Markup View

Author: NemuruMaeNi

May 30th 2014 at 2:49:13 AM

If I saw this launched, I'd call it broken from the start. Sorry for leaving yet another WallOfText (I'd say it's pretty low-height, but...). Feel free not to read it, the short version is "This trope candidate has no description of the trope".
----
In "[[AC:Repeating the same scene can be a powerful effect, used for emphasis or drama. When the same event plays out from a different perspective, The Reveal follows; we are learning something new that wasn't apparent when we saw the event the first time around.]]

[[AC:This trope can be used <...>]]" New paragraph starting with "This trope can be used..." indicates that all there was to provide about intended trope basics has already been provided.

Not much of a description we end up with. "Powerful effect" words are empty, opinionated. All they do is dropping heavy boulders at the ideal of being concise already falling down the bottomless chasm. Description should show what the described thing is and how to recognize it. Instead it has how ''something else can be yet another something else.''

If [[AC:repeating the same scene]] part is what this trope entails, it contradicts the following statement of its being able to be invoked by characters. If it isn't, then description is misleading.

What is meant by "playing out" in the [[AC:when the same event plays out from a different perspective]] part? Audience is being shown the same event several times? Or maybe the audience later finds out something about an event and is supposed to play that even out again in mind, with this new knowledge applied? No clarity at all.

Who is this "we" in the [[AC:we are learning something new that wasn't apparent when we saw the event the first time around]]? You'll never guess who I consider myself to be, so you'll never even find an answer which would make the line a comfortable read. Declaring the editorial "we" to be able to learn something is pushing it hard. Leave the "we" out of it.  [[GoodStyle "It is not a forum so don't write in first person."]]
----
With no basics, it's as good as having no description. And without description people provided examples based on keywords, it's wrong to assume they testify to fully understanding  the text. (hats? likely a result of nice visual impression, not logic)

In absence of description, examples have nothing to connect to and compare with, yet attempts at description solidification will likely result in discarding some examples due to visible contradictions.
----
"Tiffany" in Men in Black example was a CensorDecoy, right? Or did someone rewrite the example not having an idea of the actual footage? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRXNNqNfQBs