Is this an example?

I don't think you meant to type "annualizing" there.

It's definitely not Evolving Weapon. Attack Its Weak Point is also not applicable, since that's about boss monsters that have conspicuous places where you're supposed to attack them.

Not every scenario has to be a trope; tropes are recurring patterns, not things that happen once. To establish a trope, you'd have to find more examples of weapons that communicate the opponents' weaknesses to the wielder.

edited 27th Feb '17 2:07:29 PM by Fighteer

I'd just call it Awesomeness by Analysis and move on.

It cool, the situation just seemed familiar to me somehow and I thought I had read something like it a while ago somewhere on the site. And yes, that is meant to be analysing.

There is that of course

Reposting from the previous pages, so it doesn't get lost:

Could some take a look at whether these examples are being used correctly:

Trivia.Mask:

• Write Who You Know: Downplayed, but Matt Trakker has been changed to be black, like author Brandon Easton.

Trivia.Doctor Who 2016 CS The Return Of Doctor Mysterio:

• Unintentional Period Piece: Features a Pokemon GO joke that was pretty much outdated by the time the episode aired.

While it's extremely unlikely that a Pokemon GO joke will remain relevant several years from now, declaring something an Unintentional Period Piece immediately seems much more like whining than a valid example.

Edit: Yup:

Burn it.

edited 27th Feb '17 4:18:12 PM by nrjxll

Unintentional Period Piece is where the entire work is chock full of culture references that date it. All else aside, I hardly think that one Pokemon Go reference qualifies.

edited 27th Feb '17 4:20:54 PM by HighCrate

So what about the Write Who You Know example?

/ Also I think Unintentional Period Piece is being massively misused on both the page and wicks, considering I've seen example that contain only a single reference to the time it was made (as with the example above), and tropers seem to be ignoring the don't add a work less than 10 years old considering works such as The Powerpuff Girls (2016) and The Emoji Movie are being listed as examples.

Tropers also seem to ignore when works are explicitly set in the present time, like The Terminator (opening text states 1984), thus making them deliberate (then)present-day period pieces.

I've deleted such an entry at least once from Trivia.The Terminator.

Does Brainy Brunette also apply to people with black hair?

Considering how it's comparing itself to blondes and redheads in a trio with no mention of black haired people (is there a term that?), I'd say... maybe? Leaning toward yes but I'm not sure.

can we add Transhuman Treachery based on the people that desire to gain strength by becoming a monster? Also Anti-Human Alliance due the monster association, and Alien Invasion thanks to Boros' crew that used their space ship to wreck and destroy A City.

... You could at least mention what work you're talking about; not everyone here would be familiar enough with anything you've said to realize that you're talking about One-Punch Man. Also, you're doing the Wiki Words wrong.

I don't think Transhuman Treachery counts for someone who becomes a monster for power unless they also turn on humanity in the process when they otherwise wouldn't have done so. I think this applies to some monsters in One Punch Man, if you're referring to Garou specifically I'm inclined to say no since he was antagonistic from the outset.

edited 28th Feb '17 5:41:11 AM by sgamer82

Transhuman Treachery is about when a character undergoes a change, he also has a Face–Heel Turn at the same time. Like how whenever someone gets turned into a vampire in Buffy The Vampire Slayer they're instantly on board with "yep, kill humans!" So while your example is very unclear, it doesn't seem to fit

Regarding Unintentional Period Piece: So there is dissent over the definition of "period piece." Examples are all over the place, ranging from "this is a cavalcade of 90's references" to "there is a single architectural element that proves that this takes place before 1970 if you are aware that this building was turn down then" which to me seems like a gross shoehorn. Hell, I just cleaned up an example calling a show filmed and set in the 2000s an Unintentional Period Piece... for the 50's. No lie.

edited 28th Feb '17 8:28:52 AM by Larkmarn

In regards to the decision that La La Land should not have Award Snub for losing the Best Picture Oscar added because it did win other awards at the ceremony, Saving Private Ryan won several Oscars at the 1999 ceremony but lost Best Picture to Shakespeare in Love and that's listed on its YMMV page. And per the Award Snub page "An Award Snub is when a work or person is denied the acclaim of a popular award that it seems to deserve, through action malicious, unintentional, overly reactionary, out-of-touch, or anti-populist on the part of award voters. The reaction to the folks at home is the same: "That didn't win? And that did?!"". Since that was the reaction many people had, it should be added.

edited 28th Feb '17 3:37:59 PM by kquinn0830

There is no evidence of any malicious action involved. And frankly, unless it can be proved that Saving Private Ryan had something like that going on, the example there should be removed too.

It's malicious OR unintentional OR overly reactionary OR out-of-touch OR anti-populist on the part of award voters.Given the Hype Backlash against the film, I'd say anti-populist qualifies. And keep in mind that this is for the YMMV page and is therefore based on opinion.

edited 28th Feb '17 3:57:17 PM by kquinn0830

Yes, but tropes on YMMV subpages still have definitions, which need to apply.

And as I just showed it does fit the definition by virtue of fitting the anti-populist criteria.

To be honest, the wording on that page sounds way too complainy, even given its nature - we don't need to be casting voters' moral characters in a dubious light. That might need a cleanup.

Right. Because you have some insight into the cultural zeitgeist, which overwhelmingly believes La La Land to have been more worthy of the Oscar, and will continue to hold that view long after the flub is forgotten.

edited 28th Feb '17 4:16:15 PM by Fighteer

nrjxll Perhaps, but that's a different matter entirely.

Fighteer I've seen an overwhelming amount of people on the public feeds of Twitter, Facebook, and so on express that opinion. And given how people still complain about the Private Ryan vs Shakespeare example 18 years after the fact, it seems that this view will continue for years to come.

edited 28th Feb '17 4:29:42 PM by kquinn0830

Speaking of Unintentional Period Piece, would an author-lampshaded case be an example? For example:

• According to some of the afterwords, New Game! is largely based on the author's time working in a video game studio (2007-2008). He realized, though, soon after the series debut in 2013, the proliferation of mobile games means the console game-based video game life-cycle portrayed in the series more or less obsolete.

edited 28th Feb '17 7:46:07 PM by SamCurt

How about the case as mentioned in post #3258?

Its not true but it counts if the author compares it to it I guess.

The small console developers such as Nippon Ichi, Compile Heart, Gust Corporation, and Falcom all still exist. All of which still make games that way and still greatly resemble the game they made in New Game, especially Gust's series Atelier Series.

The proliferation of DLC is probably the big thing they failed to present that is a thing now and not then, even then most of these smaller game companies only do map or costume DLC.

edited 28th Feb '17 11:07:24 PM by Memers