Remark History - TV Tropes

Discussion History UsefulNotes / TheBechdelTest

Go To

[001] 24.190.176.237 Current Version

Changed line(s) 5 from:

Now as to the validity of my examples...the fact is they both meet the criteria as per the trope description. It was NOT a case of them taking the roles for money, because to my knowledge I didn\'t think Haysbert, Sutherland, or Stewart didn\'t need it. Nor was it about them played against type, as all three actors have done very different roles prior to those shows (Haysbert was a southern slave and a baseball player, Sutherland was a vampire and a musketeer, and Stewart was a Roman soldier and one of the guys from Dune so....).

to:

Both the examples meet the criteria as per the trope description. It was NOT a case of them taking the roles for money, because to my knowledge I didn\\\'t think Haysbert, Sutherland, or Stewart needed the money. Nor was it about them playing against type, as all three actors have done very different roles prior to those shows (Haysbert was a southern slave and a baseball player, Sutherland was a vampire and a musketeer, and Stewart was a Roman soldier and one of the guys from Dune so....).

Changed line(s) 7 from:

And you\'re contention that having doubts means nothing, well, I can only say that..if you think carefully about this,, then EVERY example on a trope page called W.T.H. casting agency will be a result of people having doubts. Or maybe you wish to remove EVERY example....

to:

And you\\\'re contention that having doubts means nothing, well, I can only say that..if you think carefully about this,, EVERY example on a trope page called \\\"W.T.H. casting agency\\\" would involve people having doubts. Do you have issues with EVERY example on the page??

Changed line(s) 9 from:

You claim I\'m repeating the same joke a \

to:

Also, you claim I\\\'m repeating the same joke a \\\"hundred\\\" times (your words). Well, unless you\\\'re mixing up my edits, I\\\'ve only added three examples. I notice that the last one I added about the reaction to Simon Pegg as Scotty doesn\\\'t seem to stir up your ire. Additionally, there are several other examples on the page that based on your own objections would be far more worthy of your....acute editing...than mine. For instance, where Hugh Laurie as House is concerned, it seems that a lot of the \\\"WTH\\\" is apocryphal at best; I myself have read several accounts that state that many people felt casting him as an irascible doctor was actually spot-on. Whereas, again, both of my examples are DOCUMENTED as creating \\\"What the hell??\\\" reactions.

Bottom line, I think you just don\\\'t like the comedic tone I used to add examples. Which is fine, not everybody has to get my jokes. But...my original statement stands. Your opinion of how funny or un-funny I am is just that, an \\\'\\\'opinion\\\'\\\'. I don\\\'t have to justify it or change it on account of you and I won\\\'t; I\\\'m afraid you\\\'re just going to have to deal with it.

If your issue is legitimately with the validity of the examples as they relate to the trope description, then perhaps you want to change the trope description, otherwise I think you should leave my comments alone.

Please and thank you.

Discussion History UsefulNotes / TheBechdelTest