For some couples, their very attraction is a subject of debate because the work only hints at it, never explicitly states it. The moment where it comes out that their canonically is an attraction could also be considered a very similar moment and I do think should be included in the trope.
and that's how Equestria was made!
That is too subjective and far too close to Relationship Upgrade. I think that should explicitly not count. It should only be for established relationships that go from subtext to text, because it's far too hard to tell if attraction was there all along. That's shipping goggles. If two characters have been married for years and we're just finding that out now, that's this trope. The other is just shipping goggles.
edited 1st Dec '10 1:01:50 PM by shimaspawn
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick
Diagonalizing The Matrix
"We find out retroactively that a relationship has been going on for a while" could work as a trope. If we don't have that one, we should.
It'd need a different name, though.
Pretentious quote || In-joke from fandom you've never heard of || Shameless self-promotion || Something weird you'll habituate toYes, this idea is significantly different than Relationship Upgrade, they should have dissimilar names.
I think subtext>canon is good enough, the only subjective part is whether there was intentional subtext preceding the canon reveal, and it seems like iffy examples wouldn't be that big a deal. "Canon reveals that the relationship was going on before the reveal" is good if not. But how long "counts"?
Becky: Who are you? The Mysterious Stranger: An angel. Huck: What's your name? The Mysterious Stranger: Satan.Relationship Reveal maybe?
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick
Diagonalizing The Matrix
I'm for Relationship Reveal. Short, to the point and with Added Alliterative Appeal.
As it's now, this "only" part is half of the trope.
How long "counts"? Anything, I'd say. The main point here is that instead of getting to see that They Do, we learn that They Did.
edited 1st Dec '10 5:12:40 PM by TripleElation
Pretentious quote || In-joke from fandom you've never heard of || Shameless self-promotion || Something weird you'll habituate toAlright I've changed the text to explicitly only apply to pre-existing but hidden relationships and weeded a few of the examples out of there. The name is also changed to Relationship Reveal for now.
Edit: It doesn't look like it will possible to put up the redirect as for some reason, the original page is locked.
edited 1st Dec '10 5:20:22 PM by CBanana
and that's how Equestria was made!"As it's now, this "only" part is half of the trope."
Disagree. It's only "half" if that is judged by number of words in a Laconic description. It's effectively way less than half. The important piece is completely objective: Are the two an official couple? I think the difference between a good example (definite subtext, reveal) and an iffy example (Shipping Goggles subtext, reveal) is pretty small, and not a natter magnet.
Becky: Who are you? The Mysterious Stranger: An angel. Huck: What's your name? The Mysterious Stranger: Satan.
Maybe, but they'd need to be introduced as characters first. Interact with everyone. And then only later be revealed to be his parents. If it's a Luke, I Am Your Father moment it could be this trope.
Diagonalizing The Matrix
![]()
![]()
What I'm saying is that after any reveal, people will almost surely dig for subtext after the fact and it'll get added, iffy or not. You're going to end up with a "Relationship Reveal" trope plus lip service.
edited 1st Dec '10 5:32:51 PM by TripleElation
Pretentious quote || In-joke from fandom you've never heard of || Shameless self-promotion || Something weird you'll habituate toI just realized some problems with the title "Relationship Reveal". The title doesn't give the meaning of there being any need for a buildup or even any establishment of the characters beforehand. Honestly, this trope name could actually be more confusing than the old one now that I think about it. We need a title that includes the buildup, subtext, and implication.
and that's how Equestria was made!IMO "reveal" does imply buildup, and the trope name being precisely accurate and all-inclusive of the parts of a trope is not critical anyway.
Relationship Reveal is clear and catchy, Relationship Text Promotion is opaque and... not.
edited 1st Dec '10 7:00:25 PM by rodneyAnonymous
Becky: Who are you? The Mysterious Stranger: An angel. Huck: What's your name? The Mysterious Stranger: Satan.
Diagonalizing The Matrix
, ![]()
Relationship Subtext to Text Upgrade complete. Decloaking now available to all field units.
I've also seen Relationship Text Upgrade used for relationships that were only teased, or characters who were merely close friends in one version upgrading in an adaptation/a new installment. (Such as in Scooby Doo Mystery Incorporated)
Those would be misuse and those examples should be removed, but any shipping trope is going to have bad examples from people whose Shipping Goggles are on a little too tight.
Relationships that are only teased would go on one of the Yay tropes. Whichever one happens to be most fitting. I'm not sure about relationships that change in different adaptation, but the might fit under one of the pre-existing adaptation tropes.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. DickSee, though, "relationship that changes in different adaptation" was the definition of Relationship Text Upgrade.
edited 5th Dec '10 11:48:25 PM by KnownUnknown

edited 1st Dec '10 8:32:17 AM by TripleElation
Pretentious quote || In-joke from fandom you've never heard of || Shameless self-promotion || Something weird you'll habituate to