Is this an example?

More specifically, if there's something specific in the text of New Powers as the Plot Demands that's relevant to Invincible Hero, then that information should be included in the Invincible Hero example text as well so that readers don't have to consult another trope entry to find it.

If it's just using the fact that Hammerman has New Powers as the Plot Demands as support for his being an Invincible Hero, then either the example text could say that ("He has New Powers as the Plot Demands") or Wiki Word related text (e.g. "Hammerman could do basically anything. Accordingly...")

Either way, the phrase "as noted below" is Word Cruft and should be omitted.

Edited by HighCrate on Aug 7th 2019 at 7:40:50 AM

The corrupt Bishop in Castlevania (2017) is killed in season 1 by demons. Then in season 2 his body has been taken by Dracula's forces and he is turned into a cleric-undead who can still invoke God's Name to bless things. Would this count as Reforged into a Minion?

Can Violently Protective Girlfriend be gender inverted if the boy was already the weaker one in the relationship? Or would it be better to call them, assuming both are fighters of a sort, a young Battle Couple?

^^ Sounds like an example, he's plot relevant and customized (I think undeadification counts). As long as he's now a minion of Dracula I don't see why not.

^ As it says, if both are violently protective of each other they are a battle couple. It doesn't outright say, but I would assume the trope is not normally allowed if gender inverted, but it might be allowed if the boy is weaker. Could you tell me where the example is from?

Edited by pikachu17 on Aug 8th 2019 at 2:02:48 AM

17 pikachus all in a row.

From the webcomic Rain.

• Asexual:
  • Chanel, though she is also romantically attracted to females, and in a relationship with Maria.

How should I interact with this regarding the new trope Romantic Asexual? Should I remove the Asexual example and then put one under Romantic Asexual? Should I simply make another example for Romantic Asexual and leave the Asexual example where it is?

---

From Sister Claire

• Asexuality: Like her foster mother, Claire is asexual. Apparently not aromantic though, as she has Ship Tease with Marie.

How do I handle ambiguous romanticality with Romantic Asexual?

Edited by pikachu17 on Aug 8th 2019 at 2:24:23 AM

17 pikachus all in a row.

On the first, i think you can leave the original and put the other in.

I don't know where to post this, so I'm posting this here.

Is asexual lesbian the same as asexual homoromantic? I need to know whether I should correct another example, which refers to the latter as the former.

Edited by pikachu17 on Aug 8th 2019 at 4:05:33 AM

17 pikachus all in a row.

asexual lesbian is asexual homoromantic + female

For Sister Claire, it's implied, so you can list it.

Technically, "asexual lesbian" refers exclusively to women^note with unclear grey areas with regards to nonbinary people, while "asexual homoromantic" could refer to any gender. Otherwise, yes, they're the same.

Trouble Cube continues to be a general-purpose forum for those who desire such a thing.

Would a game (usually an First-Person Shooter) having enemies teleport in behind you with no warning count as Fake Difficulty? I would say so as there's no way you would see it coming the first time.

I think there are two mishandled tropes in the YMMV page of Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019):

• Darkness-Induced Audience Apathy: "While the movie garnered great viewer reviews, mainly from fans of the franchise, some found it hard to enjoy the unrelenting dread that begins with Ghidorah's reawakening and doesn't end until Godzilla defeats him. The shock value of the massive casualties Monarch's military support suffers becomes numbing after the encounter with Rodan completely wipes out their air support due to Old-School Dogfighting and refuses to let up again. Emma also becomes completely unsympathetic once her true motivations are revealed, yet gets lots of screentime that's obviously trying to milk viewer sympathy and point to character depth that's just not there. This was part of the Critical Dissonance the film suffered, since many viewers ignored the human plot anyway."
  • The trope is "both sides involved in the main conflict are equally unlikeable" or "the heroes' efforts amount to nothing and the universe still sucks." If the story features clearly defined heroes and villains and the ending delivers a positive outcome, then it doesn't qualify.
• Moral Event Horizon: Dr. Russell firmly crosses it by releasing Rodan and killing hundreds of evacuating civilians in the process, showing exactly how deranged she is.
  • The trope only applies when the character stops being likeable and the narrative never again portrays her as anything other than a black-hearted villain. Since she tries to make amends in the end, I don't think she qualifies.

What do you think?

I remove for complaining.

I would say yes, but do you have any actual examples?

x5 nonbinary people are generally only considered lesbians if they explicitly identify as such. i know a number of femme-nonbinary folx who do, and others who don't despite being attracted to women. it's a case-by-case kind of thing.

Edited by razorrozar7 on Aug 8th 2019 at 10:44:57 AM

Migrated to Chloe Jessica!

@pikachu17: When I looked at the Playing With tab, it says the inversion would be if Jane is Jack's girlfriend, and Jack is bullied by Alice, Jack hits Alice. No mention of male-to-male confrontation. In particular, this is the example which bothers me.

In season 3 of Stranger Things, Eleven, a girl with telekinetic powers, has been shown as protective of her first friend and now boyfriend Mike. When Eleven being attacked and strangled by a powerful minion of the main series big bag, Mike, who is weaker than Eleven given he is a normal kid, distracts the minion with a lead pipe, freeing Eleven, who them saves Mike by throwing the minion through a brick wall.

^ That doesn't sound violently protective... If he actually hit the guy with a pipe it might fit, but being violently protective is an important requirement.

Edited by pikachu17 on Aug 9th 2019 at 9:37:44 AM

17 pikachus all in a row.

Mike does hit the guy with the pipe, but doesn't accomplish much damage-wise.

There are a couple parts in the Fantastic Four (2015) entry on Creator Killer that I find questionable: the first is the one on Tom Rothman, which considering he's still working at Sony Pictures, doesn't sound like the film hurt his career as a studio executive in general at all. The second one is about 20th Century Fox, which looks rather speculative; I have never seen an article that said "the failure of Fant4stic likely caused Rupert Murdoch to sell Fox to Disney". Now that might've been the case, but without a source it's just speculation. Any thoughts?

• Fantastic Four
  • The film's failure, and the subsequent success of Fox's next Marvel film, Deadpool (2016), effectively rendered Tom Rothman a laughingstock, not to mention an embarrassment to comic book fans everywhere. Rothman built a reputation for being a Mean Boss at Fox and his efforts to "improve on" X-Men: The Last Stand and X-Men Origins: Wolverine, the latter in which he had the Merc's Mouth sewn shut, and the failure of Fant4stic ensured that it'll be a quite while before people will let Rothman live down his mismanagement of Fox's Marvel properties. The fact that he jumped ship to Sony Pictures (itself already infamous for The Amazing Spider-Man Series and most of Happy Madison Productions' recent output under Amy Pascal's reign) and greenlit films like The Emoji Movie and Slender Man following his promotion in 2015 hasn't helped his reputation.
  • It even proved to be Fox's own Heaven's Gate. Keep in mind that the film was Rothman's "parting gift" to Fox (read: it was the last film he greenlit for the studio), which released it years after his departure and never really recovered from its crushing failure despite the success of Deadpool and the X-Men films that had been released afterward. Within three years or so of the film's release, Fox got acquired by fellow Big Six studio Disney, causing the film rights to Fantastic Four and X-Men to effectively revert to the company they wanted to avoid the rights reverting to, rendering the entire effort pointless at best while leaving Hollywood with a less competitive industry than it had before.

Is this the corrent use of zig-zagged and exaggerated?

Brawlhalla:

• Ambidextrous Sprite: Zig-zagged and, in some way, exaggerated. Asymetrical characters' skins are just mirrored when they turn around, so Ada's green eye or Mirage's hair do switch sides. However, there is also an animation showing the character switching hands with their weapon. That makes them all literally ambidextrous, but at least the question is taken into account.

Jawbreakers on sale for 99¢

That's just a straight example, nothing zig-zagged or exaggerated about it.

Delete the first sentence and it's fine.

Edited by HighCrate on Aug 9th 2019 at 7:54:20 AM

Gotcha. What about this?

• The Grim Reaper: Possibly Subverted. Nix isn't the Grim Reaper, nor the only Psychopomp (see below) in the universe, and she makes some form of profit from her work. Nonetheless, she carries a scythe, has Soul Power, and is tasked with bringing souls to the proper place no matter the pantheon, even if that means reaping the pantheon itself.

Jawbreakers on sale for 99¢

Nothing is ever "possibly subverted". Either it is or it isn't.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Downplayed maybe?

Downplayed Trope is a goddamn disaster and should be killed with fire and then dropped down a well and then nuked. 99 percent of the time it's shorthand for "This isn't really an example but I want to add it anyway."

Edited by Fighteer on Aug 9th 2019 at 11:57:41 AM

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

that's just an example of Psychopomp. there's no reason to list it under The Grim Reaper.

Migrated to Chloe Jessica!