Is this an example?

Doesn't the song actually make points about that? "Mom says a hippo would eat me up but then / Teacher says the hippo is a vegetarian"? It's all comedic anyway.

So I take it that I can move it to the comedy section?

Speaking of glurge, this was added to A Charlie Brown Christmas:

• Glurge: Very up for debate, as the special has gone down in history as the Christmas special, and a majority hold it in high regards to this day. However, those who hadn't exposed themselves to the special for most of their life were able to catch on to some discrepancies the special carries, most notably of which being the cast using the decorations from Snoopy's contest-winning house to decorate the tree, even though the special had earlier denounced such practices when Charlie Brown read the flyer advertising it.
  • For those aware of the original broadcast, (see Misaimed Marketing below) the glurge-y implications become just a smidge worse.

Reposting from the previous page so it won't get lost.

So, in Chicken Run, the Tweedys (the bad guys) are from Yorkshire. They were played by English actors Miranda Richardson and Tony Hargarth, who were from Lancashire. Does this fit the Fake Brit trope?

Also, regarding an entry on the Star-Derailing Role page:

• This might have happened to David Moo after he voiced Sanji in 4Kids Entertainment's (in)famous English dub of One Piece. His exaggerated and unfitting Brooklyn accent became the laughingstock of even non-fans of the series, and became something of a symbol of the dub's poorly done voice acting, strange treatment of the characters, or even 4Kids and bad dubbing in general. This is most likely to blame on Toei forcing 4Kids to dub it against their will, causing even popular voice actors like Veronica Taylor to also turn in bad performances. Moo supposedly even disagreed with how he was asked to voice Sanji. He eventually retired from voice acting to become a co-owner of the Brooklyn-based Quarter Bar, which has been ranked one of the top 18 bars in the US by at least one publication. He was also the only main voice actor not to return for Slayers Revolution and Slayers Evolution-R, where he had originally voiced Xellos. An interview with the Slayers voice director (Michael Sinterniklaas, who also took over the role) suggests that it was a decision made by the powers-that-be, and not a case of Moo leaving on his own. However, everyone else in the old One Piece dub still has at least some sort of career. The divisive reception to his take on Xellos didn't help.

Is this a valid example?

Edited by gjjones on Dec 6th 2020 at 11:12:06 AM

Reposting the following example from the previous three pages, since it didn't get any response:

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 do these examples from Dino Time look like they're being used correctly or have enough context?:

• Hype Aversion: The studio getting caught using sockpuppet accounts in an attempt to hype up the film didn't exactly give people hope that it would be good.
• Tainted by the Preview: People expected this movie to be terrible as soon as they saw the trailer.
• Watch It for the Meme: After the film turned out to just be So Okay, It's Average, the only real reason the film stays even remotely on people's radars is because it was a critical element of one of Walrusguy's Youtube Poops.

AssPull.Western Animation

• In The Beginning of the End, King Sombra receives Characterization Marches On into a Leeroy Jenkins Smug Snake... However — this is the complete opposite of all his previous appearances (The Crystal Empire and The Cutie Re-Mark), where he consistently behaved and operated like a Cold Ham Pragmatic Villain instead. And the show never bothers to explain such a 180° in personality, resulting in Epileptic Trees^note Actually a Doombot, Came Back Wrong, intentional Mind Rape by "Grogar"/Discord to make him easier to manipulate, etc. by many a fan.

My impression from the Ass Pull page is it only applies to developments done to move the plot a certain way. This wouldn't be an example then as nothing would change about the plot if he kept his old characterization. Thoughts?

Is the way that her legs are covering her crotch, Hand-or-Object Underwear?

If not, I've used it wrong at least once?

[1]◊

Edited by Malady on Dec 6th 2020 at 5:51:56 AM

Erm, probably. The image is suggestive without being explicit that there's no underwear.

, That's not reading as "no underwear" to me. Panty Shot averted by foot placement, maybe.

This is on Onward:

• Vindicated By Disney+: Was a Box Office Bomb, but quickly amassed a following once it was brought to Disney+.

First off, potholing the trope name isn't allowed.

Secondly, that was about a month of waiting and it was only vindicated because people literally didn't feel safe enough to go to theaters, or just couldn't go at all.

Is this the correct use of invoked and exaggerated? On Shadowed Face, Glowing Eyes:

• Mystery Skulls Animated: Invoked and exaggerated; Chole goes to work in full cosplay, which involves a hood that obscures her face, leaving her glasses, mouth, and even her freckles glowing from the darkness.

Invoked seems right if the character she's cosplaying as does have that physical description (as it requires familiarity with in-universe fiction). Dunno about exaggerated.

It failed due to exceptional circumstances no-one holds against the work, was released on Disney immediately afterwards so there was no time for it to not be non-vindicated. And no potholing trope names I thought it meant Vindicated by History a very different thing.

YMMV.Gravity Falls

• Relationship Writing Fumble:
  • Non-romantic example: Alex Hirsch has gone on record that he wrote the older Northwests as being very controlling, but overall still good parents. However, to most fans, they are clearly abusive stage parents who barely spare their daughter a glance.
  • A similarly non-romantic example: Dipper and Mabel are talked up in the show by many characters as if they have an ideal twin relationship, one exemplary and worthy of the Stan twins' admiration, to the point where seeing the younger Pines twins together inspires the older to try to be better siblings to each other. However, a significant and vocal portion of the audience considers Mabel's and Dipper's relationship as portrayed by this point in the show to actually be very unbalanced and unhealthy, with Mabel and Dipper exacerbating and enabling each other's flaws respectively. Further, these viewers typically don't consider this relationship problem resolved by the show's end, hence the Broken Base.

My impression is it HAS to be unintentionally romantic, hence a TRS to rename it. Cut? Any tropes these can be moved to?

The latter already sounds like it belongs under Broken Base. The former is weird; I'd say Unintentionally Unsympathetic but the narrative clearly depicts the characters as pretty unsympathetic so I have no idea why Hirsch would claim otherwise.

The Parents seems more Informed Ability.

Does Chromosome Casting count for things like Charlies Angels or Totally Spies!? Main focus is a girl group with a male guide-person?

I've got Princesses of the Pizza Parlor, where the only plot relevant guy is the gamemaster, but does his existence prevent Chromosome Casting from counting, and instead he's The One Guy? Or can Chromosome Casting and The One Guy, overlap?

Edited by Malady on Dec 8th 2020 at 9:29:36 AM

Not examples of Chromosome Casting, where all the plot important characters have to be either male or female.

Edited by Synchronicity on Dec 8th 2020 at 4:48:43 PM

Do the following examples from Norm of the North look like they're being used correctly?:

• Fan Nickname: Well, to say this film has fans is a bit of a stretch, but some viewers have nicknamed the film Rolar Scheir, due to a Youtube video apparently predicting this film.
• Magnum Opus Dissonance: Downplayed, but still present. Lionsgate's official website proudly displays the film in their Family section between the notably more popular My Little Pony and Power Rangers films, implying that it's at least equal to them.

Former might be a "detractor nickname" but I can't tell. Either way cut the "to say this film has fans is a stretch."

Latter is misuse as you can't downplay trivia that way. Plus it's just listing those movies together because...they're all family movies.

Are these Orwellian Retcon, Edited for Syndication, Re-Cut or George Lucas Altered Version before I add it:

• In the United Kingdom and some other countries, The Good Doctor had Fiona Gubelmann's voice dubbed over as a Same Language Dub (English) in some episodes with a soundalike who was an uncredited role, which meant it had her Fiona appearing in person, but Not Quite Starring with her voice, and the voice being Looping Lines. However, the dubbed episodes don't appear on other platforms, like Amazon Prime.

• In Backyard Wedding, some scenes had to be re-shot because the director did not consider them to be quite good enough. Alicia Witt's dialogue also was shortened in one scene because it would have made her come across as a Jerkass, which the writers didn't want in an otherwise Lighter and Softer Rom Com movie.

• Noel Edmonds considered the episode "Noel's House Party at the Movies", a Vacation Episode of Noel's House Party as Canon Discontinuity and said the idea did not work out as planned, and the fans treat it as a Bizarro Episode that's arguably a Non-Serial Movie due to how completely disconnected it is from the rest of the series in terms of tone and content.

Edited by Merseyuser1 on Dec 8th 2020 at 7:47:29 PM

A troper insists that Jojo Rabbit is an In Name Only adaptation of Caging Skies:

Which I would contest on the grounds that:

• The film retains the "overall plot outline", the character names and not to forget, the setting of the book. That's actually quite a lot; it's certainly substantially more than "only the name".
• A difference in tone (adaptation is a comedy, source is not), identified here as "the most glaring difference", is not sufficient to qualify as In Name Only in my book.
• and the obvious, the film does not actually have the same name as the book.

The troper who added the example argues that In Name Only does not strictly require the adaptation to have the same name, but only that it is still "stated or advertised" to be an adaptation. In my opinion, this is misuse and the fact the there may be other such examples listed on In Name Only or its subpages does not change that.

Ironically, the exact same example was initially added (by a different troper) as a "subversion" of In Name Only, and I deleted it then. Am I right in deleting it another time?

From YMMV.Looney Tunes.

• Award Snub: Despite winning seven Oscars, almost no Looney Tunes productions has ever gained an Annie Award, which is an award ceremony exclusively for animation. This is mostly because they were established in 1972, well after the peak of the franchise. The biggest letdown would've had to be Looney Tunes: Back in Action losing to Finding Nemo.

First of all, as someone else added to the example today, the Annie Awards weren't a thing during Looney Tunes' height of popularity. Secondly, didn't LT:BIA get kind of a mixed reception, unlike Finding Nemo which is generally considered to be a masterpiece?

Should the following examples from Jango Fett: Open Seasons be on the work page, and no the works that are doing the ascending/immigrating (e.g. the Canon Immigrant example should be on the page for Star Wars: Rebels rather than here)?:

• Ascended Extra:
  • Jango's sister, Arla, is later named and expanded on in the Republic Commando Series, taking place during the early years of the Empire.
  • Montross and Vosa serve as antagonists in the Star Wars: Bounty Hunter video game.
• Canon Immigrant: Star Wars Rebels brings back the Journeyman Protectors as the law enforcement on Concord Dawn and the sworn enemy of Death Watch.

And from the same work is the following example being used correctly?:

• It Gets Easier: Zigzagged. After Jango helps the Protectors in a violent ambush against Death Watch, Jaster asks if he feels better that the men who killed his family are dead now. Jango answers that he's not sure, and Jaster merely replies "Good." and welcomes him to the Mandalorians. It makes sense — Jango's uncertainty meant he was still innocent.
  Jango: He's dead.
  Jaster: [while kneeling down and hugging him] Yes. Feel any better?
  Jango: No... I don't know... not yet.
  Jaster: [picks Jango up and carries him away] Good. Welcome to the Mandalorians.

Yes and yes. You can cut.

A weird B-plot can't be a Big-Lipped Alligator Moment since it's not a moment, right? This is from Big Mouth:

• "Duke" has a whole Big Lipped Alligator B-Plot about Maurice's penises fighting in World War One (or as he calls it, World War Cum), with one of them going through depression and recovery. It has basically nothing to do with the rest, and is even lampshaded by none of the kids (other than Jay) really paying attention to it at all.