Opening.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
A bee, a beetle and a moth
Personally, I'd rather prefer just to expand the trope to cover the intentionally poorly-made real life works (or aspects of work) as well. But I'd be fine with the split and making Stylistic Suck cover the non-fictional examples.
As of the name for the original concept (if we go with the split)...well, maybe "Suck Within A Show"? Or "Fictional Poor Quality Show"? "In Universe Sucky Show"? "Fictional Sucky Show"? "Fictional Bad Show"?
Edited by I--Vanya--I on Jun 5th 2021 at 11:55:50 AM
Vi: Well, it's not like we're getting attacked by a giant wasp spider guardian! | Leif: Never combine those words ever again.
Personally, I support WarJay's solution.
They could be sister tropes.
"Listen up, Marina, because this is SUPER important. Whatever you do, don't eat th“ “DON'T EAT WHAT?! Your text box ran out of space!”
Sounds good on paper (he/him)
I'd be fine with a Trope Transplant (i.e., change Stylistic Suck to be about intentionally bad works or parts thereof, and split off Show Within a Show examples).
Patiently awaiting the release of Paper Luigi and the Marvelous Compass.
Now a lurker. Thanks for everything. | he/him
I also prefer an expansion of the trope but I am on board with a split if we decide to do that.
TRS Queue | Works That Require Cleanup of Complaining | Troper Wall
Peeks from Under Rocks
Why spin off the in-universe examples? What differentiates them from Invoked?
Expand the trope scope. No reason to split.
"I like girls, but now, it's about justice."
Veteran Editor IV
Agreed. It'd be easier to have the trope scope expanded (the fact that it's meant for in-universe fiction was news to me, guess I don't think about first sentences in descriptions enough).
Edited by Piterpicher on Jun 5th 2021 at 3:44:55 PM
Currently mostly inactive. An incremental game I tested: https://galaxy.click/play/176 (Gods of Incremental)
Very Spooky
I think we just just expand the definition to simply “aspect of a work is deliberately bad” too. There’s no point in splitting the two concepts when they can both easily be rolled into one trope.
back lol
A bee, a beetle and a moth
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
, , and Exactly. I support this stance. All of this can easily work as one trope, which is "something (a work, a soundtrack theme, a Show Within a Show, etc.) is deliberately poorly made, which is Played for Laughs".
Sounds good on paper (he/him)
Now that I've thought about it a bit more, I'd prefer expanding without doing a transplant, but I won't complain if we end up doing a transplant anyway.
Patiently awaiting the release of Paper Luigi and the Marvelous Compass.
I didn't even know this was only supposed to be for in-universe works. The out-of-universe examples could easily fit into a different section than the in-universe ones.
I agree that the trope can just be expanded to include both definitions, but I’d like to hear the argument for splitting it up.
Old Enough to Be Your Absurdly Youthful Mother
I don't think we even need to split IU/OU into different sections unless the trope is Invoked (i.e.: The characters watch a show and admit it's bad or make a deliberately terrible show), but I don't know if there's enough examples of that for its own section.
If any part of a work (either the entire work itself, a Show Within a Show, or whatever) is done in a deliberate, humorously crappy way, it should probably qualify for this.
Edited by WackyPancake on Jun 5th 2021 at 4:47:18 PM
"I like girls, but now, it's about justice."
Now a lurker. Thanks for everything. | he/him
Yeah, and there is plenty of media that fits the bill for Stylistic Suck (I might be wrong but I'm pretty sure 12 oz. Mouse is one.)
Edited by themayorofsimpleton on Jun 5th 2021 at 11:04:54 AM
TRS Queue | Works That Require Cleanup of Complaining | Troper Wall
Big Catch, Sparkle Edition
You guys make a good point. Expansion is fine with me.
Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness
How sweet it is
I'm good with expanding. Maybe a soft split for on-page examples?
she/her | TRS needs your help! | Contributor of Trope Report
A bee, a beetle and a moth
I wouldn't be against it.
I support expanding, as that’s what many have been using the trope for anyway.
Sounds good on paper (he/him)
Soft-splitting would be fine if we expand this.
Patiently awaiting the release of Paper Luigi and the Marvelous Compass.
Stylistic Suck is defined as in-universe works being intentionally bad. It's often used for real works that are intentionally bad, or even just parts of works.
With the Stylistic Suck Wick Check, I looked at 70 wicks and 80 examples in total. The actual check can be seen in the sandbox; the quick results are below:
Some things stand out. Correct usage is way more common than I initially expected, but the total amount of misuse makes up a greater percentage. It surprised me that more wicks talked about parts of works rather than works in their entirety, and it also surprised me how few ZCEs or questionable examples I ran into.
My preferred solution? A split. Make Stylistic Suck cover the real-work examples, both full works and parts of works, because the title seems to fit that version better. Then make a spin-off trope for the In-Universe version. No title ideas alas, but we can figure it out.
Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness