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:
openHow should we note familiar voices? Film
It used to be there was a trope called "Hey, It's That Voice," which was listed on the trivia section and was a nice way of calling out why a particular actor might sound familiar. Subsequently, the trope was changed to "Role Association."
But now I see "Role Association" is a "Just For Fun" trope, which apparently doesn't merit inclusion on any of a work's pages at all anymore. (Unless there's some way to make a "[Work]/Just For Fun" page, which I don't see anywhere in the page-creation interface.) And furthermore, going to the "Role Association" page, it's apparently all about imagining a given work had another of an actor's characters swapped in, which is not the sense in which "Hey, It's That Voice" was used.
I used to like to be able to see listings of actors from a given work who were better known for other roles, and to add such myself. But now those listings are apparently all gone. Granted that these listings are more about the particular actors than the work they starred in, it was still nice to be able to see a list of all the other well-known roles the actors had right there together.
Is there an appropriate trivia category to use, since "Role Association" apparently isn't it?
Edited by Robotech_MasteropenWhat Next? Film
Is there an option on the T Vtropes site where you can view progressive tropes? Say I'm looking at the trope of "You said you'd let her go!" Trope, and I wanted to see possible trope outcomes that can come about to resolve the trope.
I'm plotting a scene similar to the "You Said you'd let her go!" trope, but I wrote myself in a corner on how to get out of it. I don't know the names of the tropes that would be good outcomes. Is there a section of the trope's page of trope outcomes to select and look up?
openStranged By the Red String, HTTYD: Hidden World Film
"Not only is applying this to a couple of animals weird on itself but a solid third of the movie is dedicated to the courtship. If you don't like it, put it in broken base, but this does not fit SBTRS"
So I added this example because, while the movie's about Toothless and the Light fury, it's not about their courtship; they have one scene dedicated to their courtship. They pretty much fall in love at first sight, have their four minute "first date", and the rest of the movie is about their relationship taking precedence over literally every other character, relationship, priority, and theme HTTYD has ever presented to us. Thoughts?
Edited by Spacecoyoteopen More modern "Prisoner" style movie Film
Over 10 years ago I saw this movie that I have been trying to track down. It was kind of a modern take on that old show the prisoner. The guy was a spy or something and gets injured on a mission and when he wakes up is on an island where they can't leave. They have to check in with a blood sample every morning. Ultimately he recovers from his wounds ans starts planning his escape. I remember this one scene where he is using cigarettes burning beside the tube to train him self to hold his breath longer. Ultimately he escape on one of the supply airplane drop/pickups...
openMutually exclusive tropes Film
The MCU: Spider-Man page features both Adaptational Early Appearance and Adaptational Late Appearance. I think that having two tropes with diametrically opposite meanings might confuse readers but troper Anicomicgeek disagrees. Instead of starting an Edit War, I thought of bringing the discussion here and show you what's happening.
- Adaptational Early Appearance: His relationship with Tony Stark. In the comics, Peter was more-or-less self-taught and figured things out his own way, but eventually gained Tony Stark as a mentor when he took a job at his company, but here, Tony begins mentoring Peter when he's still new to things. Notably, Tony gave Peter the job in the comics as a cover because Peter had moved in with the Avengers alongside his wife, Mary Jane Watson, and they needed to excuse why the Parkers were living there. This Peter is still too young to get married and is still living with Aunt May. While Tony Stark was actually introduced in the comics after Peter Parker, Stark can be seen as a stand-in for Reed Richards, who Parker originally looked up to.
- Adaptational Late Appearance: Despite the Adaptational Early Appearance with his relationship with Tony, Peter himself is this, as this Peter lived in a world where the Avengers existed for years before he became Spider-Man and idolized Iron Man. His comic counterpart actually predates Tony becoming Iron Man and by extension the founding of the Avengers themselves.
As you can see, both tropes inform about different points about Spider-Man's history, but I don't think it's a good idea to feature them both at the same time. What do you think?
openWeird trope entry Film
Pokémon Detective Pikachu has a strange, semi-gushy entry on Revisiting the Roots that doesn't seem to fit any of the various cleanup threads, so I brought it here. It reads like it was written by someone dissatisfied with current Pokemon games or someone attempting to justify everything dark in the trailers with evidence from various Pokemon media, while the Detective Pikachu game itself doesn't really have any of that, and Pokemon media after Gen 1 have had those things even though in the franchise as a whole they're uncommon (Team Galactic killed a Clefairy and presumably a bunch of Magikarp, Ghetsis as mentioned tries to attack you directly, a couple Sun and Moon anime episodes were all about people and Pokemon that died, etc.).
"* Revisiting the Roots: The trailers may look out of place with the tone of the main-series games, but they're not too far removed from the anime, manga and games of the original generation, which feature gunsnote An episode of the anime involved the Safari Zone warden utilizing guns heavily, including holding Ash at gunpoint and shooting at Team Rocket, which led to 4Kids skipping over it entirely, profanitynote it's always been in the anime's Japanese dub, realistic violence in Pokémon battlesnote an infamous scene in the manga involves Blue's Charmeleon slicing an Arbok in half and disemboweling it, deathnote besides the aforementioned Arbok, the Lavender Town mission in the Kanto games involves a Mercy Kill on the spirit of a Marowak killed by Team Rocket, and villains using Pokémon to directly attack humans and human citiesnote unlike Mewtwo's destruction of his lab and the siege of Saffron City, non-Pokémon battle violence in the games is either offscreen or unanimated (with some major exceptions, like Ghetsis in Pokémon Black 2 and White 2)."
Any ideas as to what to do with it?
Edited by lalalei2001resolved Internet Backdraft/Marvel Cinematic Universe has a stupid entry Film
On Marvel Cinematic Universe there's this entry:
- A theory has been springing up that Marvel are sabotaging the X-Men and Fantastic Four franchises in order to weaken Fox's success with their films, noting their reduced presence in the comicsnote which isn't true; the X-Men are currently one of the biggest lines they're producing, with more spin-offs than ever, Wolverine and Deadpool dying note which is no different than any other 'big shocking deaths', and is being used to launch several miniseries attracting tons of publicity to the X-Men line as it is, the Fantastic Four comic being cancellednote which has been underselling for a while, and while not the worst seller, it's still been pretty bad and doesn't have the cult following that their other books have, lack of merchandise produced for X-Men: Days of Future Pastnote which wasn't true; there weren't any children's toys produced, which is largely down to licensing issues; they still sold Hot Toys collectibles for them though, are still selling toys for the franchise in general, and sold toys for the film before that, their reduced appearances in recent animated seriesnote ignoring that Wolverine did get an animated movie and has appeared in their other cartoons, and a memo apparently sent out asking for artists to not send them Fantastic Four artworknote the validity of this memo is questionable at best. The theory itself makes little sense, but hasn't stopped people buying into it, including Rob Liefeld note Liefeld's creations are tied with Fox's licenses, so of course he'd be on their side over this.
- Disney's acquisition of Fox. Beyond the "Yay, X-Men and the Fantastic Four can be in the MCU!" cheering, fans were concerned about how Disney continued to acquire a huge amount of popular IPs to the point of becoming a near monopoly.
The first one is iffy in its own right, but the second bullet is my concern today. A couple of things:
1. This isn't about the Marvel Cinematic Universe, it's about Disney. The only connection the MCU really has to this is that Marvel Studios, the guys who oversee it, are owned by Disney. Unless the entry is alleging that Disney spent $71.3 billion acquiring the Fox film assets primarily to get the film rights to the X-Men and Fantastic Four franchises, in which case... yeah, I totally believe that. TOTALLY.
2. In all seriousness, Disney didn't do this because they thought Marvel Studios needed two more franchises. They did it because they want to bulk up their collective film library in preparation for going into the streaming market. Remember, Disney+ launches later this year, and Disney wants to leverage their majority control of Hulu to push for an international release around the same time, with the stated goal of being a place to put their adult-leaning content. That's why this happened.
3. For the record, this entry is heavily biased, mentioning the backlash to the decision to greenlight the acquisition while dismissing ANY praise or excitement as just people being excited for certain franchises; call me crazy but I don't think it's as bad as this entry makes it out to be.
4. This is a minor complaint compared to the preceding three, but it's also an example of bad indentation. It's got nothing to do with the preceding entry other than that they both involve Fox. I mean, seriously?
Look, my vote is to just delete it, but I wanted to at least make sure I consulted the community to see if that's the only workable solution, because I get the feeling that SOMEONE is going to want to talk about it on the wiki SOMEWHERE and it's worth figuring out where, if anywhere, is an appropriate place to do so.
Edited by MinisterOfSinisteropen Issues re: Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019) Film
1. Dolph Z has a severe hang-up about the MonsterVerse version of King Ghidorah. They keep trying to insist that he's not pure evil, despite evidence suggesting he is in both the film and its novelization. I called them out on it over PMs and their latest justification is that Ghidorah isn't listed under Complete Monster yet. (Who wants to tell them how the appeals process for Complete Monster entries works?) Given that this is not only causing a prolonged Edit War but also shows signs of Single-Issue Wonk, I'm curious to know how best to address the problem.
2. Daethalion has added two main page entries to the film's YMMV page. I've moved them both, and plan to address the user myself, but I want to leave this here just in case things aren't cleared up quickly.
Edited by MinisterOfSinisteropen unknown show Film
This show had a red haired girl an Asian dude and a spacecraft.....
I think it may have came on BBC around 1980-2000 ( please don’t quote me on that)
—————————————————————————— And episode on the show had this girl land on a planet after hitchicking a ride there was a malfunction of the spacecraft/ time machine
And she sees these children dressed in Versailles French outfits playing ball but when they turn around she sees they are robots"....... The adults were so excited to find a real girl “child” and take her home to show off to their friends (all children died of a disease but not by the disease itself but the vaccine) one side affect of vaccine let the adults live forever but makes them sterile) so when a child is found they are so happy
The kid ends up trying to escape to get home her mother “mother” the one who found her then consults books on child rearing to see how to raise a child and make sure she is not getting sick or something to try and understand her behavior in a world that has everything
The girl explains she has a mother etc...... and wants to go home the “parents” help her get home despite the town folks arguments.
———————————————————————————- Can someone tell me the name of this show or the episode....... I watched many many years ago
I found it on You Tube at one time I think it was split into 2-3 parts ————————————————— The only reason I want to watch it again is it has many similarities to dr. Who and one Of the Dalek episodes
Edited by Cvicresolved YMMV/DarkPhoenix Issue Film
patriciovalencia117 recently instituted a change in the Audience-Alienating Premise section.
Before:
- Audience-Alienating Premise: The film ended driving away many fans owing to on-going production shenanigans and its questionable creative decisions. Right off the bat, Fox's decision to adapt Phoenix Saga story didn't inspire confidence given how the studio's previous stab at the story line, the much maligned X-Men: The Last Stand, was a low point for the franchise and its poor reception ended up tainting the image of the Dark Phoenix alter-ego and story. Further hampering enthusiasm was the controversial hiring of Simon Kinberg as director; while Kinberg produced the critically acclaimed X-Men: First Class and X-Men: Days of Future Past, his involvement in the much-contested X-Men: Apocalypse and his lack of directorial experience left fans cautious about the project. There was also the matter of fans perceiving either Days of Future Past or Logan as the Grand Finale of the setting, which caused lowered interest in this movie. And even if most of the audience could forgive all that, near the end of 2017 Disney had made a bid to acquire Fox's film assets, and it was considered a Foregone Conclusion by many ever since that not only would the acquisition go through (which it eventually did in 2019), but that Disney would pass responsibility for making future X-Men movies onto Marvel Studios (with the possible exception of movies that star Deadpool, who Disney themselves hinted and eventually confirmed would be staying at Fox to avoid tampering with his R-rated nature), and that a hard Continuity Reboot was inevitable as a result. Ultimately, all these factors coalesced into a movie that financially fell below already-modest expectations.
After:
- Audience-Alienating Premise: The film ended up driving away many fans owing to on-going production shenanigans and its questionable creative decisions. Right off the bat, Fox's decision to adapt the Phoenix Saga story didn't inspire confidence given how the studio's previous stab at the story line, the much maligned X-Men: The Last Stand, was a low point for the franchise and its poor reception ended up tainting the image of the Dark Phoenix alter-ego and story. Further hampering enthusiasm was the controversial hiring of Simon Kinberg as director; while Kinberg produced the critically acclaimed X-Men: First Class and X-Men: Days of Future Past, his involvement in the much-contested X-Men: Apocalypse and his lack of directorial experience left fans cautious about the project. There was also the matter of fans perceiving either Days of Future Past or Logan as the Grand Finale of the setting, which caused lowered interest in this movie. And even if most of the audience could forgive all that, Disney ended up buying out Fox and it film assets, meaning that barring the R-rated Deadpool, the X-Men will undergo a Continuity Reboot in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Ultimately, all these factors coalesced into a movie that financially fell below already-modest expectations. (Note: The "ended to ended up" change and "adapt Dark Phoenix story to adapt the Dark Pheonix story" edits were done by Stardust Soldier.)
I have issues with this edit.
1. No edit reason to explain this. I'm guessing it was supposed to be a compression issue but that wasn't well-explained. This edit is not so self-explanatory as to require no edit reason.
2. Factual inaccuracy: Disney did not "buy out Fox". They acquired PARTS of Fox that were sold off because Rupert Murdoch wanted to get out of the film-making business and focus on expanding his news empire. Let's get that straight.
3. The edit makes it seem like that acquisition was the only part where enthusiasm started being dampened, even though Disney first made their bid back at the tail-end at 2017 and the possibility of the acquisition going through had ample time to fester in the public consciousness. I find it incredibly difficult to believe that was not a factor.
4. Errors in grammar and mark-up. "Fox and it film assets" indeed, and Marvel Cinematic Universe should be linked to.
Edited by MinisterOfSinisteropenRegarding the main ''Endgame'' quote Film
There seems to be an Edit War regarding the main quote for Avengers: Endgame but it primarily has to do with satisek repeatedly changing the main quote to "Part of the journey is the end." This happened four times already even after the tropers tried expanding Iron Man's initial quote.
The previous quote before the change is: "We lost. All of us. We lost friends. We lost family. We lost a part of ourselves. Today, we have a chance to take it all back. You know your teams, you know your missions. Get the stones. Get them back. One round trip each. No mistakes. No do-overs. Most of us are going somewhere we know. That doesn't mean we should know what to expect. Be careful. Look out for each other. This is the fight of our lives... and we're gonna win. Whatever it takes."
Which quote do you guys do you think best describe the movie itself? Personally, I like Captain America's quote much better.
Edited by Loekman3openTime to reach concensus Film
There was a bit of the controversy going on with the Protagonist-Centered Morality on the Spider-Man: Far From Home page and troper HighCrate
pulled the contested example to the example thread
. It happened at Jul 15th 12:24 AM. Two tropers replied to him there, and six hours later, at Jul 15th 6:25 AM he pulled the example back "per concensus". What kind of concensus can be reached during 6 hours when none of the people originally editing that example got the chance to be involved in the discussion? To be clear, I was not among them but I find it wrong.
The resulting example "per concensus" is factually incorrect. It states that Tony Stark "proclaimed himself a hero" for creating E.D.I.T.H. while nothing like that happened in the film. How do I delete that part when "concensus" was reached?
Edited by AsherinkaopenMispelling and lack of context Film
Troper markband added a rather confusing Brought Down to Badass entry in Darth Vader's character section. It reads…
- Downplayed. Before he was critically injured on Mustafar, Vader had the potential to become the strongest Force-user in the galaxy. While in Legends his injuries hobbled his force potential and his strength in the force to were he was stated to only have about 80% of the strength the emperor had, in canon Vader never lost the raw power he had in the force but was unable to use it to it's fullest given the precarious situation of being reliant on machinery to keep himself alive. Basically, Vader couldn't use some force powers like force lightning because they would obviously endanger the cybernetics keeping him alive and he couldn't use his full power because of the stress tolerances of his bionics. The emporer even called Vader's power "unparalleled" in the Dark Lord of the sith comic.
I had to correct it to…
- Downplayed. Before he was critically injured on Mustafar, Vader had the potential to become the most powerful Force-user in the galaxy. Even after, he was still able to use his Force powers and remained an effective Hero Killer and symbol of fear.
open Excessive (?) gushing Film
Awesome.Avengers Endgame features several paragraphs of gushing over the movie breaking every box office record and becoming the highest grossing movie ever. To wit:
- The film's box office performance has been nothing short of astounding:
- Most box office prognosticators were cautiously optimistic that it could break $300 million opening weekend in the US, which would handily break Infinity War's record of $257 million, in and of itself a staggeringly high amount of money. It completely obliterated everyone's expectations by making $357 million, $100 million more than its predecessor. Barring some ridiculous future inflation, it's hard to imagine a future movie breaking the box office record by a 9-figure sum.
- Endgame became the first movie ever to gross one billion (with a "B") dollars in its opening week! $1.2B to be exact, which is almost double what Infinity War did on its opening. This also makes it the second entertainment product to do so, outside of Grand Theft Auto V.note And of course, being a AAA video game which costs $60 rather than just the cost of a movie ticket, GTA V has a massive unfair advantage there. To put simply, it became the highest grossing movie of 2019 and the 18th-highest grossing movie of all time in four days, and it's even more impressive when one takes the film's heavy Continuity Lock-Out into account.
- As of its opening Sunday (28 April 2019), Endgame broke 144 records
.
- It became the highest grossing import movie in China ever in just a week. It hit $500 million there the Thursday after release, blowing past the original record holder The Fate of the Furious's $392 million total haul.
- After just 12 days into its worldwide release, Endgame not only surpassed $2 billion
(becoming the second comic book movie to do so), but also blew past Avengers: Infinity War, The Force Awakens, and James Cameron's Titanic to become the second-highest grossing movie of all time. In turn, this makes the MCU the first franchise to have two $2 billion grossing movies under their belt, unadjusted for inflation.note If you do adjust for inflation, then it's second only to Star Wars, but it's still impressive either way.
- Crossing over with Heartwarming, Cameron himself, a man infamous to MCU fans for his comments about "superhero fatigue", congratulated Marvel Studios
for surpassing Titanic:
@JimCameron: An Iceberg sank the real Titanic. It took the Avengers to sink my Titanic. Everyone here at Lightstorm Entertainment salutes your amazing achievement. You've shown that the movie industry is not only alive and well, it's bigger than ever!
- Crossing over with Heartwarming, Cameron himself, a man infamous to MCU fans for his comments about "superhero fatigue", congratulated Marvel Studios
- In 20 days, it grossed 2.5 billion. The only other film that achieved this was Avatar, and it took 72 days to get to that point.
- Then 89 days after release (July 20th, 2019), Endgame went above and beyond any other record it's broken prior to this point, and officially surpassed Avatar as the highest-grossing movie of all time.note worldwide, not adjusted for inflation, and the first sequel to do so. The last few weeks prior to this achievement were nail-biting, because even with the re-release in theaters it was clear that it'd be a photo finish either way... and yet it happened regardless. In fact, it happened with such perfect timing that Kevin Feige himself got to announce it during the Marvel panel at San Diego Comic Con. You'd swear it was pre-ordained from the heavens to work out this way.
- Once again, Cameron congratulates Marvel Studios for passing Avatar
:
@JimCameron: Oel Ngati Kameie, I see you Marvel. Congratulations to Avengers Endgame becoming the new box office king!
- Once again, Cameron congratulates Marvel Studios for passing Avatar
Do we really need all that info?
openCommon Knowledge in Man of Steel Film
Five years after its release and Man of Steel still causes controversy in this very website. Troper Tuvok deleted the Common Knowledge entry in the movies YMMV page.
The entry said: "The final fight scene with Zod has garnered this reputation. People generally describe it as the fight destroying the entire city with Clark being responsible for most of the destruction and being completely indifferent to the rest. In reality, most of Metropolis is left completely untouched and the destruction seems worse than it is because of the focus given to it and the fact that the film doesn't hold back from showing how terrifying it is from a civilian perspective. Similarly, Clark is personally responsible for almost none of it as much of it was done by Zod's world engine or Zod himself and Clark did make an effort to lead him into space and even made a point of avoiding buildings when he punched him at one point. As for claims of indifference, he was busy trying to stop Zod to begin with who wasn't exactly an easy opponent."
Tuvok justified the deletion with: "The damage was calculated as quite large and city wide as shown in B v S , as well as the Director addressing it [1]
. Snyder wanted there be consequences for hero interactions. ‘’’I wanted a big consequence to Superman’s arrival on earth. Certainly, Batman v. Superman sort of cashes in all its chips on the ‘why’ of that destruction.’’’ Which would signify the damage was large. It was also calculated by various outlets [2]
Done by the Watson Technical Consulting to assess the cost. So confirmation the destruction was city wide, the main critisim during the fight was Clarke punching through flying through various building with no indication of making an effort to check damage caused. Making out with his girlfriend with the city in waste in the background did not help."
I must protest the deletion because Common Knowledge is about correcting and clarifying details about a story that average viewers might not be aware of and Tuvok's reasoning is about reaffirming something the viewers already know. Yes, there is an estimation to the city's damage but there were parts of the city that were largely untouched during the climax. Yes, Superman's fight with Zod caused damage but Superman attempted to limit the damage by fighting Zod in the sky. As for claims of indifference, Superman was busy fighting Zod, so it's not like he was shown not caring about civillian casualties.
What do you think?
Edited by MasterHeroopenSchindler's List as an example of White Man's Burden Film
A while ago Mark2000
added Schindler's List as an example on the trope page of White Man's Burden, which was removed for the entry itself being objectively inaccurate, they also added Mighty Whitey to that film's page and edit warred about it until it was deleted a second time.
Flash forward and LadyEros
has added the example to the White Man's Burden.
Now personally I think the trope doesn't apply, for the reason that The Holocaust was targeting people who were white Europeans too, even if the rhetoric back then portrayed them as sub-human. And also by the editors' logic then any instance when a privileged individual helps an oppressed group would be this trope.
What do you think?
openHaving a problem with a thing on the Camp page Film
It's this: "Don't expect it to take itself the least bit seriously."
Now, that may apply with Batman (1966), the works of John Waters, and some of the films in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (specifically Thor: Ragnarok and The Guardians of the Galaxy films), but with all the books and articles I've read on the subject, I've found that part of the page disingenuous. The Universal Monster Movies and the films of Bette Davis and Joan Crawford are very serious but are regarded as camp due to their melodrama, theatricality, and artifice.
I was wondering if it could be changed to something like "The serious becomes silly while the silly becomes serious. And there's no limit to how over the top something can get."
openEdit War on Midsommar Film
Recently, I deleted a batch of examples from Midsommar for misuse and/or shoehorning, and rewrote a few others, all with edit reasons given (edit history
).
Soon afterwards, phylos restored several of them
, just as they were before (no changes). They did give an edit reason—-technically; however it amounts to (I paraphrase) "You only deleted these examples because you think they are misuse and/or misrepresenting what is happening in the movie! You can't do that!", plus an invocation of Tropes Are Flexible.
Now how would I go about to resolve this? I don't think phylos has in any way refuted the reasons for which I deleted these examples; but deleting them again would be edit warring.
For some of these examples, the point of contention is that we have a different interpretation of what is even happening in the movie. Hence why I would like to get people who have watched the movie to weigh in. I don't think there is much use in bringing it to the discussion page, because very few tropers ever actually go there. Should I present my case here in ATT? Or should I make a dedicated thread on the forums?
Edit: Since phylos complained that I did not present his argument (while simultaneously declining to defend it himself), I figured I might mention the points of contention. (The following requires you to have seen the movie. For those that haven't, 'spoilers ahead).
- There is a scene in which Christian, who has earlier been given psychedelic drugs by the cultits of Hårga, has sex with a Hårgan girl, Maja (which a Hårgan elder had already tried to persuade him to previously). phylos believes that since Christian was drugged, he was not able to give consent, therefore (and because the Hårgans kind of pestered him to do it) the act was non-consensual, ergo constitutes rape of Christian by Maja. Therefore rape tropes like Double Standard: Rape, Female on Male apply.
- At the end of the movie, the Hårgans request Dani, Christian's girlfriend, to select the last human sacrifice from among all people present. She choses Christian. Because Dani had earlier seen Christian having sex mit Maja (see above) by peeking through a keyhole (and which she obviously experienced as traumatizing), phylos feels certain that Dani choses Christian as a punishment for, or in revenge of, him having cheated on her with Maja. But as (see above) Christian was really raped, he was not cheating on her, Dani watching the scene was a case of Not What It Looks Like, and her dooming him to death is Victim-Blaming.
I could explain why I think phylos' interpretations are distorted, but as phylos has already declined to engage in discussion, I'll just wait whether anyone else wants to voice an opinion.
Edited by LordGro

Not sure if this is the right place to ask this, but if a novelization of a film explains something in detail that went missing, was only implied in the film or something else entirely, should that be added to the film page itself in some way?