Is this an example?

I've seen a Dethroning Moment of Suck removed because it applies to the whole movie as opposed to a moment? What about individual episodes, comics, or movies if part of a franchise or greater continuity? What is the cut-off point for whole works and moments?

Dethroning Moments should be, as it says on the cover, "moments". Not "the whole film", or "the whole episode". A singular moment that you found to be the worst thing ever.

From YMMV.Darling In The Franxx.

• Darkness-Induced Audience Apathy: A common fan complaint is that neither side of the Forever War is any good to root for. APE (and VIRMS) wants to Take Over the World and subsume humanity into their Hive Mind, but while the Klaxosaurs were likely set up to be the gray to APE's black, they're hardly a better option. They only care about the preservation of their own species and have no problems with using and discarding humans for their own ends; furthermore, most of their once-intelligent species are now nothing but mindless, rampaging monsters that will wipe out anything put in front of them. In fact, the Klaxosaurs' goals appear far too close to APE's than what was likely intended, and considering that neither side of the Enemy Mine has much of any redeeming qualities, fans wonder if Plantation 13 will Take a Third Option and go off on their own.

From what I gather, this is suppose to be that everybody is a jerk and the word is bleak. However, the example is only talking about only two sides with the Plantation 13 being overall well liked. Also, the tone is overall hopeful.

Sounds like a poor example to me.

So there this example on Unintentional Period Piece:

• The English dub of Prison School contains a reference to the Gamergate Internet movement. Even people in the movement were quick to criticize the joke as being instantly dated. The line was quietly removed for the DVD release, thus keeping the series timeless.

This is followed with the commented out note

Hi! If you're reading this you probably scrolled down here to specifically name the movement Prison School was referencing. Rule Of Cautious Editing Judgment applies here: this is a particularly volatile subject, and it's not a topic this wiki allows in-depth discussion of anyway, so even if you know specifically what movement is being referenced, don't edit it in. Or the mods will come and flick your nose.

My problem with the example - regardless of Rule Of Cautious Editing Judgment- this is a single line of dialogue. I don't think it's enough to qualify the entire series as an UPP. May I have permision to remove without having "the mods come and flick my nose"?

From VideoGame.Bloodstained Curse Of The Moon:

• Almost Dead Guy: Played with and subverted. If you stab a character instead of recruit them, they will start to bleed and show major signs of bleeding out but will not die unless you hit them at least four times. If you talk to them, they won't even act as if you hurt them and they'll appear just fine in the good ending where you reject them all

This was removed by me and put back (with "subverted" added and a bit more text) by Sally777. Now this looks to me like it's not playing with the trope, but Shoehorning because the character is not "almost dead" until you start attacking them, and the player chooses how they contribute the plot, if at all, their narrative importance isn't set.

Sally777 seems to really want to include this info about attacking your potential allies and them showing signs of injury while doing so, because they previously added it under Blood-Splattered Innocents, which I also removed for not being an example, and their edit reason for putting it back under Almost Dead Guy included, "this detail isn't anywhere else on the pages for this game". I realize this already puts me in Edit War territory along with Sally777, and I'll accept any repercussions from that.

Edited by homogenized on Jul 1st 2018 at 3:35:01 AM

Yeah, that doesn't sound like an example to me. Just one reference isn't enough to make it a period piece, unintentional or not.

That's not at all what the trope is about. Delete it. The trope is about a character delivering a message and then dying immediately after or halfway through. Responses to player actions are something completely different.

From The Seven Deadly Sins, do these that were added to the Demon Clan page by troper heartshiningg into Zeldris' section count as examples? I'm a bit unsure.

• Love Makes You Evil: Downplayed. As more of the story unfolds it shows that Zeldris isn't really "evil" per-say, however, he was a much better person before and only sought to be a ruthless, coldhearted executioner(his former job) to protect his lover Gelda.
• MarshmallowHell: Averted. In the cover pg of chapter 235, Gelda is hugging Zeldris, whose head is pressing against if not smothered between her breasts, however, he does not mind and is shown to be content with a small blush on his face.
• Protectorate: Gelda is this to him. Its why he is the man he is today

The first refers to what's explained in chapter 271. As a demon, Zeldris is expected to be evil, especially in his role as a cruel coldhearted executioner. It's however explained that he worked extra hard at his role to protect his beloved. I think I get part of it but I'm a bit unsure if it fits the trope or if what's written is a correct interpretation of things.

The second refers to a cover page of chapter 235. I'm confused whether it's an averted instance of the trope of not. The image shows Gelda holding Zeldris close to her chest in a very lovers' embrace. Is Marshmallow Hell about characters that are smooshed into breasts or is it about characters that are smooshed into breasts and in discomfort?

The third I think I get but just to clarify is Protectorate the thing being corrected or the protector? If it's the protected, would it be more appropriate to be placed in Gelda's section?

• Love Makes You Evil: "per-say" is not correct. It's "per se". I guess that's one of those corrupted words that's going to eventually get into the OED because trying to make people learn the correct spelling is futile. I also despise the use of Downplayed Trope to shoehorn examples. As written, however, it looks valid.
• Marshmallow Hell: The trope does not require the "victim" to be upset by the act, so it's not an aversion.
• Protectorate is the thing being protected, not the person doing it or the act of protecting. The example is lacking in context.

Accidental double post.

Edited by Fighteer on Jul 1st 2018 at 9:43:33 AM

Re: Unintentional Period Piece - Isn't there also a requirement that we be a certain point past the period bring referenced before it can be a period piece to begin with?

Are the following examples being used correctly?:

From Immortal Hulk:

• Retcon: Per No Surrender, every time Banner or the Hulk has died and come back in the past, it's been building to this, to the point where they'd eventually be able to come back on their own. Their Resurrective Immortality isn't science or magic, though they've taken advantage of them to come back in the past. It's simply part of who they are.
• Transformation Is a Free Action: Averted. During the robbery in issue #1, Bruce's eyes turn green as he gets ready to hulk out... but he's shot dead before it can happen.

From Dumbo (2019):

• Pragmatic Adaptation: While the original animated film put more focus on the animals than the humans, this version of the story gives more attention to the humans, especially the ones who befriend the little elephant. Also, the story places more focus on Dumbo's flying, with it being discovered by Holt and his children much earlier.

Also can Refitted for Sequel apply to Continuity Reboots or is it strictly for sequels?

• Retcon: It's not clear from the example what is being retconned. I assume it's that Hulk is immortal?
• Transformation Is a Free Action: It's either averted or subverted, depending on whether the audience has been led to believe that the trope is always in use.
• Pragmatic Adaptation: The example doesn't establish the required elements of the trope.

And what about my question regarding Refitted for Sequel?

Sorry. The trope's description mentions adaptations, and a continuity reboot is a kind of adaptation, so sure, I think it could apply.

I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask but would the ability to manipulate oxygen molecules fall under Blow You Away?

Not really, unless "manipulating oxygen" also lets you move air around as a secondary power. Note that Earth's atmosphere is 71% nitrogen and 28% oxygen, so you're getting pretty lousy efficiency from this deal.

Edited by Fighteer on Jul 1st 2018 at 10:04:03 AM

~sgamer82: Sorry, I missed this. Yes, Unintentional Period Piece requires that we be a fair bit past the period in question. Otherwise, it's impossible to know what particular bits of culture and/or technology will indelibly symbolize any given period in the cultural zeitgeist.

Also, that last sentence was quite the mouthful to type.

Edited by Fighteer on Jul 2nd 2018 at 9:41:05 AM

Are the following examples from Fantastic Four (2005) being used correctly?:

• Ass Pull: It's never explained why the cosmic storm appeared so far ahead of Reed's calculations, ultimately giving the impression that he just plain screwed up the math somehow.
• Best Known for the Fanservice:
  • Jessica Alba standing in public in her underwear?
  • Also, Chris Evans' literally smoking body in a towel.
• Big-Lipped Alligator Moment: In the first film, when Sue has to turn invisible (and strip off all her clothes) to get past the police barricade separating the rest of the team from Ben on the Brooklyn Bridge. She has to turn invisible to get past the cops, has to take off her clothes because they don't turn invisible with her, turns visible halfway through, then finally gets it right… and the very not-invisible Reed and Johnny meet up with her on the other side of the police barricade after picking up her clothes and she gets dressed again (off-camera). No plausible reason is given how Reed and Johnny got through, or why if they could, Sue couldn't without being an Invisible Streaker. The whole thing comes off as an excuse to embarrass Sue and get Jessica Alba in her underwear.

• Ass Pull: That's a character making an in-universe mistake. It's never explained why he's wrong, but that's lazy writing, not an Ass Pull.
• Best Known for the Fanservice: Is that the only thing that anyone remembers about the work? I don't think so.
• Big-Lipped Alligator Moment: That's not even close to the definition of the trope.

Those latter two examples sound like someone got really steamed about the Fanservice scenes and decided to shoehorn them into every negative trope they could find.

Edited by Fighteer on Jul 2nd 2018 at 10:37:31 AM

Pulled this to discussion of YMMV.Gundam Build Divers here:

• Hilarious in Hindsight: Sure, the previous Riku is also the hero of an Ultra Series, who happens to be partnered with a character that shares the same voice actor as Setsuna. In this series, we have a pair of brothers, the older being red and the younger is blue, which eventually foreshadows the protagonists of the next Ultra Series.

Part of the reason I pulled it is it's ridiculously unclear, especially with the potholes. But even if that gets clarified, I'm doubtful it's really an example.

The logic seems to go as follows:

• Gundam Build Diver's has a lead named Riku.
• One of the Ultraman series has a lead named Riku. There's also a seemingly irrelevant bit of trivia about another character's voice actor being in a Gundam series.
• Gundam Build Divers has a pair of... honestly, tertiary would be too strong, so quaternary characters, a red older brother and his blue younger brother.
• The main characters in another Ultraman series has a red older brother and his blue younger brother.

That just seems like too many degrees of separation to count, even if they clarify the example. The fact I feel like I need to make a flowchart to document it is evidence of that.

I don't even see how, given those criteria, it's "hilarious". The trope requires that something presented as tragic or serious in-universe be made funny by something that happens later, out-of-universe.

From Narm in YMMV.Darling In The Franxx.

Narm:

• The enemies being named "klaxosaurs" in the English translation in the original they were just named kyōryū, (literally "screaming dragons", though usually used as the Japanese translation of "dinosaurs") but one of the Kanjis is for "Shriek". The name is thus technically correct, since it derives from the ancient Greek "klazo" meaning "to roar" or "to make a piercing sound". Still, it does sound quite silly.
• The fact that this series takes itself so seriously in-spite of the cartoony mecha designs and the blatant sex metaphors has turned this series off some viewers.
• The climax of episode 23, the penultimate episode of the series, has 02's consciousness take over the giant Streliza Apus and turn it into a giant version of herself with the mechanical parts resembling a wedding dress, complete with a veil and "bomb" serving the "Bouquet". Even to people who liked the show had to admit it was a bit too over the top to be taken seriously.
• The Worm-like Klaxosaur in episode 4 looks like a Norelco electric shaver.

Edited by WhirlRX on Jul 2nd 2018 at 7:16:12 AM

Reading those, I'm wondering what the definition of Narm even is, because it's completely unclear. Maybe we should just scrap it.

It's suppose to mean dramatic moment being unintentionally funny. But I often seen it being use as a minor complaining.