Is this an example?

"Tanya sees her father, seemingly back from the dead. She doesn't buy it for a second," is not an example of Genre Savvy unless she doesn't buy it because she's read books or seen movies that tell her that he's not back from the dead. As written she is not savvy about any genre.

Hello. I'm trying to create a page for a webcomic I follow, but I'm not exactly sure of the tropes.

You see, this comic has an example of unique font for the demon characters. Even in the character intros every week, the name is writen in that language instead of normal english. See for yourself.

Would this count as Painting the Medium?

edited 2nd Nov '16 11:13:13 AM by Tomodachi

That would definitely be Painting the Medium. There are even similar examples on the page already.

Then what would be te trope for the letters? I know Painting the Medium is about being clever with something, but if the fonts are a demonic language that nobody (not even the reader) can't understand, what trope would that be?

I think it would be Black Speech, but as far as I understand, Black Speech has a side effect on people. In the comic, there doesn't seem to be any problem with the language, is just weird to the humans. Heck, they think is canadian, for crying out loud!

edited 2nd Nov '16 6:48:14 PM by Tomodachi

That just sounds like any other language; nothing special about it.

Could someone take a look at these examples:

Ex Machina:

• Chekhov's Gun: The cracked glass in the room that Caleb uses to interact with Ava. When Caleb watches the video recordings of the previous gynoid models, there's a recording of Nathan interviewing Jade who wants to get out but he refuses and she bashes the glass in anger.

The Fault in Our Stars:

• Awesome Music: The film's soundtrack is very well-chosen. "Boom Clap" is an incredibly catchy and upbeat Ear Worm, while "Not About Angels" in and "All of the Stars" are appropriately tearjerky and emotional pieces for the film's third act.

I'm not familiar with Young Justice, but some of these examples seem off. Someone more familiar with the show should have a look at these, but, in my opinion, at least the examples about characters not being played by actors who played the characters before in other shows and examples about new actors who aren't similar enough to older versions should go. I don't think Young Justice takes place in any previously established continuity, so just complaining about them sounding different to previous versions seems silly to me.

• WTH, Casting Agency?:
  • Invoked by Phil LaMarr in an interview with Rob Paulsen. He lets it slip that Virgil Hawkins (aka Static, who Phil previously voiced) is due to make an appearance on the show and wonders why they didn't let him audition.
    • On a similar note: Kevin Michael Richardson, an excellent and well-regarded voice actor, nonetheless drew some sidelong looks as the voice of Green Lantern John Stewart as opposed to Phil LaMarr, who practically defined the character in Justice League and who was already voicing for the show (as Aquaman and Dubbilex). The fact that Richardson also voices Doctor Fate and Mal Duncan with more or less the same voice and that he's certainly not hurting for roles on the show (at one point voicing four characters in the same episode - he's also Martian Manhunter) doesn't help, either.
  • Brent Spiner as Joker was not received very well by fans, even if the casting was trying something different, Brent Spiner does not portray the general craziness that is Joker very well.
  • Dave Franco's Riddler is easily one of the most annoying Riddler's ever, not even capturing the hamminess that was Wally Wingert's or John Glover's portrayal and instead give him an annoying and grating personality.
  • Surprisingly averted with the casting of Bruce Greenwood as Batman. Though one might expect casting somebody else other than Kevin Conroy as the Dark Knight to provoke They Changed It, Now It Sucks!, or the like, Bruce has prior experience voicing Batman, and his performance was well received.
  • Many felt this way when Clancy Brown was cast in the show (as Agent King Faraday), but not as Lex Luthor, his most well known role in the DC Universe.
  • Not everyone cared for Nolan North, Deadpool himself, playing Superman. Granted, he rarely ever spoke in the role.
  • To make a very long list short, any characters whom previously appeared in the DCAU or other popular DC media that are not reprised by the original voice actors (such as the aforementioned Kevin Conroy, Mark Hamill, Phil LaMarr, and Clancy Brown) can incite this reaction. It happens often, as the show appears to have a specific policy of not casting any character with their DCAU voice actor, to reflect how they're trying something a little different with the characters.

edited 7th Nov '16 8:11:41 PM by supergod

I'm not familiar with that show either, but that's complaining about how the characters and voices turned out, rather than any mention of the casting choice being questioned for why they ever thought about it to begin with. The trope is not, "this actor didn't do the role very well," or, "they didn't recast the actor who did the voice previously," but rather, "who the hell thought this was a good idea in the first place?"

Basically, nothing of that is talking about the right trope. The only one that even comes close is the Brent Spiner one, since it says they were trying something different, but then it goes right into complaining about how he did the role.

I'll get rid of the entire thing for now then.

Its been 3 days, could someone take a look at the examples I posted above

The Awesome Music example is subjective so feel free to add it to the YMMV page for The Fault In Our Stars. The Chekhov's Gun seems more like Foreshadowing, since the glass itself does nothing to advance the plot, it only clues the audience in on a future plot point.

Hobbes Was Right, which is basically defined as "Democracy will never work, only authoritarianism/tyranny/dictatorship can", has this line in its description:

What would this mean for cases where the trope's essence is technically true, but deviates from typical Hobbes Was Right examples in that only a benevolent dictatorship can work, while any non-benevolent form of dictatorship is just as doomed to failure as democracy is? Is this a subversion, an aversion, an inversion, a reconstruction, or something else? Or perhaps it deserves its own trope?

And yes, some of the examples listed on Hobbes Was Right are about benevolent dictatorships specifically.

edited 9th Nov '16 11:19:19 AM by MarqFJA

The trope is about mankind being unable to govern itself democratically; it's about people relying on autocratic rulers to maintain any semblance of order or stability. The description includes benevolent rulers within its scope; therefore, they are not a subversion, aversion, inversion, or any other -version; they are simply a straight use.

But the typical use of the term "dictatorship/tyranny/authoritariansim" is negative to the point that "benevolent dictatorship" is usually treated as an oxymoron and, in fictional examples, a case of Informed Attribute. That seems to take benevolent dictatorships outside the "played straight" box.

Regardless, it's outside the scope of the trope, which is about humanity being so flawed that it can only be governed effectively by an autocrat. The relative benevolence of said autocrat is tangential.

From the YMMV page of Papa Louie Arcade:

• Old Shame: Many people who were fans of the Papa Louie series have become this due to the repetitive nature of the games, simplistic gameplay and unchanging plot.
  • As of 2015, several Flipline Forum users (left or active) also have regretted joining the forum due to the fights going on as of lately.
• Nightmare Fuel: Mayor Mallow, who leans back and is always smiling, easily falling into the Uncanny Valley.

For the first one, Old Shame is when the creator regrets creating their work, but the examples refer to fans regretting playing the game. For the second one, I don't see how exactly Mayor Mallow can have Nightmare Fuel potential other than having a design falling into the Uncanny Valley.

edited 10th Nov '16 7:40:31 PM by TroperNo9001

Kill the Old Shame example for shoehorning.

Actually, the first example there sounds more like It's the Same, Now It Sucks!. Should I reword that so it fits the latter?

That sounds like it fits, yes. Those games really are much the same, repeated with few and minor variations.

edited 10th Nov '16 8:40:56 PM by AnotherDuck

What about this?

• It's the Same, Now It Sucks!: Many fans of the Papa Louie series feel that nothing much has changed in the Gameria series other than the simplistic, repetitive gameplay of cooking food and serving customers through minigames and time management.

I edited it to reflect that. What do you think?

edited 11th Nov '16 12:04:24 AM by TroperNo9001

Should probably add something about the fans not being happy about that, since the trope is about the fans' reaction to it.

If a work predicted that Donald Trump would be president, is it Hilarious, Harsher, or Funny Aneurysm?

I would personally just stay away from that, but that's not enough context to determine anything. The only thing I can say is that if you don't know which of those fits, it probably is best to not add it at all.

I saw several examples of his victory being Funny Aneurysm or Harsher instead of Hilarious. It shows nothing but negativity in the fact that Trump won. If you like him it's not that.

I just added a selection of Safehold entries to HonorBeforeReason.Literature. I'm not too worried, but given the quantity I wanted to make sure they all counted. To avoid a giant post, unless requested I'll just post the general gist:

• While not blind to the kind of cold blooded calculations needed to be effective rulers, the protagonist leaders often default to the honorable option when given a choice. They even lampshade the rare occasions when honorable and reasonable are the same thing.
• Main character Merlin has a bad case of Chronic Hero Syndrome that moves him to act to protect innocents or loved ones, even when knowing perfectly well that using his more than human abilities could be seen as demonic by the primitive, religious folk of Safehold.
• The protagonists, having the ability via Merlin's technology to observe events nearly anywhere in the world, begin immediately putting together a relief effort for a nation the antagonists provoked a civil war in. It's noted this is done perhaps too quickly to have found out about it the "normal" way and that the relief was provided with no strings attached rather than used as a bargaining chip. The goodwill this earns is treated more as bonus than goal.
• During the land portion of the war, a protagonist general forgoes persuing a weakened enemy army to instead liberate Inquisition concentration camps, lampshading this trope while he does.
• More than once, the protagonists have discussed whether or not to assassinate their opponents' most competent commander, or planting evidence for the Inquisition to do it for them. There are points given for either side, but the decision not to do it nearly always comes down to feeling the man is an otherwise honorable opponent who deserves better.
• In the latest book, the Anti-Villain among the antagonist leadership begins seeking help for a coup attempt on the Big Bad. If the protagonists intervene, they can end the war quickly but on less favorable terms than needed for their long term plan for breaking Safehold's Medieval Stasis. Though noting it would be better for their goals if they just stayed out of it, they act because they are all simply sick and tired of all the warfare and killing.

Except for the enemy commander one (which is one I thought of but haven't added yet), more context can be found in the trope page itself. I just didn't want to flood this post any more than I could help.

edited 13th Nov '16 11:37:41 AM by sgamer82