Is this an example?

Are the following examples from Tom and Jerry: Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory being used correctly, as it these seem like they should apply to on-camera live-action roles, rather than voice acting roles?:

• Dawson Casting: To put it in perspective, Charlie was the only one of the kid characters to be voiced by an actual child. The remaining four kids who go into the factory are all voiced by people who are older than the actors who played them in the 2005 film, despite twelve years having passed between production of the two adaptations.
• Playing Gertrude: We have 53-year-old Jess Harnell playing Grandpa Joe.

---

And does this example from Trivia.Cruella look like it's being misused, as it's a trivia item, yet it's written like an audience-reaction and the example even points out the work was in development before the other work it's meant to be following?:

• Follow the Leader: The trailer got a ton of people saying the film seems to be Disney's attempt to latch onto the success of Joker, with a dark backstory of one of its iconic villains, standing especially in contrast to Maleficent and its attempts to make her the story's true hero. Cruella was actually first announced before Joker, but the marketing for the former thus far definitely takes inspiration from the later.

From Klaus Kinski:

• Mad Artist: He was so enraged during the production of Fitzcarraldo that one of the local extras and crew members offered to kill him for director Werner Herzog. And Herzog actually considered it.
  • Some years later, Herzog made a documentary recounting his adventures with Kinski during the making of this movie entitled My Best Fiend^note The pun does not exist in the original German, where it simply says "my best enemy".

The nattery use of bullet points aside, could someone explain to me how the Incredibly Lame Pun works in English? Because I can't understand why it wouldn't work for the German title. The German title is "Mein liebster Feind" (my dearest enemy). Sure, "Feind" is more neutral than "fiend". However, it similarly alludes to "Mein liebster Freund" (my dearest friend). Maybe I'm missing something.

Edit: ok, I took the liberty to fix the formatting and remove the note.

Edit:x7 You're absolutely right. I was so fixated on the note that I didn't even notice this. The rewrite by gjjones is a huge improvement.

Edited by Sirena on Feb 19th 2021 at 5:45:16 PM

Friend/fiend, Freund/Feind. I guess the writer didn't think it was close enough to count.

(Incredibly Lame Pun is not a trope)

Edited by Tabs on Feb 18th 2021 at 10:16:03 AM

And the second paragraph painfully violates indentation guidelines (I'm still appaled over how rampant this problem is).

135 - 169 - 273 - 191 - 188 - 230 - 300

x4:

• Dawson Casting: No, the trope does not actually cover voice acting, since it's about visibly too-old actors for teens. The notable aversion is Children Voicing Children.
  In the case of voice acting that field has nothing to do with appearance and everything to do with vocal performance, as such only notable aversions are mentioned
• Playing Gertrude: Nah. Even tkaing into consideration the possibility that he is a few years younger than his character, a 53-year-old grandpa to a 10-year-old boy is plausible.
• Follow the Leader: Can't say if it applies to the work itself as the film is not yet out and as you said it was announced first. Perhaps there is an argument for the trailer being similar to the marketing for Joker, but I don't know if it's actually similar.

VideoGame.Ratchet And Clank 2002

• Both Sides Have a Point: While Ratchet was totally wrong in treating Clank so cruelly and putting personal revenge before saving the galaxy (which was Clank's entire motivation) in the games second act, he is right to call out Clank on being gullible enough to fall for Qwark's trick, which nearly got both of them killed (hypocritically, Ratchet fell for it himself, but at least started wising up to it before the trap was sprung, whereas Clank didn't). On top of that, Qwark is a major threat that was worth dealing with and would have wound up crossing their paths again anyway due to his affiliation with Drek, even if Ratchet was pursuing him for the wrong reasons.

Does this seem more like Jerkass Has a Point as it's currently written? It doesn't really explain how Clank also has a point.

Edited by PlasmaPower on Feb 18th 2021 at 3:18:10 PM

Thomas fans needed! Come join me in the the show's cleanup thread!

Steven Universe: The Movie lists WTH, Casting Agency? for Chance the Rapper, saying that fans expected him to voice a character when it was revealed he was working on the movie, but his only credit turned out to be a writing credit for a song. Does this nullify the entry as it's describing a knee-jerk reaction?

Well that's why I'm asking here.

Edited by mightymewtron on Feb 19th 2021 at 4:34:06 AM

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

Does such an example even count when Chance the Rapper wasn't "cast"?

Re Klaus Kinski: Creator pages shouldn't trope the individual's personal life, which that entry seems to be. In fact, most of the trope entries in that page should be scrubbed for violating that policy, and some of them being NRLEP.

There's a note that I've just put on there and some other creator pages as well. Hope this works.

Edited by gjjones on Feb 19th 2021 at 6:08:27 AM

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

Still cleaning up Undertale and came across this under Talking Is a Free Action. While the first example is getting cut, the second (in spoiler tags) appears to be valid; I just need to know what type of Playing With it is

• Averted. If you receive a phone call during action, the action continues. This is made clear in Hotland, where Alphys calls you just as you're about to hit the third switch in a sequence of three; the conveyor belt carries you past the switch without you hitting it. It can be seen earlier if Undyne is chasing you. If you have a significant lead over her when Papyrus calls, she'll continue to run after you, then stop at a predetermined point, even if the dialogue box is already up. Calling Undyne later in the same room has her reveal that she saw you were taking a phone call, and stopped to let you finish.

"My job here is done." "But you didn't do anything."

I guess zig zagged as it is double subverted and justified.

Reposting from the previous page:

Are the following examples from Speed 2: Cruise Control being used correctly?:

• Eight Point Eight:
  • Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel are the ONLY critics on Rotten Tomatoes that gave this film a positive review, which kept it from joining the 0% club. Ebert wrote that he liked the movie because it "embraces goofiness with an almost sensual pleasure". Ebert later said the review is sometimes used to demonstrate his "worthlessness" as a film critic. In 2013, he still stood by his opinion.
  • He was the only critic who liked it at the time of his death (which gave it a 2%). When Siskel's review was put up, it went to 3% and there was finally a third critic that bumped it up to 4%...which is still extremely low.
• Adaptation Displacement: That awesome and upbeat techno song Kazushi Sakuraba used as his entrance music? It came from this movie.

---

And is this example from Trivia.Tom And Jerry Willy Wonka And The Chocolate Factory being used correctly?:

• Undermined By Reality: This movie's message against greed is undercut by the fact that this movie was made solely so WB could keep the rights to the Willy Wonka IP, which backfired spectacularly.

• Eight Point Eight: I think so, if a different application of "a review that goes against the grain is a big deal". Clearly Ebert's review made enough of a stir that people brought it up years later. It doesn't have context for the reaction to Siskel's however, and the two bullet points about Ebert's should be merged into one.
• Adaptation Displacement: Definitely not. That is a Shout-Out, not an adaptation.
• Undermined By Reality: Why wouldn't it be?

I do know Undermined By Reality examples like "big company product makes a statement against company greed" have been cut before so I assume that's why the Tom and Jerry example was questioned.

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

Oh, okay. I dunno then; not too familiar with that trope.

I added this to Characters.Beetlejuice for the Western Animation adaptation of the character, is this a correct example:

• Adaptational Nice Guy: To call Beetlejuice a full-on Nice Guy is a bit of a stretch (his twin brother Donny is the actual Nice Guy) but he's far more benevolent than Betelgeuse from the movies, and is far less malevolent, just a bit of The Gadfly who actually has a license to drive people crazy and doesn't want to cause physical harm. He's still the same con artist as in the film, but hasn't got the lecherous personality and has a conscience; this one, while not exactly evil, draws a line in the sand as to how far he'll go hurting people.

Cartoon Beetlejuice is nicer then the movie version. I mean, he still a trouble maker but he does care for Lydia.

Well, Godzilla is listed on the Dinosaurs Are Dragons page — with special mention being the given to the Heisei version for being a dinosaur that gained dragon-like abilities as a result of becoming a Nuclear Nasty. That said the only film I can think of that likens Godzilla to a dragon is Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019), which is set in a different continuity.

The argument could be made that in-universe Godzilla is usually named after the malevolent sea-god — which in Japanese culture are most-often represented as dragons — of Odo Island, and in some continuities — like Monsterverse and IDW's Rage Across Time comics — either inspired or is that god.

Edited by Arawn999 on Feb 19th 2021 at 10:15:29 AM

I want to check if this describes the emotions and the breaking well enough:

BreakTheCutie.Fan Works:

• The FNF: Corruption mod by Phantom Fear features corrupted versions of The Boyfriend and The Girlfriend spreading The Corruption to other members of the cast. Week 2 is against Skid and Pump, the latter already fully corrupted and gleefully singing along without a care. Skid however begins the Week uncorrupted, his usual excitement replaced with apprehension as he hides behind Pump and half-heartedly sings his notes. By the second song Skid has started to corrupt and is visibly terrified with tears in his eyes, animations making him look like he's whimpering rather than singing. The corruption has nearly taken him over by the third, wrestling control of his body away from him, leaving him to only stare as they lose the battle and Skid loses himself completely.

Jawbreakers on sale for 99¢

Another Undertale example, this time for Bait-and-Switch Silhouette:

• A variation of this trope appears when the player character hides behind a lamp that is the exact shape of the character's sprite.

I'm under the impression that in order for this trope to be applicable, the audience needs to not be able to see the masquerading object for what it actually is initially, and the lamp is perfectly visible right off the bat◊. Additionally, we know the player character is behind the lamp for the entirety of the scene. Is this misuse?

Edited by Vandagyre on Feb 20th 2021 at 12:29:12 PM

"My job here is done." "But you didn't do anything."

Yes, yes it is.

Jawbreakers on sale for 99¢

I think there's another trope for perfectly convenient hiding spaces like that, but the name is escaping me.

BTW, can Alone Among Families cover a character feeling left out because of a Missing Mom or Disappeared Dad, even if they aren't a full orphan? I just added Rugrats in Paris for the scene where the DJ puts on a song for the kids and their moms, and everybody dances with their mothers while Chuckie stands alone. Reading the description this does seem to be the case, but just wanna make sure.

Edited by mightymewtron on Feb 20th 2021 at 4:34:37 AM

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

Is this example on YMMV.Wanda Vision used correctly?

• Captain Obvious Reveal: The reveal that Agnes is actually Agatha Harkness, as well as being an antagonist was something most people had already guessed since the moment the character was revealed, before the show even started, to the point that a lot of fans went in already knowing their identity to an extent. It's possible the show runners knew that this reveal wouldn't come as much of a shock given the musical number entitled 'It Was ______ All Along' set to all the scenes of her working behind Wanda's back; it even ends with Agatha confirming that yeah, she killed Sparky as well.

As far as I understand, Captain Obvious Reveal requires heavy-handed foreshadowing or only one possible option or episodes being broadcasted out of order; the entry doesn't describe any of this and just says people predicted the reveal. This, and to predict that the character is actually Agatha Harkness, you need to know who Agatha Harkness is; judging by their character folder, the character wasn't included in MCU before this series, and is subjected to Adaptational Villainy to boot. On the other hand, yeah, it's pretty obvious that a comic book adaptation will use some stuff from the comic books it is based on %)

Ultraman has a First Installment Wins entry. However, it's actually the second installment in the Ultra series since Ultra Q was the first one. However, Ultraman is the first installment of the standard Ultraman series of Giant alien hero fighting giant monsters. Would it still count as FIW?