Is this an example?

I'm not sure if an example qualifies for Teacher/Parent Romance.

In Breaking Bad, after his wife Skyler confesses to an affair with one of her old colleagues, Walter White tries to put the moves on the school principal at the place where he both works as a teacher himself and his son Walt Jr. is a student. She flat-out rejects him, which if anything makes it a Subverted Trope, but I'm not sure if it's even a proper example because of Walt being a teacher himself. There's nothing in the description itself that specifically mitigates against this, but the dynamic isn't really on any potential embarassment for Walt Jr., it's more about Walt Sr.'s bungling attempt to get back at his wife.

No, that doesn't at all sound like an example.

The story sounds so absurd that I can't really call it a deconstruction of anything. There's no logical chain of consequences from "self-insert fic" to "character invades the author's world and becomes a supervillain".

#4872: Sounds like a lot of natter, indeed.

edited 6th Feb '18 6:20:42 AM by Fighteer

~jamespolk (#4870): Don't know if it's a trope, but you could try in Trope Finder.

~MaLady (#4854): Your first question is more of a TRS thing, but I see no overwhelming imperative to make all indexes look the same.

For your second question, do you mean that Tropes of Legend shouldn't be an index or that Applied Phlebotinum (e.g.) shouldn't?

~Anddrix (#4852): Neither of those is DIAA. As long as the story has clearly-defined protagonists and antagonists and something positive is achieved in the end, it can't qualify regardless of people's opinions.

~Chaotic Queen (#4850): Sounds like it could be an example, if they suffer no meaningful consequences and get what they want anyway. I haven't seen Norbit so I can't comment definitively.

~Morning Star 1337 (#4848): The description of Canon Foreigner is all over the place, but as I read it, it's about original characters added by an Expanded Universe. Alternate continuities aren't necessarily part of an EU — they're usually canonical — so there's no direct correlation between the two.

~MaLady (#4846): Based on our general policy about using the most specific trope for any given example, examples better fitting a subtrope should be moved there. If that leaves the supertrope without examples, then so be it. That goes for both supertropes that you asked about.

~Eagal: (#4845): I agree that Faux Symbolism doesn't apply if the symbolism is accurate.

~Crossover-Enthusiast: (#4842): If the footage in question was not widely disseminated among the fandom, and/or was not part of an official trailer, then yeah, I don't see it fitting the trope. The example also has some tense troubles.

~Water Blap: (#4841): I have a hard time seeing how a documentary could use the trope Writer on Board, since the whole point is to present a point of view (historical, political, social, whatever). We have the trope Documentary of Lies for when a documentary grossly misrepresents facts in order to advance its point.

~SamCurt: (#4836): That example grotesquely violates our rule about lumping a bunch of unrelated works under a generic header, and all of the sub-examples are zero-context. Excise them with extreme prejudice.

edited 6th Feb '18 7:19:59 AM by Fighteer

Okay, I'll bring up Documentary of Lies in the work's discussion page.

Also concerning The Red Pill, I'm wondering if the following is an example of Lost Aesop:

The reason I'm not sure that's an example is because it seems that the "aesop" and the "forgotten aesop" are two separate things. Namely, it's saying that the aesop concerns discrimination against men and men's grievances but then the aesop that is "forgotten about" is Jaye's view of feminism.

I asked for more context in the work's discussion page but it hasn't come up yet, but I suggested running the example through this thread.

edited 6th Feb '18 7:39:19 AM by WaterBlap

Again, it's unclear that An Aesop is a thing that a documentary work can be held to, at least not if the point of the work is to show the progression from one point of view to another. "I started as a feminist, started investigating men's issues, then became sympathetic to them," sounds like the actual message that's supposed to be communicated. If so, then there's no lost anything.

Lost Aesop can only apply if the work failed to communicate its intended message.

edited 6th Feb '18 8:02:53 AM by Fighteer

Are the following examples from YMMV.Annihilation 2018 being used correctly?:

• Awesome Music: Crossing over into Nightmare Fuel, the trailer gives us the Shimmer's own theme song: five notes of somewhat nightmarish, unsettling, alien-sounding music. Just hearing it, one figures this is going to be very iconic in the movie.
• Memetic Mutation: The weirdness of seeing Padmé Amidala and Poe Dameron as a couple.
• Narm: According to many a YouTube comment, the Biologist's hanging line in the trailer ("It's not destroying... it's making something new.") sounded like it was going to be a cheesy Title Drop ("It's not destroying... it's annihilating.) due to common usage of this for other movie trailers.

Awesome Music is a Sugar Wiki concept and is not really subject to defined criteria, except that it must have context (which the example you gave does). One would generally want to move such examples to an appropriate subpage.

The Memetic Mutation example fails to explain how, exactly, that idea has become memetic, so is a ZCE. It's also probably an incorrect usage, as a Memetic Mutation is not a transient meme but something that takes on life independently of the context that it arose in. No such indication is given.

The Narm example sounds a bit flimsy but, again, it's a matter of opinion and it is given enough context. I won't presume to judge.

edited 6th Feb '18 12:51:09 PM by Fighteer

Are the following examples from Avengers: Infinity War being used correctly?:

• They Wasted a Perfectly Good Plot:
  • The confirmation that the Venom film is not part of the MCU and that Marvel Studios has no current plans to re-use villains from the previous Spider-Man films in the MCU, is this to fans that were hoping that Infinity War and Avengers 4 would serve as the introduction to the Venom symbiote and the black suit into the MCU.
  • Given that May Parker has been confirmed not to be in the film, there's isn't an onscreen resolution of the Cliffhanger that Spider-Man: Homecoming ended on with May learning that her nephew is Spider-Man. While it's been confirmed that it will be addressed, it won't be until 2019 at the absolute earliest.
  • There are plenty of fans of Marvel on the cosmic end of the equation that are bummed out that Adam Warlock won't be involved in this story (although his debut has been teased for a future MCU installment), given that he's one of the main contenders of the title for the Arch-Enemy to Thanos and was a crucial part to the Infinity trilogy that this movie is based off of.
  • Samuel L. Jackson has claimed he isn't in this film or the next Avengers. Even with the Loads And Loads Of Characters they have to service, it's quite weird for the guy who put the team together in the first place not to be involved in the climax of the entire franchise's first major story arc.
  • For followers of the Marvel television series, the same weirdness applies to the absence of The Defenders — who are all based in New York, right where Thanos appears to make his grand entrance in the first official trailer — and the characters from Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.. This isn't surprising to most fans, on account of the fact that the production schedules of the TV shows make it hard for crossovers to be planned out, as well as an alleged feud between the film and television sides of Marvel, which has resulted in the TV series being treated as an Expanded Universe and virtually Exiled from Continuity when it comes to the films.

edited 7th Feb '18 1:24:43 AM by Anddrix

Uh, no, that's just complaining that people's favorite characters aren't in the film, which is fanboying and has no relevance to the trope.

The May Parker one isn't an example, since it's just something that happens later than someone wanted it. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

The rest of them are about characters from the franchise who don't appear in that particular film. That's not what the trope is about. The trope is about plots in the film that aren't concluded or followed up on.

In short, everything is misuse.

edited 7th Feb '18 5:30:07 AM by AnotherDuck

They Wasted a Perfectly Good Plot (and its sibling) just flat-out need to die, IMO. It seems to be inherently impossible to avoid complaining, and the concepts are really a little chairsy anyway, as just about every character/plot point imaginable has people out there who'd like to see more of them.

Didn't we have a cleanup or TRS thread somewhere at some point?

edited 7th Feb '18 5:33:29 AM by nrjxll

This is taken from Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice.

• They Wasted a Perfectly Good Plot:
  • The main driving force of the early part of the movie is people questioning if Superman can be trusted, as well as deconstructing Hero Insurance after Superman and Zod's fight. This plot line sets up the most interesting part of the movie save for the actual fight between Batman and Superman, yet this plot line is never fully developed beyond forced drama. In fact, the whole plot line really feels like a reason to motivate Batman to fight Superman for real. Cracked summed up the general view on the matter:
  There are plenty of great movies out there that don't take sides on deep issues like how we must handle the consolidation of power given its corrosive nature. One such movie is Rocky. Another is The Little Mermaid. While those movies have some differences, they do have one big thing in common: They don't spend their first 30 minutes underlining, bolding, and italicizing the question "Can you be moral and all-powerful?" only to end with, "Well, we sure killed that monster that came from out of nowhere. Please enjoy all eight of our spinoffs/sequels."
  • Some fans felt Superman's death and the apparent confirmation he'll be resurrected happened far too soon, with the DC Cinematic Universe barely being set up yet and therefore robbing most of the impact of Superman's death which could have been done better if handled in its own future film. It became especially obvious with Justice League (2017) that this was a weak foundation for a Shared Universe since the event in question distracts from the pantheon-forming earth-shaking event that the formation of the League should be.
  • Really, the basic premise of the film would've been enough to make an interesting movie: "an older, cynical Batman, finds his humanity again, because of a younger, more optimistic, Superman". If the film really needed a central antagonist (though that in itself is debatable), then that should've been Lex Luthor, manipulating both heroes into fighting each other without Doomsday. The actual movie is so weighted down by sub-plots and teasers, that they handicap a perfectly functioning plot.
  • Particularly in the extended cut of the movie, Lois has a significant subplot where she tries to figure out who framed Superman for the deaths in Nairomi, and why. However, to the viewers it's obvious right from the start that Luthor is behind it, so the scenes with Lois' investigation don't really work as Detective Drama. If Lois would've used her knowledge as a leverage against Luthor, either by confronting him herself or giving the information to Superman, that would've provided a satisfying conclusion to her arc. But as it happens, Luthor confesses what he's done to Lois and Supes before either of them can confront him with the fact.. The information Lois uncovered probably helps to get Luthor convicted at the end of the movie, but even that isn't made clear onscreen, so her subplot has no dramatic conclusion and gets pretty much forgotten once the big brawls in the finale begin.
  • Instead of having Wonder Woman wander through the film in her own self-contained sub-plot before arriving in the finale, it would have been interesting if she was secretly upholding the masquerade to hide other superbeings by working in the shadows, and that she infiltrated Luthor's party to suppress the videos he found. Gal Gadot herself noted that the film's take on Diana — that she turned her back on mankind — was a mistake, and this change could have seeded in the Worldbuilding for other heroes and villains more organically, and likewise diminish some of the weird issues about Wonder Woman participating in World War I but sitting out for World War II^note  Wonder Woman seems to retcon this, as she is not shown turning her back on the world, as this film claims she did . It would also give Superman's unmasking and The Reveal of superpowered beings on Earth, a major theme of the DCEU, a bigger scope, context, and depth.
  • With just a few minutes of footage, the opening scene in Metropolis perfectly demonstrates why some people might distrust Superman and see him as a threat to humanity, even though he was just trying to protect innocent people. But when we meet Lex Luthor (Superman's nemesis), that proves to be incidental to his characterization and motivation, and we never even get to see his reaction to Superman's battle with Zod—even though he lives in Metropolis, and was presumably there to witness it. At the very least, the movie could have shown how Luthor exploited other people's understandable reasons for distrusting Superman.
  • As a businessman in Metropolis, Luthor could have made a perfect Foil for Bruce Wayne, and had the two corporate honchos had a connection to the battle in Metropolis, such as if Bruce was the one to save Lex from the wreckage, rather than say Scoot McNairy's character, or if the two had some kind of open partnership and friendship (which does have precedent), it would have likewise made the film more streamlined and better explain Luthor's manipulation skills where in the film he claims to have played Batman and Superman against each other, when in fact, Bruce had already decided to take out Superman and murder him without any prompting from Luthor, and was already set on the task before the Capitol bombing, and Luthor's grandiose plotting and baroque scheming came off to many as Kudzu Plot and which was still unsatisfying to many in the Ultimate Edition which better filled most (but not all) plot holes of his scheme.

• They Wasted a Perfectly Good Character:
  • Many fans of the comic and animated versions of Mercy Graves were shocked to see her killed off so nonchalantly by Lex, especially since there could have been many potential plotlines involving her.
  • Fans learning that Lois's cameraman (who only appears for a minute or two before being executed by Knyazev) was Jimmy Olsen, and Zack Snyder admitting he did it because it'd be fun to shock the audience by so casually killing off an iconic character who he felt had no place in his film (even though most likely the majority of viewers didn't even realize the cameraman was Jimmy), despite making him a CIA spook who could have had a different and more interesting relation with Clark.
  • Even those who did like the film believe that Superman, despite being a titular character, was unfairly sidelined in focus by Batman and Wonder Woman. Much like Bilbo Baggins in The Hobbit Trilogy, Superman is practically Demoted to Extra in what should have been his movie.
    • However, said complaints minimized, once the Ultimate cut of the film was released. In the Ultimate cut, we not only see previously cut scenes that were solely centered on Superman and Lois Lane, but said scenes also helped provide a new found focus on Superman's place in the story line. As one critic said, "after the I saw the Ultimate cut, what was once a Batman movie that featured Superman, turned into the Superman/Batman two-hander we were promised."

Keep in mind this is a very controversial movie, so if you're gonna criticize it then do so in a constructive manner.

In regards to the They Wasted a Perfectly Good Character example, we do have a clean-up thread for those.

Are the following examples from Avengers: Infinity War being used correctly?:

• Awesome Music: Alan Silvestri's Avengers fanfare makes a triumphant return.
• Estrogen Brigade: Chris Evans' bearded look has drawn a lot of attention, with many noting the Beard of Sorrow trope fails to signify its intent on account of how much it suits him.
• Narm:
  • A lot of people consider Thanos's helmet-less and armor-less design are really goofy looking to the point of detracting from his intimidation factor. Many comparisons are made to a wrinkled grape, and that's before all the Memetic Mutation kicks in.
  • The "This Summer, An Entire Universe, Once And For All" tagline comes across as a Word Salad as opposed to something to hype up the tenth anniversary of the MCU.

Awesome Music needs more context, I'm not sure about Estrogen Brigade, and the Narm examples are probably good.

edited 8th Feb '18 9:59:43 AM by Crossover-Enthusiast

Reading the history to Aluminum Christmas Trees i noted the following removed example:

• Some people have been surprised to learn that The Castle Aaaaargggh is a real place and not "only a model". It's called Castle Stalker, and it's in an inlet on Loch Linnhe in Scotland. "Camelot" in the "Knights of the Round Table" song wasn't a model, either—it, and all other castles depicted in the film (other than the aforementioned Castle Aaaaargggh) were in fact Doune Castle in Stirlingshire, Scotland. Although the shots looking up at the French throwing animals over the battlements were done with a mock up (for logistical and safety reasons). On the special edition DVD, there's a surreal moment when Terry Jones and Gilliam travel to Doune Castle (and the other locations used in the film)—and buy a copy of their own movie script in the castle's gift shop. To be precise, for the exterior shot of Camelot the Pythons used a (very obvious) model, for the interior shots (i.e. the "Knights of the Round Table" song and dance number) they used Doune Castle. In fact, every single interior in the film is Doune Castle, and what's more, most of them are the same room. (For bonus points, Terry Jones also does the audio tour for the castle.)

Is this an example?

edited 9th Feb '18 11:54:48 AM by MagBas

While it's interesting trivia, it doesn't seem to have much to do with Aluminum Christmas Trees. It's not like anybody ever thought that castles weren't a thing.

From the Manga.Kin Kyori Rennai page:

• Crouching Moron, Hidden Badass: Umi may be bad at English, but she seems to get along with her teacher pretty well.

Is it me, or is that the wrong trope?

edited 9th Feb '18 1:34:08 PM by shadowblack

Crouching Moron, Hidden Badass is for when a character who seems stupid or useless can actually be powerful in certain situations. That doesn't sound like an example of the trope.

That definitely looks like misuse and shoehorning.

Over on YMMV.Black Panther, I wanted to add an example for Eight Point Eight but it was pointed out that it's for reactions to video games, not movies. I have two questions: (1) is it strictly for reactions to video games? (that doesn't seem flexible at all) and (2) would He Panned It, Now He Sucks! be the appropriate "trope" when it is still fan reactions to critiques of a work?

Here's what I wanted to add:

edited 10th Feb '18 8:51:08 AM by WaterBlap

Anyone know why Film.Ghost is wicked from Series.Sisters - Dead Person Conversation?

Is it a Whole-Plot Reference?

Also, does Series.Sisters have a Family Title? Or should I remove that, which I just added?

... See y'all tomorrow!

I think it's more likely that somebody assumed there was a trope page called simply "Ghost" and tried to pothole it.

Is Tool's Lateralus lyrics an example of Don't Think, Feel?