TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Ask The Tropers

Go To

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.

Ask the Tropers:

Trope Related Question:

Make Private (For security bugs or stuff only for moderators)

theAdeptrogue Since: Nov, 2011
2014-03-14 05:47:22

I don't think there's actually any requirement that the critter in question is evil. The Laconic only mentions that it's deadly, while the basic playing with description is "A cute critter that can hand out pain and death with no problem."

No explicit mention of evil there.

VmKid Since: Sep, 2009
2014-03-14 09:30:23

Thingy would probably fit as a Killer Rabbit, considering it didn't attack until it was threatened. There's nothing saying that a Killer Rabbit is inherently evil.

UnstoppableAnimosity Since: Sep, 2013
2014-03-14 09:46:00

Well, thanks. It's a pitty thou, I wanted to point out how original and different it is compared to how other cartoons treat this trope.

UnstoppableAnimosity Since: Sep, 2013
2014-03-14 11:49:44

RESET:

How about An Aesop that is presented in said episode? It's good ol' "Don't judge book by it's cover", but sort of Deconstructed and Reconstructed: Most shows present us a pet that turns out to be a monster and teach not to say that cute things must be harmless. "Thingy" episode, on the other hand shows a pet that turns into a monster and we are taught that ugly monsters can still be kind hearted.

Can I say it's Reconstructed while Deconstruction sort of never happened?

theAdeptrogue Since: Nov, 2011
2014-03-14 18:24:57

^^ I'm sure there's many other cartoon who uses this trope the same way.

^ That's not a deconstruction/reconstruction. That's just a different manifestation of the "Don't judge book by it's cover" aesop.

UnstoppableAnimosity Since: Sep, 2013
2014-03-16 12:22:59

I've never seen any.

Also: ugh, so another attempt failed. Thanks for responding

theAdeptrogue Since: Nov, 2011
2014-03-17 04:30:56

Attempt for what, actually? This sounds like you're trying to shoehorn trope variations to make the animation stand out/appears "special" for not playing with tropes straight.

UnstoppableAnimosity Since: Sep, 2013
2014-03-17 16:41:37

Because it felt so different for me. It is a really good piece of work, but remains forgotten. I want to describe it in most appealing way possible (sticking to the truth, of course), so that anybody who reads this describtion understands that this show deals with matters similar to other animations, but resolves them in it's own way.

crazysamaritan MOD Since: Apr, 2010
2014-03-17 17:18:35

You can still say that. That's the point of having examples. The trope can be played straight and still be unlike most other works utilizing the trope.

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.
Top