Archived Discussion

This is discussion archived from a time before the current discussion method was installed.

Richard_W: I'd assumed "anvilicious" was a portmanteaux of "anvil" and "vicious" (rather than either "malicious" or "delicious" as in the current description) - with the connotation "violently anvil-like". I don't want to fiddle with the definition if it's just me, though.

(Either that, or simply the best-sounding standard ending to stick onto "anvil", anyway. In fact I still think the etymology given is a back-formation from the word itself. I just think mine is better. Don't worry, I won't change it yet.)

TMX: Could someone please elaborate on how Final Fantasy Seven counts as an example of anvilicious? I'll admit I've never played it myself, but I've read and watched a few summaries of the story and fail to see what aesop it potentially beats players over the head with.

Unknown Troper: I'm not so sure about the example of The Handmaid's Tale being anvilicious in its femanism, on account of my teacher addressing on how pretty much everyone is suffering under the totalitarianism of Gilead, since most men are not allowed to have sex, the ones who do aren't supposed to enjoy (well, no one is.), they are also forced into roles, and the Commander of the main character is clearly unhappy with the relationship he has with his wife and has a secret one with her, which seems to be against the law, regulations, or whatever.

Antheia: In any case, it certainly shows more than it tells. I'm not sure why it's listed here at all — you could call it an Author Tract if you wished, but I've got the impression that Anvilicious is about stating something is wrong without showing the problems (or doing both).

Gus: Pulled these out, because they are not actually examples of any kind — they do not illustrate the point in any way.

The entirety of Captain Planet And The Planeteers, from the concept up.
Tiny Toon Adventures fell victim to this a lot (but also subverted it, in their "drinking alcohol" sketch).
Many episodes of South Park.

Ununnilium: I disagree. If you know those shows, you get a better understanding of what the entry's talking about.

Gus: What from Captain Planet And The Planeteers illustrates the point? When, in Tiny Toon Adventures, is anvilicious demonstrated? How does being made aware that there are "Many episodes of South Park" help someone understand the term?

Dark Sasami: I don't necessarily disagree with the idea that the Examples should contain actual examples instead of lists of shows that contain examples. However, I will say that if you're going to use that as a criterion to kill example entries, you've got a hell of a lot of work ahead of you. And I don't recommend it — instead, add an "examples need fleshing out" flag. Discarding information because you don't like its presentation is not conducive to a Wiki.

Also, the Tiny Toon Adventures example does specifically refer to the drunk driving episode ("One Beer"). And Captain Planet And The Planeteers gives it away in the title. The most rudimentary knowledge about Captain Planet will give the average reader enough information to say "Oh yeah, no kidding."

Gus: Well, if I see something that does not add anything to the entry, I will move it to the discussion page, as I did here. No arbitrary zaps will occur. You may safely assume I haven't seen any Tiny Toon Adventures, so informing me that there was an episode about drunk driving still doesn't tell me anything about anvilicious-ness. I'll assume that Captain Planet And The Planeteers is heavy-handed, I guess.

I agree, there are a lot of fancruft-y examples. I think that is a problem.

Ununnilium: I don't think it is a problem. Like the entry for fancruft itself says, around here, we call it "Examples". That said, I do think there are a lot that could use fleshing out; I'll do just that with the Tiny Toon Adventures entry.

Dark Sasami: By this point, Gus, I have no idea what you're talking about. You call "fancrufty" examples a problem, but delete the examples that don't have enough detail for you. What is it that you want? I'm strongly suspecting "only shows Gus has seen are allowed."

Gus: Nothing has been deleted. Only moved off for discussion.

Thanks for the opportunity to state my thesis.:-) An example should do something to illustrate, clarify or exemplify an entry. We have a lot of items under an "Example" heading that are primarily just a shout-out to an instance of a trope.

Maybe we need to develop a practice of listing these incidence reports under an "Instance" heading, so that people looking for further explication are not led astray.

Ununnilium: IMHO, that would just be adding unnecessary complexity. After all, the people reading the entry can see how much detail is in any specific example. I think these "instance" entries in the examples are fine as they are.

Gus: Obviously, I disagree. Here is the dynamic: A person comes into the wiki following a lead toward a trope. They read the trope. It is not quite clear, to them. They see "Examples". It is a list of cartoon series, or BTVS episode titles with no elaboration, or a list of comic book issue numbers. The person happens to be a CSI fan. They find nothing that they can relate with. They say "Oh, this is a "animation/anime/comix/Buffy site. Not for me."

Dark Sasami: If it's not clear to them after reading the article, then it's a bad article.

However, this goes straight back to my suggestion of having an "examples need fleshing out" flag. You did create the flag system for a reason, right?

Gus: I added the flag, without remark. Should it be phrased differently?

Ununnilium: Yes. Something like "Needs detail in examples". Also, you might want "needs detail in main entry".

Morgan Wick: First of all, on my IE 6 system the dropdown box for flags is really narrow, and I can't tell the difference between the two flags that begin with "Examples". Second of all, can Captain Planet be re-added as:

Captain Planet And The Planeteers was one big Anvilicious environmental message.

Is that enough, or does it still need enough detail? (I haven't watched enough Tiny Toons, and the South Park reference just left me scratching my head. The day that show has a real moral played straight will be a sign of the impending apocalypse.)

Ununnilium: That sounds good to me. And yeah, who added the South Park one anyway?

Dark Sasami: Are you kidding? South Park constantly beats you about the head with its morals, one of which exists in almost every episode. It's just that it succeeds at being really damn funny about it at the same time. And the moral is only sometimes the one stated in the nearly Once an Episode "You know, I've learned something today." Also, a lot of the time the moral it's trying to beat into you is "things are a lot more complicated than left vs. right, so learn to think." But it's there...you just have to be able to see it.

(And no, I'm not the one who added it.)

If you want a specific example, take the movie, which very heavyhandedly clobbers you with "Quit being so obsessed with "obscenity" when the real obscenity is violence and disrespect for human life." As usual, this is stated in reverse by the bad guy (in this case Kyle's mom): "Remember what the MPAA says: horrific, deplorable violence is okay, as long as people don't say any naughty words!"

Gus: I rephrased the flag for examples flesh and did a thing that will make the list more available in Internet Explorer. I am tempted to mis-quote JM Barrie. When ever you launch Internet Explorer, a Fairy dies.

Tzintzuntzan: Allow me to chime in that I agree with DS — South Park has had mallet-on-the-head morals in such episodes as "Butt Out," "Cartman's Silly Hate Crime 2000," and "Sexual Harassment Panda." (It's even more obvious if you know the politics of the creators, which they're pretty open about.) They did a Lampshade Hanging about it in the Family Guy parody episode, where the driver says that Family Guy may be pointless, but at least it isn't preachy and full of itself. (And no, I wasn't the one who originally added South Park to the list either. Anybody know who did?)

Morgan Wick: This is why we should be like Wikipedia and list every edit back to the beginning of the entry no matter how old. Of course, Wikipedia also gives each edit its own separate page; this system would be too damn long as is.

Jordan: While I agree with the message, I think that the Gonne in Terry Pratchett's Men at Arms was fairly anvilicious as the novel portrays the object as inherently evil and corrupting. It also seems to incorporate the concept of technical pacificism in this way, as with all of the ways people die in the Discworld, why should a gun be any worse?

Andyroid: Well, for one thing, a rifle is a big step up from swords and crossbows. But yeah, having the Power of Belief turn the Gonne into an Artifact of Doom that encourages people to kill seems a little over the top for Pratchett.

Ununnilium: Yeah, t'was a bit weird, especially as other gun-like objects turn up later in the series without similar effects (for instance, in The Fifth Elephant).

Daibhid C: "Gun-like" but not, in fact, a gun. And still presented as a much nastier than swords and bows ("It's not a weapon! It's for killing people!") even without being an Artifact of Doom.

Bob: Well, I think the major difference is that even a spring-bow(fifth elephant) stores the power of it's own user - and so do all the weapons that aren't the Gonne. The "regular" weapons may amplify (lever) or store (bow/crossbow/spring gun) the user's own strength, but the gonne manages to give anyone, at all, the simple power to kill anyone, without any ability to save themselves. That said, I don't think that it belongs here - remember Carrot (who has killed (not a pacifist)) doesn't even hear the voice of the Gonne. Also, Leonard says that it was "clearly a made thing", that he was putting a shape on something that was already there. I would say it's likely that the Gonne didn't get it's power from the power of belief, but from some outside force, who knows what. As such, I don't think that this is anvilicious.

Fast Eddie: Pulled out discussion:

(Umm, did this actually happen?)

Ununnilium: Bill Willingham is conservative? Huh. (I guess this proves he really is good at it. And, yes, that one issue was just as appropriate for this entry as the example said.)

anonymous: when is that example from South Park from, I think Parker and Stone like don't believe Global Warming exist or something (see Manbearpig, Two Days Before the Day After tomorrow) or at least don't think it's that important (Smug Alert!)

Mack J: I removed the references to MS T3k's Kevin Murphy from the page, Reefer Madness: The Musical was co-written by A Kevin Murphy, but not THE Kevin Murphy.

Netbug: About the El Tigre one, it really feels like it's just bashing the show and using opinion over fact. Also, Manny the main character is 13. No 10

Andyroid: Okay, Charred Knight, ouch. I've never played Final Fantasy Tactics Advance, so all I know about it is the apparent Internet Backdraft over whether or not the "don't run away from your problems" moral is such an example of Moral Dissonance. So could someone familiar with the game rewrite that example to be a little less harsh?

Charred Knight: Its roughly equivalent to reading Animal Farm, and deciding to start a communist revolution. I also deleted the part about how Cid ends up being a Drunk/ out of work, in the end he gets a job, and if I remember right in the end in the Japanese version he stops being a drunk as well.

Discussion about the Discworld example

This could be chalked up to differing views on firearms in Britain and the US.
This troper took it as being more about the evils of hoarding technology. After all, if someone clever got their hands on the gonne, they could theoretically replicate it...at which point it's no longer unique (which seemed to be the basis of its intelligence and malevolence). This is not an encouragement of the Mutually Assured Destruction philosophy but rather that spreading dangerous knowledge so everyone has it and thus can use it is the best way to diffuse tensions regarding that knowledge. In the most recent novel, Making Money, the last fifth or so of the book deals with Ankh-Morpork suddenly having something they could conquer the world with...which of course will piss every other nation and city-state right off once they find out. The situation is defused when the lead not only finds out how to command the items in question, but suggests to Vetinari (who wants nothing to do with the items in question) that a "spy" "let slip" the secret of how to do so to the other nations through the semaphore towers.
Actually the gun was never turned into anything and was a simple piece of machinery from beginning to end. And I always thought the message was supposed to be "Power corrupts".

I thought the Gonne episode was more a deconstruction of people's desire (see World of Warcraft, to start with) to insert guns into high fantasy, swords and sorcery worlds, showing why it wouldn't work. The message isn't 'this is what guns are like', but 'this is what a Discworld gun would be like'. There is also an element of the British attitude to firearms - we don't blink an eye at them in movies and stuff but most people find their actual presence quite unnerving (more than other weapons like knives), and Terry Pratchett's theory that it's about the way the actual power doesn't seem to come from anywhere is as good as any.

Could Super Mario Sunshine count, with it's theme of cleaning up graffiti? Or the mission in which you have to clean the teeth of a giant eel?

Fast Eddie: I dunno. Looks like natter. Quacks like natter. Pulling it...

Lord of War...just...Lord of War...every single frame of every single shot of every single scene. It all boils down to "guns are bad." At some points the action stops while the characters lecture us on the history of the arms trade.
- This troper thinks that the above comment made by the ultra-conservative is a bit of an overreaction.

Lord Seth: How does the quote at the top fit? It's not Anvilicious and isn't really a spoof of Anvilicious (it's more of a Spoof Aesop or at the most a joke on Script Wank).

Prfnoff: Removed the Buffy quote for being a Spoof Aesop.

Athmel: I'll respond to FFTA, seeing as how I am one of those people. I am because the way I saw it was that the only reason Marche wanted to go back was because he realized the only one who life sucked now was his. His brother could walk, Ritz? had genuine friends and colored hair, and Mewt had a family. Marche had nothing, he was lonely in both worlds. I just saw his actions as selfish, had his life there been awesome and he willingly gave it up then I'd agree with the sentiment. It's anvilicious simply because Marche is such a goody-goody and will always make the obvious/best/moral choices.

Demetrios: I couldn't agree more about The Happening being Anvilicious. When I heard about its Gaia's Vengeance undertone, I thought, "Oh, that's nice. So Mother Nature starts brainwashing us into committing increasingly gruesome suicides, and we're the bad guys". Worst. Mother. Ever.

Random Lurker: Would it perhaps be worth adding to the main body of this page something about how one tends not to mind the anvils if one agrees with their point? Or is that a separate trope I haven't found yet?

Fast Eddie: See:Some Anvils Need to Be Dropped

//also... This doesn't really illustrate the trope meaning better than the present opening ...

Which of the following is the best reason to have a cell phone with you when driving?

A. It may come in handy if you encounter an emergency situation

B. It will help you carry on long, distracting conversations with your friends

C. It's a status symbol and you have to keep up your image

D. Sometimes it helps keep your mind off driving

onlinedrivingschool.org

Random Lurker: I saw that. Maybe that note would be better there? I know some of the Anvilicious things I've read/seen appear over the top - any cop show in which terrorism is a major plot point and stereotypes are used does NOT qualify under necessary anvils - but I'm sure some right-winger would think the episodes in which the gay guy is killed due to discrimination are horribly Anvilicious and totally unnecessary.

Austin: I don't think the Supernatural example belongs here. For one thing, it's a plot point, not a moral. For another, there're reasons as to why they've been vague about Sam. Every character who's said that Sam is or will become evil have been bad guys, obviously their word is suspect (before anyone brings up John, no, he said that Dean should be prepared to kill Sam IN CASE he goes evil). A big reason as to why the characters are so paranoid about it is because no one's sure what exactly Sam is, and what his powers and connection to Azazel mean for him. Another reason Dean and the viewers are worried about it is because Sam has gotten progressively darker after he was brought back to life, and it's still unknown whether he was brought back impure like Azazel claimed, or if it's something else. In short, they're vague about it because the characters don't know much more than the main characters.

Austin: With no objections, I've removed it. I'll save it here just in case.

While Supernatural are still doing pretty well with Dean's self-loathing arc (even going into Viewers are Geniuses territory at times), Sam's destiny arc isn't so well-done. Maybe because, with the exception of Season Three, they kept on talking about how evil he was going to become and not actually showing it.

Fast Eddie: Just moving out some discussion.

Bill Willingham, author of Fables, is markedly conservative in his outlook and frequently expresses his beliefs in his comic in a manner that isn't heavy-handed and respects his audience's intelligence. In one issue, however, his pro-Israel message comes across with all the subtlety of a forest of magical trees being blown to Kingdom Come in a massive fiery explosion.
- This troper must disagree. The passage in question does not claim that Israelis are right, superior, or better than anyone; it merely points out that they fight doggedly when cornered and make their enemies pay dearly for any attack on them. History supports this. Also, the single character talking about Israel, the Big Bad Wolf, is not likely to be a big fan of diplomacy, culture or subtlety.
  - At the risk of starting a discussion, this troper disagrees with the disagreement. Sure, it makes sense that Bigby would have that opinion, but it makes no sense whatsoever that he would, to quote Paul O'Brien "go on a rant about Middle Eastern politics to a villain from another dimension who hasn't got a clue what he's talking about, and [it] comes across as a piece of gratuitous political tubthumping that wasn't needed to make the scene work."

That Other 1 Dude:

Lord of War can easily be summarized into three easy words: "Gun are bad!"

No it cannot, considering it's not about the negative effects of guns just existing, but rather about poorly managing them in ways that arm violent militias in third world countries.

Shale:

Natter:

Doctor Who Season 4 finale has Daleks. Speaking German. AT NUREMBERG!
- Really, it didn't strike me as anvilicious. Now, whether or not the presence of one of the command stations for the suicidal Planet Buster designed to destroy Earth being located in Germany is another question entirely. The Daleks were merely speaking Germen because they wanted thier commands to be followed. The TARDIS' translation field was not present.
  - The Daleks are the series' ultimate totalitarians. Outside of the TARDIS' translation field and the Doctor's presence, we overhear the Daleks speaking "Dalek". And the anvilicious irony is, it's German.

Not to mention that it's confirmed as a deliberate gag in the episode's behind-the-scenes feature.

More natter:

Strangely, I've never come across a fan who felt that Men at Arms was Anvilicious. Maybe this is due to differences between British and American culture?

Somfin:

I think that the person who added 'The Day the Earth Stood Still' (the first one) completely missed the point- it wasn't about the United Nations, it was about the whole concept of human importance and our responsibility to the cosmos. Kind of a there are other beings out there and they will crush us if we don't get our act together sort of concept. Still anvilicious, but not in that regard. But I'm not sure. Hence the discussion page.

Killthetoy: Would Osmosis Jones qualify? It's got a rather blatant message of "Take care of your body or you'll die."

Antheia:

Snopes.com drops anvils on most all of its articles. Even stories clearly meant to be humorous will get detailed explanations of the human psyche planted on them, and frequently the message is something along the lines of "humans are stupid" or "males are anti-feminist, always."

Cut, because, well... they're factual articles. Subtlety would be counter-productive.

Jackalope: I swear there's some Anviliciousness in Metroid Prime 3, what with the obvious "Science v.s. Fundamentalism" in the story of Bryyo, and the "Dark Samus Cult" outlined by the Space Pirate logs. I only didn't add these because I'm not sure what message they're trying to convey.

Freezair For A Limited Time: Well, chances are, if you can't tell what the message is, it's not anvilicious. Anvilicious means, after all, "obnoxiously unsubtle," not "one might interpret it this way." Since "science vs. magic" is actually a pretty common theme in sci-fi, I'm not so sure myself.

The Bryyo stories seemed to present both sides in a none-too-positive light, really. The Science Lords were arrogant and full of hubris, leading to their downfall, and the Primals were supersticious and unwilling to accept change, leading to THEIR downfall. If anything, it's more of a "middle ground, guys?" kinda thing. Well, if you ask me.

Jackalope: Actually, you're exactly right. They outright state it: "The warnings of the Chozo—to seek balance between old and new ways—were not heeded by the Lords of Science, myself included." But now I'm not sure if it is too subtle to be Anvilicious, or I'm just totally oblivious.

I also figured out that the "Dark Samus Cult" aesop is simply "cults are bad", and it's not panshoveled into your face as hugely as some other works with that message. So I guess it was just me.

RS 14: I removed "Note: in reality, guns are good, and there is a proven correlation between more gun rights and lower crime rates. But when has Hollywood ever bothered with tiny inconveniences like facts?" from the Iron Giant entry. (Parody? Not? I'm not sure). This isn't the page to debate gun politics.

cut:

Anything by Ibsen... He freakin' invented "The Problem Play." Whose main problem is that they are humorless, boring, and extremely depressing to read, not because you feel sympathy for the main characters, but because you just wasted 3 hours of your life to tell you stuff you should already know. Examples of this are "The Wild Duck," Being poor sucks, "A Doll's House," Women in the 19th century were treated like little children, "Ghosts," Syphilis sucks, "Hedda Gabler," Don't piss off the psycho bitch with a revolver and very good aim.
- Consider the time period Henrik Ibsen was writing in! Some Anvils Need to Be Dropped.

Humorless? Boring? Sounds like complaining about shows you don't like to me. Don't forget that Leo Tolstoy hated Ibsen's plays for not being moralistic enough and not having clear messages, which is the polar opposite of Anvilicious. If we must have an entry on Ibsen on this page, please, rewrite it so that it's at least reasonable and more or less objective.

Danny Phantom - In one episode the main character cheated on a test. So what happened? Did he get detention? Extra chores? Well, his entire family along with his two friends and teacher die, Danny's human self is slaughtered soon after and a Vlad/Danny Phantom hybrid takes over the future where he kills (you assume) ALMOST EVERYONE ON THE ENTIRE PLANET. Considering that these are the same guys who created the genre savvy show The Fairly Oddparents this comes off as a complete Ass Pull and full of Narm. In fairness to the creators, it does so via a chain of events that would confuse even Rube Goldberg. (And even though it apparently happens in the "true" timeline, it seems like it only does through evil, future Danny's intervention. This is why time travel gives us headaches. Some took that episode to mean "Everybody deserves a second chance, especially the good guys!"
- Of course, it doesn't help that the only reason everyone Danny knew died was that Mr. Lancer somehow became momentarily psychic. Because he believed that Danny (and ONLY Danny) stole the test answers. He doesn't know of Danny's powers, and the test answers were in a briefcase that was handcuffed to him. Said briefcase was unopened when the answers were stolen, so he blamed him because... Otherwise there'd be no show.
  - To be fair, Lancer DID catch Danny and his friends briefly chatting about the stolen test sheets, enough that Lancer didn't hear the whole thing, but just right to suspect. That was his cue. Danny blaming himself, opened test or not, doesn't matter when his family and friends died regardless.
- Technically, Danny never even looked at the answers. True, he was going to look, and his future self looked, but Danny himself never actually got any farther than breaking the seal on the folder containing the answers. He didn't even take the paper out. Remember, kids. If you accidentally pick up the answer key to a test, even if you don't actually look at it, everyone you know will die!
- One episode from the first season had a not-too-subtle feminist message.
  - "One episode"? Sam is a walking feminist message. She gets at least one line in every episode that takes down the populars or her parents or some sort of "oppression".

Fast Eddie: This discussion is being tested for the new discussion system. Pardon our dust.

Archived Discussion Main / Anvilicious