Unintentional Period Piece cleanup

Buzz claims there was not enough evidence to convict. Of course, he's probably making the whole story up to scare Kevin, but even in a scenario where internet exists, he probably cares more about the immediate satisfaction of seeing Kevin getting freaked out more than whether he'd eventually find out it's not true.

Right. A lack of evidence / a lack of conviction means that Google would be useless even if this story was true. So it's nonsense as well as nitpicky.

Not just that, but Google search results can vary by user.

Thus, it's an easy cut.

Dont worry renenarciso, you are not bad, just a soldier who broke under pressure.

Ok seriously, what can we do to curb misuse? HUGE BOLD TEXT warning people not to do it and telling tropers what a kosher example should look like?

That assumes people will be reading the description at all.

It was not a genuinely serious suggestion. But now that you said that I will actually double down, but I will try not to be a jerk about it. So you are saying tropers are supposed to add examples despite not having read the tropes page ever? I thought tropers had to AT LEAST read SOME of it to be familiar with how an example should be added. I actually did think some tropers never read out tropes, but those are not the ones who should be adding examples then.

I know we DO have a how NOT to add an example, but its too hilariously satirical, even as great a guide it is for telling tropers what SHOULD NOT be done.

Edited by AegisP on Apr 26th 2024 at 8:20:32 AM

I mean, they absolutely should be reading the descriptions. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying they're doing it right.

What I am saying is that modifying the description to curb misuse is like using a band-aid for decapitation. It's been proven on multiple occasions that people are allergic to reading descriptions; if they were reading it in the first place they wouldn't misuse the trope. That's why people rely so much on often inaccurate laconics or just point to usage. It's something I've noticed from years of TRS work (and personal experience with a certain trope launch that still haunts me). It's why we often resort to renames, just to tell people that something changed.

Edited by WarJay77 on Apr 26th 2024 at 11:24:23 AM

That's great. Thanks for engaging me kindly and show me I was wrong...

...Should we try a rename then? Not a serious suggestion but trying to see what the more knowledgeable tropers have to share.

Discussions on fixing the trope would belong in Trope Talk.

For now, I'm not really sure what we could do

You could kill the trope.

It’s been shown time-and-time again that most examples are misuse and rely on the fundamentally broken idea that all works are timeless, and most examples overlap into either references or Technology Marches On with extra steps.

I know this is not the place for it, but it seems clear the issue is a big undertaking even for a cleanup thread.

I said "for now". Not a TRS-required solution, but something a cleanup could do?

I feel for now there's not much we can do other than working hard on cleaning it up. It won't stop future misuse, but it's something.

I think the last few pages of discussions have been pretty useful because defining clearly what counts as misuse helps to make the job easier. The clearer we have an idea of what to cut, the easier the task becomes.

One of the entries on the UnintentionalPeriodPiece.Home Alone 1 page is straight-up someone reading a book instead of using Kindle. LMAO.

... I wouldn't be opposed to seeing this trope go. Even with the assiduous work people have done refining the definition and cleaning up, my feeling is that the trope as it is ("audience consumes a work, feels that it's an unintentional window into an earlier era") just isn't worth the work keeping it clean.

Ironically, I think that the "the future in Back to the Future Part II looks hilariously dated" entry (which was cut) is much closer to a real trope: works that aim to be SF/fantasy/historical, but end up having too strong a flavour of their own time instead, whether it's 00s hairstyles on elves in Middle-Earth or a future with fax machines and atomic-powered everything. Now, people have argued that the BTTF future was intentional Zeerust, which would make it not an example. But you get what I'm saying.

Edited by DoktorvonEurotrash on Apr 27th 2024 at 5:28:39 AM

Hey, thanks for the kind word, Aegis P.

That is kinda what Zeerust is. Kinda. Even though Zeerust is too associated with supposedly "future" technology looking dated, it also includes social attitudes in the description.

A broader, clearer trope like "Future Imperfect" would describe what you're getting at. My fear is that it would be too broad or too prevalent, because almost every science fiction story dealing with the future inevitably will have elements of it. It's been said that all SF stories are actually stories about the present.

The exceptions are stories like Star Wars that actually mix and match stuff from past eras, like World War II dogfights in space, and have no intention whatsoever of engaging with the question of "what the future will look like if we extrapolate from present stuff".

It's also kind of a supertrope. We already have stuff like The Apunkalypse that seems to have come into existence from the dread people in The '80s had of crime-ridden cities, and a supposed decay in social norms. In short, there is a ton of SF tropes that are really reactions to present-day stuff.

Yes, it could be interesting to have a trope about works that go nuts with this AND don't fall into already existing categories like The Apunkalypse. But I already see the misuse it would engender, with people nitpicking ALL stories with outdated computers in the future, whether or not that was a big part of the story, and whether or not the future setting is full of such present-day references. Because, really, that is almost People Sit on Chairs, all science fiction stories, if you look hard enough, will have at least a few elements of it.

In short, this is a bit how Unintentional Period Piece was ruined for works set in the "present".

Edited by renenarciso2 on Apr 27th 2024 at 6:31:24 AM

Heh, and you also mentioned fantasy/historical works. Again, that is overly broad, IMO. We'll get to the point of people complaining about Kirk Douglas's hair in Spartacus like in that scene in The Sopranos. That is, like, all movies ever made, there is always some "presentism" involved. Instead of selecting movies that are brimming with this stuff, people will pick apart the small stuff and it will be People Sit on Chairs.

Edited by renenarciso2 on Apr 27th 2024 at 6:32:17 AM

The book thing in Home Alone is an easy cut.

Frankly, regarding Home Alone 1, my vote is to cut the whole page.

Some of it is outrageous even by the standards of typical UPP misuse, like the physical book thing, but almost all of it is about tech or security that became obsolete in the 21st century, instead of stuff that is dripping with a 1990s atmosphere.

I think there are 3 possible exceptions, but I'm not sure if they alone make Home Alone an UPP.

- VCR is the sort of thing that is widely and culturally associated with the 1980s and 1990s. But even so, that is a 20-year window. Also, I'm unsure of the impact of VCR in the movie overall. This is not sex, lies, and videotape or Videodrome, both of which, ironically, lack an Unintentional Period Piece entry.

- There is a mention of Johnny Carson. But Carson had a long career.

- The way they mention Donald Trump is another sign of how folks totally miss the point of UPP. An appearance by Donald Trump, a figure culturally associated with the 1980s, should be an element in favor of arguing for a movie to be UPP, if written correctly: Trump as avatar of the 1980s (well, technically it's the early 1990s, close enough). Instead, the entry focuses on how Kevin fails to recognize "President Trump". Showing how people are obsessed with UPP as a sort of "fail to pass as 2024".

Edited by renenarciso2 on Apr 27th 2024 at 3:30:04 AM

Just found this in YMMV.Room:

• Unintentional Period Piece: In an early scene where Jack watches television, he makes reference to the two most popular shows on Nickelodeon in 2009, these being SpongeBob SquarePants and Dora the Explorer. While SpongeBob has continued to be a major success into the 2010s and 2020s, Dora ended in 2015 and the franchise has mostly been dormant since, while PAW Patrol took its crown as the #1 preschool-oriented show on Nickelodeon.

...Is it okay if I just go ahead and cut this kind of misuse on the spot? It's clearly misuse but I'm not sure if I should go ask in this thread every time I find stuff like this, or if I can just chop it.

Easy cut.

Cut it.

My own vote is, if you find UPP entries that consist simply of a Shout-Out to a TV show or politician, it should be cut, as one single reference can't cause the entire work to feel like a deliberate exaggeration of the time it was set in.

Not to mention that Dora the Explorer hasn't really faded from the public consciousness, I think there is even a reboot?

I know this REALLY isnt the place for this but I am REALLY starting to believe all this work IS indeed wasted and pointless over SO MUCH MISUSE we havent even begun to think how to stop. I really dont think this is worth it.-

UnintentionalPeriodPiece.The Simpsons is a gold mine of misuse.

That'd why I suggest to go ahead and cut all most obvious misuse without needing to ask the thread every time. It's all I can think of. If you have any better suggestions I'd appreciate them, because I can't think of a better solution.

The Simpsons and similar franchises fail to be real UPP because they're mostly intentionally making fun of current events and culture. When an entire episode revolves around George Lucas's decadence or the "Hullabalooza" music festival with hot rock stars of the day, it's hard to think "Nah, the writers were trying to go for timeless here, but they failed."

Also, a couple of elements, like the nuclear families with stay-at-home moms are not UPP either, they're kinda The Artifact. The Simpsons were parodying sitcoms with "perfect families" from the 1950s, and that is why some elements feel like it's actually older than the time they were made.

Edited by renenarciso2 on Apr 27th 2024 at 4:45:46 AM

Not to mentions that the show runs on Comic-Book Time, which complicates the matter.

Edited by costanton11 on Apr 27th 2024 at 7:39:41 AM