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:
resolved 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 MinisterOfSinisterresolved CreatorKiller entry on The Book of Henry Film
The trivia page for The Book of Henry has a Creator Killer entry for Collin Trevorrow. This had been added before in the past, first about his involvement on Episode 9 of the new Star Wars trilogy and then expanded with speculation about the Jurassic World trilogy. The final entry red as such:
- Creator Killer: The critical disparaging of this film, alongside Colin Trevorrow's allegedly egotistical behavior on the set of this film and Jurassic World, have been credited as what led to him and Lucasfilm mutually going their separate ways during The Rise of Skywalker. The critical reception of Jurassic World Dominion (which, as of this writing, has the lowest score in the franchise's history) hasn't been able to redeem him.
Which I deleted citing that I felt people were jumping the gun on how damaged Trevorrow's carreer was. Yes, Dominion has a middling reviews, but it still did an absurd amount of money at the box office in spite of the negative reception among critics and even some longtime fans.
Since then the entry has been re-added rewritten to be just about the speculation surrounding Episode 9 again.
- Creator Killer: Some suspect the failure of this film and its negative reception may have cost Trevorrow the chance to direct the third film in the Star Wars sequel trilogy, which he was originally lined up to helm before Lucasfilm gave it to J. J. Abrams instead.
My question is aint Trevorrow's future as a creator still up in the air, making the entry still speculatory? Trevorrow is seemingly still attached to the Jurassic franchise going forward, serving as executive executive producer the way Spielberg did before him after The Lost World.
Anyone has any input on this particular case? I'd rather not do anything since I could potentially edit war by editing without input from other tropers.
Edited by MrSeykerresolved Are jokes that is not In-Universe are allowed here when you described an example or not? Film
So I was looking at this trope page of Accent Relapse where I found an example from the movie called The Rocketeer where the example is different then the one on the main page. I mean the way someone describe it in Accent Relapse page in a joking manner.
From The Rocketeer page
- Accent Relapse: Neville Sinclair (Note from Bubblepig: I spoiler mark it because the name is a spoiler ) speaks perfect English in an upper-class English accent during the whole movie — until he is exposed as a Nazi spy, after which he reverts to speaking in a German accent.
In Accent Relapse page
- The Rocketeer: The Nazi spy, Neville Sinclair, played by Timothy Dalton, after speaking perfect English the whole movie, ZUDDENLY HAZ ZE GERMAN ACCZENT VUNCE HE ISS EXPOZED, JA!
Do you think this is allowed here? Let me know what you think asap.
Edited by Bubblepigresolved "A time to kill": From Questionable trope entries to a questionable page overall. Film
So...I noticed the page for A Time to Kill was made years ago by erforce, who's account was deleted a while ago. Overall, the way it was all written sounds weirdly apologetic to the two white supremacists while overtly critical to Carl and the protagonists of the film.
I'll be very honest; I'm unfamiliar with the policy in regard to entries with tropes like Black-and-Gray Morality, if any, so I will need the perspective or knowledge of fellow tropers on this one.
I was looking through the page, and then I noticed the entries done for Black-and-Gray Morality, and I noticed this:
* What the men did to his daughter was undoubtedly reprehensible, but did that give Carl Lee the right to take their lives? If it had been a black rapist getting shot, would there be as much discussion? What if it had been your child? Well, much depends on the personal standpoint.
I can't quite put my finger on what's wrong with this entry, aside from the obvious whataboutism, but there's something that seems a bit off.
I'm also thinking, upon second inspection, it's not just the entries for that trope that are the only problematic thing about the way this page was written. Again, alot of this was edited by other tropers, but I do know that it wasn't really altered so much as it was broken up into smaller entries from what Erforce originally had written. There's more than what I've listed here, but that can be seen on the page itself.
Overall, what should be my next step of action with this? More importantly, what does everyone else make of how this page was written?
Edited by Stardust5099resolved YMMV/BlackWidow2021 Edit War Film
Unintentionally Unsympathetic is causing problems again.
Step 1. ablackraptor adds entry to page.
Step 2. Sunshine Edits 74 edits and expands it.
Step 3. Dragon Master 704 removes the entry citing disagreement.
Step 4. Richardkriener0 adds it back, without discussion on the page or the cleanup thread.
At minimum this is an Edit War, the fact it's a YMMV trope with a cleanup thread added, deleted and added again without achieving consensus may open additional breaches of the rules.
resolved Sleeping Beauty Film
On Trivia.Sleeping Beauty, Mr Matthew Hedrich keeps adding words like "possibly" and "allegedly" to entries crediting Verna Felton to Queen Leah, even after I shared a video from Disney themselves crediting her. Does this really sound necessary?
Edited by dsneybufresolved And You Thought It Would Fail Deletions Film
Edgar 81539 recently deleted two entries from the Live-Action Film section of And You Thought It Would Fail pertaining to Thor: Ragnarok and Spider-Man: No Way Home for the following edit reason: Quoting from the main page definition "A work of literature, film or television — just getting started, purely original (if there is such a thing), unaffiliated with any previous book, movie or TV show, or if it is an adaptation, the work is relatively obscure — has little hope of standing out among the established goldmines of franchises". Both of these films are sequels of highly popular franchises, that didn't have any "flops" beforehand. To act like they were underdogs is very disingeneous.
Was he correct to delete these examples?
- Edit: As pointed out in a response, I probably took on a less then respectful tone in an earlier form of this query. Apologies for rudeness.
resolved A review for Cuties Film
A few hours ago, Onibank made this review to the page for Cuties.
I already flagged this review, but something tells me that it's already a ROCEJ violation, not to mention extremely rude, as they call the mods "pedophiles".
I personally don't like that the movie exists, but this person's actions takes it WAY too far, even for me.
EDIT: I checked their edit history, and other than that one review, I don't see any contributions from them.
Edited by YuriHaru567resolved Indiana Jones Box Office Bomb Film
So I see people adding Box Office Bomb to Trivia.Indiana Jones And The Dial Of Destiny when it technically hasn’t ended it’s box office run yet. According to Box Office Mojo, it’s still playing in 145 theaters in North America (not sure about foreign countries). What should be done with the entry?
resolved Edit War on YMMV / Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019) Film
Derv0sB2 Added an entry to the page in question under Unintentionally Unsympathetic. Diamond In The Robot deleted it because they didn't agree with it. Then Derv0s B 2 added it back.
Regardless of whether you agree with the entry (I don't, or at least think it needs serious work) this is clearly an Edit War. What do?
Edited by MinisterOfSinisterresolved Try to avoid edit war Film
Few days ago, drakenlol added an entry about Justice League (2017). I removed it on the ground that it got mixed reviews from the start and only have "a small but passionate group of supporters who defended it". So there must be larger group of audiencr who never like it.
Today, dwave restored it and claimed "Just because the reception was mixed instead of unilaterally positive isn't the point, it's that the film's reception has shifted to be universally panned. I can back that up too - people were much kinder when it originally came out compared to now."... which isn't what this trope is about, Condemned by History is about something very popular then become universally panned. They seem to aware of this too as they later change the words from "a small but passionate group of supporters who defended it" to "widely viewed as a Surprisingly Improved Sequel to Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, and even had a decent base of supporters."
I'm neither moviegoer nor DC fan, so I've no idea if the movie really "had a decent base of supporters" or not. But a reply on Condemned by History cleanup thread suggest otherwise.
resolved Mask of Zorro trope error, delete or comment out Film
So I came across this entry on The Mask of Zorro:
"* Artistic License – Religion: Elena says the broke the Fourth Commandment to honor her father and mother. The Fourth Commandment is to Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy."
But given that Elena is (probably) Catholic she's probably using the Augustinian division of the 10 Commandments which does put "Honor thy father and thy mother" as the 4th. Whereas Protestants use the Philonic division which makes this the 5th.
Now I would just delete this but I was wondering if it would be better commenting it out with an explanation or putting something else in just to prevent someone putting it back by mistake?
resolved Need to avoid an edit war. What's the budget? Film
I made an edit to the BoxOfficeBomb.G Through H page a few days ago to crosswick an entry for Guns Akimbo, but today I woke up to see that my edit got reverted because it had no budget. Noticeably I saw that the original wick found on Trivia.Guns Akimbo wasn't removed at all despite not listing the budget that is a requisite for being listed on Box Office Bomb. (I have tried to search for the budget of the film, but $847,947 gross is definitely a bomb based on the average movie budget of $50 to 100 million to produce). Is there a way I can look up movie budgets for a movie? I'm thinking of commenting out the original wick until then.
EDIT: Found a listing on imdb, but extra information is behind a soft paywall. Not going to get ahead from that source.
Edited by Jalpo99resolved 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 MinisterOfSinisterresolved The Wiz - Which Trope to Use? (Resolved) Film
I placed a trivia fact about the Wiz being an Acclaimed Flop on its trivia page, but did not realize I used the wrong trope, and made several edits.
hello86 removed it wholly, citing that it was missue, wasn't that trope and was instead Vindicated by History.
Since I don't want to merely put it back and cause an edit war on my part, I'm asking here: would it make sense I put it back as the corrected listing? I've also sent a DM to ask hello86 to talk things out.
ETA: I have seen that the new fact applies under the YMMV page instead and was moved there, so it looks like everything is done properly. Nothing else needs to be discussed and it doesn't need to be put it back at all since it wasn't deleted.
Edited by Nethiliaresolved Where should I add this trope? Film
Hi everyone!
I noticed that the trope If I Can Only Move heavily applies to a scene about 10 minutes into The Last Jedi; however, I'm not sure whether to add it to the page for The Last Jedi or if I should instead add it to the Resistance Starfighter Corps page, as this trope applies to one of the Corps' members (specifically Paige Tico, the one whose movement or lack thereof is pivotal). If someone could help me figure out which trope listing to tack this onto, that would be greatly appreciated!
Thanks in advance for any help!
Edited by Wikikineticresolved Spoiler Character Folder Film
ehwhynot changed the "Other Characters" folder to a "Spoilers" folder against spoiler policy on Characters.Ten Cloverfield Lane. I can't otherwise conceal the aliens. I can't change it back lest it become an edit war. I have sent them a notifier and am awaiting a response.
Edited by SkyCat32resolved Weird Tab redirect. Film
I was reading Mako's page when I noticed the Literature tab at the top. Said tab redirects to The Mako Saga and, as far as I know, the latter has no connection at all with the former. What makes things weirder is that The Mako Saga lacks any Creator tab that would link back to Mako. What is going on here?.
resolved Starship Troopers Edit war Film
Tak CWAL and Redkun edit warring and arguing in edit reasons.
- Originally added by TakCWAL
- Deleted by redkun as misuse and YMMV on Main
- Re-added by TaKCWAL
- Re-deleted as redkun as still ymmv on main
I think Redkun might technically be clear as Broken Aesop is YMMV so the deletions are making things in accordance with rules but it still would have been better to ATT first.
(I've checked and I don't think has been raised before but it was 11 days to a few weeks ago.)
madorosh removed this example from Lady Ballers
with the edit reason: "doesn't make sense, the characters in the film mention the biological fact that men have specific advantages over women, which in general is true. Not sure what 'transphobia' is being displayed - everything in the film is played for laughs"
I don't wanna cause an edit war, but the example was valid. The film tries to present itself as pro-women but the film very much plays on the supposed belief that men, even the weakest men apparently who are out of shape and washed out and haven't exercised in years, are more physically abled and skilled at sports than the most trained female athletes. Which very much does go against the film's supposed "feminist" message.
Again, I want to cause no edit war so I brought it here.
Edited by AudioSpeaks2