Is this an example?

Found this on Characters.Stargate SG 1 Allies Of The SGC:

Does this really count as Killed Offscreen when the ship's destruction is shown onscreen, and we know he's on-board? How would showing him die even work in this context? He didn't die from any direct injuries, he blew up.

Yeah, that's literally on-screen. Cut.

It's gone.

Ambiguously Bi still list both Korra and Asami and Bubblegum and Marceline as examples, but both entries end with a spoiler tagged statement that they aren't ambiguous anymore. It kind of weird to have an example end with a spoiler tagged explanation that it's not really an example. Also both series character pages list the as Bi The Way, not Ambiguously Bi. Should these entries be cut?

Yes, since Bi The Way now describes them.

Reposting from the previous pages:

Considering how often Narm is frequently misused, can I get confirmation as too whether this example from Mortal Engines is being used correctly?:

• Narm: The Movie. Mortal Engines' dialogue consists of wall-to-wall Stock Phrases uttered in complete and utter sincerity without even a hint of self-awareness about how ridiculous it ends up sounding. The only character to make this work to some extent is Hugo Weaving's Thaddeus Valentine, but coming from the rest it ruins much of what could've been a perfectly campy Steampunk opera.

Is this following example from Robin Hood (2018) being used correctly?:

• Snark Bait: The fact that this is yet another Hollywood adaptation of the Robin Hood tale made not long after Robin Hood (2010) and that it follows the trend of turning classic folk tales into stylized action-packed movies invites a number of jokes.

The Snark Bait example just sounds like an excuse to complain.

The Narm example seems to have too little context for me to comprehend.

Is anything on Audience-Alienating Premise's subpages Audience-Alienating Premise insofar as "it appealed to nobody," which as I understand it is the actual trope definition?

Edited by lalalei2001 on Jan 6th 2019 at 8:59:58 AM

Uh

that page doesn't appear to exist?

The Video Games subpage specifically, despite being linked from the main page and not having a folder on the main page, both of which are exactly what one would expect if the page did exist. But in fact it's a red link with no content or cut reason.

Edited by wingedcatgirl on Jan 6th 2019 at 9:02:32 AM

I'm thinking about a potential example for Star Fox Adventures:

• End of an Age: This was the final game Rare developed for Nintendo before its acquisition by Microsoft.

Thoughts?

Is this example from Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse a notable aversion?:

• Executive Meddling: Averted surprisingly. According to this article, producers Amy Pascal and Avi Arad took a hands-off approach and fully supported Lord and Miller's improvisational approach.

Is the following example from Sonic Forces being used correctly considering it’s talking about one character rather than the entire work?:

• Darkness-Induced Audience Apathy: Infinite tends to swing over here because of how far he sinks into Vile Villain, Saccharine Show territory. Due to lacking a sympathetic backstory like Gerald Robotnik, his immense sadism makes him difficult to fit into the typical Sonic feel (which does exist outside of scenes he appears in, causing the dissonance).

Given how often Critical Research Failure is misused on this wiki, can I get confirmation as to whether or not the following examples from The Dom Reviews are being used correctly?:

• Critical Research Failure: While The Dom is generally on point, he does make some questionable claims especially when talking about media from before the 1980s.
  • A severe case in point is Goldfinger, as was pointed out by this response video. Just one example: The Dom complains about how often the phrase "yellow-faced bastard" was used in the book... the responder shows that "yellow-faced bastard" is never used at all in the book (though to be fair he finds another offensive phrase which The Dom may have been thinking of).
  • He claims in his review of Fifty Shades Darker that it's been universally agreed that fiction affects reality, even if you know it's not real. The issue is actually far more contested than he implies.
  • In his Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire LIA, Terrence claims that the film doesn't make any sense because of how much material was left out from the book. Anyone who's at least watched the film can tell you that the film does still make sense as-is, since it keeps the general storyline intact, it's just that some things are left without details due to not being focused on like in the books.

Remove the Fifty Shades Darker example. I'd also recommend trimming "especially when talking about media from before the 1980s." off the opener.

For tropes that happen in ReBoot: The Guardian Code (a live-action series) but directly relate to the original series (which was 100% animated), do I place them in the "Live-Action TV" folder, or the "Western Animation" folder? Like this one, for instance:

i think the live action folder dince it happened there.

Various :

End of an Age: No. Basically, nothing out-of-universe qualifies for this trope; the relevant age which is ending must be an in-universe one.

Executive Meddling aversion: Not unless there's context I don't know about that makes meddling the default assumption.

Darkness-Induced Audience Apathy: No, I don't think single characters can qualify; it has to be the whole setting.

Any thoughts regarding the other Critical Research Failure examples I brought up above

YMMV.Discorded Whooves

• Hype Backlash: At least for some people, who have heard of Discorded Whooves expect a brilliant, dark story, only to find something they don't expect. It doesn't help it's been going on and on with little to no progress. One of the many issues also forced on the tumblr is the dated aspects, such as Discord still portrayed as a villain despite being reformed in the show, Twilight being an alicorn, and a slew of other issues and of course, many people will complain over the Wangst aspects with Dissy, along with his forced relationship with Twilight.

Unless anyone objects I'm gonna cut since it not about the work being praised by fans or critics, but hyped for its premise (Hype Backlash has a Non-Indicative Name, I'd TRS changing it but mods say TRS is too full). From what I see the backlash has overtaken the hype.

YMMV.Dragonball Xenoverse

• Hype Backlash: While there's a lot of hype for the character creator, some people find it to be more shallow than reported. Having to use a handful of presets instead of something more open-ended, clothes giving stat bonuses (and many being difficult to even acquire) that make wearing what you want make you weaker, clothes with preset colors you can't change, and a lot of the available items just look ridiculous.

Is this an example? Are they referring to fan praise or just expectations?

Edited by Ferot_Dreadnaught on Jan 8th 2019 at 10:42:46 AM

Yeah, the dated aspects just mean that it's Outdated by Canon.

A case of "What kind of example is this?". Namely, I'm not sure about whether the example constitues a Heroic Sacrifice or a Heroic Suicide.

In Not this time, Fate one of the characters concludes that it is necessary for her to be killed by the Big Bad in order to save everybody else. The reasons for that are kind of complicated and involve some Because Destiny Says So, but the point is either she dies or everyone gets stuck in an eternal "Groundhog Day" Loop. Her plan isn't technically a suicide, as she wants to go down fighting, but it is by all means a Hopeless Boss Fight in which victory is all but impossible.

There are two requirements for a Heroic Suicide: Necessity and Sufficiency. The former is true, at least for a plan in question. The latter is questionable, as the idea is to be killed by a specific person at a specific time. It might be hard to judge it based solely on that description, but I would appreciate any feedback about the nature of the trope.

So I was browsing Mr Enters' YMMV page and I found this very unusual bit listed Hilarious in Hindsight:

• One of his rules was that he wouldn't review things that he didn't have anything new to say, and in the example he listed on his video, he cited that the Nostalgia Critic reviewing Foodfight! as a reason why he would not review the film of the same name. Apparently, the Nostalgia Critic doesn't have the same rules, since the Nostalgia Critic ended up reviewing Tentacolino, which was one of the earliest movies that Mr. Enter did an Animated Atrocity of. Similarly, NC did a review of Norm of the North less than a year after Enter reviewed it, as well as The Rapsittie Street Kids: Believe in Santa, and he also later reviewed the movie for Elf Bowling after Enter did as well. You can't help but wonder if Doug watches Enter for review ideas.

Now I removed the last sentence because it just felt like natter, but the entry itself doesn't feel like it belongs. According to the main page Hilarious in Hindsight is for later events that are funnier than the original. But I don't see any of that here. This example isn't funnier than the original, at least to me. If anything, this seems more like a unusual coincidence than Hilarious in Hindsight. Do you think it should be removed for not fitting the example or at the most, moved under another trope?

Just a funny, interesting coincidence. I'd remove it.

My own understanding of the "in hindsight" tropes, which I've yet to be corrected on, is that they require a more direct connection than "this thing happened, then this other thing happened."

On Princess Bubblegum, I know she's listed under Ambiguously Gay as well as Ambiguously Bi.

To Glurge does a work need to have unfortunate implications and Fridge Horror? Or is being Anvilicious-levels of Tastes Like Diabetes also glurge?

Edited by Pichu-kun on Jan 9th 2019 at 11:33:21 AM

After the final, its no l9nger ambiguous.

I have a question about a Composite Character and this particular example from a film adaptation Mansfield Park:

Composite Character: Fanny is a composite of herself and her original creator. Her interest in writing and sharp wit are Austen's. The parodic History of England she pens is taken from Austen's junevilia and some of the book's Lemony Narrator makes it into her dialogue. Additionally, the scenes where she accepts Henry Crawford and then realizes she can't go through with it are based on events from Austen's life.

Is this an example? I'd lean towards misuse, because Austen's life is an outside source. Thanks for your input.

Edited by XFllo on Jan 9th 2019 at 11:12:24 AM