Does Not Illustrate: Revealing Coverup

It took me a good while to understand just what the current picture's point was. Apparently, according to the entry in the example, it has to do with the fact that the guy that's supposed to be Michael J. Fox in there looks nothing like Michael J. Fox, and the glasses they use to try to hide that lack of similarity just draws more attention to it.

For one, I couldn't figure that one out on my own, and I'm half-familiar with the Back To The Future saga. For another, I'm sure that's not what this trope is at all. To me, this one should get the axe.

"No, I'm not a substitute for Michael J. Fox, wherever did you get that idea?"

edited 7th Dec '13 5:12:34 PM by Elbruno

It isn't the trope, I like the angle it's taking but it'd work better with an in-universe example rather than going for a two hitter of presumed knowledge (both what the source is and why the difference of actor is significant).

to the current. No indication of the trope at all.

It relies on the reader knowing what Michael J. Fox looks like, and it isn't even an example from the film. If anything, it looks like a JAFAAC of The Other Marty. Pull.

Yeah, doesn't illustrate anything at all. Even with the caption it's not really making much sense. Pull.

+1 to pull regardless of replacement.

Definite pull. That is not the trope at all.

Agree; off with its head!

Pulled.

Cover-up 2005◊?

A little weak, but it kind of actually works from a certain point of view.

I don't see it. Little help?

"Covering something up draws attention to the fact that something is covered up." But then, how is it distinct from Streisand Effect? What is this about?

edited 11th Dec '13 8:44:31 PM by rodneyAnonymous

Same here; I don't watch The Simpsons so it's lost on me.

From what i can tell, Revealing Cover-Up is the attempt to hide it up making it look more obvious and Streisand Effect is said Revealing Cover-Up drawing more attention to what's being hidden. It's literally a slightly different shade of grey.

edited 12th Dec '13 12:23:08 AM by treelo

Would Absence of Evidence be a related trope. The fact that there is no evidence makes it clear that a cover-up occurred.

Distant relation, the evidence is still around but being hidden whilst pointing to it indirectly.

So, Revealing Cover-Up is about the action, and Streisand Effect is the consequence?

Pretty much, they're basically the same trope in how they function as both are Suspiciously Specific Denials about something hidden only drawing attention to the hidden thing but Revealing Cover-Up is something poorly hidden.

edited 15th Dec '13 1:01:13 AM by treelo

Streisand Effect is about censorship more than what we are talking about here - which is covering up crimes.

The word "crime" doesn't appear in the description, though, except for a pothole near the end.

It is unclear what this article is about. That may be a conversation worth having, but not in an IP thread.

I agree, ship it over to wherever it should be if there's space.

edited 15th Dec '13 2:02:04 AM by treelo

I think I get it. Trying to hide something gets it exposed. It's the same thing as Streisand Effect, but Streisand Effect is Real Life and meta, were this is In-Universe examples, so they do need some example cleaning to fix that up. There's probably some comic out there that lampshades this. Like a bad guy reveals himself unnecessarily. But I've been looking for a while and can't find anything.

edited 6th Jan '14 4:17:03 AM by Rethkir

Clock is set.

Clock's up; locking for inactivity. No further action is to be taken based on this thread.