Possibly named for a work, misleading title.: Sorcerers Apprentice

The problem is that the name is the same as the work, and it's misleading about being a plot trope rather than a character trope. Although the basic Character Archetype could be anything like Wizards Apprentice without losing anything, it's also the name of an extremely famous work. For the second part, the name implies a Character Archetype rather than a plot, which is what the trope is built as. I'll be checking the wicks in just a bit.

Deliberately Monochrome: wrong, reference to work.

DVD Comentary: wrong, reference to work.

Fantasia: bad entry ("Guess") however, most likely a reference as a Trope Namer.

Guardians Of The Galaxy: wrong, used as character type reference.

Literal Genie: maybe. Unclear, but leaning toward correct usage.

Robe and Wizard Hat: correct, reference to both work and plot.

Sorcerer Stabber Orphen: wrong, character type reference.

Sphere of Destruction: correct.

Suikoden: wrong, character type reference.

Swords Point: blank.

Willow: unclear. Makes reference to The Apprentice.

XX Xenophile: unclear, only references story it appears in.

Me's a Crowd: referenced in description as comparable trope. Leaning toward wrong.

edited 23rd Oct '10 8:13:02 PM by Deboss

The trope came before the movie I think. The movie hit hit theaters in July 2010. (The Fantasia short though is along time ago but never released as a separate work IIRC.)

I think the name is fine and rather iconic.

edited 23rd Oct '10 8:07:34 PM by Raso

Noooo, Fantasia was made in 1940.

I am saying The Short was never released separately.

The movie The Sorcerer's Apprentice July 2010.

Shorts count as works. And the movie was (loosely) based on the short as far as I know. The movie already has Film.Sorcerers Apprentice or The Sorcerers Apprentice. Either way, there's rampant misuse.

edited 23rd Oct '10 8:24:18 PM by Deboss

I suspect if you ask 1000 people about The Sorceror's Apprentice more of the will think of Fantasia than the 2010 movie. Some may think of the musical piece. Incidentally, the original poem was written in 1797. By Goethe. In German.

Yea, it was part of fantasia, but everyone would know what you were talking about if you referred to the Sorcerer's Apprentice. And yes, the more recent movie was loosely based on it (most obvious in the scene with the mops).

The Sorcerer's Apprentice. It's a poem from the 1700's. It predates the trope by a lot.

Sorcerer's Apprentice Plot would be a more clear title, but would still be a reference to a work, rather than a stand alone title.

Either way, it's seeing massive misuse, so it plainly needs a rename. Obviously a trope that people are constantly linking to by mistake under the impression that they are linking to a work is badly-named.

Regardless of whether it fits the exact definition of a work-named trope, it fits all the criteria for why we rename work-named tropes.

edited 24th Oct '10 12:54:52 PM by Aquillion

Really? Let me check the Related Links page:

• Beware the Nice Ones (Misuse, relating to a character arcetype. Wow, not even 2 tropes in and it's already misued?)
• Deliberately Monochrome: Debatable.
• Dr Brinner Ghost Psychiatrist: Misued, character archetype
• DVD Commentary, Disney/Fantasia, Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe, Older Than Feudalism Debatable, as they seem to refer to the work itself (musical piece and Fantasia segment than the actual plot point)
• Gaurdians Of The Galaxy: Misuse, character archetype
• Robe and Wizard Hat: Again, debatable
• Sorcerer Stabber Orphen:Misuse, Character archetype

Wow, I'm surprised. Besides the page itself, I have yet to find one instance where the trope was actually used correctly (other than referring to the musical piece and Fantasia). If I hadn't read the page, I would almost think this was supposed to be a character archetype instead of a plot point.

Anyway, after seeing how it's been misused so many times, yeah I agreed with Deboss. Adding "Plot" at the end would definitely clear up the misconceptions I'm seeing, and we could still keep the original name.

edited 24th Oct '10 2:03:01 PM by Mattonymy

I found one or two correct uses up in my list.

Apparently there's some demand for a Sorceror's Apprentice character archetype trope. Maybe we should move the current Sorcerors Apprentice article to a new page and replace it with a character trope.

That was my thought, but the current trope would need to go somewhere as well.

I think, as Sorcerers Apprentice inasofitself is more centered to the specific work, we should keep the name on this current page, and simply add "Plot" at the end.

For the character archetype, since it's a more general term simply describing a "Wizard In Training", it should be easier to rename to something else.

Why not just generalize it to a Wizard's Apprentice as a character archetype? The plot itself is a simple Gone Horribly Right + Be Careful What You Wish For.

The trope is a more specific version of Gone Horribly Right and it has nothing to do with Be Careful What You Wish For. The Sorcerers Apprentice is a trope that specifically about an unprepared trainee as he plays with the magic, which he himself leads to his/her demise, contrasting to that of an outside force doing damage onto him/her. And the trope itself is pretty common too, so simply bunching it in with the other GHR examples wouldn't solve anything.

Sorcerers Apprentice Plot works better .

It might be a good idea to split off the character types. Maybe to Wizards Apprentice. It would still be clear, but it wouldn't be the same name.

Yeah, Wizard in training was just something I made up on the fly.

So here's what I think:

1. Rename Sorcerers Apprentice to Sorcerers Apprentice Plot

2. Create new page for the actual character for the aforementioned Apprentice.

edited 25th Oct '10 7:27:35 PM by Mattonymy

I say make the character type trope more general: Bumbling Apprentice.

This thread expired after 60 days of inactivity.