Regarding the Trivia namespace (crowner switched 20th Jan 2020)

You Look Familiar: Seems to be yet another "actors playing the same character" trope that should be in Trivia. I just noticed it popping up everywhere.

It definitely skirts the line of our Trivia definition, which relies of the idea that you "wouldn't know it" just from watching the work. And since the definition of YLF is "The same actor returns to play multiple characters in the same show/continuity", if you have a sharp eye, you definitely would notice that just from watching the show.

That said, it still relies on Real Life information—namely, the idea that this character is, in fact, played by a Real Life actor, who happens to be the same Real Life actor that played another character on the show.

I think I would... probably call that Trivia, primarily because it's irrelevant to the content of the work, it's purely a meta-concept.

edited 18th May '15 10:22:00 AM by SolipSchism

^^^ So should Fix Fic go under Fan Fic Recs or Fan Works? I am confused.

Fan Works, because a Fix Fic is just a type of Fan Fic. It's a genre more than anything else, which means it is technically a trope, but since it's such a broad term, it should be mentioned in a work's description, not its example list.

But yes, it should go on Fan Works, under Fan Fic, I'd say.

EDIT: Actually, it's already listed on Fan Fic, under "By relationship with canon". I don't know if we ever clarified our policy on listing things on multiple indexes that, themselves, are sub-indices or super-indices of each other. (Because Fan Fic is already on Fan Work, and Fix Fic is on Fan Fic, I'm not sure if Fix Fic should be listed on Fan Work. I'm leaning towards no, but that's not my call.)

edited 18th May '15 11:30:28 AM by SolipSchism

I think Cut Song should be a trivia trope. It's about a musical number that was recorded, but for one reason or another was cut from the final product. It's essentially a sub-trope of What Could Have Been.

I agree on all counts.

Can we add Parody Assistance to the list?

... a case of "cannot be determined from the work itself"

edited 27th May '15 6:29:54 PM by eroock

A parody is a form of Shout-Out (in that one work is making a deliberate reference to another work), and considered extremely non-trivial (by our standards). So the fact that it is a parody is not trivia. Then there's "Who created the parody?" question, which is also considered non-trivial knowledge (the creator is always the creator, and not a trivia entry). The trope is the creator of an original work assists with the creation of a work parodying that original work.

None of the elements that make it up are considered trivial by our definition, so I'd disagree that Parody Assistance should be considered trivia.

I will note that some of the examples on that page are mis-formatted. Either the creator is listed as the example (Real Life people are not troped) or the original work is listed as an example (but that isn't where the trope appears).

In cases where the creator's involvement is impossible to miss, like Bryan Cranston appearing in a parody of Breaking Bad, I don't think that would be trivia (because you wouldn't understand the parody in the first place if you hadn't seen Breaking Bad, and if you've seen Breaking Bad, you'll recognize Cranston), but in cases where the creator assists behind-the-scenes, you'd never know without doing some research.

That is the argument for saying a Creator is trivial information.

In cases where the creator assists behind-the-scenes, you'd never know without doing some research (applies regardless of what the work is).

edited 28th May '15 1:54:01 PM by crazysamaritan

I think we're agreeing here, but I'm not positive.

If the situation is "Someone who visibly appeared in Work X also visibly appearing in a parody of Work X," that's tropeable. (Or in an audio medium, "Someone whose voice is audible in Work X also being audible in a parody of Work X."

But "The guy who wrote Work X helping to write a parody of Work X" is trivia. Likewise with any situation in which the person is not clearly, identifiably involved with both works to the point where you can recognize them in both works without checking IMDB.

edited 28th May '15 1:57:46 PM by SolipSchism

Clarification: "any situation in which the person is not clearly, identifiably involved with a work to the point where you can recognize them without checking IMDB" is an argument that being a work's Creator is trivial information. The number of works does not affect this statement.

What do you mean "the number of works"?

EDIT: Nevermind, I misread your post.

But it does affect the statement, because "assisting with the creation of a work" does not make you a creator. We had a long and arduous discussion about this elsewhere on the subject of something to do with, like, gaffers and stuntmen and other supporting roles. So no, the fact that Alice is the Author of Work X is not trivial, but the fact that the author of Work X helped in the creation of a parody of Work X may be trivial, depending on how she helped.

edited 29th May '15 12:26:28 PM by SolipSchism

The current definition for Parody Assistance is loose enough that Alice, the gaffer for Work X, is involved as co-writer for the parody of Work X, which would still count as trivial. So the problem is the definition of Parody Assistance; should it be loose enough to count as "anyone involved" or should it be restricted to full Creators?

I mention this, because the examples are dominated by samples where a Creator is doing The Cameo of some sort, and at least half of the ones which aren't, are wrong examples anyway. (George Lucas approving of MAD is not Parody Assistance.)

edited 30th May '15 4:16:51 AM by crazysamaritan

It should be restricted to those who had a major part in the original. The writer doing a parody script, or a main actor performing a parody of their original role is fine; lighting technician #17 making an appearance in a parody isn't.

I think the important part is that it's someone who can be reasonably associated with the work from an outside perspective, with some but not detailed knowledge. A name you'd find on a film poster would be a good sign.

Personally I'm still going with the criteria of "If you can watch the work (for visual mediums), play the work (for games), hear the work (for audio mediums), or hold the physical work in your hand (for just about everything else) and tell that the person was involved in both, it counts."

Screenwriters and such are credited on screen, and usually in the opening credits, so writers seem like a legit example to me, even for visual mediums. Video games have credits too, often opening credits for the more cinematic games, and many games even have an option in the menu to view the credits without bothering to play the game for 200 hours, so that works too.

If a screenwriter for Glee guest-writes an episode of Community parodying Glee, that sounds kosher to me. If JK Rowling guest-writes an article in MAD Magazine making fun of Harry Potter, that sounds kosher to me. They don't have to be an actor, although those will be the most easily identifiable ones.

But you should not have to go to some online article or obscure blog to find out that George R. R. Martin informally had conversations with Terry Pratchett that inspired a chapter of one of Pratchett's books that kind-of-sort-of poked fun at Game of Thrones—that's not good enough.

edited 1st Jun '15 9:27:21 AM by SolipSchism

edited 1st Jun '15 9:43:54 AM by crazysamaritan

Oh hey. You just highlighted a distinction that's probably good to draw—There is a difference between "Alice helped Bob create a parody of her work" and "Bob got inspiration for a parody of Alice's work from Alice". The former is Parody Assistance; the latter is just... how inspiration works. Like, yeah, it's cool that Bob got inspiration directly from Alice as opposed to just from consuming her work, but that doesn't make it a trope. (Or even trivia—it's too trivial even to be trivia, really.)

edited 1st Jun '15 9:47:00 AM by SolipSchism

I just added Follow the Leader. By definition, examples can't be contained within a single work.

You know, after reading the article and looking at a few of the examples, I agree. That is not a trope.

Wouldn't Real Life Writes the Plot also qualify as Trivia since it lacks intention and you wouldn't be able to tell this trope being in place without involving external sources. Compare Throw It In!.

I think you're right. I'm also seeing a few subtropes of it that are trivia... and a lot that should be.

What about Rewritten Pop Version (of a song used in a movie or stage show)? It's not something you can tell by watching the original.

Never Work with Children or Animals talks about behind the scenes difficulties while working with children or animals. Stuff like babies looking at spotlights or animals not doing what they're told.