Is this an example?

Considering how often I've seen Narm misused, would someone mind taking a look at these examples from Secret Empire:

• Narm:
  • Many fans can't take Tony very seriously during this event due to the fact he's an AI and not actually Tony Stark and since the characters and the story act seemingly unaware of this fact.
  • To emphasize the silliness of the issue, the AI seemingly programmed himself to be drunk.
  • The sheer heavy-handedness of the story's satire of the Donald Trump presidency has provoked this reaction even in people who don't like Trump. It's been pointed out many times that the satire isn't even accurate, as Trump faced record levels of opposition, including protests, lawsuits, and criminal investigations into his associates, from the moment he took office, while in the story the Marvel citizenry voluntarily kiss the boots of a literal terrorist organization because "at least they've brought back the factory jobs" and so on.

The second entry is pure natter and should either be merged into the first entry or nuked altogether.

That third entry is very political and should probably be nuked, too.

Also, the first entry doesn't bother to explain why people find that hard to take seriously.

So if the third entry is too political to be allowed on the page, what about this example from the same page?:

• Anvilicious: Some of dialogue and plot points are so blatantly meant as nods to Trump's America that it borders on comical. Sam Wilson: Captain America #22 has a scene where a group of working class diner patrons claim that HYDRA, a known terrorist organization that has tried to conquer the world multiple times, isn't evil, and that "the media" is using fake news to smear them. Said scene also has two guys basically admit they don't mind living under fascist rule as long as it continues to produce more jobs. The irony is that Spencer and Alonso claimed that this story was not meant to be read as political. Whether or not this is more of a case of Some Anvils Need to Be Dropped (given the rise of "post-truth" politics) is best discussed elsewhere.

Fantastic Fruits and Vegetables:

Does this count? I suspect this doesn't count 'cause the meat / root of these plants isn't edible like a plant / vegetable is... But the basic idea implies the existence of magic fruits...

@nrjxll

It's hard to take it seriously when the real Tony is in a comma and everyone, within the story, is acting like it's just normal to take an AI based on Tony, programmed to be drunk on purpose, at face value.

It's like the faulty VI of Shepard in ME 3, 'cept everyone thinks its normal if the faulty Shepard VI replaced Shep despite being a faulty VI, and we're supposed to think that's ok.

edited 17th Jul '17 8:19:42 PM by Klaudandus

With Samurai Jack any mentions of Shapeshifter Default Form for Aku say that his horned humanoid form is his preferred form and that his is true form is just a giant black mass. However, there was an episode where Aku was in disguise, but his reflection in the water showed his normal humanoid form. With that, can we agree that Aku's Shapeshifter Default Form is actually his true form rather than his preferred form?

Posting again: the following Faux Action Girl example:

Mai of the original series fell mostly into Designated Victim territory - quite skilled, with impressive strategies and many victories offscreen, but her onscreen duels are almost all against either main heroes or main villains, who are invariably stronger and more plot-relevant than she is. She's clearly a powerful duelist, but her long string of bad luck gives her precious few wins to her name.

Opinions?

Speaking of Faux Action Girl, would Lisa Lisa from JoJo's Bizarre Adventure qualify? She's an expert Hamon user, but only gets three fights, none of which are that impressive:

• Her first fight is probably her best feat, and the one that might disqualify her. She fights against Joseph Joestar, the main character, and easily defeats him. However, Joseph is the weakest protagonist in the series when it comes to a straight fight, and he had not yet undergone any training, which makes this feat less impressive.

• Her second fight is against Wired Beck, a random mook who goes down from a single attack.

• Her third and final fight is against Kars, the Big Bad of the story, but she loses and needs to be rescued by Joseph.

So her best on-screen feat is defeating the protagonist, which might be lessened by the fact that he's Weak, but Skilled and had not yet received any training.

Paper Tiger checking:

1. There a Pot Hole to Small Name, Big Ego. Do they automatically count for Paper Tiger when they're a fighter?

2. What's "when they rely on Estelle to change cooking duty to her" ... So, she's saying she'll cook instead of Flynn, but Flynn's already done?

3. If he does nothing, does this count?

4. He's no fighting anything... Don't you need to fight or something to possibly qualify for Paper Tiger?

edited 19th Jul '17 8:15:10 AM by Malady

Knowing the work would help. I'm guessing Yu Gi Oh, and if I'm being frank, I don't think "being good at a card game" would qualify a character for Action Girl status in the first place.

Two wins and losing to the Big Bad? I don't see what's "Faux" there.

• Doesn't seem to be an example because it seems they are effective, just not through their own strength.
• I have no idea what that's supposed to do with Paper Tiger.
• Seems like a fine example.
• Face of a Thug or Gentle Giant would be a better fit based on the description there.

In the context of Yu-Gi-oh itself, being good at card games makes you an action character (as the entirety of the action bar a few one-sided punch fights is card game based). Yami Yugi is the biggest badass in the entire franchise because of his perfect win record at card games. The games that Mai engages into are dangerous; some of them include betting her soul. So yeah, unfortunately she qualifies for Faux Action Girl. Too few victories of her own and most of them are off-screen or against literal mooks of the week.

The reason the issue with the AI Tony Stark is hard to take seriously is because the narrative goes out of its way to behave like it's the real Tony Stark. No one in universe seems to care that he's literally an intangible android, that he programmed himself to be drunk of all things and one of the few characters that you would think would point out his nature as an AI - Ultron - doesn't even bother and behaves like he's the real deal. And it gets to an even worse spot in the latest issue - Captain America somehow conjures a gizmo to make the Tony Stark AI solid, then he says that Tony somehow downloaded his real consciousness into the AI (something that contradicts a previous statement made by Riri Williams and other characters in the Iron Man book) and goes out of his way to decapitate the AI.

He's decapitating a bodyless AI. And we're supposed to take the stakes seriously when it has been said all the time that the AI is not the real Tony. It seriously derails the book and makes you laugh.

edited 20th Jul '17 8:56:11 AM by Edgar81539

If you added that commentary about the AI in the Narm example, it would be better for it.

Anyway, this example tries to make the case that Anyone Can Die applies to all of Star Wars. I'd like to cut it, but read it for yourself:

• Star Wars is a sneaky example, because it doesn't feel like one. But if you look at all the episodes as of this writing (I-VII), you'll see there's no category of characters that's completely safe, save maybe comedic sidekicks. In the original trilogy (IV-VI), you can say that main characters are safe as long as they're not the mentor. But if you start with the prequel trilogy (I-III), you'll see basically all the main characters from there die on-screen, some making it as far as the original trilogy first but with Qui-Gon Jinn (again the mentor) starting it off in episode I. Also, with episode VII, we see that the main characters from the original trilogy aren't safe either, as Han Solo becomes yet another victim of Mentor Occupational Hazard. Now, it might be claimed that it tends to be the older, more experienced characters specifically who are affected by this, either ones who were so to begin with (Qui-Gon Jinn, Mace Windu, Yoda) or ones who'd become the older generation by the time they died (Obi-Wan Kenobi, Anakin Skywalker, and Han Solo). It's true that the protagonists of the current younger generation have been the least likely to die, almost to the point that you can trust it won't happen, but Padmé Amidala's fate in episode III shows that's not impossible either.

Noticed the following was taken out from Ironheart's YMMV based on the page's history.

Not sure whether the reason given for deleting it out was a valid one as the entry seems to fit Alternative Character Interpretation at least based on a quick look on the examples listed there.

There was also this that was taken out as well.

It appears that it was added in connection to the Alternative Character Interpretation entry. Seems like something that should've been merged with the main entry. Not sure if it should be rewritten. The youtube links are critical of Riri and in general support the Alternative Character Interpretation that she could be seen as a villain.

Asking here if what was deleted is an example of Alternative Character Interpretation before doing anything since the subject appears to be one of those matters that might cause an Edit War or worse if not handled properly.

... they're really using Doomed by Canon Padme as evidence that Anyone Can Die?

Literally the first thing we know about Padme is she died when Leia was young. That's before we knew her name. Dying is an explicit part of the character.

Every other character's death is someone you'd expect to die, either via Mentor Occupational Hazard, Doomed by Canon, or just not being important.

... that doesn't seem like an Alternate Character Interpretation at all. Like, I don't even see how that's related.

edited 21st Jul '17 10:33:12 AM by Larkmarn

{{4162}} Other question, the "with impressive strategies" and the "clearly a powerful duelist" in the example qualify as Word Cruft, right? This was included by the same troper that expanded the example- and the Asuka and Aki ones- out of zero context status, but in total contrast to the other two, the Mai example sounds dangerously close to actually say that she is not an example, considering the amount of gushing.

edited 21st Jul '17 11:06:41 AM by MagBas

Is the following example being used correctly?:

• Celebrity Paradox: In some scenes, Peter is wearing a The Big Bang Theory shirt. However, TBBT is known for its liberal use of references to superheroes and comics — which, of course, includes Marvel Comics and Spidey. Assuming that The Big Bang Theory DOES exist in the MCU, what would be the source of its humor in a world without Marvel Comics?

It was removed from Spider-Man: Homecoming, by one user because "Who says that Marvel Comics does not exist within the MCU? It does exist within the Marvel Universe, after all"... except there hasn't been anything in the films remotely suggesting that there are versions of Marvel Comics in the MCU.

Seeing how Spiderman is often brought up in The Big Bang Theory as a comic character specifically this video. Yes I would say so.

edited 22nd Jul '17 9:38:44 PM by Memers

Two other Yugi Oh examples:

• Invincible Villain: Plunges right into Only the Author Can Save Them Now territory, with his Game Breaker deck and over the top magic powers.

• Superpower Lottery: Has the most broken dueling deck of any character in the regular series, period. His advanced forms of the Orichalcos grant him 500 Life Points each turn for every monster he controls, he can tribute monsters to negate attacks and destroy the attacker, and grant his monsters immunity to opposing magic and trap effects. And this is on top of the base effects of extra monster slots, +500 ATK for your monsters, and immunity to removal. His other cards have effects ranging from negating all battle damage, to destroying enemy monsters and inflicting their ATK as damage to the opponent, to having the same ATK as whatever monster they battle +500. And his ultimate trump card is a monster with infinite ATK points. On top of that, this same monster allows him to keep playing even with zero lifepoints, so he can only lose if the monster is destroyed. Kaiba and Yami Yugi are on the defensive almost the entire duel, and Yami Yugi only endures and wins via several consecutive good draws.

The two examples qualify? The character in question(Dartz) has only one on-screen Duel in the series, and he lost this.

Could this qualify as an example of Legacy Character? I want to add it, and it seems to follow the trope I'm spirit, if not to the letter. For that reason though I want to double check it

• When selecting their hero names, Eijiro Kirishima of My Hero Academia chooses "Red Riot" as his. The teacher at the time immediately recognises the name as an homage to an older hero, Crimson Riot. Kirishima confirms this but is also warned that taking up a name he admires comes with that much more pressure to live to it.

edited 24th Jul '17 5:35:02 AM by sgamer82

Don't think Kirishima choosing his superhero persona to be called Red Riot necessarily makes him a Legacy Character per se. He's not exactly taking up the mantle of Crimson Riot, merely naming himself in homage to a hero he admires. It's not like Midoriya who was given the mantle of peace by All Might or Iida who decided to take up the mantle of Ingenium. I think the case is more closer to cases like Superboy, Steel, and etc. wherein characters take up identities that are obviously based on another superhero but are completely separate altogether.

Is this the following example from The Mummy Trilogy being used correctly?:

• Vindicated by History: While never considered great films by anyone, the poor reception of the 2017 reboot has only made this trilogy look better in hindsight. The likable characters, the pulp-style action sequences, and the self-aware humor are preferred by many people to the 2017 versions darker, more humorless version. Many argue that these films were better for just trying to be good adventure movies in their own right, while the reboot was more wrapped up in trying to copy the Marvel Cinematic Universe than it was actually trying to be good. It helps that Brendan Fraser has become something of a memetic woobie in recent years due to a nasty divorce and loss of work, while Tom Cruise is, for several reasons, not.

Found this for Zanza on the Xenoblade Chronicles Character page

• Blue-and-Orange Morality: It's implied that he isn't capable of understanding that the beings of Bionis are living beings with their own individual lives. To him, they're just food... which still doesn't even begin to justify what he does, as the other god (Meyneth) understands that they are people and not food or bacteria.

This screams misuse and is more of Zanza's massive god-complex towards anything that isn't himself.

Not-So-Omniscient Council of Bickering:

...

Tales of the Five Hundred Kingdoms:

Alien Sky would count for any description of one, right? Even if it's just a dream?

"a shore of purple sand by an amethyst sea beneath a silver sky with three azure moons"

edited 29th Jul '17 2:37:06 PM by Malady

Sorry for this question for being overly general here.

There's a relatively frequently used term in Japan that can be translated as "communication disorder" in English, whose definition is much wider than what it means anywhere in the English-speaking world. I have previously stated it in Characters.No Game No Life:

In Japanese parlance, ["communication disorder"] is a catch-all phrase that covers not only what is strictly the medical definition of this term, such as Speech Impediment, but also such things as social anxiety or autism.

Suppose this is the correct meaning of the term, can any character of the Japanese media that is said to have a "communication disorder" be examples of Ambiguous Disorder, unless evidence to the contrary?

edited 29th Jul '17 8:59:08 PM by SamCurt