What's Happening

Troperville

Tools

collapse/expand topics back to YMMV/TurnaboutStorm

 

Elbruno
topic
05:28:27 PM Oct 29th 2013
I know YMMV items are supposed to be arguable by their very nature, but I feel like a lot, if not all, of the following are really stretching it. Thoughts?

  • Ship Tease:
    • Nick and Rarity really hit it off (to the point where she actually compliments his hairdo, as opposed to others who liken it to a porcupine eating his skull).
    • And then there's Trixie being Tsundere for Nick after all this.
    • And then we have Sonata.
    • Of course, we can't leave out the one who summoned Phoenix, Twilight. Hell, look at the similarities.
NonoRobot
topic
04:14:57 AM Jan 30th 2013
Hi,

This entry was added in the YMMV section:

  • Ass Pull: The mystery witness in Part 4 turns out to be Gilda, a character who's never appeared and was only mentioned once, very indirectly, by Twilight. While it's not such a big deal, due to how well-written and well-excecuted the scene is, it is much more understandable for those who watched the Friendship is Magic episode.

I don't think this example qualify. Gilda was foreshadowed numerous times: she was mentionned indirectly by Twilight, her feather was found on the crime scene (way back in the beginning of the story), and the perfume delivery was hinted at several times during the story. I agree that Gilda's character is more understandable if you watched the Fi M episode, but can't we say the same of others characters appearing in this cross-over? Overall, there was foreshadowing, thus I don't think this example is valid. Though, just in case, I wanted to discuss it with you before deleting the entry.
Elbruno
05:15:04 AM Jan 30th 2013
I found that entry really iffy too. I guess the biggest argument in its favor is that, unlike other characters like Apple Bloom, who also show up with little foreshadowing, Gilda doesn't get any expository explanation until Twilight shows up. Just playing devil's advocate here.
Shaoken
02:36:26 AM Oct 26th 2013
Throwing my two cents in now that I've seen the final (and man, it's been ten months since the last part? Wow). It was hinted at enough that I'd think it doesn't count (the Griffin's feather in the last part), and this work is made with the assumption you are familiar with at least one side of the crossover.
Shaoken
topic
04:58:54 AM Sep 11th 2012
Removed the Complete Monster entry from the page. Go to the cleanup thread if you want to dispute it.
Elbruno
05:32:27 AM Sep 11th 2012
Yeah, I always thought that entry was a bit overblown. He is a massive asshole, especially for the standards of the work, but from there to call him a monster is kind of a stretch.
Psyga315
08:08:54 PM Sep 11th 2012
Yeah. I think it has to do with the fact that people think a key sign to a Complete Monster is that they don't have qualms going after kids.
ClatoLawa
06:12:58 AM Sep 12th 2012
...It isn't? The whole point of a Complete Monster is to be an evil that doesn't have standards, in this case being willing to threaten to pull a comatose filly off life support for the sake of his racing reputation. Swift is well across the Moral Event Horizon, so the only thing I can see that would disqualify him is that everything he's done is so far Offstage Villainy - though I would think there'd be some kind of leeway in the case of a Posthumous Character and an Asshole Victim. If there isn't, here's hoping we get some kind of flashback in Part 4 to support Cruise's claim or that of whoever the killer was.
Shaoken
06:58:09 PM Sep 12th 2012
It's irrelevant, even with his actions taking place onscreen, it's still far from being Complete Monster worthy. Don't tell me what the point of a Complete Monster is, I've spent the last year on that very point.

His worst act is threatening to remove his support for Cruise's sister, putting her in the same position as she was before he stepped in. A dick move, but that shows a lack of compasion, not being a Complete Monster.
Jarkes
06:59:39 PM Sep 12th 2012
Yeah. A character can cross the Moral Event Horizon without going into Complete Monster territory.
Shaoken
10:08:16 PM Sep 12th 2012
edited by Shaoken
Indeed.

Anyway, a relevant note, the last time we got a villian from MLP:Fi M in the cleanup thread (brought up by an overenthusastic brony...99), the concensus was that it was pretty much impossible to be a Complete Monster in the setting because becoming completely irredeamable seemed impossible from the tone of the work. The same applies here; Ace hasn't done something he couldn't try and make amends for if he actually got a concscience. If, you know he wasn't dead and all.
CJCroen1393
03:34:53 PM Sep 23rd 2012
My two cents are that we should wait until there's more information about him. If it turns out that he a good reason for his actions or the ends justified the means (like for all we know he might have needed something important he would've gotten from the race, like prize money or something) then he'll be disqualified but if it turns out that all he wanted was more fame and adoration for himself, or some other petty or selfish purpose, then we should at least look into putting him there. I personally think he qualifies (he's been blackmailing ponies for years just to remain the champion, going so far as to threaten the life an innocent filly who has little to nothing to do with him besides being the sister of a competitor just to stay on top) but, while I haven't played the games (as much as I desperately want to) I know that the Phoenix Wright series is, first and foremost, a crime and investigation drama. And those almost always have endings that surprise you.
Shaoken
09:00:49 PM Jan 1st 2013
Unless it turns out he killed someone personally, the cleanup thread wouldn't even take another look at him. He fails the bare minimum standard for heniousness on account that his worst act is revoking hospital care, and one murder is not enough to even be considered.

Furthermore, compared to the Complete Monsters from Wright's games, Ace falls short and since they're directly referenced, he fails the truly henious standard anyway.

Furthermore, the MLP:Fi M setting is too light for someone to be irredeamable.

So no, there will be no further debate on Ace if there is no further evidence about him presented in the last act.
Shaoken
02:43:28 AM Oct 26th 2013
Now that the last act is finished; he still doesn't count. Even trying to kill Sonata isn't enough (as one murder wouldn't cut it, unless it was an absolute heinous murder). Plus he would have to stand against the villains from Ace Attorney (where he'd fail to stand out, even against the one character who is very similar to him) and the FIM villains (where a few you could make the case for are much more heinous).
ccoa
moderator
topic
08:46:09 AM May 4th 2012
This entry is the subject of an edit war:

  • On the flipside, this seems more of a case of Phoenix lacking the case-turning evidence he collects while investigating in his canon cases due to taking this case of a very short notice, and also the fact that he's on an alien world and doesn't know all the workings behind it, rather than over-competitiveness from Trixie's part; after all, she's just been pulling the same tricks prosecutors in Nick's world pull on a daily basis.

Please work it out here.
Elbruno
08:50:09 AM May 4th 2012
edited by Elbruno
Slapping a Villain Sue mark on a character is a serious accusation, and if there's a valid counterpoint to it it should be pointed out.

Trixie has prosecuting abilities like those of the other prosecutors Phoenix has faced before, and she has all of the evidence on her side, which is by no means an issue of over competitiveness, but an issue of Phoenix not having anything to counter her points.

It's ridiculous to slap the over competitiveness mark on her just for that, considering Ace Attorney is a series where the prosecutors can intimidate the judge into keeping his trap shut and also restrain parrots for holding vital evidence on them.
ccoa
moderator
09:45:58 AM May 4th 2012
Out of curiosity, if there's a counterpoint, does Villain Sue apply at all?
Elbruno
10:10:10 AM May 4th 2012
I'm not sure, I don't know much about the Sue tropes. I'll take a look.
Elbruno
11:12:22 AM May 4th 2012
From the Villain Sue page:

"Probably the rarest type of Sue, as Villains are always given great powers and abilities to make their inevitable downfall more sweet. A true Villain Sue will probably never have one, however, and even if he does it may be via Only The Author Can Save Them Now rather than any non-Ass Pull method."

Trixie here doesn't fit the criteria, she is a jerk and has the advantage of evidence, but she has nothing that points out invincibility. Also, like I said before, prosecutors in the actual series have gotten away with much, much more.
ccoa
moderator
02:05:39 PM May 4th 2012
Well, I'd like someone else to weigh in, but it sounds to me like the trope may not even fit.

If it does, we need to put it back in a better way than it was. The article should read like it was written by one person, and counterarguments ruin that illusion.
Elbruno
11:51:17 AM May 9th 2012
5 days and no response. It really looks like the Villain Sue example doesn't even fit here. If more time passes and there's no response I guess the entry should be pulled.
ILikeCrows
02:30:38 PM May 10th 2012
Knowing both canons, I vote for pulling it. She doesn't really have any advantages we haven't seen before in the games, and Phoenix has been in worse situations before.

Besides, I get the feeling that the before-mentioned "alien world with only one day's preparation" is the main reason why Phoenix did so badly the first day.
Elbruno
03:39:38 PM May 10th 2012
A long time has passed and there are no arguments against the pull of the entry. I'm erasing it from the article

  • Villain Sue: Trixie. Literally every single time Phoenix has any type of objection, Trixie effortlessly destroys it in seconds. In some cases, Phoenix's objections actually end up helping Trixie's case.
Elbruno
05:27:50 PM Oct 29th 2013
edited by 190.101.91.145
-Ignore-
back to YMMV/TurnaboutStorm

TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org.
Privacy Policy