[004]
70.143.75.58
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
The first one made back its budget multiple times over (the exact opposite of what a film has to do to qualify), and the second film is even less oft-maligned than the first one was, making it less horrible than a film that doesn\'t even qualify as horrible. However, A very good argument was made in defense of the third one\'s indefensibility, so I put it on the list alphabetically.
to:
The first one made back its budget multiple times over (the exact opposite of what a film has to do to qualify), and the second film is even less oft-maligned than the first one was, making it less horrible than a film that wasn\\\'t even horrible in the first place. However, A very good argument was made in defense of the third one\\\'s indefensibility, so I put it on the list alphabetically.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
The first one made back its budget multiple times over (the exact opposite of what a film has to do to qualify), and the second film is even less oft-maligned than the first one was, which means it isn\'t horrible by default. However, A very good argument was made in defense of the third one\'s indefensibility, so I put it on the list alphabetically.
to:
The first one made back its budget multiple times over (the exact opposite of what a film has to do to qualify), and the second film is even less oft-maligned than the first one was, making it less horrible than a film that doesn\\\'t even qualify as horrible. However, A very good argument was made in defense of the third one\\\'s indefensibility, so I put it on the list alphabetically.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
There are a lot of non-examples making their way here, and I think the trope description is part of the problem. The Laconic defines the trope as basically, \
to:
There are a lot of non-examples making their way here, and I think the trope description is part of the problem. The Laconic defines the trope as basically, \\\"A male character is weak and ill-adjusted because he\\\'s a virgin,\\\" but the second paragraph of the description makes it sound like it\\\'s more along the lines of \\\"A male character\\\'s non-virginity is established firmly and early on.\\\" While those two stem from the same idea, in practice they seem like two totally different tropes, which is probably why I\\\'m seeing strange things like Jim from \\\'\\\'American Pie\\\'\\\' and James Bond right next to each other in the Examples section.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
There are a lot of non-examples making their way here, and I think the trope description is part of the problem. The Laconic defines the trope as basically, \
to:
There are a lot of non-examples making their way here, and I think the trope description is part of the problem. The Laconic defines the trope as basically, \\\"A male character is weak and ill-adjusted because he\\\'s a virgin,\\\" but the second paragraph of the description makes it sound like it\\\'s more along the lines of \\\"A male character\\\'s non-virginity is established firmly and early on.\\\" While those two stem from the same idea, in practice they are two totally different tropes, which is probably why I\\\'m seeing strange things like Jim from \\\'\\\'American Pie\\\'\\\' and James Bond right next to each other in the Examples section.
