Is there a reason that the author of the article did everything BUT define the trope called "shipping bed death?"
PLEASE bring the page up to the minimum standards needed in reference material! The trope is not defined anywhere on the page, as far as I can see, after having combed the page many times.
Please LEAD page with the definition. Eg:
"'Shipping Bed Death' is a trope defined as one in which
[insert number] of characters ___________
[because of/when/until/despite/etc.]
__________.
The trope appears to have originated in (year) as a part of (production)."
Thanks in advance!
Edited by Jabberwockytpc Hide / Show Replies
There's a Trope Improvement Description Drive thread in the forums where you can ask for help.
135 - 158 - 273 - 191 - 188 - 230 - 300
Seems pretty well defined for me. Shipping Bed Death is an audience reaction when characters becoming a couple makes the audience less interested in the story. What is so unclear about it?
A little confused?
Per the Main topic, shipping arcs are the gift that keep on giving because viewers will watch even when the show is boring or disappointing just in case the OTP finally do something. Writers cling to the endless spinning out of UST for just this reason, and ending it will end the show because fans will lose interest.
I'm not sure I see it. It seems to me to require ignoring the fact that by the time the show failed, it was a boring show which was disappointing to watch.
Looking at the same body of examples, you could make equally as compelling an anecdotal case that the introduction of UST signals the point where the writers who came up with the witty dialogue and interesting plots you watched for in the first place started phoning it in.
Like, for instance, they did in Moonlighting, when they bothered to show up.
Hide / Show Replies
Is there a reason that the author of the article did everything BUT define the trope called "shipping bed death?"
So I decided to crunch the numbers a bit, with a bit of ctrl-F'ing.
Straight Examples: 27,736 characters. 43 listed examples.
Aversions, Inversions, Mixed: 39,609 characters. 81 listed examples.
I thought the idea behind including aversions was if the trope is an Omnipresent Trope and it being avoided is notable. While inversions (cases where people hated the process of the characters becoming a couple, but liked them once they were a couple) are certainly warranted, it clearly isn't an Omnipresent Trope if the listing of aversions and inversions is nearly half again as long as the listing of straight examples, and contains nearly twice as many examples.
Edited by MBG