Is this an example?

Reposting from the previous two pages so it doesn't get lost:

Is this example on Natalie Portman being used correctly?:

• Genius Bonus: She's obliquely referenced in The Social Network, as a lawyer lists several of the types of people who were also attending Harvard at the time Mark Zuckerberg invented Facebook, ending with a movie star. Another lawyer asks who the movie star was, but doesn't get an answer.

Absolutely not. It might be appropriate on The Social Network, but definitely not on Natalie Portman's creator page.

The reason why nobody else has replied to your question is probably related to the fact that you're asking about a concept in evolutionary biology that the vast majority of people know nothing about. I'm inclined to say that no, it's not an example. Part of what makes Evolutionary Stasis so weird is because species show no signs of evolution despite their environment changing in such a way that it is extremely unusual for them to have not adapted.

Anyway, the reason why I'm here is to repost this from a couple pages back:

Does Base on Wheels cover non-militarized mobile settlements? Specifically, I'm asking about this example:

• A non-militarized example in the Interactive Fiction 80 Days with the entire city of Agra. Basically, imagine the Taj Mahal and its surrounding environs on several massive steampunkish legs periodically walking throughout India. It's even mentioned that the political status of the city is being contested, as the Brits claim that it's part of The Raj, while the rest of the peninsula claims that, since Agra sometimes wanders into their territory, it can't be a British holding. In-game, it actually counts as a mode of transportation on one particular route. On the top, you have the gardens and the majesty of the Taj Mahal. Below decks, you have the steaming and clanging underbelly where thousands of multicultural workers live and work, ensuring the safe operation of the walking city (naturally, lots of big levers and valves).

Is this example from Spider-Man being used correctly?:

• Unintentional Period Piece: Uncle Ben's "too old for computers" comment comes across as far more out of place today than it did at the time of the film's release. At the time, it was fairly standard for older people to avoid computers. Today, most at least have a tablet or smartphone for getting the news.

Biology OTC thread

1. We do have real-life cases of (currently extinct) species/genera that were apparently so highly tolerant of ecological changes that they've remained practically unchanged over millions of years, across multiple geological periods and thus quite different environments. Again: See Gerrothorax.

2. The trope's description doesn't limit its definition to "doesn't change despite the environment changing".

That's an absurd shoehorn. I know people even to this day (in my family, even) who don't use computers.

They'd certainly understand the concept you're asking about better than I do. I'm not saying that you shouldn't have asked here, just that you shouldn't be surprised by the lack of response.

I'm apparently out of my depth here, so change my vote from "no" to "(indifferent shrug)".

Does this belong in Entertainingly Wrong?

Sounds like a good fit to me. The trope doesn't have to be played lightly or for comedy, despite the name.

Yeah, seems to fit. I'm not quite sure why it's named like that, since not even the description says anything about comedy. The redirect Wrong for the Right Reasons (or something like Logically Wrong) seems like it would be more accurate.

@Base on Wheels: Sounds like an example to me. Considering Mercurial Base is a subtrope, it seems like it includes non-military bases. It does specify "land vehicles", but not actually "wheels".

Yeah it's correct for what is on the page.

The title though would be more something like Mistaken Hijinx or Assumption Hijinx. Think it is underused enough for a repair shop transplant?

Probably worth doing a full wick check to see how many of the examples off the main page aren't "played for comedy".

Can both Born Lucky and Winds of Destiny, Change! happen from the same power? Like a luck manipulator who is oblivious to the effects of their power:

Also, are Devisors of the Whateley Universe, Impossible Genius, or Magic-Powered Pseudoscience, as their powers bend reality to cause things like Tinfoil Hats that actually block psychics?

edited 10th Jul '17 12:52:29 PM by Malady

• Artistic License – Physics: The Green Goblin states that it was "the fall" that killed Gwen Stacy, which is impossible considering skydivers fall much farther than her and are just fine. In fact, it was the sudden stop at the end that killed her.

This seems like less Artistic License and more being hilariously pedantic. You may as well throw in this same entry every time someone ever says "they fell to their death" since they technically die after the landing.

Would the following be a case of Dude, Not Funny!, Everyone Has Standards, or both?

• The hosts of The Last Podcast on the Left regularly discuss dark topics like serial killers and cults and treat them with all the respect they feel the people involved deserve: None. That changes when the discussion goes to the victims of these people. For example, in their Children of God series, jokes about the cult's founder being a Dirty Old Man pedophile fly freely, but in the final part, when the main topic is a man raised in the Children of God's sexually abusive environment who went on to murder one of his abusers then kill himself, the number of jokes drops sharply and they express sympathy as they refer to statements he made before the act showing he knew what he was going to be doing.

edited 10th Jul '17 12:26:57 PM by sgamer82

Delete that. It's less pedantic and more twisting the words to shoehorn the example in. If you really want to argue it, you could say that without the fall, she wouldn't have died, so it's at the very least a major contributor to her death. It's about as logical to claim, "I didn't kill her. It was the knife in my hand that pierced her heart, which led to the shock that killed her."

Dude, Not Funny! is listed as a subtrope of Everyone Has Standards, and it does seem to fit. Should only be listed on the subtrope.

edited 10th Jul '17 11:41:00 AM by AnotherDuck

I got a question about the Ensemble Dark Horse trope. Can a character be listed as one if they are a major Base-Breaking Character in the fandom? If, say, 50% of fans like them, but 50% hate them, can they be used as an example of an Ensemble Dark Horse?

From what I heard, Base Breaking Characters cannot be Ensemble Darkhorses.

edited 10th Jul '17 10:42:16 PM by ADrago

Yeah that's what I thought. People keep adding a character from Spider-Man: Homecoming as one despite the fact the character is probably the biggest Base-Breaking Character in the film because they think that doesn't matter.

If a character almost dies, is revived, then later it's revealed that they're still dead, they're just a reanimated body, is that Dead All Along?

I'm not sure whether the following example in Interviews with Monster Girls really involves Political Correctness:

• Political Correctness Gone Mad: Downplayed. When Machi feels that, despite her classmates being friendly and helpful, there's a social barrier between her and them and that they constantly avoid the topic of her being a dullahan, Takahashi figures this might be because they don't know what the acceptable boundaries are and are afraid of saying anything that crosses a line. He suggests that if Machi herself openly jokes about her nature as a dullahan, her classmates will take cues from her example and become less afraid to talk about it too.

No. That is more advice on how to break the ice without directly stating it, which with Machi being shy is not really an option.

It could be a case of Lost In Cultural Translation if that trope exists somewhere, it might not be that big of a deal in the west as it is as in Japan, that boundary is a huge deal there.

edited 11th Jul '17 10:03:12 PM by Memers

Are either of the following examples being used correctly?:

X Men Dark Phoenix

• Internet Backdraft:
  • Many fans were less than impressed when Simon Kinberg was confirmed to be directing, given his lack of directorial experience and his involvement in the divisive X Men Apocalypse and panned Fantastic Four 2015.
  • Similar sentiments were raised by the confirmation that Fassbender and Lawrence will be returning as Magneto and Mystique, respectively. While fans do not dispute either's talent, many believe their characters have become overused and would have preferred focus on the new cast.

Audience-Alienating Premise:

• Ghostbusters (2016) was completely and utterly dead on arrival. Firstly it was a reboot of a beloved franchise with a very vocal and dedicated fan base. Secondly it wasn't the Ghostbusters 3 that's been sitting in Development Hell and been hinted to said vocal and dedicated fan base regularly since the 90's. Thirdly and finally it starred an all new cast. That's three strikes and the movie is out, and that's not even touching on all the controversy surrounding the film (Nor is this the place to discuss it).

The first two, while possibly genuine sentiments, reaaaaally sound like someone pushing their own complaints under the guise of "some fans". (TBH I have no idea why Internet Backdraft even allows examples).

The last one is definitely a genuine sentiment - without factoring in any of the misogyny issues, there were certainly people who hated the film on principle from the moment they knew it was a reboot instead of a sequel. But I don't think Audience-Alienating Premise is quite right, particularly as it's always seemed to imply a predominant attitude.

I have been having a discussion with another troper about the following Shout-Out example that they added to the Blood Bowl:

• The general practice of paying players to deliberately maim rival star players (well, more so than usual) to make sure they're not a problem for them later on/out of sheer spite is taken from various "bounty" controversies that plague the NFL and college leagues, wherein players would get paid for deliberatly injuring certain players.

I personally do not see how this is a Shout-Out if just for being far too general for the trope, especially as maiming the opposition is one of the entire points of the game.

Just want to add my two cents, as I'm on the other side of the debate - Blood Bowl's a game that parodies NFL, American college football, and rugby culture, controversies, and play (the God worshiped is called "Nuffle", a lot of the team names reference existing NFL ones, like "Blood Bay Hackers", player names getting similar treatment like "Rhett Carve", after Brett Favre, "Tomolandy the Undying" named after jokes about Tom Landry being a coach forever, et cetera).

I'm arguing the example's valid, since it's based on various NFL controversies about "bounties", wherein players get paid to injure opposing players, through the year.