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:
open Esoteric Happy Ending example? Film
"* Frozen ends on a supposedly happy note with Anna and Elsa finally reunited after 13 years of separation, Elsa learning to feel again and learn to control her powers, and the citizens completely adoring their new queen of Arendelle. However, even though Anna and Elsa do reconcile with each other, it still doesn't change the fact that they lost all the potential childhood they could have with each other for nothing and due to not knowing the other during that time, they are essentially complete strangers and have to restart their relationship completely from scratch, particularly when things are so much more complicated in their adulthood than they do as children which makes a close bond between them uncertain. There also the fact that even though Elsa managed to control her powers through love, depression and trauma doesn't really go away overnight and due to having spent a really long time in isolation, it would only be time before she reverts to her old habits again, especially since Anna has never been informed the reason why Elsa isolated herself in the first place meaning that even her sister wouldn't be able to help her from depression. Furthermore, a sudden change in weather and an Endless Winter for three days must surely brought some casualties for the citizens either by hypothermia or famine and given the fact that the queen's response to the whole thing is to abandon her kingdom, she certainly doesn't make a good first impression in front of the citizen and would likely have a lot of people out for her blood compared to Hans whose first action as the new king is to them blanket for cover and is supposedly trying to execute the witch for the goodness of the kingdom. It's also been established that Weselton is Arendelle's largest trading partner and by having Elsa cut all ties, it leaves the kingdom hard-pressed to find another close trading partner and given Elsa's actions during the coronation, it is very unlikely that other kingdoms would even trust their new queen to open up a new trading partner, leaving the kingdom in great turmoil. Realistically, it could actually take years, if not decades for them to fix almost all the issues listed above and it is very likely that another trouble could prove even more irrepairable damage on both the kingdom and the sister's relationship. On another issue, Hans being sent back to his family is supposed to be seen as merciful fate where everyone agree that its for his best except that by sending him back home, he is sent back to his abusive family where they would undoubtedly bully him even more, with the implication that he will never be able to escape from his terrible life, unlike Anna."
Is this an example or people reading way too into things?
Edited by lalalei2001openJames Stewart Film
James Stewart, George Bailey himself, one of 20th Century's most famous Hollywood actors. Billed as "James Stewart" in every acting job he had from 1935 to 1991, except for a TV show that briefly ran in the early 70s.
His TV Tropes page is listed under Jimmy Stewart.
Before I go to the Trope Repair Shop I'd like to take the temperature for support of a rename.
open''Fantastic Beasts'' character or ''Harry Potter'' character? Film
A major character from Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them was moved from the film's character page to a miscellaneous sub-page for the Harry Potter books because he was a part of the backstory for those books. Where does this character belong? For those that have seen the film, I'm talking about Grindelwald, who disguises himself and then acts as the film's main villain while being portrayed by the biggest name in the movie.
openMispelling 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.
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."
resolved 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 MinisterOfSinisteropenNot kosher entry. Film
Found this on the Solo YMMV page by Troper Pren
:
- Fandom Berserk Button: Even with the film being an undeniable Box-Office Bomb, unlike when The Last Jedi was hit with the claim against all sanity, it's still a sore point when the alt-right conspirators trying to destroy the franchise claim this as their doing. In particular, it's often rebutted with how the only film in the revived franchise to date to lose money is also the only one with a white male lead.
This is....yeah no, this needs to go. No valid claims about "alt-right conspirators", and the troper seems to be shoehorning a political Take That! against people who seem to disagree about the film not making a lot of money. Also, white male lead isn't the issue, if anything its that the movie exists at all that some dislike.
Edit: This troper has been going around and making some very political laced claims across several other pages it seems. For example they added this on One Day at a Time (2017).
- Counterpart Comparison: One brought up by Netflix itself, as after the Roseanne revival was cancelled due to Roseanne Barr's racist Tweets, Netflix made their own Tweet about how they also currently have a reboot of a classic sitcom about a working class family that deals with a bunch of political issues, twisting the knife by pointing out how theirs is still going.
Might need to talk to them about them pushing political based opinions in areas that don't seem to be there. Trying to find a good way to word it so apologies.
Edited by keyblade333openWeDidntStartTheFuhrer Film
I have recently seen a film set in a historical war (which is not World War II), where the main character is sure that the whole conflict was caused by a supernatural influence over humanity, and it turns out that no, the war was something that humanity started all by itself, with no supernatural forces at work. I thought about We Didn't Start the Führer, but that trope clarifies that it is specifically for Hitler and WWII. Is there some parent trope, then? Or should I use it anyway, taking into account that Tropes are flexible? If it is the second, shouldn't we rewrite the trope a bit, to clarify that WWII is simply a major location of this trope, but not the exclusive one?
Note: The very question I'm making may give a spoiler about the plot of the film, so the best way I could thought about to avoid that was to speak in general terms, without mentioning the film (and, just in case, not even the actual war). If someone else here does realize the film that made me ask this question, please do not mention it, for the sake of those who did not saw it.
openCowboy Wizard In Space Film
I recently deleted a Small Reference Pools example from YMMV.Fantastic Beasts And Where To Find Them, since Small Reference Pools is not a YMMV items. And I left behind an edit-reason explaining so.
Cowboy Wizard in Space
has re-added the example leaving this as his edit-reason:
"Although the trope itself is not specifically coded as YMMV, the entries are too subjective for the main page. I went through the entire YMMV index and was unable to find a YMMV trope that fit the opinions described, and so have added Small Reference Pools back in. If anyone finds a YMMV trope that fits the opinions below, feel free to change it; but for the time being, deleting opinions is against YMMV policy."
Edited by Anddrixresolved No Title Film
SelfDemonstrating.The Beast Of Yucca Flats appears to be mostly identical to its non-SD page.
Botched attempt to remove the self-demonstration?
openRegarding novelizations Film
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?
openchickenpie999 Film
chickenpie999
has deleted several examples
from YMMV.Return Of The Jedi without providing any edit reasons.
They've also changed an example from this:
To this:
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 LordGroopenEdit War in Homeward Bound II Film
So in Homeward Bound II: Lost in San Francisco, Valinante added edits that claimed that Chance didn't forgive Sassy and Shadow at all after Delilah leaves him.
Hero Gal 2347 removes and/or alters them with this reason:
- A lot of the segments in Broken Pedestal, This Is Unforgivable! and Laser-Guided Karma seem to be a bit of an exaggeration. Yes, Chance understandably loses his temper over the incident with Shadow and Riley interfering in his relationship with Delilah, but he acts the same way he has for the past two movies when he reveals himself to Shadow and Sassy after the incident with Ashcan and Pete. There's no sign of a permanent grudge.
Valinante readds the This Is Unforgivable! entry.
I removed it with an admittedly rude reason (which i apologize for) and sent them a notifier quoting the Hero Gal's reason (if that's not okay I also apologize.
Valinante sent me a rather rude message that basically amounts to "Chance didn't say he forgave them, so he didn't." and disregards him saving them proving otherwise. And regardless I don't think an optimistic and upbeat movie would have such a pessimistic quality like "no forgiveness between friends".
Is it alright if I take this here? Does something further need to be done?
Edited by RedBerryBlueCherryopenVague edit reason Film
The YMMV page for Die Hard had this entry under Misaimed Fandom:
- John McClane is often seen as an example by gun rights activists of how "a good guy with a gun stops a bad guy with a gun." However, this completely ignores how John spends almost the entire film on the defensive, with his very first move being to run away and try to get help. He also spends a good chunk of the second act simply hiding in a remote part of the building and not confronting the terrorists at all apart from dropping C4 on them.
This was deleted by Miracle@St Olaf with the edit reason merely stating "There's plenty someone can say to argue this, which means it probably doesn't need to be here," but it doesn't make any such argument itself. Should the entry be restored?
Edited by Javertshark13openFlypaper (2011) not on TvTropes Film
Note: I don't fully know how Tv Tropes works, so I am not 100% sure if I am at the correct location for this question.
One of my favorite movies of all time is Flypaper from 2011; It's about a bank being robbed by 2 separate groups, and everything goes wrong.
I cannot find this movie on the website, but I am sure that it contains a lot of tropes, seeing as the movie is heavily comedy based and doesn't take itself seriously.
How can I [or, preferably, with the help of other people] create a page for the movie on this website?
resolved Alien: Romulus retcons Alien: Covenant? (Spoilers) Film
The page for Alien: Romulus says that it definitively retcons Ridley Scott's assertion that David-8 created the Xenomorphs in Alien: Covenant by revealing that the Xenomorphs contain the Engineers' black goo.
Fox has seen fit to largely ignore Ridley Scott's assertion that David created the Xenomorphs—at least in regards to the official TTRPG, which was written with the intent of integrating and streamlining all the "canon" material—but I'm not seeing anything in the film itself that contradicts what's shown in Alien: Covenant given that David very expressly used the Engineers' black goo to create the Xenomorphs shown there.
What should be done about those claims?
openGlass Onion Author Tract example Film
Recently, I added this particular example on Glass Onion YMMV page because I personally thought it's fitting, but not everyone may think so as well, so I thought it should be a YMMV example:
- Author Tract: Miles Bron's description of his fellow "Disruptors" as the ones who influence society by constantly breaking status quos, starting from things people wanted to break all along to things so beloved that nobody wants them to break, could be interpreted as Johnson's tract on his own filmmaking style, which has a tendency to subvert traditional narrative conventions in favor of something new even if it generates controversy in the process. This is especially more relevant when one considers the case of Star Wars: Episode VIII — The Last Jedi, a film directed by Johnson that subverts many expectations and conventions of the Star Wars universe to the point that it created an uproar among the fanbase, which still has lasting effects to the series and Johnson's own reputation to this day.
Then another troper AyyItsMidnight
deleted it by reasoning that it's not a YMMV trope, so I was wondering if this example could be added somewhere else? Or is it not applicable at all? I personally thought that the whole scene with Miles Bron explaining about "Disruptors" is quite reflective of Rian Johnson himself and his directing style, even if it's not the intended effect. Rian often breaks trends and conventions simply because he could, and that one time he caused a large rift in the Star Wars fandom with The Last Jedi that still has lasting effects today, so I thought the example applies in this case.
resolved Misuse of ascended memes for Sonic 3? Film
These were added to the Film.Sonic The Hedgehog 3 page, under Ascended Meme:
- Ascended Meme:
- A minor one; Shadow gets totally interested in La Ultima Passion and roots for the Love Interest to just kill the other legs of the Love Triangle she's stuck in. He just loves Latinas.
- At one point, Sonic calls Shadow "Hot Topic", Shadow's nickname in Snapcube's Real-Time Fandub.
I feel like this is misuse, as Ascended Meme is when the meme itself appears in a work. Neither of these feel like actual references to the memes and are a bit of a stretch to connect them and are Fan Myopia at worst.
Cause hearing Sonic call Shadow "Hot Topic" made me think "okay, reference to edgy stuff zeitgeist in the mid-2000s" and not a reference to Snapcube fandubs (FWIW I haven't watched either).
Similarly, Shadow watching the spanish drama and getting into it feels more like he's The Comically Serious and Not So Above It All, rather than the latinas meme.
Like, I feel an actual ascended meme referring to at least the Jehtt thing is if Shadow actually said "I Love Latinas" in the dialogue of the film.
Edited by taotruths

I’m in need of assistance to determine which trope would best fit this highlight from my fanfic story “Face Off with Principal Mazur”:
PM: Ah yes. Mr. Goof. And the young man who incited that little riot at the assembly last year. G: Now see here. My Max is no juvenile delinquent and did not start a riot at all. PM: And how do you know that? (Roxanne then enters.) R: Because I saw what went on at that assembly. He wasn’t trying to incite any violence. All the other students were cheering for him and his Powerline performance because they loved it. And he and his dad also got to dance alongside the real Powerline himself at his concert in LA. My friends and I were watching, and they obviously impressed Powerline with their own dance moves, and he decided to make it part of his show without any objection. (Mazur just scoffs) PM: Another hijacking. Disrespect. That’s what’s wrong with today’s kids, don’t know when to stop making things miserable for others.
Basically, what this implies is that rather than acknowledge Max and Goofy’s talent and apologize for his misleading exaggeration to Goofy, he just flippantly disregards their dance as “another hijacking” and how today’s kids don’t know when to stop making others miserable.