Is this an example?

^She got let into the academy early so she's younger than everyone else on her team and often gets treated as Just a Kid. The Leader status was assigned to her by the headmaster.

Other than Weiss, though, nobody usually argues with it and even she only did so briefly. Ruby's age relative to the others has never been an issue beyond that point that I can remember.

You say she often gets treated as Just a Kid but unless you're remembering something I'm not, outside that early point in the series, she really doesn't.

Edited by sgamer82 on Aug 20th 2018 at 4:18:08 AM

Well yeah she does grow out of it and assert her leadership later. But that's a whole different trope. The Leader isn't really relevant in Four-Girl Ensemble aside from maybe the Team Mom.

Anyway, I'm not saying it has to be Tag Along Kid if there's one that fits better.

Edited by Snowy66 on Aug 20th 2018 at 4:46:37 AM

Reading Four-Girl Ensemble's definition, Tagalong Kid isn't really relevant to the trope, either.

Ruby is definitely the "sweet-naive girl" of the ensemble.
Yang is naturally the tomboyish one.
Weiss could be the admirable one, since it includes use of The Smart One, which is Weiss' strong suit compared to the others.
However, that leaves Blake feeling like the sexy one primarily out of process of elimination. On the other hand, she is the only one in her team with anything approaching a canon love interest with Sun.

Edited by sgamer82 on Aug 20th 2018 at 6:11:04 AM

Are the following examples being used correctly?:

From The Nutcracker and the Four Realms:

• Can't Un-Hear It: Not for a voice, but for a soundtrack. Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky's music is practically inseparable from Nutcracker adaptations, even when they adapt E. T. A. Hoffmann more than they adapt the ballet.
• They Changed It, Now It Sucks!: Let's get it out of the way now, this will not be the first time we hear Hoffmann fans go off when a film gets announced that isn't playing his material straight.

From Slender Man:

• Vanilla Protagonist: The main characters are this to a fault. It's made painfully apparent that the Slender Man is the focal point of the movie, rather than the main characters who are trying to deal with him.

I cannot stress this enough: please don't just ask "are these correct", but give your reasoning for why they aren't. It makes the process much easier.

The first two examples seem speculative given that the film isn't out, although the Can't Un-Hear It is clearly violating the rule that it applies to spoken parts, not music.

For Slender Man, the example lacks detail.

Had a question about an example I thought to add to Playing with Character Type, and which I think fits that better than Playing Aginst Type (not sure if there's any trope for "subverted typecasting"- think this is the closest):

• Willem Dafoe typically plays sinister and creepy villainous characters, and in Murder on the Orient Express (2017), his character Gerhard Hardman, seems very much to type, being a generally unlikable Austrian professor who is vehemently racist and implied to be a Nazi. However, it turns out that this persona is a cover for Cyrus Hardiman, a kindly and gregarious ex-cop/ Pinkerton Detective, who is actually part-Jewish. When discussing his Lost Lenore, Hardiman calls attention to himself having the Face of a Thug. This instance is partly a case of Canon Character All Along, as Dafoe's Hardiman initially seems to be a very altered version of the novel's Cyrus Hardiman, a gregarious Pinkerton.

Wondering if that last sentence is necessary. Also wondering if it's worth mentioning that Hardiman is one of the murderers, which is a bit of a Double Subversion. Lastly, is there a way of referring to Dafoe's appearance. I don't want to call the guy ugly, but there's a reason he plays the kind of characters he usually does...

Edited by Hodor2 on Aug 20th 2018 at 11:33:35 AM

YMMV.My Little Pony Friendship Is Magic S 8 E 20 The Washouts

• Moral Event Horizon: Lightning Dust pressuring Scootaloo into a potentially lethal stunt

Any other work, I'd say it counts, but with how incredibly lenient this show is in offering forgiveness, I'm not sure... Thoughts?

Edited by Ferot_Dreadnaught on Aug 20th 2018 at 4:23:15 AM

Going only by past precedent, I also wouldn't be particularly surprised if "potentially lethal" was a bit of an exaggeration.

Could be helpful on what the potential lethal thing was.

Edit: Read the recap. I guess trying to force a kid to do a dangerous stunt that involves rockets that could of killed her could be seen as an MEH.

Edited by WhirlRX on Aug 20th 2018 at 8:50:59 AM

- From the Recap, it involves a rocket, and Scootaloo seems to have been the first test subject?

Looks like it. My question is it worse than what other villains have been redeemed of in-series?

@sgamer82 the "sexy one" is interchangeable with the "rich upperclass girl" which is definitely Weiss.

I did suggest that Ruby could also fall under The Cutie, which at this point feels like a better fit.

Yang and Blake both fall under the tomboy to a degree, but Yang is the only one who fits under the "admirable kind" Cool Big Sis role. While Blake is the more stereotypical "emotionally withdrawn, serious, quiet girl" which overlaps with tomboy.

All of this about multiple characters falling under the same role to a degree and picking the one who comes closest smacks very strongly of shoehorning, to me.

^That's the case with most tropes. But from my understanding this one doesn't have a fixed lineup as the ensemble varies in nearly all examples.

I've put an example regarding Studio Ghibli on Creator Killer not long ago:

• Despite The Tale of the Princess Kaguya and When Marnie Was There receiving critical acclaim, the financial failures of these films, combined with the temporary retirements of Hayao Miyazaki, Isao Takahata and Toshio Suzuki, was the final straw for Studio Ghibli; it took a temporary break from producing its feature-length animated works until their Career Resurrection with The Red Turtle and Miyazaki making yet another return as director. Kaguya was also Takahata's final film as director before he retired and eventually died in 2018. The restructuring also led to producer Yoshiaki Nishimura leaving the studio to form his own company, Studio Ponoc, in 2015.

Can this count as a true example of a Creator Killer?

Edited by gjjones on Aug 20th 2018 at 12:07:18 PM

Don't know why you'd say that Marnie was a financial failure, because according to Wikipedia it made more than triple its budget back. Hardly what I'd call a failure.

Aside from that, Studio Ghibli is still producing films and is still highly-regarded, as far as I know. They just took a brief hiatus. So no, not a Creator Killer, in my opinion.

I see. I also found that in this box office report from Eirin (in Japanese, of course), Marnie made 3.53 billion yen/$32.1 million in Japan.

So Kaguya wasn't a creator killer for Takahata after all?

Edited by gjjones on Aug 20th 2018 at 1:20:14 PM

From UnintentionalPeriodPiece.Turn Of The Millennium:

* Mario & Luigi: Partners in Time (2005) has a pair of brainwashed Hammer Bros. as an early boss in the game. In some languages^note Including the English version but not in the original Japanese, their text is in Leet Speak — by the next decade, Leet Speak dropped in popularity considerably, to the point where almost nobody uses it unironically anymore. The game seemed to at least be partially aware this might happen, as once the devices controlling the Bros. are destroyed, they start joking around about the slang they used.

This example is just about one scene where dated slang is used when from my understanding Unintentional Period Piece requires a work to be loaded with dated references to the point where the work becomes a time capsule of the era it was made.

Edited by ADrago on Aug 21st 2018 at 11:42:03 AM

From my understanding Unintentional Period Piece is "literally any solitary reference that can potentially be traced to a particular historical or cultural moment, because tropers are stupid and like to shoehorn things."

...In other words, yes, I'd recommend cutting that.

Edited by nrjxll on Aug 22nd 2018 at 3:53:22 AM

Going by the first part of the trope's description alone, I don't think any Mario game could apply

I don't think there's ever been a present day that included a magical kingdom of mushroom people and turtle monsters

Edited by sgamer82 on Aug 22nd 2018 at 6:19:51 AM

I think these examples from The Magisterium need a look at:

• Abusive Parents: Callum's father Alastair can come off as this, prior to the big reveal at the ending. The other mages go on and on about how dangerous untrained young mages are and yet Alastair never trained him. Not only that, but Alastair did everything in his power to keep Callum from being trained. The only equivalent that springs to mind is that of grafting a gun to your child's body and never teaching them gun safety.

This example has can come off as which strikes me as Weasel Words in the same sense as ''Arguably''. Also the fact that it says before The Reveal makes it seem like the character is revealed not to be an example, but as written the example doesn't mention this.

• Aerith and Bob: We have names like Callum, Alastair, and Verity, and in the same work we have names like Aaron and Sarah.

Aerith and Bob is supposed to be supposed to be about both normal and fantastical names being used in the same setting, but all the names listed are actual names that exist in real-life and apart from Verity which is really old fashioned, none of the names come off as all that unusual to me.

Also do the following examples look like they've got enough description or context?:

• The Mole: Drew. He's actually Master Joseph's son, as well as Master Joseph and the Enemy's spy in the Magisterium.
• Refusal of the Call: Callum attempts this at the beginning of The Iron Trial, by trying to fail the entrance exam to the Magisterium. He is aided in this by his father, Alastair Hunt. Predictably, it doesn't work.
• Springtime for Hitler: The results of Callum's attempt to fail the entrance exam to the Magisterium. Despite his efforts, Master Rufus chooses him anyway, and Callum ends up going to the Magisterium, much to his and Alastair's horror.

Let's see.

• I agree with you that the Abusive Parents example seems iffy. If anything, it's neglect rather than intentional abuse, unless there's more context that we aren't seeing. It's also weasel-worded, so merits removal.
• Aerith and Bob seems to get shoehorned a lot. Agree with the cut.
• With The Mole, the example seems to go on about something irrelevant to the trope and then merely asserts that it occurs without details. How does this character earn the trust of the heroes and then how is that trust betrayed? The fact that this character is a relative of the villain sounds like it would be some kind of big reveal.
• Refusal of the Call and Springtime for Hitler both look valid, but both are written with too much reference to the trope and not enough actual explanation. "Attempts this", where 'this' is the trope, is one of those pernicious verbal tics that we've developed at TV Tropes and which need to be excised. Examples shouldn't be worded in such a way as to imply that the reader needs to read the trope description first.

Edited by Fighteer on Aug 22nd 2018 at 9:49:09 AM

I don't think these examples from YMMV.Avatar The Last Airbender The Search are being used correctly.

Alternative Character Interpretations:

Where's the interpretation? This is just a recap of Aang's Character Development. There's nothing "alternative" here, this all happens in-story.

Again, this is something that is brought up in-story. The entry even acknowledges this.

Fan-Disliked Explanation:

I think the first bullet point can go, since it's revealed to be untrue. The second and third ones are fine, but will need rewording if the first bullet point goes. The third one probably shouldn't even be a sub-bullet.

Strawman Has a Point:

Where's the strawman? Yet again, just a recap of events that happen in-story.

I think this may have been directed towards the fans that give Ursa the Ron the Death Eater treatment, but I don't know if something like that belongs on the page. Perhaps move the entry to Ron the Death Eater instead of cutting it?

Edited by Primis on Aug 22nd 2018 at 10:29:31 AM

Can Approval of God apply to official adaptations as well as Fan-works because the following on Trivia.Death Note 2017:

• The creators of the original manga, Tsugumi Ohba and Takashi Obata, were given an early screening and they enjoyed the movie, feeling it was faithful to the spirit of their work (not the details, although that was another thing they appreciated^note they felt that you shouldn't have to retell their story all the time, and that drastically altered versions make things more interesting.) and the ending surprised them "in a good way". They even drew their own artwork of the movie's Light and Ryuk.

... was under Approval of God but was moved to Creator-Preferred Adaptation by IsaacHeller because "Approval of God is about fan-works, not official products."

But looking at the trope page CreatorPrefferedAdaptation is supposed to be when a Creator dubs an adaptation to be superior to the original work, which the example above isn't.