Is this an example?

hello, I have a question: What counts as a proper Animalistic Abomination? If in the context of a My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic fanfic, would an Eldritch Abomination count as an Animalistic one since all the characters are (mostly) talking, sapient Ponies?

Er, no, a non-animalistic abomination doesn't get reclassified as animalistic just by going into a world full of talking animals? If that's what you're asking?

The abomination needs to be... animalistic. Approximately animal-shaped.

yeah I didn't know how to phrase the question, since the trope itself is kinda weird

does Animalistic Abomination only apply to beings who only superficially resemble some kind of animal? Like the various human-turned-animalistic bosses seen in Bloodborne?

Can Boomerang Bigot be used for a black person not wanting to date another black person because they have a much darker skin tone?

Edited by WhirlRX on Sep 15th 2021 at 9:34:13 AM

In ReferencedBy.Ratatouille:

• Schaffrillas Productions has called Ratatouille Pixar's magnum opus and his second-favorite Pixar movie overall (behind The Incredibles).

Given that Schaffrillas has made an entire video about this film, do reviews by internet critics count for Referenced by... pages?

Edited by harryhenry on Sep 16th 2021 at 5:04:36 AM

Reposting from the previous page.

From Trivia.Neon Genesis Evangelion:

• The Cast Showoff: Tiffany Grant and Stephanie McKeon, the respective English voice actresses for Asuka in the ADV and Netflix versions, get to show off their German-speaking abilities.

Both actresses mentioned they have studied German before, so is this considered a valid example?

yeah that's not a valid example since it's an actual critical look at the movie. there's a long-term cleanup for reviewer references iirc

that seems valid, having an actress fluent in german flex her skills

, : The character is German. I don't think hiring a German-speaking actress to play a German-speaking character counts as this.

Hmm. The dub is in English, so having her speak German (presumably well) still caters to the skills of the actors when just having her speak English all the time, doing the German badly with a non-fluent actress, or hiring an actual speaker to do the German parts would also be options. (I don't know how gratuitous the German is, I only saw the Japanese version rather long ago.)

It's rather analogous to casting someone with an opera background and having their character sing opera (which would be an example of The Cast Showoff), vs. never showing the character singing or doing a Non-Singing Voice.

The Origami killer's motives of kidnapping children and putting their fathers through dangerous trials in order for them to prove they would sacrifice themselves in order to save their sons before they drown stem from untreated childhood trauma in the form of watching his twin brother drown while his alcoholic father refused to help. The villain tends to lash out when people call him out on the fact that his motives couldn't possibly justify his actions because he feels invalidated or misunderstood, which always happens as nobody accepts his Freudian Excuse, and should Madison Paige reach the climax alone, she can't get through to him as he stubbornly clings to his motives and refuses to question the legitimacy of his actions while he keeps playing the victim. Should Norman Jayden reach the finale alone instead, the Origami killer throws a massive tantrum because only the child's father is supposed to save the kidnapped son, kicking and screaming at the FBI agent while ranting that real love from a father can only be proven through sacrifice, and the people saying they love each other are all liars, not taking into account that they might have tried but failed to save their sons because of his trials. Does the Origami Killer qualify as a Psychopathic Manchild?

Edited by HeyFella on Sep 16th 2021 at 9:41:58 PM

This was just added to YMMV.A Goofy Movie.

• Common Knowledge: The song Powerline sings in the film's climax is often referred to as "Eye to Eye" by fans. While it is pronounced that way, the song is officially titled "I2I" on the film's album, not "Eye to Eye".

Would this example fit better under Viewer Name Confusion or Title Confusion?

Sorry for the double post, but can a Hate Sink be a Base-Breaking Character? This was just added to YMMV.Hazbin Hotel.

• Valentino started off as an [1] due to many fans finding him to be an interesting character. However, after the "Addict", music video came out, Valentino became divise due to the video in question having him abuse and even force himself onto Angel Dust. Many fans hate him for abusing Angel while others find him to be an interesting character. Generally speaking, Valentino is easily one of the more polarizing characters in the series.

Yeah, I think he would count.

Title Confusion, Viewer Name Confusion is only for characters.

No idea, since Hate Sink is being redefined into an index/supertrope and I'm not sure what the criteria are anymore.

Can Viewer Species Confusion include characters whose breeds are mistaken? I.E. a character who is a golden lab is assumed to be a golden retriever.

From Banned in China:

• Kirby: Right Back at Ya! is banned worldwide by order of the Association for Promotion of Advanced Broadcasting Services, or "A-PAB" for short. Any videos that get uploaded to You Tube are often put at risk of getting taken down by the corporation.

Thoughts on what to do with this?

It's utter insanity. The Kirby anime aint banned.

I’ve removed it as an invalid example.

Yeah that's not a ban, that's copyright enforcement.

If an alien deity has a weird alien equivalent to sex with a bunch of humans, does that count as Double Standard: Rape, Sci-Fi or Double Standard: Rape, Divine on Mortal or both? Context in question is Yivo in Futurama M 2 The Beast With A Billion Backs, which lists it as the latter.

Edited by mightymewtron on Sep 18th 2021 at 3:59:10 PM

Kirby: Right Back at Ya! isn't found anywhere on streaming, and A-PAB still continues to block it from appearing on You Tube. Both of those together combined make it as good as banned.

That sounds like a case of Keep Circulating the Tapes, still not a "ban" in the way other examples are.

"Banned" means the IP holder wants to make a work available, but some other authority is overriding them.

What you're describing is an IP holder not wanting to make a work available.

From My Way or the Highway:

• One of the major complaints about many corporations is that this attitude in regards to dissenting views. For example, the Walt Disney Company is known to try to put a positive spin on anything, and anyone who tries to deliver a more honest report is labelled a trouble-maker. An example of this is how during the 2019 Coronavirus Pandemic, despite the fact the population caps for their theme parks resulted in many staff members being furloughed or outright losing their jobs, Disney chose to focus on the small crowds of visitors, claiming that was a positive.

I don't know why, but I feel like something here should be cut. They didn't even get the year right...

If referring to the virus itself, "2019 Coronavirus" is correct. If referring to the pandemic, 2020 would be correct, though it was an epidemic before then.

That said, it looks like a potential ROCEJ violation.

Edited by mightymewtron on Sep 18th 2021 at 3:33:20 PM

I don't think it fits either. Then again, Disney is badmouthed for even the slightest of things, and while there were things they did wrong, the receiving cynicism is out of proportion and this example is a symptom of that.