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
Discarded and Feeling Blue
True, but again, I'm just explaining what the film is commonly criticized for- by a lot of people. Doesn't really have to be completely accurate to be a valid audience reaction.
Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness
Should the Alternate Character Interpretation on Robot Chicken's YMMV be moved to the main trope page? These are all in-universe examples, as the show parodies a lot of famous fictional characters.
- Alternative Character Interpretation: Done several times in-universe, making some sketches funnier or scarier.
- Little Orphan Annie is a Rich Bitch after being adopted by Oliver Warbucks. Almost-ditto for Richie Rich, except he acts more like a wannabe gangsta/playa.
- Calvin has serious mental problems and Hobbes is a persistent hallucination who encourages him to violence.
Calvin: Mars is amaaaaazzzing!
- The Justice League are more jerkass than heroic, but most especially Superman. The other members of the group have other characteristics played up.
- Palpatine in the Star Wars specials is portrayed as Laughably Evil, in addition to being a Jerkass and a huge potty-mouth. Also, in the final special, he apparently gets a Death Equals Redemption fate (that or Redemption Equals Death). And he was manipulated the entire time by one of his apparent Unwitting Pawns; the true Dark Lord of the Sith... Darth Jar Jar Binks!
- Ponda Baba is actually an architect Nice Guy who just got his arm cut off as a misunderstanding.
- Santa Claus is either a drug lord or a badass that kicks Coca-Cola executives' asses for using his likeness without his consent. He is not jolly at all. In fact, Santa Claus should be feared in the Robot Chicken universe.
- The Robot Chicken staff, of all people - Seth Green's a corporate shill, Matthew Senreich is a sociopath, Breckin Meyer is Small Name, Big Ego personified, and Mike Lazzo and Keith Crawford ([adult swim]’s President and Vice President, respectively) are cheerfully amoral Corrupt Corporate Executives having a passionate affair with each other.
- The female cast of Strawberry Shortcake are usually displayed as thugs and gangsters.
- The Baby-Sitters Club is a cult/monopoly made up of sociopathic Alpha Bitches.
Obviously, if I were to move this, I'd change the Funny Moments and Nightmare Fuel potholes.
Didn't Rudolph get accepted because he saved his parents and love interest from the Monster?
Discarded and Feeling Blue
And it was his nose that saved them I think, so it still counts.
Even then like I said, accuracy to the film doesn't mean these criticisms don't exist.
Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness
Musician/Composer
Reposting from the previous page so it won't get lost:
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?
He/His/Him. No matter who you are, always Be Yourself.
(she/her)
^ There are a few examples on the page were the deceased’s previously recorded audio is used as a stand in for their voice and I don’t think that deviates from the spirit of the trope (just seems to be a variant) so I think it counts yeah.
Edited by MacronNotes on Nov 24th 2020 at 7:12:26 AM
Macron's notes
Lovely Legilimens
Reposting my question from the last page.
she/her
Can I get some feedback on this, please? )
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: I guess a repost more convenient than a link.
Edited by Tenebrika on Nov 26th 2020 at 3:25:36 AM
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
It’s not Adaptational Heroism imo, because he becomes heroic only by removing some of the horrendous actions he did in the book (probs cause they couldn’t get away with that stuff in a children’s movie), but according to the example, he’s made more sympathetic in the film, which is why I think it’s good as Adaptational Nice Guy.
Edited by antenna_ears on Nov 24th 2020 at 11:08:21 AM
she/her
Hmm, I got the impression that Adaptational Nice Guy applies to a villain when s/he is a jerk in the source material and Affably Evil in adaptation. Pitch isn't a Nice Guy in the movie; he's still very much a jerk.
Again, don't get me wrong: it's not that I'm against applying Adaptational Nice Guy here; I just want to figure this out :)
Edited by Tenebrika on Nov 26th 2020 at 3:23:39 AM
Could be worse
x9 Robot Chicken Alternative Character Interpretation.
I think it's superfluous to use the trope at all for Robot Chicken. It's a parody series so ACI (especially exaggerated or reduced characteristics) are its bread and butter.
You could make an entry for every character that ever appeared in RC when you go that way. Heck, even Benjamin Franklin gets an ACI as a king fu warrior.
Everything can be found on the Internet... except common sense.
Is this an example of Aerith and Bob? Anime.Little Witch Academia 2017
- Aerith and Bob: The series has Akko Kagari (Japanese name), Diana Cavendish (English name), Lotte Jansson and Sucy Manbanvaran (fantasy-styled Western names), and Luna Nova (Gratuitous Latin). The weird names are not arbitrary, although research may be required to make sense of them. Lotte Jansson is a perfectly good shortened given name along with a perfectly good Scandinavian surname (she's Finnish), Sucy Manbavaran is a slightly modified Tagalog word (either "susi", which is "key", or "suci" which is "holy"; "susi" is also "key" in Cebuano) with a modified Cebuano word as surname ("mambabarang", which is "sorceress"), which makes sense since she's from Southeast Asia (perhaps from Philippines, where Tagalog is a major official language and Cebuano a minority official language). Luna Nova translates as "New Moon" most likely in late Latin after adjectives became postponed to substantives but before it became romance; Latin is sometimes used in-story as a Language of Magic.
I am Filipino and IMO Sucy's name is garbled enough to be an Aerith, but "Lotte Jansson", while not a US/UK name, merely sounds foreign and not fantastic.
I'm helping!
Two people bonding over comparing the scars inflicted by their respective Abusive Parents, and it ends when one outright says "you win, nothing my dad's done can top that" — but there's no sense of one-upsmanship; they're just bonding over the Commonality Connection.
Does that still fall under Misery Poker, or is there a different and better trope for "comparing scars" exchanges like that?
Trouble Cube continues to be a general-purpose forum for those who desire such a thing.
Discarded and Feeling Blue
If it's anything it's Bonding over Missing Parents, but that's...you know, missing parents.
Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness
Lots of coffee
I wonder if Bonding over Missing Parents could be expanded to include bonding over other issues with your parents, namely Abusive Parents? I've also seen an example where one of the characters' parents wasn't technically dead, but had a lobotomy so the character saw her as dead in a way.
Edited by mightymewtron on Nov 25th 2020 at 9:57:07 AM
I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.
- Charlotte > Lotte? But hmm...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotte_(name)
Region of origin Austria, Germany, Denmark, Estonia, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden
Related names Charlotte, Lieselotte, Liesl, Lilo
Edited by Malady on Nov 25th 2020 at 7:02:20 AM
Disambig Needed: Help with those issues! tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13324299140A37493800&page=24#comment-576
Can someone weigh in on this Hard Truth Aesop issue? Again, I don't think this is an example as the fic trying to give An Aesop, as much as it is a depiction of Grey-and-Grey Morality, at least the way it is written.
- 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.
It’s not unreasonable at all that a name common in Norway and Denmark would find its way to a Finnish girl. The point is that it’s not a fantastic name.
Edited by Synchronicity on Nov 25th 2020 at 5:32:51 PM
Yeah, "Lotte Jansson" isn't fantastical.
Character from X country has name from Y country is probably covered by As Long as It Sounds Foreign, BTW, not Aerith and Bob.
Is the following example from Star Trek: The Next Generation S1E18 "Coming of Age", have enough context, as it doesn't actually saw how or why the reveal is supposed to be obvious?:
- Captain Obvious Reveal: It's pretty obvious that the accident that supposedly interrupts Wesley's psychological test is the test itself.
And is the following example from We All Live in America violating Examples Are Not General?:
- As a general example, most Japanese video games with an in-game currency system will use yen rates as the basis for all aspects of an in-game economy regardless of where it takes place, which is usually why buy and sell rates typically use intervals of 100 even in games with a setting inspired by Europe or the United States (as 100 yen is equivalent to just under one dollar). These rates typically aren't localized in other markets largely because of how different exchange rates can be not only between countries, but between time periods (you can thank inflation for that), and because the intervals of 100 are easy for players to grasp and work with.
I'm helping!
Yes, that's a violation of Examples Are Not General. A good rule of thumb is to imagine crosswicking the example; if you have no idea which page you'd crosswick to, it's probably general.
This was added to The New Adventures of Winnie the Pooh:
- Draco in Leather Pants: Rabbit gets this a lot from fans, mainly due to his short-tempered, jerky behavior.
I'm helping!
That's a ZCE.
Trouble Cube continues to be a general-purpose forum for those who desire such a thing.
Okay, so I thought that Everyone Is Satan in Hell was about reading too much into stuff...
(Also, this Rudolph debate is starting to remind me of when I asked about someone listing Kate McCallister as a Designated Hero starting a debate as to how sympathetic she was ment to be...)
I will note that Santa is shown apologizing to Rudolph and agreeing to find homes for the misfit toys BEFORE he finds out that the fog is too thick to see through.
Edited by fragglelover on Nov 24th 2020 at 7:46:23 AM