Characters Gravity Falls Mystery Shack Discussion

Collapse/Expand Topics
 

Tuol
Topic
04:59:29 PM Aug 22nd 2015
Ambiguously Bi was added to Mabel's folder. I honestly think it's fanon (since it only sites Mabel calling women "sweet honeys" as evidence), but I don't want to get hate for removing it and putting it in the Fanon section on YMMV. Should I remove it?
MagBas
06:02:17 PM Aug 22nd 2015
edited by MagBas
I am not sure about the most recent episodes, but i watched all the episodes prior to the apparition of the author, and none of the episodes in question actually hints that Mabel is bi.
Tuol
Topic
08:58:09 AM Jul 18th 2015
Shouldn't we move the Author's tropes here? I mean, if he's got his own folder and he's living in the Mystery Shack, shouldn't this be where his tropes belong now?
Ekelai
Topic
11:04:01 AM Jun 29th 2015
edited by Ekelai
So, a while back (June 18th specifically, for anyone who wants to go through the history) I edited Grunkle Stan's entry updating with the info that Grunkle Stan is actually Stanley Pines while The Author is the real Stanford Pines, which was reverted since the source (IMDB edit) was shaky at best. Now there's officially released information (even if only from a promo) that backs this claim up (hiding link in a spoiler tag since the URL itself contains a spoiler) http://chrossrank.tumblr.com/post/122771538525/grunkle4grandpa-confirmed, does this count as solid enough revert back to what I changed? Sub topic: should the Strong Family Resemblance entry under Stan be removed since the resemblance should be obvious given that He and the Author are twins?
RhymeBeat
07:15:03 AM Jun 30th 2015
I think that's pretty irrefutable evidence.
Tuol
Topic
12:40:02 PM Jun 25th 2015
edited by Tuol
I think we need to talk about this:

  • Took a Level in Jerkass:
    • In "The Deep End," he puts his lifeguard job over his friends and family out of fear of losing his job and to be with Wendy, who was also on lifeguard duty at the time.
    • In "The Land Before Swine," when Dipper goes against Mabel's advice to be gentle when he tells Soos he doesn't want him to come along on a delicate mission, and harangues Soos for being nothing but trouble the whole time when he further meddles things up, and Dipper makes an indirect jab at Soos' weight.
    • In "The Love God," Dipper shows shades of this at the beginning of the episode, joining the gang in ordering Thompson around and showing no compassion for Robbie's heartbreak because he and Mabel are finally "in". He sheds it, however, after seeing that Robbie and Tambry are really happy together and Robbie thanks Mabel for setting the couple up.
    • In "Not What He Seems," after realizing Stan was a Broken Pedestal, Dipper in the climax refused to listen to his great uncle to leave the machine on and attempts to egg Mabel to shut down the device, while Stan pleaded with her not to. When Mabel chooses listening to Stan over Dipper, Dipper becomes infuriated that Mabel chose to trust the man whose been manipulating and lying to them all summer over her own brother.

This is from Dipper's folder, and a lot of this seems very Ron the Death Eater. For instance, in the first one Dipper was only doing his job and didn't know about Mermando, and certainly was not "putting his job over his friends and family," even if he was initially doing the job to impress a girl. And in the second, Dipper had every right to be furious at both Stan and Mabel, one for lying and risking the world to activate this strange machine they knew nothing about (other than the fact that it could potentially kill them all) and the other for going along with it and gambling all their lives on the word of a man who, for all they know, has never said a truthful word to them before. Being mad at that doesn't make someone a jerk, it makes someone legitimately and justifiably hurt. And we haven't even gotten proof of him actually being "furious" at anyone yet. Some of this stuff does have a point, but other parts sound just petty.

What do you all think?
beack7
12:45:31 PM Jun 25th 2015
Agreed. Those two points should be cut.
beack7
Topic
01:10:11 PM Jun 3rd 2015
I took this here for two reasons: 1) The "guy" mentioned is her Grunkle Stan, one of the most important people in her life, so it's a lot more complicated than that. 2) She had no idea it would be a life-threatening job when she asked him to do it.
Tuol
06:21:37 PM Jun 23rd 2015
Pretty sure that's talking about Northwest Mansion Mystery, not Not What He Seems. And while the life-threatening bit is a bit up for debate, it's nothing some editing can't fix.
beack7
06:36:33 PM Jun 23rd 2015
Once again, Mabel didn't know the job would put Dipper's life in danger when she asked him.
Tuol
06:43:18 PM Jun 23rd 2015
Besides the whole 'life-threatening' part and the incorrect episode listing (and the 'doesn't even thank him bit,' which sounds petulant), there is fact in the trope: her actions in Northwest Mansion Mystery did directly contradict the aesop she learned in Sock Opera. Sure, Mabel didn't know about the life-threatening bit, but controversial wording doesn't discount the other points and doesn't mean the whole trope should be deleted. That's what editing's for.
beack7
06:47:43 PM Jun 23rd 2015
I wasn't arguing for removing it completely, I wanted to discuss that part here before editing it to avoid an edit war.
Tuol
07:49:56 PM Jun 23rd 2015
edited by Tuol
This is the editied version of the above trope, which I posted:
  • Aesop Amnesia: In Season 2. Among other things, she learns in Sock Opera not to push aside important people in her life for a guy and to appreciate her brother's efforts to make her happy. However, she backslides in Northwest Mansion Mystery, again pushing aside important people in her life for a guy and talking her brother into taking a potentially dangerous job offered by people they know are corrupt so she and her friends can go to a fancy party.
You edited out everything that didn't have to do with Mabel's tendency to push aside people for a guy, and I'm confused now. Isn't "appreciating her brother's efforts to make her happy" part of the aesop of Sock Opera? I'm pretty sure the heel realization of her selfishness and how much Dipper gave up to make her happy was a huge part of that episode. And "talking her brother into taking a potentially dangerous job offered by people they know are corrupt so she and her friends can go to a fancy party" is something that goes directly against that aesop. Are you disbelieving the sentence itself? Because Mabel definitely knew the job Pacifica was offering was potentially dangerous. The last time she and Dipper ran into ghosts was The Inconveniencing, after all, and they almost died then. Mabel also knew the Northwests were corrupt, and has since Irrational Treasure. And yes, the entire conversation between Mabel and Dipper that episode was Mabel convincing Dipper to take the job so she and her friends could go to the elite fancy party. So what's not factual about what was written? Please explain.
beack7
07:58:04 PM Jun 23rd 2015
edited by beack7
Dipper notes ghosts fall on a 1 to 10 category, with "floating plates" only falling on category 1 and specifically says it's "nothing to worry about." It's when he confronts the ghost he realizes it's more dangerous than that.
Tuol
08:10:34 PM Jun 23rd 2015
edited by Tuol
But Pacifica hadn't told them anything about the haunting yet. Here, this is the full dialogue she uses to describe the haunting before Mabel talks Dipper into agreeing:

"Look. You think it's easy for me to come here? I don't want to be seen in this hovel. But there's something haunting Northwest Manor. (Takes off sunglasses) If you don't help me, the party could be ruined!"

That is all Pacifica had told either of them at the time. So neither Dipper nor Mabel had any information to judge whether it was dangerous or not besides the key word "haunting" until after Mabel talked him into agreeing so she could get the tickets, and the point still stands: the job Pacifica was offering was, as far as Mabel knew, potentially dangerous. Hence the word "potential" as in "having the possibility of being." So can we just agree to change it back? I don't even understand why it was edited out in the first place, because it's a fact not an opinion. Here's the aesop, here's what she did that went against the aesop later. Seems straight-laced to me.
beack7
08:17:47 PM Jun 23rd 2015
edited by beack7
True, but while the scene were Pacifica described how bad the haunting was happened off-screen, it's most likely Mabel was there when she explained it and knew it wouldn't be too dangerous. Also, had Mabel and Dipper learned it was a more dire situation, they might have mutually backed down.
Tuol
08:25:03 PM Jun 23rd 2015
edited by Tuol
But it still happened. She still talked him into a potentially dangerous situation before they knew anything about it, which was my point. Whether or not there was a conversation afterwards, that scene where Mabel begs her brother to do a potentially dangerous job she knows nothing about so she can get into a party still happened, and still goes against the previously established aesop. It is fact. You can't deny visual, established fact with a scene that was implied to maybe have happened off-screen later, it doesn't change what happened before that on screen. Besides, maybe's and likely's and probably's are YMMV and WMG territory. An argument against something can't be based off a hypothetical scene we never saw. Pacifica and Dipper had plenty of time alone before confronting the ghost, Mabel isn't guaranteed to have heard and it doesn't matter if she did. She still did what she did earlier, and her actions still went against the aesop. QED: Aesop Amnesia. Why is this being contested?

I'm restoring the trope's text tomorrow when I wake up to the full paragraph, since I think I've proved my points.
beack7
09:34:22 PM Jun 23rd 2015
edited by beack7
Another thing that occurred to me was the only danger Pacifica mentions when she asks Dipper to help her is the party being ruined, which wouldn't give Dipper and Mabel reason to think it's life-threatening.
Tuol
09:57:54 PM Jun 23rd 2015
edited by Tuol
...No, that always came off to me as Pacifica having skewed priorities. The entire Northwest family was, before that, portrayed as shallow with severely skewed priorities. They're known to prioritize winning and appearance over everything, it wouldn't be exaggerating to interpret that as them considering their party more important than anything else threatened by the ghost. This shallow skew of priorities is expected by the audience and the twins. And it is a billion-dollar party with millionaires and billionaires in attendance, the disruption of which could have a huge social and financial effect on the Northwests.

But regardless of this, the argument that Mabel would easily assume the conflict isn't dangerous because Pacifica is primarily worried about her parents' party is full of logical fallacies. Those factors aren't related. You can't assume a level of danger from someone else prioritizing something you likely wouldn't in their place. In either case, Mabel didn't have the knowledge to judge the danger and obviously didn't even consider the danger; she still talked her brother into dealing with the problem so she and her friends could get into the fancy party, which still proves my point. She wasn't thinking about what her brother would have to do, and even if it was a simple task of banishing a level one ghost, that still doesn't make her getting Dipper to work for her party tickets okay. Add that to the fact that she even didn't know what she was setting her brother up for, and QED: Aesop Amnesia. Not appreciating her brother's efforts to make her happy, but actively encouraging him to do more for her, which is so far against the aesop it's ridiculous.
Tuol
05:44:52 AM Jun 24th 2015
Changing it back now. Thank you for having this debate with me. Being able to defend it so thoroughly really helps my confidence in my stance, and I often have problems with that.
Ekelai
Topic
11:50:38 AM Nov 27th 2014
I feel like with what we learned in "Society of the Blind Eye" about Wendy's family situation and how it affects her emotionally, the "Took A Level in Jerkass" entries might be better moved to a "Not So Stoic" entry (ie, Tossing Soos' "Girl we Blanchin'" CD was a moment of passion for which she apologized immediately - hardly something to alter her character.)
xPixelxDustx
Topic
08:58:23 AM Jul 11th 2013
Guys, can we please stop trying to add Ungrateful Bitch under Wendy's entry? Flipping out at Dipper for interfering with her and Robbie's relationship hardly qualifies. Give it up.
Collapse/Expand Topics