Nobody can agree on what makes something a Surprisingly Realistic Outcome.

Getting rid of the examples is unlikely to be approved right now, since it was established in the TRS thread that a lot of misuse are just artifacts from when the trope was called Reality Ensues that haven't been cleaned up yet, and we have to prove that most people still have the wrong idea about what this trope is.

And anyway, there is a legitimate trope here, so getting rid of all examples would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

We should start by adding definitions for Surprising (examples must set up a common yet unrealistic convention for the genre, medium, or work), Realistic (examples must not involve magic, sci-fi technology, or emotions), and Outcome (the set-up and outcome must both actually happen) to the trope definition, removing all examples that don't meet them, and then, if people continue to misuse the trope, we can do things like renaming it or getting rid of the examples section.

Speaking of which, since this would involve making large changes to the trope's definition, do I need to make another TRS thread, or can this be done from Trope Talk? GastonRabbit said it shouldn't require TRS, but I'm not sure about that since it would be a large move that will get rid of many examples.

I don't think we need another TRS. They said that we had to figure out the definition (which we did) to clearly know what is missuse and what isn't. Even if it remove a lot of exemple, those will mostly be missuse from the "Reality Ensues" era, so it seems fine.

We redefine the trope, move back to the clean-up thread and remove the missuses. Then, if we still have missuve, we go back to the TRS.

At least, that's how I understand it.

I've made a sandbox for a revised definition. Any thoughts?

It looks like a pretty solid rewrite to me, at least in terms of addressing a lot of the common problems that hampered cleanup.

Hello, I'm back again after my obsession with this trope's cleanup got me suspended over a month ago. I must apologize for my extremely impromptu behavior in the SRO cleanup and for my overzealous editing style in general, which I am working to change. After a while with no reply, the mods told me to helpfully contribute to some cleanups as a commenter and get some real experience towards properly cleaning topics as a condition to getting my suspension released, so here I am.

I read your sandbox, and while it summarizes the issues we've encountered pretty well, I feel the tone of the writing is significantly subpar. A few sentences of it sound overly short and too much like Beige Prose, like the middle part of the second paragraph. The sections describing why some common misuses of SRO feel like the writer is effectively shouting definitions, so I would advise moving the common misuses to a "What Not to Do" list. Some parts are also straight-up copied from the current page when they could also use a rewrite to make them more concise.

The video example is just Buzz Lightyear trying to fly and falling.

The Toy Story video example seems valid to me. There's a clear set-up for an unrealistic outcome (Buzz proving he's not just a toy and flying), which makes the realistic outcome (Buzz falls down because he is just a toy) surprising, and the audience is left feeling foolish for believing in Buzz.

It’s been awhile since I’ve watched Toy Story, so I might be wrong on this, but I remember it being set up that he *won’t* be able to fly. There’s the whole conflict between him and Woody about how Buzz is just a toy, which is clearly correct to the audience. I don’t remember it being set up by the movie that Buzz might actually be able to fly.

Someone should look it up to confirm, but I remember the soundtrack building up for an inspiring dramatic moment as he steps over the edge, followed by non-comedically Letting the Air out of the Band.

Yeah, it's a pretty clear Hope Spot, especially if you're a child and used to the power of belief in movies like these. The lyrics to the song when he makes the jump really rub it in, but not to the extent of being parodical:

So yeah, I'd count it as SRO. Real world logic dictates he wouldn't fly, but movie logic is different. And this is a movie where toys can talk.

Edited by mightymewtron on Feb 26th 2022 at 5:04:08 AM

Isn't this "Fantastic problems with fantastic consequences", since these are essentially living magic toys whose magic is arbitrary in how it works? 'Realistically' none of them should be able to move in the first place under their own power, so how is a toy with wings flying any less realistic than him walking?

Isn't that kind of the point? You'd expect that if being a Living Toy made his legs work, it could also make his jetpack work. But it does not, because it is made of plastic, thence realistic when the audience is expecting and ready to accept fantastical.

The issue is that when you have a fantasy element, the audience doesn't know what's the realistic thing to happen in that scenario. It's dependent on in-universe rules, not real-world logic and physics.

...okay, that's silly. Fiction is not subject to the principle of explosion (not that one, the other one) - people are perfectly capable of reasoning about the relative plausibility of different things that aren't real. That's why tropes like Alien Space Bats exist. (Arguably, that's how fiction can be divided into genres at all.)

The issue with Toy Story is that while this is a bit of reality hitting Buzz in the face, the narrative has been clear that his belief in his ability to fly is delusional with the "falling with style" scene. But of course the climax of the movie shows an alternative way he CAN fly. The trope should be about trying to make it seem remotely plausible that it could work via "movie logic" and then undermine it when things finally reach a breaking point.

I think "the audience isn't sure whether it'll be a fantastical or mundane approach" is as acceptable for the trope as "the audience expects a fantastical approach." The fact a fantastical outcome would be expected at all is what's important.

Honestly I think maybe we're overanalyzing "realism" here. The whole "realistic outcomes are expected anyway" rule was usually for things like dramas that never really set up fantasy anyway. It is not expected for a work with fantasy elements (i.e. living toys) to always have realistic outcomes when it comes to those elements.

I agree with the feeling that it's not SRO. The build-up is more about Buzz being a delusion character who needs a reality check about who and what he really is so that he can learn who and what he's really meant to be. SRO is supposed to be using real life to subvert the narrative — but the narrative here has been repeatedly telling us that Buzz can't fly. Buzz failing to fly is not a subversion of the narrative, it's a reinforcement of it.

Which thread are we using to discuss this issue nowadays? The TRS report is locked while both this Trope Talk and the cleanup thread haven't had activity in almost a month, so I figured I would be the one to break the silence, despite my subpar experience in this cleanup. I'm still suspended from editing.

Steven Universe's page got recreated after we cut it, and I'm concerned that misuse is already creeping back into that work. Please advise.

I also agree with that Buzz example not being SRO.

Tangentially related: Master N mentioned in the TRS how the Sliding Scale of Idealism Versus Cynicism was originally the Sliding Scale of Idealism Vs Realism when discussing how realism ≠ dark and depressing. Given how the redirect Main.Sliding Scale Of Idealism Vs Realism only has one wick(which fits Silly Rabbit, Idealism Is for Kids! better anyway) and barely 21 inbounds, I think we should cut it and change the wick. It's an outdated term without enough inbounds to justify keeping.

Edited by Idiosyncratic on Mar 22nd 2022 at 7:28:32 AM

What if we thought of the trope as "surprisingly mundane outcome"?

I've been quiet on this one for a while but I'm honestly wondering if it would even be worth keeping most dramatic examples.

This trope is gush city for how "gritty and real" so many works are, cleanup is basically impossible due to the muddy definition, and trying to clean up the mass misuse is agonizingly slow for what's supposedly an objective trope.

I'm not sure what you mean. Please elaborate.

I 100% agree. 99% of the wicks burn my eyes at how much gushing they contain. Surprisingly Realistic Outcome exists in the highest tier of Overdosed Tropes with over 10,001 wicks, making it pretty much inevitable misuse will spread faster than we can clean it if we keep our current pace. Without purging just about all the misuse, tropers will read the misuse present, assume they represent what SRO means, and start adding more in massive quantities. Steven Universe already has its page back after we cut almost everything, showing just how memetic this gush magnet of a trope is.

What's everyone's opinion on my proposal to cut the sliding scale redirect?

Edited by Idiosyncratic on Mar 23rd 2022 at 8:32:07 AM

You needn't get tooooo hyperbolic with how hefty the misuse is, but you are right in saying that Surprisingly Realistic Outcome is not a healthy trope in terms of use.

The sliding scale redirect can go if you ask me, by the way.

My real issue is that this trope is basically stuck in a Catch-22 right now, it can't get TRS'd because a good portion of users think that the issue was an improper cleanup ^note The cleanup was undeniably not done as well as it could be, but that's hardly the only problem (even though people are still adding new misuses even post-rename), but it can't be cleaned up properly because nobody can really get a solid grasp on what this trope actually means. This thread alone has contained how many definitions of what people think this trope means? A lot of recurring questions keep coming back when we seem like we're close to a breakthrough too. Is this a comedy trope, a drama trope, or both? Can the consequences of unrealistic powers apply? Is it an audience reaction playing on genre norms or an in-universe example? These need to be hammered down properly, either here or in another TRS thread, before we can finally clean this properly.

Edited by Tonwen on Mar 23rd 2022 at 11:33:07 AM

My claim about 99% is from personal experience and Not Hyperbole. I would advise everyone to take this cleanup one topic at a time to avoid it overwhelming us. I propose we stop all discussion on the validity of any examples until we manage to lay down a concrete definition for SRO, as we would otherwise be speculating to no end. To that end, could we maybe request a lock for the cleanup thread until we finalize the definition?

While I still need several more votes before someone can cut the redirect Sliding Scale Of Idealism Vs Realism, someone should immediately change the wick to it at Recap.Outlander S 4 E 11 If Not For Hope to Silly Rabbit, Idealism Is for Kids! (I can't do anything directly. The mods decided to keep me suspended until I have enough cleanup experience in threads, meaning I can only discuss changes for now.)

Edited by Idiosyncratic on Mar 23rd 2022 at 10:00:23 AM

To be fair, the reason we brought up "improper cleanup" so many times was mostly because the new TRS was made so quickly after the first one that there hadn't been much time to grow misuse organically. The misuse still fit into the same patterns SRO did, so we had to assume that if we waited and did another check later, we might get a more accurate or at least trustworthy result.

...Well, that and the cleanup thread didn't have much reason for wanting to TRS it again anyway other than that we all sort of started to throw our hands up in the air and want the cleanup to end. There wasn't a ton of thought put into it and none of the solution ideas held up to scrutiny.

As for the sliding scale redirects, this simply isn't the thread to discuss them at.

Edited by WarJay77 on Mar 23rd 2022 at 1:35:46 PM

First, can you please change the wick? It's not that big of a request. Second, after doing that, please point me to what thread I should discuss cutting the sliding scale redirect at.

Edited by Idiosyncratic on Mar 23rd 2022 at 10:43:43 AM