Expies being deliberate without Word Of God

Considering that we have Fountain of Expies and a whole bunch of subtropes based on that (e.g. Rei Ayanami Expy, Char Clone, Alice Allusion), I think it's easier to keep the definition of Expy as-is (i.e. as a character that is an obvious Shout-Out to another character), while cutting or merging Captain Ersatz into the other trope.

As a trope name, Captain Ersatz is not indicative of anything, anyway.

Edited by Adept on Sep 22nd 2020 at 1:10:43 AM

Say what you will, but in my opinion the core problem with these tropes is that people keep trying to shove something that is not-a-trope into a trope-shaped hole, and this is the problem underlying both the confusion and the misuse.

Edited by Fighteer on Sep 21st 2020 at 2:28:41 PM

Well, with Char Clone, that's the only subtrope where "Creator uses a similar character to original throughout franchise."

Edited by ccorb on Sep 21st 2020 at 2:23:34 PM

I don't think Captain Ersatz is quite what this thread is portraying it as.

Expy has certainly become a case of creators basing their characters of another creator's characters or reusing their own characters from other works in a new one. But that isn't really what the Captain Ersatz trope is. Captain Ersatz is where creators what to use a specific character from another work, but for legal reasons are not allowed to. They are then forced to create what is effectively an Expy because that's as close as they can legally get to the character they wanted to use.

That means Captain Ersatz is the reason for why an Expy might exist. It's essentially a justification trope. For example, Tom Paris in Star Trek Voyager was created because the writers wanted to use a one-off character from Star Trek TNG. They weren't allowed to use that character, so created a 'new' character that was basically the forbidden character in all but name. That therefore makes Tom Paris both tropes: he's an expy for Captain Ersatz reasons.

One possibility is that Captain Ersatz could become a sub-trope of Expy. That way, Tom Paris would be Captain Ersatz — an Expy that came into existence because legal obstructions prevented the writers from using the character they really wanted to use.

That means 'Word of X' would definitely be required for Captain Ersatz. However, I think 'Word of X' is necessary for Expy anyway because there isn't really any other way to confirm intention: ticking a lot of the same boxes actually isn't a good sign of an Expy because it might instead mean the two characters are using the same characterisation or story role trope in the same way rather than one being based on the other. Mentors fall foul of this a lot because Mentor tropes often get used in the same way across different works, even in different genres and storytelling media. I've seen works where characters ticked so many of the same boxes that there was consensus that it had to be an Expy... only for the creators to eventually confirm that was never the case. So, even if it looks so obvious as to be inarguable, it can still catch people out.

Edited by Wyldchyld on Sep 21st 2020 at 9:14:30 AM

If that's the case, then how is Captain Ersatz different from Lawyer-Friendly Cameo or Suspiciously Similar Substitute?

Edited by RustBeard on Sep 21st 2020 at 1:25:35 AM

that's not enough distinction to me, imo. Not even enough to be a subtrope as you explained.

Situation.

• Expy: Creating a character that is basically a character from another work, but then giving the creation its own story, character path and journey so that it becomes a completely different character in the end to the one its originally come from.
• Captain Ersatz is about trying to get permission to use a specific character from a different work, failing, and so deliberately creating a copy of that character to play the role the other character would play, so it essentially always remains the character from the other work (it's never allowed the separation from the original character than an Expy is allowed).
• Lawyer-Friendly Cameo: Using a character from another work for parody purposes. Unlike Captain Ersatz which has to create a 'new' character to circumvent the legal obstruction in a long-term way, the parody clause is used to temporarily circumvent the legal obstruction for brief uses.
• Suspiciously Similar Substitute is about a show that loses one of its characters, so they create an expy of that lost character to keep the show going.

Interestingly, the laconic for LFC states that Captain Ersatz is a parody trope. Parody is mentioned in the Captain Ersatz description, but doesn't focus on that until several paragraphs in. Prior to that, it simply implies a range of uses for Captain Ersatz, of which parody is just one.

LFC is therefore raising the possibility (and appears to be relying on the idea) that Captain Ersatz is an Expy Parody trope, while Captain Ersatz doesn't... until it does.

Edited by Wyldchyld on Sep 21st 2020 at 3:10:34 PM

@ Suspiciously Similar Substitute: you shouldn't use the term "expy" to refer to a copy of a character from the same work.

And some of those could be merged for being not distinctive enough.

Edited by 4tell0life4 on Sep 21st 2020 at 7:04:18 AM

Given the Tom Paris example you gave involved a character from the same franchise, wouldn't it be Suspiciously Similar Substitute?

Since there does seem to be some consensus that a creator reusing their own characters is tropeworthy, do you guys mind if I go ahead and create a TLP draft for that? Or we could rework an existing trope to cover that?

Edited by RustBeard on Sep 21st 2020 at 7:22:16 AM

In that case, wouldn't Captain Ersatz be Trivia, if the sole reason for their existence is that the creators cannot get the copyright to use an actual character from a different franchise? We also have Writing Around Trademarks which conveys a similar idea, by the way,

Depends on whether Suspiciously Similar Substitute covers franchises. Given that there was a legal block on being able to take the character from one work to the other work, despite them being part of the same franchise, I don't think SSS would apply. SSS seems to be more about the same show trying to pretend to the audience that it's a different character, rather than there being two distinct works within a franchise involved.

Well, it does feel like trivia, doesn't it? But it's not the only one that feels like that.

Writing Around Trademarks: Someone comes up with an idea only to discover someone else has already had the same idea and used it. Now you're stuck with an idea you want to use but potential legal consequences if you use it. Now you have to do some fudging to avoid said legal consequences.

It's sort of the opposite of Captain Ersatz: with Captain Ersatz, you want to bring that other character into your own work but aren't allowed; with Writing Around Trademarks, you've accidentally created something that's too similar to another character, and you're trying to figure out how to hang on to your creation without stepping on the toes of the other work.

Edited by Wyldchyld on Sep 21st 2020 at 3:40:34 PM

Like a number of tropes, even if you can define the differences it becomes complicated in practice unless you can identify examples that are distinctly one or the other. I'm not entirely sure that's possible here, in broad spirit I would say an Expy is a character concept adopted for use in another work whereas Captain Ersatz is a character designed to reference or parody the original character concept. But most examples tend to be so blatant that it's hard not to see how the Expy is parodying the original, which brings it around to Captain Ersatz. Deadpool himself started as a reference to Deathstroke before becoming something wildly different.

Suspiciously Similar Substitute is much easier to define, as their job is to outright replace the original role that was left vacant due to different reasons.

I thought someone has said this, but I agree that Writing Around Trademarks sound like trivia. The examples talk a lot about real life situations that caused the change in the work.

I'm surprised it's not a part of Real Life Writes the Plot yet. I'm putting WAT in.

This brings me into a question: are the "things" under RLWTP considered tropes, or trivia? And shouldn't RLWTP itself be trivia?

All yes.