Needs work: Fail Polish

Needs A Better Description; it took me several rereadings and looking at some of the examples to even figure out what this trope is. It's basically "character that starts as unattractive becomes prettier over time, even if their unattractiveness was (initially) a plot point".

I'd also suggest a rename, as the pun on "nail polish" is really stretching things (I Thought It Meant the stereotype of people from Poland being stupid and useless, which was really confusing since I found it on Personal Appearance Tropes), but its wicks seem to be healthy, so it may not be necessary.

Examples could use work as well, as a lot of them seem to be Depending on the Artist, which isn't this trope.

edited 4th Dec '10 8:29:44 AM by NativeJovian

The title works fine, one person misreading isn't enough to bail on it. Especially since none of the examples make that mistake

I'm another person who doesn't like the name. Nothing about the name Fail Polish says "originally unattractive character getting more attractive in later instalments" to me.

The description seems OK, though, and I haven't seen any misuse.

It's just a shitty pun on Nail Polish.

We don't change titles because of a dislike. If it isn't being misused, then nothing is wrong.

Fail polish is when you polish up a character whose looks were intended to be fail. It makes sense to me *shrugs*

^^If a lot of people don't agree that a trope has a good name, I believe there's been a few cases for making an exception, unless it passes the Grandfather Clause.

I'm not seeing any misuse among the wicks though.

Edit: If we wanted to make a game out of it though, I would've initially thought from reading the name that this was about making something that was a failure look a lot worse, as opposed to looking better.

edited 4th Dec '10 11:46:26 AM by SeanMurrayI

The pun feels unnatural and forced. My brain interprets it as a variety of Epic Fail, which is aside the point.

Yeah, I dislike the name as well. I think any trope with a good Laconic isn't likely to be misused, but that's beside the point. The pun is crappy, has multiple connotations that do not have anything to do with the trope, and it's awkward. Maybe Progressively Prettier?

I actually like Fail Polish. I think it's a cute little title. It makes me laugh. Though, originally (before reading the trope page) I thought it meant "An attempt to make a character look better inadvertently makes them look worse", but after reading it I now understand. I don't actually see a problem with the title, but that's just me.

I'm kind of surprised so many people dislike the name. It seems fine to me, certainly a lot better than most of the punny or snowcloney names around these parts.

Huh. If we were playing the aforementioned game I would have pegged it as a redirect for Polish the Turd.

A question to those who want to keep the name: did you understand what this trope was about from the name alone?

I realise that this isn't always possible, but I see only the most tenuous connection between the name and the trope.

I've always considered that a ridiculous standard, unless a trope exists in name alone.

Name is fine, from my perspective.

^But even if the name can't be a case of Exactly What It Says on the Tin, it should at least have more than a minor tangential relation to the trope. This one...doesn't.

Personally, although I didn't leap into epiphanic apprehension from the name alone, a glance at the context and later, the trope page gave it to me. If I saw:

X-Men

• Fail Polish: Calisto.

I'd have an idea.

Though I would write it as:

X-Men

• Fail Polish: Calisto got this a lot before Masque explicitly turned her into a supermodel.

Writing a bad example on purpose is becoming almost as painful to me as writing poor grammar on purpose. Disturbing...

I understand. I can't bring myself to add them to tropes I'm making in the YKTTW.

With respect to expecting a title to tell you what the trope is without reading the article... One thing I've learned from reviewing hundreds of wicks is that a trope's title does 95+% of its work in its wicks. Those wicks have a life of their own: they convey meaning by being cited as an example and in sentences, particularly when they aren't potholed but used as an integral part of a sentence. When a title doesn't mean what the trope means, a signifcant number of sentences elsewhere in the wiki communicate much less than they could.

I suspect a fair proportion of readers will read Fail Polish and not get that it relates to ugliness or oddity. What is failing? Is something failing and then really failing — the fail is getting polished?

I support a rename.

edited 21st Jan '11 9:22:11 PM by Camacan

It seems reasonably clear to me. "Nail Polish" is a sort of "beauty" product, so "Fail Polish" is about beautifying "Fail".

It's not absolutely necessary that you be able to figure out what the trope's about from the name alone, but clicking on it and glancing at the description should produce a "Oh, now I get it" reaction, at least, which I think this one does.

Seems all right to me. The name isn't great, but it's not bad either. Assuming there is enough demand to change it methinks Helter's suggestion of Progressively Prettier works rather well; though something with a noun in it seems more appealing. Sequel Beautification Syndrome? All three of the names work for me.

I never had a problem with the title, but I agree that it's ambiguous enough that a name change wouldn't hurt. (They amount to the same thing, but it's hard to be sure if "Fail Polish" means that the polish is fail or that the fail is being polished.) Progressively Prettier would be fine. Sequel Beautification Syndrome just sounds like a slightly different version of Adaptational Attractiveness.

edited 14th Mar '11 1:50:25 PM by Cameoflage

I saw the trope for the first time on a Castlevania page, applied to Alucard, and I was almost certain it was something that would be moved to YMMV. Clicking the link, it took me a moment to register that the trope had absolutely nothing to do with Fail or Failure.

Every time I hear the word "fail" I think of Epic Fail, which also has nothing to do with the trope.

I assumed it had something to do with someone being really bad at applying nail polish.

I think the trope name is fine. It is a fail depending on which side you're looking at it. Say for instance an artist takes a character who has normally been viewed as ugly or plain or just unattractive in a conventional sense, and prettied them up with no believable explanation out side of making said character more marketable to the masses.(ie. It doesn't make sense story wise but who cares he/she is hot now.) Completely missing the point of the character's unattractiveness. That is a fail.

But in some cases this would be subjective. I look at Chell in Portal 2 and subjectively consider that Fail Polish. Chell in Portal 1 was grimy, haggard, and unglamorous. But it made perfect sense given the situation she was in. A Lab Rat stripped of her humanity. Forgettable in a sea of thousands of other doomed test subjects. It was her tenacity and intelligence that made her stand out. I might be wrong but I considered those to be deliberate design choices.

Between the two games, at what point during Chell's stasis sleep of several centuries did she find a hairbrush, shampoo, make-up, and time to take a shower? Or a room to shower in for that matter. Maybe a robot did it but the only reference made to her drastically altered appearance is Gla DOS calling her 'fat'. When you open the door during "The Courtesy Call", Wheatley shirks back as if he's seen ogre. Gauge his reaction against how Chell's model appears in that game. Are you fucking kidding me?

Chell in Portal 2 is Zoe 2.0 It's also kind of weird that they'd bother changing her appearance so much when you can never see Chell unless you screw around with the portals. But like I said it's subjective. I guess the only way it can be objective is if the sudden "prettying up" of a character can't be explained in the story.

edited 11th May '11 12:35:13 PM by Pigeonsmall