The way I look at the definition of Present Day Past, it's about a past period appearing no different from the time of the production - this would apply for instance if you saw 2019 cars driving on the street or people walking around dressed in 2019 fashions in what is seemingly 1995. I see it as completely different from say, using a song or whatever that came out a year or two later than the intended setting. But I don't know, maybe the definition has changed over time.
As I said, Present-Day Past was a compromise — the closest I could find. Maybe it isn't fitting for this kind of mistakes, but if so, then someone just find the correct trope.
The point here, is that it is certainly NOT Anachronism Stew.
OK, seriously, what is the correct trope for "Error where the filmmakers intentionally put something in the film that they mistakenly thought would have existed at the time the story was set but actually wouldn't have"?
Always expect the worst and you can only be pleasantly surprised.
I'm not sure there is one. Artistic License – History covers voluntary deviations too, Critical Research Failure is too strong a trope for such tiny nitpicks... beyond that, drawing a blank.
The fact that Fury and Coulson refer to SHIELD as SHIELD is not a Continuity Snarl. They already referred to SHIELD as SHIELD in the first scene in Ant-Man and that was set in the '80s. Coulson using the full name in Iron Man is merely an example of Early-Installment Weirdness.
Hide / Show Replies
That wouldn't be a Continuity Snarl anyway, since it requires at least several continuities for it to applies. Dang, I hate how this is so often misused, when the correct trope is Series Continuity Error.
And yes, this example is iffy even as a mere Series Continuity Error.
Is Captain Marvel an Inhuman?
Carol's backstory of gaining power by being experimented on by the Kree is identical to OG inhumans Alveus/Hive.
Hide / Show Replies
I was wondering about that myself, but we'll have to wait until the movie is released to get confirmation one way or another.
Excluding Mar-Vell from the movie wasn't a Pragmatic Adaptation as there is little in common between her origin and Green Lantern's. Nor does Lawson count as his 'gender-flip' as they are obviously not the same person.
—SPOILERS— The movie reveals that she is not in fact an Inhuman, as she got her powers from a Power Cell explosion. The Kree lied to her and told her that they augmented her with Kree Biology, which granted they probably did do, but that's not where her powers come from.
I think it's best to wait at least a couple of days before putting up a YMMV right until after the film is released and covered by reviewers and audience who might have mixed opinions on the movie.
Edited by trainhobovegas Hide / Show Replies
I agree. We should wait until after opening weekend and the page should be monitored for troll and spam comments.
Movie's already been out for a couple of days in several countries, do these countries not count? If you wanna genuinely stop YMMV reactions on upcoming films, do so for every upcoming work, not just the one with some controversy added to it. It's not difficult to divide the YMMV page between pre- and post-release.
Edited by GKG
You might want to read the mod message: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=15501712090A55102800&page=13#comment-312
Link to TRS threads in project mode here.
so there's a new rule that highly anticipated works shouldn't have a YMMV page, I get that, but is there any reason why Avengers: Endgame and Dark Phoenix still have them? And they are updated frequently at that.
It's like someone is trying to avoid criticism at all costs. At this point you should also disable the YMMV page for Ghostbusters '16
Hide / Show Replies
Avengers and Dark Phoenix aren't attracting as much negativity as Captain Marvel has. It's not a matter of avoiding criticism, just overt hostility from people who think this movie is a blatant attack on everything the Y chromosome represents.
You fell victim to one of the classic blunders!
I'd point out that Dark Phoenix is attracting more genuine criticism than CM, it's that CM is acting as a lightning rod not for criticism but inexplicable vitriol.
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
you should check Dark Phoenix's page, it's full of snark bait from people that outright hope the movie flops (or people that have only heard bad opinions about the movie from said people), like what happens with any comic book movie that's not made by marvel studios.
and besides, DP had it's own share of controversies like the departure of Singer, the delays and Fox's buyout of disney and the page is not shy of pointing that out.
Hell, it literally has snark bait examples on it
And the CM YMMV page has someone calling Brie Larson a Nazi. It's textbook Why the Fandom Can't Have Nice Things and it's at another level than Endgame or DP, though thankfully not to the point of GB 16.
Edited by Larkmarn Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
Calling people a nazi is perhaps the most basic of insults, godwin law isn't a trope just because, that's not enough to justify hiding a page for one movie but not hiding it for others under a flimsy excuse.
Besides, that's why we curate and administrate content, not by outright hiding it.
Edited by leloucas
Is there a reason why a YMMV for this does not exist, yet?
Hide / Show Replies
It did exist but it was cut. Firstly because of a consensus that unreleased works shouldn't have a YMMV page, but also because the movie was attracting controversy.
You fell victim to one of the classic blunders!
Wiki Talk discussion: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=15501712090A55102800&page=1
Links don't work in discussion pages correctly for about half a year now, you must click on it then remove extra parts before (https://tvtropes.org/') and after the link manually for it to work. Or copy paste this one: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=15501712090A55102800&page=1
Edited by Asherinka
I don't understand the vitriol and controversy surrounding this movie. Why are people making a big stink about it and saying it's gonna be Marvel's first flop? To me it just looks like another fun MCU movie.
Hide / Show Replies
Brie Larson is a rather controversial figure, and from what I've heard she's using the film to make some sort of political statement, which doesn't sit well with some folks.
Weasel words, I know, but I don't really have the information necessary to make more definitive statements.
Edited by Corvid-Rook
Brie Larson said she wanted to talk to more women journalists in the press circuit; this is seen as inherently anti-man...and anti-white for some reason.
Three reasons in fact:
Number Uno: Disney is trying to sell Captain Marvel as a Feminist Icon who will be the strongest hero of the MCU and probably the face of the franchise after the events of Endgame.
Number Dos: Brie Larson is an outspoken Neo-Progressive and has the tendency to be hyperbolic against the caucasian-dominated status quo of the film industry.
Number Tres: The character looks boring and unattractive in the eyes of many, this disinterest for the movie has led to Neo-Progressive blogs to be hyperbolic against those they feel are actively boycotting the movie, prompting trolls and rightwingers to stoke the flames just to get a reaction out of the progressive blogosphere.
Edited by GoodGamer14
I think you need to reread the definition of disinterest. It may surprise you.
And the rest are not facts, calling them biased opinions is more accurate.
Edited by lowfyr01
Okay, the short version is this: A lot people on the internet are very open about their lack of interest or support for the movie, causing the neo-progressive blogosphere to get angry and write mean things about straight white males and toxic masculinity.
This and Brie Larson being very hyperbolic about how much she want to appeal to non-white males, she has explained herself recently but the damage is already done.
All of this has caused a lot of people to be against the movie and wanting it to not become a hit with audiences as a sort of Take That! against third-wave feminists and the neo-progressive blogosphere.
Edited by GoodGamer14
More simple: A lot of people are writing stupid shit about the movie and trying to sell it as fact.
Do you have a problem with me? I just answered his question.
Or in your opinion people simply are misogynistic pigs for no reason?
Just because some people don't like how others are making the film unnecessarily political doesn't make them "misogynistic pigs." Calling them that will only make it worse.
Personally I do not have a problem with you. But the whole thing gets more stupid. I thought that it could not get more stupid after people interpreted the trailer in certain ways.
But than we got the "Larson is a man-hating ultra-feminist" shit. After seeing the relevant interviews I thought someone seeing her like this must have either a rather loose connection to reality or has an agenda.
And after the Rotten Tomatoes stuff, I think the seound one is slightly more likely.
Guys, film discussion pages are for _tropes_ in the movie. This kind of discussion is unrelated to tropes and belongs to the forum. Could you kindly go start a proper thread there? :)
Edited by Asherinka
There's a couple Forum threads if people are interested in discussing the movie.
The examples that were under Present-Day Past were recently moved to Anachronism Stew. Just to be clear, they were already moved from Anachronism Stew to Present-Day Past before, so it's already bordering on an edit war.
Maybe Present-Day Past wasn't the perfect trope for those examples, but on the other hand I believe Anachronism Stew is entirely wrong for them. Anachronism Stew needs to be obvious and voluntary. Here, those are mistakes requiring a good knowledge of the time period to even notice.
Present-Day Past was IMO an acceptable compromise, although there might be a more adequate trope. Anachronism Stew, however, is a complete misuse. If the examples are too arguable for either tropes, though, better remove them entirely (or put them in Trivia as minor errors).
- For the record:
- Carol remembers playing Street Fighter II in the late '80s, despite it being a game from the early '90s.
- The movie is primarily set in 1995, yet a PC appears to have the 1997 "Windows Desktop Update" installed. Even a regular Windows 95 being already widespread would've been questionable, as it came out in late 1995 - computers at this point in time should've been equipped with Windows 3.1.
- The use of Hole's "Celebrity Skin" over the end titles doesn't match the rest of the soundtrack as it was released in 1998.
Hide / Show Replies