Is this an example?

Are Sailors Uranus and Neptune from Sailor Moon too major characters to count as Token Yuri Girls? I'm not familiar with the series.

Edited by rjd1922 on Mar 18th 2019 at 11:11:16 AM

Not very familiar with the show, how major are they as characters?

Neptune and Uranus were important supporting cast members in their deput. Though, they dont appear that much post that. Though, im going by my experience with the first anime.

~Fighteer thanks for your response! I really appreciate the input. I don't think the examples I wrote are quite on the level of Whole-Plot Reference, as they tend to relate to individual characters, situations, or themes rather than the entire plot or premise. (Bizarrely, The Count of Monte Cristo is never directly referenced in this manner despite being the Adaptation Inspiration.).

Barring the creation of a new trope that covers the middle ground between the over-arching Whole-Plot Reference and the relatively shallow Shout-Out, I think I'll go with Shout-Out for the time being as the more conservative choice. It really doesn't fit with the other examples on Whole-Plot Reference. If a better option is proposed in the future (by myself or another user) I'll be sure to move it.

About this, I'm cutting the Unintentionally Unsympathetic (it's acknowledged enough to not be unintentional) and merging with Designated Hero, maybe reworking it. Any objections?

@7982: Huh. Most dictionary definition I read defines the trope as simply: "a steady and determined attitude or manner in the face of trouble", and don't really mention the cultural stereotype. So if a non-British character displays such reserve when going through tragedy, would it be enough to use The Stoic or is there a more specific trope for it?

Our trope article says it's about a British cultural stereotype, and thus it applies to British characters or their fictional analogues. The way we define terms doesn't always precisely mirror their general use, although when this occurs, it often leads to trope decay as people seek to apply the broader definition.

~Whirl RX #7993: What, trope misuse despite an absolutely clear definition? No, it can't be!

~dsneybuf #7994: I offered my opinion, but it's an audience reaction. What matters is whether the criteria are met, and I'm not clear on that.

~Ferot_Dreadnaught: In addition to what else has been said, the Draco in Leather Pants example fails to cite specific fan works in which the treatment occurs, making it invalid. "Some fans do this" is an empty statement conveying no useful information; the rest of the example seems to want to debate these fans rather than explain it. All of those examples feel like they're written as complaints: attempting to persuade the reader rather than present the information for the reader to draw their own conclusion.

I don't know how I'd rewrite them, though, since I'm not familiar with the work.

~dragonfire5000 #7996: Meet the New Boss says nothing about requiring the same protagonist(s); in fact, it specifically says that it often occurs during sequels and retools, which may indeed cause the hero roster to change. As far as continuity goes, I don't think anyone really expects that people will examine the games in the Zelda franchise in internal chronological order. I certainly wouldn't.

~Wayward Totodile #7997: All I can really add to the What An Idiot question is that if the stupidity/forgetfulness is linked to one particular episode, then it may fit more properly under Idiot Ball.

~MaLady #7999: I never pictured the Klingons as being exclusively a mash-up of specific cultures. While they certainly borrow heavily from real cultures, by the time of STTNG there was more than enough creativity to just call them Klingons. Regardless, I think that pot hole could probably just be dropped, as not every reference to Persian culture is a direct allusion to The Thief of Baghdad.

As for the second item, it has virtually no context and the character names are wrong. I'd just kill it.

Edited by Fighteer on Mar 19th 2019 at 7:37:11 AM

Hello again, and thank you for the earlier response. I apologize for putting this here but it seems that the What An Idiot cleanup has died a bit and I wanted some more opinions on this as well as to get feedback to improve future entries.

A while ago I made an entry in the What an Idiot page on Steven Universe for an episode titled "Bubbled":

This has been deleted multiple times, but I've never really seen any clear context as to why this doesn't count as an Idiot moment (while this has been brought up on the forums before, the response is just "cut it" with no explanation, which doesn't explain what the issue with the entry is). Steven is a half human and it's been shown that he can and will die in space. Steven is also the only thing keeping that bubble that is giving him the oxygen he needs to live up...and when it gets to the point that he doesn't have enough oxygen in the bubble from later expelling his opponent, he blacks out. So surely trying to convince your opponent that you're the general that killed their leader figure (that they view as godlike) when they're clearly antagonistic and unstable is a stupid move, right? He's also met antagonists who don't respond to his pacifism well at this point and he's talking to someone who's been raised on a wildly different worldview and someone he's lied to about the whereabouts of their general multiple times.

Edited by WaywardTotodile on Mar 19th 2019 at 6:48:07 AM

From Jimquisition under Internet Backdraft:

• Over the years there had been a few videos calling out the minor issue of women in video games being responsible for everything evil and wrong in any media, ever. Cue the suicide watch that was needed over certain games in 2018/9.

Since no actual backdraft is mentioned, isn't this a misplaced Harsher in Hindsight or Hilarious in Hindsight? It also seems too complainy (not familiar with the guy's work), perhaps a rewrite?

I can't even tell what the example is specifically referencing. It's too general and vague. Cut it.

YMMV.Captain Marvel 2019 Fan-Disliked Explanation: One of the movie's purposes is to establish Carol as the most powerful of all the MCU heroes when she's fighting at full strength, but some fans would say this comes at the cost of her being in no danger during the final fight (lowering the stakes and thus the viewer's investment) and the actual limits of her power and durability being unaddressed.

This seems like a misuse of the explanation part. Cut?

That doesn't fit the trope at all. Looks like shoehorning a complaint.

Here’s an example that I would like to add to Characters.Fairy Tail Alvarez Empire regarding Irene:

• Face–Heel Turn: After her Dragon Slayer magic inadvertently wiped out most of dragonkind and caused her to be cursed for 400 years, she obviously lost sight that her love for Erza was more important than wanting her human body and abandoning her daughter to join the Alvarez Empire.

Is this a true example or should it be rewritten?

Edited by gjjones on Mar 19th 2019 at 8:28:48 AM

As someone who is unfamiliar with the work, that entry looks like the hottest nonsense imaginable.

A Face–Heel Turn is when a good guy turns bad. Say who the character is that made the turn. Establish that they used to be a good guy. Establish that they are now a bad guy. Explain what prompted them to turn from good to bad. Do it so that even someone who is unfamiliar with the work can understand.

Thanks. So, with that in mind, here's my revamp of the Fairy Tail example I plan to add:

• Face–Heel Turn: In the backstory, Irene is a good queen. Then, her invention of Dragon Slayer magic not only obliterates most of dragonkind, but it curses her for 400 years and she is subsequently isolated from the rest of the world. After gaining a new human body courtesy of Zeref and being unable to feel any human sensation, Irene goes insane to the point of joining the Alvarez Empire and trying to kill her daughter, Erza, when they first meet.

Would this work?

Edited by gjjones on Mar 20th 2019 at 11:43:19 AM

On Characters.The Incredibles, this entry under Elastigirl's section:

• Contrasting Sequel Main Character: In the first film, Bob tried to do heroic acts, even taking a job as one in secret from his family, had a personal connection to the villain, gained a nice amount of Character Development but was unable to re-legalize supers. In the second film, Helen is the one trying to live a normal life and stressing to her family that supers are illegal, took a job with Winston Deavor which her family knew from the start, doesn't have some kind of past with the film's antagonist, remained a well-rounded Static Character, and was able to help re-legalize supers.

It's the "well-rounded Static Character" part I'm iffy about. That seems like a contradiction to me. As in, could a character really be considered well-rounded if they don't go through any significant development? I was going to change or remove that part, but I wanted to consult with the thread first. Thoughts?

Edited by StardustSoldier on Mar 20th 2019 at 4:55:34 AM

Can Conveyor Belt Video include music videos that involve a literal conveyor belt, or is the conveyor belt part strictly a figure of speech about the camera work?

I ask because I am not sure if the Ren and Stimpy music video for Cat Hairballs would count, as it does heavily feature a conveyor belt in it.

I swear I already answered this question. No, "video contains a literal conveyor belt" is not an example of the trope.

Ok. Got it.

~gjjones: That example is much better as you rewrote it. And yes, it looks valid.

~Stardust Soldier: I agree; that Static Character thing feels awkward. I suppose the example is trying to contrast Bob and Helen: he develops as a character, but she doesn't — or at least not as much. In both films, now that I think about it. I don't really know what "well-rounded" is referring to, either.

Maybe just change the example to say that she doesn't experience much character growth.

Hello, I was wondering if this counts as an example for Not So Different under Paranatural's character section:

From what I could understand from the Not So Different page, one or both characters have to acknowledge their similarities, right? Because neither Collin nor Max has ever commented on it in-story. I'm not sure what trope this would fit better under, though. Any suggestions?

You are correct that Not So Different requires one character (typically the villain) to call out the similarities between them. If these characters are on opposite sides of the morality spectrum, then Evil Counterpart could be appropriate. If they're just rivals and not in a hero-villain scenario, I don't know if that fits a specific trope.

Edited by Fighteer on Mar 20th 2019 at 5:00:20 AM

This was on Date A Live:

• Fan-Preferred Couple: Shido with Kurumi, initially. Then Miku caught up in Volume 7, and is firmly in the driving seat as of Volume 8. It helps that she's supportive of his goal to build up a harem (probably not for her own desires, though).

I think Shido X Tohka has a fanbase as well, so this might fit more in Ship-to-Ship Combat.

Edited by MasterJoseph on Mar 20th 2019 at 2:28:29 AM

That's a ZCE.

I'm not too sure about this example on Deadpool 2, beyond the fact that it's complainy and badly written:

• Artistic License – Physics: Vanisher's death makes no sense. First off, he collides into telephone wires which electrocute him. Birds sit on telephone wires and do not get harmed because in order to avoid being shocked, you have to refrain from standing on the ground which allows the current in the electric lines to pass through your body. Vanisher was not on the ground whatsoever.

Checking the actual scene, Vanisher hits several electric wires at the same time. Couldn't that cause an electric arc between them in real life?