TLP Crash Rescue - Fixing prematurely launched TLPs and pages

What would you consider "better?" That's not snark, that's an honest request for another perspective on what would improve the quality of Muted Colors.

Palindramas is a somewhat different kind of stub. Nearly the whole page violates Weblinks Are Not Examples so that only 1 example has anything close to sufficient context.

edited 28th Sep '16 6:51:55 AM by Morgenthaler

Tropes need to have strong definitions and not just an idea. It's why tropes have to be more than just noting something that is present, but has some sort of unique and deliberate distinction to it. We don't catalog the existence of a plane in the story, but we do talk about Cool Planes. Too much of the current Muted Colors trope is listing minor color changes and not obvious and deliberate alterations. The Iron Man movies are listed as an example but has a similar color palette as the comics, which is subject to change all by itself. Iron Man in Civil War, which predates the MCU, has more of an orange tint rather than "hot rod red."

Ideas and concepts are not tropes by themselves, and even speculation within the examples on why a trope was used is discouraged. If Muted Colors were proposed before the original "wear black" trope, I would probably suggest adding black into the definition solely because that creates a greater contrast instead of a Long List of the exact colors chosen for a hero to wear (Batman has had dark blue to sky blue to electric blue to charcoal purple to black to gray all across his comics and adaptations).

So, I guess I'm still confused as for why Movie Superheroes Wear Black is okay, but Muted Colors isn't. The definition behind "Wearing Black" is not strong, at least not compared to its examples, which are a laundry list of any time a costume is changed from one media to another. Most of the Muted Colors examples I actually pilfered from there (not word for word, but just noted that "this costume is mentioned here, but doesn't actually have any black, so should fit better under my trope"). The Iron Man example I find to particularly important, actually, because the colors are much darker in his first film than the others, showing how Marvel was still finding their footing as regards "proper" superhero film adaptations. And again, it's not about comparing one particular outfit from the comics to one particular outfit in the films, which may or may not be related (Iron Man's "Bleeding Edge" suit, which he wore during Civil War, was the result of lots of development and backstory in the Iron Man comics, comparing that suit to any particular suit in the films is kind of moving the goalposts.) Yes, comics outfits change a lot as artists arrive and leave, techniques and technologies change, and so on. Getting a precise read on which exact shades of blue and red Spider-Man's costume is "supposed" to have is impossible, because of Depending on the Artist. However, there is a fairly-narrow range of red and blue in which Spider-Man's typical comic book costume exists, and it's that range which tends to be "dialed down" for a film adaptation. Other details, such as how big the eyes are in relation to the mask, what exactly the spider logos on the front and back look like, also change slightly from artist to artist, but again have a certain "range" the artists tend to remain within, unless they are specifically designing a new costume. So saying that "in this specific issue this character was clearly drawn with this pale color palette, so this particular movie costume is that much brighter than this particular comics costume, ergo you're argument is invalid" seems overly pedantic. Tropes are specific, but they are also "common knowledge," based on the common understanding. Looking at the artistry behind a given superhero as a whole, there is a general consensus for what their "default" costume looks like, and how brightly colored it is, and comparing that to the movie costumes is what the trope is about, not taking a specific costume from the comics out of context and comparing it to a specific costume from the movies out of context. Now, if the movie is about a character using a specific costume (such as Spider-Man 3 being an adaptation of the Symbiote Spidey costume and birth of Venom), comparing that specific altered costume the specific altered costume of the comics can, and should, be done. But comic book movies typically strive for just presenting the look that the character is most widely recognized for, so in general they should be compared to that look.

I'm not saying Muted Colors is perfectly fine the way it is, leave it alone. There is clearly some legitimate concern that its description and/or examples are not up to par for this site, and I want to fix that. But really, the only point of comparison I have to go on for how this specific trope should be handled is Wearing Black, which everyone apparently thinks is perfectly fine the way it is, and I do not see how my examples are demonstrably worse than the examples on that page. I appreciate the high-concept discussion about what a trope should be, but it doesn't really address my question about how the examples in Muted Colors can be reworked to meet those standards.

Because the long and the short of it is that Movie Heroes Wear Muted Colors is just The Same But More Specific of Movie Heroes Wear Black with a different name and more complaining.

I've explained why I do not see it as The Same But More Specific, and have apologized for perceived complaining and stated that was not my intent, and am willing to edit it to remove those. But I honestly don't know what they are, so I'm asking for clarification.

See, you keep saying that it's not a duplicate but... it is. That's the problem. Either you're seeing Muted as different than how it's defined, or Black as narrower than it is. Either way, it's not good.

I've said exactly that. I've stated that Movie Superheroes Wear Black has grown past what it describes to the point where it should either be spun off or reworked. Muted Colors is my attempt to spin it off.

Which would be a case for Trope Repair Shop, because as-is you're just making a trope without actually making any attempt to fix the trope you're claiming is broken.

Do you see why this is a bad thing?

Muted colors = let's tone down the brightness so the hero is realistic. Wear black = a considered choice that is repeated through many superhero films and shows and has become incorporated into the genre, whether an adaptation or not. What you've tried to write is A. Not a trope, ymmv at best but pretty much nothing but complaining, B. Taking examples from an established trope but without the context (Muted Colours is pretty much just a list of when the adaptation changes the character's costume, regardless of whether it's from bright to muted colours) <- you could make that trope if you wanted :) but it'll be trivia, need a proper description, no snark (honestly, some of those examples were undecodable because of how biased they were), new name, and a good trip through YKTTW. The Movie Superheroes Wear Muted Colors, as is, you have not convinced me deserves to stay

From what I've get, Erik Modi had a slight beef against "Wears Black's" title. Despite the name, the trope isn't limited to 1) movies, 2) superheroes, and 3) black. While his proposed trope is more specific and true to the title.

Still, this means something has to be fixed. I would agree on bringing Wears Black to TRS.

Basically muted colors is a magnet for natter, talking about minutia of costume colors and design. It's in the name, weather or not a color is muted versus a different shade can be YMMV because a lot of people don't fully understand color theory or how lighting can affect apparent color values.

Basically what happened with Movie Superheroes Wear Black is that the original creators made an observation about how some comic book movies have the characters dress in black rather than their colorful original costumes, such as X-Men and Batman. Then it fell into what is known as Missing Supertrope Syndrome, as along the same lines people noticed characters getting black costume variants in the original stories, and then "black" did not become an absolute and people started pointing out changes that were simply darker variants. It is technically outside the original intention of the trope, but the usage by tropers is filling a area of interest.

The creation of Muted Colors does not clarify the definition, fix misuse or fill a gap that is not being covered by the original trope. For example, I noticed that Took a Level in Badass was being used for both the original story and adaptations. Considering the two of them to be distinctly different I created Adaptational Badass and split the bad examples off. To make Muted Colors a viable trope, the original trope would need to be cleaned up and create a "costumes changed in adaptation" supertrope so that they could be sister tropes.

Which, I guess, thought would just happen as other tropers saw Muted Colors. So, I missed a step in the trope progression, I guess? Fix Wearing Black first, then Muted Colors?

And for that the discussion should be taken to TRS if you feel strongly enough about it.

For my opinion, tropes often expand beyond the original definition because it was too narrow to begin with. I don't think the actual usage of Movie Superheroes Wear Black is the problem, but that it would be much easier to adjust the trope to be inclusive of how tropers are using it rather than trying to split off into smaller pieces. Like I said, literally wearing black in adaptations is rather rare and we would be cutting a rather fat trope down to about 10 examples total (removing all muted color examples as well as examples from the original medium).

What if both articles were merged back and the one article was renamed "Movie Superheroes Wear Darker Costumes"?

Costumes or colors.

Well, my thought process was that Wearing Black was still fine on its own, especially for examples where Wearing Black was justified because the character wears black primarily in the source material. Though, I'm gathering that the community at large thinks not changing a costume is not a trope, which makes sense.

I guess the question becomes, are there multiple related tropes at work, or just one trope that can be played multiple ways? How broad or narrow is the definition of that hypothetical trope? Does it chronicle every single change of a character's costume from source material to adaptation, or does it limit it by what that costume change is trying to say?

I'd say there's one trope here that can be played to different extremities. Movie Superheroes Wear Black covers it well, even if the title leaves something to be desired.

I think all that really needs to be done is cut Muted Colors and better define Wears Black. Maybe a rename, but people are reading between the line and aren't looking just at the "movie" classification. There is not much of a difference between the original work introducing a darker redesigned outfit and an adaptation creating a darker outfit. And the idea may be bigger than strictly black redesigns but "wears black" is a punchier sounding name than "wears muted colors" or "wears darker colors."

I think something like "Our Supersuits A Re Different" would be cool, but that's just me.

Ok, do we need a Crowner to cut Muted Colors or is soneone allowed to do that unilaterally?

Well, by my count there's at least five to cut, and one not to.

I don't think we've ever done a crowner in this thread, actually.

FanficRecs.Total Drama All Stars Rewrite and Main.Total Drama All Stars Rewrite is a work stub launched in the wrong namespace twice; the creator has been messaged.

I'll also add a vote to cut the Superheroes Wear Muted Colors article—go to TRS if a trope is broken, don't just add another one to add to the confusion.

Seems like we have a consensus for cutting the Muted Colors page. Enacting.

Three Sisters is a stub right now, but it looks like there are enough wicks to justify a page after they've been moved.