TV Tropes Org

Forums

search forum titles
google site search
I think the name of this trope should be changed, it's far too limiting. Why not call it something more related to general forgery? It would allow for many more examples of how people in fiction can be fooled so easily by falsified information. It might also help to remove The Future from the title since it also restricts examples. Perhaps it should just be called Can't Spot A Fake.
 
 2 Karjam P, Sat, 7th Jun '14 1:44:02 AM from South Africa Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
The imaginative Christian Asperger
You have good points, there.

Cant Spot A Fake sounds like a great idea for the name of the trope, although we'd probably have to alter the title a bit in order to explain that fictional character in general accept all photographs and videos in general, not necessarily only specific characters.

 3 m8e, Sat, 7th Jun '14 2:38:48 AM from Sweden Relationship Status: Wanna dance with somebody
Cant Spot A Fake is way to general and ambiguous.
Carpe by all means diem, but not all diem are worth carpe.
You might have to miss half of tomorrow to catch the whole today.
 4 Septimus Heap, Sat, 7th Jun '14 2:50:11 AM from Zurich, Switzerland Relationship Status: Mu
A Wizard boy
Aye, while I like a rename, that particular suggestion is not that good.

 5 Madrugada, Sat, 7th Jun '14 5:01:50 AM Relationship Status: In season
Zzzzzzzzzz
Assumed Genuine Unless Plot Relevant?
'He strutted across the bedroom, his hard manhood pointing the way' sounds like he owns a badly named seeing-eye dog. 'Sit, Hard Manhood!
[up][up]Well, as a conversation starter, it's good for that, but otherwise, yeah tongue

As for [up], it's a pretty clear name, but it just seems clumsy rolling off the tongue for me. I'll say that would be my second choice if we can't come up with abetter name

Would irony (i.e. something like Evidence Never Lies but probably not that exactly) come through, or is that playing with fire?

 8 Septimus Heap, Sat, 7th Jun '14 1:31:51 PM from Zurich, Switzerland Relationship Status: Mu
A Wizard boy
Falsification Proof Evidence if we want to have it broader than photoshopping.

 9 Willbyr, Sat, 14th Jun '14 11:57:14 AM from North Little Rock, AR Relationship Status: Pining for the fjords
Anime-ted
Crowner's hooked.
I am suspicious of cases to rename that are not accompanied by evidence. (I don't understand why this thread was opened at all. I thought the whole approval system was implemented in part to avoid posts that basically amount to the author's opinion that something should be different than it is.)

The OP is actually arguing that the definition/description should be broadened, not the name, though I disagree with that also. It is specifically about photographs; image manipulation is a thing in itself, and "fictional characters often trust photographic evidence even though that's easy to fake" is a trope in itself, without including other kinds of evidence.

A supertrope about any documentation of any kind not being questioned should be a new article that starts with YKTTW, rather than changing an existing article.

edited 5th Jul '14 6:04:27 PM by rodneyAnonymous

Becky: Who are you? The Mysterious Stranger: An angel.
Huck: What's your name? The Mysterious Stranger: Satan.
"in the future" is happening in the present.
Still new. Still learning. Asking questions and making mistakes.
There's a difference between:
  1. A fake picture is assumed to be genuine (because the plot requires people to be fooled).
  2. The authenticity of a genuine picture is not questioned on-screen (Conservation of Detail).
  3. In a high-tech future or magical setting, producing fake pictures is trivially easy but somehow people still accept pictures as evidence.

The name fits the last one.

 13 Septimus Heap, Tue, 8th Jul '14 3:22:23 AM from Zurich, Switzerland Relationship Status: Mu
A Wizard boy
^^^I am guessing that the thread was opened because the usage isn't that great and the name is fairly long.

Do either of those things justify little or no objective information in the OP? I mean, the first sentence is "I think the name of this trope should be changed, it's far too limiting." Jeez. Last time I checked, "why not" was one of the worst possible lines of reasoning to support a rename.

edited 9th Jul '14 11:44:57 AM by rodneyAnonymous

Becky: Who are you? The Mysterious Stranger: An angel.
Huck: What's your name? The Mysterious Stranger: Satan.
 15 shimaspawn, Wed, 9th Jul '14 2:57:08 PM from Here and Now Relationship Status: In your bunk
No consensus to rename.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.

-Philip K. Dick
...so what now?

 17 Septimus Heap, Thu, 10th Jul '14 12:07:53 AM from Zurich, Switzerland Relationship Status: Mu
A Wizard boy
I do not see any reason to leave this open any longer. OK, maybe to alphabetize and namespace everything but that doesn't need a Repair Shop.

"...so what now?"

Nothing. If you think some edits might improve the article, go for it, but please don't change the definition.
Becky: Who are you? The Mysterious Stranger: An angel.
Huck: What's your name? The Mysterious Stranger: Satan.
The system doesn't know you right now, so no post button for you.
You need to Get Known to get one of those.

Page Action: We Will Not Use Photoshop In The Future
14th Jun '14 9:04:18 AM
What would be the best way to fix the page?
At issue:
Total posts: 18
1


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