TV Tropes Org

Forums

Deadlock Clock: 6th May '14 11:59 PM
search forum titles
google site search
Total posts: [37]
1
2

Not Thriving: Suit With Vested Interests get usage counts

From the description on how common it is: "If you've seen a Disaster Movie or Monster Movie, you've seen this trope" Yet it only has about 12 examples and 14 wicks. Not sure if it's really as common as stated, and if we already have this in other tropes.
 
 2 StarSword, Wed, 25th Dec '13 11:33:16 AM from somewhere in deep space Relationship Status: In denial
SF-81A Black Knight
Description and definition seem clear enough and it's distinct from other tropes. I say send it to YKTTW for entry pimping.
Name seems pretty opaque if you don't already know what it is. I'm really tempted to make a joke about oil companies and global warming, but I will let the Rule of Cautious Editing Judgment reign.

 4 Septimus Heap, Thu, 26th Dec '13 1:27:41 AM from Zurich, Switzerland Relationship Status: Mu
A Wizard boy
It's not very opaque to me, although I know that anecdotal data aren't a very reliable source.

 5 Madrugada, Thu, 26th Dec '13 4:55:37 AM Relationship Status: In season
Zzzzzzzzzz
It took me a minute to get it without looking at the page, but when I did, the lightbulb was very bright and I don't think that I'll ever forget what the trope is.
'He strutted across the bedroom, his hard manhood pointing the way' sounds like he owns a badly named seeing-eye dog. 'Sit, Hard Manhood!
 6 Another Duck, Thu, 26th Dec '13 7:32:41 AM from Stockholm Relationship Status: Chocolate!
No, the other one.
Other than a lack of examples, I don't see much of a problem.
Check out my fanfiction!
 7 Madrugada, Thu, 26th Dec '13 8:01:25 AM Relationship Status: In season
Zzzzzzzzzz
Well, one thing we can do to get examples is take out the generic subbullet under Jaws in Live Action Film that simply says "Ditto for an innumerable number of "killer animal" B-movies following the leader." and actually list and crosswick the examples.

edited 26th Dec '13 8:01:38 AM by Madrugada

'He strutted across the bedroom, his hard manhood pointing the way' sounds like he owns a badly named seeing-eye dog. 'Sit, Hard Manhood!
 8 shimaspawn, Thu, 26th Dec '13 9:19:05 AM from Here and Now Relationship Status: In your bunk
Agreed. The biggest issue with this trope seems to be that it's slow in hitting critical cross wicking mass for people to be aware of it.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.

-Philip K. Dick
There's still something that bugs me about the name, especially for a trope this common - I think it has something to do with the use of the word "suit" as a personal noun - but I'll let it go for now.

 10 Madrugada, Thu, 26th Dec '13 11:09:39 AM Relationship Status: In season
Zzzzzzzzzz
That's a fairly common slang term for executives. It's listed in at least three dictionaries: Random House, Collins, and American Heritage as (Slang): A business executive, especially upper-level management.

edited 26th Dec '13 11:13:34 AM by Madrugada

'He strutted across the bedroom, his hard manhood pointing the way' sounds like he owns a badly named seeing-eye dog. 'Sit, Hard Manhood!
 11 shimaspawn, Thu, 26th Dec '13 1:51:42 PM from Here and Now Relationship Status: In your bunk
Yeah, Suit is a common term for what this trope is talking about. It's in every single dictionary I've looked in. The name is fine. It's just lacking enough wicks for critical mass.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.

-Philip K. Dick
How easy is it to add a redirect called Exec With Vested Interests to a similar name? Also, should I remove the word "common" from the description?
 
I'm familiar with the term, it just doesn't seem like the sort of term you'd expect TV Tropes to use. Maybe something more like Vested Interest Villain, or something relating more directly to a disaster movie plot or The Jor-El? Like I said, I'm trying not to push this too hard, but something still bugs me about the redirect suggestion [up].

 14 shimaspawn, Thu, 26th Dec '13 7:29:31 PM from Here and Now Relationship Status: In your bunk
Well, the Suit with Vested Interests generally is neither an executive, nor a villain. He is often slightly antagonistic, but he's generally not evil. Just not helpful. And he's rarely actually in charge of the company. He's often answering to off screen higher ups. So calling him an executive makes people assume that he actually needs to be in charge, when he's generally not.

I mean, he's generally worried about losing his job and a lot of times the heroes need to convince him to work with them, so calling him a villain really confuses the issue. Especially if he ends up helping save the day in the end.

So they're both very misleading rename suggestions.

edited 26th Dec '13 7:31:44 PM by shimaspawn

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.

-Philip K. Dick
Just stumbled onto The Ditherer. Are that and the Suit trope related?
 
 16 shimaspawn, Fri, 27th Dec '13 5:24:51 PM from Here and Now Relationship Status: In your bunk
Not in the least.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.

-Philip K. Dick
 17 Septimus Heap, Sat, 28th Dec '13 1:37:16 AM from Zurich, Switzerland Relationship Status: Mu
A Wizard boy
While The Ditherer can like the Suit with Vested Interests both mishandle problem situations:
  • The Ditherer: Hesitates at taking a decision, often until it's too late.
  • Suit with Vested Interests: Has some ulterior motive (the "vested interest", often of an economical nature) to prevent the problem from being addressed.

 18 Septimus Heap, Wed, 1st Jan '14 2:04:57 AM from Zurich, Switzerland Relationship Status: Mu
A Wizard boy
Bumping this, because there seems to be a small conflict on th example order in the Film section. I did alphabetize it, and then someone un-alphabetized two entries with the reason " don't get how the two first example end up getting bumped down, it shouldn't happen and it can create entries which are written on the thought that one has read what is below them. These are the most explanatory of the example about what the trope is. They shouldn't end up haldway down their own category underneath one-liners. "

I am not sure how the examples below rely on the ones (now raised out of alphabetic order). Comments?

I don't know that he was referring to those examples specifically, he may have just been enforcing what he perceived to be the standard "first in first out" order in place on 99% of the wiki and justifying it in general terms (never mind that entries shouldn't be referring to the order in which they appear on the page anyway...). If he has a position relating to this specific case, it seems to be that entries that are more illustrative and explanatory should be higher on the list than short borderline Zero Context Examples, which is problematic but has little to do with whether or not certain entries "rely" on others.

(If it is now wiki policy to alphabetize entries within folders, does that have a Long-Term Efforts thread?)

edited 1st Jan '14 2:43:42 PM by MorganWick

 20 Septimus Heap, Wed, 1st Jan '14 2:43:20 PM from Zurich, Switzerland Relationship Status: Mu
A Wizard boy
It's not policy, although alphabetic order is usually preferred - hence, I did it as I was cleaning the page. Seems like a case for reverting them.

 21 Madrugada, Wed, 1st Jan '14 3:00:08 PM Relationship Status: In season
Zzzzzzzzzz
It's not policy for examples; that's still FIFO, since that way makes it easier for readers to see if there are new entries. Some folks prefer it, but it's not the "preferred" style either. However, if you want to alphabetize the examples, go ahead, but be prepared to keep it tidy yourself, because most editors will still put the new entries at the bottom.

edited 1st Jan '14 3:00:33 PM by Madrugada

'He strutted across the bedroom, his hard manhood pointing the way' sounds like he owns a badly named seeing-eye dog. 'Sit, Hard Manhood!
 22 Septimus Heap, Wed, 1st Jan '14 3:06:25 PM from Zurich, Switzerland Relationship Status: Mu
A Wizard boy
Personally, I support to use a purely alphabetic order. I am not sure if I understand the arguments given for the re-ordering and it strikes me as a worse than either alphabetic or by-addition order.

edited 1st Jan '14 3:11:18 PM by SeptimusHeap

I think it's simpler if the ordering on trope pages throughout the wiki at least tried to be uniform, whatever it is.

 24 Some Sort Of Troper, Thu, 2nd Jan '14 12:11:55 PM Relationship Status: Complex: I'm real, she is imaginary
I put back into temporal order because I have literally never ever seen anything ever that indicates it should be any other way. And also because it makes it looks good and reads well.
Don't just tell us the facts; tell us the memes, tell us the archetypes, tell us the catchy ideas and symbolic roles that get planted in pe
 25 Septimus Heap, Thu, 2nd Jan '14 12:21:01 PM from Zurich, Switzerland Relationship Status: Mu
A Wizard boy
Same thing could be said of alphabetic order as well. That said, I am not entirely sure what the preferred method here is. There was/were some discussions in Wiki Talk - I'll have to dig them out.

edited 2nd Jan '14 12:25:44 PM by SeptimusHeap

Total posts: 37
1
2


TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org.
Privacy Policy