TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Needs Help: Celebrity Paradox

Go To

Deadlock Clock: Jan 30th 2021 at 11:59:00 PM
Lymantria Tyrannoraptoran Reptiliomorph from Toronto Since: Apr, 2015 Relationship Status: Historians will say we were good friends.
crazysamaritan NaNo 4328 / 50,000 from Lupin III Since: Apr, 2010
NaNo 4328 / 50,000
#52: Feb 3rd 2018 at 8:57:22 PM

Sandbox runs way too long.

When Work X references Work Y, and the same actor was in both.

Actors usually have several roles, in a number of different works. When a later work gives a Shout-Out to an actor's earlier work, that is a Celebrity Paradox. The "paradox" is that the actor-as-character exists separately from the actor-as-actor, but then the reference conflates the two people, so do they exist separately or not? If not, what does that mean for the other works the actor was in?

For the most part, works include this for a bit of meta-humour, like in Casting Gag and Actor Allusion. It's important to note that the actor needs to be playing a different character role in each work. This disqualifies Sequels and the like even if they reference each other. It also disqualifies works set in the same universe where one actor plays the same role. There's nothing strange about such an example; it makes sense for an actor to reprise their roles.

In modern updates of a work, the original may be unheard of. Writers get a li'l kick out of toying around with the concept, such as having the character meet the actor/actress playing them or giving a Shout-Out to the original source. Cameos of famous actors or artists may either be in the form of Recursive Canon or Richard Nixon, the Used Car Salesman.

Contrast Your Costume Needs Work and compare Recursive Canon, see also Different World, Different Movies.

edited 3rd Feb '18 8:57:38 PM by crazysamaritan

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.
Lymantria Tyrannoraptoran Reptiliomorph from Toronto Since: Apr, 2015 Relationship Status: Historians will say we were good friends.
lakingsif Since: Dec, 2012 Relationship Status: Wanna dance with somebody
#54: Feb 4th 2018 at 7:34:12 PM

^^ I like that, with one edit: instead of saying "conflates" in the second paragraph (suggesting someone mistook the character for their actor, which is what I thought it was discussing for a moment — though those are a kind of example) you could say "relies on the existence of [both]", or something that fits well, making the sentence something like:

The "paradox" is that the actor-as-character exists separately from the actor-as-actor, but then the reference makes the two people both canon, so do they exist separately or not?

Also, I'm going to start purging some of the non-examples since there's over 1000 wicks.

edited 4th Feb '18 7:37:14 PM by lakingsif

OH MY GOD; MY PARENTS ARE GARDENIIIIINNNNGGGGG!!!!!
lakingsif Since: Dec, 2012 Relationship Status: Wanna dance with somebody
#55: Feb 4th 2018 at 7:51:59 PM

Dubious examples:

A weird example of this trope comes from the Canadian broadcasts of "Racing the Storm" and "Grand Canyon Disaster" where the Canadian narrator for Air Crash Investigation plays the first officer of American Airlines Flight 1420 and the Captain of TWA Flight 2. It can be a little weird having the narrator narrate the episode and immediately afterwards the first officer/captain played by the narrator talking and almost sounding exactly alike.

I guess this alludes to the actor existing both as himself and as the character, though it's as a narrator and a guy in a reconstruction so it's a little less solid.

Winter mentions that she is a huge fan of Zodiac, a film in which John Carroll Lynch, who appears in this season as Twisty, plays a major role. Justified, since Twisty only appears as a fictional character in a comic.

Can examples be justified, since this write-up basically says "this actor exists within the universe, proven by the existence of a real work of his and another work of his made up just for the show", which isn't an example.


Other notes:

  • After reading the following example, could we add something about prominent pop-cultural icons (e.g. Superman) being unlikely as Celebrity Paradoxes given the many iterations and real-world fictionality.
In an early issue, Buddy listens to R.E.M.'s "Superman" on his Walkman about 10 seconds after having a conversation with Superman himself, making you wonder what the song's lyrics look like in a world where Superman is an A-list celebrity rather than a fictional character.


edited 4th Feb '18 10:38:46 PM by lakingsif

OH MY GOD; MY PARENTS ARE GARDENIIIIINNNNGGGGG!!!!!
WaterBlap Blapper of Water Since: May, 2014 Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
Blapper of Water
#56: Feb 5th 2018 at 4:47:32 AM

Air Crash Investigation I would say [tdown] to. "Weird" example makes me think it's a shoehorn off the bat and I'm not sure if there's this experience when it's a voice acted role such as a narrator and a physically acted role as described.

The second one looks like misuse unless the comic uses the actor's likeness. Just being the same character doesn't seem to fit the heart of the trope.

I'm going to suggest further edits later today when I'm on a laptop.

Look at all that shiny stuff ain't they pretty
AnotherDuck No, the other one. from Stockholm Since: Jul, 2012 Relationship Status: Mu
No, the other one.
#57: Feb 5th 2018 at 8:32:08 AM

The Air Crash Investigation example sounds like someone playing two roles in the same work. That's not what it's about.

Not sure I understand the American Horror Story Cult example. To begin with, a comic doesn't have actors. But on the other hand, it doesn't matter if an actor appears in the show proper or in a Show Within a Show, since that still means the actor shows up in the work as an actor. In other words, either it's just not an example, or it's not justified. Besides, an actual justification would mean it's not an example in the first place, since it's not a paradox if it's justified.

When it comes to a character like Superman who has several iterations, they'd have to specify which iteration it's about, since the character himself doesn't have a specific actor attached.

Check out my fanfiction!
WaterBlap Blapper of Water Since: May, 2014 Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
Blapper of Water
#58: Feb 5th 2018 at 8:47:16 AM

I'm not particularly sure I see how Recursive Canon and Richard Nixon, the Used Car Salesman relate to Celebrity Paradox exactly. And the description suggests that there's a CP in play when there's a specific kind of cameo, as though there's a subtrope relation that's unspecified. I think we should hash those relationships out and make it more explicit, since an issue with this trope is that it's confusing editors.

I also see no relation between this and Your Costume Needs Work as that's wholy in-universe and doesn't have anything to do with the actor-as-actor...?

I added a paragraph about same-actor-different-roles-same-work, as lakingsif brought up.

Another suggestion (based on crazysamaritan's suggestion):

When Work X references Work Y, and the same actor was in both.

When two separate works exist and an actor is in both of them and the later work makes a Shout-Out to the older one, that is a Celebrity Paradox. The paradox is that the actor-as-character exists separately from the actor-as-actor but the reference conflates the two people. This leads to questions like whether the character and actor exist separately and what it means for the other works the actor was in.

It's important to note that the actor needs to be playing a different character role in each work. This disqualifies Sequels and the like even if they reference each other. It also disqualifies works set in the same universe where an actor plays the same role. There's nothing strange about such an example; it makes sense for an actor to reprise their roles.

Something else important to note is that the characters need to be in different works, even if the actor plays multiple roles in the same franchise or shared universe. This disqualifies cases where one actor plays significantly different roles in the same work and other forms of Acting for Two.

There are various methods that creators could use to create a Celebrity Paradox, but the nature of the Shout-Out is the same. For example, in modern updates of a work, the character — played by a new actor — might meet their orignal actor, whereas in other cases an advertisement in the background might be slightly different from a Real Life advertisment for the referenced work. This is because, at the heart of it, this trope is about when the actor — as an actor — exists separately from that same actor — as different characters they have played.

Subtrope of Shout-Out. Compare Casting Gag, Actor Allusion, Recursive Canon.

I included other tropes in the compare/contrast section just to keep them together. I still think they need to be actually explained.

Also, I'm not sure if we need to specify anything special about iconic characters like Superman who don't have specific actors attached. If there isn't the "same actor" involved, then it isn't this sort of shout-out. Like, Henry Cavill is in a work and superman is referenced, that's just a Shout-Out or Actor Allusion (etc.), but if Cavill is in a work and something Superman does in Man of Steel, Batman V Superman (2016), Justice League (2017), or Shazam (2019) is referenced (or the movies themselves are referenced), then it'd be a Celebrity Paradox. If there are a bunch of examples with that problem, then I think we should add it but otherwise it may be a bit too cautious...


At the risk of this getting way too long, I do think it's worth asking if this can include characters-as-actors-as-characters. It's a bit confusing, but in the current description, there's a paragraph about a character who is an actor. Personally I think such a situation is trying to be confusing and Too Rare To Trope.

edited 5th Feb '18 8:59:09 AM by WaterBlap

Look at all that shiny stuff ain't they pretty
lakingsif Since: Dec, 2012 Relationship Status: Wanna dance with somebody
#59: Feb 5th 2018 at 9:24:13 AM

[up] agree with the last paragraph on Too Rare To Trope, and certainly too confusing to write a cohesive entry.

I’ve seen, recently, maybe 3 Superman non-entries. More often, though, there’s been a lot that rely on Real-Life Relative (eg Creator X was in show X, which referenced show Y, which was directed/starring/whatever Creator X’s brother’s ex-wife’s uncle). The worst was a repeated Arrowverse entry where Thea’s former stepdad was mentioned about 5 times.

OH MY GOD; MY PARENTS ARE GARDENIIIIINNNNGGGGG!!!!!
crazysamaritan NaNo 4328 / 50,000 from Lupin III Since: Apr, 2010
NaNo 4328 / 50,000
#60: Feb 5th 2018 at 1:59:06 PM

instead of saying "conflates" in the second paragraph (suggesting someone mistook the character for their actor, which is what I thought it was discussing for a moment — though those are a kind of example) you could say "relies on the existence of [both]", or something that fits well
I'd like a better word, but "Canon" is definitely worse than "conflates". We need an antonym to "separate".

Something else important to note is that the characters need to be in different works, even if the actor plays multiple roles in the same franchise or shared universe. This disqualifies cases where one actor plays significantly different roles in the same work and other forms of Acting for Two.
I had seen that in your sandbox, and decided that it doesn't disqualify the example. Here's my reasoning:
  • Most of the time, an Acting for Two situation will lack the Shout-Out requirement.
    • The Wizard of Oz has the same actor playing the man with the carriage, the gate guardian, and the Wizard. Nobody comments on that; there's no Shout-Out.
    • Quantum Leap has a finale episode. The actor who played the Commanding Officer of Sam's first Leap is cast as the bartender named "Al" (the same name as Sam's companion), and Sam encounters several other familiar faces and situations throughout the episode. I think this, and a couple other actors from that episode, should qualify as an example.

I'm not particularly sure I see how Recursive Canon and Richard Nixon the Used Car Salesman relate to Celebrity Paradox exactly.
I'm not clear either. I included it based on the fact you already had it on your sandbox. I wasn't certain enough to remove that part of your description.

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.
WaterBlap Blapper of Water Since: May, 2014 Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
Blapper of Water
#61: Feb 5th 2018 at 4:03:53 PM

It's in the current description. Recall that not everything in the sandbox is the intended revision. It's the stuff between the horizontal rules.

Look at all that shiny stuff ain't they pretty
lakingsif Since: Dec, 2012 Relationship Status: Wanna dance with somebody
#62: Feb 14th 2018 at 6:09:45 PM

Should we mention Remake Cameo somewhere? (Actor X plays a big part in Work Y, when Work Y is remade they play a different role, some cases make explicit references to the original that suggests they're aware of it existing, which would suggest the actor does, too)

OH MY GOD; MY PARENTS ARE GARDENIIIIINNNNGGGGG!!!!!
Lymantria Tyrannoraptoran Reptiliomorph from Toronto Since: Apr, 2015 Relationship Status: Historians will say we were good friends.
crazysamaritan NaNo 4328 / 50,000 from Lupin III Since: Apr, 2010
NaNo 4328 / 50,000
#64: Jan 10th 2019 at 9:51:54 AM

We could Pot Hole it under "might meet their original actor".

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.
lakingsif Since: Dec, 2012 Relationship Status: Wanna dance with somebody
#65: Jan 10th 2019 at 9:07:29 PM

[up][tup]

OH MY GOD; MY PARENTS ARE GARDENIIIIINNNNGGGGG!!!!!
Lymantria Tyrannoraptoran Reptiliomorph from Toronto Since: Apr, 2015 Relationship Status: Historians will say we were good friends.
Tyrannoraptoran Reptiliomorph
#66: Jan 12th 2019 at 2:07:33 PM

Is there anything else to do here?

Join the Five-Man Band cleanup project!
crazysamaritan NaNo 4328 / 50,000 from Lupin III Since: Apr, 2010
NaNo 4328 / 50,000
#67: Jan 12th 2019 at 2:12:37 PM

The description hasn't been changed and the wicks haven't been cleaned.

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.
costanton11 Since: Mar, 2016
#68: Jun 21st 2019 at 12:54:17 PM

The crowner seems to be glitched.

RamenChef Since: Dec, 2017 Relationship Status: Above such petty unnecessities
Brainulator9 Short-Term Projects herald from US Since: Aug, 2018 Relationship Status: I get a feeling so complicated...
Short-Term Projects herald
#70: Jun 21st 2019 at 4:59:34 PM

What do we have to do here, anyway?

Contains 20% less fat than the leading value brand!
bwburke94 I am mad scientist! It's so cool! from 1.048596% (Y2: Electric Boogaloo) Relationship Status: She does the things you do, but she is an IBM
I am mad scientist! It's so cool!
#71: Jun 21st 2019 at 10:19:01 PM

[up] Clean up the wicks.

2025: the year it all ends?
Berrenta Bejeweled (she/her) (Ten years in the joint) Relationship Status: I made a point to burn all of the photographs
Bejeweled (she/her)
#72: Jun 24th 2019 at 4:54:40 AM

Courtesy link in case someone wants to help out.

costanton11 Since: Mar, 2016
#73: Jul 8th 2019 at 4:31:28 PM

What should be done with the sandbox?

Edited by costanton11 on Jul 8th 2019 at 6:31:35 AM

Crossover-Enthusiast from an abaondoned mall (Lucky 7) Relationship Status: Chocolate!
#74: Jan 21st 2020 at 8:31:48 PM

TRS bump. Crowner was a victim of the bibble bobble so I have no idea what's supposed to be done.

Jawbreakers on sale for 99¢
WarJay77 It's NaNo, Bay-beeee! (8,356/50,000) from My Writing Cave (Troper Knight) Relationship Status: Armed with the Power of Love
It's NaNo, Bay-beeee! (8,356/50,000)
#75: Jan 21st 2020 at 8:42:28 PM

I've restored the crowner.

Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper Wall

PageAction: CelebrityParadox
25th Dec '17 8:00:11 AM

Crown Description:

What would be the best way to fix the page?

Total posts: 93
Top