Is this an example?

@Supergod: Apart from the Harley Quinn example, most of those seem like they'd fit Adaptational Early Appearance better than Early-Bird Cameo.

So should the examples of characters appearing before they did in the source material be cut (unless they actually appear or might appear in the work as important characters later)?

Apart from the examples I mentioned, I'm thinking the Walking Dead, Smallville and Game of Thrones entries should go as well. Looks like a lot of the Fan Fic entries should go as well. I'm unsure about the Warcraft novels.

war877's post about the trope's meaning being changed in 2014 complicates things a bit, so I'll hold off doing anything for now.

I think something that's troublesome is what "introduced" mean. I don't think it's just about the character being named on-screen, but about them getting a significant part of the story. It's a cameo appearance. Just there to show that this character exists. The important part is that they're not important to the plot, yet. That's the difference between that trope and Chekhov's Gunman, where they are important in the plot, even if it doesn't seem like it at the time.

Now, the part about adaptations I'll hold off with.

For those who are wondering, the old definition of the trope is correctly summarised by the laconic. The word introduced is used differently in the original definition.

Regarding the Easy Evangelism example:

Reading through it, I kinda feel like you're both right. The character does switch sides with very little fuss but it makes really good sense given the circumstances of the Warboys. I would say list it, but mark it as a Justified Trope.

That said, I'm also inclined to say it's Inverted because there's one fundamental thing that seems missing from both discussions: Nux was never converted TO any belief system. He was converted AWAY from a belief system. There was no Bible of Furiosa that he picked up after leaving Joe's faithful; through the kindness he received, he went from believing fervently in Joe's Valhalla to just playing things by ear and making his own choices.

Still need some to take a look at this example I'm reposting from the previous page.

Literature.The Maze Runner:

• Deceased Parents Are the Best: As revealed in The Fever Code prologue, Newt had nice parents ready to give their lives for their child.

Also can someone take a look at these ones that I've recently found:

Literature.The Maze Runner:

• Amnesiac Dissonance: Thomas is so afraid of having to deal with this that he constantly refuses even the possibility of having his memories restored. He gets his way and he never actually learns what kind of person he was.

Film.Cinderella 2015:

• Died in Your Arms Tonight: Inverted when the King dies with Kit in his arms.

YMMV.The Book Of Life:

• Broken Base: Audiences are divided over the pacing, the multiple stories, the use of a modern soundtrack in a historical setting, and the comedy. Nobody can deny that the art itself is incredible.

YMMV.Dragons Lexicon Triumvirate:

• Critical Research Failure: The author tries to make Dennagon seem smart by making him recite scientific facts. This backfires at times, such as when he claims that "velocity is distance multiplied by time".
• Narm: Dennagon is supposed to be portrayed as smart, but it's hard to take seriously when he makes mistakes like "velocity is distance multiplied by time". No, this mistake wasn't played for laughs, or even pointed out.

YMMV.Divergent:

• Critical Backlash: The films are usually on many critics' 'Worst of X Year' lists, and "still better than Divergent" is often used to describe other movies based off YA books. Some understandably don't find the movies to be that bad. Even The Nostalgia Chick said that while she didn't like it, she thought it was significantly better than other YA movies.

Franchise Zombie:

• The Transformers Film Series has bruises with this. The sole reason why Paramount continues to make the films is due to pressure from Hasbro, the manufacturer for the toy franchise, as toy sales of the Transformers skyrocket every time the movies come out. It didn't really matter if people liked the movies or not, because Hasbro only wants the series to continue as long as the toys keep selling.

@Tobias Drake— I see what you're saying, but while Easy Evangelism usually deals with a character's conversion to a religion, I don't think it has to in order to count. From the trope description:

"Any story where a character is converted unnaturally easily to whatever the writer is trying to teach"

"Somehow, they just haven't heard of the author's point of view until then"

"...any Aesop or ideology, be it political, religious, or otherwise, is just as susceptible. What matters is that the author depicts others who are easily convinced to agree with the message."

Emphasis mine. Furiosa doesn't have to be converting him to a codified dogma. "Women are not things" or "cults are bad: think for yourself instead of following a despot" certainly qualifies as "the message," "the author's point of view" or "what the writer is trying to teach."

edited 17th May '16 8:41:27 PM by HighCrate

I added on another Inverted example (if that's the word) in the Easy Evangelism page.

"Bible of Furiosa" made me laugh

edited 17th May '16 10:05:54 PM by hellomoto

You added:

Inverted: . After a speech by Alice, Bob stops believing in his religion Troperism and switches to atheism

...to the Easy Evangelism Playing With page.

That's not an inversion, it's a straight example . Atheism most definitely counts as an ideology.

edited 18th May '16 5:56:40 AM by HighCrate

Does anyone else have any input on the Easy Evangelism example? I'm inclined to restore it at this point, but I don't want to do so without giving a full say to anyone who has one.

I think it's a legitimate example. Maybe people are fighting tooth and nail to keep it off the page because they feel it's a criticism but it's just a storytelling device. It would be pretty hard for a guy to have a religious epiphany after only being two days away from his literal god otherwise.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure I have a legitimate example of Genre Savvy but, given how much misuse that page attracts, I'm gonna post it here first.

In The Unbelievable Gwenpool, the titular character is familiar with comicbook tropes because she grew up reading them in the "real" world. So, when she somehow ends up in the Marvel universe she already knows she has to wear a costume to avoid getting killed like a random extra and is perfectly aware of her own Plot Armor. This doesn't stop Gwen from underestimating the dangerous situations she finds herself in and forgetting that tropes can be deconstructed.

edited 20th May '16 8:03:49 PM by DeisTheAlcano

That sounds like a definite case of Genre Savvy to me.

x7. So it's been about 4 days, anyone want to take a look at the examples I've posted above.

I'm wondering if Protagonist-Centered Morality or Strawman Has a Point applies to the character Cypher in The Matrix.

The film presents an Anti-Escapism Aesop that humans need to be unplugged from the giant Lotus-Eater Machine controlled by the machines because it's "not real". However, the real world is a bombed out Crapsack World after the war between man and machines killed off the entire biosphere. Cypher is The Mole in the film, betraying his comrades to get back inside the Matrix. While he's acting for purely selfish reasons (ergo, he's a villain), he makes the argument that none of them would have agreed to be unplugged if Morpheus had told them the truth about the real world being as terrible as it is. Indeed, Morpheus seems to purposely be as vague as possible during his Cryptic Conversations and lets his recruits experience it for themselves with no option of turning back.

It seems like Cypher's argument is supposed to be dismissed on the basis that he's a villain who kills people. However, the heroes do the same thing, killing scores of "Blue Pills" (people still plugged in to the Matrix) to achieve their goal, which is to destroy the entire system and release humans into the real Crapsack World. The film does not seem to be aware of this Double Standard, relying simply on the Anti-Escapism Aesop to prove its thesis. Am I reading too much into this or misinterpreting the tropes?

edited 21st May '16 7:16:49 AM by Morgenthaler

Strawman Has a Point doesn't work because Cypher is not a strawman. He's presented as wrong, to be sure, but his position is at least fairly coherent; it is not a "caricature of an argument that the authors wish to tear down".

As for Protagonist-Centered Morality, the narrative of The Matrix seems a bit too simplistic for it to really work as a trope, but I could see it being used in the sense that Morpheus is treated by the story as unequivocally correct no matter how much harm his actions cause to other characters.

I'm not 100% sure this entry I found on Manga.My Hero Academia is a proper usage of Not So Different. Looking over the definition it seems like the comparison has to be made in some way for it to count, which doesn't happen here.

• Not So Different: In Chapter 90, All For One manages to counter punch All Might with a combination of Quirks he acquired from other people. Deku also manages to come up with an Indy Ploy to save Bakugou in the middle of the fight, with all the powers of his teammates.

edited 21st May '16 7:06:11 AM by sgamer82

The Cypher example may be a better fit for Villain Has a Point. His murderous actions make him definitely a villain, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have a point about Morpheus' questionable recruitment methods.

I agree, Villain Has a Point is the best fit for Cypher.

Yeah, Not So Different has to be noted inside the story for it to apply as far as I understand it. That example doesn't fit the way it's written.

Also agreeing with Villain Has a Point.

Is Cypher portrayed as having a point?

I don't know that the narrative really comes down clearly on it one way or another. He just kind of states his grievances, eats a steak, and kills some folks.

As an audience member, I certainly found myself nodding and saying, "Yeah, Morpheus definitely does some shady shit all right," but I couldn't tell you if that was the intended reaction or just my personal one.

The narrative considers Cypher a villain because he kills some heroes and is killed himself in turn. Nobody on the protagonists' side expresses sympathy for him, and the agents (embodied by Smith) clearly don't give a damn either: any human they can coerce to their side is merely a tool in their attempts to destroy the renegade humans. Although it never comes up, it's questionable whether Smith would have kept his end of the bargain; he certainly has no reason to.

Cypher's point, to the extent that he has one, is that humans are happier blissfully locked up in the Matrix and that Morpheus has no right to tell them the truth against their will. It is also unquestionably true that Morpheus' own actions result in the deaths of many humans who are immersed in the Matrix, having committed no sin other than being unaware of the truth.

Now, the sequels do raise some interesting questions, such as whether the renegade humans at Zion are really outside the control of the machines or just part of their plan to maintain order. The implications are that:

• The renegades are a necessary consequence of some human minds rejecting the Matrix, and the whole business of the One is just part of that cycle, each revolution of which sees Zion wiped out and reseeded from fresh stock.
• The Architect and the Oracle are sort of opposing super-intelligences within the machine society, with the Oracle acting as the agent of change and the Architect the agent of order. The One, and its counterpart in Smith, are opposites of the rogue equation that introduces instability into the Matrix.

So it's difficult to say whether Morpheus or Cypher really has a point, if both are fundamentally pawns in a larger cycle orchestrated by the machines.

edited 21st May '16 2:42:50 PM by Fighteer

^^ I'd say it does look like Villain Has a Point is the applicable trope for Cypher's case with Morpheus. According to the description, it's about any unambiguously evil character who makes an otherwise cohesive argument. There's nothing in there about other characters having to point out that what a bad guy is saying actually makes sense being a requirement.

edited 21st May '16 2:42:57 PM by Morgenthaler

Yeah, Villain Has a Point is just about villain a having justifiable motives for the things they're doing. By the trope definition, he'd count.

edited 21st May '16 2:46:12 PM by shimaspawn

So it's been about 5 days, anyone want to take a look at the examples I've posted above x19.