Is this an example?

I don't think so. More Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex, which despite the name, is gender-neutral.

Yes because the movie explicitly shows the end of the episode, ending title card and all, asking if Woody would make it over the cliff. It doesn't show the resolution in the same episode. If the later scene is in the same episode, which I'm still unsure about, then it'd have to be a scene from earlier in the episode, or some kind of unrelated stinger / closing credits.

Edited by mightymewtron on Jul 16th 2022 at 11:48:38 AM

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

From StrangledByTheRedString.Western Animation:

• Avatar: The Last Airbender:
  • The romance between Aang and Katara is seen as this by some fans. Though there were moments between them throughout the series and they care for each other immensely, the relationship is only fully confirmed in the last scene of the Grand Finale and the sequel comics.

Aang and Katara's romantic feelings for each other are established long before the series finale. The first thing Aang ever does in the series is blush and get flustered when he meets Katara. And Katara reciprocating these feelings to some degree was established as early as episode 9 of season 1. There are multiple episodes where they explicitly discuss their feelings for each other ("Cave of the Two Lovers", "Day of Black Sun Part One", "The Ember Island Players"). Just because they don't actually get together until the end of the series doesn't mean their romance wasn't established long before that. None of that means that the romance is well written, but Strangled by the Red String is more specific than just "romance I don't like", and this doesn't fit the defintion. I want to make sure I've got consensus before doing anything, so do you guys agree w/ my reasoning?

Edited by TheMountainKing on Jul 16th 2022 at 1:49:36 PM

Agreed. Complaints about Kataang are almost all ill-founded. The only concern I have is that they are really young for that sort of thing, but that's par for the course for the target audience.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Agreed; that needs to go.

---

Reposting, again.

Do you all think this Hypocrite entry from Luna Light's folder in Characters.Friendship Is Failure doubles as Hypocrite Has a Point (which is a Sub-Trope of Hypocrite)? For the record, I once tried to move this down to Hypocrite Has a Point. However, someone changed it back to part of Luna's Hypocrite entry under reasons that don't necessarily relate to either trope. This paragraph was written differently at the time and originally was more explicit on the fact Twi. is a Control Freak, in case I need to state that.

I'd say it could work for Hypocrite Has a Point. From what I can see, the trope's not necessarily about whether said hypocrite personally knows who they are accusing, but rather that the other recognises the fallacy the hypocrite points out in themselves and tries to overcome it, via this line in the description:

---

[Edited out a query I was going to make but (supposedly) solved myself]

Edited by BlackFaithStar on Jul 17th 2022 at 4:40:50 PM

Creepypasta cleanup got two major pages for JTK and Slender

A troper deleted the examples of Non-Mammal Mammaries from the more "humanoid" entries on The Elder Scrolls: Lesser Daedra page with the justification that "We do not need to cite a trope when humanoid women have boobs."

No such exception is made on the NMM page and plenty of other works have "humanoid but not mammal" examples under the page's "Monsters/Aliens/Other" category.

Would I be justified in adding them back? For those unfamiliar, here is the write-up from the NMM page on the races of Daedra I'd be putting back:

• Several other varieties of lesser Daedra, including female Aureals, female Dremora, female Mazken, female Skaafin, female Spider Daedra, female Xivilai, and Winged Twilights (who are purely female) also possess breasts. To note, these are loosely demonic entities with Complete Immortality who do not reproduce. They have no biological need for mammaries. It is somewhat more justified for the Mazken than for other "female" Daedra, as they are known to use their female forms to trick and seduce mortals. (Hence their alternative name, Daedra/Dark Seducers.)

How many of these Retroactive Recognition entries from YMMV.Leave It To Beaver actually follow the "This person later became more famous for this newer thing" format, and how many boil down to just "This person did something else"?

• Uncle Joe ran an alligator farm that Beaver and Wally visited in one of the first episodes.
• Floyd the Barber gave Wally his first shave.
• Major Hochstetter was a conniving milk salesman who used Wally as his stooge.
• Gene Reynolds directed three episodes. Reynolds is best known as co-creator and executive producer of Lou Grant.
• Allan Manings wrote two episodes. Manings is best known as co-creator and producer of One Day at a Time.
• Clifford Goldsmith wrote an episode. Goldsmith is best known for creating The Aldrich Family.
• William Schallert played Mr. Bloomgarden in "Beaver's Short Pants".
• Veronica Cartwright played the recurring character Violet Rutherford as well as Peggy MacIntosh in "Don Juan Beaver".
• Barry Gordon played Chopper Cooper in "Beaver's House Guest".
• Majel Barrett played Gwen Rutherford in "Beaver and Violet".
• Ryan O'Neal played Tom Henderson in "Wally Goes Steady".
• Marta Kristen played Christine Staples in "Wally and Dudley".
• Tim Matheson played Michael Harmon in "Tell It to Ella" and "The Clothing Drive".
• Barbara Billingsley went on to play the Nanny in the original Muppet Babies series.
• Season 3's "Wally the Businessman" (in which Wally gets hired selling ice cream) marks the acting debut of future It's a Living star Ann Jillian^note credited by her birth name of Anne Nauseda as one of the young girls buying ice cream from Wally.

I have similar questions regarding the Retroactive Recognition section of YMMV.The Munsters (I already removed one entry that looked more like an inversion if anything):

• In addition to their work on The Munsters, creators Allan Burns and Chris Hayward are also best known for creating My Mother the Car. Burns is also best known for serving as co-creator and co-executive producer of The Mary Tyler Moore Show, Rhoda, and Lou Grant.
• Jerry Paris directed three episodes. Paris is best known for playing Jerry Helper on The Dick Van Dyke Show, for which he also directed several episodes. He also directed several episodes of such shows as Happy Days, Here's Lucy, and Laverne & Shirley.
• Gene Reynolds directed two episodes. Reynolds is also best known for serving as co-creator and co-executive producer of Lou Grant as well as his involvement with Hogan's Heroes and M*A*S*H.
• Lou Shaw wrote an episode. Shaw is best known for co-creating Quincy, M.E..
• Bill Prady co-wrote the screenplay to Here Come the Munsters (and had a small cameo). Prady is best known for co-creating and executive producing The Big Bang Theory with Chuck Lorre.

Edited by dsneybuf on Jul 17th 2022 at 9:03:53 AM

@TheMountainKing: Yeah cut that. Want and Katara's feelings for each other were established before they got together.

Reposting for some opinions:

From Arrowverse:

• Ass Pull: In a world where Death Is Cheap whether it be via time travel or occult artifacts, we are treated to several very weak explanations as to why Laurel Lance can never ever come back to life despite all of the above being viable methods; they all amount to it that it would be "wrong." This is particularly notable given that, when Oliver dies at the beginning of Crisis on Infinite Earths, the cast (including Sara Lance) waste almost no time looking for a Lazarus Pit.

Now correct me if I am wrong but isn't an Ass Pull supposed to be for developments or plot twists that come out of nowhere or is contrived, not they just didn't do this plot?

Edited by Bullman on Jul 17th 2022 at 9:12:16 AM

Fan-Preferred Couple cleanup thread

The fact that Laurel supposedly can't be revived is a genuine plot point, especially in the first season of Legends - Sara outright calls Rip out for the fact that this entire trip was for the purpose of saving his wife and child, but he kept Sara from interfering or preventing Laurel's death and his only reason why they can't revive her is just that they "can't". The entry is also correct that the fact they immediately look for a Pit for Oliver is pretty BS when one of the main reasons why they supposedly couldn't revive Laurel was that the one Pit we'd known about has been destroyed and, despite knowing about the Multiverse at that point, they don't even try to look for another one.

I say this as a genuine fan of the Arrowverse but the fact that Laurel can't be revived is the most half-assed "we just can't" I've ever seen, even though the show itself raises possibility after possibility for bringing her back just to ignore them all. They don't even raise the one genuinely good argument for not bringing her back - when they brought Sara back, she became an animalistic monster that required John Constantine's help to stabilize her soul, but Constantine's unavailable, so bringing her back could risk innocent lives. Instead, they just don't bother.

Edited by STARCRUSHER99 on Jul 17th 2022 at 10:38:09 AM

Reposting because I don't think this was answered.

Authority Equals Asskicking question. Does this trope mean "If I am the leader consequently I am the strongest" or "I am the leader and I am the strongest"? I am trying to do a wick check on this, and will do one on the counterpart Asskicking Equals Authority, and I want to make sure I am judging the examples correctly. P->Q is a different logical premise than P^Q. and some of these examples seem to show more a correlation between the the antecedent and consequent, but not the causation the trope defiinition requires, like this one:

• Authority Equals Asskicking: Princesses Nefersaynefer and Kweenlatifer from the kingdom of Kush easily keep up with the male racers, and can even hold their own in a brawl with the Romans.

It states both ladies are leaders and are fighters, but doesn't say they are strong because they are high ranking members of their nation.

I fear I might over think this.

Reposting because I'd like more answers:

• Knight of Cerebus: In the second episode, from the point when Marckus sets Licks up to fight and feed on one another. It is played for laughs up until Pyotr joins, his brutality and sadism as he disposes of Apeboy and Shitbeard making everyone but Door uncomfortable. Him diablerizing on the two makes even Big D horrified, as he realizes exactly what that means.

Like Pyotr is the scariest of the Starter Villain group, he lasts the longest, and any comedy in eps 2 and 3 doesn't come from him and even in ep 1 the tone noticeably darkens when he's around. There's definitely a noteworthy contrast between him and the other three Arc Villains. My problem is that I'm not sure that fits even the recently TRS'd definition of Knight of Cerebus, Since he's still a Starter Villain who is introduced in Episode one trying to eat a child on front of his father

Also a fresh Hunter: The Parenting question:

• Politically Correct History: In spite of being set during the the mid-2000s (a time when non-heteronormativity was much less understood), Markus and Kitten's relationship and Big-D's pansexuality have yet to be commented on derisively. This much less judgemental atmosphere can perhaps be explained by a combination of the Family's members all having been raised by Big-D and Vampire society running exclusively on Might Makes Right.

Admittedly, I've never liked Politically Correct History but does "these characters in a series set in 2006 are part of an accepting family despite being gay and pan" really count?

Absolute destiny... apeachalypse?

Reposting from the previous thread.

From Trivia.Teasing Master Takagi San:

• The Original Darrin: Most of Season 1's English dub cast, including Aaron Dismuke as Nishikata and Sarah Wiedenheft as Takagi, reprised their roles for Season 3.
• The Other Darrin: In the English dubs:
  • Netflix's release of Season 2 features an all-new Los Angeles-based voice cast. For example, Takagi, voiced by Sarah Wiedenheft in Season 1, is now voiced by Kayli Mills.
  • Some of the characters appearing in Season 3 were recast with Houston-based actors. For example, Scott Gibbs and Kira Vincent-Davis replaced Johnny Yong Bosch and Abby Trott as the respective voices of Hamaguchi and Hojo.

Are these valid examples?

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

wrt Authority Equals Asskicking: Our understanding is that the trope is "in this setting, those with authority can be expected to also be good combatants, just because they have authority". Individual characters who both have authority and are good combatants aren't enough; the trope is a setting-wide pattern.

Is our understanding.

Trouble Cube continues to be a general-purpose forum for those who desire such a thing.

This seems like it would depend on the scope of the cast and setting, but it does not seem so unusual to me; that seems like it would be a better description if it were set in the previous decade.

If the surprise is about who remains unexpectedly unbigoted, it might be Politically Correct Villain or something like that.

The Revolution Will Not Be Tropeable

It genuinely doesn't come up a tall, so I assumed we're just calling "an absence of slurs in a comedy show set in 2006" Politically Correct History now

Absolute destiny... apeachalypse?

"The Family Madrigal" on VideoExamples.Songs In The Key Of Panic. Does that strike anyone else as a misuse? It's a video game trope and Encanto is a non-interactive movie.

Trouble Cube continues to be a general-purpose forum for those who desire such a thing.

Gotta love VG tropes that have super vague ass titles.

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

The YMMV page for Super Mario Odyssey has Fanon Discontinuity for the following argument:

"While some fans have abandoned the Mario x Peach shipping thanks to the ending, those who still ship the pair like to forget it ever happened."

I get it, some people don't like this scene but I think placing it under Fanon Discontinuity is a bit of an overreaction, not to mention that FD is for entire stories that supposedly violate continuity with previous installments in a franchise, not stories that get rejected because... uh, people don't like them.

Also, I'm pretty sure that scene was just a form of comedy and wasn't meant to be taken seriously. What do you say?

Um... FD has nothing to do with violating continuity or anything, it literally is just "fans choose to say that this part of the story never happened since they don't like it". Whether or not it's an "overreaction" is irrelevant as well. It's YMMV, all that matters is if fans think a certain way.

Edited by WarJay77 on Jul 17th 2022 at 7:34:54 AM

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

Yeah, FD is when fans reject events within continuity for any reason. I can be because it contradicts a previously-established event, but it may also be for other reasons like torpedoing a fan-favorite shipping, a beloved character's death, an ending that leaves more questions than answers, etc.

We really need to make that clear to people who want to narrow a trope or reaction's scope without endorsement or consensus.

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

In regards to Parental Betrayal, if the series opens with describing or showing the parents to be horrible people, even if the son never truly believed them to be as bad as they are in the opening moments of the series until it happens, is that this trope?

To give specifics, in Welcome to Demon School! Iruma-kun, the manga opens with Iruma's parents selling him to a demon for money. It is later revealed they psychologically and emotionally abused Iruma into being a Yes-Man who will do any task asked of him and unable to refuse. They are never shown in any heroic or even neutral fashion before this heinous action.

Also, Wingedcatgirl, thanks for that clarification.

Then a follow-up for Authority Equals Asskicking, does this mean it should be relegated more to a story trope and not a character trope?

This is on TabletopGame.Citadels:

• Foil: Characters with the same rank tend to be foils of each other and share common themes:
  • 1: Characters that can disable the actions of other characters.
  • 2: Furtive characters. They steal gold from other characters.
  • 3: Magic users. Their skills manipulate players' hands (their own or someone else's).
  • 4: Royalty. They gain resources from yellow districts, and can manipulate the "king" token.
  • 5: Religious figures. They gain resources from blue districts, and their skills force other players to "help".
  • 6: Characters involved with money. Their skills revolve around gaining gold and/or green districts.
  • 7: Scholars and experts. Their skills revolve around drawing cards and/or building districts.
  • 8: Military figures. They affects districts built by other players, and gain resources from red districts.
  • 9: Other characters that don't fit the previous categories.

I'm pretty sure this doesn't count as foil because AFAIK, you can only use one set per game, so none of the same-ranked "characters" from the different decks ever interact with one another. I think it probably fits a different trope, though I'm not sure what.

(19x) I agree. Honestly, the troper who changed it to a Hypocrite entry seemed to be controlled by bias^note while you're free to call me out for it if I've done the same, I doubt I've done so as neither trope have to relate to that (which is something I pointed out to him and never got a response for).

---

(18x) Bringing those entries back seems fine to me.

---

(16x) That looks like misuse to me.

---

(13x) I guess it's fine. (For the record, I'm discussing the Politically Correct History entry as I already commented on the Knight of Cerebus one in a couple other posts.)

---

(6x) Calling that FD seems like a stretch.

---

(3x) No, it doesn't count.