To add to my original post, I do think there's a viable trope definition in here. If we look at the third paragraph:
This is in reference to remakes, but I think if we change this to any deliberate Shout-Out to a work one of the creators was involved with, that should maintain the core of the trope while negating the problems I described in the previous post with the trope being too broad. And if we really feel like it, we can move the String Theory style entries to another page.
edited 2nd Dec '17 11:18:37 AM by malias
Agreed. This really needs to be trivia or Just for Fun.
Blapper of Water
Note that Actor Allusion is something they are still debating about in the Trivia/ clean-up thread
(with a net -7 vote on the crowner right now).
This particular trope is wholly within the given work. "The actor-as-character exists in-universe, and the actor-as-actor does not exist." The paradox comes in when you realize that a fictional-character-played-by-that-same-actor (-as-actor) is referenced in the work. So, the actor-as-actor doesn't exist but a character that actor has played does.
To put it another way, the actor-as-character exists in the work and a character that actor-as-actor has played also exists in the work but it is not the case that the actor-as-actor exists in the work.
It isn't Fridge Logic or YMMV, and it isn't Trivia either.
edited 2nd Dec '17 11:53:32 PM by WaterBlap
Look at all that shiny stuff ain't they pretty
No, the other one.
It's a trope.
I think it would work to just limit it to either any kind of acknowledgements of the paradox or first-grade occurrences. By "first grade" I mean stuff where you can see or hear directly, like a character talking about an actor while that actor is part of the production, while In Spite of a Nail situations like the Obama example are a few grades after, since it involves a chain of stuff happening.
edited 3rd Dec '17 12:13:33 AM by AnotherDuck
Check out my fanfiction!
Friends forevermore
And then there are the more questionable "paradoxes" that don't directly involve the question.
For instance, Actor A and Actor B appeared together in Work 1. Actor A appears in Work 2, which references Actor B's appearance in Work 3. This is in no way a paradox, but it occasionally shows up as an example.
If the question of "who played such-and-such character" (or more generally "if this real-life person did not exist, then how does this affect the work's Earth compared to ours") is not raised by the presence of that character's real-life actor playing a fictional role, it cannot be an example.
I had a dog-themed avatar before it was cool.
Blapper of Water
Honestly, I think it's as simple as being a specific type of Shout-Out — a Sub-Trope thereof, if not a sister trope. Something like "Actor A and Actor B appeared together in Work 1. Actor A appears in Work 2, which references Actor B's appearance in Work 3" in ![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
would not — I agree — be this trope. The heart of this is the paradox of the Shout-Out, whereas the example in #6 would be just a Shout-Out (similar to Luxord's joke weapon in Days referencing a different game, namely Final Fantasy XIII), but to somebody else's career.
No, the other one.
If Actor A in Work 2 referenced Actor B appearing in Work 1 instead, then it might be an example, since Actor A would both be an in-universe character in Work 2 and a real actor who plays a character in Work 2. Actor B be would by herself not have anything to do with the paradox, just a means of calling the paradox out.
This is hard to explain in words.
Check out my fanfiction!
The trope, as it currently exists, is too broad and essentially trivia. It's essentially "Work 1 references Work 2, which shares an actor with Work 1 or an associated work." In the larger franchises, this grows to a ridiculous extent.
What's worse are examples like this: (paraphrasing)
- In Captain America: The Winter Soldier, Steve's list of "things he needs to catch up on" includes Star Wars. Ewan McGregor, who was in the prequel trilogy, played Tom Holland's father in The Impossible.
Note that Tom Holland was not even in The Winter Soldier, only future MCU movies. He had not even been cast yet.
On the topic of the Captain America/Star Wars connection, the two actually do share actors (most notably Samuel L. Jackson) but none of them are relevant to that scene.
I propose that the definition be narrowed to something along the lines of "a character played by Schwarzenegger references Terminator", not "Terminator is referenced and Schwarzenegger happens to appear in the work". Essentially a narrower Actor Allusion.
edited 12th Dec '17 12:14:50 PM by RallyBot2
Tyrannoraptoran Reptiliomorph
Agreed, the trope should be reserved for direct references; just "Work X is referenced in Work Y, Actor X was in both" is too broad.
Friends forevermore
It gets trickier when adaptations are involved.
An episode of Series 3 of the revived Doctor Who referenced the Harry Potter books, and the companion character does not notice that the Tenth Doctor looks like an actor from the Harry Potter films. Is this an example?
I had a dog-themed avatar before it was cool.
Tyrannoraptoran Reptiliomorph
No, it's not a direct reference.
Blapper of Water
RE Winter Soldier example in 9: I agree that is not Celebrity Paradox. Because Ewan McGregor is not in the work as actor-as-character, he doesn't fit as a paradox here. That's just a simple Shout-Out.
RE: Doctor Who example in 11: That is not Celebrity Paradox. That is a reference to the Harry Potter series, but it isn't a reference to the movies. More specifically, it is not a reference to the movie where David Tenant played a character, which is necessary in establishing the paradox. It's also just a simple Shout-Out. I don't think it's Actor Allusion because it isn't a reference to the character he played or anything like that, just one of Rowling's made-up words.
Look at all that shiny stuff ain't they pretty
Tyrannoraptoran Reptiliomorph
Even if it was a reference to the movies, it still wouldn't be direct enough for a Celebrity Paradox.
Blapper of Water
Yeah, I know. I said "More specifically, it is not a reference to the movie where David Tenant played a character, which is necessary in establishing the paradox."
Look at all that shiny stuff ain't they pretty
Tyrannoraptoran Reptiliomorph
That's not what I meant. If Movie X is mentioned in Movie Y, and Actor X was in both, it's still not a direct metafictional reference.
For example, none of the examples on the Marvel Cinematic Universe subpage fit.
edited 20th Dec '17 6:11:44 PM by Lymantria
Join the Five-Man Band cleanup project!
Blapper of Water
The MCU would still not fit, though. In the case of the MCU, Movie Y is a sequel or continuation of the Shared Universe that started in Movie X. For example, Robert Downy Jr. is not an "actor-as-actor" in Iron Man 2 or in The Avengers (2012), so it isn't a paradox if he is in Avengers (2012) and references something that happens in Iron Man 1.
That said, I disagree with you about what you're saying for "If Movie X is mentioned in Movie Y, and Actor X was in both." Assuming the obvious, shouldn't-need-to-be-said case where neither of these movies are Sequels or part of a Shared Universe or something, it must be the case that Actor X was in both Movie X and Movie Y, and it must be the case that Actor X is an actor-as-character in the referencing movie (no As Himself sort of thing). There is no paradox otherwise.
Look at all that shiny stuff ain't they pretty
Tyrannoraptoran Reptiliomorph
I don't agree with you, there's a way to make the trope even less speculative: reserve it to actual metafictional references. (It wouldn't have to be Actor Allusion or Recursive Canon, although it would overlap with them).
For example, the following (from the Western Animation subpage) would all be examples:
- In one episode of This Is America, Charlie Brown, the Peanuts gang visit the Smithsonian Institution. Among other things, Charlie Brown and Lucy discover the lunar and command modules from Apollo 10 (nicknamed "Snoopy" and "Charlie Brown," respectively), and a Peanuts Sunday strip.
- For that matter, the caps that the astronauts wore under their helmets were referred to as "Snoopy Caps" for their resemblance to the aforementioned animated pup. No doubt Snoopy would enjoy it.
- In another episode of the series, it is declared that the Vince Guaraldi piece that would be permanently affiliated with the Peanuts characters through the specials was named "Linus and Lucy" "by coincidence."
- Jackie Chan Adventures episode "And He Does His Own Stunts" has Jackie and company going to Hollywood. Of course, the actor Jackie Chan doesn't exist and this is confirmed by people asking "Who's Jackie Chan?" Furthermore, once Jackie is found by a studio and Hilarity Ensues, a hot-shot director claims that there will never be a Jackie Chan in Hollywood.
- In What's New, Scooby-Doo?, JC Chasez hatches a plot to frame Mystery Inc by hiring some movie extras to impersonate them (he impersonated Scooby). When Mystery Inc discover this, Daphne is disappointed that she was played by an extra, saying 'What, was Sarah Michelle Gellar busy?'
- The impersonators of the gang were caricatures of their voice artists—Frank Welker, Mindy Cohn, Grey Delisle, and Casey Kasem.
- Ghostbusters (1984) is a fictionalization of real events in the world of The Real Ghostbusters.
Winston: Murray, Aykroyd and Ramis? Isn't that a law firm?
- In Family Guy Presents: Laugh It Up, Fuzzball, Darth Vader (Stewie Griffin) and the Emperor (Mr. Pewterschmidt) try to goad Luke Skywalker (Chris Griffin) into joining the Dark Side of the Force by mocking Seth Green, who is Chris Griffin's real-life voice actor. A double example, because Luke Skywalker shouldn't be aware of the existence of Chris Griffin or Seth Green!
- Not to mention Mr. Pewterschmidt "playing" the roles of Emperor Palpatine and Uncle Owen, making a fictional character paradox. It's just a shame there weren't any lampshades hung.
- Of course, at the end of the first two specials Peter argues that no one watches Robot Chicken (created by/starring Seth Green), which Chris defends. The second time, Peter even brings up the bomb movie Without a Paddle (starring Seth Green). At the end of third one, Chris, Meg (Mila Kunis), and Lois (Alex Borstein) all agree that Seth MacFarlane is a douchebag, which Peter, Brian, and Stewie (all three voiced by MacFarlane) take issue with.
- In another episode Brian starts talking about Black Swan, but Stewie cuts him off before he can mention Mila Kunis by name.
The following, however, are not examples:
- Also in the Star Wars specials (of Family Guy), Lois portrays Princess Leia. Meanwhile, Mon Mothma is played by Peter's boss Angela, who is voiced by Carrie Fisher, who played Princess Leia in the actual Star Wars films.
- The famous season 4 Monorail episode (of The Simpsons) was written by Conan O'Brien. In season 5 Bart appears on Late Night with Conan O'Brien.
- The end of the episode "Bart the Murderer" features a sensationalistic made-for-TV movie retelling the episode's events. In it, Fat Tony is said to be played by Joe Mantegna, who provides the voice for the Fat Tony character in the show.
(Some of the examples are edited for context).
edited 21st Dec '17 8:49:47 PM by Lymantria
Join the Five-Man Band cleanup project!
Deleted post, nvm, sorry
edited 20th Dec '17 9:54:17 PM by jamespolk
No, the other one.
The examples should explain why it's a paradox, since that's the point of the trope. The Peanuts example is a fairly clear one, since it shows the characters seeing things named after themselves, which implies they're both famous fictional characters (as they are IRL) and real people of no significance in their own universe.
Check out my fanfiction!
Tyrannoraptoran Reptiliomorph
What about the other examples I listed? If they don't explain the paradox, they can just be edited to do so.
There are plenty of other examples on the trope page that fit my definition. If we go with it, the trope is salvageable and not speculative, and it's definition isn't too specific to be a trope.
It would be a trope, not trivia, since it's a direct reference in the work. We'd keep the spirit of the trope and keep our speculation about whether Star Wars exists in-universe in Jurassic Park or not to the WMG pages.
edited 21st Dec '17 8:46:49 PM by Lymantria
Join the Five-Man Band cleanup project!
Blapper of Water
The definitions in 4, 7, and 8 are not speculative. All the relevant information is there in the two works, assuming you can recognize the actor. And it is a direct metafictional reference, because someone had to decide to make the reference.
Look at all that shiny stuff ain't they pretty
Tyrannoraptoran Reptiliomorph
All you sure that all references of the type you describe are intentional? (Even if that's true, I still don't agree with you. Work X could have Actor X in it and reference Work Y, which Actor X was in, for that reason. Yet it wouldn't reference or clearly show the concept of a Celebrity Paradox itself - for examples that fit my definition, even if you have no idea that Actor X was in both works, you'd still know there was a paradox).
(Side note: If we go with my definition, the current image would still be an example, since it directly references the paradox itself).
Should we have a crowner for the definition?
edited 22nd Dec '17 3:54:43 PM by Lymantria
Join the Five-Man Band cleanup project!
Feel free to make a crowner.
Tyrannoraptoran Reptiliomorph
What should the options be?
Oh never mind, crowner made.
edited 25th Dec '17 8:06:29 AM by Lymantria
Join the Five-Man Band cleanup project!
Crown Description:
What would be the best way to fix the page?
There are multiple things wrong with this trope.
First, unlike all of the other actor-related tropes, this one is not marked as trivia despite sharing similar premises. And while I disagree with labeling everything actor-related in a work as trivia, it's inconsistent to have this one as a trope while the rest are trivia.
Second, were it to stay a trope, the definition would have to be changed. As it is, it's much too broad and inclusive to be a meaningful trope. Here's a paragraph from the trope page (emphasis mine):
To what extent this is done is a subject for discussions amongst fans. Do the actors themselves not exist? Do other works the actors have appeared in exist? If they do, who starred in them? It's probably best not to overthink these, but some impulsive connections are bound to occur. If taken far enough, such speculation can overlap with the Literary Agent Hypothesis. (In fact, the Literary Agent Hypothesis may be the best way out of the paradox: the Tenth Doctor doesn't actually look like David Tennant any more than Erin Brockovich really looks like Julia Roberts.)
This paragraph blows the trope wide open and essentially turns the trope into "something, somewhere, at sometime is within the work (or a related work) that is connected somehow to someone or something else in the work, causing a paradox." In other words, a specific form of Fridge Logic. At best, this makes the trope YMMV. At worst, the definition relegates it to Just for Fun.