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:
openRegarding 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 Loekman3openWeird 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 lalalei2001openCommon 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 MasterHeroopenStranged 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 SpacecoyoteopenEdits to YMMV/TheForceAwakens Film
I noticed on The Force Awakens that Clint Rider deleted a bunch of articles/commentary criticizing the identification of Rey as a Mary Sue as well as added some equivocating language that "In general, there are valid argument that can be made either way, but are likely to still attract criticism."
In general, he basically deleted everything criticizing criticism of he movie, especially if directed against MRA types. And changed some entries to be more critical toward the movie.
His edit reason is "What "controversy?" Glorified muckrakers making clickbait headlines aside (And the Fury Road boycott never happened, the only evidence of its existence was said muckrakers who are known for lying), Furiosa got next to no criticism. Also, I don't see the point of actually including Waid and Del Toro's comments as their own thing- the point is already made enough as is."
Edit- Incidentally, was looking at some of their recent edits and while the example itself probably violated The Rule Of Cautious Editing Judgement, on Ghostbusters (2016), there was an entry about how the attacks on Leslie Jones by Milo Icantspellhislastname and his followers finally got him kicked off of twitter, he deleted the entry and gave this edit reason: "Debatable, given how Leslie Jones has a lot of skeletons in her own closet, especially in relation to doing the exact same things Milo did. If you wanna say stuff like that, then politely take it to your tumblr."
So yeah, my MRA alarm is going off.
Edited by Hodor2openNot sure about where information has been coming from for Avengers Infinity War. Film
- Lantern Jaw of Justice: Played with. He's a space tyrant with a god complex, but he still features a well defined jawline that you'd see on the various heroes to illustrate he's a Well-Intentioned Extremist meant to be a Foil to the good guys.
- Well-Intentioned Extremist: This version of Thanos is driven to stop what he believes will eventually become an apocalyptic Overpopulation Crisis. By using the Infinity Gauntlet to wipe half of intelligent life, he'll be saving the other half from using up their natural resources faster than those resources can be replenished.
- Freudian Excuse:
- The majority of his species died after an Overpopulation Crisis led them to use up all the natural resources on his homeworld of Titan. Thanos believes it's his duty to stop such a tragedy from ever happening again... even if it means wiping out half the universe to save the other half.
- He was also ostracized during his childhood due to his genetic deformity, which played a major role in shaping his personality.
- Adaptational Heroism: In the comics, Thanos is a Death worshiper who killed half the universe as an offering to his "love". In the MCU, Thanos is a true Well-Intentioned Extremist who believes killing trillions is a necessary evil to "save the universe from itself" and protect trillions more from resource wars, overpopulation, and permanent environmental damage to their own homes.
Where has this information been coming from? I have not found any sources for this anywhere other than this site. I'm tempted to say this might be fake, as the movie hasn't come out yet for starters.
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?
openRed Zone Cuba entries Film
The YMMV page for Red Zone Cuba has the following entries for Designated Hero and Unintentionally Unsympathetic:
- Designated Hero: The main characters are entirely unsympathetic, particularly Griffin. He is supposed to be viewed as a put-upon everyman who just suffers from poor impulse control, but is instead portrayed as a selfish, violent, and hypocritical murderer and rapist. When the work page describes Griffin as "one of the most disturbingly realistic portrayals of a sociopath in film", something went wrong.
- Unintentionally Unsympathetic: Griffin was meant to be seen as a mostly decent person who was down on his luck and held back by a Hair-Trigger Temper, and what happens to him at the end of the movie was supposed to be tragic and thought-provoking. However, he does nothing even remotely heroic or altruistic at all throughout the entire story; anything he does that seems so (asking for water for a sick man in a POW camp, or treating the wife of said sick man nicely) is merely calculated to advance his own agenda. Griffin was supposed to have fallen beyond sympathy when he rapes a blind girl and murders her father, but he failed to establish any sympathy to lose by that point.
The entries don't cite any evidence that Griffin was meant to be sympathetic, and having seen the uncut film, it doesn't come off that way at all. He comes off simply as a Villain Protagonist who's driven by greed and gets his comeuppance at the end. No one in the film expresses sympathy for his death, and aside from grim music briefly playing when he's shot down, there's no hint of it being meant to be tragic. Also, his line that he wants to "go legit" is followed by him saying, "I don't want any bulls chasing me," so in context it's clearly Pragmatic Villainy rather than him wanting to redeem himself.
It's worth noting that Coleman Francis's films in general are dark and gritty, and tend to focus on unsympathetic characters, so this may simply be his Signature Style, and Griffin being the Villain Protagonist may have been mistaken for the film portraying him as the hero. Can these be cut?
Edited by Javertshark13openFilm/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 jjjj2openActor Allusion clarification Film
SOLVED: Production Throwback
Can Actor Allusion be also applied to the director or is it strictly for actors?
In Conspiracy Theory, one of the scenes has the characters hide in a crowded cinema, where they are screening Ladyhawke. Both were directed by Richard Donner and he picked the screened movie himself as a joke.
Edited by TropiarzopenHarry 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.
openSalvaged Story entries Film
On the YMMV page for the Black Panther film, several entries under Author's Saving Throw were moved to Salvaged Story:
- Following in the footsteps of the Vulture, the Grandmaster, and Hela, Killmonger was chosen as a deliberate attempt to create a sympathetic and memorable MCU bad guy after a string of widely-criticized and forgettable Generic Doomsday Villains. Given the amount of "Killmonger Was Right" memes currently circulating around the web, it's probably safe to say they succeeded and then some. Much the same goes for Klaue who became a fan-favorite as a Laughably Evil companion of Killmonger.
- The filmmakers have gone out of their way to avoid the continuity problems that have plagued the MCU. While the Marvel movies are widely praised, they have been criticized for Continuity Lock-Out and focusing more on setting up sequels. Black Panther functions as a self-contained story with almost no references to the previous film or characters outside of the news broadcast and Ross briefly recapping T'Challa's arc in Captain America: Civil War and the post-credits scene involving Bucky Barnes in Wakanda, thereby making it more accessible for casual fans.
- In the comics, M'Baku the Man-Ape is a savage, brutish Scary Black Man who dresses up as a gorilla, which brings to mind uncomfortable racist caricatures comparing black people to monkeys and apes. This movie doesn't use the "Man-Ape" moniker and downplays the gorilla imagery, while hitting him with a dose of Adaptational Heroism to turn him into an Anti-Villain who undergoes a Heel–Face Turn.
The problem is that none of these seem to fit the trope's current definition (which is about a problematic story element being explained) but rather focus on the film avoiding problems that previous entries had.
Edited by Javertshark13openAPP Goofy Movie fanfic trope inquiry Film
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.
openWeird reorganization on What an Idiot!.Saw Film
Recently, Ansongc2000 has done a reorganization process for What an Idiot!.Saw that I find rather weird. To wit, not long beforehand, I had created folders for each film to concur with the first "In General" entry added to the page, especially as some of the film sections were already quite long by then. Then Ansongc walked in and added a decent bunch of new examples (while also removing or rearranging a few existing ones without much explanation other than them being "bad") for the first seven films, while also grouping them in a single folder and leaving Jigsaw and Spiral with their respective folders; they also removed the "Series-wide" and "By movie" headers I added to split the "In General" folder and the movie-specific ones in their own parts. In fact, they relegated the "By movie" name to the new folder for the first seven movies, even though it doesn't make sense when put alongside the Jigsaw and Spiral folders with their respective films' titles.
Even if grouping the movies by major storyline can be reasoned because of Jigsaw and Spiral having time gaps with both the first seven consecutive films and each other, it leaves a somewhat disproportioned and confusing structure for me, especially as plenty of the first seven movies' sections are now as long as the ones that used to be the longest before Ansongc's edits (not to mention to aforementioned issue with the "By movie" name). Even though I did the previous structure myself, I honestly prefer that structure for a movie series' What an Idiot! page over the page's current one.
By the way, I informed Ansongc about this query via private message.
Edited by Inky100openMispelling 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 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 lalalei2001openHaving 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."
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.
openJames 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.

The YMMV page for the Black Panther film has the following entry under Alternate Character Interpretation:
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