Ba-bump.
Always hiding my keys in the bug bucket, you bastard dog.That one is okay. It's a lot funnier than it is representative.
Fight smart, not fair.An extra bump just in case.
Always hiding my keys in the bug bucket, you bastard dog.what do you mean by "more funny than it is representative?"
Always hiding my keys in the bug bucket, you bastard dog.He means it's using the trope more for humor than actually showing it.
It's not bad. I like it. I'm hoping for a bit more though.
Fight smart, not fair.At one point, I added a picture of Superman from Lex Luthor: Man of Steel to the page; Superman is recognizable as a hero on his own, but was here depicted as clearly an enemy. Would that fit?
Where did you add it? Is it in the Image Links section or something?
Fight smart, not fair.I thought Tommy Lee Jones' character from the fugitive was a great example. The movie is a classic that's still loved by many cinema buffs, though I see that it's not quite so loved here.
Well, it's not that it's not loved (I've personally never seen it), but being loved and being a classic and being well known to critics don't really matter to the standards that we use to pick images. The most important of which is "shows the trope" and whether the example is good, isn't as important as if the image is good. We've got a full list of standards on How To Pick A Good Image.
Fight smart, not fair.Having read this thread from start to finish, I think it would be best if we laid some ground rules for using a character as an image.
1) It should be a character that is well known in pop culture, as a whole. Not just to a specific subculture. While the Fugitive might be a good example for movie buffs, and L would be a good one for anime fans, neither are particularly iconic, and therefore, Just A Face And A Caption.
2) Failing that, it should be self-evident from the image that the person in question is A) the antagonist, and B) a heroic character.
3) This is very important, the person in the picture should actually be an example of the trope.
Now getting past all that, I don't think we can do this with a character. If there's an infographic, or some kind of original drawing that ca be made to exemplify it, that should be workable.
TVTropes Nuzlocke Thread. - Arceus Help Us All.Suzaku from Code Geass, in a contrast shot with Lelouch in his Zero outfit?
I am now known as Flyboy.We'd need to see the actual picture, but I'd like to point out that to someone not familiar with Code Geass, Suzaku would look like he was the protagonist, not just the hero.
TVTropes Nuzlocke Thread. - Arceus Help Us All.How about the boxart for Mario Vs Donkey Kong, which is currently being used on its work page? Everyone knows Mario's a hero, and DK has his own games and he's shown in Mario spinoffs to be on good terms with Mario's friends. Yet it refers back to the original iconic Donkey Kong game, where you're Mario trying to save the girl from the big ape.
1 isn't important. At all.
Fight smart, not fair.Most of the promo art (and fanart) puts the two together, Lelouch in black and Suzaku in white. There are shots from the show, I'm sure, as well, and you can very obviously tell that Lelouch is evil (or at least an Anti-Villain) and Suzaku is not (or at least an Anti-Hero).
I guess the caption would do the protagonist/antagonist part, though... hm...
I am now known as Flyboy.Bumping suggestion:
I don't see how that helps. As near as I can tell, in that picture Mario is the hero, and Kong is the antagonist.
Rhetorical, eh? ... Eight!I know how much of a pain it is to crop, but there's the old standby Oot S. Miko (a paladin) shows up to arrest the protagonists in this strip and the next one. In this case she's more of an Inspector Javert, though.
Edit: In fact, I think Miko would be better on that page than this one. And the Inspector Javert pic isn't very demonstrative.
edited 14th Sep '11 7:38:49 AM by unhappyyak
First key to interpreting a work: Things mean things.Maybe we could use the following from this, since the police are the hero antagonists of GTA.
"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon Stewart
That's not bad for an example...does it make sense to people who don't know GTA?
First key to interpreting a work: Things mean things.I get it.
Maybe a cursory mention of GTA in the caption? I just want to head off the "but how do I know that they're antagonists" argument.
First key to interpreting a work: Things mean things.I would say either pothole pic to article and caption to GTA or vice versa.
"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon Stewart
What about this one: