Rework, possibly Cut List, "You fail X Forever"...

Eddie, you seem to be missing the fact that these tropes are Did Not Do The Research. In other words, they're non-subjective but inherently bad. Trying to make them subjective but neutral is counterproductive.

edited 16th Nov '10 11:52:43 AM by silver2195

non-subjective but inherently bad

Hrrm, no they are not inherently bad. One can purposely get things wrong for Rule of Cool or Rule of Funny, or to better fit a specific narrative purpose.

That's why the negative titles need to go.

No, Rule of Cool is covered by things like Art Major Biology.

Accidentally labeling an ostrich as a mammal, or using circular reasoning in a statement, aren't rule of cool.

edited 16th Nov '10 11:57:56 AM by EternalSeptember

It doesn't cover the fact that the plot comes first though. A lot of these are things done for the expediency of the plot or because the real explanation is just too complex for the amount of time it would take.

Accidentally labeling an ostrich as a mammal, or using circular reasoning in a statement, aren't rule of cool.

This.

You're creating a strawman, Eddie. No one has said or implied "all negativity is good." I have said that the problem in this case (natter) doesn't seem to stem solely or mainly from negativity. In order to fix the problem (assuming it can be fixed), we need to consider the causes for it. Just jumping in and applying a patch based on an assumption that may very well be wrong could cause more problems than it solves.

You also haven't responded to arguments that No Conservation of Mass is not negative.

Back to something that's actually likely to be productive.

The primary, quantifiable difference between Art Major Physics and You Fail Physics Forever is author intent, which is something that usually can't be proven. I've said before that this division is too fuzzy and I do still think they should be merged, along with the other You Fail/Art Major pairs.

The You Fail X tropes serve an important purpose, natter magnet and "not really a trope" issues aside. First, they serve as a parent trope and index to a family of tropes, allowing people to see the relationships between tropes. Second, they serve as a ground for new tropes to take root. Just looking over the examples in You Fail Physics Forever, I can see at least two tropes that don't exist elsewhere (yet).

The first is the Superman example. It seems to me that most, if not all, superheroes with super strength also display this particular "goof." The second is the Lost example, which I know I've also seen in the movie The Abyss. That's because water doesn't really behave intuitively when you take into account air pressure.

edited 16th Nov '10 12:06:25 PM by ccoa

Then take the ones that have obvious plot or Rule of Cool reasons behind them and move then to their proper pages, like Art Major X, and leave the rest where they are, with a proper, mildly negative, name.

edited 16th Nov '10 12:01:51 PM by girlyboy

I think that's part of the reason Fast Eddie wants these as subjective: short of Word of God, you can't really tell why the error was made.

Of course, that only makes me even more determined that a complete re-working of these pages into more specific forms is the better solution, rather than just a rename.

Sadly, I seem to be a minority of one.

Edit: Or maybe not. Being ninja'd stinks.

edited 16th Nov '10 12:07:19 PM by TotemicHero

That's exactly why I think they should be merged. That something violates physics is not subjective in the least. Why it was written that way and how the audience reacts isn't as quantifiable or provable, although it still isn't really "subjective". Unless someone changed the definition of subjective for tvtropes in some other forum thread.

By combining them, we have a non-subjective parent trope.

Yeah, this. Art Major Physics seems to me basically like "Physics mistake, only JUSTIFIED BY Rule of Cool".

If an author can't be bothered to get the fine points of the history of South America right, it's not our place to judge whether he's an ignorant buffoon or he rightfully chose not to get bogged down in the trivia on his way to making something cool and engaging.

For truly egregious cases of "oh lord a first grader could have caught this", we have Critical Research Failure. Though I reckon that might be a fine line, too.

edited 16th Nov '10 12:18:18 PM by TripleElation

I agree with ccoa that the tropes should be merged, but I'm not sure what the target name should be. "You Fail X Forever" has the wrong connotations (unintentional and negative), while "Art Major X" could be seen as a shot against artists.

Well, since these do largely seem to be story devices whatever the reason the mistake was made, why not Story Over X. Story Over Physics would be when the author made a mistake about Physics because he cared more about the story he was writing than getting the scientific details right.

I think we got too hung up on the word "negative". What we probably should have shot for was "non-accusatory". Nothing wrong with indicating an error was made...as long as we don't put huge heaping amounts of blame on the creators for it.

Hmmmm...Would "Erroneous X" work?

If he accepts non-accusuatory names I'll go back to X Does Not Work That Way. Its a statement rather than an attack on the author. And as in the Trope Namer it can just as easily mean an intentional error.

"Well, since these do largely seem to be story devices whatever the reason the mistake was made..." That is a very strong claim. Would you care to go through the "You Fail" pages and count up the number of examples that are story devices versus the ones that are simple mistakes that do not serve any obvious purpose to the story? I would guess that at a bare minimum, a very significant minority will be of the latter variety.

Also, what about examples that technically serve a story function, but could easily have been changed to serve the same function without breaking the laws of science? For example, a movie showing a spacecraft taking off the surface of Saturn. Surely a story purpose! But would the story be harmed if the ship took off from the surface of Mars, or a moon of Saturn, or something else plausible? If there's no particular reason for the mistake to be there, can it really be said to be necessary for the story?

edited 16th Nov '10 12:42:37 PM by girlyboy

And that's where we run into the fuzziness and natter, I think. Fan A is going to come along and say in a sub-bullet "it's absolutely necessary that they take off from Saturn, because they clearly spell out in season 10, episode 23 that it's actually a low-orbit gas mining operation that only looks like the surface of Saturn. Plus, if you read the manual, it's the only source of fuel for that kind of ship!"

Fans love to bicker about this crap. (Yes, I am a tad bitter after 4 years of cleaning up You Fail Physics Forever.)

A lot of the examples do seem to be part of the story. Sure, some could have been replaced with correct physics, but how do we know that the author intended it to be wrong and was counting on Rule of Cool to make up for it? Where the Willing Suspension of Disbelief begins is unique to each person, and depends a lot on their background. I, personally, am less forgiving of physics errors than most. Does that mean every nitpicky example I can add is valid, so long as it could have been replaced with better physics?

I think it would be better simply to note that it could be a case of Did Not Do The Research, or Reality Is Unrealistic, or even Rule of Cool. Barring Word of God, how do we know?

edited 16th Nov '10 12:56:00 PM by ccoa

Argument for negative (not negativity, eg No Dog Poop is negative but not negativity): it is straight and honest. "Alternative Physics" is sort of sarcastic. I think it's good to avoid negativity, but trying to spin what is essentially a criticism / negative statement into a positive statement is disingenuous.

IMO we should differentiate between negative ("x is false") and negativity ("x is bad").

(e.g. Foo Goof is fine: negative but not negativity, and Bonus Points for implying a singular instance and not an overall tendency. Foo Does Not Work That Way is pretty strong negativity, bad. You Fail Foo Forever is negativity, but, it is entrenched; although Eddie is trumping that angle.)

edited 16th Nov '10 2:09:10 PM by rodneyAnonymous

X Does Not Work That Way is not at all strong negativity. And, usefully, it covers intentional "I meant for my spaceship to take off from the surface of Uranus" mistakes just as well as accidental "what do you mean flamingoes are not mammals" mistakes.

Which, incidentally, cannot be said of some of the nicey-nice alternatives suggested. "Imaginary X", "Alternative X", etc., all suggest intentional, systematic mistakes, and thus would not cover everything on the X Fail pages now.

Foo Does Not Work That Way can be read in a neutral tone. It could also be interpreted as harsh criticism.

Exactly the same can be said of "Foo Goof." And in fact has been said, earlier in this thread.

For me, at least, it reads sarcastic / snide, as Fast Eddie says. Not as badly as 'You fail X Forever' does, and without the snowclonitude, but still.

For me, X Goof sounds condescending and snide.

Also, there is an ongoing debate about whether a little bit of negativity — as much as can possibly be seen in "X Does Not Work..." — is even a bad thing. Fast Eddie keeps saying, of course, he doesn't care about what anyone else thinks about this, but he also keeps asking for reasons why such negativity should be acceptable, and quite a few have been provided; none of them, near as I can tell, have been convincingly dismissed yet.

On the other hand, all the reasons for getting rid of negativity have been responded to, and seem pretty shaky.

edited 16th Nov '10 2:20:38 PM by girlyboy

Why are you using Foo?

I don't see X Does Not Work That Way as extremely negative. I picture it in the context of a freindly conversation. "You know X Does Not Work that way."

I don't think X Goof would cover the proposed merged trope, either. A goof is a mistake, whereas the proposed merge would cover intentional examples, too.