Follow TV Tropes

Following

Discussion History WesternAnimation / ThePiratesInAnAdventureWithScientists

Go To

Changed line(s) 5 from:
n
-->Also note that this isn\'t GushingAboutCharactersYouLike; when adding examples, make realistic assessments of their power level according to the scale and \'\'\'in terms of the setting\'\'\'.
to:
->Also note that this isn\\\'t GushingAboutCharactersYouLike; when adding examples, make realistic assessments of their power level according to the scale and \\\'\\\'\\\'in terms of the setting\\\'\\\'\\\'.
Changed line(s) 7 from:
n
Note the words I bolded: \
to:
Note the words I bolded: \\\"in terms of the setting\\\". To me, this means that InAWorld where EveryoneIsASuper, that most Supers would rate 0 or 1. (Can I get an a-men from [[TheIncredibles Syndrome]] here?) But it seems like the entries of the scale are classed by \\\'\\\'our\\\'\\\' definition of \\\"normal\\\" and not the setting\\\'s.

Can you fly? Even though it\\\'s normal for your species and said species is listed on your world\\\'s census forms? That makes you a Class 2 \\\'\\\'at minimum\\\'\\\'! ([[MyLittlePonyFriendshipIsMagic yay]][[hottip:.:Incidentally, I feel that Fluttershy \\\'\\\'should\\\'\\\' be a 2, not because she can fly, but rather for [[HeartIsAnAwesomePower her \\\"Stare.\\\"]])

\\\"[[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfDQUdUjdSs I cast]] [[DungeonsAndDragons Magic Missile]].\\\" Congratulations, level 1 Mage, you\\\'re Class 3!

Now, Archived Discussion seems to have come out in favor of a RealLife-based scale and the examples favor this interpretation. However, it makes all that talk of \\\"based on setting\\\" meaningless.

I don\\\'t know; perhaps all I need to do is change the contradicting statement to indicate that the scale is based on \\\'\\\'our world\\\'\\\' and \\\'\\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\'\\\' the fictional setting, with an added note that the threats of those settings [[SortingAlgorithmOfEvil are usually scaled to match]] the setting\\\'s average power level.
Changed line(s) 5 from:
n
\
to:
-->Also note that this isn\\\'t GushingAboutCharactersYouLike; when adding examples, make realistic assessments of their power level according to the scale and \\\'\\\'\\\'in terms of the setting\\\'\\\'\\\'.

Note the words I bolded: \\\"in terms of the setting\\\". To me, this means that InAWorld where EveryoneIsASuper, that most Supers would rate 0 or 1. (Can I get an a-men from [[TheIncredibles Syndrome]] here?) But it seems like the entries of the scale are classed by \\\'\\\'our\\\'\\\' definition of \\\"normal\\\" and not the setting\\\'s.

Can you fly? Even though it\\\'s normal for your species and said species is listed on your world\\\'s census forms? That makes you a Class 2 \\\'\\\'at minimum\\\'\\\'! ([[MyLittlePonyFriendshipIsMagic yay]][[hottip:.:Incidentally, I feel that Fluttershy \\\'\\\'should\\\'\\\' be a 2, not because she can fly, but rather for [[HeartIsAnAwesomePower her \\\"Stare.\\\"]])

\\\"[[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfDQUdUjdSs I cast]] [[DungeonsAndDragons Magic Missile]].\\\" Congratulations, level 1 Mage, you\\\'re Class 3!

Now, Archived Discussion seems to have come out in favor of a RealLife-based scale and the examples favor this interpretation. However, it makes all that talk of \\\"based on setting\\\" meaningless.

I don\\\'t know; perhaps all I need to do is change the contradicting statement to indicate that the scale is based on \\\'\\\'our world\\\'\\\' and \\\'\\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\'\\\' the fictional setting, with an added note that the threats of those settings [[SortingAlgorithmOfEvil are usually scaled to match]] the setting\\\'s average power level.
Changed line(s) 5 from:
n
[[quoteblock]]Also note that this isn\'t GushingAboutCharactersYouLike; when adding examples, make realistic assessments of their power level according to the scale and \'\'\'in terms of the setting\'\'\'.[[/quoteblock]]
to:
\\\"Also note that this isn\\\'t GushingAboutCharactersYouLike; when adding examples, make realistic assessments of their power level according to the scale and \\\'\\\'\\\'in terms of the setting\\\'\\\'\\\'.\\\"
Changed line(s) 7 from:
n
Note the words I bolded: \
to:
Note the words I bolded: \\\"in terms of the setting\\\". To me, this means that InAWorld where EveryoneIsASuper, that most Supers would rate 0 or 1. (Can I get an a-men from [[TheIncredibles Syndrome]] here?) But it seems like the entries of the scale are classed by \\\'\\\'our\\\'\\\' definition of \\\"normal\\\" and not the setting\\\'s.

Can you fly? Even though it\\\'s normal for your species and said species is listed on your world\\\'s census forms? That makes you a Class 2 \\\'\\\'at minimum\\\'\\\'! ([[MyLittlePonyFriendshipIsMagic yay]][[hottip:.:Incidentally, I feel that Fluttershy \\\'\\\'should\\\'\\\' be a 2, not because she can fly, but rather for [[HeartIsAnAwesomePower her \\\"Stare.\\\"]])

\\\"[[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfDQUdUjdSs I cast]] [[DungeonsAndDragons Magic Missile]].\\\" Congratulations, level 1 Mage, you\\\'re Class 3!

Now, Archived Discussion seems to have come out in favor of a RealLife-based scale and the examples favor this interpretation. However, it makes all that talk of \\\"based on setting\\\" meaningless.

I don\\\'t know; perhaps all I need to do is change the contradicting statement to indicate that the scale is based on \\\'\\\'our world\\\'\\\' and \\\'\\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\'\\\' the fictional setting, with an added note that the threats of those settings [[SortingAlgorithmOfEvil are usually scaled to match]] the setting\\\'s average power level.
Changed line(s) 7 from:
n
Note the words I bolded: \
to:
Note the words I bolded: \\\"in terms of the setting\\\". To me, this means that InAWorld where EveryoneIsASuper, that most Supers would rate 0 or 1. (Can I get an a-men from [[TheIncredibles Syndrome]] here?) But it seems like the entries of the scale are classed by \\\'\\\'our\\\'\\\' definition of \\\"normal\\\" and not the setting\\\'s.

Can you fly? Even though it\\\'s normal for your species and said species is listed on your world\\\'s census forms? That makes you a Class 2 \\\'\\\'at minimum\\\'\\\'! ([[MyLittlePonyFriendshipIsMagic yay]][[hottip:.:Incidentally, I feel that Fluttershy \\\'\\\'should\\\'\\\' be a 2, not because she can fly, but rather for [[HeartIsAnAwesomePower her \\\"Stare.\\\"]])

\\\"[[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfDQUdUjdSs I cast]] [[DungeonsAndDragons Magic Missile]].\\\" Congratulations, level 1 Mage, you\\\'re Class 3!

Now, Archived Discussion seems to have come out in favor of a RealLife-based scale and the examples favor this interpretation. However, it makes all that talk of \\\"based on setting\\\" meaningless.

I don\\\'t know; perhaps all I need to do is change the contradicting statement to indicate that the scale is based on \\\'\\\'our world\\\'\\\' and \\\'\\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\'\\\' the fictional setting, with an added note that the threats of those settings [[SortingAlgorithmOfEvil are usually scaled to match]] the setting\\\'s average power level.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
The official reason is that the book isn\'t well-known outside of England. The REAL reason is that Americans aren\'t going to watch a movie which has \
to:
The official reason is that the book isn\\\'t well-known outside of England. The REAL reason is that Americans aren\\\'t going to watch a movie which has \\\"scientists\\\" in its title and includes Charles Darwin as a main character.
Top