Complaining: Flanderization

I think in terms of the core of the trope Flanderization is Character Simplification, taking away subtleties and realistic behaviors in favor of the most basic traits. It means the same basic thing when applied to something other than strictly characters, that the nuances of the concept are stripped away and leaves a simplified but exaggerated mirror of the original. It has to be said there is nothing wrong with this from a writing standpoint, especially in an ensemble story simplifying character personality traits can make them more dynamic when paired against another character, while being more realistic means they have less of an edge to them.

I really don't see what the problem with the picture is, it seems spot on to what the trope is supposed to be about, or at least is about the only way to convey the trope is a visual form (Look specifically at the ears, hair and tie among the progression). The problem is being fundamentally a criticism trope, leading people to want to criticize some form of Character Derailment without it actually matching the definition of Flanderization.

That is exaclty what I think too. However the description is confusing, as it says different things in different parts of the description. some of the description agrees with what you just said while other parts say something else

i can work on a description re-write (soon-ish). in fact i'll write two. One which follows the definition of "a single trait which overwhelms all other traits" and one which follows the definition of "character traits become simplified and exagerated"

I would be okay with that, but the current description is more specific than that. If we take this option, then we should consider modifying the description to be more inclusive, specifically by not making the gradualness a requirement.

On the picture: I don't find it bad, but I do think the picture does carry the image that the trope is bad. And the thing is, Flanderization, like all things, isn't necessarily a bad thing. That said it's an IP discussion.

The definition you give, I like the spirit of it, but as you say, emphasis should be made that Tropes Are Not Bad. Flanderization doesn't necessarily make a character "less" than before.

Take for example a character that at the beginning of a show, is given many traits, slowly some of these might by be pruned off, removing those that didn't allow for much plots (or interesting ones) and emphasizing those that do work to make better story, drawing them to the foreground and making them more dominant. That's a natural part of writing.

edited 6th Jun '14 9:35:08 PM by Ghilz

Did this have a picture of Flanders at one point or am I imagining that?

Edit: nevermind, i think I was imagining that. (holly shit just realized ive been lurking for more than like 6 yrs.)

edited 7th Jun '14 8:46:23 AM by PistolsAtDawn

No, I believe it did originally have a Just A Face And A Caption headshot of Ned Flanders.

I wrote up a new description in the Flanderization Sandbox here. I kept the opening statement mostly the same (because it does seem to have some off-wiki use), and streamlined the pros and cons. I think another problem was that there is a huge list of mostly negative attributes as further demonstration of Flanderization.

What do you guys think?

Nice! That's a much cleaner description, for sure. I'm not sure if it'll solve the misuse, though :/

Let me ask: I used this example earlier in the thread, but I'll bring it back up:

Zoro from One Piece originally had No Sense of Direction and got lost rather easily, but was capable of walking around town and getting back to the ship on his own. Nowadays he gets lost in straight hallways, and can't walk ten meters without a map.

It's not, and has never been, his only or primary character trait. But it does go from "minor trait" to "major, exagerated trait"

Is this, according to your definition, an example? It is listed as one currently.

I just want clarification for what counts and doesn't

I can't really say because I am simply not familiar with One Piece. That is the major problem with the trope is that it requires a strong knowledge of the series as a whole to both list examples and know if one IS NOT an example.

I can say this, some people have accused Sheldon from The Big Bang Theory of being Flanderized, which I would disagree with. While he did start out more normal and relaxed, he always had a strong, finicky personality that exhibits itself between Control Freak, Neat Freak, Schedule Freak, Selfish Behavior, Hates Being Touched, Genius Ditz, being a Manchild and sometimes Momma's Boy, Parental Substitute with Leonard or Penny, Sarcasm-Blind, Not Good With People and even being Vitriolic Best Buds with the rest of the cast. And from about the middle of the first season to today any given episode might focus on just one of those traits, shuffling the rest to the side. He just has so many different quirks that you can't say any one of them is what defines him.

And that's the point behind the new paragraph saying if there are a lot of different traits associated with a character then it is less likely they were flanderized, it's not so much exaggeration of certain traits but the simplification of a character to a couple of core traits.

&

Both your post make me think we are missing a sister trope / super trope (Or maybe we have it and we are not just thinking about it).

One that deals with trait exageration. For example, Homer Simpsons / Peter Griffin / Whoever getting dumber season by season. It's not flanderization because their stupidity has always been a fairly dominant trait, but because the writers always need to top themselves, the character's trait gets amplified. Similar to how, say, Superman got progressively stronger as comics came out and writers found new ways to how he tops himself. Superman still has a ton of traits he's known for before his strength, but he's gone from the guy who could pull a locomotive to the guy who can pull a planet.

It's under this hypothetical super trope of Character Trait Exageration that I'd fill in Zoro and Sheldon. In both cases the trait got progressively exagerated, but without completely taking over the character the way Flanderization did (Sheldon became so dysfunctional one is almost amazed he ever functioned let alone could hold a job - which even then he arguably can't, while Zoro became capable of losing himself in a single room). Both have multiple character traits however - Sheldon has, paradoxically, become (a bit) more social as a form of character development through the series. Zoro is... Well I never watched the show, but I'm assuming he's got something else he's known for.

What would separate this Trait Escalation from mere Character Development is that this isn't explained in-universe, nothing in the series explains this development. It's purely a side effect of the writers "Well we need to write something new and bigger and better than last time"

edited 9th Jun '14 7:10:11 PM by Ghilz

Zoro is known for his swordsmanship (Zorro reference), he starts by wielding three swords at one time.

I agree with this, and you put it very well.

This is a case of Missing Supertrope. I looked at Character Exaggeration, hoping that would be it, but that one is solely about a character being exaggerated in adaptations.

I'm looking at the page, and there's some misuse there. If "Character Exaggeration" is 'character trait gets emphasized', and "Character Adaptation" is 'character changes behaviour for an adaptation', then the current definition for Character Exaggeration is the overlap between the two concepts.

So we got three tropes and a potential trope:

1. Character Development: A character changes according as a result of what happens to him in the story. (IE: Most Medias who don't have negative continuity have this)
2. Flanderization: (Using the sandboxed description above) A minor trait is exaggerated until it becomes the major defining trait of a character. (IE: Ned Flanders' religiousness, Meg Griffin's unpopularity)
3. Character Exaggeration: Almost an adaptation specific form of Flanderization: A character's traits are exaggerated when a story is adapted into another medium. (Could use a better rename if the proposed trope is created but neither here nor there). (Watson being less smart than Holmes in the books, while still being a brilliant doctor who can spot things most people miss, to being so less smart than Holmes he needs to be explained everything in most media adaptation)
4. Character Trait Exaggeration: A character's specific trait (Personality or Physical) is exaggerated, either through Sequel Escalation or just from a media's ongoing need to top itself, but without changing the character itself because that trait has always been the dominant one, or because it never really overtook the others. (Zoro's lack of direction, Sheldon's "weirdness", Superman's strength)

edited 10th Jun '14 2:24:44 PM by Ghilz

You're right: there is a missing supertrope. thats why i kept trying to exapand it, but now I realize youre right, its a different trope altogether that we need

Character Exaggeration is the ideal name for that supertrope (if it gets created) but its already taken. If someone makes that trope we are at risk of the name "character exageration" getting mixed up with it

edited 12th Jun '14 10:13:43 AM by PistolsAtDawn

Actually the name would be Trait Exaggeration, and a more appropriate name for Character Exaggeration would be Adaptation Character Exaggeration. But anyway...

I recognize the Missing Supertrope but I am not certain if its really needed. Trying to fix Flanderization will be difficult enough as it is, and a lot of times offering an alternative trope tends to be ignored and only complicates the clean-up.

Regardless of Flanderization, I plan to make a separate TRS thread for Character Exaggeration due to the aforementioned misuse. Seems minor, so I'll need to do a wick check first.

True but looking at the misuse in the OP, the entire description is being ignored, so fine tuning it (And a fine fine tuning that it is) will not do much either. Having the requisite super trope can't hurt.

SuperTropes are never a bad thing. I like the breakdown in 89.

edited 20th Jun '14 6:25:37 AM by Willbyr

It's amazing how such a straight forward trope can still be spun around by dudes that just want to complain about character changes.

Clock is set.

Ummmm....I'm not sure if I accidentally locked this one or someone else did, but since it's just now been clocked, I've moved it back to TRS.

So I guess we should YKTTW that super trope, and move the sandboxed version of this to the main space, and do the clean up necessary of the examples?

Thread about Character Exaggeration created here.

I think that this page is so out of whack that we should remove the examples from this page and keep them in YMMV pages. Like how we handle the Mary Sue series of tropes.