TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Dragon Ball

Go To

KnownUnknown Since: Jan, 2001
#86976: Sep 13th 2018 at 7:27:12 PM

No One Should Survive That! is also a trope about scenes, not about the specific things within those scenes. As such, this trope laconically being "an attack makes the users/audience believe No One Could Survive That!, but turns out to have no effect" in not just general, it's very obviously general.

Edited by KnownUnknown on Sep 13th 2018 at 7:33:42 AM

Saiga Since: Feb, 2011 Relationship Status: Getting away with murder
#86977: Sep 13th 2018 at 7:29:52 PM

I know it's a scene. Saying a particular object is only used for a particular scene is still referring to the object, though.

"This trope is [that attack]" <- referring to an object

KnownUnknown Since: Jan, 2001
#86978: Sep 13th 2018 at 7:33:03 PM

That's a stretch, and the actual linguistics of the writing of it disgree without regardless. This seems to be another instance of you taking casual language razor seriously, as in the general conversational tone that the trope page uses - indeed, most of our trope pages use - that sort of thing absolutely is general rather than specific.

Or to put it another way, it refers to an object in a general sense, not in a specific sense. It's the same tone as the general phrase "you know that thing where:" wherein the uses of it refers to the instance of "that thing" universally.

If, at any rate, you're taking two very specifically interpreted words out of the entire page as proof that you're right and the rest of the page is wrong, I suggest you take it up with the Trope Fixer forum.

Edited by KnownUnknown on Sep 13th 2018 at 7:39:08 AM

Saiga Since: Feb, 2011 Relationship Status: Getting away with murder
#86979: Sep 13th 2018 at 7:35:13 PM

The difference between "you know that thing where [object]" and just talking about an object is that the first clearly refers to a situation.

The laconic page also clearly refers to a situation.

The opening to The Worf Barrage is about an object.

Much like The Worf Effect, The Worf Barrage is that attack that's supposedly all-powerful, ultra-destructive, and super-awesome, but in reality only serves as the "that" in No One Could Survive That!, because they just did.

This is the thing (usually the first attack after a monster crosses the Godzilla Threshold) that proves how resilient the Big Bad or Monster of the Week is. Almost always produces large amounts of smoke or debris, allowing the hero to think the enemy was killed, before hisshielded silhouette starts to show through. At least you hope it's shielded...

This is incredibly poorly worded if it is not intended to be talking about the attack itself.

Edited by Saiga on Sep 14th 2018 at 12:39:19 AM

KnownUnknown Since: Jan, 2001
#86980: Sep 13th 2018 at 7:39:25 PM

And again, linguistics is not with you on that. To be more preci: your usage is a correct way of using the terminology, but is not the only way the word "that" is used, and the rest of the website by and large uses both. It's typically not seen as misleading, but if this were a simple case of general parlance resulting in a mistaken conclusion I'd be with you. But that's not really what you're doing here.

Since you're instead trying to take those words as a sign that the trope page is wrong about the trope's actual meaning, I again implore you to take it to Trope Fixers. You're railing against the website itself here, and your options are to either rewrite the page so that it fits what you think it ought to be instead, go to trope fixers and try to get it officially changed to what you think it ought to be, or instead of trying to mince words and creatively finagle a way you were correct all along just accept that you were mistaken about the trope's meaning in the first place and move on.

The Worf Effect was also named for a character who filled this role constantly, and I disagree with expanding it to any instance of a character worfing because there is a pretty notable difference between using it once and having a character specifically fill that role.

I think this is the meat of the problem. It's not what the trope is, it's what you think the trope should be, and that's coloring your interpretation of how we've related it.

To answer the latter part of this objection, however, the difference is minute. The difference between "a supposedly strong character fights the bad guy and is manhandled to show the bad guys is powerful" vs "a specific, consistent supposedly strong character fights the back guy and is manhandled to show the bad guy is powerful" is that the latter says the exact same thing as the former, narratively speaking, but needlessly limits the number of examples superficially.

Hence it being changed. The distinction is both unnecessary and results in more limited information - and thus less accuracy as per the trope that's actually at play there - than a general trope would. Especially given that in most situations, the usage of the trope on the character rarely actually impacts said character's personality.

Edited by KnownUnknown on Sep 13th 2018 at 7:43:33 AM

Saiga Since: Feb, 2011 Relationship Status: Getting away with murder
#86981: Sep 13th 2018 at 7:44:39 PM

There is absolutely nothing in that paragraph that makes it clear that it refers to a scene. That exact wording fits the description of an object better than a scene, as it first describes an object and then how the object is used. The fact that it is meant to be about the usage rather than the object is not supported by anything within that paragraph.

That is certainly poor wording. The laconic avoids this issue, which is pretty rare for laconic examples.

And given that certain well-known characters have become infamous for their worfing, I definitely don't agree that it is needlessly constraining to categorize that. If we had no trope that could be applied generally, that'd be an issue, but having two separate tropes for very general concepts and lacking the specific archetypes within is also a problem.

instead of trying to mince words and creatively finagle a way you were correct all along just accept that you were mistaken about the trope's meaning in the first place and move on.

I am not doing that, you are being needlessly patronizing now.

Edited by Saiga on Sep 14th 2018 at 12:48:00 AM

KnownUnknown Since: Jan, 2001
#86982: Sep 13th 2018 at 7:47:22 PM

That is certainly poor wording. The laconic avoids this issue, which is pretty rare for laconic examples.

Then fix it. It's a wiki. As I've said, if this is just an instance of poor wording leading to a misunderstanding, then I'm with you.

And given that certain well-known characters have become infamous for their worfing, I definitely don't agree that it is needlessly constraining to categorize that.

Then go to Trope Fixers, or head to YKTTW, and petition for it to be brought back.

I am not doing that, you are being needlessly patronizing now.

As I've mentioned, what this appears to be from an outside perspective is you very specifically harping on two words in a single paragraph - in contrast to the rest of the trope's page - and attempting to claim that those two words vindicate your initial perception of the trope.

If I'm wrong, I apologize, but you're not doing a good job of looking otherwise, and your increasingly obtuse attempts to rail strictly those two words in particular don't help your case.

Hence my repeated notes about if maybe being a case of poor wording. I don't believe it's misleading, and similar parlance can be found throughout the wiki, but if it's misleading to you it costs nothing to change it to something you think better fits the actual meaning of the trope. But that could've been cleared up a page ago. The reason I'm coming to the conclusion in the preceding paragraphs is because instead of that, you're continually trying to make a fight out of it.

Edited by KnownUnknown on Sep 13th 2018 at 7:56:40 AM

Saiga Since: Feb, 2011 Relationship Status: Getting away with murder
#86983: Sep 13th 2018 at 7:55:34 PM

It's not two words, it's two parapgrahs. And I have been saying the whole time 'if it's meant to be a scene, these don't fit'.

I don't care what the trope is actially about as much as I do the description clearly matching what it is about.

My initial impression was informed by these parapgrahs and the examples on the page (as well as how it is being used here).

I'm not trying to make a fight about it. To me it seemed like you were trying to say the wording was fine, and it was only my error in reading it.

Edited by Saiga on Sep 14th 2018 at 12:56:19 AM

KnownUnknown Since: Jan, 2001
#86984: Sep 13th 2018 at 7:57:49 PM

Your entire argument has so far been based on the words "that weapon" in the first sentence of the first paragraph. Before, you yourself have made reference to it being a single paragraph, so I had little reason to think otherwise.

What part of the later paragraphs to you find problematic? If its the second, I did address that in the preceding page.

Edited by KnownUnknown on Sep 13th 2018 at 7:58:16 AM

Saiga Since: Feb, 2011 Relationship Status: Getting away with murder
#86985: Sep 13th 2018 at 7:59:27 PM

Because that entire parapgrah doesn't have anything in it to clarify it is about the scene instead of the mentioned object, as I said before.

The second paragraph has the same issue. And since I was unclear, I mean the first two paragraphs, that I quoted before and called poor wording.

Edited by Saiga on Sep 14th 2018 at 12:59:37 AM

PushoverMediaCritic I'm sorry Tien, but I must go all out. from the Italy of America Since: Jul, 2015 Relationship Status: watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
I'm sorry Tien, but I must go all out.
#86986: Sep 13th 2018 at 8:08:32 PM

The wording is clearly meant to convey a "you know that thing when" tone, as many other trope pages also do, and the rest of both Worf pages are very explicit that they are meant to be situation tropes, not character or object tropes.

KnownUnknown Since: Jan, 2001
#86987: Sep 13th 2018 at 8:09:48 PM

As I mentioned last page, this:

This is the thing (usually the first attack after a monster crosses the Godzilla Threshold) that proves how resilient the Big Bad or Monster of the Week is. Almost always produces large amounts of smoke or debris, allowing the hero to think the enemy was killed, before his shielded silhouette starts to show through. At least you hope it's shielded...

... can be used to both describe a thing used repetitively and a single instance. It's intentionally universal, due to it being a more general trope. As I've previously explained, as well, the interpretation of the word "that" or "the" to mean that it only refers to a single thing used repetitively is a valid definition, but it would be incorrect linguistically to claim it as the only valid definition. This, comes to think of it, also applies to your issue with the first paragraph as well.

And again, I can understand a misunderstanding, but not the insistence that said misunderstanding is the only correct perception - because, again, that would be inaccurate.

But if you think the trope page is as messed up as you say, then again, Trope Fixers. Though if you believe the page is riddled with problems, I wouldn't try remodeling the whole thing without their say so.

Edited by KnownUnknown on Sep 13th 2018 at 8:20:19 AM

Zelenal The Cat Knows Where It's At from Purrgatory Since: Jul, 2009 Relationship Status: Maxing my social links
The Cat Knows Where It's At
#86988: Sep 13th 2018 at 8:34:17 PM

Why don't you two take this to the Trope Repair Discussion Shop where more people can weigh in? As it is, you two are just endlessly going back and forth with no progress either way.

Let the joy of love give you an answer! Check out my book!
slimcoder The Head of the Hydra Since: May, 2013
The Head of the Hydra
#86989: Sep 13th 2018 at 8:41:24 PM

Who'd win a hot-dog eating contest, Goku or Vegeta?

"I am Alpharius. This is a lie."
PushoverMediaCritic I'm sorry Tien, but I must go all out. from the Italy of America Since: Jul, 2015 Relationship Status: watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
I'm sorry Tien, but I must go all out.
#86990: Sep 13th 2018 at 8:46:36 PM

Goku. He's bigger and has more mass, so a bigger appetite.

KnownUnknown Since: Jan, 2001
#86991: Sep 13th 2018 at 8:50:25 PM

Vegeta. But he only takes his hot dogs with Galick bread.

Bocaj Funny but not helpful from Here or thereabouts (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: Pining for the fjords
Funny but not helpful
#86992: Sep 13th 2018 at 9:13:52 PM

Well done

Forever liveblogging the Avengers
HandsomeRob Leader of the Holey Brotherhood from The land of broken records Since: Jan, 2015
Leader of the Holey Brotherhood
#86993: Sep 13th 2018 at 9:29:48 PM

Neither.

Goku would almost win, but something would happen to prevent him from doing so.

Vegeta would gain the victory on paper, but be totally unsatisfied with it because he didn't actually beat Kakarot, and he knows the latter is superior, leading him to eating Hot-Dogs everyday as training, but never getting his re-match, only to see Goku eat twice as much as he did before against someone else and be frustrated with the fact that he's light years behind despite his efforts.

...wow, it's scary how naturally that came to me.

One Strip! One Strip!
Kamiccolo Since: May, 2018
#86994: Sep 13th 2018 at 10:02:41 PM

I don't remember Vegeta ever being shown as a Big Eater in the manga.

randomness4 Ghost '11 from The Land of Inconvenience Since: Sep, 2011
Ghost '11
#86995: Sep 13th 2018 at 10:03:30 PM

Remember wrong then.

Rules of the Internet 45. Rule 45 is a lie. Check out my art if you notice.
slimcoder The Head of the Hydra Since: May, 2013
The Head of the Hydra
#86996: Sep 13th 2018 at 10:06:53 PM

He’s a Saiyan.

They all eat like they got the Flash’s metabolism.

"I am Alpharius. This is a lie."
KnownUnknown Since: Jan, 2001
#86997: Sep 13th 2018 at 10:31:19 PM

Not counting the one in Super, there's definitely at least one big eater scene with him in the anime (during the Buu Saga), though I doubt it's in the manga. It's also the only big eater scene I can think of that includes Gohan.

"And bring some more egg rolls while you're at it." evil grin I also really love the "the first thing I'm going to do is punch Kakarot in the gut!" punchline.

Though I'll admit, I think I like it a little better when it's a Goku thing and not a Saiyan thing.

Edited by KnownUnknown on Sep 13th 2018 at 10:37:12 AM

Kamiccolo Since: May, 2018
#86998: Sep 13th 2018 at 10:38:26 PM

Remember wrong then.
Can you cite any instances?

Ikedatakeshi Baby dango from singapore Since: Nov, 2015 Relationship Status: Singularity
Baby dango
#86999: Sep 13th 2018 at 11:42:18 PM

[up][up]That scene was in the manga, except shorter and not as much food. Only one and a half page.

Edited by Ikedatakeshi on Sep 14th 2018 at 2:43:11 AM

PushoverMediaCritic I'm sorry Tien, but I must go all out. from the Italy of America Since: Jul, 2015 Relationship Status: watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
I'm sorry Tien, but I must go all out.
#87000: Sep 14th 2018 at 3:06:31 AM

I feel like the series is inconsistent about whether or not the half-Saiyans have the same Big Eater appetite the pure-bloods do. Sometimes they eat a ton, sometimes they eat a normal Human amount.


Total posts: 130,800
Top