Is this an example?

From Animaniacs (2020). I found this

• Does This Remind You of Anything??: Lampshaded; Dot and later Yakko flat-out admits that this episode is an allegory for America's gun control debate, particularly with the part where Australia handles the problem a lot better. The only Warner who didn't get it was Wakko. Nora Rita Norita even references the Second Amendment.
  • Also serves as a double-pronged Genius Bonus: Australia suffered a problem several decades ago when rabbits were carelessly introduced into its already-stable ecosystem, breeding rapidly and overtaking grazing lands meant for cattle and sheep. Efforts were made to eradicate the intrusive pests, with some successes, but the great country-continent still hasn't fully recovered to this day from the bunny invasion.

Does it count if it's lampshaded and this direct. I thought does this remind you of something is for subtext. Would something else work better ?

"That's right mortal. By channeling my divine rage into power, I have forged a new instrument in which to destroy you."

If it starts out as subtext and gets lampshaded down the line then it can count. We have a cleanup thread for that trope BTW.

I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.

In Yakuza Kiwami, Hirotaka Suzuoki reprised his role as Prisoner No. 1356 through the use of previously recorded clips since he died of lung cancer in 2006 (the game came out over nine years later). As such, is it considered a true Fake Shemp?

Edited by gjjones on Nov 23rd 2020 at 4:01:52 AM

He/His/Him. No matter who you are, always Be Yourself.

From Series.Waco, maybe the bullet point about names being changed due to being an unflattering portrayal needs to be a different trope, but is this generally OK?:

• Artistic License – History:
  • For the sake of cast size, the show depicts Gary Noesner and a single subordinate as the only FBI negotiators on the scene. In real life, there was a whole team of 25 people.
  • In real life, the FBI surveillance team claimed to be college students, which was a Paper-Thin Disguise. In the series, they claim to be ranchers.
  • The names are changed on the FBI top brass, likely due to the extremely unflattering portrayal. Jeff Jamar is renamed Tony Prince, and Richard Rogers is renamed Mitch Decker. The counterpart of ATF agent Robert Rodriguez is named Jacob Vazquez here.
  • While there are many disputed facts around the event in real life, the show takes a definitive side on certain situations:
    • In real life, both sides dispute who fired the first shot, while in the series, it's shown that the FBI dog team fired first.
    • In real life, both sides dispute whether the fire was a mass suicide attempt. The FBI recorded Branch Dividians talking about spreading Coleman fuel around the compound on the final day of the siege. In the show, there is never any depiction of plans of a mass suicide, and the Coleman fuel discussions are never depicted. The series heavily implies that the fire was an accident.
    • The autopsy report could not determine whether Steve Schneider shot himself, while we see him eat his gun in the series.

They look fine to me.

Jawbreakers on sale for 99¢

OK. Taken the name thing to trope finder.

Do these two Fake Shemp entries from Mandalorian-related pages fit the trope, or do they just fall under typical body double business?

From Series.The Mandalorian:

• Fake Shemp: During the filming of Season 1, scheduling conflicts with Pedro Pascal's other projects resulted in a nondescript amount of the Mandalorian's scenes — including every one from Chapter 4: "Sanctuary" — actually consisting of one of the credited doubles, Brendan Wayne and Lateef Crowder, with Pascal's voice performance dubbed in. Pascal finished those other projects before Lucasfilm began shooting Season 2, resulting in more scenes in which he portrays Mando both vocally and physically.

From Recap.The Mandalorian S 2 E 4 Chapter 12 The Siege

• Fake Shemp: When Din lifts his helmet partway to drink some soup, the Child and the viewers can see his mouth and chin. The last time viewers saw Din's helmet come off, Pedro Pascal portrayed him, but this instance swapped him for Brendan Wayne. One day after this episode aired, Pascal debunked any suspicions that it marked another case in which he never wore Din's armor onscreen.

Can a Value Dissonance be made for casting choices not being made? I was thinking of adding one for Will & Grace in which John Barrowman was pass the role of Will because he was too gay. Might not be a big deal in the late 90's. But do that in later 2010-20, it would not look good.

Hey, I just wanted to check - this is Fusion Fic, right?

• Uncommon Ancestry is a My Hero Academia AU in which the events of Mystery Skulls Animated took place in the pre-Quirk era. After Izuku's dreams of being a hero are crushed by his own idol, Inko calls upon the guardian spirit of their family, Mystery, in an act of desperation, who in turn reawakens the spirits of Lewis, Vivi, and Arthur - here ancestors of Inko and Izuku - to help, setting Izuku on the path to becoming the first Quirkless hero. Later chapters reveal that Shiromori went back to Japan and eventually settled down with someone, becoming the mother of Fumiyo and the grandmother of Ibara.

Jawbreakers on sale for 99¢

Is this Recycled In Space?

Series.The Newlywed Game:

Disambig Needed: Help with those issues! tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13324299140A37493800&page=24#comment-576

I think that's a regular crossover

Listen to my podcast

I'm asking because Fusion Fic has this in its description, but I thought the trope was about mushing both characters and settings together;

Jawbreakers on sale for 99¢

Can my proposed entry for Decided by One Vote be reviewed before posting?

• The 2017 British Columbia general election. For sixteen years, the British Columbia Liberal Party had consistently won majority governments. But that came to an end in 2017 when the party ended up one seat short of another majority government. An attempt to form a minority government was soon defeated in a 44-42 no-confidence vote. The rival New Democratic Party was then allowed to form a government by the skin of their teeth; their confidence/supply coalition with the Green Party barely edged out the BC Liberals by one seat at 44 seats out of 87, with the BC Liberals getting the other 43.

Edited by Albert3105 on Nov 23rd 2020 at 1:53:03 PM

So I found this in Hard Truth Aesop:

• Child of the Storm Plays With this.
  • The first book and the first twenty chapters of the sequel have quite a few, namely: dishonesty is sometimes the best policy, selective truth-telling and manipulation is/can be much more effective than full disclosure, quiet assassinations are a good way to make sure that your enemies don't come back to haunt you rather than risking a Cardboard Prison, the ruthless get ahead where the good do not always, torture is effective (but only if you can be sure of when someone's lying), and pragmatism is almost always the better course than following moral convictions. Oh, and the world is a harsh place, so you'd better learn to survive from an early age, as it'll save a lot of pain later. However, the series also makes plain that these lessons aren't a good thing, from a moral standpoint, more a regrettable necessity, and the effect that they have on Harry's moral compass is consistently noted to be somewhat disturbing.
  • More to the point, the sequel partially undermines these: dishonesty is repeatedly hinted to be coming around to bite the heroes (Harry especially) in the arse, the Exact Words and manipulations of Doctor Strange induce more than one Heroic BSoD and create mistrust between him and everyone else, redemption sometimes is genuinely possible through the Power of Trust and Power of Love (and as Harry tells Clark, it takes real strength of character to offer mercy to even the vilest of villains), and while pragmatism has its place, cynicism is not a superpower - it's a good way to survive, but as Harry emphasizes, it is not a good way to live, and that therefore, Rousseau Was Right.

The two sub-bullets in the entry are basically arguing against one another, and not having read the fic, I have to wonder if any of the stuffs listed in the entry were actually meant to be An Aesop to begin with. It seems to violate the note at the end of the description page:

Note: Understand that not everything needs or has an Aesop. A depiction is not automatically an endorsement; a character behaving in a certain way does not mean the show is saying that said behavior is good (let alone telling the audience that they should do the same). If you are drawing absurd conclusions from a story which doesn't have a moral, take it to Warp That Aesop on Darth Wiki.

Edited by Adept on Nov 25th 2020 at 3:53:05 AM

Characters.Rise Of The Guardians has this:

• Adaptational Nice Guy:
  • Downplayed. While still a villain, Pitch comes across as less loathsome in the movie. In the books, he is rightfully regarded as a monster who kidnapped numerous children and warped them into Fearlings and committed outright genocide of the Pookas. If anything, you feel sorry for Kozmotis Pitchiner, the Golden Age General who became Pitch after being possessed by Fearlings. The movie never alludes to any of that, gives Pitch a selfish but understandable motive and some Pet the Dog moments, and he is shown to suffer from being lonely and cast out. It doesn't justify his dog-kicking, but you can see where he's coming from.
  • The prequel comic (not related to the books), he is shown to have once been a Well-Intentioned Extremist who protected humanity from danger a la Scare 'Em Straight and knew the Guardians. While he was somewhat good (or at least neutral), it also showed that he was prideful.

As far as I understand, Adaptational Nice Guy is about a jerk becoming more polite or affable in an adaptation, while this entry is more about the movie making Pitch less evil by leaving out the biggest atrocities he committed in the books. I'm leaning towards changing the trope to Adaptational Heroism, and the word "downplayed" is already there, but I'm not sure. I don't mean to whitewash Pitch Black XD He's less loathsome but still unquestionably villainous in the movie; it feels weird to apply any sort of "heroism" to him, but the description of Adaptational Heroism says, "Note that despite the title, the character need not become an actual hero, just more heroic than they were in the source material." Then again, "less evil" is not exactly "more heroic"... maybe. Ugh, I'm confused.

Edit:

Edited by Tenebrika on Nov 24th 2020 at 8:23:04 PM

Does Evil Mentor also apply to a villain teaching another how to be a better villain?

"I just want what everyone else has, that's all."

Does Law of 100 only apply to things that grant an extra life? Or can it be another kind of boost/benefit (for example, fully restoring health, unlocking a bonus level, etc.)?

In addition, does the number have to be 100 exactly? There's some examples that require collecting 50 items, or getting 1000 points, etc...

This was added to Everyone Is Satan in Hell:

• The holiday season of 2018 saw a lot of these:
  • Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer was accused of promoting bullying because the other reindeers are assholes to Rudolph because of his nose, even though the whole special is about embracing your special qualities.
  • VeggieTales is racist because the villains use ethnic accents. Mr. Nezzer's voice is intended to sound like Oogie Boogie, not a black guy. Despite this, he is voiced by a black guy in The VeggieTales Show. Also, the French Peas are normally on the side of good (along with Mr. Nezzer) and French is not a race whatsoever. Also, they were meant to be a Monty Python reference.
  • A Charlie Brown Thanksgiving was accused of being racist because Franklin sits in a different chair than the other kids, who are all white. Charles Schulz actually fought tooth-and-nail to add Franklin to the strips at all. The accusation was debunked by Snopes.

Are any of these actual examples?

Edited by fragglelover on Nov 24th 2020 at 6:07:17 AM

I know that the Veggie Tales peas were a Monty Python reference. That I learned through DVD commentary (don't ask how I know that, it's a long story.)

The others I'm unsure of, but they at least have citations.

TRS Queue | Works That Require Cleanup of Complaining | Troper Wall

Rudolph does get criticized a lot for being so mean-spirited. The fact that they only accept him for being useful to them doesn't help with the message.

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

If I remember correctly, the Charlie Brown thing was a manufactroversy that spurned from a single tweet that was a joke, not a serious accusation. It got picked up and twisted into a Political Correctness Gone Mad story. The Rudolph story has been mocked for implying Rudolph only mattered when he became useful, but I think the whole "bullying" thing was also kind of blown out of proportion in the same way.

Edited by mightymewtron on Nov 24th 2020 at 7:46:31 AM

I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.

Eh, I mean my sister hates watching Rudolph because she finds it too mean. That's anecdotal, but still.

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

Yeah, I think there are Unfortunate Implications in the Rudolph story, and it's not just Moral Guardians who call it out. Even people who enjoy the Rudolph story, like myself, can see it. I've seen this meme◊ every year for the past few years.

The Franklin thing might have been memed on even before 2018, but I don't think anybody legitimately thought Peanuts was racist for it - again, they acknowledge it as Unfortunate Implications (with the understanding that it is unfortunate) more than anything. Yeah, people tweeted about it, but I think it was more tongue-in-cheek comments, not real outrage.

I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.

Isn’t the point of Rudolph that mean-spirited behavior happens all the time and is bad? You want them to sugarcoat it?

No, the issue with it is that Rudolph isn't accepted at the end for any legitimate reason. They're still bullying him when he comes back as an adult and they only like him because it turns out headlights aren't totally useless in a storm. That's where the meat of the criticism comes from. Nobody actually learns anything or becomes better or realizes that they shouldn't pick on people for being different. Rudolph is only accepted for having a use to them.

Plus Santa is such a jackass that it does make him super unpleasant.

It's a movie about bullying and being kind to others but it doesn't mean it was done well, and that's why people complain about it. Besides, this is an audience reaction, so there's no point in fighting over opinions. Enough people see these issues to warrant mentioning them.

---

As for Franklin, my family and I always joke about that every year, but we know it's nothing serious. It's just a weird thing once you notice it.

Edited by WarJay77 on Nov 24th 2020 at 8:29:27 AM

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness