How does this demonstrate the trope? It's just a guy hugging a girl. How does that show that he's a "bad boy"? Also, he's Jim Stark from Rebel Without A Cause, who isn't a bad boy, as noted on the film's page. He's actually a sensitive guy, who had been nothing but kind to Judy in the film; in fact, she was unkind to him.

Well, the expression on his face doesn't exactly say "hi, I'm a friendly cheerful fellow!"

Well, it's the best pic suggested so far, so I'm all for it.

Yeah, the body language fits.

Keep

Two previous IP threads about this page, and the current pic has stayed. It's a Keep Until Better Image Suggested for me...definite problems, but there's enough suggested by it to make it work for me.

But he's not an example! Rebel Without A Cause is not listed on the trope's page, and on the film's page, it's stated that Jim Stark is not a bad boy but a Nice Guy. No image is better than illustrating a trope with an image cut from a film that doesn't contain said trope.

What kind of definite problems, exactly?

I guess you have a point there,...

I've never seen the show, but all the things I've read about it describe him as being troubled and rebellious. It seems to me like that is enough to qualify for the trope. It isn't like the character has to be a Complete Monster.

Then perhaps the work page needs to be updated by someone who's actually seen the movie.

It's been a few years, but what I remember of Jim Stark is drunkenness, swagger, and playing chicken in a car flying of a cliff.

edited 14th Feb '12 8:38:36 PM by Gwirion

He's only not a Bad Boy, if you think Bad Boy means "sociopathic asshole".

edited 14th Feb '12 8:40:46 PM by Madrugada

I think if you know that is from Rebel Without A Cause, it is an extremely strong image. If you don't, it's not fantastic... but definitely keep and I think a suggestion has a somewhat high bar to clear for "better".

edited 17th Feb '12 12:29:29 AM by rodneyAnonymous

Exactly what I was thinking.

Okay, Jim is rebellious. But I repeat, he has been nothing but kind to Judy. She was unkind to him, and she even apologizes for it. It was my impression that he wins her over with his kindness. Her previous boyfriend, I think, was much more of a bad boy than Jim.

A bad boy doesn't have to be mean to the girl. A bad boy is a character type. He's not a Nice Boy. The fact that Jim is kind to Judy doesn't make him a Nice Boy.

But isn't the point of the trope is the girls are attracted to these guys because they're bad? And that's not the reason Judy is attracted to Jim.

The Bad boy does not have to be mean towards the girl. This isn't "female in love with an abuser".

Part of the quotes page has something:

edited 15th Feb '12 8:40:27 AM by ThatHuman

Does this refer to the image or the example? I usually put priority on the image rather than the example in IP.

Also, we are not here to argue the def of Bad Boy. Just mind that the person in the current image looks exactly like a bad person.

But Jim isn't just kind to Judy; he's also kind to Plato, befriending him right away. He's not the bully, he's the outsider, who is bullied and mocked by others - including Judy. He's not redeemed by her love; if anything, it's more like the other way around.

He might look like a bad boy in this image, but if he doesn't really fit the trope, I think it's wrong to illustrate it with him. Or at least we could add a caption about how Covers Always Lie - it's detailed on the film's page.

edited 15th Feb '12 9:22:05 AM by Aquila89

That was about the trope in general. I don't really know about the specific example here.

He is the quintessential poster boy for the trope.

He's an iconic character. Maybe he doesn't have a gun or a ripped up leather jacket or a black eye to hammer that nail in really really deep for anyone unfamiliar with one of the most iconic movies of American cinema, but so what? I'm gradually starting to feel like if a picture of Jesus on a cross was put up on some kind of heroic/messianic/martyr trope page, people would decry it because its context isn't obvious (like, he's just some long-haired bum, why should we care that he's dying? how is it clear that he's a good guy, etc.). Let's not make this happen, guys. Not everything needs to club you over the head with its intention. Sometimes a little bit of confusion is good - it will make you want to learn what it is about this work/character that fits the trope, and it will introduce you to something new and great.

edited 15th Feb '12 11:22:08 AM by Gwirion

We are not here to promote iconic works. We are here for tropes. Works just happen to use them. Expecting people to be familiar with specific works leads toward the fandom garbage we spent years chasing out.

But as has been pointed out upthread, you don't have to know the work to think, "Hey, this guy isn't a clean-cut all-American Nice Boy".

And somebody was mistaken that "it's super duper iconic" is an argument worthy of consideration.

You know, a caption simply saying something like "In love with a Rebel Without a Cause" would improve the picture, as the term is in widespread use even by those that haven't seen the movie.

edited 15th Feb '12 12:27:56 PM by Catbert

Tropes exists because works use them. It's not the other way around.

What does something being iconic have to do with "fandom garbage"?

edited 15th Feb '12 12:31:18 PM by Gwirion