• 1 Jun 23rd, 2018 at 10:10AM
    Lastest Reply: 23rd Jun, 2018 11:45:53 AM
    I just looked at the Film/Serendipity page and history due to Professional 7's ATT post, and noticed concerning behavior relating to one example. The page contains a Bare Your Midriff entry, which was previously deleted by Larkmarn with the edit reason "This sounds less like the trope and more like 'her midriff was exposed for a second' which is not the trope." Months later, Professional 7 re-added the same example without any edit reason given or any entry on the discussion page. The example was re-added word-for-word (right down to a misspelling), so it was clearly copy-pasted from the version Larkmarn deleted rather than an independent addition.

    The original example was not added by Professional 7, but rather by a troper called 1390883, so it may not technically be an edit war. However, the original example writer, 1390883, seemed to be obsessed with that entry (as in 20+ edits by 1390883 solely devoted to editing and re-editing that one example over the course of months, often to add external image links).

    I think Larkmarn's deletion was correct based on the example, but I didn't want to wade into this and continue the delete vs. add spree without getting further input, and thought the history was bizarre enough that it ought to be brought to mods attention in general. Reply

      Well, 1390883 was banned for sexual fetishism on the wiki, but Professional 7 has no particular editing patterns. I'd try with a PM or removing then putting on the discussion page.
  • 1 Jun 22nd, 2018 at 12:12PM
    Lastest Reply: 23rd Jun, 2018 11:07:39 AM
    Anyone want to help give contributions and additions to the Serendipity movie tropes page? Its been dormant for a long time. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Film/Serendipity#dropdown Reply

      The current page appears to be full of Zero Context Examples and not well crosswicked (there doesn't appear to be much overlap between the trope list and the page wicks under Related Pages), so if you want to improve the page, those would be good things to start with. Proper crosswicking may naturally enable more interested tropers to come across the page (of course, the examples should have sufficient context before being added the trope pages). The Zero Context Examples will need to be commented out entirely if they're cleaned up by someone unfamiliar with the work, so if you want it to thrive, filling them out as much as you can is important.
  • 3 Jun 22nd, 2018 at 10:10AM
    Lastest Reply: 22nd Jun, 2018 08:16:46 PM
    I added to the YMMV page for Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom regarding Narm, only for troper TantaMonty to remove them.

    • The scene where Mills tells the heroes that Maisie is actually a clone comes right out of no where, with Mills having little reason to tell them. The sheer jarring way it is revealed is much funnier than it should be, since it was clearly meant to be a Shocking Swerve, but didn't quite land the mark.
    • The film graces us with perhaps the silliest death in the entire series: Mills killing Lockwood by suffocating him with a pillow. The hilarity of such a thing in a movie filled with killer Dinosaurs is much funnier than the film probably realized.

    Their reason as: The mere fact Lockwood was killed by something that was not a dinosaur is not funny at all, as he was just a feeble old man murdered by one of the most despicable characters in the movie. Also, Eli did have a reason to reveal Maisie's origins, in his own twisted mind he thought that Owen and Claire would stop caring for the young girl if they find out she was the result of unethical genetic practices..

    Are these valid examples? The first one is valid if you ask me since how the scene is framed just has the reveal happen as if telling the audience, and the reason they removed it is just using headcanon for why since there isn't a reason for it. Plus, unless the trope is a misuse, opinions are still valid as far as I am aware.

    Plus it seems like the troper might be semi policing the movies pages, which can be a problem going forward. Also I should add I don't mind if these are seen as bad examples, just wanted to make sure. Reply

      That first example violates Spoiler Policy in that it whites-out the entire thing. The second one also whites out a massive part of it, too.

      The second example violates Examples Are Not Arguable; YMMV items are arguable by definition, so "perhaps" isn't an appropriate word to use there.

      Understandable fixes I forgot about. It was the content that I was more concerned on, I can fix those mistakes easily.

      I think with the second one at least they’re confusing simply unintentionally funny with narm, and saying it’s only that way because of wider, meta, context. That would make it misuse. In my own opinion, both of them sound wrong but if someone interpreted it that way then it (the first) can stay
  • 2 Jun 21st, 2018 at 5:05AM
    Lastest Reply: 21st Jun, 2018 06:22:54 AM
    A few days back I corrected the name of one spoiler character on all pages for Solo Giving the following edit reason: "Darth" is a title reserved for Sith Lords, and by the time The Clone Wars, Rebels and this movie takes place, he is no longer one, he says this himself on the former two works . However troper smasll_lordvoice added more entries with the incorrect name and reverted some of my changes with no edit reason. I've PM them but received no reply, as such I ask if I could make the corrections again without incurring into an Edit War. Reply

      Eh, revert and start a discussion about this.

      I think we need a better way of handling the "edit, someone reverts the edit, the edit gets restored" editing pattern than to jump to the banhammer immediately but I am not currently sitting on an idea for a solution...

      Thanks, reverted and opened a discussion thread.
  • 4 Jun 17th, 2018 at 4:04PM
    Lastest Reply: 20th Jun, 2018 01:55:00 PM
    Noticed a lot of entries about Star Wars on SeinfeldIsUnfunny.Live Action Films that seem to argue with themselves, get facts incorrect, or are nattery.

    "Darth Vader was noted in 1977 for being one of the scariest villains on-screen at the time. However, after becoming a heavily-marketed Series Mascot (even to kids), having seen Luke, I Am Your Father parodied a million times (which are, more often than not, more or less equal amount of Darth Vader clones) in the Expanded Universe,note  and after getting to see villains like Exar Kun, Darth Revan or Kylo Ren, Vader is no longer perceived as the sinister force he once was, and instead has a reputation as a "cool" character akin to a superhero. Rogue One addresses this by depicting Vader, a One-Scene Wonder here, at his most sinister and brutal - making him Nightmare Fuel by 2016 standards and reminding audiences of why he's such a fearsome character."

    "*** With some female fans complaining about the use of The Smurfette Principle in the series, many forget that having a woman like Leia being just as heroic as the male heroes was a groundbreaking move in the first place. Like the Vader example, this was addressed in The Force Awakens by having Rey, a woman, as the surprise main character, giving her a surge in popularity and serving as a breakthrough for the aging franchise." Seems unclear in the latter part if it's referring to Rey or Leia.

    "*** George Lucas changed the "Han shot first" scene because he and MPAA thought it was too dark and violent. Nowadays with the normalization of heroes shooting first, many fans consider the change to be an overreaction especially since Greedo was pointing a blaster at Han and he was acting in self-defense. Not helping matters is how later films show moments of heroes trying to kill helpless people like Cassian shooting a handicapped informant or Luke trying to kill his sleeping nephew." Han shot first was only changed in the '98 special editions, 21 years after ANH was first released. Reply

      These entries just reek of complaining and making mountains out of molehills.

      I see your point guys, but I need some elaboration as to why you feel that way. Please tell me what is wrong with these entries.

      Lucas always meant to be Vader to be a tragic character, marketability or coolness aside. Perhaps that could be mentioned.

      This just barges into SJW territory. People complain about Rey because they feel that the only special thing about her is that she is a Force-wielding woman. Leia was more popular because she was defined by her agency, leadership skills and kindness towards others; not to mention that fandoms in the 1970s weren't that vocal in their displeasure. The Internet offers the benefit of anonymity.

      Lucas has one way of interpreting Han's character; the fans have another.

      I'd vote to cut them. It does come across as thinly-veiled fanboy whining, especially the Vader entry comparing him to old EU villains that only a minority of fans would know (Kylo Ren excluded).
  • 3 Jun 19th, 2018 at 7:07AM
    Lastest Reply: 20th Jun, 2018 11:26:29 AM
    Editor nirao01 has re-added two examples on Deadpool 2 (that were removed earlier for being extremely iffy and stretching the tropes' definition) without going through discussion first.


      Here is the relevant edit history for the page.


      Seems like a huge stretch. Pull them and any iffy examples to discussion and hash it out there.
  • 1 Jun 18th, 2018 at 6:06AM
    Lastest Reply: 18th Jun, 2018 06:56:18 AM
    I'm looking for cartoon/name, it's and older cartoon..probably 70-80-90's..it was about a little girl with short golden hair, that I think lived in the some sort of magical forest with her mushroom friends protecting her against bald man who was always trying to steal her hair so he could wear it, he always pictured him self in the mirror with her hair but always failed to steal it from her. anyone know the name of that cartoon plz??? Reply
  • 2 Jun 18th, 2018 at 4:04AM
    Lastest Reply: 18th Jun, 2018 05:59:14 AM
    Very often in action films, there will be a scene where the villain has captured some hostages, or is about to release the super-weapon, and says that the The Hero will be morally responsible for all these deaths unless The Villain gets what he wants. This is obviously wrong as The Villain is both practically and morally responsible for their own actions.

    Is there an existing Trope that describes this? It is similar to Accomplice by Inaction, but it is more about misplaced morality/responsibility. Reply

      Ask in Trope Finder.

      Thanks. Will do. (I thought I had but obviously got lost along the way...)
  • 7 Jun 13th, 2018 at 5:05PM
    Lastest Reply: 17th Jun, 2018 06:01:36 AM
    The Star Wars Expanded Universe page includes the theatrical Star Wars films, all of them dating back to Star Wars in 1977.

    It would seem logical that the theatrical films should not be on the Franchise index for Expanded Universe. The film are base canon (or whatever you'd call that). The Expanded Universe is everything else that's grown out of the theatrical features—cartoons, radio dramas, books, comic books, the Holiday Special, blah blah blah. You can't expand something from itself.

    EDIT: The movies are also in Star Wars Legends. Reply


      I suggest simply moving the index tab to below the lists of theatrical features.

      I agree the theatrical films should be removed from the EU franchise page. That it was included there to begin with is really rather bizarre.

      ETA: the examples section also includes those from both pre- and post-Disney theatrical films (see Anyone Can Die for one offender). Needs some serious cleaning up, as this doesn't even adhere to the EU definition in the description.

      So, which is better, moving the index tag to below the list of the theatrical features so they don't show up on the index, or removing the list of theatrical features?

      I would be inclined to remove them from the listings altogether. It's already mentioned that they are a part of the broader Star Wars franchise. The theatrical films and the Clone Wars series are the "base text"; as supplementary texts, the EU and Legends draw from them, but that does not make them a part of those supplementary materials.

      One last bump. I'm gonna delete those film lists from the pages unless someone objects.

      Personally, I am inclined to agree that the theatrical films do not belong on the expanded universe/legends pages. So go ahead and delete.

      Theatrical films removed from each page.
  • 4 Jun 9th, 2018 at 11:11AM
    Lastest Reply: 15th Jun, 2018 02:17:55 AM
    [Markings as private; wasn't sure the best way to go about it]

    Following the discussion in another lengthy ATT thread, the dominant consensus (12 in favor, 4 against) seems to be to move the article to the Useful Notes namespace, cut the trope list, and maybe expand on the footage's influence and how it has been used in works.

    However, I wanted to obtain a go-ahead before making such a move; early in the conversation Septimus Heap indicated they disagreed with my original query, but it didn't seem like a solid verdict. Considering the discussion that had since transpired, I wanted to get a solid answer. Reply


      Bumping one last time; considering it was never denied in the first place, if there is no response I'll go ahead and move the page and make the changes discussed, noting the ATT thread and the dominant consensus reached there.

      Normally 12-4 would be enough to warrant such a relocation, but as-is Zapruder Film is not really suitable for Useful Notes; it has no mentions of the topic in fiction. So either it should be simply cut or processed through TRS or someone needs to add a few storytelling references to the film.

      Thanks — adding examples of its use in fiction was something discussed as needed to be added with a move to Useful Notes. I'll go request for the TRP to be re-opened.
  • 1 Jun 13th, 2018 at 8:08AM
    Lastest Reply: 13th Jun, 2018 08:18:01 AM
    I just created an account yesterday so I can add posts for my favorite movie, ( since it premired in February, there's has been a lack of new updates ) and I don't know how to hide spoilers. Please help. Reply

      You put whatever you want to hide inside spoiler tags [[spoiler:like this]] becomes like this

      Before you go spoiler happy though, be sure to give Handling Spoilers a once over if you haven't already.
  • 1 Jun 12th, 2018 at 6:06AM
    Lastest Reply: 12th Jun, 2018 07:00:27 AM
    Im not sure if it was a tv show but I was born in 95 and I have brothers older than me so it couldve been from before the 90s but all I can remember from this show is it was cartoon animals and they were going on a train I think maybe to the beach? And in one part a hippo loses her earring down the drain on the train and an anteater helps her get it out. Its literally not that important but I would just love to know what its called so I can remind my brothers, we would watch it a lot Reply
  • 3 Jun 11th, 2018 at 8:08AM
    Lastest Reply: 11th Jun, 2018 11:32:09 AM
    Found this on the Solo YMMV page by Troper Pren:

    • Fandom Berserk Button: Even with the film being an undeniable Box Office Bomb, unlike when The Last Jedi was hit with the claim against all sanity, it's still a sore point when the alt-right conspirators trying to destroy the franchise claim this as their doing. In particular, it's often rebutted with how the only film in the revived franchise to date to lose money is also the only one with a white male lead.

    This is....yeah no, this needs to go. No valid claims about "alt-right conspirators", and the troper seems to be shoehorning a political Take That! against people who seem to disagree about the film not making a lot of money. Also, white male lead isn't the issue, if anything its that the movie exists at all that some dislike.

    Edit: This troper has been going around and making some very political laced claims across several other pages it seems. For example they added this on One Day at a Time (2017).

    • Counterpart Comparison: One brought up by Netflix itself, as after the Roseanne revival was cancelled due to Roseanne Barr's racist Tweets, Netflix made their own Tweet about how they also currently have a reboot of a classic sitcom about a working class family that deals with a bunch of political issues, twisting the knife by pointing out how theirs is still going.

    Might need to talk to them about them pushing political based opinions in areas that don't seem to be there. Trying to find a good way to word it so apologies. Reply

      Fandom Berserk Button is misuse anyway as it's now define as a misconception on the media. Counterpart is also being misuse. They can be deleted.

      Was going to delete it anyway since it was a misuse, but wanted to bring it up here.

      Both of those are being misused: Fandom Berserk Button is for objective mistakes about works that annoy fans (and besides it's more likely Solo bombed because it had to compete with Avengers: Infinity War and Deadpool 2 rather than any political reason) and Coutnerpart Comparison is for characters, not works.
  • 7 Jun 6th, 2018 at 10:10AM
    Lastest Reply: 9th Jun, 2018 06:32:45 PM
    From Film.The Last Jedi:
    • Double Standard: Abuse, Female on Male: The movie has a serious problem with this.
      • Rey versus Luke. Just imagine a young man with combat training initiating a fight with an old woman by whacking her on the head.
      • Rose abuses Finn quite a lot throughout the movie especially when they first meet, and her transgressions include everything from personal insults to outright violence. All of it adds a disturbing subtext to their possible romantic relationship.
      • The way Leia and Holdo treat of Poe. In Leias case, she slaps and shoots Poe, her subordinate and surrogate son, in public, and not a single person acknowledges that her actions are a gross violation of their professional and personal relationship. In Holdos case, many of her actions (name-calling, hostile sarcasm, and withholding information) are forms of emotional abuse.

    Given all the controversy TLJ is attracting, I must question this. Thoughts? Reply

      The Rey vs Luke example may be an example, but I think it would have to be expanded and worded much better in order to say for sure. I'm not entirely certain what it is trying to say. The other two are just shoehorning. The bit about "this movie has a serious problem with this" definitely needs to go.

      The bulk of Rose's abuse stemmed from the (not inaccurate) assumption that Finn has decided Screw This, I'm Outta Here!, and she was stationed there to prevent anyone from doing exactly that. Poe, meanwhile, had gotten several people killed disobeying orders and led a mutiny.

      I think those at least fall under the trope's "morally justifiable" clause

      Not having seen the work, and knowing how the MR As are up in arms about it, it seems to be more "instances of women being violent and that's not fair."

      The examples are dubious at best. The Holdo One is just flat out wrong and seems like trying to find some imagined moral high ground to justify hating a crappy subplot. Stretching Holdo's unprofessionalism to emotional abuse is just that, a stretch.

      All those are shoehorned examples. Especially the first as it's just a general confrontation of the two.

      Shoehorns. Remove them.

      I agree that these are shoehorns.
  • 37 Jun 6th, 2018 at 8:08PM
    Lastest Reply: 9th Jun, 2018 10:21:23 AM
    I seriously question the inclusion of Zapruder Film as a tropable piece of media. Troping real life is explicitly not allowed, and that's exactly what the raw unedited footage essentially is. Not to mention that some trope entries are really rather tasteless in this context.

    Given its recognition by the National Film Registry and historical significance, however, I think the description could be transferred to a Useful Notes page while removing the tropes section. Otherwise the Film entry should be cutlisted (or, following a namespace transfer, turned into a redirect). Reply

      I am minded to disagree. Footage isn't real life even when it's raw and unedited, since it is selective and from a certain angle. And policy-wise Real Life does not really extend to such things.

      I agree that the work should stay, but I also think the trope list can be cleaned up on the basis that it is, for all intents, a news clip.

      I mean...

      • Celebrity Cameo: JFK and his wife Jackie.
      • Doomed Protagonist: Everybody knows from the start that JFK will be shot during the ride.

      JFK isn't the protagonist and he isn't a cameo. And even if this were a piece of fiction he can't be both at the same time based on the definitions of the tropes.

      I'm not sure I understand Septimus Heap's position. News footage may technically not be unfiltered "real life" but it does not seem tropable in the sense that, say, a documentary would be.

      I agree with Mahidevrans. It's not news footage. It's someone's raw home-movie footage of something that turned into a horrible tragedy. They never wanted it to be "media". If someone was filming you when a bomb goes off in the street, would you want that raw vid to be troped here, Septimius? It's the same thing. It's Real Life. Make a Useful Notes page, but having it as a tropable work would be opening up too many awful doors.

      (edit: what is it with this site & my iPad? It always replaces all my special characters with the ascii-code stuff. Editing this from my laptop.)

      The page definitely seems tasteless in my opinion.

      I created this work page.

      I would like it known that someone with the username awalk88, who may or may not be a sock puppet of mahidevrans, has already wiped out all the tropes on the page, without any consensus or support, and started a Trope Repair Shop thread, which has not been opened.

      I recommend that the TRS thread be sent to the morgue and the trope list be edited/curated. As Septimus Heap notes, film is not Real Life. The Zapruder Film is a work, which has been put in the National Film Registry as an important work in American film. It merits a page.

      Restored the deleted examples section, until consensus is reached. I also did a little cleanup on the examples.

      If the examples are kept (I could go either way), I'd cut Celebrity Cameo, Doomed Protagonist (for the reasons given by Daefaroth), and Screw This, I'm Outta Here! (stated to be subverted, which is impossible in unscripted real-life footage since subversions require the author to intentionally play with our expectations).

      I also agree with Daefaroth that the examples should be cleaned up. I think In the Back, Pink Mist, and Boom, Headshot! are entirely legit. Also now Jump Cut, come to think of it, since there is a jump cut between the opening shot of the motorcycles and the presidential limo.

      jamepolk, the Zapruder Film IS real life. Are you seriously trying to claim that the Kennedy Assassination didn't occur? It's not a re-enactment. It shows the assassination as it occurs. We are seeing a real, live human getting assassinated. The movie was never intended as a "work", nor to be released by the man who filmed it; Zapruder was only a bystander filming the Kennedy motorcade. What justification are you using to call it a "work"?

      And Boom, Headshot! is one of the worst examples on there — you are applying that to SOMEONE'S REAL LIFE MURDER, RIGHT IN FRONT OF HIS WIFE. Seriously?? SERIOUSLY?? It's not a Deadpool comic, james.

      A documentary is a work — that's someone deliberately filming events or gathering footage to create a separate piece of non-fiction, intending it for release to the public. But that home movie is NOT a documentary. It's been fictionalized via other movies, yes. But that does not make the original film a work or mean it should be troped. The Registry only included the film because of its historical significance as *evidence* in Kennedy's murder, and the film's notoriety.

      We don't trope real people here. That home-movie shows real people getting murdered, and you're trying to apply tropes to a tragedy and to those real people dying in front of our eyes. What's next? Will we allow the raw video of Bud Dwyer's suicide to have a tropes page? Or that audio recording of Tim Treadwell & his girlfriend being eaten alive by bears? Or the raw footage of that newswoman that committed suicide on camera? Or all the home videos that captured 9/11 by accident? Or the home videos that capture all the various atrocities by accident, like cop cam footage? There's no difference between any of those and the Zapruder Film.

      There's No Such Thing as Notability, yes, but at what point do we draw the line between that and not troping real people? As I said, we should definitely have a Useful Notes page on Zapruder's film, but not tropes. Troping someone's assassination & murder is way over any line we draw.

      Regardless of intent, the Zapruder Film is a work, a documentary recording of a historical event. It was released for public viewing, even if it was not intended to be such. It's in the National Film Registry. There's a Wikipedia article for it. It was copyrighted.

      That doesn't mean it should be troped. We have the No Real Life Examples, Please! rule for a reason, and the rules concerning not troping Real People for a reason, and the whole ROCEJ for a reason. That home movie falls squarely into those rules. You're troping someone's murder, for crying out loud.

      I'll be blunt — that's what that movie & that Tropes page falls into. It's not fiction. It's not a documentary. Having it as a works page means we're TROPING THE MURDER OF A REAL PERSON. We're not troping a documentary about the event. We're not troping a fictionalization. We're TROPING THE ACTUAL MURDER.

      There's no veneer of third-person separation or viewpoint here. The only "viewpoint" is that Mr. Zapruder was standing on that street corner pointing his camera in that direction. There's nothing of Mr. Zapruder in the film, nothing that shows his hand as any kind of author or artist. As I said, allowing this film to have a tropes page is opening up too many awful doors. Just because something has been recorded does not mean it should have a tropes page.

      The home videos that captured 9/11 by accident are in fact troped as part of that documentary by the Naudet brothers.

      Septimus Heap: with all due respect, this seems like a glaring loophole with regards to the Real Life policy; I largely echo Franks Girl on it opening up a lot of awful doors. Yes, it's shot from a specific angle, and the cameraman selected his subject — but there isn't intent in that choice, so I don't see how comparing it to the decision of a director (or even a documentary filmmaker/editor presenting it in a specific context) applies here. I do not see how it could be considered a "work" as such.

      jamespolk: I'm not advocating the complete removal of the article as the best option, I mentioned it's significance in the original post and that there is nothing wrong with the description itself. It's the tropability I'm disputing, based on the evaluation that it qualifies as Real Life. The issues with Celebrity Cameo and its ilk have already been stated. But like Franks Girl mentions, having Boom, Headshot! and Pink Mist in this context — as though it's a special effect — is quite frankly tasteless. Dare I say treating it in this manner is like troping a snuff film.

      ETA: I've reviewed the work page for the 9/11 documentary and don't think the two are comparable in the least.

      I'll agree with the others voicing their objections: I really don't think this is media or a documentary, it's unedited footage of a real-life murder.

      Yeah, troping a video of a real life person being murdered seems really morally wrong on multiple levels.

      I'd like to add that saying Boom, Headshot! in reaction to a real person's murder is probably in bad taste, so that may be another trope to remove from the list.

      But the examples have all been cut even though a consensus hasn't been reached, which would make this an Edit War.

      Indeed. awalk88 is now edit warring.

      He/she deleted, I restored, he/she deleted again.

      If I may interject in support of keeping the page (in some form or other) — sorry it's long:

      The first objection appears to be that it violates policy on troping Real Life persons. However, this policy doesn't appear to say that no real life person or event can be troped. In fact, Kennedy has his own page, mostly to describe why he's famous and to give insight into his appearances as a Historical-Domain Character. This film, which chronicles an event about him so important it has its own trope, is part of that insight. I think some Tropers occasionally mix up the policy stating that you shouldn't trope a real-life person as if he were a character in a movie, but that doesn't mean you can't trope him at all. On Creator Page Guidelines, it says that different rules apply to Historical Domain Characters (and even explicitly cites The Presidents as an example — a group that includes Kennedy himself). We have No Real Life Examples, Please! as well, but that should be seen as a list of tropes that shouldn't be included on the page, not a prohibition against having the page itself.

      The second objection appears to be that it's tasteless to have a page on a video about a real-life person getting his head blown in half. While it's certainly not pleasant to watch, and it's normal to feel some level of revulsion upon seeing the death of a real person (and his wife's reaction to it), this is not a reason for a work not to have a page. In fact, given that footage of the Zapruder Film was shown on network television and in such works as Oliver Stone's JFKnote  so it's not exactly a content issue. It's important to separate taste and personal revulsion from historical relevance — and, by extension, being as complete a repository of tropes as we can be. If we need to include some horrifying stuff to do that, then we do that.

      Some may point to our policy of not having pages for certain objectionable works, but I see those works as being banned not because of the users' revulsion at the works' content, but rather the general Internet population's inability to discuss these works in a mature and intelligent fashion. (Now, given that Kennedy was a political figure and remains fodder for conspiracy theories, this might be the case for the Zapruder Film as well, but we can just lock the page and cite the Rule of Cautious Editing Judgment.)

      The third objection appears to be that it's in the wrong namespace and should be in Useful Notes rather than Film. This I can get behind. It wasn't scripted or drafted or otherwise thought of the way a film might be. As such, it wouldn't contain tropes per se. But it is a piece of important source material for works wanting to discuss or portray Kennedy's assassination, and works that show or recreate Zapruder Film footage are deriving tropes from it (including the tasteless ones like Boom, Headshot!), so it helps to at least have background on the source material.

      TL;DR: Keep it, make it Useful Notes. Too many works rely on it as a reference.

      I made the page with the feeling that it is a micro-documentary or an "actuality film". Like, say, Roundhay Garden Scene or the films of the Lumiere brothers.

      Real Life violent tragedies can and have been fodder for tropes when they are presented for viewers. A comparison was made above to the Budd Dwyer suicide video. I would not make a Budd Dwyer Snuff Video trope page, but there's a documentary I keep seeing on Amazon called Honest Man about guess who, and it would be legit to trope that, and it would be legit to derive a trope from the Dwyer suicide video if it's in the documentary (I haven't watched it yet). I would not make a page for Tim Treadwell getting eaten by a bear, but if Werner Herzog had chosen to include that audio recording in Grizzly Man, it would have been legit to derive a trope from that.

      Of course, I wouldn't have made a work page for the Zapruder film if I hadn't seen it on the National Film Registry.

      I don't *like* making the article Useful Notes because I disagree some of the other posters in this thread. Pink Mist doesn't seem inherently distasteful to me.

      But I'm willing to accept group consensus. If we decide to keep it in the Film namespace, maybe it would be a good idea to make it a locked page.

      ^^^ Yeah, edit-warring and making preemptive sweeping edits certainly isn't helpful.

      Golden Seal: As stated above, I personally think a transfer to Useful Notes would be the best option, as it's important enough to be included in that form. This would also mean zapping the questionable trope list.

      The question of troping Real Life here has to do with troping an actual historical event captured on camera, not works featuring Historical-Domain Character representation, which as far as I know has never been an issue.

      As for the dsecont point: Oliver Stone's film, at least to me, is more akin to the 9/11 example that was offered above as comparison. There its used as a part as an actual work; any inclusion is by the choice of the filmmaker and used as a primary document to create a narrative, support a point. If you were to say "The documentary includes footage of the fatal shot filmed by Zapruder" in the entry for that film, But outside of that, it's just straight-up murder footage. Historically important murder footage, yes — one that has value on the site, given how it has used and re-enacted in other works — but still murder footage.

      ETA: So I actually agree with jamespolk's philosophy in the last post, except I don't see how this is different than troping Dwyer or Treadwell footage as a thing of it's own (beyond recognition of its historical relevance.)

      Im on the side that there's no narrative here, and thus nothing to trope. However, this makes me think this could make things like Anne Franks Diary a bit of a hipocrisiy in my argument. Still, this footage has NO NARRATIVE. It shouldnt be troped.

      I agree with this being kept as Useful Notes. The tropes, however, are in incredibly poor taste. It is not a documentary; it is not a film. It is home video footage of a murder. Pink Mist is bad enough, but Boom Headshot? I was appalled when I read through the tropes; it’s absolutely not appropriate. I agree with Franks Girl. The tropes need to go. What is even the point of keeping them? I’m genuinely asking.

      "Roundhay Garden Scene" is an experimental storytelling medium. Definitely a work, like the first videogame or novel made from the printing press. Het Achterhuis repackages the diary, getting translations into other languages; like English. The original diary wouldn't be a work, but the published versions have editing and annotations. The title, for example, wasn't chosen by Anne. The contrast between Budd Dwyer's personal film and Honest Man is a good one; raw footage versus deliberate packaging. The same thing happened with home videos from the 9/11 incident; raw footage can be turned into a work, like the documentary by the Naudet brothers. Another comparison would be the raw footage from a surveillance camera. Not a selection, the whole tape. It wouldn't be a work, even though a work could be created from it. That's how Meerkat Manor was created; editing days/weeks of raw footage and adding a narration.

      The fact that many works use the Zapruder Film as a source of Stock Footage and is a record of an important event in American Presidential history are reasonable claims for inclusion on our wiki. But the appropriate place is Useful Notes, where we explain how the film is used in/by other works, rather than treating it as a work itself. Like an Historical-Domain Character, we can list tropes that reflect how it is used, like Stock Footage, but we wouldn't trope the video itself.

      This should be turned into Useful Notes and the tropes removed. If we aren't going to slap tropes on the pages for real life people any more, we shouldn't be putting them on footage of a real person's murder either.

      This is getting too long. I suggest transferring this to a discussion forum.

      Someone made a Trope Repair Shop entry for the page, but it hasnt been unlocked yet.

      That may not be necessary — I think the general consensus established here seems to be keep the page as it is relevant, but cut the trope list and move to Useful Notes, as well as expansion on where and how the footage has been used in specific works.

      Best to have mod(s) weigh in before such a change is initiated, though.

      I wouldn't think that the "documentary" aspect really qualifies it as being tropeable in this case. In the case of a documentary that's created with real life footage, that footage is contextualized by the rest of the production. In this particular case, it isn't a documentary or used as part of a larger work; it's raw footage. Historically important raw footage, but raw footage nonetheless. Unless Zapruder edited or formatted it in a particular fashion after the fact to form some sort of narrative or message I wouldn't think it qualifies for troping as "documentary recording of a real life event". Going by that logic, literally anything that's been captured on video could be troped as its own work.

      The difference between this and the 9/11 thing that Jamespolk mentioned is that in that case, it's part of a larger documentary that used the real life footage in a particular context for a particular person. The Zapruder film doesn't fit that criteria because Zapruder didn't even intend to catch the assassination on video in the first place, so he can't have had any sort of purpose to capturing it the way he did.

      TL;DR I vote for moving it to a Useful Notes page.

      Just to ensure that the apparent consensus is actually one (given the number of same-author postings), I went and counted the current state : 11 in favor of moving/cutting the trope list, 4 opposed (3 prior plus myself), 3 ambiguous or neutral positions.

      Yeah I agree that this should be turned into a Useful Notes page. Troping a real life persons murder with stuff like Boom, Headshot! is feels wrong

      ^^ Thanks for counting those u. It's now 12 with the input of miraculous. That seems like an acceptable threshold to me, but again I'd want a mod go-ahead before making such a move.

      I see two objections. I see people claiming that it isn't a work as it's just some guy's home movie, and I see people saying that troping a Real Life murder is in poor taste. I disagree with each. Zapruder set out that day with a camera to make a little movie, and he did. It turned out to be a lot more interesting than he would have guessed, but it's not the equivalent of, say, a security camera or a live news report. I submit again that it's a work just as much as Roundhay Garden Scene or the Lumire Films are.

      Similarly I disagree that it's in poor taste to make a trope list with things like Pink Mist (no duh, since I put it there!). The fact of the matter is that the Zapruder Film is the most commonly known and demonstrable proof that Pink Mist really does happen, at least with a rifle rather than with the handguns we see in the movies.

      But if it's the popular will to move it to Useful Notes, that's fine, I guess. I would hope that the appropriate links, such as its listing in the National Film Registry index, are updated.

      Ok, really, this is too long. If you want to discussed this, make a proper forum to do that. Otherwise this should be lock.

      Suggest moving to the discussion page

      (Tangent: Live news reports actually go through extensive real-time editing. Many people with very specific jobs are working simultaneously to adjust the video of a live event, and this is mostly why "live" events have a measurable delay in the broadcast.)

  • 4 Jun 6th, 2018 at 2:02PM
    Lastest Reply: 8th Jun, 2018 11:32:04 AM
    With the release of Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom coming up, and seeing that that its character page is split up in individual pages for each film, I propose splitting all the film pages into categories similar to other franchise pages, such as the Marvel Cinematic Universe and Star Wars character pages. Any other thoughts or objections...? Reply

      Any opinions / objections, etc....?

      I generally don't like that because characterization can change between films, and doing that makes it harder to find tropes in a specific movie.

      Ok, how about splitting them into:
      • Major Characters
      • Organisations
      • Civillians & Other Characters
      • Dinosaurs
        • Individual Dinosaurs

      I prefer each character page covers only tropes demonstrated in their respective films. The jumbling together of "dinosaurs from all the movies" and "major characters from all the movies" like the other franchise pages, such as MCU and Star Wars, make it harder to find tropes in a specific movie.
  • 5 Jun 4th, 2018 at 8:08PM
    Lastest Reply: 6th Jun, 2018 12:54:31 AM
    PStriderFan devotes a lot of time to making subpages for Film.Avengers Infinity War even when they're not long enough to warrant one and/or covered on a Marvel Cinematic Universe subpage.

    Examples: HolyShitQuotient.Avengers Infinity War, FanFicFuel.Avengers Infinity War, and Woobie.Avengers Infinity War, which was brought up in an ATT query before. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/query.php?parent_id=64355&type=att Reply

      It should be Fanfic Fuel at any rate.

      I really dislike this kind of practice of making unneeded subpages. I say cut them and readd them to ymmv page.

      I agree, the splits done here are a bit excessive. Move them back to YMMV.

      That is correct. There is no need to launch subpages unless the primary article becomes too cluttered.

      I've restored the examples listed on those three pages to the YMMV page and sent those pages to the cutlist.

      Also PM'ing P Strider Fan here.
  • 14 Jun 1st, 2018 at 5:05PM
    Lastest Reply: 4th Jun, 2018 03:50:05 PM
    I'm having a bit of heated discussion with another user for the film Christopher Robin (not to be confused with Goodbye Christopher Robin). This troper feels that because the book Christopher Robin is inspired by a real person Artistic License History applies but this upcoming move is based on the fictional Winnie the Pooh books with the plot being of Christopher Robin reuniting with Pooh and the gang. I explained as much to the troper when I deleted their entry only for them to readd it (which is against the rules I believe). I have been discussing it with them but they are refusing to budge from their opinion that the Christopher Robin is the one from from real life even though there so called evidence says that this story is fantasy and the wife and daughter in the film are made up and not based on the real CR's family. I don't know what to do so if someone could advise and/or help me out that would be great. I apologize if asking here is a bad move but the fact that me and the user have such strong opinions and no one else seems to be adding into the discussion I fear that talking with them any longer will eventually become a very nasty fight.


      I'll let someone else chime in on the question of how to handle the potential edit war that is resulting from this, but one thing I would like to say: the correct spelling is not "trouper" but "troper". No U. "Trouper" means an actor or entertainer, and "troupe" means a group of such performers (so your use of "troupe" instead of "trope" is also a misspelling).

      First of all, it's annoying that I can't reply to you directly. Secondly, why I was listening to my spellcheck when it told me to fix it, I'll never know. Thirdly, thank you, I have returned it to the way it should be spelled.

      It does seem obvious that it's about the character, not the real person. Something like that wouldn't be Artistic License History, anyway, which is for recognisable historic events being depicted actively inaccurately for the purpose of the story.

      Courtesy link. That said, I agree with you, as it's clear the trope doesn't apply here.

      While I'm glad people agree with me, I still don't know what to do. I've deleted their entry, explained my reasoning, they readded it, I tried to have a discussion about it but they won't budge. I can't redelete it without getting into an edit war and I doubt further discussion will be helpful either. What should I do?

      To me it sounds like the trope fits more likely than not but I am not familiar with the work, so.

      @Septimusheap, I am not sure what you mean but the film in question is based off of a fictional book, Winnie the Pooh not real life. The book character Christopher Robin is inspired by the author's son but unless Winnie the Pooh, who is in the film, can interact with the author's son, the movie is obviously not real life and therefore artistic license history does not apply. I apologize if I'm not explaining this well.

      The conceit in the books is that Christopher Robin is the narrator's son; the first Winnie the Pooh story actually uses Second-Person Narration. The running theme in the second book is that Christopher Robin is getting too old to play in the Hundred Acre Wood anymore. The conceit of the film is that Winnie is making contact again with an adult Christopher Robin. I would be inclined to agree that the character in the movie is an older "Christopher Robin" from the books and is not to be confused with Christopher Robin Milne the real person, and as such Artistic License History does not apply.

      And if I may indulge in a totally irrelevant piece of trivia that makes me happy: Christopher Milne's stuffed animals survived and are currently on public display in New York.

      And, as I said before, I'm pretty sure that AL:H isn't for any case of something that is from history being debated, but I guess for things that you would study in history class.

      I am really glad for everyone's input but I still don't know what to do. I can't delete their entry for the second time because that's edit warring. I've tried discussing it with them but we're at a standstill without anyone else intervening. So what should I do?

      I'm sorry that I keep coming here but I have no idea what to do and it's frustrating that no one has offered a solution. The other user refuses to change their mind, as not returned to the discussion and redadded their entry when I deleted it. No one else has intervened and I can't redelete it without starting an edit war. I know that people have been saying I'm right about the ALH trope not being correct and that's great but that doesn't help me.

      In this case, Jayalaw was edit warring first, which warrants a suspension. And since this movie is based in fiction and not reality, ALH does not count. Best to wait for a mod response.

      A mod response to the user or the entry itself? Because I don't understand why no one else has deleted the Artistic License History entry when it doesn't apply.

      I removed it, if they add it back again then someone else can have a go. (As said above, the fact they've re-added it twice means it's already an edit war)
  • 1 Jun 1st, 2018 at 8:08PM
    Lastest Reply: 1st Jun, 2018 08:29:17 PM
    Is there a trope name for when a senior profeaaor/principal/dean/teacher enters another of his brethren's classrooms to watch them at work.An example would be Marcus Brody doing just that to Dr Jones in Raiders and Last Crusade. Reply
  • 1 Jun 1st, 2018 at 1:01PM
    Lastest Reply: 1st Jun, 2018 01:19:10 PM
    This is a trope I've seen at least twice, and I'm wondering if it's already listed on this Wiki. The Hero and the Villain have their final fight, the Villain is defeated, but still alive (usually lying on the ground in pain), and instead of killing him, the Hero makes the wrenching but moral decision to spare his life. Momentarily, it seems as if the Villain might accept the offer, but then he shows he is irredeemable by attempting a sneak attack on the Hero. Either the Hero or some third person then kills the Villain.

    This occurs in the final battles in "The Postman" (1997) and "Hook" (1991), and I'm sure many more films. Reply
  • 2 May 28th, 2018 at 1:01PM
    Lastest Reply: 29th May, 2018 06:08:18 AM
    This What an Idiot! example got deleted from the page again:

    • What an Idiot!: The Amazons, Atlanteans, and Humans each took one of the three Mother Boxes for safekeeping.
    • You'd expect: The Humans to build a stronghold for their box (or at least place it in an already existing fortress) and keep it heavily guarded, like the Amazons and Atlanteans did.
    • Instead: The Humans bury their box under a couple of feet of dirt, in some random forest, and ultimately forget about it.

    This example was deleted once before, when I brought it up here I was told that the edit reason given then was Speculative Troping and I could restore it. Saveelich gave this edit reason when they deleted it this time:

    • "As for the humans, it's better for them to forget about where the Mother Box is hidden, so no tribe will be tempted to attack the stronghold where it would be hidden, since, you know, they are easily corruptible and divided."

    Again, I don't recall any mention of tribes or mankind being particularly corruptible. Either way, they still could've left it somewhere more secure and then forgotten about it, so this still applies in my opinion. Reply

      The edit reason is actual dialog from the film. Hardly speculative.

      Just have to point out that there can be an explanation and if it is suitably idiotic then WAI can still apply.
  • 1 May 27th, 2018 at 7:07AM
    Lastest Reply: 27th May, 2018 08:09:30 AM
    trying to find out the name of this tv series from a few years ago, maybe 2005-2010 sometime. From memory, it was a show about a guy who was hired to work as some sort of a salesman or something in a warehouse which was full of boxes, but i don't think they told him what was in them. it was some sort of a scam in the end whereby the guy he working for was just out to steal his money. I think the title of it was quite long, something like "the unfortunate case of john smith and ..". Thanks for any help! Reply
  • 3 May 26th, 2018 at 9:09AM
    Lastest Reply: 26th May, 2018 10:16:44 AM
    Looking for a hospital show or episode of what I think is Grey's anatomy. One of the patiens is dieing of what I think is cancer. From what I remember she's in a coma and they are able to bring her hout for just a few more hours so everyone can say goodbye to her. It's incredibly sad but I can't remember where I saw it. Reply
  • 6 May 22nd, 2018 at 7:07AM
    Lastest Reply: 24th May, 2018 09:59:13 AM
    Saveelich and patriciovalencia117 are swapping one entry on YMMV.Solo back and forth between Audience-Alienating Premise and Internet Backdraft without so much as communicating with each other or bringing it to discussion. Saveelich in particular fails to comprehend what constitutes an Edit War and even has the gall to tell me off about it. Reply

      Because it's Star Wars related, I say lock it.

      Both will be called in. Please bring the entry to discussion.

      b3900 is uncommenting the entry without having gone to discussion first. Since the entry in question has been warred over repeatedly, what other action do I have as a troper?

      First thing, if you haven't done it yet might be a Deleting YMMV notifier. It wasn't exactly deleted but it's the closest thing other than a more direct and explanatory pm

      Alternatively, leave the entry commented out but move it to discussion yourself. Maybe do a null edit with the reason being used to point folks to the discussion

      Suspended them too, but I think the page notice needs to explain a bit better why the examples are commented out.

      And lock the YMMV page for now until further notice.
  • 6 May 19th, 2018 at 9:09PM
    Lastest Reply: 21st May, 2018 10:51:56 AM
    We're not supposed to link to character pages as if they were work pages right? Becuase siberia82 has been potholing any references to the movie versions of Professor X and Magneto to, Characters.X Men Film Series Professor Charles Xavier and Characters.X Men Film Series Magneto respectively, as seen here for example. Reply

      Hmm... Potholes are themselves unnescessary, usually, and these ones are more informative than most...

      Looks like business as usual for comicbook fans. Notice how line 19 had a Pothole to the Comicbook.Magneto page before the change.


      That's also a problem with SCP Foundation, and when I asked about it here the answer was just to remove the pothole to the character page. For some reason, many tropers feel the need to link to Characters.SCP Foundation whenever they mention one of the SCPs on a trope page. Especially bad cases will link to the specific sub-page that includes the SCP in question.

      ^ - Interesting. If there were pages for specific skips, then the linking makes sense. As is, it doesn't.

      I think it should be put in Wick Namespace Migration, through the Locked Pages thread.