Trope Misuse Cleanup In General

Replying this post: The main character folder is boiled down to "the main character of this series is different than that of other series of the same genre". That's Not a Deconstruction. Cut?

Remade and Improved has some examples that don't belong. Mostly due to tropers not understanding what does and does not qualify as a remake according to the trope description, which clearly states "NOTE: To count the remake has to be in the same medium as the original work, otherwise it's an adaptation which is a separate concept."

I've posted about this previously, but since then I've found another example that might not belong. If posting again is improper, that's my bad.

• Cinderella (2015) has its share of fans who actually prefer it to the 1950 Disney original - for touches like fleshing out the character of the prince, establishing Lady Tremaine as a Foil for Cinderella and enough differences that they could view it as simply another interpretation. Lily James's performance in the title role was also widely acclaimed.
  • This is not the majority opinion. The 2015 version received positive reviews from critics and audiences, but not as positive as the 1950 version, which has higher ratings on both Rotten Tomatoes and IMDB.

• While Disney's 1967 adaptation of The Jungle Book remains a beloved classic, the 2016 live-action remake is considered by many to be an objective improvement on many regards. The original had received criticism for being rough in both its animation style and its writing (widely agreed to not have the most robust plot or protagonist), with the remake instead opting for a Scenery Porn-laden adventure in the jungle that better expands on its core characters, especially in giving Mowgli more moments of proactivity and ingenuity rather than pinballing from set-piece to set-piece. To date, it remains one of the most financially and critically successful entries of the modern Disney Live-Action Remakes.
  • This does not qualify as a remake because both movies are adaptations of an existing book.

• The Parent Trap (1998) is remembered far more than the 1961 original it's remaking (both are adapting the German book Lottie & Lisa) - for Lindsay Lohan's impressive performance as both twin sisters, the late Natasha Richardson showing off her comedic talents, Elaine Hendrix as a laughably fun villain and for putting Nancy Meyers on the map as a director. Some don't even know it's a remake.
  • This does not qualify because both movies are based on a book. The troper even mentions the book.

• West Side Story (1961) was critically acclaimed and won several Oscars when it first came out, but it was widely agreed to have aged poorly - mainly for the decision to have mostly white actors in Brownface playing Puerto Ricans (even the Latina Rita Moreno had to darken her skin to look how they believed she should) and most of the singing being dubbed. While the original is seen as Fair for Its Day, Stephen Spielberg's 2021 remake was met with a torrent of praise for updating the story, casting actual Latino actors in the corresponding roles, fleshing out many characters who had been divisive or disliked and generally being an all-round better production. Maria in particular has often been viewed as one of the blandest leads in musical theatre, but Rachel Zegler's spirited performance was widely viewed as one of the best takes on the character, to say nothing of Ariana De Bose, who won an Oscar for her role as Anita that even Rita Moreno herself said was better than her turn in the 1961 original. Stephen Sondheim, who passed away shortly before its release, still got to see it and stated he preferred it to the original.
  • Again, this isn't a remake. Both films are based on an existing stage play.

• The 1986 Little Shop of Horrors, which is a theatrical version of the musical based on the original 1960 Roger Corman film, The Little Shop of Horrors, is widely considered far superior in virtually every respect (particularly in the special effects) and is far more well-known than the original Corman movie.
  • This one isn't as clear cut, because the 1986 film is based on the stage musical, which was based on the 1960 original. There's no common source material, but there is an adaptation in between. I'm genuinely not sure if it counts or not.

Edit: This still needs to be fixed.

Edited by SergeantBane on Sep 21st 2023 at 8:07:57 AM

Looks like the video game trope No-Damage Run appears in a lot of reality tv show pages, shoehorned in to describe contestants who make it to the finale without ever being shortlisted for elimination.

I'm going to clean up the RuPaul's Drag Race examples as part of a wider tidy-up on that series, but the issue seems much wider than that.

Edited by Mrph1 on Apr 26th 2023 at 8:29:34 PM

The Confirmation Bias example on La Fuerza Series should be an In-Universe example on the main page, under the folder "The Inquisitor".

Edited by SergeantBane on May 25th 2023 at 12:39:42 PM

The use of Our Zombies Are Different in Evil Dead (2013) should actually be Our Demons Are Different, since the Deadites are explicitly demons who possess people, not zombies who infect them.

This is on NauseaFuel.Sponge Bob Square Pants:

• People who have trypophobia (fear of tiny holes) are advised to NOT look at the titular monster in "The Monster Who Came to Bikini Bottom". You will be thankful you hadn't.

Fear is different from disgust, and even Nightmare Fuel doesn't allow phobias.

The quote on Absurdly High-Stakes Game is more apt for Deadly Game, and there seems to be some overlap on the former page. (The former is for big bets on gambling, and the latter is for games where you die if you lose.)

Edited by lalalei2001 on Jun 16th 2023 at 4:50:59 AM

That reads like a trigger warning more than an example of Nausea Fuel.

Can someone read Second Prize for us and confirm our impression that it refers to a fairly specific concept such that turning every mention of the phrase "second prize" into a wick to the trope would not be appropriate? Because Asterlix is currently doing that.

Not sure if there's a better thread for this trope, but some of the examples from UnfortunateCharacterDesign.Pokemon feel like a bit of a stretch (official art of the Pokemon in question linked for reference):

• Peliper [sic] has a large beak that looks like a toilet. (Pelipper◊. Eh... sure, it's kind of a similar shape but I wouldn't even have made that connection unless this entry brought it up, it just looks like a pelican-like bird with an exaggeratedly big beak

• Medicham's legs resemble a pair of boobs, with the yellow spots as nipples. (Medicham◊. Eh, guess I see where they're coming from but this is another case of "wouldn't really have noticed unless brought up", they don't really stand out as boob-like to me other than being two round things with small circles and next to each other

• The eyes and nose on the mask Yamask carries with it◊ come together to form something that looks like a very simple 'dick and balls' graffiti. Doesn't really stand out as one unless specifically looking for it

• The Meltan line from Pokémon GO and Pokémon Let's Go, Pikachu! and Let's Go, Eevee! is supposed to be based off of a blob of mercury with a hex nut atop it. In-game it looks like a blob of semen, a similarity not helped by the fact that "nut" is a common euphemism for ejaculation. (In-game Meltan◊. Not really seeing it

Edited by Zanreo on Jun 17th 2023 at 5:51:11 PM

Pelipper is a complete reach, we don't see it even after it's pointed out.

The others we can kinda see, but at a certain point it stops being Unfortunate Character Design and starts being "my mind just lives in the gutter now".

All of those examples are bad and I think you have to try pretty hard to see anything inappropriate in the designs of those Pokémon. I am good with them all being cut.

The Pokemon fandom is full of many dirty-minded people and yet this is the first time I've seen any of those comparisons made.

Gonna go ahead and cut those, then. The whole page could probably use a closer look but those are just some that stood out to me

Yeah, cut those. The mons that come to mind for this reaction (Palkia and Reshiram, mostly) are infamous. These just seem like individual things someone noticed.

Playing Against Type has...lots of problems. Gushing is a big part of it, most of which boils down to "actor X was known for playing good guys/comic relief characters/etc, but then they played a bad guy/dramatic character/etc and they were SO GOOD. Such range. Much acting." as well as "audiences were stunned/shocked/floored and so on about actors playing different characters in different works. A lot of it is just Fan Myopia.

There's also lots of natter and examples with way too many sub bullets, because people just kept on adding this role and that role (when an actor has tons of roles that contrast with one of their others, are they really' playing against type?). And'' there's plenty of ZCES that are just "This actor. This role. 'nuff said.

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/PlayingAgainstType/LiveActionTV This has some of the biggest offenders.

Some of them are just flat-out wrong, as one example goes on about Peter Boyle (from Everybody Loves Raymond), talking about how audiences were then "shocked" about his guest star role in an episode of the X-Files...except that episode aired before Everybody Loves Raymond was even a thing.

It might need a more focused clean-up, but I thought I'd mention it here first, at least.

Star-Making Role has some issues, spotted in today's NREP tidy-up.

We've got a comics folder even though comics, like literature (not listed), only have behind-the-scenes creator work, not performers in a role.

And the Western Animation subpage has names like Mark Hamill and Michael Dorn - both very successful, acclaimed voice actors, but are we really saving that this, not Star Wars and Star Trek, was what made them a star?

It seems to be used for roles that cemented people's acting as the 'definitive' voice actor for a part, or for live action stars who proved they could voice act... not what the trope seems to be for?

I guess it’s saying that those are the roles that established them as successful voice actors, not just live action actors.

As this one seems to be accumulating odd examples, flagging it here for feedback:

The intro to Comic Book Run positions it as applying to Long-Runners (Long-Runners also claims it's a Sub-Trope) and also

So, with that in mind -

• If it's not a Long Runner (10 years minimum)

• It's a Crossover, Crisis Crossover, Bat Family Crossover, limited series or anything else with a pre-planned, pre-announced ending...

...then it's not a valid Comic Book Run example. Fair?

An example of Character Rerailment was recently removed from The Last Voyage of the Demeter. I believe that the troper's reasoning is questionable, especially considering it's a YMMV trope. I have messaged the troper but have gotten no response yet.

Normally I would just add it back and tell the other troper, but I'm currently banned from editing.

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=YMMV.TheLastVoyageOfTheDemeter#edit38499125

Also, if this is the wrong place for this, could you direct me to the right one?

An example of Doomed by Canon was added to the YMMV page of The Last Voyage of the Demeter even though it belongs on the main page.

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=YMMV.TheLastVoyageOfTheDemeter#edit38636260

Found on some illogical trope addition and trope abuse on April's entry on TMNT 2003 character page.

• Ms. Fanservice: She's very pretty, comely and beautiful both in general and also thanks to her outfit, and other outfits in the series including her jungle garb during "April's Artifact". However thanks to her Character Development, she becomes far more than just eye candy as the series moves on.

Nothing about this version of April is sexual or seductive. Edits and addition are Square Peg Round Trope as well trope abuse and character gushing.

The trope should be cut and kept off her page.

EDIT: I'll just assume silence means support and cut the entry if I don't hear back in a couple days.

It's been less than an hour, so don't fret too much about the silence. You could get more opinions at the lewdness thread, but the way that entry is put very much reads like one-handed troping to me (they start off the entry with three synonyms for "attractive").

FamilyUnfriendlyDeath.Fan Works is full of works that certainly aren't made for general audiences. I don't know if there will be enough for a page once it's all cleaned out. But, off the top of my head, Always Visible is a fanfic for a horror film, Latias' Journey is stuffed to the brim with R-rated content and the less said about Sonic X: Dark Chaos, the better.

This was added to Dead Unicorn Trope today:

• Surveillance Drone: As personal remote control drones became cheaper, easier to fly, and gained increased range in the late 2000s/early 2010s, significant concerns were raised that they would be used for spying and peeping. Sitcoms made it seem like the skies would be inundated with drones (for example, this was explored in an episode of South Park, a B-plot in an episode of Community, and a background joke in the 20 Minutes into the Future final season of Parks and Recreation) while more serious media examined the ethics around these activities. Ultimately, genuine issues were rare while personal drones themselves have since become mainstream enough to no longer be controversial. As a number of jurisdictions ease restrictions around delivery drones early in The New '20s, this idea has found a small amount of new life with the focus shifting to the potential dangers caused by both more drones in the sky and them landing near private residences.

...I don't think this counts as Dead Unicorn Trope tbh? It sounds more like a complaint about media's portrayal of drones not matching reality rather than "cliché that gets referenced but never existed in the first place"