It's fundamentally a very gag-based and visual humor trope. In the case of Inside Out I don't really see a difference in terms of how it's used, it's nearly identical to jokes made in the likes of Airplane!. I think you might just be getting hung up on the Worldbuilding aspect of Inside Out, as it's not about things spontaneously being created but that the rules of the setting was made to utilize those type of jokes.
That said, there might be something to discuss where the logic of the setting is skewed towards that kind of surrealism akin to Metaphoric Metamorphosis.
Comics are just words and pictures. You can do anything with words and pictures.I just came across Visual Pun. Wouldn't the examples from Inside Out 2 fit better there?
Edited by eroock on Nov 21st 2024 at 1:16:39 PM
It's not an either/or situation, they can be both. A Visual Pun is a site gag that is appropriate for the moment but is still a metaphor. A Literal Metaphor is when the metaphor is in fact happening. A break-up that happens in front of a heart health poster is a Visual Pun, a break-up that has someone shot in the chest is a Literal Metaphor.
Comics are just words and pictures. You can do anything with words and pictures.Would you agree that the description of Literal Metaphor could use an update? The example you provided seems to fall outside the current definition on that page.
Some of those are the story taking advantage of being set in someone's mind, where thoughts become reality. Others are not puns but rather visual metaphors that have been used by film for decades. (North By Northwest ends with the main couple on a bed in a sleeper train, then the train is shown going into a tunnel.) Both should be tropeable, but I can't think of where they would fit.
I could see Literal Metaphor becoming a supertrope in the future to what it is now.
Stories don't tell us monsters exist; we knew that already. They show us that monsters can be trademarked and milked for years.
That North by Northwest example is neither Visual Pun nor Literal Metaphor. It's sexual innuendo in the form of a very vague visual resemblance (probably about as explicit as you were allowed to make it at the time), but... a train driving into a tunnel doesn't bear that much resemblance to vaginal intercourse. And it's not a pun either, unless something like "putting the train in the tunnel" is an actual slang term.
Edited by DoktorvonEurotrash on Nov 23rd 2024 at 5:53:30 AM
However, the "train going into a tunnel" metaphor is listed on the Stock Visual Metaphors page.
Yeah, It's more like in The Muppet Movie where Kermit is navigating for himself and Fozzie and says there's a fork in the road up ahead, and then there's an actual gigantic fork stabbed into the ground where the road splits.
Trust me, I'm an engineer!![]()
A visual metaphor remains a metaphor, whereas a literal metaphor loses its metaphorical essence. The train/tunnel thing is a Visual Innuendo for something else.
I'd like to keep this discussion focused. The question was whether the current description of Literal Metaphor accurately reflects how the trope is actually used. I would argue, no.
I'm honestly not surprised. I wasn't even aware that it requires the "a character uses a normally metaphorical phrase, except it's actually happening" part.
The core concept of a literalised metaphor seems like a viable trope in itself, regardless of a character pointing it out. I'd be fine with broadening it to fit usage.
Or are we looking at a Missing Supertrope?
I agree that it is used much more broadly than what it's described as. I think a proper fix would make this into a supertrope for what it currently is, we could call that Warning Mistaken For Metaphor, and several other metaphorical tropes. But I'd like to get a handle on what those other tropes would be.
Stories don't tell us monsters exist; we knew that already. They show us that monsters can be trademarked and milked for years.

I feel like the description of Literal Metaphor is more specific than the trope name suggests so I would like to get some clarification.
As written, the trope requires a character to refer to the literal meaning of a metaphor while others assume it's meant metaphorically.
Now, I do see the trope used for situations depicting a literal manifestation of a metaphor where there is no reveal or surprise about the literal vs. figurative use of an expression. Here's a list of examples from Inside Out 2:
Should the trope description be expanded to include instances where literal metaphors are physically manifested? Although I haven't verified this with a wich check, I assume that this is how the trope is commonly used.
Edited by eroock on Nov 21st 2024 at 12:46:21 PM