Have a question about how the TVTropes wiki works? No one knows this community better than the people in it, so ask away! Ask the Tropers is the page you come to when you have a question burning in your brain and the support pages didn't help.
It's not for everything, though. For a list of all the resources for your questions, click here. You can also go to this Directory thread
for ongoing cleanup projects.
Have the entry talked instead about Luke surrendering and abandoning the galaxy, I will have agreed with it.
But killing Ben was like a one-second involuntary reaction from Luke, the implication seems that had Ben not wake up at that moment, Luke will have turned off his lightsaber immediately and tried to help Ben instead.
Even saints can have one second of weakness.
So I think the entry does not belong there, but- if it doesn't already exist-maybe a less inflammatory one could be added to the YMMV of TLJ pointing that some fans took the scene bad, because it is indeed a common opinion.
Every Hero has his own way of eating yogurt
Fan-Disliked Explanation is the best fit I found for the complaints, as even the lenient criticisms found it lacking/better handled in prior works and fans were exited to see what caused it until it came out.
A similar Fan-Disliked Explanation entry is already listed on YMMV.The Last Jedi, so I don't know if any other work needs to be done.
Also, just to shore up consensus since there was only one other reply... yeah, this isn't derailment. There's a bit of a jump, but not exceptionally so given the timeskip that doubles his age.
Edited by Speedchesser
If the definition is “failure to explain” then should we delete this entry from the Pokémon anime? Or do you think the explanation is insufficient enough to count as one?
- This befalls the Team Rocket Trio in Best Wishes as well, effectively meaning that all returning characters in the series (except maybe Pikachu) are derailed in some form. The trio is usually portrayed as comical, bumbling villains, each of them having a developed personality (Jessie is bossy and grumpy but occasionally sweet, James is kind and caring, and Meowth is sneaky and sarcastic) as well as surprisingly deep backstories. They're also often hinted to to not be bad people entirely, they just think being thieves is the only thing they're good at. In an attempt to make them competent villains, this series throws all of this out of the airlock. The characters barely appear and don't get much focus when they do, and their personalities are extremely diluted to the point of almost being interchangeable, usually being depicted as merely doing villainy and lacking all of their character quirks from previous series. The implication is that they're taking their jobs more "seriously", since they've been promoted, but the personality change is radical and extremely abrupt, making it very jarring. This decision proved controversial and has since been largely reverted in later series.
The issue with the Steve Rogers one is that while he gets a subplot about it, fans still think it was insufficient and an about-face from his previous characterization, so... maybe? I don't know, seems like one of those gray cases.
I think the bigger issue is that as the entry itself says, this is a real point of contention rather than a dominant fan consensus. I support cutting it.
There’s also the fact basically 99% of cases of derailment try to provide some in universe justification. It’s just somethings the justification isn’t enough for viewers
Reading the description for Character Derailment and does it say 'unexplained' anywhere? Just says it's a sudden and drastic change. It contrasts it against organic character growth but that's not quite the same thing.
^Without the un/insufficiently explained part it's just complaining about changes they don't like which wouldn't be worth keeping.
There's Character Derailment Cleanup
. But it's inactive so here's my thoughts.
Team Rocket sounds more like their character traits are just Out of Focus because of their special assignment as opposed to changed/contradicted. A better argument for Derailment is their newfound competence/seriousness as the explanation, being highly focused/thinking it will get their bosses approval, also applied to their prior antics.
Steve Rogers might be an example if it explained how/why the expansion/arc was seen as objectively insufficient to explain/justify the change. It was just about the change being disliked/contentious as written.
And thoughts on why/should Character Derailment allows examples despite most other Flame Bait not?
Edited by Ferot_Dreadnaught
If we go with the idea that Derailment doenst count if there’s in-universe justification no matter how unpopular then there’s many entries I question. Should I do it here or on the cleanup thread
This is getting far beyond the scope of the original question. That said...
I think dcutter2 had it right. An explanation helps, but a bad explanation (or even a badly-executed one) can still feel unnatural. Feeling fake is the problem, not likability or justification.
And ^^: Plenty of Flame Bait tropes have on-page examples (see the Example Sectionectomy section about Flame Bait). Definition-Only Pages are a different category, and most of the overlap involves either Mary Sue tropes or tropes complaining about a fandom/hatedom.
Edited by Speedchesser
^That is the best explanation I've seen for Character Derailment allowing examples. Other Flame Bait amounts to hatedom/attacks on fandom but not this (The Scrappy is allowed because it requires their haters be otherwise unironic fans of the work).
In that case, I can help rewrite the Steve Rogers example, as it's unpopular enough that even recently we had plenty of people in the forums go in great detail about why they felt it was derailing.
How does this sound?
- Avengers: Endgame - or more specifically, the plot point of Steve Rogers deciding he'd rather stay in the past - is infamously one of the most divisive aspects of the film in part due to how it came off as an example of this. Many fans felt that his subplot in this film about his overwhelming desire to reunite with Peggy is a hasty about-face after previous films placed a lot of emphasis on his desire to adjust to the modern era and his efforts at finding a Second Love in Sharon Carter, who is inexplicably absent from the film, and after every past appearance of his focused on his efforts to rescue and help his best friend Bucky, whereas in this film he makes the decision to leave the now-heartbroken Bucky completely offscreen.
While there is a fair amount of serious speculation, in fact a lot more than the usual shipper whinging, that the change was a result of Disney having a Gay Panic because too many people saw Steve Rogers as Ambiguously Bi, and Character Derailment is an Audience Reaction IIRC, I'm not sure if I should bring that up somewhere or if it's too speculative and inviting of vandalism or defensive editing.
Edit: Alright, done and cited.
Edited by AlleyOop
^That looks good. Go ahead and add.
Frankly, I still think the example should be cut on the grounds of it being more of a Broken Base than a dominant fan consensus, although I avoid fandom circles in general and am just going on what I've seen on TV Tropes itself. (I mean, even the rewritten version's calling it 'divisive').
Edited by nrjxll
CD states it doesn't have to be badly received, and other audience reactions (like Unintentionally Unsympathetic) allow Broken Base as opposed to just widespread opinions.
I asked cleanup on if CD needs more than BB on the matter to count. But if we need to quantity amounts of dislike/lack widely accepted distinction from other character change tropes combined with Ass Pull than that's when I'd say it get's too contentious to be worth keeping (like what happened to Idiot Plot).
But I mean, it's already that in literally all usage I've ever seen. Bringing that part to the cleanup thread, because it does not seem okay.
Luke Skywalker from The Last Jedi was added back to CharacterDerailment.Film despite it having a commented out note at top of the page not to add them.
I first deleted it and added the note per ATT
as it was objectively misused. Derailment is about unexplained, not unpopular changes and TLJ clearly showed and explained why he did such, so the complains around that fall under other items. Also Luke nearly killed Vader in a similar Moment of Weakness in ROTJ (why that was uncontroversial is a separate thing) so the the argument behind the Derailment entry is factually incorrect.
Have to ask here before re-removing. Derailment can still apply if fans see the reason as objectively insufficient to explain the change so might that apply here?
On the subject:
Besides the last part arguing against, he got a sub-plot building up to/explaining why he did so. I'll cut this unless I hear anything.