They Wasted a Perfectly Good Plot Cleanup

So we attempted a TRS on They Wasted a Perfectly Good Plot, but then had concerns that we were rushing to make major changes on a trope we never really gave a dedicated cleanup (as its sister item has one, but Plot seems to have its own issues).

The biggest problems to clean up are people who use the item for A) complaining and B) coming up with totally new plot ideas instead of pointing out plot points that are already present in the work, just not really fulfilled. So we should try to scope out the bad examples we recognize.

TBH, I've long been of the opinion that this (and its sister "trope" They Wasted a Perfectly Good Character) aren't tropes, period. They're fanfiction sandboxes. There has never been any definition I can identify that actually explains what "insufficiently developed plot point" is supposed to be in a way that prevents people from making up whatever they damn well please about anything they'd like to have seen more of. I have no idea how a cleanup is even supposed to be possible.

Edited by nrjxll on Apr 25th 2022 at 11:46:56 AM

(5519 wicks)

We can start the ones at the wick check, but I'm not sure what's the threshold for "good" examples would be and if sorting at the wick check is reliable. Are we looking for examples that mention a backlash to a plot element that has thematic or functional ties to another plot element but in the end never interact, or...?

The TRS thread is still open- feel free to bring this up there (or maybe in trope talk). It was decided that we wanted to at least try doing cleanup before jumping to a more extreme response.

Never mind, it's closed now.

If we need to hash out the definition, trope talk is the place now.

I'm going to ask the other mods not to cut the wick check so this thread can reference it.

Edit: Done.

Edited by GastonRabbit on Apr 26th 2022 at 7:02:00 AM

OK, so I guess we should figure out a few rules for what can and can't qualify. As was proposed in the cleanup thread:

1. It must focus on exposure and screentime alone: The core idea of this item is how there are some instances of What Happened to the Mouse? or Aborted Arc that seem inexplicable. That means it is entirely about how the same plot or character should have gotten more focus in terms of runtime. Anything outside of this scope is not what this item is about.
2. External factors do not count: If something didn't happen due to Executive Meddling, legal issues, lack of budget, an actor was unavailable, or a prop or set was damaged, it's not an example.
3. Execution does not matter: If your entry is about how the execution wasted its potential, then it is invalid. No exceptions. Like we said, these examples are based entirely on exposure, and your entry how you think something sucks is not something we need on this wiki.
4. We don't care about your fanfic ideas: The scope of your entry must be limited to the material present. While you may have a million ideas on how something might be expanded on, TV Tropes is not the place to collect these. It should just be stating that the story makes it obvious that it could be continued, yet the story never allowed it to happen.
5. This is not for complaining about changes in adaptations: While you might be upset by how They Changed It, Now It Sucks!, it doesn't mean that an element was underutilized. This one can be tricky, as there are always plot threads and character arcs erased from adaptations, but 99 times out of 100 it is more likely just a change for convenience's sake rather than something that was underused. Also, consider if you're in some alternate dimension where people did not know of the original work. Would the same criticism apply?

Additionally, I would say that if, in an alternate universe where your preferred plot point did go through, someone can reasonably write an example lamenting that they didn't get the version from our universe, then the example doesn't count (in either universe).

Edited by VampireBuddha on Apr 26th 2022 at 2:44:13 PM

That seems way overcomplicated. I don't want this to be another Reality Ensues thing where we nitpick every possible scenario and lose track of what the item was about.

It's simple, almost too simple: it's when fans are disappointed that a certain plot element was not expanded upon. Whether it's a meaningful plot thread that was Left Hanging or even just a one-episode thing that fans latched onto as a potential interesting plot point, but was never elaborated upon. As long as it's something that was in the work but not fulfilled.

(I question whether there's potential for the "disappointing execution" one a la Anti-Climax, but it's too risky for whining. However, if a specific plot element was ignored during said execution, then it seems like that specific plot element could count.)

Why would this discount it from being an example? Fans can still be bummed that the plot was set up and didn't happen even if there's a reason for it.

I don't get this one. If an adaptation cuts a plot point entirely, then it doesn't count simply because it's not in the adaptation. TWAPGP is only for stuff that's in the work on its own. No need to overcomplicate it.

Edited by mightymewtron on Apr 26th 2022 at 12:59:33 PM

...I mean, that doesn't sound like you're objecting to the current usage at all, though.

See, it's really weird because it's entirely subjective what even qualifies as "a plot that wasn't followed through". So on one hand, having specific criteria is a little too restrictive... but on the other hand, not having any criteria just makes it impossible to clean properly, since we need some metric.

Establishing some sort of criteria is important, as you're saying. Maybe not some gigantic rule writeup, but the last thing anyone wants is the mess that was and is Reality Ensues and Surprisingly Realistic Outcome(and that's at least allegedly an objective trope, this is an audience reaction, so the potential for messy interpretations is even higher).

Edited by Tonwen on Apr 26th 2022 at 2:22:09 PM

All I want is to cut shit that's just straight-up fanfic projection. I think we're overcomplicating without pointing to specific examples. So I'll show some.

On TheyWastedAPerfectlyGoodPlot.Total Drama, here's examples I added:

• In "Moon Madness," the blue harvest moon temporarily makes docile animals act aggressive and vice versa, but it's initially implied that it can affect humans as well, as Mike switches into Mal and Heather suddenly starts acting sweet and kind. However, this turns out to be a ruse on Heather's part, and no other human besides Mike/Mal is affected. Rewrites of the episode often change the mechanics of the blue harvest moon so that humans do get personality-swapped, since this could lead to a lot of character-based comedy.

This is a common issue I've seen with the episode, hence why I added the bit about rewrites. It is a plot point that is in the episode, but it is arbitrarily only limited to one or two characters and some animals, and most fans I've known found the personality-swap angle much more interesting than the animal-swap angle the show focused on more. It kind of fits "suggests one plot but does something else" with Heather, but I think it can still count.

• Scarlett concludes her audition tape by entirely blaming Total Drama for "the troubled behavior of today's youth." She never brings this theory up during the actual competition, and it doesn't even really come up when she threatens Chris to give her the money.

This is a brief but canon element of her character from her intro video that is never elaborated upon in the series. I think it is a valid point to want to see elaborated upon.

On the contrary, here are some examples I cut:

• Having Pahkitew Island coming after All Stars rather than before. It would've given greater opportunity for cross-generation interactions, either in the original "heroes vs. villains" format or a "veterans (first generation) vs. rookies (second and third generations)" format.

It has nothing to do with the actual content of the show and requires redoing the entire season. It's too meta.

• Some fans have suggested giving an Anti-Hero/Villain/Neutral Team. Since not only would it be able to get more people into this season's cast, but it also would allow characters that don't fit the hero (See: Designated Hero) or villain (See: Designated Villain) category. Top contenders are: Sierra (is a Stalker with a Crush but can be really nice), Courtney (due to her Heel–Face Revolving Door nature), and Gwen (even ignoring the whole Gwuncan debacle, Gwen spent most of Island being quite rude to people).

Likewise, the season never hinted at a "neutral" team, it is purely a fanon idea.

Now here's one that I did not cut, but I understand why it was cut:

• Lightning and Cameron's short-lived friendship, which is forged in "Up, Up, and Away in my Pitiful Balloon" and takes a complete 180 at the end of "Eat, Puke, and Be Wary" when Cameron "steals Lightning's immunity" and Lightning becomes furious. If they had remained friends a little longer or forged their friendship a little earlier, they could have made a nice Bully and Wimp Pairing, and the fact that Lightning is physically strong but very stupid and Cameron is highly intelligent but physically weak could have made them a good team (as their respective deficiencies would hypothetically balance each other out).

Now this is the kind of example I was on the fence about — hinting at one thing but doing something else with the arc. However, looking at the example and its cut reason, I understand why this shouldn't count. Too wish fulfillment-y.

Edited by mightymewtron on Apr 26th 2022 at 4:06:56 AM

If this one can survive at all, I think we need to do what is already done with many YMMV items (even though it's rarely spelled out): say that many fans felt something was wasted instead of stating it as an objective fact. So if we could cite discussions among fans that they felt more could have been done, or that there is a lot of fanfiction rewrites that emphasise it, then we can make this more than just one editor's musings.

That won't fix the problem that "Wasted" is being misused as poorly used as opposed to unused. Poorly used is below the minimum objectivity even YMMV needs (like Unintentionally Unsympathetic requiring they be intended as sympathetic) to be the useful analysis of a work that's why we have YMMV. Any objective reasons it's poorly done should be covered by tropes and other YMMV.

They Wasted a Perfectly Good Character works (thought if acceptably is pending wick check) because it has objectivity; a character that's in the work and seen as interacting but with insufficient role/screentime. TWAPGP is plots that hypothetically could be in the story as opposed to in it, which seems too removed from objectivity as there's technically nothing about it to analysis to say why it's seen as unused opportunity.

Jossed is a YMMV we kept as a widely recognized concept but no longer allows any examples as too common/broad/many conflicting audience definition, and other specific tropes/YMMV/Trivia was able to cover examples with sufficient objectivity. Any reason not to do that for TWAPGP? (I'd say do that if we cannot come up with a more objective usage/definition.)

Edited by Ferot_Dreadnaught on Apr 27th 2022 at 12:14:54 PM

Er, well, this thread was decided by TRS because we realized we might've been jumping the gun. We can't "decide anything" without going back to TRS.

No? The "hypothetical plot" stuff is misuse. TWAPGP is for plots or plot elements that do show up, but don't have a lot of screentime to be properly resolved arcs. And TWAPGC is misused similarly anyway, hence why it has its own cleanup thread.

It'd probably help if we tried looking at specific examples, like I brought up. That's why we opened the cleanup thread...

Edited by mightymewtron on Apr 27th 2022 at 5:33:14 AM

So, may as well ask about my "possible example" I alluded to on the TRS thread.

What I said about most of my fandom discussions remains true, however, I did realize that there's one or two things that may qualify as TWAPGP (or TWAPGC, because it's hard to figure out where the line is drawn, and also I think this thread would actually be better off doing both tropes... but eh).

In the last season of House of Anubis, there was a lot of buildup surrounding several characters turning into "Sinners", The Soulless version of themselves hellbent on chaos and bringing the apocalypse. Three of these sinners were members of the True Companions, and were used throughout the ending episodes as recurring villains to cause drama. And then the actual finale happened, and instead of actually being involved in the climax, the sinners just spent the entire time destroying the school, and had no impact on the two remaining non-sinners saving the world or not. While the third season in general is often seen as suffering from major Seasonal Rot, this point in particular is often brought up as one of the reasons the climax was such a letdown- the villains that had been built up for several episodes were irrelevant when it mattered.

Again, IDK if this is better for Plot or Character, but regardless, would an example about how fans feel that plot thread was underused qualify?

Hmmm. A bit hard to tell. It sounds like the Sinners were plot-relevant, but certain angles, like them being former friends of the main cast, were not explored. I would say it would only count if these angles were brought up at some point (like a character expressing shock about their friend turning out this way) but not addressed or resolved in the actual climax.

Yeah, those angles were the main driving drama of the sinners... right up until the climax, when they no longer mattered to the plot. They also lost their memories of everything they did as sinners, which fans feel is another very wasted plot potential, but that might get into "should've been done this way" territory.

It was several episodes of betrayal, paranoia, confusion and emotional angst... and then no real pay off.

Like that sort of feeling definitely feels like something worth noting, like a YMMV variation of Anti-Climax, but like... IDK if it's here.

That's the issue in a nutshell, and is one of the reasons these tropes have always confused me. I know the basic definition, but in practice it feels a lot more ambiguous.

Could the "here's a cool fanfic idea I had!" misuse be moved to Fanfic Fuel or some other trope?

Fanfic Fuel is for things in the show that provide fic ideas, not for fun fic ideas fans have. That only goes on a forum thread somewhere, as discussed some point previously.

I was always under the impression that this was for plots that were set up to be important, but were not properly resolved.

At the very least, we could probably eliminate the potholes from works that don't have plots, like this example in Game Theory (Trimmed for length, but it refers to the reviews, not the games.)

• At the end of the day, the whole video is another of his "X video game hero is actually a villain" set of videos, which he would try to continue in the never realized Part 2, tying it into Void Termina and the Dark Matter species, only to be torn apart by the whole Kirby fanbase. Because of that we had ourselves a moment of They Wasted a Perfectly Good Plot, since his next video on Kirby (still failing in its logic and evidence) acknowledged the criticisms, only to go back into the same stuff that he did in the first place after this video.

I'm not sure about entries like this, where real life events are presented as if they were plot points in The Onion Book of Known Knowledge, a satirical encyclopedia:

• They Wasted a Perfectly Good Plotinvoked: During the Cuban Missile Crisis, the United States and the Soviet Union completely blew a golden opportunity to have one hell of a war.

Yeah, plotless review shows shouldn't count, it's just "here's what I would do" misuse.

The Onion one sounds like an attempted in-universe example, but it doesn't really track unless the book describes world history as a narrative.