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:
openEdit warring and weird message? Film
So on https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/YMMV/PatchAdams
, I deleted a Funny moments entry because it was worded awkwardly, lacking in context, and for some reason I mistakenly thought the page already had a "heartwarming" section. HarleyQuinnIsGreat (who I guess entered it in the first place) reverted it back with an added " % % Do not delete the above entry without consulting someone first," and sent the deleting YMMV notifier while telling me not to delete without consulting them. (MOD EDITED TO REMOVE PM TEXT; ADDED SUMMARY INSTEAD)
At this point, I feel like the edit itself isn't really the problem here.
Edited by nombretomadoopen What's that trope? damage equals worthy of love Film
What is the trope in which an ordinary guy proves his worthiness to an extraordinary girl by taking extraordinary physical risks, and often losing in a fight? It's not "loser gets the girl" because that requires both guys to fight over her, and defeat makes her realize that the winner never really interested her. This is more like the girl does not really know she reciprocates his love, until she sees the amount of physical pain and damage he is willing to absorb in their shared cause. It may be the prelude to the "violently protective girlfriend" but not always. Is there something like the "Steve Trevor Effect" from the Wonder Woman (2016) movie? Except in that, they hook up before he blows himself up, but that causes her to (posthumously) forgive him for their fight. Any ideas? It's not "weakness turns her on" because we are not talking about a character who is congenitally weak in body or personality, but usually he is in some way inferior to her - less educated, less intelligent, less trained, whatever. Often, the guy takes a beating in an attempt to serve her in some way, protection, rescue attempt, something. This usually leads to the moment when the girl realizes that the guy who she has been somehow looking upon as insufficient is suddenly recognized as worthy. Several books do this, including Patrick Ness' "The Knife of Never Letting Go" and Brittany Cavallaro's "Charlotte Holmes" series. Any ideas?
open Edit warring over including Deadpool on the MCU franchise page. Film
Alright, I'm not sure if this is the place to post this, but here it goes... There's been some controversy on the Marvel Cinematic Universe franchise page regarding the addition of one untitled Deadpool film, which has been confirmed to be in early development by trades and anyone worth a damn. The problem is that Deadpool co-creator Rob Liefeld has recently stated something to the contrary, and that's spawned a ton of clickbait headlines and the spread of misinformation.
Here's the thing - the only person who says that nothing is happening with a character that brought in $1.5B in global ticket sales is Rob Liefeld, who is not part of the Marvel Studios picture at all. He is not being included in conversations about the next movie in spite of being a consultant on the Fox movies, and he recently shared some fan art of Deadpool killing Mickey Mouse on his social media page, so he is clearly not an impartial source of information here.
Another big problem with his statement is that allegedly, production grids for the next film in the series are out there, seen by a select few (including some industry insiders). Disney CEO Bob Iger also has an image of Deadpool on his Twitter banner, and previously noted that he's open to the idea of there being an R-rated Marvel Studios label for a third Deadpool movie and potentially other films. Marvel are currently in the process of making an omnibus of Deadpool stories from Joe Kelly, who gave the character the personality that fans of the character love. But most importantly, not only have Deadpool 1 and Deadpool 2 writers Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick officially met with Marvel Studios about the future of the franchise, but Ryan Reynolds, who is the only "FoX-Men" actor likely to make the jump into the MCU, has as well.
This was the original entry on the page before it got reverted:
- Untitled Deadpool film (TBA) note Confirmed by Ryan Reynolds to be in development. Reynolds will be returning as Deadpool, with writers Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick returning. Emma Watts and Simon Kinberg, who were involved with the previous films, will not be returning. The film will be the first R-rated entry in the MCU, and is expected to be distributed by 20th Century Studios instead of by Disney. Whether or not the film is a complete reboot or a Broad Strokes continuation of the franchise as it was prior to Disney's acquisition of Fox remains to be seen.
I tried relaying some of this information into the commented-out notes of article itself, but a Troper has recently accused me of being "biased" and is threatening to report me for vandalism... In spite of my simple relaying of crucial information like what I've shared above that debunks the speculation that Disney wants nothing to do with Deadpool. I am requesting that the Deadpool entry be reinstated into the article.
Edited by KingClarkopenUnrelated Trope Example Film
So recently I found a bad example in The Glass House like this:
- Financial Abuse: This is basically the plot. The siblings Ruby and Rhett were adopted by Erin and Terry, the best friends of their dead parents... only to be targeted for death so the "new parents" can collect the kids's HUGE inheritance. Not to mention Terry makes passes at Ruby, who's squicked outta her mind. Then, Ruby finds out that both Terry and Erin staged the parents's deaths. She then goes Plucky Girl, attempts to fight back against Terry and protect Rhett, and ultimately kills Terry (Erin had been Driven to Suicide out of guilt a while before). Then, the kids are taken in by their uncle.
openComplaints Magnet? Film
The Critical Research Failure section under Mulan (2020) is getting quite long and nitpicky, in excess of even what the most flexible interpretations of the trope allow. While a lot of people have correctly called the film out for failing to get basic aspects of Chinese culture correct despite advertising itself as more authentic, a lot of these examples come off as less informed criticisms and more an excuse for certain users to kick the film while it's down by parroting criticisms they saw elsewhere, some of which may misunderstand the actual reason for why the mistake was such an issue in the first place, or introduce Critical Research Failure of their own.
This despite scholars of Chinese culture and people of Chinese descent themselves pointing out that these aspects of Chinese culture get subjected to Artistic License within Chinese-created media all the time, and are not as clear-cut or even the worst crimes the film commits.
Edited by AlleyOopopenExcessive spoilering. Film
The page for Self/Less is very heavily spoilered, covering entire examples.
This movie does have twists, sure, but it looks excessive. Is there a standard procedure for such a case?
open Slow-motion grocery items dropping Film
What do you call this trope: The unsuspecting character, ofttimes a mafioso, is innocently carrying his groceries out of the store, or into his home, etc and is then ambushed by a gun-wielding assailant. The assault itself is typically off-screen while the camera instead goes into slow-motion, focuses on the groceries (fruit, produce, raw pasta, etc) slowly tumbling and rolling away on the ground, and which might be followed up by a puddle of blood then pooling near the spilled groceries. The music accompanying the slow-motion trope is operatic or classical music coming to a crescendo as this little scene plays out.
Edited by icebergopenWill This Film Have It's Own Page? Film
Will Nature Unleashed: Volcano (The Volcano Disaster 2005) have it's own page like most films? I've always wondered and originally I wanted to make the page myself, but I'm not that great with tropes and have only have done small additions and edits to a few films so far (even though I come to Tvtropes almost everyday to view tropes, pages, and films that I like so I can have some good laughs and make some stories and novels of my own with those tropes).
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.
openStrawman 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?
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 rva98014openDesignated 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 MasterHeroopenIs 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?
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:
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.
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.
openWonder 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?
openProblematic 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 Javertshark13

I've noticed that keyblade333 recently deleted the entirety of the Hilarious in Hindsight entry from the Megamind page.
After I talked to them about it, they claimed that it was because of misuse.
I think they're a mixed bag. Things like Jonah Hill's and Will Ferrell's roles in The Lego Movie count, given that Jonah Hill was voicing a character who was heavily inspired by Jimmy Olsen, with the names of two Green Lanterns, only to later voice Green Lantern himself who has an obsession with Superman. Same thing with both Will Ferrell characters having a tendency to mispronounce things and also being parodies of over-the-top supervillains.
Some of the entries really were borderline examples, but that's no reason to delete the entire entry.
Edited by tropineasily