examples, see? :)

Oh, I see. I think I'm more comfortable with the article's reasoning:

The words above are to be read as if they are narrated by Morgan Freeman.

Indeed. But my question is: how do we show "disproportionate representation" without the trope turning into "we just threw every mention or sighting of a Mac we could find onto this page"?

By making the connection between the characters shown using/owning the computers and Mac's actual demographics? If it's shown in a web designer's possession, it's not this trope, but if it's in a rural farmer's hands, it probably is.

There will be a lot of grey areas, but should be manageable.

The words above are to be read as if they are narrated by Morgan Freeman.

Just to ask, where would that leave examples like the ones in Advertising?

"how do we show "disproportionate representation" "

<tap><tap> Is this thing on?

We show disproportionate representation in the first instance by simply stating the universally acknowledged fact that the representation is disproportionate, stating the reasons, noting that a list of examples is not appropriate, and listing only places where the fact is lampshaded, averted, subverted or is a PARTICULARLY egregious example (e.g. hacking an alien mothership).

The only alternative is a complete list of every show with computers in it broken down statistically demonstrating the over-use of Macs, which is ridiculous. We all KNOW Macs are over-represented. It's not a controversial fact, and the reasons are clear and sensible.

The implication that we require statistical proof smacks rather of the other wiki.

Well the way I see it its should just be a subtrope of Product Placement like in anime this season there are a lot of Ipods going around even though Apple doesn't really have the large presence there like it does in the US.

Like A Channel has an entire segment to where The Ditz gets an Ipod and The Smart Girl goes on on how she wants one then they learn The Ditz took it apart trying to put music in it.. then put it back together perfectly. The Smart Girl then hooks it up to a PC to put music in it.

And In Nichijou this old lady claiming to be channeling the spirit of bob hope has an Ipod its completely random.

Sparkling and glittering! Jan-Ken-Pon!

I think it's quite different, but yeah, maybe a subtrope of Product Placement.

The words above are to be read as if they are narrated by Morgan Freeman.

Sonof Roj Blake,

I tend to agree with these standards. Most anything that can reduce the number of examples that are just "show L features Macs" seems good in my book. I admit that I am not really an expert on the protocol here though.

Leaper,

I think the advertising examples should stay because they are examples of Macs being used even when that does not make much sense (i.e. commercials that feature Macs running Windows). That is why I believe they are notable enough to count as "egregious representation."

edited 3rd May '11 8:39:40 AM by LouieW

"irhgT nm0w tehre might b ea lotof th1nmgs i dont udarstannd, ubt oim ujst goinjg to keepfollowing this pazth i belieove iN !!!!!1 d

The "only show inversions and such" is something we've got. I think both Most Common Super Power and Beauty Is Never Tarnished use that rule.

Fight smart, not fair.

Lampshading generally also counts to put on that sort of a page because then the trope is specifically being called out.

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick

One way to look at this trope is not as the presence of Macs but as the absense of non-Macs. Then the trope would be looked at the same way we look at any absense of something. Which is pretty much the same as proposed here, so carry on.

I also thought that this is what it was.... It's not an example every time a Mac shows up, but it is when computers are used notably or often and the only kind used are Macs. Or when Macs are seen being used in a field where they rarely are in real life, such as at a government facility or business.

Bump, so what exactly is the trope here?

I pretty much agree with what Morgan said.

Macs are used far less than NMPCs*

in real life; those who do use them do so overwhelmingly in order to use MacOS. Tha majority of people use an NMPC running Windows. In TV and movies, however, almost everybody uses a Mac, even when a real person would not.

So, basically, the trope is "A disproportionate number of people use Macs when they would not be expected to do so."

Ukrainian Red Cross

So, how about this limiting this trope to cases where it wouldn't make sense or be very practical to use a mac.

Because that's not an objective criteria. There are very few things that a mac can't actually do that a PC can these days, and where does sense come into it? How do you put sense into a character's personal preference?

This is another of those aggregate tropes where it's only really noticeable because of the percentages of macs in media as opposed to the percentage of macs in real life.

edited 11th Oct '11 4:13:47 PM by shimaspawn

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick

This must be a pretty recent trope because I can't say macs make a disproportionately large appearance in any of the media I've seen.

We probably should just limit this to subversions, justifications, and lampshading. Things where it can be a plot point.

edited 16th Oct '11 5:36:59 AM by captainpat