Misused (Single Prop Crowner 08/17/13): Early Bird Cameo

The problem with that being that there isn't much of a difference between examples from adaptations and original works, as discussed before.

I don't get it. The whole point is that they appear earlier in the adaptation/remake than they do in the actual canon.

Examples and related usage don't bear that out. There's a bit of "you can see character X in the background of scene Y before their debut in episode Z" in general.

While a rename would be practical here, I do not see any attractive alt names suggested so far.

And that's why we need the rename, that was not the original intent of this trope.

Question: Would moving a character's introduction up to an earlier point in a work count? It's not so much a cameo, since they play a role, but the wording on the page is ambiguous (and actually seems like it would count).

That may not have been the 'original intent', but there is no difference in practice between whether the work is original or adapted.

I was earlier in favor of trying to clean this up, but now I think a merge would be a better way to remedy misuse. Only "Type 2" should be merged with Chekhov's Gunman, though; I would place "Type 1" examples under Continuity Cameo instead.

""However it is exactly what name suggests. It says nothing about adaptation, it says about cameo of an early bird. I think such counter-intuitive name should be changed."

What is this paragraph trying to say? It contradicts both itself and the article."

No, they were saying that the name "Early Bird Cameo" suggests nothing about adaptation and is counter-intuitive. "It" meant the sense in which it was being misused. The sense in which it's being misused is exactly what the name suggests.

If you were paying attention you may have seen me post briefly earlier in this thread... now I'm going to BUMP IT.

I think we'll need a plain rename here.

What's the argument against broadening it?

Broadening to cover the misuse?

I believe the argument is that we already have a trope that covers the misuse (Chekhov's Gunman).

edited 5th Apr '13 10:10:52 AM by Leaper

Yes. Limiting it to adaptations would seem to be more just trivia than an actual trope.

That would be misuse of Chekhov's Gunman, who has to receive more than a blink-and-you'll-miss-it Meaningful Background Event.

I agree on expanding the trope, although I will note that adaptation differences are Adaptation Tropes and not trivia.

Made a crowner for this.

Votes bump here.

If you broaden it, doesn't the distinction between it and Checkovs Gunman become rather difficult?

As it is, it seems to be somewhat restricted to visual media (comics/tv). My understanding would be this.

if Boba Fett appeared in the Tantooine cantina, it would be an Early-Bird Cameo If say, the guy who got his arm cut off came back later, it would be Chekhov's Gunman.

The thing is, it seems like it would be almost impossible to have an early bird cameo in literature(expect maybe for writers given to really lavish scene description) because you don't normally mention the backgound other than as needed. So any character mentioned would pretty much become a gunman.

I think the line is still there and fairly solid, it's that a Chekhov's Gunman is a minor character introduced early and later goes on to have a more important role in the story. Early-Bird Cameo is a nameless, nondescript individual who "early bird cameo" only becomes notable retroactively when they have a more important role.

A good example is Ultra Magnus in Transformers: Prime, who is seen in the Decepticon database as a false "Optimus Prime" and later shows up himself a season later. Because he was not named it was viewed as a Mythology Gag and many were not anticipating he would show up (the fact he had original toys was a bigger giveaway).

Two points:

1. I disagree with broadening beyond adaptations. This seems to me like a clear-cut trope that needs maintenance and possibly a rename.
2. Should we consider broadening this to include stuff like tech rather than just characters? I ask because of 007: From Russia with Love the game of the movie which has several later Bond gadgets turn up.

edited 10th Jun '13 6:47:23 AM by StarSword

The problem with that is adaptations can change many things, including the introduction of a character. Then we get works that have been adapted many times, many ways, like Dracula and Frankenstein. Which makes more sense, requiring the editor to be familiar with the work they're talking about, or with the entire history of the work?

Crowner is 8:3 in favour of broadening the definition.

Not exactly overwhelming participation....

Votes bump. We are at 9-5 right now.