Follow TV Tropes

Following

Misused: Slap Slap Kiss

Go To

Deadlock Clock: Jun 30th 2013 at 11:59:00 PM
Sackett Since: Jan, 2001
#26: May 27th 2013 at 12:31:45 PM

What do mean?

Please specify which ones you don't agree with since my perusal shows they are about actual slapping and kissing.

nrjxll Since: Nov, 2010 Relationship Status: Not war
#27: May 27th 2013 at 12:57:11 PM

Actually, looking at it again I realize that I was misreading which assessments applied to which examples - they are correct. Though I'd bet actual money that most if not all of the "unclear" examples are incorrect: what you're calling "no context" is mostly cases of "this relationship is like this", which fits with the confusion with Belligerent Sexual Tension.

edited 27th May '13 12:58:15 PM by nrjxll

AnotherDuck No, the other one. from Stockholm Since: Jul, 2012 Relationship Status: Mu
No, the other one.
#28: May 27th 2013 at 1:12:32 PM

If it actually ends up with kissing (or more), is it really Belligerent Sexual Tension? Isn't that when they dance around that with fighting and stuff?

Check out my fanfiction!
Willbyr Hi (Y2K) Relationship Status: With my statistically significant other
Spark9 Gentleman Troper! from Castle Wulfenbach Since: Nov, 2010 Relationship Status: Pining for the fjords
Gentleman Troper!
#30: Jun 27th 2013 at 11:08:11 AM

Based on the discussion in this thread, here's a crowner. I have not added renaming to the crowner since I don't see a strong case for that, but if you can make one, feel free to put it on the crowner anyway.

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/crowner.php/PageAction/SlapSlapKiss?

Rhetorical, eh? ... Eight!
Arha Since: Jan, 2010
#31: Jun 27th 2013 at 11:54:25 AM

Most of those 'unclear' ones looked wrong to me. This trope is a specific moment, not something that happens all the time in a relationship.

Would it perhaps be more feasible to redirect this trope to Belligerent Sexual Tension (or vice versa) and relaunch the page this is supposed to be?

SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#32: Jun 27th 2013 at 11:56:03 AM

Belligerent Sexual Tension has 17999 inbounds.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Spark9 Gentleman Troper! from Castle Wulfenbach Since: Nov, 2010 Relationship Status: Pining for the fjords
Gentleman Troper!
#33: Jun 27th 2013 at 11:59:36 AM

"Redirect and relaunch" is basically "merge, then go to YKTTW for another page".

And yes, BST is much bigger/prominent than SSK.

Rhetorical, eh? ... Eight!
Willbyr Hi (Y2K) Relationship Status: With my statistically significant other
Arha Since: Jan, 2010
#35: Jun 27th 2013 at 1:30:34 PM

I added two options. I'm against simply merging the two tropes and leaving it at that.

SeptimusHeap from Switzerland (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Mu
#36: Jun 27th 2013 at 1:32:12 PM

Downvoted the YKTTW option.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Sackett Since: Jan, 2001
#37: Jun 28th 2013 at 9:07:19 PM

I'd like to point out that eliminating this trope page would be a grave mistake.

This is a trope that has been around since at least 1938: Witness this clip.

It has also commented on in various media, quite far from just movie critics. So it is a well known trope with the general public: http://shoemoneytonight.tumblr.com/post/9252827994/via-dinosaur-comics-t-rex-knows-whats-up

As for the name. I suppose we could rename it, though the only thing I can think of that could be clearer is to add "Scene" on the end. However, I do think this is the pre-existing name for it. Do we have any film students or professionals out there reading the thread? Is this a standard term for this kind of thing or not?

Spark9 Gentleman Troper! from Castle Wulfenbach Since: Nov, 2010 Relationship Status: Pining for the fjords
Gentleman Troper!
#38: Jun 29th 2013 at 2:21:27 AM

[up] If you think this is a preexisting term, you should give us some proof of that.

Rhetorical, eh? ... Eight!
nrjxll Since: Nov, 2010 Relationship Status: Not war
#39: Jun 29th 2013 at 3:04:58 PM

If it's a preexisting term, it's not a common enough one to compensate for how easy it apparently is to misunderstand.

FastEddie Since: Apr, 2004
#40: Jul 21st 2013 at 1:10:17 PM

Too many inbounds to change for this weak a reason. Also... 13 people voting is not enough participation to determine anything.

Goal: Clear, Concise and Witty
Add Post

Total posts: 40
Top