Is this an example?

From Star Wars Resistance

• Overshadowed by Controversy: Rachel Butera posting a video mocking Dr. Christine Blasey Ford's ^note A psychology professor who claimed to have been sexually assaulted by Supreme Court judge nominee Brett Kavanaugh when they were teenagers voice during her hearing shortly before the show's release (and right before a trailer that showcased her voicing Leia for the first time) made her role on the show this. Especially since Disney had recently fired James Gunn for far less and Roseanne Barr for a tweet just as insensitive, leading to many saying they'd be absurd hypocrites to keep her on the show.

I'm wary about it because the first episode wont air until sunday and while there's lot of complains about this series like the animation, the lighter tone, not being the clone wars, etc there relatively little about Rachel Butera.

Yeah, I don't see much overshadowing there.

I've actually been seeing a lot of calls to fire her, but as most of them are going out of their way to say how it wouldn't be a big deal for the series as a whole, I concur that's hardly 'overshadowing' anything.

Would this be considered a case of Big-Lipped Alligator Moment for Godzilla vs. Mechagodzilla.

At one point a Okinawan Priestess has a vision of a great disaster and we see King Ghidorah on a rampage. While there is a prophecy of a Great Disaster and it's important to the plot, King Ghidorah doesn't make an appearance in the movie and the monster who would bring destruction is Mechagodzilla.

Might also see it as a Bait-and-Switch

I think the fact that the prophecy itself is relevant to the movie disqualifies it as a BLAM.

yeah. Would it be considered a Bait-and-Switch since the prophecy talked about a destructive monster and it's not Ghidorah. I also think it might be a Call-Forward since Ghidorah last appearance is in Destroy all Monster which is set in universe in 1999 while Godzilla vs Mechagodzilla is in 70s.

Does a red, white, and yellow costume count for Primary-Color Champion?

I don't think so. Red and blue are the most important colours there.

I'm wondering if Don't Shoot the Message would be appropriate for ComicBook.Heroes In Crisis.

The premise is about heroes getting actual help dealing with any health problems that are a direct side effect of being heroes and Tom King wants to address the Post Traumatic Syndrome and how it needs to be talked about. However, the book is marred by standard contested comic book practices of retcons and the deaths of heroes, with two being fan favorites who some fans believed got shafted by DC. There's also

Ok, I admit Don't Shoot the Message could work but we'd have to wait until the full story plays out so we can determine whether the trope qualifies, otherwise it would come off as a knee-jerk reaction.

I noticed the following in Characters.Cells At Work:

• Unstoppable Mailman: No matter how bad the situation is she never, ever gives up on delivering her package. Not even during hypovolemic shock.

The issue is: the character is clearly under Courier. It's unclear where the emphasis of Unstoppable Mailman is; this example would work if the emphasis is "Unstoppable", but Not An Example if this is a generic trope for mail carriers.

I don't like the "See Also" to Courier. From a quick read, Courier is the generic "this character delivers mail", while Unstoppable Mailman is a subtrope for "even in extreme conditions".

- The names seem to indicate that, but Courier itself says otherwise:

Edited by Malady on Oct 7th 2018 at 8:17:41 AM

Tropes should never be defined by other trope pages. If there's a contradiction there, the one on the actual trope page for the trope in question is followed, not the other page that happens to define it in passing.

After reading them, Courier definitely seems like a supertrope to Unstoppable Mailman. I don't see anything that points to something else. "Mailman" implies a somewhat narrower definition than "courier", but looking at the trope page, there are examples of food deliveries in a couple of examples, so that doesn't seem like a difference.

YMMV.My Little Pony Friendship Is Magic S 4 E 2 Princess Twilight Sparkle Part 2:

• Broken Base: Was Applejack in the right for sending away Twilight from their quest or was she an idiot? Fans are split on either topic.
• Informed Wrongness: While her friends' decision to send Twilight away is presented as a bad thing since they don't realize they need her intuition to help save the tree until afterward, their arguments are nonetheless valid. With Luna and Celestia gone and Cadance having her own kingdom to run, it would be rather disastrous if Equestria lost their last remaining princess over the course of the mission, especially if the loss of Luna and Celestia ends up being permanent. It doesn't help that Twilight isn't at her best, since her new wings are more of a hindrance than an asset and almost get her killed. This also goes for Twilight agreeing to it.
• What An Idiot: The biggest point of contention people seem to have with this episode is Applejack sending Twilight away from their quest so that she could be there for Equestria, which the others go along with. It's not that their arguments weren't valid, but it never seems to occur to them that they're denying themselves their most powerful weapon, along with the fact that Twilight is without question The Smart Guy of their group. They really kick themselves in the pants over it when they're powerless to do anything without her. Twilight herself gets an almost equal share for not even thinking that her Element might be needed to fix the tree it came from, only going back when Discord of all people talks some sense into her. Their only reason why they even do this in the first place is because Twilight is the only Princess remaining (sans Cadance, who is busy in her own Empire) and that Equestria can't afford to lose yet another Princess.

Is it problem that Informed Wrongness and What An Idiot are at odds with each other? Does What An Idiot count if they are given a clear reason they made the decision they did?

I was uncertain whether to post this here or on Ask the Tropers.

From YMMV.The Powerpuff Girls 2016. cheril59 changed:

• They Changed It, Now It Sucks!: The art style in general has changed between the original and the reboot. The background characters in the original were based off older cartoons from the 40s or 50s, both in art style and character design, which befit the Retro Universe the original took place in. The reboot however uses contemporary character designs which more resemble something like Clarence. This also makes the few characters that use the old style (like the girls and Professor Utonium) stand out.

To:

• They Changed It, Now It Sucks!: The art style in general has changed between the original and the reboot. The background characters in the original were based off older cartoons from the 40s or 50s, both in art style and character design, which befit the Retro Universe the original took place in. The reboot however uses contemporary character designs which more resemble something like Clarence.Steven Universe. This also makes the few characters that use the old style (like the girls and Professor Utonium) stand out.

However, the background charactera look like Clarence characters to me and I've seen other characters mention it. Can it be changed back?

Edited by Pichu-kun on Oct 8th 2018 at 4:47:31 AM

I'd remove What An Idiot. It's more complainy, it requires a more extreme example, and the Informed Wrongness makes a convincing argument for why they're not being idiots. However, Informed Wrongness is only correct if they don't show why it's wrong (or at least make a convincing argument for it), and instead just tell the audience. What I'm lacking there is context for how it's presented as the wrong choice. It doesn't say anything about anyone disagreeing with not taking Twilight with them. The only thing is the end result, which isn't something that says whether a decision was made on sound grounds or not.

People might see it as resembling both, if they put in two shows it resembles. Might have both in the example, then.

Reposting from a couple of pages ago, so it doesn't get lost:

Do the following examples from Wizards Of Once look like they have enough context?:

• Badass Adorable: Wish is small, kind-hearted, and rather clumsy, but she possesses a rare and powerful Magic-that-works-on-iron, as well as the ability to return from the dead.
• Star-Crossed Lovers: Although a young Queen Sychorax and Encanzo—at the time known as Tor—fell in love and wished to be married, Sychorax had to become queen and Warrior queens do not marry Wizards.
• Talking Animal: Caliburn is a talking raven or something of that nature.

Under Lady of War Literature subsection, and on the main page of the Codex Alera series, the three human women listed, Isana, Invidia, and Placidia, all have the dignified aspect down. But each one is also a mage who ranges from competent to incredibly powerful and dangerous. Considering for the latter two, they use magic to either directly attack or enhance their combat skills with strength and speed, and Isana calls on water to cut up some enemies with a high-pressured blast, and eventually learns to use snow in combat, but isn't the strongest of physical fighters, should any of these women be listed under Lady of Black Magic instead?

And for the remaining woman listed there, Hashat, from a barbarian tribe, acts as a respected member of her peoples cavalry, following the codes and customs befitting her place as headwoman of her tribe. Would that suffice to keep her as a Lady of War? It should be noted that she may do things that are not considered right and proper by other cultures, like the consuming of one's enemy's flesh.

A Lady of War is primarily a physical fighter, not a magic user of some kind. If she mostly uses magic, she doesn't fit the trope.

She's also a proper lady with a grace and reserve not associated with violence. If that's not included in the example, it lacks context or isn't an example.

Is this Transformation Sequence, Transformation Is a Free Action, or possibly both, even though the latter is a subtrope of the former?

• Fanfic.Dungeon Keeper Ami: From A Deal with the Devil:
  "Mercury Power, Make Up!" A flash of blue light concealed Ami for a split second when she triggered her transformation to restore her ruined outfit. It also re-applied her make-up, removing all traces of crying, and cleaned her body, as it was intended to. [...] A cylinder of light, centred on the heart, started expanding through the dungeon, leaving only gleaming cleanness in blue and white tones and the occasional Mercury symbol in its wake.

I guess it might be Transformation Is a Free Action for Ami herself, and Transformation Sequence for the whole dungeon, unless it also is just as fast...

Edited by Malady on Oct 9th 2018 at 11:01:11 AM

Cut this from Aho Girl for insufficient support: Fan-Preferred Couple: Some fans ship Akkun × Sayaka because out of all the girls in his life, she's the sanest and has sometimes tried to help him out by attempting to moderate either Yoshiko or the President. She's also the only character aside from Dog that he actually wants to be friends with. It helps that in the later chapters Akkun sometimes shows concern when Sayaka is pushed to her limits by either Yoshiko or the President and even does things to help her out from time to time.

Thanks Another Duck.

From Life Is Strange

• Catharsis Factor:
  • Some feel this way about sacrificing Chloe, with how Chloe often acted and how many times Max had to save her from the consequences of her own poor decisions and felt better about letting Chloe die rather than sacrificing any of Arcadia Bay's other denizens.

1. This doesn't actually describe catharsis, just that some players preferred one ending over the other, which is misuse and already covered on the page.

2. Don't how relevant intent is, but her death is not meant to be cathartic and is never framed as anything but tragic.

3. Chloe's attitude and behavior made her a Base-Breaking Character, but suggesting that she was bad enough for her death to be morally cathartic feels like Character Bashing.

So, I'm inclined to cut, but want a second opinion to preclude conflict. Thoughts?

In Rape as Backstory:

• Megara's words to Hercules in Hercules leave not much room to interpretation.
  Well, you know how men are. They think "No" means "Yes" and "Get lost" means "Take me. I'm yours."

Does this also count as Getting Crap Past the Radar? Or is this just reading too much into things?