Suggestion: Hate At First Sight

Good suggestion, but I think it should also show them trying to kill each other in the present day.

I think that would be worse, which I mentioned before. It would be more something like they just didn't like each other much to begin with, and then it got worse, as the latter image would contrast to the former, making that one seem like something minor compared. That's not the trope. It's about that instant hate.

No it isn't. The trope almost flat-out states that it can start off with a pretty mild dislike.

"Maybe it's their instincts giving them a hint that they just can't get along with this person or maybe it's just something random and unfounded, but either way one or both characters will simply never get along or at least not without a great deal of trial and tribulation."

That's pretty clearly shown in the suggestion, no matter if you include the last panel or not.

edited 18th Apr '13 2:21:52 PM by KingZeal

Precisely. Tropes Are Not Narrow.

I'm totally cool with the two-panels. I only read the first and understood it immediately. But I think the three panel one works too.

Then it should remove all references of Love at First Sight, since it's not opposite to that. It's just about mildly not liking someone else or getting off the wrong foot with someone. It shouldn't use the words hate, despise, or blatant antagonism since those are misleading and imply more than what the trope is about.

Anyway, that last panel highlights a raise in hate, which isn't the trope. It's the beginning of it.

edited 18th Apr '13 11:45:21 PM by AnotherDuck

I still don't see the objection. Love at First Sight doesn't require one to fall to your knees pledging your eternal devotion to the person. It can, and often is, characterized by a subtle sensation that draws one person to another. In this case, you have two people who just cannot get along the second they meet each other. The flashforward is just where the hatred has gotten now.

edited 19th Apr '13 6:20:22 AM by KingZeal

I disagree. Love isn't mildly liking someone any way you put it.

Yet it doesn't mean that the first emotions and reactions they show can't be subtle. The same applies here.

I don't think a page image should be subtle.

I don't think this is subtle. Most hatred depicted in media and in real life just shows obvious disgust. That's notable in and of itself, because etiquette says you are never to show open contempt for another person, especially one you just met. Showing it is a huge breech in manners and I think quite clearly implies hate.

I agree with Helterskelter and Zeal.

Me too.

I don't think it's a very good image without them trying to kill each other. I mean, arguably it's acceptable, but what part makes it good? I'd rather have no image than a mediocre image.

That's basically what I think. Well, the latter part. It sort of works weakly, but I don't really see an improvement to the page.

"It sort of works weakly" sounds like Keep Until Better Image Suggested to me.

Exactly. And since default on this page is no image...

To quote Fast Eddie:

I don't see any reason to keep the pic off the page. The only argument right now is a semantic/literal argument over what "hate" should look like.

edited 20th Apr '13 8:43:52 AM by KingZeal

The default is never "no image", the default is that we like an image on every page (exceptions exist, yes, but this is the default). If this image were on the page, and a request were made to remove it, then people would say Keep Until Better Image Suggested. Therefore we should put it up.

Wait, are you seriously arguing that this suggestion is funny? It's the most banal and literal picture I could possibly imagine. "Two people meet, and then they glare at each other! Hilarious!"

Edit: It's funny in the context of the comic it comes from, since it's a subversion of there being some sort of triggering event for their mortal hatred, but you're removing that context entirely.

edited 20th Apr '13 11:48:23 AM by Clarste

I'm afraid you're missing the point. Eddie stated, several months ago, that Image Pickin' had become too picky and too eager to leave pages imageless. So he told us to stop that. Like I said, the default is for pages to have an image.

One year and some months ago, to be exact.

What Spark9 is arguing about is basically that there is a "acceptable" class between "perfect" and "bad".

That quote wasn't very helpful then.

If the policy is such that any tolerable image is better than nothing, then I suppose that since I don't have a better suggestion this one will have to do.

Default is no change as far as my voting goes.

Um...yes?

That was the joke.

If you don't find it funny, then you don't. But that was the entire joke being made there.