Well, the Azumanga one definitely indicates "ugly guy, pretty wife." Hot is typically associated with being "sexy" in particular, though, a label to which Jessica Rabbit clearly applies and Lois Griffin does somewhat, but is a bit less apparent from the Azumanga pic.
The question then becomes whether it is the title, or the Azumanga pic, that is off from the subject of the trope.
edited 20th May '12 7:41:34 AM by HiddenFacedMatt
"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon StewartI don't really see that much hotness or ugliness in the Azumanga Daioh picture.
This thread has happened before. If we're suddenly doing an about-face and the image needs to be replaced, then I suggest the Who Framed Roger Rabbit one, unless that ends up getting put on Interspecies Romance. Jessica Rabbit is a caricature of the classical image of beauty in the mid-20th century and she's married to a rabbit wearing overalls. There is not that much difference in attractiveness in the Family Guy and Azumanga Daioh images.
I'm not crazy, I just don't give a darn!I see the "ugliness" in the husband; he looks wrinked and/or emaciated; (granted, hard to tell which) though the wife is more along the lines of "pretty" than "sexy" in that pic, which as I mentioned before makes the application of the word "hot" a little iffy.
Turns out that, in-universe, the Roger Rabbit one was more along the lines of racial difference than species difference. So it's probably better for this one than that one. The only objection left is that Roger isn't really "ugly" since he's a rabbit, and this combined with what I mentioned in the above paragraph makes me wonder if Sexual Attractiveness Disparity might be a more fitting title for this trope.
edited 20th May '12 3:00:05 PM by HiddenFacedMatt
"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon StewartYeah, let's stick to Keep Until Better Image Suggested here.
The earlier thread establishes consensus for the real life pic, and the IP Rules thread is clear on the fact that real life pics are generally not preferred on tropes with no-real-life-examples, but are still allowable in some cases.
edited 21st May '12 4:41:53 AM by Spark9
Indeed. That's why I'm not saying "keep this", I'm saying Keep Until Better Image Suggested. Nobody has so far suggested a better image.
I see that his face is more angular than the female characters and there are shadows under his cheekbones. For all I know that is how they draw male characters in this work.
I think it would be better to leave imageless than have the RL pic.
But even if not... what makes the RL pic better than the Roger Rabbit, Family Guy, and Azumanga Daioh options each?
"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon StewartThe main reason the picture is a problem is it's basically saying "we think this guy is ugly", which is the very reason that page doesn't allow real life examples.
I'm on the internet. My arguments are invalid.What makes it better is that it clearly shows the trope, which none of the other pictures does.
Here's a thought: show a picture of Disney's Hunchback Of Notre Dame where Quasimodo gets the girl?
It does not, as the "clearly" part is subjective when it comes to real life.
I'm on the internet. My arguments are invalid.He doesn't get the girl in the first one, and I'm not very familiar with the sequel (beyond hearing he gets a girlfriend in it) so I wouldn't know where to start looking for screenshots.
Anyway, we may as well go with one of the three main options suggested so far as a temporary replacement, rather then keeping a real life example on the page.
"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon StewartSince this is still not an automatic pull, we should start with a crowner to see if there's consensus to remove the current pic.
How about something from According to Jim? That's one of the more blatant live-action examples.
I would say it is, since it's not In-Universe, and thus basically relies on subjectivity.
Unless you are really going to suggest that beauty is objective.
edited 21st May '12 1:55:28 PM by DragonQuestZ
I'm on the internet. My arguments are invalid.It's objectifying?
The Internet misuses, abuses, and overuses everything.Well that is why this isn't supposed to have real life examples.
I'm on the internet. My arguments are invalid.Per discussion with the staff, we should make it policy to evaluate any "no RL examples" pages that have RL pics on a case-by-case basis and make IP threads for those that have pics that clearly go against that rule. This page is one such example, so the pic is pulled. It may not always be the case...if you're not sure, PM me and we can discuss the pic.
edited 21st May '12 8:53:27 PM by Willbyr
Well, there it is then. o.o
Now what's left to decide is whether or not the other options mentioned so far are better than nothing.
"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon StewartLooks like we need another option for thread starting, then: probably "Real Life Image". (If such a thing does get added, could "Spoiler" be done at the same time?)
That was the amazing part. Things just keep going.Real life isn't a problem if a trope is both Truth In Televison and perfectly acceptable to list real life examples.
edited 25th May '12 8:14:37 AM by DragonQuestZ
I'm on the internet. My arguments are invalid.That isn't a reason not to have the tag I don't think.
Becky: Who are you? The Mysterious Stranger: An angel. Huck: What's your name? The Mysterious Stranger: Satan.
Supporting the Azumanga Daioh pic.