Terribly Underused, Natter Magnet: Oneshot Revisionism

Oneshot Revisionism is an old article (at least dating back to the old discussion page system). It has only 13 wicks. And had a ton of natter (I cut about 1/3 of the article's length in natter yesterday)

Wondering if there's something we can do fix either of these problems.

Anyone?

*Cricket Chirps*

edited 14th Jan '12 10:34:21 AM by Ghilz

I Thought It Meant a Retcon happening in a one-shot story, like a TV movie. :)

Nope.

Also Bump.

Might be underused just cuz it's not very common. *shrug* I dunno.

Rhymes with "Protracted."

If it's that uncommon it can't get more than 13 wicks (2 of them on the page itself, 1 index) in several years of existence, is it trope worthy? Too Rare To Trope?

Who knows? Maybe if it had more examples, we'd have to cut them all for being complaining. It's a hard trope to use.

It's been on the wiki as long as I can remember, though. Way longer than Voodoo Shark, a similar concept. The name is reasonably clear and means what it says, and the trope itself isn't vague. And it's not our name, though a Google search makes me assume it's not really in use elsewhere except in pockets of Trek fandom.

• shrugs*

I got nothing. There isn't any reason to deal harshly with the trope; there's nothing seriously wrong with it. Best I can think of is to revamp the description and tie it into other tropes like It Only Works Once, Handwave, Internal Consistency, and Voodoo Shark. And put at the bottom of the description "Avoid Justifying Edits. If you have a reasonably canonical justification for an example of Oneshot Revisionism, then the example doesn't belong on the page at all. If your justification is Fan Wank, take it somewhere else."

We're not just men of science, we're men of TROPE!

So this is "Let's show what it is really like one time as a plot point then back to hollywood style yada"?

Sparkling and glittering! Jan-Ken-Pon!

It's "We've noticed we use this trope all the time. Here's us averting it (With or without Hand Wave) just this once. After this instance we'll continue to use to the trope despite showing we could very well avoid it."

Hmm that is not quite what I got from reading the description nor the title itself and still rather confusing

So like say like Precure series.

• All the Precure series play Dark Magical Girl straight and they become good guys (to one extent or another.) but Heartcatch Precure averts it with Dark Pretty Cure ending badly *
  she dies at the hands of her good girl sister right infront of her father
  but the series after that it's back to standard Heel–Face Turn for not one but two people. (Heartcatch does this with a lot of different tropes that the others play straight.)

Would that be an example?

This trope could be the subject of a lot of Fan Wank and other things hmm.

edited 19th Jan '12 12:35:49 AM by Raso

Sparkling and glittering! Jan-Ken-Pon!

I have no idea what that example is saying.

Nor do I. That one just completely baffles me.

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

Bump. (Should we cut the trope?)

Who said anything about cutting the trope?

Re-bumping and requesting clock to get this decided.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

Clocking.

The trope is fine. The Precure example is not in the current page, anyway.

This isn't about a one shot aversion of any trope whatsoever—it's about a one shot aversion of a trope that falls under Acceptable Breaks from Reality (or would if we listed it there, since many of them seem not to be listed). The idea is that averting the trope once makes it harder to ignore that the other uses are breaks from reality.

It sounds like the Precure example is doing a one shot aversion of Face–Heel Turn. Face–Heel Turn is not a form of Acceptable Breaks from Reality, so it wouldn't fall under this.

The page also contains a Stargate example where the one shot example doesn't avert the trope, it removes the justification for the trope. Aliens Speaking English can be justified in many ways such as as a form of of Translation Convention, but a oneshot claim that the aliens are actually speaking English removes the justification. It has the same effect as a oneshot aversion, however—it makes it more obvious that the other uses of the trope are a break from reality. I think this fits the spirit of Oneshot Revisionism if not the letter of the current description and any rewording should try to cover this case.

edited 2nd Apr '12 11:13:54 PM by arromdee