Does Not Illustrate: Audience Alienating Premise

All we have to go on image-wise here is a vague title gag that is unlikely to mean anything to those who didn't see the movie. The caption is a nice try at explaining things, but even if the caption were accurate — the homage stuff was, overall, a fairly small part of the movie — it's still a crutch that a page image should be illustrative enough not to need.

I'm...uncertain on whether or not the pic should be changed, but that caption needs to go. Repeating what's in the image is just pointless.

The caption is fairly bad and adds nothing. Undecided so far on the pic.

How is it supposed to illustrate the trope?

I am guessing that having someone hang from a clock will scare people, leading to a marketing nightmare.

I've never even heard of the movie, but the trope seems pretty clear from the movie's "title" being "Marketing Nightmare."

Definite Keep Until Better Image Suggested.

A film isn't an example by having the title Marketing Nightmare alone, since there's nothing that alienates the audience with that title, so I don't see how it being a film title is relevant to the trope, which makes it just a bit of text that rehashes the trope title in different words.

The context of the pic, according to the entry, is that Hugo was aimed as a kid-friendly film because the plot revolves around how difficult it was for child actors (specifically one actor in particular) back during the early years of film making. Targeting children with a premise only adults would understand and a story focusing on an actor that many adults may not have heard of before.

Yeah... no way the picture shows how that or the trope is supposed to work.

edited 7th Aug '14 8:01:37 AM by DRCEQ

I'm not even sure that's the right trope.

^^Yeah, that's not what Hugo was about at all. I think I've got an entry to edit...

I'm a bit wary of Keep Until Better Image Suggested here, because I think we could be here a while looking for a better one. A premise is a very abstract thing to try to illustrate.

I was going off of memory from reading the article last night. I posted the above during my work break, but your reaction sounds like I wasn't even in the general ballpark anyway.

edited 7th Aug '14 11:10:13 AM by DRCEQ

I have no idea how the picture has anything to do with the trope at hand. Pull it.

...looking over the examples, I'm not even sure what this trope is. If I understand the intro correctly, it is about combining two premises that just don't match (e.g. make a violent movie based upon a children's cartoon). But the examples are an arbitrary collection of works that are controversial, Complaining About Shows You Dont Like, works with a weird premise that are nevertheless successful, and other things.

So I think this needs a round of TRS before we can find a suitable picture for it.

David Malki and Ryan North have an ongoing thing called Bookwar where they create covers for terrible fake books written by each other. Using one of those to illustrate would avoid the YMMV problem of using an actual work. Here are three suggestions:

Humor in Cuneiform

My Giant Head

Um, actually, it's doctor WHOM - A humourless catalog of grammatical errors from all of "popular" fiction 1960-2010

edited 8th Aug '14 10:47:59 AM by ArtisticPlatypus

Basically all those bookwar shops are comedy gold, I would support them.

They're certainly funny, but I fail to see how they relate to this trope.

Based on their premises, would you want to read them?

So-so on these pics. Anyhow, the trope here is "A work's premise is offputting for audiences".

Not sure that TRS is the road to take here. While this is a pretty subjective trope, and there are a good number of examples that just don't fit, I personally think the trope works and that we're better off just purging the bad examples and tweaking the intro.

edited 9th Aug '14 10:57:28 AM by poi99

No to anything in 13. They don't seem like anything that nobody would want to read.

I still think it's better than the current, though. (Especially since the image used in that poster is actually what made me want to watch Hugo in the first place).

13.3, on the other hand, looks extremely like someone's anti-conforming list of Complaining About Shows You Dont Like.

edited 9th Aug '14 1:43:21 PM by theAdeptrogue

Lolita would be a great one to use, but Eddie shot down even having a pic of one of its many cover arts on the work page, so I doubt he'd let one stay on this page if he saw it.

"Martin Scorsese's loving homage to the early era of cinema and filmmaking... for children"

This sentence is in the picture. It's the tagline visible at the top of the poster, and explains the context necessary for the trope. Like, I would understand all the confusion if this was just the picture and the fake movie title, but the context is seriously right there in plain sight.

edited 12th Aug '14 11:18:38 PM by LostHero

It is very small.

I'm guessing that's why the caption says exactly the same thing. Not a good sign, that.

I added the picture, but I didn't know if I had added the caption - well, other pages have the text that might be too small depending on the screen size below the image.

I thought it was illustrative because well, the text in the poster conveys the trope perfectly - kids movie that's a Period Piece homaging something children would hardly care about. How do you sell it?! (maybe replacing the caption would help)