Various matters: Rated W For Why

Rated W for Why doesn't have a laconic, but the basic principle seems to be that it's where an entry in a series has a higher age rating than is typical of that series. The line which adequately explains the problem is this: 'the series hasn't really changed at all. What's changed is how its content is seen.' In other words, this trope is where someone disagrees with the ratings board. It's not clarified by the explanation of how it can be justified directly before a customary pop at the 'moral guardians'.

Some of the entries (Looney Tunes, for example) don't even fit that description; they're not new entries, but old things being rereleased into a market which thinks they're more offensive than its grandparents did. Numerous entries have a qualifier explaining why it's not a proper example, or why it's justified.

What's the best option?

Perhaps what we need to make this more objective is just "A new instalment or a re-release has a higher rating than previous releases of the series."

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

"...with little or no noticeable change in their contents."

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

Well, the re-releases are clearly that bit. Perhaps we could make this just for the re-releases and then have a different objective trope for the next instalment having a different rating period.

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

YKTTW Ref Link

Does this cover re-releases? The current description doesn't make it clear.

Bump. And I would be inclined to think rereleases are covered, especially since Star Wars is already on the page.

Yeah, unwritten rule number one: follow all the unwritten procedures. - Camacan

And the name is just non-indicative. It states it's about ratings, but not about changes in ratings, and the lack of change in content.

I'm on the internet. My arguments are invalid.

Not to mention the snowcloning of Rated M for Manly, when the two tropes are like chalk and cheese.

There are no heroes left in Man.

Uncharacteristicly High Rating?

edited 11th Dec '11 11:19:32 AM by DrStarky

Put me in motion, drink the potion, use the lotion, drain the ocean, cause commotion, fake devotion, entertain a notion, be Nova Scotian

The advantage of the current name is that it covers both where a work gets a higher rating as well as a lower rating. I don't see any real problem with the name, so let's just fix the definition to make sure relreases are covered and fix the misuse.

Yeah, unwritten rule number one: follow all the unwritten procedures. - Camacan

Same Content, Different Rating?

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

I agree with that name wholeheartedly, and would like people to discuss whether to use that name before suggesting a different one.

The name is non indicative. All that about "it covers lower ratings" doesn't mean anything, because the description says the trope is about shows getting higher ratings exclusively. I support a change, but if there's people who think it can be kept then we should get a crowner.

There are no heroes left in Man.

FWIW, the current name more makes me except a WTF trope—ie, "Why was this made?" rather than "Why was this given this rating?"

Seconded. That was my original belief.

It does not matter who I am. What matters is, who will you become? - motto of Omsk Bird

I like Same Content, Different Rating.

Put me in motion, drink the potion, use the lotion, drain the ocean, cause commotion, fake devotion, entertain a notion, be Nova Scotian

Same here.

It does not matter who I am. What matters is, who will you become? - motto of Omsk Bird

I like it too, but that might make it seem like it could cover not just ESRB/MPAA ratings but reviewer ratings as well. (Ie. 3 out of 4 stars, etc...)

"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon Stewart

How about tweaking it to Same Content Different Age Rating?

edited 22nd Dec '11 11:15:54 AM by DragonQuestZ

I'm on the internet. My arguments are invalid.

I like that!

It does not matter who I am. What matters is, who will you become? - motto of Omsk Bird

Sounds good to me.

Support Gravitaz on Kickstarter!

There is now a single proposition rename crowner for this trope here.

I personally think a rename makes sense because I find the trope name confusing and non-indicative, especially when compared to Rated M for Money or Rated M for Manly.

The Laconic for Rated W for Why now reads "A new installment or a re-release has a higher rating than previous releases of the series with little or no noticeable change in content" in order to combine both Shimaspawn's and Catalogue's suggestions.

edited 13th Jan '12 5:47:06 PM 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

How is this a trope? Trivia, maybe. Not A Trope. I personally think it's just Complaining About Ratings You Don't Like and we should burn it.

"Did anybody invent this stuff on purpose?" - Phillip Marlowe on tequila, Finger Man by Raymond Chandler.

Crowner affixed.

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff