Sheesh. Is anything a trope anymore? It seems we're trying to become a media version of Wikipedia? How long until obscure shows are deleted for not being notable enough, tropes that don't have a neutral point of view are eliminated, and you need to cite sources for quotes and factual statements? I say this because a lot of tropes that were here for years are suddenly being declared not a trope and the perfectly good titles are being changed into NPOV titles.
Hide / Show Replies
It was real life only. If we were becoming more like Wikipedia we would have kept this.
Very Manly Muppet
...Those pictures do not all look alike. Not really.
Actually a girl.
Swirl Swirl Red Whirl
Cutlisting is not advisable. It's been referenced in too many pages and the Trope Repair Shop discussion is pending as to how to rework this. Many dissent about whether or no it's a trope but it's been in the YKTTW long enough and discussed long enough before launching.
Hide / Show Replies
This is in TRS right now to decide what to do with it, and if there's a trope here, hidden in a badly written page, or not. Cutlisting it is an attempt to force the issue.
At this time I oppose cutting it.
...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.
TheUglyBarnacle
It's not a trope if it only exists in real life.
Hide / Show Replies
Not necessarily. It is an Unfortunate Implications trope that exists in Anime and Porn under the names Generic Cuteness and Pro Porn Clones respectively.It is just the Hollywood version of said tropes.
It is. It's referenced in too many pages already to cut it. We've been discussing how to make it more understandable and clear though.
rosebud64
I'm sorry, I feel that this article is saying Beauty Is Bad. Was the writer of this a Holly Wood Homely Shrinking Violet who was picked on by The Libby? (Where's Dr. Freud when you need him?) Is every beautiful woman a shallow Jerkass at best, or a Complete Monster at worst? WTF? You sound like an unnsympathetic whiner. I'm sorry.
Tropes which apply to rosebud64: Expy: In the movie Im making, the Backyard kids are portrayed acting like famous rock musicians. Hide / Show Replies
I agree. The article acts as though there is no way to distinguish one Hollywood actress from another, and that physical features that are considered attractive (large eyes, pert/cute nose, thin/full lips, face shape, etc.) are ridiculously rare genetic mutations. Maybe I just happen to live around pretty people, or I'm just too idealistic, but it's not like achieving the so-called "Cookie Cutter Cuties" look is unreasonable. Heck, not every celebrity is under that type.
Found this under "Music":
- Type 2: Hilary Duff, Mandy Moore, Amy Lee, Lily Allen, Katy Perry, Taylor Swift, etc.
Okay...seriously? First of all, why fault those women for having a certain look to them, and secondly, since when does Katy Perry look just like Amy Lee?! If you seriously think they look "(almost) exactly the same" then it's not Hollywood, it's your eyesight that's the problem here!
Edited by Stoogebie
Unintentional Nightmare Fuel - My first impression on reading the line "The second type is made of large eyes..."
Edited by Wardog
This is quite bad. It's written in a needlessly provocative manner, and supports its thesis with links to some extremely shrill rants. It tendentiously tries to cover the looks of all famous actresses, including the exceptions.
Hide / Show Replies
Oh... So now we're not supposed to point out to things that are obviously offensive BECAUSE they are offensive? Hollywood Style beauty tropes are all offensive and loaded with Unfortunate Implications. Don't like it? Complain to the casters. We're just pointing out to the logical outcome of Hollywood Homely, Hollywood Pudgy, Hollywood Old and Hollywood Thin. It's not ranting, it's just stating the existence of a casting trope.
Edited by Alrune
Yes, it was ranting, as you originally wrote it. That's why I mercilessly edited the description down and removed all the averted examples. Remember, Tropes Are Tools.
This trope stands a chance of survival now, so long as it doesn't contain gratuitous inflammatory boasts like saying that it is "hardly ever brought up into discussion due to the ruckus it would cause."
Edited by Prfnoff
You Northern Americans and your squeamishness... Fine, if that's what it takes so that you precious feelings don't get hurt, just go on. We need Moral Guardians after all.
It's not a question of "North Americans and [our] squeamishness", Alrune. It's about the fact that this wiki is not a soapbox, nor an appropriate place for essays on sociology, psychology, ideology, feminism, sexism, or any other -ology or -ism. If that's what you want to do, get yourself a blog. This wiki is a place to examine how tropes are used.
...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.
I think the "type" classification needs to go (that's what's causing all three discussions here), but other than this is pretty real and exists in RL.
Tyler Durden is my bitch.
So like, am I the only who thinks this trope is a) unnecessary, b) has a standard that varies from person to person, and c) has no real defintion?
Hide / Show Replies
The standards that fall under this trope are clearly defined in the description. (There are three of them.) That covers points b and c...
There is a fine line between recklessness and courage — Paul McCartney
Linking to a past Trope Repair Shop thread that dealt with this page: not a trope
, started by captainpat on Jun 5th 2011 at 11:18:04 PM
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman