Is this an example?

Actually, re-reading the example, I'm not sure that it qualifies at all. If the character is "Nude 90% of her screen time" and is only covered by the scenery in that one scene, does it really count? Or is it a coincidence of the framing for that scene? Either way, the pervy tone is against the rules. As a sidenote, the Lifeforce page has a very different take on the same trope. The two should be aligned.

EDIT: d.

Amelia Peabody (YMMV page) has a single entry:

• Literary Agent Hypothesis: Not only are the books presented as being extracts from the journals and letters of the family, the issue is made even blurrier because both Margret Minton and Percy Peabody (secondary characters) write highly colored and distorted "memoirs" of their experiences, and the Emersons are semi-friends with a yellow journalist who writes exaggerated accounts of their own exploits.

This sounds to me like a fairly muddled Direct Line to the Author, with perhaps some In-Universe Dramatization mixed in. AFAIK, the fandom itself does not believe that these stories actually happened. DLTTO is, in fact, troped correctly on the work page.

Should I just cut?

Edited by underCoverSailsman on Apr 29th 2022 at 12:31:20 PM

Yeah, if none of it can be salvaged due to lewdness issues (and, per and , questionable validity), then it's best to just cut it wholesale. Also, for future reference, if you come to this thread to consult about the validity of an example, you should take the advice of people who is answering to your quetions, instead of preemptively having an action in mind for an example and merely looking for an agreeable second opinion here.

Edited by MyFinalEdits on Apr 29th 2022 at 1:34:20 PM

Oh sorry. I bring this example here because I was wondering what's allowed and what's not allowed. And also I thought it's ZCE and misused. I'll deleted the whole example instead of trimming it for No Lewdness, No Prudishness.

Edited by Bubblepig on Apr 29th 2022 at 10:52:26 AM

Troper Indi Goskies just added this example to one of the trope pages for Housepets!:

• Bleached Underpants: Inverted. Both due to Rick beginning the comic at a much younger age and to his upbringing, the comic and all supplementary materials made for it were family-friendly for the longest time, only dipping into slightly suggestive territory on occasion. In more recent years however, Rick has gone on record as having become more comfortable portraying mature themes in his work, and has since dabbled in drawing explicit art of some Housepets! characters in addition to his other works. The comic itself still remains mostly PG, though.

Aside from the overly familiar use of "Rick," which I intend to change to "the author" per an earlier ATT thread (if the examples is indeed kept), this doesn't even seem like a proper example. It seems full of natter, minimally references the comic at best, and seems to make assumptions it can't prove clearly.

I'm thinking it should just be cut, but want to get some support for the idea first.

Thanks!

• Aborted Declaration of Love: Implied. As Luo Binghe holds Shen Yuan's dead body, he seems close to confessing his feelings but is too broken over what had happened to truly say it.

Wondering if this counts considering the target of confession isn't alive to hear it either way? And it's not the last chance for confession either, as he comes back to life and they meet again later (and get together). However, the last chance thing isn't mentioned in the laconic, so I'm not sure if that's a requirement or not?

As I'm reading the Bleached Underpants description correctly, it seems to be about characters and works with "unwholesome" origins that have been toned down for a PG audience. I do not see any hint of that in the example as written.

Aborted Declaration of Love is supposed to one character meaning to confess their feelings, but that confession is aborted for any number of reasons. I don't see any conditional requirement that the object of affection be alive.

However, this whole "implied" bit does seem a little iffy to me, it's not a great example for that reason.

Thanks. This seemed all kinds of wrong to me, but it's good to get some support for example removal. Will do so shortly.

Hmm, good point. The actual line in the text (fan translation of Chinese work) is: '"Luo Binghe said in a trembling voice, "Shizun... I... I really.."'.

While I think aborted love confession is a reasonable interpretation because it's very clear to the audience at this point that Luo Binghe is in love with the other character and this comes at the end of him pouring his heart out about quite a few other things, do you think it's still too ambiguous? If so, I'll just remove it.

Edited by Zaperex on Apr 29th 2022 at 4:44:29 AM

The Breakfast Club has under Brian's entry for Covert Pervert: "Can be seen adjusting his trousers at one point." Is this an example?

Has no context.

I mean declaring your love to someone dead or dying is pretty anguished.

...Who're you responding to? If it's an old conversation, you need to use arrows or a name or something.

I have a question about these Die for Our Ship entries on DieForOurShip.Live Action TV and YMMV.Arrow:

• Oliver himself tends to get a lot of hate, from people who ship him with Felicity or Laurel, due to the fact he hasn't kissed Felicity yet or because he sunk the chance of him and Laurel hooking up while she was at rock bottom (or because of his cheating on her before the series began). Primarily though, because he's taken so long to hook up with them, he's treated as a misogynist who leads the girls on to get what he wants, even though Oliver, in canon, treats Felicity with nothing but professional respect and caring friendship. Nyssa/Sara shippers also tend to bash him, but in a more playful way rather than out of malice, primarily due to him making it clear that he has nothing against Sara's bisexuality or her past relationship with Nyssa, and so the usual excuses to make a character not approve of a same-sex hook-up don't work on him.

• Oliver himself, not because he's in the way of a ship, but because he hadn't hooked up with one of the girls yet, or rather, the one they want him to hook up with. Some accused him of deliberately leading the girls on to fuel his ego, despite him generally not trying to seduce any of them. While Oliver is no prince, he's certainly not that bad to manipulate the girls.

Die for Our Ship is about fans hating or bashing a character for getting in the way of their ship. This is mostly about him just not being with any of the girl with only a mention that a group of shippers playfully hate on him for being in the way. Am I missing something or are these misuses.

Die for Our Ship (oh god, more shipping drama ...) is supposed to be about characters who get hatred for "getting in the way" of fan's preferred ships.

Example 1: Oliver is hated because he's not hooking up with anybody.

We can safely say that's not an example.

Example 2: "Oliver himself, not because he's in the way of a ship" ...

The very wording contradicts the entire point of the trope.

Cut them both with extreme prejudice.

And both are cut.

Is "split-screen texting" as in this gif◊ from Heartstopper better under Split Screen or Split-Screen Phone Call?

Edited by Synchronicity on Apr 29th 2022 at 11:41:11 AM

Don't see the second person to be a Split-Screen Phone Call

These examples on MisaimedFandom.Advertising feel more like Unfortunate Implications entries in disguise, as they're not claiming these reactions missed the point of the campaigns, but that the campaigns themselves were flawed.

• One anti-domestic violence campaign featured an ad with a male and female child. The boy says, "One day, I'll grow up to beat my wife", while the girl says, "One day, my husband will beat me to death." The ad was almost immediately latched onto by advocates of male domestic violence victims as a clear example of how the very existence of male victims — who make up between 48% and 52% of all domestic violence victims according to the Centers for Disease Control — was regularly swept under the rug, much less the fact that they make up half of all domestic violence victims, and that there are many female domestic violence perpetrators. The ad was yanked from billboards across the U.S. within two weeks of the beginning of the campaign it was meant for.
• Back in 2007, Visa ran an ad^note Not the original music to avoid a copyright claim featuring a lot of New Orleans Saints fans getting ready for a game by buying gear and food (distinctive New Orleans crayfish), getting the team's logo shaved into their hair and other things, all of course paid for with their Visa cards. Near the end one guy at a sporting goods store, wearing a pink shirt with a sweater tied around his neck, pays cash for some tennis balls. Everyone scowls and the jaunty recording of Louis Armstrong playing "When the Saints Go Marching In" stops temporarily.
  
  That scene was later taken out after gay groups complained about the implied homophobia, but even without that the ad is reprehensible since it suggests that you're a loser if you pay for things in cash.^note Consider also that it suggests that he's living within his means ... and that, especially two years after Katrina, a lot of the NOL Ans shown in the ad probably are living beyond them, like too many Americans, thanks to the easy availability of consumer credit.

I have similar feelings about the Apple and Trix ones but I think the Unintentionally Sympathetic angles are still examples of a misaimed fandom reaction, even if they know what the ad's going for, as they still like something in the ad they're seemingly not really supposed to; these examples just seem like criticisms of the commercial.

I had to look up that first claim, that men make up half of domestic violence victims, and found the CDC says no such thing (it's 1 in 4 women and 1 in 10 men according to them). It smells like incel/MRA talking points shoehorned into a trope that wouldn't even fit if true. Cut that one.

That second one ... not even sure what it's going for, but certainly not Misaimed Fandom. Cut that one too.

I mean, male abuse statistics are generally harder to pin down because men come forward less often, or are sometimes assumed to be the aggressors when they're just defending themselves against abusive girlfriends/wives. I don't think we'll ever really know how commonly men are abused, because the stats we do have are bound to be flawed. So while those statistics in the example probably aren't true, in general there is a big issue with people overlooking male abuse victims as a whole (especially when the abusers are female), and that's what the example is saying.

But, I otherwise agree that it should be cut, because it definitely does seem more like an "ad is bad" case than anything else.

Edited by WarJay77 on Apr 29th 2022 at 1:37:03 PM

That reminds me, Horrible.Advertising confuses me. You're not supposed to put things on Horrible just because they're offensive, but most of the advertising examples are listed for that reason, and I think it's because ads are so short that they're rarely criticised for anything else.

Edited by NitroIndigo on Apr 30th 2022 at 8:30:53 PM

A few months ago, this entry was added to Magical Girl Warrior:

• Alice Johnson in the fourth and fifth Nightmare on Elm Street films. Barring the lack of a Transformation Sequence and the aesthetics of the genre, they are about as close as you can get to this in a Western horror movie, and an example of what happens when you combine this trope with the Final Girl. It's a decidedly darker take, since Alice's dream powers at first only serve to make everyone around her bigger targets for Freddy Krueger (who, by haunting her dreams, is using her powers to go after them), and All Your Powers Combined comes from her absorbing her friends' powers as Freddy kills them. Otherwise, it has the typical tropes: shy and insecure teenage girl receives magical powers one day (from Kristen, the previous Final Girl) and, over the course of the movie, overcomes her insecurities and matures into her role as the titular Dream Master, freeing the children's souls from Freddy while getting the hot guy and reconciling with her abusive father.

While Tropes Are Flexible, given that it notes the lack of Transformation Sequence and aesthetic trappings, does Alice really count as this trope?

Is Hollywood Law basically "Courtroom Antic nobody objects to"? I'm planning on adding a few cases of how court trials in fiction don't follow real world procedures for no good reason.

Edited by Amonimus on Apr 30th 2022 at 12:31:34 PM

Several comments up, I brought up what looked like entry misuse here of Bleached Underpants, which was confirmed as such on this thread. I removed the entry.

The troper messaged me saying there was another entry just like it above, so I took a look. It appears that most of the entries in the Webcomics folder do this, referring to an author’s whole oeuvre instead of focusing on a specific character. My feeling is that such entries are not examples of this trope and no one noticed — and that they should all be removed.

Would like to get support for cutting them first, though.

Re: Tough Act to Follow. Agreed, Sarah Jane was a companion to the third and fourth Doctors, with a special guest appearance in the new series for an episode before she got spun off into her own show. There were numerous companions, who had various degrees of popularity, between her and Martha (who is a tenth Doctor companion).Not an example.

Re: Magical Girl Warrior. Yeah, I do agree that's quite the shoehorn from a Magical Girl (generally they have explicit magic) who's a super hero. I'd cut.

Hollywood Law is just law as portrayed on film and screen. It's a given that legal proceedings are "hollywood-ized", because real life law tends to be tedious and not very cinematic. So they portray something faster paced and exciting (that's the number one reason why they depart from real life).

If it's that widespread, maybe a short term cleanup thread to clear out all the wicks?