Lost And Found You've got this trope sticking in your mind. You can remember the general idea, and maybe an example or two, but you'll be damned if you can remember what the thing's called, and the search function turns up nothing relevant. Ask about it here.
I'd say it's both Hilarious in Hindsight (it was already supposed to be funny, but hindsight makes it even funnier) as well as Life Imitates Art.
Case in point, verbatim from the description of Hilarious in Hindsight: "It's when a later event, such as a current event or something that happened in the series, contrives to make something funnier than it originally was. This is what your literature teacher would call "Life imitating Art".
Huh. I went looking for that, except I was CTRL+F-ing "Microsoft" and I never even saw it because it just says "Windows". Hm.
I'm actually going to edit that on the off chance that it makes it more easily searchable. You know, because the world needs more easily searchable TV Tropes examples.
11:50:54 AM 30th Sep 2014
When a character uses power that is way beyond them because they are desperate and it will make them near undefeatable. But they know that the power will kill them, is as they are using it for that matter, allready killing them because it is too much.
Suicide Attack: Alice kills Bob via a method that, by design, also kills her. May be used because the suicide will make the attack more terrifying/emotional/visceral for her enemies, or it may simply be used because it was the most practical way to kill her enemy. It's presumably easier to get a suicide vest into an embassy (at least, one with lax security) than a briefcase full of dynamite that can then be left somewhere.
Simple(-ish) example: Bob is sitting on top of the MacGuffin with a machine gun and there is only one avenue of approach, but Alice knows that all she has to do is lay a finger on the MacGuffin—dead or alive—to save the world. Alice runs directly at it in the hopes of reaching it before Bob shreds her with More Dakka.
Death or Glory Attack: Alice has a special power that might blast the hell out of Bob, or it might backfire and roast her face off, depending on whether the Random Number God feels like messing with her.
Simple example: The atomic bomb's early tests could be considered a form of this. Before the test detonations, the scientists who built it concluded that there were two possibilities: It might blow a lot of stuff up and win the war... or it might ignite the atmosphere and kill everything on the planet.
Deadly Upgrade: Alice unleashes/gains/discovers/attains/earns/etc. an ability that is so Badass that it will more or less burn her out if she uses it for too long/too much/too intensely/etc. Often an Eleventh Hour Superpower.
Desperation Attack: Alice's power explicitly gets more powerful if she's closer to death. Many video games have mechanics that confer some sort of advantage when close to death.
Simple example: Auron's Infinity+1 Sword in Final Fantasy X has the explicitly-stated ability that its strength is inversely proportional to his current HP as a fraction of max HP. In other words, when he's at max HP, it's a reasonably powerful weapon, but not particularly impressive. If he's at 1 HP, the sword is insanely powerful.
Hopefully one of those fits. I'm betting Deadly Upgrade.
EDIT: My Heroic Sacrifice example does a terrible job of illustrating how it is even remotely relevant here. Here's a better one, lifted from the climax of a book I won't name because it would be a spoiler: Bob is seconds away from destroying the world, and the only thing Alice can do in time to stop him is to activate her Deadly Upgrade. She does so. The world is saved, but the Deadly Upgrade lives up to its name and kills her too. If it kills Bob, it doubles as Taking You with Me.
Something I've noticed is that someone will say something like "I'm not afraid," or "I don't care," and then someone else will ominously say "You should be." I am not aware if there is already a trope that addresses this, or if this is even trope worthy, considering that it may be a stock quote.
Luke: I won't fail you. I'm not afraid. Yoda: You will be. You will be.
The first part sounds a bit like Tempting Fate, but I dunno about the rest.
AkoSiKuya23 Medium: Western Animation
09:40:31 AM 30th Sep 2014 edited by AkoSiKuya23
Is there a trope for when a character feels burdened by a certain expectation put on them? I want to use it to describe how Twilight in My Little Pony Equestria Girls: Rainbow Rocksis being expected to have all the answers to defeat the Dazzlings after all of her exploits, but quickly realizes that she has no idea what to do and is trying her best to find the answer.
I think that's more like when others find out that their idol isn't so perfect. I think AkoSiKuya23 is asking more about the pressure of being held to high expectations. I think that's The Chains of Commanding.
As long as you have some sort of authority, even if it's just "authority" in the sense that "people think I'm an expert on X so they defer to me as the authority on X" rather than actual military authority, it should apply.
09:24:39 AM 30th Sep 2014
When an authority figure who is capable of fighting a threat always stays behind while his or her subjects (?) do all the fighting. A bit like Adults Are Useless but more like "Teachers Are Lazy".
Two examples that come to mind is Princess Celestia from My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic, who is a powerful demigoddess yet rarely helps the Mane Six even when she if fully capable of doing so, and Master Shifu from Kung Fu Panda Legends Of Awesomeness, who rarely ever accompanies Po and the Furious Five (justified in that he probably has to look over the Jade Palace).
Do we have a trope for a plot where Bob (usually unintentionally) does something that results in Annah being blamed for it (or something similar), and Bob spends the rest of the episode keeping it a secret and being guilty over it, until he can't handle it anymore and spills the beans, therefore learning to always face the consequences of his actions?
A specific subtrope of Status Quo Is God: Somebody discovers a secret kept by the hero and blackmails them with it. The simplest solution is to kill them, but of course that's impossible due to Thou Shalt Not Kill, and a great deal of angst ensues. By the end of the work, the blackmailer is killed without any intervention on the hero's part (i.e. the blackmailer got himself killed by another criminal or in an accident), resolving the storyline via Family-Unfriendly Aesop.
Sounds like a Deus ex Machina to me, depending on how it's written: An unexpected coincidence or event that resolves the main conflict/plot with virtually no action on the part of the hero. (The plot itself may involve any amount of action on the part of the hero, but as far as the resolution is concerned, the hero may as well be a surprisingly well-written turnip.)
Also, looking at the three criteria listed on the page, it fits pretty well:
Deus ex Machina are solutions. Whatever killed the villain solved the problem. Check.
Deus Ex Machina are sudden or unexpected. Assuming the death is written as a surprise, it fits. Check.
The problem a Deus ex Machina fixes must be portrayed as unsolvable or hopeless. This one is borderline, since arguably the simple solution would be the hero killing the villain, but it doesn't take a lot of effort to imagine that the hero's aversion to killing is a part of the plot's paradigms, not merely an eccentric personality trait. If that is given, than the problem is (probably) being portrayed as unsolvable or hopeless. Check.
08:58:28 AM 30th Sep 2014
I'm looking for a trope for something that's not Oh Crap but more like "Holy crap!" You know, something that doesn't trigger fear, but awe and/or amazement.
That's more exhilaration or triumph. Not quite what I'm talking about. Something more like Alan Grant's reaction to seeing a Brachiosaurus in the flesh.
10:43:41 PM 29th Sep 2014
I don't know if we have a trope but if we need to make a trope, I would love if it was called Spoken Speechlessness. A person is so amazed that they become speechless except for saying some silly nonsense like "Holy crap!".
Do we have something like 'But not too realistic', where the creators add features to make the whole thing more realistic, but it's clearly still a very simplified version? For example, having to eat and drink in a videogame to survive, but you still only need like one apple per day. In case we don't have this, do you think it's tropeable?
Sounds like a downplayed version of Acceptable Breaks from Reality - while eating food is done for realism, it's still an acceptable break because it's not like you need three square meals a day in game.
03:47:04 AM 30th Sep 2014
Hmmm, yeah, I suppose most examples would fall somewhere under Acceptable Breaks from Reality, although what I mean is more when the creators present something as 'sooo realistic!' when it's clearly not really.
08:51:16 AM 30th Sep 2014
If they earnestly talk it up as being realistic and it's clearly not, you might be dealing with creators suffering from The Coconut Effect.
If they added a feature "for realism" but it's not very good or they clearly didn't try very hard, maybe They Just Didn't Care.
08:41:41 AM 30th Sep 2014
Do we have a trope where text dialogues are written in a different style to denote a different speech pattern? Such as using different font or using <> for to indicate foreign language or Allcaps for a robotic voice or something?
No Dan, he doesn't directly betrays Megatron this time: the only treasonable thing he's done this time was scavenging for weapons and energon without his master's notice. (To be fair Megatron was busy fighting Orion Pax)
He's incompetent by the villains' standards: Soundwave derails the Autobots escape train, the Combaticons demolish a pursuing army, Shockwave delivers an MacGuffin to Megatron. Starscream? He let the Autobots get away on the escape train as he was being attacked by Insecticons.
There isn't a page for the general category of "Children's Music" is there? Playground Song mentions that "children's songs" are a more general category, with Playground Song being a subcategory, but there's no supertrope page covering all children's music, including stuff by professional musicians (Raffi, Bill Harley, etc.)
see/hide 0 replies
06:06:41 PM 29th Sep 2014 edited by echl
Is there a trope for the circumstantial/authorial termination of a character/ideological conflict? (It will be pretty YMMV.) An example is "Empty Places"/"Touched"/"End of Days" in season 7 of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. The group mutinies against Buffy's leadership (in the process, raising legitimate complaints) and Buffy leaves. Eventually, the now independent groups embark on simultaneous missions. The mutineers' mission leads them to a bomb. Buffy's leads her to a Plot Coupon. The mutineers come (figuratively) running back to Buffy and the status quo is restored. The initial concerns are never resolved or even addressed again.
Or the similar pattern where an ideological/character conflict is sublimated into a physical fight? Basically, Appeal to Force on the narrative level. For example, this happens in seasons 1 and 3 of The Legend of Korra. The core conflicts of the arcs are ideological with the antagonists making arguments which are at least plausible. In each case, the climactic resolution is a fight which leaves unanswered the question posed.
They often strike me as sort of subliminal Clueless Aesops?
see/hide 3 replies
03:55:57 AM 29th Sep 2014
Those sound like they fall under Status Quo Is God where issues brought up have to be resolved or swept under the rug by the end of the episode so the next episode can start out clean.
10:22:36 AM 29th Sep 2014
Could also be an Aborted Arc if the subplot feels like it was supposed to lead somewhere but seems to get forgotten and/or swept under the rug.
We have Wrong Genre Savvy but I wonder if this might fit a new trope better. Wrong Genre Savvy describes a person who thinks they are in one kind of movie when they really aren't. However, in several webcomics I have seen characters who think they are being genre savvy when they are really just being stupid and their stupidity causes the real danger.
For example, I just read a webcomic in which Chad came home to find a scarecrow version of Chad had taken his place. Scotty, thinking he was genre savvy, decided that either Chad or the scarecrow was an evil twin and needed to be killed. Scotty complained about how difficult it was to tell the difference between Chad and the assembly of sticks that wore a green shirt.
I would say that Scotty was Too Genre Savvy instead of Wrong Genre Savvy and since he's not the villian, he's also not Dangerously Genre Savvy.
see/hide 19 replies
09:40:30 AM 25th Sep 2014 edited by SolipSchism
Depending on the situation, I'd call that SubvertedGenre Savvy. Assuming the audience is at first led to believe that he's being Genre Savvy. Otherwise it's probably just Averted/InvertedGenre Savvy.
EDIT: Well, in the example above, it sounds like it's Inverted, because he's plainly being an idiot.
So this is a new trope and I ought to put Too Genre Savvy through the ykttw?
09:31:48 AM 26th Sep 2014
It sounds to me more like Scotty is just a Cloudcuckoolander than anything to do with Genre Savviness or the lack thereof.
10:41:33 AM 26th Sep 2014
^^^ No no, that was certainly not a Big "WHAT?!". It was a pregnant pause, and then a Flat "What." due to Sarcasm Failure.
I probably failed to communicate that usage by including a question mark.
Also: Not all trope/inverted trope relationships are a direct one-to-one relation. Some tropes can be inverted in more than one way. Inverted Genre Savvy could be either Genre Blindness or simply trying and utterly failing to be Genre Savvy.
01:00:24 PM 26th Sep 2014 edited by bejjinks
@ Specialist290: It could be more than one trope. Yes Scotty is a Cloudcuckoolander but he is also attempting to be genre savvy.
@ SolipSchism: That is my question and why I brought it up. It is either an inverted Genre Savvy or a Too Genre Savvy. I won't consider any other possibilities but I'll go with whichever of these two everyone agrees upon.
03:42:15 PM 26th Sep 2014 edited by SolipSchism
That's a tricky one. Honestly, it could be either. I think it's a particular inversion of Genre Savvy, but a case could be made either way.
Here's my thought process, for what it's worth:
Averted Genre Savvy would mean that, in this situation, you might expect him to display some Genre Savviness and he fails to do so. There's really nothing to be Genre Savvy about here, so it doesn't apply.
Subverted Genre Savvy would mean that either he seems to be displaying Genre Savviness or the story seems to be setting him up to do so, and then he either fails to do so or he ends up being Wrong Genre Savvy, etc. Again, I don't think it applies, because the expectation is never really there.
Inverted Genre Savvy would mean that he's displaying something inimical to real Genre Savviness. The simplest way to invert it would be to have the character try, but fail, to be Genre Savvy.
Another way to invert Genre Savvy would indeed be Genre Blindness, in which he would fail to be, or even try to be, Genre Savvy, despite having obvious cues that should have tipped him off as to the situation he's in. I don't quite think that fits here, because he is trying.
Wrong Genre Savvy suggests that he thinks he's in one kind of story, when really he's in another. Which could apply: Apparently he thinks he's in a story that has Evil Twins and is forcing him to Spot the Imposter, when in fact he's in a story that has a guy, a scarecrow, and an idiot. The only reason I don't really think this fits is that, as I mentioned with what I said about an aversion, there's not really anything to be Genre Savvy about to begin with. It's like... you can't be going the wrong way down the street if you're not on the street.
I'm voting Inverted Genre Savvy, but like I said, it could go either way.
Having had another look at the OP, it rather strikes me as an example of parodied Spot the Imposter. The character in question seems to correctly assume, an Evil Twin is about. So his Genre Savvyness is just fine. What he fails at is telling Chad and Evil Chad apart, which is ridiculous following the description above.
There is no evil twin. Scotty thinks there is an evil twin but there isn't. The scarecrow doesn't even look like Chad and isn't alive. It's just a scarecrow.
Scotty is not an Idiot Hero. He is The Ditz.
But all of that is beside the point.
^^^^^^ "Trying but failing at a trope makes it inverted? I'd really like to challenge that idea."
Yes, that's exactlywhat I said.
No, that blanket generalization that I totally said verbatim is not correct. But not all tropes involve character motivation and/or actions. This one does. Let me break it down.
Trying and failing to be Genre Savvy is another kind of inversion, as long as the attempt isn't built up convincingly enough to end up as a Subverted Trope. In this case, it isn't.
To be Wrong Genre Savvy, you have to be savvy to the wrong genre. This may or may not come across as being an idiot.
Just to make sure this is clear:
Alice is having a party at her house. Just after midnight, all of Alice's friends inexplicably disappear while she is distracted. She immediately locks every door in the house, grabs her shotgun, and decides to wait until morning to go upstairs and take a shower. Alice is Genre Savvy.
Same situation. Alice deduces nothing. She leaves the doors unlocked, goes upstairs, and takes a shower, and promptly gets murdered. Alice is Genre Blind, which is an inversion of Genre Savvy.
Same situation. Alice deduces that her friends are about to jump out and scare the shit out of her for fun, and goes to chill in the living room so as to be an easy target. Then the murderer jumps out and murders the shit out of her. Alice is Wrong Genre Savvy.
Same situation. Alice deduces that her friends are about to jump out and scare the shit out of her for fun, and goes to chill in the living room so as to be an easy target. Nothing happens because Alice is an idiot and forgot that everyone left because the party was over, which the viewer saw earlier. Alice was trying to be Genre Savvy, and this is the kind of genre where that sort of thing could happen, so she's not precisely Genre Blind or Wrong Genre Savvy, but she's obviously not Genre Savvy either. And it's not a subversion, because the audience knows perfectly well all along that she's not being Genre Savvy. Therefore, it's another kind of inversion of Genre Savvy.
EDIT for a bonus example:
Same situation. Alice immediately locks every door in the house, grabs her shotgun, and decides to wait until morning to go upstairs and take a shower. The door opens and a shadowy figure enters the room. Alice blows his head off. He collapses, the camera focuses on him — and it's Bob, her boyfriend, and all her friends are behind him, about to shout "Surprise!" as both the viewer and Alice realize that there was no killer at all, even though we thought there was. Alice is Wrong Genre Savvy in a way that subverts Genre Savvy—because we actually thought she was being Genre Savvy. (Assuming the story convinced you, anyway, which is more YMMV anyway.)
Following trivia for the movie The Philadelphia Story:
"Filmmakers reportedly intended to shoot the film at Ardrossan, but decided against it after seeing the size and scale of the main house and the expansiveness of the estate. They reportedly thought that no one would believe that anyone could actually live like that, particularly in America in the 1940s."
In short, the filmmakers thought Reality Is Unrealistic, but on that trope page I could only make out examples for audience reactions after a work is finished. Where does this one go?
see/hide 2 replies
12:01:09 PM 29th Sep 2014 edited by SolipSchism
It's still Reality Is Unrealistic, just being a catalyst for production decisions instead of as an audience reaction. There's at least one example on the page of Reality Is Unrealistic being used as a basis for decisions about how to produce a work:
John Barrowman, who is openly gay, tried out for the role of Will from Will and Grace. According to the producers, he wasn't gay enough. They then proceeded to hire Eric McCormack, who is straight.
EDIT: Also ALL of the examples below, although they don't have anything to do with media. They can pretty much all be summarized as "Distorting something so that it will conform to expectations that are skewed by Reality Being Unrealistic":
A bizarre Real Life example: optical proportions, intentionally unbalancing the design of a flag to account for the distortion caused when the flag is flying in the wind.
Ancient Greco-Roman columns were sometimes built with a bulge in the middle to make them look straight from far away. The bases of large Greco-Roman buildings were likewise built ever-so-slightly concave, on a 3+ mile radius of curvature, so as to appear flat (a genuinely flat surface would appear to bow outward slightly). That said, this was only done on some buildings, and it is not necessary for columns and buildings to have these proportions to look straight; indeed, despite what theysay about the Acropolis, where the Parthenon is, the columns of the Parthenon look straight because they are.
Similarly, door hinges are often not equally spaced; this is done to create the appearance that they are equally spaced, because you're typically not looking at a door from the exact centre, but slightly higher up. If the hinges were really spaced equally, they would appear not to be. Confused yet?
The Eiffel Tower is actually painted three different shades of brown-gray so that it appears as one color to observers on the ground.
The mat in some framed art is wider at the bottom to make the matting appear equal on all sides of the work; this is called a "weighted border". It's also done because a person's eye is typically 5-6 feet off the ground, so people are used looking at things that are on top of something else. Looking at a painting with a weighted border is visually similar to looking at vase on a table.
Letters are set up this way. Take the letter B, if you look at it even here, pixel by pixel, the top bow is smaller than the bottom bow. This is used in typography to make the letter look equally spaced, or "standing upright".
Statues that are supposed to be displayed on a high pedestal are intentionally disproportionate to make up for the distortion in perspective when looking at them from underneath; statues that are moved onto different pedestals later will look very uncanny if you don't know about that fact.
It's a stretch, but it might be a kind of Brick Joke.
11:49:33 AM 29th Sep 2014 edited by SolipSchism
And also wondering if we have this one:
More of a stock phrase than anything else. Alice says X. Bob corrects her with Y. Alice replies, "That's what I said," or something along those lines, implying that X and Y are the same thing.
The joke works by setting up the obvious difference between X and Y, then implying that they are interchangeable and Playing the comparison For Laughs. It often doubles as a Take That to Y, as in the following example (that I more or less encountered in Real Life earlier today, but it illustrates the structure pretty well):
Bob: You know what's funny? Alice: Clowns. Bob: No, Ensign Newbies. Alice: Yeah, that's what I said. Clowns.
The inverted (and generally less affectionate) version would probably be the joke/statement that presents you with X and Y, and says, "One of these things is [description that seems to be describing X]. And the other one is X." A sort of bait-and-switch joke that looks like it's going to contrast the two but ends up implying that they are the same - or that Y is even worse than X, when X is already pretty terrible.
Generally used as a Take That to Y, as in, showing you a picture of Satan and a picture of Obama and saying, "One of these is a dirty Commie Nazi hippie who would like nothing more than to drag you and your wholesome Nuclear Family down into sin and perdition. And the other is the devil."
If either or both of those have a trope, I'm having a hard time finding it, mostly because the stock phrase isn't coming up and I don't have a clue what else they would be named.
Example from classic TV: Good Times.
James, the father, is explaining to Michael, the younger son, what diplomacy is. He illustrates a political scenario in which the president of one country tells the president of another country something that is totally untrue because Leader A knows it's what Leader B wants to hear.
Brady Lady, maybe it's a variant on that. The difference being that in a straightforward Verbal Backspace, the character is actually backpedaling and changing what they said as well as what they meant. In my situation, the character is (A) repeating precisely what they said, (B) implying that the new meaning is what they had in mind all along, and typically (C) causing a reinterpretation of the original phrase in light of the new statement.
In other words, When James says "diplomacy" in the above example, it evidently simply means Exactly What It Says on the Tin, but after Michael contradicts him, he doesn't backpedal—he simply denies that the two concepts have any distinction.
Another subtle distinction is that in this situation, the character making the 'comparison' retains the position of power in the conversation (if that makes any sense), while a Verbal Backspace seems to imply giving up ground (i.e., admitting, however quickly, that they made a mistake), even if they try not to draw attention to it.
I hope that made any sense.
EDIT: Actually, this illustrates what I mean pretty well.
To set out the explicit differences:
Verbal Backspace: Alice: X. Bob: Y. Alice: Right. Y.
Whatever This Is: Alice: X. Bob: Y. Alice. Right. X.
Bob and Alice are a pair of super powered mooks working for the Big Bad. Alice is invincible. Bob is not invincible. Alice and Bob are best friends. To keep them in line, when Alice screws up, Bob is the one sent to the Maximum Fun Chamber, because he can be hurt, and his suffering will harm Alice emotionally. This can be subverted by having Alice turn out to be okay with that, but even then, at least Bob will be motivated to try to stop her from screwing up.
The quote provider describes another variant- Carl is The Millstone of the unit. The drill sergeant wants the entire unit to learn to support one another, and to whip Carl into shape. So rather than making Carl's mistakes Carl's problem, Carl's mistakes are made the entire unit's problem by punishing the entire unit.
Drew is an extremely competent Dragon most of the time. But one day he screws up. The Big Bad wants to shoot Drew, but Pragmatic Villainy dictates that it would be stupid to cripple a valuable asset. So the Big Bad shoots Drew's secretary instead, because Drew likes his secretary.
Eric has a brother in prison. The dirty cop wants him to lie under oath, or he will have his brother transfered to the prison with the highest rate of inmate violence in the state.
Sounds like I Will Punish Your Friend for Your Failure is more of a threat. Even if one friend is already punished, there is still the threat of punishing another friend.
I Have Your Wife sounds more like a ransom or extortion which is similar to a threat but not a full threat because there's a deal to let the wife escape unharmed. This deal is often a lie but it's more than you get with the other trope.
11:02:29 AM 29th Sep 2014 edited by ConnorGorden
Is there a sub trope of a reasonable authority figure in a crapsack world? Where even though they try to affect some change for the good, they are almost always thwarted by the council, or other evil authority figures for the sake of profit. They will likely in fact wind up dead for their ideals. The character I'm thinking of would likely not be the main character.
I have a question. In a pokemon related story i am penning (a New world, a new way - swarm) the clothing that the Kalos Champion (Dianthia) wears is passed down from Champion to Champion, each wearer changing it to fit their body type and gender. My question is what trope taht would be.
I want to say its a form of Legacy Character that applies to just the clothes, but I'm not too sure.
Again, if any of the descriptions in the last bullet apply, then it's most likely this as well; if it's some kind of magic but it wasn't done deliberately by any character, then it's Justified but not Invoked.
The main difference is the "lack of prejudice" angle.
If Alice is extremely clever but cynical and snarks at Bob and Claire all the time, she's The Snark Knight.
If Alice throws racial slurs at Bob and Claire, but gets away with it because she also aims them at her own ethnic group, she Hates Everyone Equally.
10:34:13 AM 29th Sep 2014 edited by SolipSchism
Some extra distinctions:
The Snark Knight is defined more by his/her snarky behavior and/or dialogue, since it is a Sub-Trope of Deadpan Snarker. His actual attitude toward people and/or discrimination is not strictly relevant.
Hates Everyone Equally is defined simply by hating everyone, and may or may not be a Deadpan Snarker. Hates Everyone Equally is also at least partially defined by highlighting the fact that he or she isn't prejudiced against any one person or group in particular. In other words, there's usually at least one line that specifically calls attention to the fact that he or she is not racist/sexist/etc.
The Snark Knight doesn't need to bring up discrimination (and in fact they may or may not Hate Everyone Equally—a Snark Knight could very well be a racist).
The real distinction is that the tropes focus on different qualities - The Snark Knight is about behavior and dialogue, whereas Hates Everyone Equally is about temperament and/or perception of others, and also typically a kind of subversion/aversion of racism.
Of course, the two may or may not overlap.
10:20:54 AM 29th Sep 2014
Is there a Parental Abandonment trope for when parents are forced (by circumstances or plain out poverty) to sell or give away their children? Sort of the inverse of Fostering for Profit, but sometimes occurring simultaneously (when it is circumstances, obviously).
"It's medical experiments for the lot of you, I'm afraid."
A TV series that makes changes to the opeing, accoding to the episode. For example, Avengers Earthsmightiest Heroes does not have a fixed line-up of characters, people come and go from the team. At the end of the opeing, we see the Avengers... and each time, it's the current line-up for the episode.
see/hide 1 replies
10:18:20 AM 29th Sep 2014
Depending on its relation to the story, it could be either a Couch Gag or a form of Evolving Credits. I'm betting it's the latter, but I figured it'd be best to show both main variants of the idea.
Whichever it is, it's a form of Different In Every Episode.
09:57:50 AM 29th Sep 2014 edited by FossilsDaDaDa
Phlebotinum that causes people to go insane when exposed to it. Basically Phlebotinum Induced Stupidity, except it makes them crazy. Very common in science fiction/horror stories.
see/hide 6 replies
09:14:11 AM 25th Sep 2014
Go Mad from the Revelation. It sounds like when you learn something that drives you insane, but by the description, it can just as easily apply to something that drives you insane just from perceiving it.
09:21:53 AM 25th Sep 2014
Go Mad From the Revelation does also say this:
"There is generally a distinction between things that happen to the mind because of experience and things that are done to the brain. This trope is the former."
So it would make a difference whether a character just observes Phlebotinum doing something strange and unnatural, or if the Phlebotinum does something strange and uunatural to him or her, especial if he or she is unaware of it.
09:37:59 AM 25th Sep 2014
Oh, yeah. The article explicitly includes the passage: "Thus, insanity caused by drugs or a specific, quasi-magical effect (like a Brown Note) doesn't qualify. Contrast those things with the Shoggoths, who strain people's sanity in spite of never having that as a stated special ability — the thought of them is just that horrible."
So a magic power that is defined as "makes people go insane" doesn't qualify, but if an entity or object has a quality — such as Alien Geometries — that, as an unfortunate side effect, makes you go insane when you perceive it, then it would qualify.
In other words, something designed to drive people crazy probably wouldn't be this trope - but anything that, by its nature, makes you go crazy when you perceive it, most likely would.
12:12:46 PM 26th Sep 2014 edited by Scorpion451
To sum up,
A Brown Note is phlebotinum that causes adverse effects as a primary function (or at least one of its major functions), such as causing insanity or physical harm. The banshie's wail in some variants of the myth, for instance.
Is there a trope for when a character has a humorously irrational phobia or other aversion, such as of marshmallows or curtains? I kinda call it a "Funny Phobia", and would like to propose it in YKTTW, but I would think that this already has an entry?
I say don't make it a separate trope. There aren't many examples of it being played for laughs and if we tried to split it for those few that are played for laughs, we're heading into ymmv territory. A phobia that might seem silly to you would not seem silly at all to the person with the phobia. If someone did play it for laughs, they'd have to be careful not to be offensive.
01:13:27 AM 29th Sep 2014 edited by PacificGreen
I've seen a sitcom where a Super Genius character, of all people, has a fear of things like giraffes, leprechauns, and curly fries. [cue someone sitting next to her with a tray of curly fries]
And the show from which I draw most of my examples has a character afraid of "curtains, avocados, and quiet jazz music" as well as a character afraid of marshmallows (the justification being "they're soft...and...squishy")
I know I've seen other examples, but I can't put my finger on them just yet.
Perhaps if they're all unrelated, Idiosyncratic Fears?
Is there a trope for the inversion of Urban Fantasy, when modern-day tropes and story elements are transplanted into an otherwise-traditional fantasy setting? I'm thinking of the likes of Garrett PI or Hawk & Fisher, not just the stock modern-day-Fish out of Water-dumped-in-a-fantasy-world shtick that's been used and re-used since Narnia.
11:32:10 PM 28th Sep 2014 edited by justanotherrandomlurker
We have Replaced the Theme Tune whenever a show gets an entirely new theme song, but do we have something similar for whenever a show completely replaces it's opening title sequence or even it's closing credits?
see/hide 4 replies
09:06:56 PM 28th Sep 2014
I'm bumping this to ask since apparently we don't have this one, can we start up a YKTTW?
09:17:46 PM 28th Sep 2014
I'm pretty sure you can start a YKTTW for anything that strikes your fancy
10:28:18 PM 28th Sep 2014 edited by Daefaroth
How often do shows replace the theme song without replacing other elements of the opening sequence? Does it need to be separate?
11:32:10 PM 28th Sep 2014
Yes, because often times, shows will replace or rearrange their theme songs without changing the title sequences, and vice-versa.
11:11:44 PM 28th Sep 2014
Like Arson, Murder, and Admiration but not necessarily villains...listing off the damage one has done, and then, last but not least, admiring them for something.
Like in Mulan:
Emperor:You stole your father's armor, ran away from home, impersonated a soldier, deceived your commanding officer, dishonored the Chinese Army, destroyed my palace, and... you have saved us all.
MacGuffin or Plot Coupon? In Transformers Rise Of The Dark Spark we have the titular Dark Spark, an ancient weapon that can manipulate space, time, and create zombies out of fallen warriors so they can fight in your place. Only the villians can use it, one of the Co-Dragons was charged with finding it and bringing it back to Megatron, where it promptly flies into deep space after ensuring battle between him and Optimus. Flash forward to the Age of Extinction universe where our favorite doomsday weapon winds up in the hands of Lockdown the mercenary, who plans to Time Travel for Fun and Profit. After Optimus kills the mercenary leader, the Dark Spark is sent flying into deep space. It's next destinitation: the G1 universe of the Transformers franchise...And then the game ends
I'm looking for a trope that applies when someone provides some tidbit of info and follows up by saying, "And I happen to know that" or words to that effect, thus implying that he gained that info first-hand through an experience that was probably not enjoyable.
Part of me thinks that it may already be covered under Noodle Incident, but I still want to be sure there isn't another trope for it.
Maybe this will help:
The Old Soldier is telling the New Meat about what it's like in war and says, "Don't get shot. It hurts like hell, and I know that for a fact." The last part is said with a tone that hints that he's been shot before, but he doesn't say anything more.
Does that narrow it down?
I found two different tropes for cannibals and both of them are played for laughs. What trope would be correct for a film that treats cannibals as the historically accurate examples they are.
The Emerald Forest is a true story and one of them was eaten by cannibals.
I was looking at Captured by Cannibals and Cannibal Tribe. The Emerald Forest almost fits both tropes so should I put it in both tropes or which of the two. Or should I put in the more general Humanitarian.
Two people are captured by a cannibal tribe. One is eaten, the other escapes. It is neither a comedy nor a horror. The escapee was searching for his lost son.
11:15:20 AM 27th Sep 2014 edited by Scorpion451
Perfectly fine to put it on all of them.
05:50:51 AM 27th Sep 2014 edited by Lyner
Are there any The Glomp sub-tropes for glomp stampedes? I've seen it in several shows now, with a group of five or more girls simultaneously charging in to tackle the recipient in one big group hug, enhancing the effects of the glomp by orders of magnitude. I've seen this in many harem series and a few others. One of the most recent that springs to mind is If Her Flag Breaks, and one of the worst ever was at the start of Hanaukyo Maids (which left the guy unconscious and deliriously muttering "the flesh-colored tsunami is coming!"
Its not a Trope i am looking for but something for Trivia section.
Two characters are almost killed in a car accident but survive. But the actors that played them both died young. One commited suicide after suffering from chronical pain (32 years old) and the other died from natural causes at age of 27.
Is this something for trivia and if it is, what is it? I guess no existing section suits here.
Can Broken Base apply to occasions where the base is broken as a result of the base itself rather than the work? I've noticed some people who may have been a fan of a work before mention the fanbase itself is what killed the work for them (apparently really overly obsessive fans, mostly rabid fangirls, are usually to blame).
That seems to be more or less people who dislike fans for liking a work they already dislike.
Let me put it another way: Bob really likes a certain show, and interacts with other fans of the show regularly, however, those other fans are so obsessive about it and are prone to flame wars and other such negative behavior with people outside the fanbase (or even each other if there's a disagreement about a certain aspect of the work) that it ruins the show for Bob because now whenever he tries to watch it, all he can think of are those crazy people that make up its fanbase.
I kinda speak from experience myself, but I know this has happened with other people out there as well (I know a guy who finds it difficult to watch certain anime because of how rabid the fangirls are over it), which makes me think this is somehow related to Broken Base.
11:05:23 AM 25th Sep 2014 edited by justanotherrandomlurker
Even though Hype Aversion isn't what I had in mind, I'm glad you brought it up, because much like yourself with Dragon Ball and Naruto, that's exactly why I couldn't stand SpongeBob as a kid... it's like the whole school was like, "D00d! SpongeBob is da bestest thing on TV ever!" "SpongeBob is da gr8est!" "How can u not like SpongeBob?!" And I honestly never understood the appeal of SpongeBob anyway, I've always found it to be a pretty stupid, braincell-dampening show anyway.
But yeah, I think what Scorpion451 said about Why Fandom Can't Have Nice Things is pretty much along the lines of what I was talking about... just without the creator input aspect.
01:46:22 PM 25th Sep 2014 edited by SolipSchism
I figured, since you mentioned Bob already liking the show in question, which isn't really the case with Hype Aversion. But sometimes fringe concepts or "almost right" ideas can spark other ideas.
(By the same token, Hype Aversion kept me away from Death Note for ages, but when I finally watched it, I loved it. So you never know. :p )
03:52:36 PM 25th Sep 2014
Right. Just to share my own personal experience, I actually used to love Whose Line Is It Anyway? when I was younger, but once I actually got involved with the fandom itself, I found Whosers to be some of the meanest, nastiest, and downright rudest people I've ever met, and that kind of killed the show for me to the point I couldn't even watch it anymore to think that a show about improv comedy could garner attention from some of the most hateful people on the planet. On a side note, I do still enjoy the performers' other work outside of the show, but aside from that.
04:35:10 PM 25th Sep 2014 edited by PPPSSC
Nevermind, I thought this trope existed.
07:36:46 PM 25th Sep 2014
^ Are you refering to the same thing I was talking about, or did you accidentally post in the wrong thread? Forgive me, but your reply left me a little confused.
09:14:07 AM 26th Sep 2014
I posted a trope title to answer your query but it was a redlink.
10:45:45 AM 26th Sep 2014
Well, there's a YKKTW with that name, but by the looks of things, it's been languishing for six years. It's a valid idea, though. It's not simply It's Popular, Now It Sucks, it's It's Popular And The Fans Are Assholes Now It Sucks.
12:08:00 PM 26th Sep 2014 edited by justanotherrandomlurker
That's it! It's Popular And The Fans Are Assholes Now It Sucks is exactly what I'm talking about! You hit the nail on the head!
Now if it only existed... (well, the Tainted By The FanbaseYKTTW is pretty much it in a nutshell).
03:50:24 PM 26th Sep 2014
^ try restoring that. Or even better, try restarting that.
06:40:04 PM 26th Sep 2014
I actually bumped it... but it's not showing up for some reason. :|
06:58:10 PM 26th Sep 2014
^ because it is discarded.
07:30:12 PM 26th Sep 2014
03:27:00 PM 26th Sep 2014 edited by rzorrz
Villain is dismissing hero's power on basis they are useless or too weak to beat him. Then the hero overpowers him with his supposedly inferior set of skills and powers
Not to mention that the villain is awfully Genre Blind.
01:48:24 PM 26th Sep 2014
And what if they aren't so inferior for average person, but simply look redundant when compared with what Big Bad can do?
03:27:00 PM 26th Sep 2014 edited by SolipSchism
^ "Any climactic combat or competition where the hero is the underdog." It's still David Versus Goliath, even if the hero is a total Badass, as long as he seems severely outmatched by the villain.
PacificGreen Medium: Western Animation
02:13:31 PM 26th Sep 2014
Generally occurs in Western Animation.
When you have an anthropomorphized animal, but they do something exactly as a human does, even if their bodily features don't match up...an egregious example would be the characters in Arthur, who are all pretty much humanized animals, pressing the sides of their heads to shut out noise, even though their ears are on top of their heads.
I don't see why not. The example list for Awesome McCoolname includes the name of the Battlestar Galactica, after all. I'd imagine it simply needs to be cooler than you'd expect for such a vessel - i.e., the USS Midway probably wouldn't qualify, but thanks to Pop-Cultural Osmosis, the USS Enterprise definitely would. HMS Majesty? Maybe. HMS Optimus Prime? Oh yeah.
06:34:43 AM 26th Sep 2014
I have another character who publicly seems so straight-laced she can barely breath, yet harbors dark dungeon bondage fetish fantasies. She normally keeps them secret, but sometimes (rarely) she gets a chance to act upon them, at which time she does so with no qualms or hesitation (though she insists upon the act being consensual).
Is there a trope that would cover that?
I don't believe Brains and Bondage fits. That seems to be about linking bondage with intellectualism, either in a positive or a negative manner. My idea is a character displaying one demeanor to cover up for and hide another nearly polar opposite secret demeanor she thinks would be disapproved of.
10:43:04 AM 24th Sep 2014
I don't believe Covert Pervert fits. It's about figurative covertness, and making comments. My character is literally covert, and makes no mention of her fantasies to others at all.
10:48:29 AM 24th Sep 2014
I think Naughty By Night comes the closest, but it's a bit too broad, in that it can include just sex, or even just being a stripper. Is there a more specific trope?
10:50:52 AM 24th Sep 2014
That's... an interesting choice of words on the description. I'm not sure how you can be a pervert that is "literally covert". Unless you mean sneaking around after dark in night vision goggles, a black turtleneck, and no pants.
But it really does sound like the character is a Covert Pervert.
She's a pervert — that's the second part covered. It's not publicly known that she's a pervert — there's the first part. QED.
The description for Covert Pervert itself makes the distinction between figurative and literal covertness:
"Note that the title refers to covertness in the figurative sense, not the literal."
The point of the trope appears to be that a character, through words and actions, drops inadvertent hints that he or she is a closet pervert, even if he or she denies it. My character is aware of this and goes to great pains not to reveal it in any way at all to anyone.
In other words, she's not covert because she doesn't realize it herself and so makes "Freudian slips" (figurative covertness), but because she does realize it and actively hides it from others (literal covertness).
TV Tropes also warns against interpreting a trope based solely on it title. Just because she's a pervert who acts covertly does not mean Covert Pervert automatically applies.
That would require changing the definition of the trope, which is a discussion for another forum. As long as the current definition is centered on a character known or suspected in universe of being a closet pervert but who simply will not admit it, rather than a character who has admitted it (to herself) but who keeps it a secret from everyone else, so that no one in universe knows or suspects, this trope can not apply to my character.
Besides, broadening a trope based solely on a general interpretation of the trope title is like broadening I Am A Humanitarian to include examples of people who work to help people or better mankind along with cannibals.
Exactly my point; discussing a possible change in the description should be done there. But until a new description is adopted, Covert Pervert doesn't apply to my character. At best, my character would be an inversion/subversion of Covert Pervert.
True, but there must be some justification within the definition of the trope to broaden it, otherwise I Am A Humanitarian can include good-deed-doers as well as cannibals. As I've pointed out several times already, my character does not match even the basic concept behind Covert Pervert.
Again, this discussion should be done in another forum; all I'm interested in is knowing if there is a trope for a character who outwardly is straight-laced but harbors secret dark dungeon bondage fantasies that no one else in universe knows about. And apparently there isn't.
If you really believe Covert Pervert should cover this, go to the appropriate forum and petition to have the trope description changed.
09:10:47 AM 25th Sep 2014
A Seemingly Wholesome '50s Girl is basically a promiscuous teenager. My character is middle-aged and almsot never engages in sex. Besides, the Girl's promiscuity is no secret, whereas my character's fantasies are.
Living a Double Life assumes a character actively engages in two different lifestyles more or less simultaneously. My character lives her straight-laced life 24/7, and treats her fantasies as a hobby, one which she engages in only rarely.
A Hot Librarian is about in-universe male erotic fantasy, not any secret desires or passions on the part of the woman. My character's fantasies are her own secret desires, and do not reflect what males may be thinking of her.
A Meganekko is a girl whom men find attractive because she wears glasses. Again, my character's fantasies have nothing to do with how men perceive her, and I never said whether she wears glasses or not.
09:31:51 AM 25th Sep 2014 edited by SolipSchism
I'm not going to continue beating the Covert Pervert horse, but you seem to be interpreting these trope descriptions very literally. A trope is (usually) not a specific, 1-for-1 situation. It's an abstract idea that can be tweaked to fit a situation, without losing the core essence of what makes it that trope.
My remark about literal/figurative covertness was not meant to be "the article doesn't say anything about it being literal or figurative". It was "the article says it's 'literal, not figurative' without really making any effort to explain what it means by that, since 'covert' is such an abstract term that it's hard to draw a concrete distinction between 'literal' and 'figurative' covertness." In other words, "knowing about it and hiding it" versus "not knowing about it and inadvertently revealing it" are not respectively literal vs. figurative. It would be more accurate to say that's deliberate vs. unintentional, or knowing vs. unknowing.
"Literal covertness" would be actively sneaking around, hiding, diving into bushes when you see a pair of headlights or hear footsteps, whereas figurative would be... I don't know, furtive glances and just generally being sneaky about it. The whole idea is kind of silly to start with, so I'm not sure what is meant by "literal" and "figurative" in this context, I think someone just wanted to indulge their addiction for throwing the word "literally/literal" around without stopping to think about whether it was appropriate.
ANYWAY. My advice is to stop taking these trope descriptions at face value, because they were not written in an APA/MLA style format with the intention of being crystal clear and unambiguous and technically accurate for a single, specific given circumstance. They were written by tropers. They are meant to outline a paradigm, not crystallize a single situation down to the fine details, like whether or not the character is a teenager or exactly how many nights out of the month the girl gets hot and heavy. Tropes Are Flexible, and if you want to get any use and/or enjoyment out of them, you probably should be too.
[steps down off of soapbox] [trips on self-righteousness] [exit stage future]
10:10:24 AM 25th Sep 2014
As I've already pointed out, flexibility must still be justified within the definition of a trope, otherwise a trope can be about anything anyone wants it to be, in which case all tropes become useless. There are several places in TV Tropes itself where this very point is made.
As for literal vs. figurative, once again, the trope description makes that distinction as part of the definition, and provides examples. I didn't explain it because I figured people could read the description for themselves. If you really feel distinguishing between literal covertness and figurative covertness is "silly", or if you feel those terms are being misrepresented, petition to have the description changed to match what you think it should be.
As for being literal, your description as to what is supposed to be literal covertness strikes me as being overly literal itself. As is the attempt to claim that any pervert who acts in a covert manner is automatically a Covert Pervert (the trope description contradicts this). There is a difference between being literal and adhering to an accepted definition; one can do the latter without being the former. In the context of the trope, literal covertness is trying to keep one's perversion a secret, so no one else knows about it, whereas figurative covertnenss is the pretense that one is not a pervert, even if everyone knows or suspects the truth. The trope is about the latter situation, not the former.
I thank you for your advice, but to be of value advice must accurately reflect the perceived problem, and yours does not. The fact that these descriptions are written by enthusiats and not experts does not mean they are not accurate or have no "force of law". It just means that they are a work in progress, adaptable, able to be changed as new information becomes available, rather than set in stone forever. As you point out, they each describe a concept, but any example must match the spirit of the conception even if it doesn't match the letter exactly, or the trope is useless. A frigid, middle-aged woman who virtually never has sex is as far away from a promiscuous teenage girl as you're likely to get, so to say she fits the Seemingly Wholesome '50s Girl trope renders that trope nonsensical. You might as well just lump everything like this under All Women Are Lustful and be done with it.
06:34:43 AM 26th Sep 2014 edited by Scorpion451
What's bothering me here is that you seem to be debating things that have long-established and agreed upon answers, which we have repeatedly supplied you with. What you are describing is both Naughty by Night and a type of Covert Pervert. Many of the examples are exactly what you describe. The end.
Your use of the example of I'm a Humanitarian being spread to also cover people who do good things is both an invocation of the Slippery Slope Fallacy, and the reason we have I Thought It Meant.
This thread is for finding tropes. We found your trope, and repeatedly explained why its the one you want.
If you want challenge the meaning of tropes or debate site policy, go to the Trope Repair Shop or the wiki talk page.
08:06:02 PM 25th Sep 2014
Is there a term for a plot or plot element that appears to be contrived and actually turns out to be just that, carefully planned out with a specific purpose? For instance, a long series of events seem almost too coincidental, to the point that it almost seems staged when one thinks of it, like someone had set it all up as a scenario for the hero to experience, and it turns out that this is exactly the case: someone is setting up a series of more or less contrived crises for the hero to deal with.
Its one of the most subtle trope distinctions, but what it comes down to is that a magnetic plot device actually serves a purpose in the story beyond being just "the X that everybody wants to get ahold of"- if you could swap it out for a magic golden toilet seat (or a talking chimpanzee for the living ones) without changing the actual story, its a MacGuffin.
09:48:13 AM 25th Sep 2014
Not to mention, a MacGuffin isn't necessarily sought after by everyone, it's just the focal point of the story because somebody wants to get their hands on it.
Additionally, a Magnetic Plot Device is not necessarily an artifact — a Plot Device can just as easily be a character or a location or even an event, and a Magnetic Plot Device is any such Plot Device that, one way or another, draws characters to interact with it, either with an explicitly-stated ability to do so, or a less explicit quality. Maybe the city is the Magnetic Plot Device because The Prophecy states that some cool stuff will go down here and everyone wants to get in on it. Maybe Alice is the plot device because she's super hot and the story is all about the princes who answer her father's Engagement Challenge.
02:25:01 PM 25th Sep 2014
Would Soul Edge in Soul Calibur fall into Magnetic Plot Device? The majority of playable characters sought after it for their own reasons, and they meet each other along the way.
02:40:40 PM 25th Sep 2014
02:39:07 PM 25th Sep 2014
Is there a trope for when someone is reluctant to do something until something happens that makes him much more motivated?
An example would be that scene from Jurassic Park when Alan, Lex, and Tim look hesitant to climb the (depowered) electric fence until they hear the T. rex roar, and then they're scrambling to climb it.
Or Fred Kwan in Galaxy Quest being afraid to try using the digital conveyor to beam Jason Nesmith up (especially since the last subject came up inside-out and exploded) until the girl he's crushing on walks in, at which point he decides to go for it.
see/hide 3 replies
10:09:58 AM 25th Sep 2014
The first one could be a mild fringe variant of the Godzilla Threshold — the Tyrannosaurus rex is such a certain threat that it's worth risking climbing the fence. I'm not terribly familiar with Galaxy Quest, though, so I'm not sure if that situation is appropriate. I'll keep my eyes out for a better fit.
02:22:25 PM 25th Sep 2014
I say, ykttw this thing.
02:39:07 PM 25th Sep 2014
^ Yeah, I'm still not finding anything.
11:23:12 AM 25th Sep 2014
Videogames and Tabletop RPG situation
A character can't perform certain action without having at least a single rank in it, regardless how basic or obvious the action in question might be (i.e. can't punch someone without 1 point in Punching, even if that still makes them pathetically bad at this)