Is this an example?

Those entries sound more like complaining. Narm is supposed to be when a serious moment is made unintentionally hilarious due to excessive melodrama, poor execution or absurdness of the situation.

The first two I agree, the third one might count. It does specifically call out the example as "comical" after all.

Would a character meeting/fighting the Frankenstein, Wolfman, or other Public Domain monster count for Fight Dracula?

The reason I think they could count is because they're big name monsters that are easy to put in a work due to being Public Domain. For comparison getting "Batman VS Freddy Krueger" would have to go through some legal agreements between the copyright holders.

Question: the place to discuss if a character is a Base-Breaking Character or merely a popular character(Ensemble Dark Horse or popular focus character) is here?

edited 4th Feb '17 4:37:35 PM by MagBas

is this an inversion of And That's Terrible, as noted by the comment following this review?

I'm a bit wary of adding a trope that is mostly negative to the work it's reviewing, and not sure exactly what the view being espoused is.

He wants to clap... for Quirrell? But it's weird because he agrees with what Quirrell? ... No, he wants to clap for Hermione, but likes what Quirrel said?

Review of Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality:

Edit: So, quoteblocks can't nest... Sad.

edited 5th Feb '17 4:25:28 AM by Malady

These examples have recently been added to Emerald City, could someone take a look at them:

• Amnesiac Hero: Lucas, of the "can't even remember his own name" variety.
• Chekhov's Gunman: Jane, the Mad Scientist from "Science and Magic", who leaves after selling Jack to Lady Ev. "Beautiful Wickedness", reveals that she was a colleague of Karen Chapman and is from our world.
• Creepy Child: Sylvie, the lost little girl Lucas and Dorothy run into in "Science and Magic" who can turn people into statues. She's a witch, so it makes sense.
• Grey-and-Grey Morality: No one character is flatly good or evil, with sympathetic and unsympathetic qualities.
• Laser-Guided Amnesia: Lucas can't remember who he is, or anything before his attempted crucifixion. Justified by the fact that it's actually magically induced.

I'm curious what you think about them. I mean, you keep bringing these long lists of examples, and asking us to solve them for you, and, despite having been asked more than once, you never seem to offer any reasons why you have doubts about any particular example. I think one of the goals of this thread is to help people learn to recognize and distinguish good examples from bad. But I honestly can't tell if we're helping you or not? Are you learning anything? Tell us what you're thinking, and maybe we can help steer you in the right direction.

I think one of them is pretty close to a ZCE. Can you guess which one I think that about?

The following pokemon examples:

• Base-Breaking Character:
  • Dragonite. It's the original pseudo-legendary, and one of the best Dragon-types in the game (by virtue of being one of only three with the other two being his own pre-evolutions...) Many feel that Dragonite looks like Barney the Dinosaur. The fact that it bears little resemblance to its serpentine pre-evolutions doesn't help matters. Plus, just like Charizard, all the worship it gets from fans who only like the first generation annoys some fans of the newer gens. This may be why they gave Iris's Dragonite a grumpy personality and a generally angry expression in the Black and White anime season, to defy its cuddly appearance and help "unify" its popularity. Incidentally, Red/Blue are the only games in which it is shown with an angry expression, aside from its attack animations in Pokémon X and Y; in fact, every Dragonite card in the TCG from Dragon Vault onwards has shown the Pokémon with a serious expression on its face.
  • Pikachu, all for being the series' mascot. Either loved for being cute and getting lots of focus, or hated for being overused and promoted everywhere, yet still a very weak Pokémon. Especially the case in Yellow where it's the Starter, walks with the player, and cannot be released or evolved. It's incorporation of elements from the anime such as expressions and Pokémon Speak provided by Ikue Otani, either made Yellow more interesting than the other games, or even more fuel on just how overrated Pikachu was.The situation is aggravated even more when Raichu is brought up. Where some people feel that its shafted by Nintendo and others feel that its also overrated due to its perceived "underdog" status.
  • Charizard, despite being one of the most popular Pokémon designs in the series for its dragon-like appearance, is regarded by a segment of fans of the later games as pretty much an unofficial mascot for the widely-despised "Genwunners"—people who prefer the first generation over any other, and are often perceived as doing little but complain about later games. Not to mention, for competitive gamers, Charizard became something of a Tier-Induced Scrappy for several gens. Essentially becoming the Pokémon equivalent of Wolverine in terms of popularity and exposure—including being one of only two Pokémon to get two Mega Evolutions (The other being Mewtwo, who suffers similar problems) doesn't help matters on either end of the spectrum.
  • As mentioned with Charizard, Mewtwo is very much in the same boat as the original Fire starter—still very popular fandom-wide, but heavily resented by a chunk of fans of the later games for much the same reasons: Utter worship by genwunners and heavy Wolverine Publicity extending to it being the only mon other than Charizard to get two Mega Evolutions. The long-standing, extremely vitirolic Fandom Rivalry between its fans and fans of Lucario and Greninja (who happen to be fan-favorites (for the most part) among those who prefer the later games) in the Super Smash Bros. series and Psychic-types' constant Badass Decay throughout the years does not help things in the slightest. Even so, though, Mewtwo doesn't get quite as much hate as Charizard, though mainly due to having a fair bit less Wolverine Publicity, likely caused by a very negative reaction to the version of Mewtwo featured in the sixteenth anime movie.

• Ensemble Dark Horse:
  • Dragonite, Generation I's Pseudo-Legendary and the only Dragon-Type at the time. Dragonite waned in popularity as the generations went on due to being overshadowed by Salamence and Garchomp, but once Generation V bestowed upon it the hidden ability Multiscale, its usability skyrocketed.
  • Mewtwo is never left out whenever the subject of legendaries comes up.

• Poor, Predictable Rock: All puns aside, Lycanroc's offensive moveset is fairly limited without breeding, consisting mainly of Normal-type, Rock-type, Dark-type and Fighting-type moves. Even with breeding, its coverage is limited mostly to a few of the fairly weak elemental fangs.

Any opinions?

I think the one that's closest to being a Zero Context Example is Amnesiac Hero, that's why I brought it here I thought it looked like a Zero Context Example but I wasn't 100% sure.

As for the others...:

I thought Chekhov's Gunman was supposed to when a seemingly insignificant character turns out to be much more important later on, whereas the example appears to about a seemingly insignificant character revealed to already be important in the series' backstory. Although re-reading the trope page it's entirely possible the trope is more flexible than I'm giving it credit for.

For Creepy Child, I'm not sure whether "can turn people into statues" counts as creepy.

The Grey-and-Grey Morality example is "technically accurate", but I wasn’t sure whether it had enough detail.

From the way the Laser-Guided Amnesia is example is written it seems to suggest that the character just having amnesia is enough to qualify for Laser Guided Amnesia and that the use of the trope is Justified by the fact that it was magically induced deliberately. When that fact that it was magically induced should be what makes the example qualify as Laser Guided Amnesia.

Also for the record, the troper that added the examples also uncommented out several confirmed Zero Context Examples that I had to re-comment out, and added a Trope as a second level bulletpoint trope to a different first level bulletpoint trope that I had to rewrite and merge into one example. Hence why I was a bit sceptical about the new examples they added.

From YMMV.Fire Emblem Gaiden:

• Win Back the Crowd: For a number of disgruntled fans who felt that the recent-at-the-time Fire Emblem games were trying too hard to pander to the mainstream, the announcement of the Echoes remake has restored their faith in the series.

Fire Emblem Fates, the previous game, sold very well (over 1.5 million units), received positive critical reception, gets some Wolverine Publicity in Heroes and Warriors, and was what convinced Nintendo to push Fire Emblem as a more important IP. I seriously question if the disgruntled fans are anything more than a Vocal Minority.

Should I delete this for misuse?

edited 5th Feb '17 5:04:37 PM by Karxrida

Ok, thanks. First thing I'd suggest is to talk to the troper who added these, and express your concerns. Point to our ZCE policy, and offer to help improve the examples. A little cooperation is frequently the easiest path forward in cases like this. And the troper who is adding these examples is much more likely than any of us to be able to provide any currently-missing context.

Plus, helping them understand the problems with the examples here makes it more likely they'll do better with the next example on some other page.

For Laser-Guided Amnesia, I think the word "justified" is the wrong one. As you say, the magic seems to be what makes it laser-guided. But that should be an easy edit.

The others seem ok. Turning people into statues can certainly be a creepy thing, especially if it's a child doing it. If you have doubts (and I do now understand why you might), the best thing is probably to ask the person who added it.

edited 5th Feb '17 5:22:27 PM by Xtifr

I'm not in the fandom so I can't be sure it's incorrect, but I've gotten the impression that there are at least a few people on this site who really have it in for Fates (and tend to take that No True Scotsman tone about "pandering to the mainstream" as they do it), so color me suspicious as well.

edited 5th Feb '17 5:26:01 PM by nrjxll

Any other opinions? Super leaning on a deletion because Fates was way too successful to be considered alienating.

Considering that Fates and Awakening saved the FE franchise, and without them it wouId be super-dead, I too am doubtful about the validity of that example.

I say cut the Win Back the Crowd example on YMMV.Fire Emblem Gaiden. The people who complain about the recent Fire Emblem games "pandering to the mainstream" are just a Vocal Minority considering how well the games sold.

edited 5th Feb '17 9:24:39 PM by ADrago

Deleted it.

Is this an example of No, Except Yes (which has been renamed as Distinction Without a Difference)? Found it in The Men from the Ministry.

• No, Except Yes: While giving most of Culture Ministry's yearly Art's Conucil Grants to small-time artists and simple con-men, Sir Gregory angrily calls and asks Lennox-Brown if he's forgotten annual grants for all the national organisations. Lennox-Brown states that he has definitely not forgotten them indeed, since he's never even heard of them.

I don't see the "This is not A; it's a. Completely different". I don't even see the trope it's often mistaken with, By "No", I Mean "Yes", which is an immediate self-contradiction.

Yeah, it's something else.

I'm in the middle of cross-wicking Alpha Gods and I need to know whether these examples have enough context/detail:

• Deal with the Devil: Cravely is granted immortality by Malak, but in exchange he is forced to serve him.
• Our Angels Are Different: The Nephilim have a very alien appearance, quite different from their conventional appearance. The fallen angels look much more traditional though.
• Who Wants to Live Forever?: Cravely's main motivation for serving Malak is so that he can honor his end of their bargain and finally be allowed to die.

Deal is...borderline, but I think "immortality for servitude" is enough to qualify it. Live Forever seems fine.

Angels...yeah, that's really borderline. I could go either way on that one. It does mention one bare way they're different, which is better than nothing, but I get a strong feeling there's more than isn't being said. Is that enough reason to disqualify it? I'm not sure. Maybe we can get a third opinion.

The 7th Heaven page features the entry:

• Character as Himself: In this case, the ever suffering Happy the Dog...plays Happy the Dog. She got starring billing for her stirring role playing a common housedog, though her Emmy submissions always seemed to be rejected.

Seems to me the only reason the above entry was created was because this dog happened to be called "Happy" both In-Universe and in Real Life; and isn't any non-human animal character "playing themselves" by definition, thus making the above entry too People Sit On Chairs / Captain Obvious?

That sounds like As Himself to me, not Character as Himself. Character as Himself is when a fictional character is credited as himself. As Himself is when the actor is playing himself.

And no, there is no "by definition" when it comes to animals. Animals can play different characters just like humans.

The page about the Walt Disney Signature Collection refers to Belle's pose on the Beauty And The Beast cover as a Boobs-and-Butt Pose. Does it really look like one?

Dsneybuf: Absolutely not. That's a standard 3/4 pose, not Boobs-and-Butt Pose. She's clearly not twisted at the waist to show both her breasts and butt.

edited 8th Feb '17 10:08:14 AM by Madrugada

Yeah, I didn't think so, either.