Needs Help: Celebrity Paradox

I think the definition in post #5 covers both of the options on the crowner. Or at least it's broader than my definition but narrower than the current definition.

edited 8th Jan '18 2:02:06 PM by Lymantria

Join the Five-Man Band cleanup project!

I assume a work that does mention a Celebrity Paradox would still qualify? I once saw a movie where an actress, in character, met her Real Life self.

edited 8th Jan '18 9:22:07 PM by jamespolk

A direct reference to the paradox is an example regardless of what we choose in the crowner. It's the same thing as a lampshade of a trope is always an example of the trope.

Check out my fanfiction!

I didn't think that was a direct reference to the "paradox".

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

For clarity's sake, I think it should be said that "Actor X appears in both" isn't sufficient information for it to be a Celebrity Paradox; Actor X needs to be in both films and be different characters in each. It almost goes without saying, but we have Rules Lawyers around the wiki.

Look at all that shiny stuff ain't they pretty

I had already guessed that.

Are the options on the crowner okay? Please don't call it yet.

edited 9th Jan '18 5:44:48 PM by Lymantria

Join the Five-Man Band cleanup project!

What about now? It seems there is a clear winner here.

It may or may not be too late, but I think the winning option is overly narrow.

Join the Five-Man Band cleanup project!

Basic trope definitions are usually narrow enough to succinctly describe the concept and general enough to extrapolate broader implications and meanings.

Look at all that shiny stuff ain't they pretty

I'll see what it ends up being like, then. It may not be as narrow as I think it is.

Tropes Are Flexible, after all, and Lampshade Hangings of any trope are still included in it.

edited 20th Jan '18 6:19:05 PM by Lymantria

Join the Five-Man Band cleanup project!

I'm cool with the current top-voted because that's what I kind of assumed this trope was in the first place.

When a work creates a bit of a paradox mindscrew by referencing another work one of the cast was directly enough call into question the idea of both the character and their actor existing as different people.

The page image also works because it's a valid lamp-shading by swapping Arnie for Stallone in a Terminator ad, another tough-guy action star from the same era.

Would example directly referencing the actor still work, like the running gag with Brendan Fraiser In Looney Tunes back in action playing a character that thinks Brendan Fraiser is a douchebag and claims to have been his stuntman?

There's even a scene where he punches a Douchebag version of himself that he also plays.

edited 20th Jan '18 12:23:04 PM by shoboni

The top-voted definition is what the definition has really always been, though the trope has been misused. It is evident everyone feels it should be enforced more. I'm going to use 5 examples from Grey's Anatomy (I've been working on the pages recently) to exemplify the difference, perhaps you'll see how it's for the best?

1. Callie has just started dating a woman, and her best friend approaches her, asking "do you speak The Vagina Monologues now?" Callie's actress was in the original production of The Vagina Monologues. This shout-out to TVM (Work Y) within GA (Work X) is a case of Celebrity Paradox because the same actress (Creator X) is in both, thus Work X acknowledges the existence of Creator X even though they are a meta-aspect of Work X. Moreover, it is being spoken directly to this actress.
2. Henry asks his wife why she wanted to go into medicine, sarcastically suggesting that the Lady of the Lake appeared before her with a holy scalpel to find her calling. This is reference to a scene in Spamalot, in which Callie's actress appeared — playing the Lady of the Lake in the OBC, winning the Tony. This shout-out to Spamalot (Work Y) within GA (Work X) is a case of Celebrity Paradox because the same actress (Creator X) is in both, thus Work X acknowledges... [see above]. Moreover, it is specifically a shout-out to the character played by Creator X, and especially in theater the character is often inseparable and often conflated with their original actor, particularly if they have won the Tony.
3. During the merger when there will be staff cuts, a list is presented to Owen of people who cannot be fired, and he reacts disgusted at his staff thinking he would be so heartless, especially when it is compared to the movie Schindler's List. Schindler's List was directed by Steven Spielberg, whose daughter is an actress in Grey's Anatomy. This shout-out to SL (Work Y) within GA (Work X) is not a case of Celebrity Paradox because Spielberg's daughter (Creator X) is not in Work Y, nor is she otherwise necessary to Work Y's existence. Therefore, as Work Y can be viewed in Work X without Creator X needing to exist within Work X, no paradox is created by Creator X being a meta-aspect of Work X.
4. One character mentions Sofia's favorite Disney princess being Princess Sofia, because they share a name. The actress who plays Sofia's mother in Grey's Anatomy also plays Princess Sofia's mother in the Disney show. This shout-out to PS (Work Y) within GA (Work X) is a case of Celebrity Paradox, see above. It is also a case of Actor Allusion for Work Y, because of the similarity in role.
5. One time, a character mentions Superman. Many of the main cast on Grey's Anatomy have played characters within the Superman world. Superman is such a pop-cultural institution that this reference is effectively meaningless. In addition, it is clearly to the character rather than any specific work, and none of the actors have portrayed Superman himself. One has played Supergirl, and one has played Supergirl's adopted sister. This is not an example of Celebrity Paradox because Superman easily exists in Work X without the need for any of the actors to, also.

---

OH MY GOD; MY PARENTS ARE GARDENIIIIINNNNGGGGG!!!!!

That works for examples of that type, it doesn't make overly long stretches: "Character X in Work X references Work Y, which theynwere in", not three-actor long chains or anything like that. That includes the Barack Obama example in the definition. As said in post 5, the trope will be limited to first grade occurrences.

edited 25th Jan '18 6:27:54 PM by Lymantria

Join the Five-Man Band cleanup project!

OK, you're being confusing. You claim that the voted-for definition may be too narrow. The definition is "Work X references Work Y, Actor X was in both". I assume that you think it might be too narrow because sometimes certain people are related to a work when not in it, so I give you clear-cut examples that separate 'Actor X was in X and Y' from 'Actor X was in X and can be associated with Y'. Now you conversely say that the examples being simple (i.e. narrow) is good, but there are some examples that have Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon chains and how they need to be cut (suggesting you think the definition would be broad enough to include them). Yes, they need to be cut, hence the definition is so narrow.

I think you're confusing the suggestion in [5] that Celebrity Paradox be 'Actor X is in Work X, Work X names Actor X' with the actual definition (see the crowner). Those obviously count as examples, but are not the only examples.

edited 25th Jan '18 8:51:41 PM by lakingsif

OH MY GOD; MY PARENTS ARE GARDENIIIIINNNNGGGGG!!!!!

I don't think it's too narrow anymore, so what I said is still true.

edited 2nd Feb '18 1:15:46 PM by Lymantria

Join the Five-Man Band cleanup project!

So now should it be called?

Should have been called some time ago. 21-0 is as decisive as it gets.

It was called, but there hasn't been work on modifying descriptions or excising examples. There's also a bit of discussion on the exact breadth of the crowner definitions.

OH MY GOD; MY PARENTS ARE GARDENIIIIINNNNGGGGG!!!!!

For a description improvement: Sandbox.Celebrity Paradox. I've edited the description some to get the ball rolling. My revisions are in between the horizontal rules, so the moderately unedited version starts at "So, in Terminator..." I realize that my suggestion needs revision still; it's a first draft anyway.

I've tried to organize it as:

1. What this is.
2. What this is not.
3. How this arises.
4. Helpful, actual examples (in description)

Look at all that shiny stuff ain't they pretty

This is more of an Image Pickin concern, but does the image still illustrate the trope?

Join the Five-Man Band cleanup project!

Yes. It's a shout-out to a film series that made that actor even more famous than he already was (in a totally different industry, mind you, but that's kind of beside the point). He's even known as the Governator because of how iconic his role as the first Terminator is.

It might not look quite like a reference to the terminator series but it uses the same pose and font◊ as some of the ads◊ (and it also has the guy's name at the top like in other ads).

edited 3rd Feb '18 8:45:11 AM by WaterBlap

Look at all that shiny stuff ain't they pretty

So we are including examples of that type? I get it, the trope isn't as narrow as I thought it was.

Join the Five-Man Band cleanup project!

The image is literally "work 1 references work 2 and Arnold was in both." The image is using one specific way to make that reference. It's not more general or narrow than what the trope is, just a particular method of referencing something.

Look at all that shiny stuff ain't they pretty