Do you have trouble remembering the difference between Deathbringer the Adorable and Fluffy the Terrible?
Do you have trouble recognizing when you've written a Zero-Context Example?
Not sure if you really have a Badass Bookworm or just a guy who likes to read?
Well, this is the thread for you. We're here to help you will all the finer points of example writing. If you have any questions, we can answer them. Don't be afraid. We don't bite. We all just want to make the wiki a better place for everyone.
Useful Tips:
- Make sure that the example makes sense to both people who don't know the work AND don't know the trope.
- Wrong: The Mentor: Kevin is this to Bob in the first episode.
- Right: The Mentor: Kevin takes Bob under his wing in the first episode and teaches him the ropes of being a were-chinchilla.
- Never just put the trope title and leave it at that.
- Wrong: Badass Adorable
- Right: Badass Adorable: Xavier, the group's cute little mascot, defeats three raging elephants with both hands tied behind his back using only an uncooked spaghetti noodle.
- When is normally far less important than How.
- A character name is not an explanation.
- Wrong: Full Moon Silhouette: Diana
- Right: Full Moon Silhouette: At the end of her transformation sequence into Moon Princess Misty, Diana is shown flying across the full moon riding a rutabaga.
Other Resources:
For best results, please include why you think an example is iffy in your first post.
Also, many oft-misused tropes/topics have their own threads, such as Surprisingly Realistic Outcome (here
) and Fan-Preferred Couple (here). Tropers are better able to give feedback on examples you bring up to specific threads.
For cleaning up examples of Complete Monster and Magnificent Bastard, you must use their dedicated threads: Complete Monster Cleanup, Magnificent Bastard Cleanup.
Edited by Synchronicity on Sep 18th 2023 at 11:42:55 AM
I'm helping!
Yeah, zap those. All of them were reasonably foreshadowed in TLJ.
Trouble Cube continues to be a general-purpose forum for those who desire such a thing.
he/him | Image Pickin' regular
WhirlRX: Yes, that would make her Weak, but Skilled.
gjjones: Are those scenes in the final movie? If one of them wasn't, it would fall under Missing Trailer Scene.
I still haven't gotten an answer to my question on the last page.
Edited by rjd1922 on Apr 13th 2019 at 12:27:47 PM
Keet cleanup
Musician/Composer
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
Yep, those scenes are in the final movie. Also, Orihime's scene is where she gets lured into a trap by Patrick.
Edited by gjjones on Apr 13th 2019 at 3:05:51 PM
He/His/Him. No matter who you are, always Be Yourself.
This is a title.
Does a character being killed count as Put on a Bus? More specifically, does a character coming back to life after three movies count as The Bus Came Back?
Relevant example: Emperor Palpatine in Star Wars was killed at the end of the original trilogy, and yet is slated to return for The Rise of Skywalker.
Edited by Eagal on Apr 13th 2019 at 6:40:27 AM
You fell victim to one of the classic blunders!
thats pure speculating.
Those TLJ shocking swerve examples seem valid to me.
I'm helping!
The laconic for Shocking Swerve is "A plot twist that comes out of nowhere and is not only impractical, but impossible given the facts observed." Kylo murdering Snoke is physically incapable of meeting that description, and the others aren't at all established as impossible.
... Is being outright impossible really part of the trope definition? I guess it must be — without that, it'd just be an exact copy of Ass Pull.
Trouble Cube continues to be a general-purpose forum for those who desire such a thing.
Lost in Space
Anyway, it's not exactly like Star Wars canon hasn't established the idea of Sith apprentices trying to depose their masters. That is, after all, part of the fundamental ethos. Ironically, that scene is possibly the most consistent one in all nine films with respect to this. It's shocking, yes, but only because of the subversion of general storytelling expectations.
Anyone who actually understands the lore of the Sith should have seen that one coming a mile away. I got it, at least.
Edited by Fighteer on Apr 13th 2019 at 11:38:19 AM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Repost from two pages ago:
Abusive Precursors has:
- Literature.The Salvation War: [[Jerkass Gods God]] created monoteistic religion to the sole purpose of being adored by the souls of the people lucky enough to be admitted in Heaven after death
And Characters.The Salvation War says that God Is Evil and a Jerkass.
—
... I suppose Jerkass Gods and God Is Evil don't have a Super / Sub-Trope relationship?
Or given how evil people are (usually?) jerks, Jerkass Gods should only be noted if it were subverted in someway, and God's Jerkass entry should be removed as it's already an supertrope by implication, given God Is Evil?
Can 100% Completion and Over 100% Completion apply at the same time?
Or is it all about the final completion counter, and sub-counters don't count? Like map and bestiary?
Arkham Knight appears on both, and Kid Icarus appears on 100, but sounds like Over.
Lastly, repost from previous page?:
The Last Of These Is Not Like The Others. No potholing how we write entries, and dialogue trope only?
Edited by Malady on Apr 13th 2019 at 9:24:30 AM
Disambig Needed: Help with those issues! tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13324299140A37493800&page=24#comment-576
The example isn't on the page yet, I'm writing to make sure this is an example before adding it. In Inside Out, Joy keeps Riley happy and won't allow her to express any other emotion even after moving which is an understandably upsetting experience for an 11 year old. This causes Riley to go depressed. Does this count as Munchausen by proxy, since Joy's actions are guided by Joy being obsessed with controlling every aspect of Riley?
Edited by akanesarumara on Apr 13th 2019 at 8:14:59 PM
This is a title.
From what little I know of Inside Out Joy's intentions were - if misguided - legitimately aimed towards making Riley happy. She didn't hurt Riley out of a need for attention and sympathy for how courageous she is in helping an ailing friend.
From Joker (2019)
Meaningful Name example
- Arthur is the namesake of a legendary king (as is Aquaman (2018) Aquaman]]), while the Joker's traditional moniker is the Clown Prince of Crime. It could also be a roundabout reference to The King of Comedy.
That seems like a stretch to me. Doesn't Meaningful Name need to be deliberate? Being named Arthur isn't really definitive of being named after King Arthur. It could just mean he's named Arthur and nothing more.
Edited by Eagal on Apr 14th 2019 at 7:48:28 AM
You fell victim to one of the classic blunders!
Yes, it sounds like shoehorning
Submitting numerous Hilarious in Hindsight examples from YMMV.Captain Marvel 2019 that either have no hindsight or simply listing two unrelated events ("this thing happened, then this other thing happened")
- Hilarious in Hindsight:
- With Jude Law joining the cast, that makes the MCU having two Sherlock Holmes and two Watsons: The ones from Sherlock Holmes (2009) (Robert Downey Jr., Iron Man himself as Holmes with Law as Watson) and the ones from the BBC series Sherlock (Benedict Cumberbatch, aka Doctor Strange, as Holmes and Martin Freeman, who plays Everett K. Ross in the MCU, as Watson). If you also count Chiwetel Ejiofor (Mordo in Doctor Strange), the Watson count comes to three, but we try not to talk about that. (One of only a few I'm not prepared to dismiss out of hand, but still not sure it's this trope as much as a shoehorned example of Hey Its That Guy)
- With Djimon Hounsou cast in SHAZAM!, he'll be appearing in two movies with a superhero named Captain Marvel, and both getting released in the span of a month! ("The span of a month" doesn't seem like much in the way of hindsight)
- It's a little amusing that the first woman-fronted Marvel Studios movie made during Marvel Studios being under Disney ends up taking the best known twist from the last few Disney princess films where: the bad guys or good guys aren't who you thought. (Seems like a look of two unrelated things to me)
- In The Avengers, Bruce Banner sarcastically asks Black Widow if Fury wants him to swallow the Tesseract to keep it safe. In this film, Goose does just that. Bonus points for this film taking place a couple of decades before The Avengers. (This one actually seems legit)
- Nick Fury's line in Captain America: The Winter Soldier about how he lost his eye made the incident look dramatic and badass. Come The Reveal in this film? Not so much. (Not enough context to determine)
- The very same week as the film's release, DuckTales (2017) featured a near-identical shot of a female action hero screaming back at a monster she's fighting. ("The very same week" offers little in the way of Hindsight)
- After Carol mistakes the Rambeaus' neighbor for Talos, it turns out the Skrull himself is inside, calmly sipping on a soda cup while snarking "you should be more gentle to your neighbors..." The scene bears a startling resemblance to a moment with Jules Winnfield of Pulp Fiction. This has not gone unnoticed on Twitter. (Either two unrelated events or too deliberate to count)
- In The Stinger of Infinity War, Nick Fury contacted Carol through his modified pager while disintegrating and muttering "Motherf..."... which the official South Korean subtitle mistranslated into... well, "mother". In this film, Fury pages someone (Keller) and when Carol asks who he's paging, he claims it's his mother. (Maybe legit, but can't say for sure)
- In Inhumans, pretty much all of the "heroes" insult the "main villain" that "you're only human". In this film, the main villain insults Carol that "(without us) you're only human", and all the villain got as a response is a Shut Up, Hannibal!. Bonus point that the Inhumans got their powers from Kree. (Two unrelated events outside both being Marvel properties)
- A lot of people unfamiliar with comics mistakenly believed that Captain Marvel had been given a Gender Flip for this movie, either because of Carol's status as a Legacy Character or because they were thinking of DC's Captain Marvel instead. As it turns out, the original Mar-Vell was given a Gender Flip for this movie, making this misconception Right for the Wrong Reasons! (No hindsight to be seen)
- The Street Fighter II cabinet that Carol remembers playing in Pancho's Beer, considering that Captain Marvel has met Street Fighter characters before. (Seems like two unrelated events, but not 100% certain)
- The film's development was held back by Isaac Perlmutter, and delayed after entering production by several other MCU movies, despite the fact that production of MCU movies usually goes pretty smoothly. In contrast, SHAZAM! (aka the movie about the other Captain Marvel) is one of the few DCEU movies to actually escape development hell and reach the big screen. (Were both movies not "Captain Marvel", this probably wouldn't count)
I think eating the Tesseract is a Legit example. The others i don't see.
Musician/Composer
I'm submitting a possible Family Business example for Sega.
- Since Sega merged with the Sammy Corporation in 2004, Hajime Satomi serves as the chairman of Sega Sammy Holdings, while his son, Haruki, is the respective president and chairman of both Sega and Sega Sammy.
Any ideas?
Edited by gjjones on Apr 15th 2019 at 11:41:43 AM
He/His/Him. No matter who you are, always Be Yourself.
I think its an example.
From Characters.Aho Girl.
Politically Incorrect Hero: Refers to the Philippines as "The Large Banana Country" in chapter 122. The context in which he makes the remark (a discussion with Yoshie on where they could set Yoshiko loose in the wild with no repercussions) probably doesn't help either.
I honestly dont know whats politically incorrect about this az there's little context. Is he calling people of the Philippines monkeys? Wild people? For all i know, Philippines actually is a large export of bananas.
...
From Values Dissonance, under "Documentaries":
- Cat experts and charities in the USA often cite allowing your cat to roam outdoors as a hallmark of a negligent owner, and many feline documentaries (such as My Cat From Hell) and advice columns will be scandalised should they come across a cat with unlimited access to the outdoors. As a result, European owners can come in for a hard time should they read, watch or interact with such sites / shows / books, as mentioned here, especially since USA-based shows and advice tends to dominate. In many European countries, including the UK, common consensus considers it cruel to deny cats access to the outdoors, with many charities refusing to rehome cats in flats (apartments) or houses with no outdoor space. The only exceptions are shows that seek to rehome pets which may (somewhat reluctantly) advise owners to keep a particular cat indoors for health reasons (such as Feline HIV) or if it is likely to be stolen. The key factors involved in this difference mainly come down to traffic / population density (the USA has many more cars and much busier roads), hazards (the UK has very few wild animals that would actively prey on a cat) and law (cats are legally permitted to roam freely in the UK, and owners are not accountable for their cats in the same way that a dog owner is accountable for their dog). This may also be a matter of human convenience too — with so many people in the US living in apartments, sticking to the "cats must have access to the outdoors" rule would deny many people the right to keep a cat. Maintaining that all cats should be kept indoors levels the playing field. The US also has more animals unaccustomed to cats or that can be endangered by cats, causing outside cats to be worse to the environment than in the UK. This becomes especially obvious in UK documentaries such as The Secret Life of Cats, where the whole point is to explore what cats get up to when they leave the house. UK documentaries are fascinated with the "wild side" of cats, and generally advocate respecting their independence, while US shows like My Cat From Hell work on the premise that well-adjusted cats should be touchy-feely and happy to snuggle with their owners. Australia, meanwhile, has the opposite of the US predator problem, in that the main concern with cats being allowed to roam outside is not other animals preying on them, but the cats preying on native animals. Protecting native species is Serious Business in Australia, so their stance tends to fall between the US and the UK's extremes: let your cats roam in the daytime, but keep them indoors at night.
It feels like this was meant to be a Real Life example but, since Real Life examples aren't allowed, it was changed into being loosely tied to documentaries.
My immediate thought, before even reading the entry thoroughly, is "be wary of any YMMV entry you have to scroll through".
Someone just put the recent Notre Dame Fire on Harsher in Hindsight for Disney.The Hunchback Of Notre Dame.
Harsher in Hindsight: Following the catastrophic fire of the Notre Dame cathedral in 2019, Frollo’s song seems to eerily predict the incident. Several news outlets reported that there was yellow and black fire at the time, just like in the song. The finale of the movie is now beginning to make people a bit uncomfortable thanks to the tragedy.
True example?
Lost in Space
They have nothing to do with each other. People keep trying to shoehorn RL events into Harsher in Hindsight.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
From YMMV.Game Of Thrones S 8 E 1 Winterfell:
- Take That, Scrappy!: One of Bronn’s prostitutes mentions that a former client of hers with red hair, presumably Ed Sheeran’s controversial cameo from last season, was badly burned by Drogon and lost his eyelids.
It hasn't been confirmed to be him, so I'm not sure it counts.
There is no Planet B
Dear lord, can Ed Sheeran's two-minute one-off character even be considered Scrappy? I doubt that. I would delete that with extreme prejudice.
Found this on ArtisticLicenseHistory.Western Animation:
- The Beauty And The Beast theme claims the fairy tale the movie was based on is at least as old as time. Scientists estimate the universe is at least 13 billion years old, so the story is at least 13 billion years old, or older, if time existed before the beginning of the universe, assuming time has a definite beginning or age that can be measured in linear terms. Nor can the story simply be "timeless," as the song implies the story is ancient in a primordial sense, far older than current estimates of the story being at least 4000 years old.
I legitimately cannot tell if this supposed to a joke or not.
Love Thy Self
It's supposed to be figurative. Cut.
On Shocking Swerve:
These just seem to be complaining about plot developments they don't like.