Follow TV Tropes

Following

Discussion History Main / PlayingWithATrope

Go To

Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
I don\'t think Chris was trying to be funny regarding to WebOriginal/JewWario\'s suicide, but it did caused backlash from his detractors. So I replaced it to InternetBackdraft.
to:
I don\\\'t think Chris was trying to be funny regarding to Creator/JewWario\\\'s suicide, but it did caused backlash from his detractors. So I replaced it to InternetBackdraft.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
I don\'t think Chris was trying to be funny regarding to JewWario\'s suicide, but it did caused backlash from his detractors. So I replaced it to InternetBackdraft.
to:
I don\\\'t think Chris was trying to be funny regarding to WebOriginal/JewWario\\\'s suicide, but it did caused backlash from his detractors. So I replaced it to InternetBackdraft.
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
In the example of Nishiki, my argument is that a callback is happening because the serpent symbolism was there all along but the party giving that symbolism meaning changed.
to:
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
The first is not a subversion because the trope DOES happen, but is eventually removed from play and even later is brought back. To note, this play would be not just be a second instance of a trope, either, but would relate directly to the first instance. It would be an actual callback not just a reuse.
to:
The first is not a subversion because the trope DOES happen, but is eventually removed from play and even later is brought back. To note, this play would be not just be a second instance of a trope, either, but would relate to the first instance. It would be an actual callback not just a reuse.
Changed line(s) 2 from:
to:
In the example of Nishiki, my argument is that a callback is happening because the serpent symbolism was there all along but the party giving that symbolism meaning changed.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
The first is not a subversion because the trope DOES happen, but is eventually removed from play and even later is brought back. To note, this play would be not just be a second instance of a trope, either, but would relate directly to the first instance. It would be an actual callback not just a reuse.
to:
The first is not a subversion because the trope DOES happen, but is eventually removed from play and even later is brought back. To note, this play would be not just be a second instance of a trope, either, but would relate directly to the first instance. It would be an actual callback not just a reuse.

Edited first post with naming suggestions in order to clarify meaning.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
The first is not a subversion because the trope DOES happen, but is eventually removed from play and even later is brought back. To note, this play would be not just be a second instance of a trope, either, but would relate directly to the first instance. It would have to be an actual callback not just a reuse.
to:
The first is not a subversion because the trope DOES happen, but is eventually removed from play and even later is brought back. To note, this play would be not just be a second instance of a trope, either, but would relate directly to the first instance. It would be an actual callback not just a reuse.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
The first is not a subversion because the trope DOES happen, but is eventually removed from play and even later is brought back.
to:
The first is not a subversion because the trope DOES happen, but is eventually removed from play and even later is brought back. To note, this play would be not just be a second instance of a trope, either, but would relate directly to the first instance. It would have to be an actual callback not just a reuse.
Top