Is this an example?

Seems like some cleaning could be done there, and perhaps clarification in the descriptions.

Generally it's not a good idea to define tropes from other tropes. If one trope says it's about one thing, and another trope says the first trope is about something else, the first is usually the correct one. Examples sometimes show correct use, and sometimes misuse. It's hard to tell which applies without examining them in detail.

Check out my fanfiction!

Most of the description of Strong Family Resemblance talks about it specifically being about when children look like their parents. The first line is literally this:

"This is an extremely common practice in animation where, to establish a familial relationship, a child looks more or less identical to one of his or her parents."

The most exaggerated description is this:

"Some will go as far as to make the parents look similar. It's usually done innocently, often in children's shows where the offspring are seen first, but the possibility of Incest Subtext can be shady to older fans."

The only line that doesn't refer to parents exactly is this:

"Apart from its usage in character design, this trope can also play a role in the plot; often, someone notices how similar two characters look and thus figures out they're related to each other."

It doesn't exactly say parents and children but based on the context of rest of the description, it can be inferred that it means that.

The description of Uncanny Family Resemblance on the other hand, seems to be less clear than Strong Family Resemblance but the gist that it's about when there is an uncanny resemblance between relatives regardless of how distant they are can be gotten.

Of note this line:

"While the Identical Grandson can marginally argue that it is not unknown for direct descendants to bear uncanny resemblance to a forebear, the idea gets very shaky for other relations. When a show tries to pass off a male actor in drag as their visiting aunt, or when somehow a character resembles the man who adopted their great-great-grandfather, it gets flat out weird and hence is usually played up for comedic value."

Distant relatives such as an aunt and a character who adopted another's great-great-grandfather are mentioned but nothing is mentioned that the trope is specifically about distant relatives. It just says other relations but doesn't exactly specify that these relations are distant relatives.

The laconic of Uncanny Family Resemblance says this:

"Even distant or non-blood relatives look extremely similar to each other."

With the "even" part of the sentence, it seems to suggest that it's about relatives that look uncannily the same including distant or non-blood relatives.

Finally there's this

"Compare Strong Family Resemblance, where both relatives are parent and child."

It supports the description found prominently in Strong Family Resemblance. Basically it appears that Strong Family Resemblance says it's something, and Uncanny Family Resemblance agrees with what Strong Family Resemblance is saying about itself.

edited 3rd Sep '15 5:01:12 PM by Elfkaiser

Does it count as a Subversion of Beauty Is Bad if the beautiful character in question is socially isolated from their peers due to an Alpha Bitch who is envious towards her for being more beautiful than herself (and probably more intelligent/competent) spreading nasty rumours about said character that successfully paint her in a very negative light, and the character is too introverted or cynical about interacting with other people to try and prove her wrong, which inadvertently reinforces her negative image? (This obviously would overlap with So Beautiful, It's a Curse.)

edited 5th Sep '15 7:56:52 AM by MarqFJA

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

Where's the subversion? How does it portray beauty as bad in the first place?

Check out my fanfiction!

The subversion is that the Alpha Bitch engineered for her to be believed by everyone to be a straight example of Beauty Is Bad (i.e. she's both beautiful and evil), when in reality she's not.

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

It's not a subversion unless the audience is led to believe she's evil. Might be an attempt at invoking it or some other In-Universe variant of Playing with a Trope.

Check out my fanfiction!

Exploited Trope?

If a tree falls in the forest and nobody remembers it, who else will you have ice cream with?

Is there no such thing as "In-Universe Subverted Trope", i.e. "it seems like an in-universe Played Straight, but it's actually not"?

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

Such as? Not entirely sure how you mean.

Check out my fanfiction!

I meant in relation to my previous question about Beauty Is Bad. Normal played-straight Beauty Is Bad is aimed at the audience; In-Universe played-straight Beauty Is Bad is when the characters react to a fellow character's beauty the way the audience does in normal played-straight examples. So my question is basically "If Subverted Trope can be applied to the former, shouldn't it be also applicable to the latter?"

edited 6th Sep '15 3:52:21 AM by MarqFJA

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

Characters reacting to a trope is Not A Subversion. Just because a character is tricked one way or another doesn't mean the trope is subverted. Subversions are not In-Universe.

Check out my fanfiction!

... I never said the characters' reacting was a subversion. I said it was played-straight in-universe. And you're not making sense with your argument, BTW.

edited 6th Sep '15 5:04:52 AM by MarqFJA

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

Rephrased: Nothing I can interpret from what you said sounds like a subversion of any kind whatsoever.

edited 6th Sep '15 8:23:26 AM by AnotherDuck

Check out my fanfiction!

Alright, let me put it in another way. The way I see it right now:

• Beauty Is Bad played straight in a normal way: Alice is exceptionally beautiful, but rather than Beauty Equals Goodness, the audience is shown that she's an evil person through and through, whether her evilness is publicly known to other characters or she's keeping it secret while doing her evil deeds in a subtle way.
• Beauty Is Bad played straight in-universe: Newcomer Betty is exceptionally beautiful, but one or more characters immediately suspect her of being actually evil, because they believe that the more beautiful a person is, the more likely they are to exploit that beauty for self-serving ends. They are quickly proven right when Betty slowly seduces the student council president Alexander away from his faithful girlfriend Claire and wraps him around her finger, and gets him to abuse his authority in ways that benefit her alone.
• Beauty Is Bad, in-universe subversion: New transfer student Bob is warned by his classmates to avoid Dorothy, who is widely considered to be the most beautiful girl in the school, but they (and anyone else in the school that Bob later asks) insists that she's pure evil, looks down upon everyone, and purposefully seeks out puppies to kick on her way home as a hobby. She certainly looks intimidating with her stoic face, cold voice, icy stare, and just staring him whenever he tries to strike a conversation with him; and everyone goes out of their way to give her a wide berth or even avoid talking to her longer than necessary. But then he asks his classmates if any of them actually saw her do something that warrants her reputation... and they hesitantly say no, but insist that since everyone is saying the same thing, then it must be true.
  As he stubbornly investigates further into this mystery, he ultimately uncovers the truth: Dorothy is simply a highly introverted yet truly good-natured person with a cynical view on personal relationships, and her seemingly antisocial, condescending behavior was partly due to a combination of shyness, lack of social skills and wariness of others' intentions making her confused about how to respond to his attempts to converse with her (or whether she should), before shyness wins out and drives her to leave without saying little to nothing, making it seem like she's giving him the cold shoulder for no good reason. As for her bad reputation, the resident Alpha Bitch Charlotte used to be the most beautiful girl in the school and was milking for all it's worth, before Dorothy transferred and unwittingly usurped that position without even trying. Since then, the resentful and envious Charlotte worked her ass off with the help of her few remaining sycophants spreading rumours and planting "evidence" for misdeeds that tarnished Dorothy's reputation, and her aforementioned introversion and cynicism prevented her from standing up for herself and trying to clear her name.

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

That last one is only a subversion if what Charlotte was spreading was also what the audience was led to belive to be true. What characters believe has no bearing on whether something is a subversion. It's about audience expectations. Lies and trickery used by characters against other characters are other tropes.

Check out my fanfiction!

Question: Disney Death includes examples where the character really dies but is revived later? (The Jesus example, by example)

Nope, that's not a legitimate example. Disney Death is for when the character turns out to be alive after being thought dead and an extensive scene dedicated to mourning them, not for when they actually did die.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Okay, thanks.

... You're pretty much saying that Beauty Is Bad is somehow incompatible with In-Universe treatment without saying why that is so. The description of In-Universe runs counter to what you're saying.

edited 7th Sep '15 2:55:52 AM by MarqFJA

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

You're pretty much saying I said "Beauty Is Bad" where I said "Subversion".

Check out my fanfiction!

The end of one episode of Lilo & Stitch: The Series has really bugged me. The titular characters win the quiz bee without cheating and get a computer as first prize. However, Lilo gives it away because she says that they're "smart enough not to use a computer". This episode was released in 2004, back when only the privileged had computer access, as compared to now. Is this an example of Technology Marches On?

Rancis may look like a party on the outside, but he's all business on the inside. He has bright eyes and even brighter ideas...

While I disagree on the computer spread back then (at least where I live computers became common in the 90s), it seems more of a statement on the view of computers rather than on the technology itself.

Also, is it the real world it's played out in, or a society that only mostly resembles it?

edited 7th Sep '15 9:05:53 AM by AnotherDuck

Check out my fanfiction!

OK, I think I misphrased my last post. Let's try this again.

You're pretty much saying that Subverted Trope is incompatible with In-Universe when it comes to combined application to Beauty Is Bad without explaining why that is so. The description of In-Universe runs counter to this claim of yours (specifically, a trope normally about audience reactions to a fictional character can be instead applied to other fictional characters themselves in relation to the first character), and we have many examples of tropes that are about character reactions and how they can be subverted.

Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

The real world, only with the advanced technology brought by Jumba from outer space.

edited 7th Sep '15 5:30:25 AM by TroperNo9001

Rancis may look like a party on the outside, but he's all business on the inside. He has bright eyes and even brighter ideas...

Well, the thing is, it doesn't say anything about how advanced the technology is in itself, which is what that trope is about. "A computer" has for the last few decades not been something outdated. How people view them and the people using them has changed, but that's not Technology Marches On.

I'm not saying it cannot be true. I'm saying you've not shown it can be.

A subversion isn't a trope as much as a meta-trope. It's a way of using tropes in stories to mislead the audience by setting up the expectation that a trope will show up, and then showing the twist about how it doesn't happen. Just lying about something and hoping no one finds out isn't a subversion^note as we use it; semantically it has different meanings because it's not playing on the twist in the story away from the expected trope. She's trying to actually use the trope. A subversion is about not using a trope.

Check out my fanfiction!