Follow TV Tropes
I mean they are related to.the work aren't they
I mean, they're technically against the rules...
Anywho, let me ping the tropers involved in the ATT conversation:
~Red Robin ~tenatelop1 ~Alpha Geek 426 ~Gaston Rabit ~Constanton 11 ~Adept ~homogenized ~Harmonia ~Reyn Time 250 ~Armour Mitts
Edited by WarJay77 on Jul 29th 2019 at 2:48:32 PM
Honestly, it seems to me like 'meta' moments currently cover two entirely different things - totally non-textual stuff like the box office records in the discussion that spawned this, and things like commentary and the like that are actually from the people making the work, about the work. The latter seem perfectly fine. The former don't really seem to have any justification.
We have a ton of tropes about audience reactions to works, e.g. Broken Base. Something breaking a ton of records is, well, indicative of a very significant audience reaction. It fits well enough within the scope of this website, is what I'm saying. Whether it belongs on the Awesome page, or perhaps the Trivia one, is another discussion.
Edited by Harmonia on Jul 30th 2019 at 8:53:12 AM
Box office receipts and similar statistics are Trivia. Also, we don't want them on our articles because then every page turns into a stat block, which is not the purpose of TV Tropes. You can go to IMDB or Box Office Mojo if you want to know that sort of thing. We're about the tropes.
Adding an Awesome entry because a film broke such-and-such a record is just banal and has nothing to do with the purpose of those tropes. "But I really really want to" is not a valid argument.
Adding Awesome entries to catalog a second party's reaction (as in, "Roger Ebert says this is the best film evar.") is questionable. We want to know what you think, not some other person who can presumably speak for themselves (well, Ebert is deceased, but the point stands).
Edited by Fighteer on Jul 30th 2019 at 1:13:44 PM
Roger Ebert endorsing a movie would probably be a Big Name Fan. I haven't found a trope/trivia entry for "movie that made a stupendous amount of money" yet, though the inverse, Box Office Bomb, is one. Summer Blockbuster comes close, but it has a lot of connotations even beyond the season.
I'm also not saying there should be box office statistics for all the movies, but some do stand out. Batman (1989) was a massive hit in its time, which I only found out recently. It does shed light on understanding a work. For example, a work could be using tropes that are currently considered discredited, but if it made a big buck back in the day, that says that either it executed those tropes phenomenally, or times were just different back then.
The cultural impact of a work is fair game, so long as it doesn't turn into a dry listing of ticket sales and box office receipts. We're TV Tropes: we use breezy and creative language. That's all above-the-line stuff, in the article description. Unless there's a Trivia trope specifically for it, we leave it out of the examples.
Is it? I could've sworn that one discussion ended with the claim that that sort of information doesn't go in a work's description?
Check out Blue Thunder for an example, written by me, of how to do it well.
It's brief, it's written naturally into the text, it demonstrates the cultural impact of the work, and it's not a dry listing of facts.
Edited by Fighteer on Jul 30th 2019 at 6:15:38 AM
I'm content with just seeing box office record breaking in Wikipedia . So, so be it.
^ I should not have to go to Wikipedia to find out that a show was successful, should I? And success is not always proportional with cultural influence. Take Avatar, for one. Highest grossing movie for ten years, and nobody can recall a quote from it. That in and of itself is remarkable.
So put that and exactly that in the description.
I actually have some issues about the latter, especially when the things being listed is only tangentially related to the work. Such as the casts' chemistry with each other during interviews, interactions with fans and/or hosts, wacky Q&A sessions, etc. Even if the sessions are discussing about the work, the ones that are usually listed in the "Meta" sections are the actor's antics. There's a lot of potential drama importing there, which is not something we want in this site either.
Lol, the main description of the work didn't occur to me. That's the fitting place to write about box office records if it's notable. It's already the place for cultural impact anyway.
For other meta entries like Behind the Scenes, as I said before, fitting them in Trivia or a new Meta section seems good.
Just a late "thinking aloud" from the previous topic, about in-universe entries only. If we were to be very strict about writing stuff about the work only, some things can look ambiguous too if it's technically part of the work. Like Deleted Scenes, Trailers, Interviews, Word of God etc.
Edited by tenatelop1 on Jul 31st 2019 at 11:22:17 PM
Well, Trailers and Deleted Scenes I can get by since they're still cataloging character actions and events that occur in the fictional 'Verse of the work. But when you get to interviews, talk shows and award shows, you're pretty troping the actor's words and actions, which is troping real life. Same goes with behind the scenes drama (such as the cast's relationships with each other). As for Word of God, I'm not sure how you can even insert it in Aweseome/Funny/Heartwarming/Tear Jerker pages as a standalone entry. They're usually mentioned to add context to an existing scene in the work.
Edited by Adept on Aug 2nd 2019 at 1:57:09 AM
From what I've seen, deleted scenes can't be troped. Cut Songs and other What Could Have Been media aren't tropeable.
They can go in Trivia subpages only. Moments for them would be a nope.
Community Showcase More
How well does it match the trope?