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 is for:
- General questions about the wiki, how it works, and how to do things.
- Reports of problems with wiki articles, or requests for help with wiki articles.
- Reports of misbehavior or abuse by other tropers.
Ask the Tropers is not for:
- Help identifying a trope. See TropeFinder.
- Help identifying a work. See MediaFinder.
- Asking if a trope example is valid. See the Trope Talk forum.
- Proposing new tropes. See TropeLaunchPad.
- Making bug reports. See QueryBugs.
- Asking for new wiki features. See QueryWishlist.
- Chatting with other tropers. See our forums.
- Reporting problems with advertisements. See this forum topic.
- Reporting issues on the forums. Send a Holler instead.
Ask the Tropers:
openSneakers & Getting Crap Past The Radar Film
So in the Sneakers, there is an %-ed entry for GCPTR, citing the works on the trope itself. I dig out the original entry and it says the following:
Dr. Rhyzkov calls Janek "what a dick" in a truly vulgar manner. But does so in Czech, so no sweat. It also leads to a dissonance with the overall Avoid the Dreaded G Rating strategy undertook in late stages of production.
Not an expert on Czech, but traced the line and the swear works in other Slav languages, too. This is really damn vulgar.
So my question is: can the original entry be re-instated, given it clearly has:
- Radar in form of MPA and their rating system
- Crap in form of severe swearing
- Getting past in form of Hiding Behind the Language Barrier
And on top of that, the last sentence is correct - this is so severe, the film wouldn't have to go through all the additional hurdles mentioned under Avoid the Dreaded G Rating if that line was simply in English (and to be frank, I'm not sure you could augment the vulgar manner of calling someone a dick in English to properly portray the severity of it).
tl;dr can the original entry go back?
Edited by StaniszopenNo Way Home: What An Idiot Film
I noticed that WhatAnIdiot.Marvel Cinematic Universe Films (specifically for Spider-Man: No Way Home) has a moment where Spider-Man tries to Save the Villain by preventing a bunch of old bad guys from dying while fighting other versions of himself. Could this really be considered a stupid thing to do? It felt like Peter was just being an All-Loving Hero since he practices Thou Shall Not Kill. While it DID have consequences, he was ultimately successful in saving all of them, albeit with help from his counterparts. It seemed like Dr. Strange was just holding the Jerkass Ball by showing the villains No Sympathy. They could've worked together, but Strange complicated things by claiming You Can't Fight Fate.
Edited by 227someguyopenFilm/TheBatman concerning edits Film
Edit: Was tired when I wrote this this morning, edited to explain their edits.
Jeyeraj has some concerning edits on Film.The Batman 2022 and Characters.The Batman 2022. In the movie Selina decries that Rich Privileged White guys are the ones running Gotham. I'm not gonna say that black people can't be racist against white people (I don't like that prejudice plus power definition outside of academia), but this really doesn't feel like that. In the universe of the movie, that's an objective fact, most of the people in power are privileged white people. I'd need more to say she's racist towards white people. He insinuates in his edits that this makes her a bigot. Finally he insinuated that the Riddlers were occupy wall-streetesque, when I felt they were more QANON ajacent..
I just also found an edit where he posted about the Videogame.Ready Or Not and Kotaku's criticism of the games school shooting level. He talks more about the article than the game itself in the edit, which is trivia at best. His criticism of the article definitely seems to be political in nature.
There's also this edit on Film.Black Widow: %%"Their" or spoilering the pronouns would give away the reveal that Taskmaster isn't a man, as the film presents her until the reveal.%% (They are talking about taskmaster). And in that edit they changed the pronouns of the example from "their" back to "his". Taskmaster in the film is a women. I felt like it was perfectly valid to use "their" pronouns to disguise the gender.
I definitely feel like he's editing with an agenda.
Edited by jjjj2openOverly long entry Film
The YMMV page for Black Panther has a very long entry for Draco in Leather Pants:
- Thanks to his sympathetic backstory as well as the fact he makes a few good points about social and political issues, Killmonger has a few zealous fans who tend to completely overlook the fact that he's still a remorseless killer who has no qualms about innocent people (even children) dying for the sake of his goals. Sterling K. Brown even spoke out
about it, pointing out that while his intentions were noble, he committed several unambiguously evil acts including murdering his girlfriend, killing Zuri, and destroying the heart-shaped herb so he could keep the Black Panther powers for himself. Hell, his very first scene in the movie has him mocking a totally innocent tour guide for drinking poisoned coffee, just because her understanding of African history is based on Western academic beliefs (even though she's likely just repeating what she's been taught, and is actually being quite nice to him.) Marvel Studios themselves seem to have realized they made the character too sympathetic as the character's next appearance in the ''What If?'' series serves as a further indictment of the character by dismantling whatever justifications he has for his actions, demonstrating how flawed his plan is, and showing he cares more about himself than other black people.
This comes off more like an essay, and I think the opening lines make the point well enough. Should this be trimmed down?
Edited by Javertshark13openHarry Ellis Whitewashing/Edit War Avoidance Film
On Characters.Die Hard, mattc0tter re-added some whitewashing/ACI of Harry Ellis
that I previously deleted on account of the movie never showing Ellis to be anything other than a selfish prick. I do not want to get in an edit war over this, but I want to make very clear that having seen the film, Ellis' benevolent intentions are ACI at best.
openDEKU SDCP Film
Yo, I saw in a cleanup thread that Izuku Midoriya from My Hero Academia had a SDCP then got cut. I was wondering if someone could bring that back or at the very least allow a sandbox page for me or someone else to draft one. I feel like with Deku's dorky, self-deprecating, nervously neurotic behavior would make for some great humor. I would say he has some of the most unique traits out of the My Hero cast and maybe even make pages for a perv like Mineta or a hothead like Bakugo at the very least. MHA deserves more SDCP's than just Tsuyu who's own page practically has like 5 things and that's it.
openEncanto Film
I know Tearjeaker is based on opinion, but there are a few entries on TearJerker.Encanto that I feel are a bit too opinionated.
For example: *** After explaining her backstory, one couldn't help but think that she must feel that her husband would be ashamed of her.
Then there is this which was deleted and then readded: * Mirabel's "you're perfect as you are!" conversation with her mother when her hand is healed is sweet and funny...but there's also a bit of justified bitterness in Mirabel's tone when she points out that Julieta has just healed her hand with magic. Julieta is correct — but Julieta is also the Madrigal with the most manageable and most obviously beneficial power. From her daughter's perspective, it's a bit like a supermodel lecturing you on why looks aren't everything. It also doesn't help that Julieta still thinks that Mirabel was (possibly unconsciously) acting out because of envy at Antonio's successful ceremony — she's one of Mirabel's strongest supporters, and even she doubts her.
Even more heartwrenching is that this moment also makes Julieta unknowingly insensitive in another layer - as stated earlier, the Madrigal family took a family picture without Mirabel. And even Julieta didn't notice. So, when Julieta makes that line, it rings even hollower. Her mother essentially expects Mirabel to see herself as 'perfect' as she is while she's stuck in an environment that singles her out near constantly. There's no escaping how different she is from the rest of her family — she lives in the nursery of a magic house (because she was "unworthy" of her own special room), in a town shaped by her family's powers, in a community where she's known as the "not-special one". And that's not counting the times where she's actively treated as the family screw-up. Good luck accepting yourself in those circumstances.
I might be overreacting, but some of this is more alternate character interpretation.
Edited by LadyErinNYopenProblematic entry Film
The YMMV page for the Black Panther film has the following entry under Alternate Character Interpretation:
- Is Killmonger a Death Seeker? Besides refusing medical help after his defeat, he always chooses the self-destructive path. He kills his girlfriend and burns the sacred garden, implying that he isn't interested in having an heir or leaving a legacy for himself even though he's a prince with a legitimate claim to the throne. Furthermore, despite having the skills and connections, Killmonger also chose not to follow a more heroic career like becoming a costumed vigilante, entering politics or starting his own company, thus denying himself the chance to help others and live a life of luxury without the needless deaths. The fact that Killmonger pursues self-defeating atrocities implies that he doesn't care about what happens to himself so long as everyone experiences his suffering. This only makes his evil plan more horrifying in hindsight, since it amounts to a murder-suicide as he intentionally wants millions of innocent lives to die alongside him.
The idea that Killmonger is a Death Seeker may be a valid interpretation, but the entry doesn't make its case very well. Most of what it says simply applies to villains in general not using their skills in a better way, and while Killmonger may be willing to die if necessary, he doesn't seem to see his cause as self-destructive. The specific examples the entry cites don't support this either (burning the garden does not affect his ability to have children, and killing his girlfriend was done in order to kill Klaue, which his entire plan depended on). The last sentence seems especially problematic, as it states this interpretation as though it were fact.
Edited by Javertshark13openWonder Woman = Pinball Protagonist? Film
The DC Extended Universe version of Wonder Woman is classified as a Pinball Protagonist in her solo movie under this argument: "If Steve Trevor had escaped from the Germans without going through Themyscira, the world would have been exactly the same. He would have brought Dr. Poison's notebook to British High-Command, they would have ignored it, Steve would have recruited his friends to go after the chemical plant, Veld wouldn't have been liberated but it would still have been wiped out the next day, Steve would have tracked Ludendorf to the plant, and sacrificed himself to destroy the gas. The only significant thing Diana did was kill Ares, which didn't make much of a difference, since he only influenced humans to go to war with each other and create weapons of mass destruction, and humans continued to do that after he died anyway."
Is this true or just nitpicking?
openOnly real content of ''Film/BrightOnes'' is plagiarism Film
I stumbled across Bright Ones and DM'd the creator, Murphy Trope to suggest he add some tropes as it had none. Digging a little deeper, all the text apart from the opening line is taken directly from the film's official synopsis
. If you remove the plagiarised text you're left with a promotional image and the text "Bright Ones is a 2019 Christian musical film that is based on Bethel Music."
What's the best way to tackle this? I've not seen the film so I can't fix it myself.
openSPUMC Venom's gender pronouns Film
In light of the release of the second trailer
for Venom: Let There Be Carnage, I want to put to rest a seemingly unresolved query as to what pronouns should be used when referring to the Venom symbiote. Being a symbiote, it has no defined gender or sex, choosing to assume the form of its host and never refers to itself by any pronouns but "we" across all continuities. Same goes for the SPUMC (Sony Pictures Universe of Marvel Characters) version of the character where it briefly possesses Anne and then morphs into a female form. In the same universe, however, Tom Hardy's Eddie Brock refers to Venom with male pronouns (which his comic book counterpart never really does so), which Venom never objects to, so while there might not be a biological sex, the symbiote seems to identify as male. Gernerally speaking though, the entity formed when Eddie and the symbiote merge together is also called Venom and the combined form is referred to with male pronouns. I just want to know what the consensus is though about what pronouns pertain to the SPUMC symbiote itself before officially altering any associated work pages.
openNo Title Film
13 days ago I removed the following from Star Trek V: The Final Frontier:
Now, it should be noted that the movie's failings aren't all Shatner's fault. We can also thank Executive Meddling for all the forced "humor", while the 1988 WGA strike short-circuited the screenwriting and the infamous Special Effect Failure was due to ILM being too busy with a few other projects to work on the film.
Still, the basic concept was Shatner's idea (although making Sybok Spock's brother was a Harve Bennett decision), and he knew about the studio's humor requirements before he even began work. Gene Roddenberry himself had expressed strong reservations about the pitch; he had good reason to be concerned, as he had previously written his own story
about the crew meeting God and hated the result. (Though it should also be noted that Roddenberry's own counteroffered idea was, as it had been since the second movie, for the Enterprise crew to go back in time and either stop or commit the JFK assassination.) But Shatner persisted with the idea of Kirk beating God. Star Trek and religious topics have always been uneasy bedfellows; Roddenberry's well-documented atheism practically forced the series to always turn whatever "God" it ran into (the being in this movie as well as the Q Continuum) into Sufficiently Advanced Aliens. Deep Space Nine is the only series to pull it off, and Trekkies are divided on even that. Nevertheless, many fans prefer to ignore this entry entirely and simply go from the fourth movie directly to the sixth. Frontier is also the only one of the original films to have never been given a Director's Cut; Shatner has always wanted to do it, but Paramount Pictures likewise refuses to let him.
This movie isn't a total write-off, though: Star Trek V also features plenty of Character Development scenes between Kirk, Spock, and McCoy (the Bookends with the three camping are quite enjoyable), a brilliant backstory scene involving McCoy and his father, and has a collection of well-imagined individual sequences such as Coming in Hot with a shuttlecraft. Consensus is that while Shatner's storytelling abilities might be a bit on the weak side, he certainly had an eye for good setpieces. Josh Marsfelder at Vaka Rangi, and his commenters, have much more to say about what is right as well as wrong with The Final Frontier
.
I left the following edit reason:
12 days ago The Amazing Blachman
added this:
With the following edit reason:
openIs Harry Potter an Adaptational Badass? Film
Much like the DC Extended Universe, the Harry Potter saga is no stranger to controversy and this time I wanna focus on our boy Harry
. His character page lists him as an Adaptational Badass under the following conditions:
- In the first book, Harry is barely able to hold off Quirrell, with the effort nearly proving fatal. In the film, Harry kills Quirrell with relative ease, and is still on his feet before being downed by Voldemort's soul when he escapes.
- When confronted by Snape in the Shrieking Shack in the third film, Harry sends him flying into the wall with an Expelliarmus from Hermione's wand, which is supposed to be more difficult with a wand that hasn't chosen him. In the books, this same effect was achieved by him, Ron, and Hermione trying to disarm Snape simultaneously.
- In the fifth book, his duel with the Death Eaters in the Ministry had him fumbling spells a few times including reversing his own spell by accident. The film portrays him as being far more competent overall.
I have to ask: are these entries valid? Adaptational Badass has seen a lot of misuse in recent years and the AB page has a paragraph that says: At its core this causes a significant dissonance with those familiar with the original character. It is not about a change in personality (Martial Pacifist to Blood Knight), method of fighting (defensive Simple Staff to offensive BFS) or battlefield intelligence (Dumb Muscle to Genius Bruiser), but in terms of how relevant they are in a fight. The key is how they are able to navigate through the story. Consider as a result of Power Creep, Power Seep that Superman himself has varied from simply "above human" in strength to near godlike, but he has always been Superman.
Also, I've always believed that Adaptational Badass applies when the character, in his/her entirety, becomes a badass in the adaptation, not when he/she is given small moments of badassery, even when he/she is already a badass in the source material. So, what do you think?
openDesignated Hero and Villain in Wonder Woman 1984 Film
The YMMV page of Wonder Woman 1984 places both Wonder Woman and the Cheetah as Designated Hero and Villain, respectively, under the following arguments:
- Designated Hero: At its worst, the film makes Steve Trevor out to be more of a heroic figure than Diana herself, particularly where it comes to Steve's situation. From using the body of the "Handsome Man" for sexual activity without any ability to consent (which is sexual assault and/or rape) to her reluctance to ever let this nameless man have his own life back instead of keeping Steve possessing him, she is rather selfish overall, with it being Steve insisting on her going to save the world from catastrophe. Much like the prior film chronologically, she only allows someone or something she truly desires to leave when the object of desire itself says so while telling of her heroism, showing that if she actually has a possible penalty to her actions personally on an emotional level, she would more likely not suffer said consequences at the expense of the world unless forced to.
- Designated Villain: Barbara's wish to be like Diana is completely understandable given her circumstances. She's overlooked by almost everyone at work despite her positive qualities such as her sweetness and her knowledge. She had to rely on Diana to save her from a rapist, with the only lesson said rapist learned from the encounter was that Barbara was powerless on her own. Steve then tells Barbara and Diana that anyone who made a wish on the stone must renounce it regardless of their reasons for making the wish. Diana agrees with Barbara that they just can't do that; they are both reluctant to renounce their wishes. It doesn't help that Barbara's wish is corrupting her mind, while Diana's own wish is for reasons that seem frivolous in the big picture (see Designated Hero). Adding to all of this is that Barbara's less-sympathetic moments only ever kicked in during moments when selfishness would be a natural reaction. For what it's worth, Diana never sees Barbara as a villain and keeps trying to reason with her; Barbara momentarily stops attacking Diana on seeing the latter renounced her wish.
Okay, I have to ask, are these arguments valid? I did watch the movie, personally I believe these arguments to be flawed. The movie goes out of its way to make Wonder Woman realize it's selfish of her to keep her wish, especially because of the price she has to pay. As for Cheetah, she she never visibly renounces her wish even after seeing the consequences the collective wishes of humanity are having on the entire world.
I know that YMMV pages are meant to be opinionated, but it looks like there are people who using this particular YMMV page to voice their grievances with this movie and I would like to remind everyone that TV Tropes and the Internet are not your personal echo chambers you can use to say whatever you want and not expect any consequences.
So, what do you think?
Edited by MasterHeroresolved The Mask Film
I found this page: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/FanWorks/TheMask
I don't know if it's a written rule, but I don't think Fan Works pages should be filled with unpublished fanworks (I googled them and found nothing). I know I can delete the page itself by putting it on the Cut List. But the three pages within, I'm not sure that they should be deleted, maybe they could be moved to Unpublished Works. How does one move them? Is it a job for admins or can regular users do it? Is it okay if they're moved?
openShould there be a "linking section" on every MCU film? Film
Troper TheExtractor has taken to unilaterally adding a section to the top of all the MCU films that links it to the previous/next film in MCU release schedule.
Do we really need such a thing given that there is a Franchise page Marvel Cinematic Universe that lists all the films in the franchise and allows such navigation to each film already?
It's going to make the MCU films formatted differently than other films and does that open itself to having a "link section" for other film franchises like James Bond, Star Wars, etc?
The main thing that concerns me about this is that TheExtractor did something similar back in January 2021, where they unilaterally added a "cast list" to every MCU film.
Yet, they never seem to post any kind of discussion item beforehand of "I think this would be a neat thing to add to all MCU films" and then ask for feedback and wait for consensus before making changes to dozens of pages.
Edited by rva98014openStrawman Has a Point in Godzilla King of the Monsters 2019 Film
Troper Derv0s B 2 added this to Strawman Has a Point in the YMMV page of Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019):
"A surprising number of viewers reacted this way to the government's Gotta Kill 'Em All demands regarding the Titans. Said viewers argue that while the ending proves The Extremist Was Right, with what little the human race knows about the Titans at the film's start, the demand comes off as highly understandable. Of course, this argument ignores the fact that Monarch have already established before the film's start that the Titans are ecologically essential, and that the government are basically getting it into their heads that they somehow know better than the professional Titan experts."
I think the fact that the entry argues with itself disqualifies it for the trope. What do you say?
openDoes this qualify as a TropeBreaker Film
Upon rewatching The Mist, I've realised something. The entire premise of the evil cult that forms through the story and preaching of their leader hinge almost entirely on the fact the story is set in place with Protestant majority and the concept of predestination is not only a tenant, but actively used, both for the story itself and the in-story cult. If the story was set in any other background, the entire premise of the cult as "God will only save a handful of chosen ones, and everyone not worthy will go straight to hell, so prove your worth" falls flat on its face, because it just won't work out if you don't, say, have the story set in Maine.
But does it qualify if the location or social background of the story was changed as a Trope Breaker? I was thinking about this exact same story playing out in my own country, which is Catholic, and the type of person that's best described as a local equivalent of a fundie. And they would preach completely different things - assuming they wouldn't just blame it on Jews, then simply pray in the corner to pass time, which would be far more likely than anything else.

I was checking out the King Richard page, and noticed that Troper ovskii
added further information on Win Back the Crowd in the YMMV.King Richard page. The entry originally spoke solely about Will Smith's performance earning back respect from fans and critics after having a spotty filmography as of late. The information that was added earlier today by ovskii has entirely to do with the Oscars controversy.
Since (1) the Oscars just happened this past Sunday — not even a week has passed as of this original post — and I've seen various ATT posts and forum posts here on TVTropes discussing how the controversy is still too soon and recent to say anything about Smith's legacy, and (2) the added information is irrelevant to Smith's performance itself, should that added information still be there, or should it be deleted?
Here is the information added by ovskii: "[...] Sadly, and completely independent of his performance, his popularity dropped dramatically on the very night of his Oscar win, due to him assaulting Chris Rock on stage over a joke about his wife, which then led to Smith resigning from the Academy in shame a few days later."
UPDATE: To any moderator who sees this: request to close out this post as resolved?
Edited by mouschilight