Rename: Funny Aneurysm Moment

I understand the reference (even though I never watched Buffy The Vampire Slayer that much), but this article desperately needs a rename. While I can't accuse Buffy of being an obscure show (not around here), the situation within the show, and the way that it is phrased, combine to create a perfect storm of confusion.

Why? It goes beyond I Thought It Meant- even in context the title is still confusing and unintuitive. Above all it lacks clarity- when talking tropes with friends this is the one that I have to spend the greatest amount of time explaining, and this is mostly because of its name.

You could argue that all the alternate titles mitigate this. Using the same logic, however, you can conclude that it doesn't matter which title is the main one. And since the primary title gets the most exposure, if you will, then shouldn't we put something which is easy to understand front and center?

If we make "Funny Aneurysm" Moment an alternate title, then one only need to explain it in context of the reference. The way it is now you need to explain the reference while explaining the trope, and that's more complex than it needs to be.

Has this come up before? If so, what was the verdict?

"The only way to truly waste an idea is to shove it where it doesn't belong."

I support a rename on the grounds that it still gets confused with Harsher in Hindsight, and even Hilarious in Hindsight.

There is nothing in the name that indicates that it's about jokes that fall flat due to later circumstances.

edited 4th Sep '10 6:54:39 AM by DragonQuestZ

I'm on the internet. My arguments are invalid.

Hilarious in Hindsight has its own alternate title of Reverse Funny Aneurysm. However, there's also the matter that Harsher in Hindsight differs from FAM only in whether the event is originally Played for Laughs or Played for Drama.

edited 4th Sep '10 8:42:02 AM by Stratadrake

An Ear Worm is like a Rickroll: It is never going to give you up.

That's because that's not what it's about. It's about jokes that become decidedly not funny when a later event happens. (Jokes that fall flat are jokes that a simply not funny to begin with.)

I don't support a rename, because "Funny Aneurysm" Moment doesn't just refer to the Buffy moment. As the main article says, it also refers to the moment when "the funny drops dead," making the title have a double meaning.

Yep. This is a moment where the funny has an aneurysm and dies.

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick

^If you interpret it like that, it just sounds like Cerebus Syndrome by another name, not a previously funny event coming back in a colder light.

I'm all for changing this name. It's unbelievably opaque. I'm betting that even if you're a Buffy fan, there's a fair chance you won't get the reference, let alone understand that it means this trope.

To inform people who weren't around last time, yes this has come up before, probably multiple times, and it survived a long and hard fought crowner. Some believe that this is protected by Grandfather Clause (and some people don't believe we should have a Grandfather Clause). It used to be a trio with Reverse Funny Aneurysm and Unfunny Aneurysm Moment, those did get renamed because people were demonstrably confusing them with each other.

My justification arguement that the title makes sense irregardless of knowing the trope namer: "Funny Aneurysm" is an oxymoron, and it carries the implication of "funny but not funny" with it.

"However, there's also the matter that Harsher In Hindsight differs from FAM only in whether the event is originally Played For Laughs or Played For Drama."

Sometimes something is played for a little bit of both. Where do you draw the line between the two?

I say "Funny Aneurysm" Moment is just a subset of Harsher in Hindsight anyway.

To lay it out again:

• "Funny Aneurysm" Moment: Starts out funny/neutral, then becomes Dude, Not Funny! or Player Punch in the light of later events.
• Harsher in Hindsight: Starts out bad, It Got Worse in the light of later events.
• Hilarious in Hindsight: Wasn't funny before, but becomes hilarious in light of later events.

edited 4th Sep '10 11:05:51 AM by Elle

^ To clear up the first one, the Trope Namer was an instance in Buffy The Vampire Slayer, the characters got the supply list for the new school year and someone commented to Buffy "I hope your mom has a...funny aneurysm when she sees this." And it was funny. Seasons later, Buffy's mom dies of an aneurysm, and it becomes not funny.

"Hilarious In Hindsight: Wasn't funny before, but becomes hilarious in light of later events."

Correction: "Wasn't funny before, or was kind of funny, but became hilarious in light of later events."

I'm on the internet. My arguments are invalid.

Just to spit out a possibility (even though "Funny Aneurysm" Moment passes the Grandfather Clause does it not?) how about Dude Not Funny Anymore.

I actually suggested that a while ago. Too bad the rename hurdle hadn't cleared.

And your avatar is cute.

edited 4th Sep '10 6:58:54 PM by DragonQuestZ

I'm on the internet. My arguments are invalid.

Well, I'll admit that some of the explanations presented make sense, but none of these are in the article.

And if there's supposed to be a connection with the two In Hindsight tropes, then I'd think that only reinforces the idea of a rename. Also notice Hilarious in Hindsight and Harsher in Hindsight have much shorter articles. I suppose you could argue that having a mismatched name reinforces the differences, but I never got that confused with the other two.

I'm no member of SPOON, I just think that of all the tropes we have, this is the one where the name gets in the way of the trope most.

"The only way to truly waste an idea is to shove it where it doesn't belong."

"Or if you like, it's when funny has an aneurysm and dies" is in there.

I always hated this one, at first because I could never remember which was 'good' and which was 'bad' between "Funny Aneurysm" Moment and Reverse Funny Aneurysm. Now I still have a problem with remembering how exactly it's supposed to play out. Well, we have Harsher in Hindsight and Hilarious in Hindsight, why not Unfunny In Hindsight? It's not an H word but it's clear.

Want to rename a trope? Step one: if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

I like that. Simple, and it's pretty distinct from the other two, I'd say.

edited 5th Sep '10 1:17:25 AM by CleverPun

"The only way to truly waste an idea is to shove it where it doesn't belong."

I think if we name them all something in hindsight we'll end up with people mixing them all up again like they do all the other Snowclones.

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick

^ well I get it mixed up right now.. also I dont know if snowcloneing this one is such a bad thing it lets people categorize it easily

Hilarious = funnier now

Harsher = it wasnt funny or a good thing in the first place but now really not.

and unfunny = was funny now not.

edited 5th Sep '10 1:26:07 AM by Raso

Sparkling and glittering! Jan-Ken-Pon!

This one has 6059 inbound links and more than 800 wicks.

It's spread well throughout the site and is bringing us a great deal of traffic. There is no need for a rename here unless there is significant misuse, though feel free to add the better suggestions as redirects.

edited 5th Sep '10 1:34:32 AM by Meeble

Visit my contributor page to assist with the "I Like The Cheeses" project!

@shimaspawn Well I thought that too, but at first glance it seemed distinct enough to me... And as snowclones go, at least they're related to each other.

I added the proposed titles as redirects, but I still think a new main title should be chosen; As it is the article is a fourth just explaining the title, and then it gets indecisive halfway in when describing Roger Ebert's notes on it. The alt titles still can be used, so we wouldn't be throwing away traffic or anything, and it might even improve if we can make things easier to understand.

edited 5th Sep '10 4:25:34 AM by CleverPun

"The only way to truly waste an idea is to shove it where it doesn't belong."

"There is no need for a rename here unless there is significant misuse"

Then we should start looking. If enough confuse it for the other two...

I'm on the internet. My arguments are invalid.

Hilarious in Hindsight and Harsher in Hindsight are more descriptive titles than "Funny Aneurysm" Moment is. Seeing as how both F.A.M. and H.I.H. are about a discrepancy between "before and after" in terms of how intense it is each time, I don't feel the level of intensity at the starting point is very relevant; I also wonder where you would draw the line between the two in the first place; after all, F.A.M.'s are H.I.H. too, just not in quite the same way the trope article is used. I'd say F.A.M. is just a subset of H.I.H. to begin with.

edited 5th Sep '10 7:01:46 AM by neoYTPism

^ I'm more worried about the names, but you do have a point. I think they're separate so that each one has less examples, but I'm not sure

"The only way to truly waste an idea is to shove it where it doesn't belong."

If I recall that long discussion correctly, what we were going for was

• Funny now, not funny later: "Funny Aneurysm" Moment
• Serious or not funny now, horrible later: Harsher in Hindsight
• both "Serious now, funny later" and "Funny now, more funny later" both going under Hilarious in Hindsight.

Whether we managed it or not, I don't know.

edited 8th Sep '10 7:46:32 AM by Madrugada

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.