You can suggest that course of action in the forum thread, where more people will see it.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanI followed the link and encountered this post from Madrugada:
"This thread was made to list trope pages that need to have the banners added, so that they are easy for Eddie to find and he doesn't have to search the whole Trope Talk and Repair shop forums looking for them. It's not really the place to be discussion whether a page needs one or not. It should only be listed here once the decision is made."
Which page has the discussion?
Edited by silveryrowThat thread has been retired. Nowadays we use the Trope Repair Shop for such things. Remember that you need to offer evidence that the trope is being used badly.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanBefore I post anything to Trope Repair, I want to make sure I'm not missing something - I don't want to waste anyone's time, after all. Since it seems so obviously a trope that should be classed YMMV, perhaps someone could elaborate on the description for me? I've been wrong about the meaning of tropes before and wouldn't want to make the same mistake.
"Two people are obviously attracted to each other, but some element of the story is keeping them apart."
It's the "obviously attracted" part that I feel is subjective to the viewer. Of course, sometimes you can see the creators are trying to show UST (whether or not the actors have chemistry), but... I've read a bunch of examples on the trope page, and a lot of them could be signs of deep friendship rather than sexual tension. Any clarification would be welcome!
Should I use the TRS for suggestions of moving a trope to YMMV/subjective tropes?
X-Files, "War of the Coprophages." Scully expresses incredulity with a strong hint of jealousy at finding out Mulder is working with a Dr. Bambi Berenbaum. Added it in as an example, was removed by Mr Death almost immediately thereafter.
Putting it up for public review. My rationale is that Scully's expression of disbelief at Dr. Berenbaum's name implies jealousy on her part that Mulder is working with another woman while she's hundreds of miles away. Supported by the tone of her voice when she later greets Dr. Berenbaum in person with "Let me guess...Bambi."
Keep or discard?
Siggy boogy doog. Hide / Show RepliesHer disbelief is just because her name is Bambi which is, let's face it, not a name that's going to be taken seriously. It's got nothing to do with jealousy. It's the name, that she focuses on, not the gender.
Celticwhisper is right. Scully specifically asks 'she?' when she finds out Mulder is talking about a female scientist, not a male one.
Add it back on.
Just asking about a gender doesn't necessarily make it an example of this trope. It still seems to me that Scully is more concerned about her name being Bambi than the fact that Mulder is associating with a woman.
Her vocal inflection when she says it, however, does.
Siggy boogy doog.Late opinion. I got the impression that because Mulder was working with another woman, Scully was jealous about their professional relationship - he is HER partner, SHE is his scientific go-to girl, it took them time to develop their trust, and now he's off with some 'Bambi'...
Why is there an abbreviated version of the title? Just saying UST doesn't say anything about the trope, it's just three letters.
Hide / Show RepliesBecause it does get used in conversation quite often and it's a useful redirect?
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.But it's not an alternate title, it's a abbreviation.
Unresolved Sexual Tension says everything about the trope (it's sexual tension between characters that never gets resolved), whereas UST says nothing, especially in potholes.
In fact, none of the places where UST is used are instinces where the full title wouldn't work.
I don't really get your problem. You seem to think a redirect with more wicks than most tropes is a bad thing. Clearly if it sees that much use, people are going to use it anyway. It's part of the TV Tropes lexicon.
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.Really, my problem is when it is used for entries on example pages (I can't think of any reason why the full title can't be used) and when it's used for potholes, since the link has no effect on what's displayed, but especially when the link is UST and the phrase in the pothole is "unresolved sexual tension", instead of simply putting curly brackets around it to make it a link.
What I mean is:
- UST: Between Alice and Bob.
and
"... Alice and Bob's [[{{UST}} unresolved sexual tension]].
Otherwise, I have no problem with it.
- Eduardo and Kylie from Extreme Ghostbusters. The two have a love/hate relationship going since meeting in the first episode. Many clues were given, such as when they went out of their way to save each other and most notably when Eduardo had an intimate dream about Kylie. Unfortunately, the show was canceled before there was any resolution. Darn. Here's hoping that they'll be in the new Ghostbusters movie.
- It should be noted that Kylie showed absolutely no attraction to him whatsoever, appearing to tolerate him at best. Her attraction was often more focused towards men with high intelligence, something Edwardo definitely is not.
- Also, in the last episode, Eduardo is obviously attracted by a girl named Amanda. Kylie doesn't seem to mind.
They very much have an attraction to each other at times, but it's never a major, dramatic, or remotely permanent thing. And on at least one occasion, deliberately played for laughs. At best, it might go under being a subversion of Belligerent Sexual Tension.
Coming back to where you started is not the same as never leaving. -Terry PratchettMight this count as an example?:
In the webcomic The World Of Vicki Fox, the earliest strips, particularly "Sisters", shows Vicki's struggle with her attraction to her local church pastor, Steve. After a scheme concocted by her "not quite Evil Twin" sister Zephy to seduce Steve (just to bully Vicki) is foiled, Vicki and Steve are seen talking. It becomes quite clear to any viewer that she REALLY wants him, but, as her official profile on the site explains, she can't ask him out herself because it would defy "tradition". This is understandable. But that's not what makes me think this example is worthy.
It isn't until the next strip, "Pecan Festival", that we see the two together again having a bit of tea. But after that... the whole conflict seems to have disappeared from comic altogether since... It has frustrated the hell out of me for years.
Edited by CarlosJMunez88I hope this doesn't sound too noobish, but... examples don't necessarily have to be sexual, right?
Almost certainly not an example: the tension is resolved in the same book as it is introduced and they form a couple. They may have some rocky patches but we're not talking the sustained UST of the trope.
- Carrot and Angua in the City Watch sub-series of Discworld. It's hinted that they live together, but Angua has a lot of hang-ups about her being a werewolf and him being human, and Carrot's just too much of a nice guy to press things. Just when it seems like they may be coming to an understanding at the end of The Fifth Elephant, the next book in the series is Night Watch, which is centered on another character and contains only brief cameos for Carrot and Angua. By the next book, Thud!, they seem to be back to the status quo and nothing has changed.
- Actually, it was very much resolved in the first book Angua was introduced in, and all other characters definitely consider them a couple. They just don't marry or have children.
I think this is just speculation about some flirting.
- [[QI]] Every time Rob Brydon makes an appearance on the show, this trooper expects that Brydon, and the host, [[Stephen Fry]] to descend in to angry man-sex right on the stage, fueled by Fry's constant Welsh Jokes.
Looks like this is incorrect — moved it here:
- Not just Inu Yasha — Anything and everything by Rumiko Takahashi. The woman is addicted to this trope. It runs in her veins to the exclusion of blood.
- Well, in all fairness Sango and Miroku do end up married in the end, as well as Inu-Yasha and Kagome.
- And of course there's Maison Ikkoku, where Godai and Kyouko get married, and had at one and a half on-screen sex scenes.
- Well, in all fairness Sango and Miroku do end up married in the end, as well as Inu-Yasha and Kagome.
- Not just Inu Yasha — Anything and everything by Rumiko Takahashi. The woman is addicted to this trope. It runs in her veins to the exclusion of blood.
This trope is incredibly subjective.
For example, people displaying jealousy about each other doesn't automatically translate to sexual tension. It suggests that two people cannot be romantically interested in each other without physical attraction, when in reality people often display interest for other attributes (looks, hobbies, etc) only to find out there is no spark. Subsequently, what one person interprets as 'sexual tension' on-screen merely refers to directed displays of interest. When you consider the ephemeral nature of chemically driven attraction, it's insanely hard for actors to portray with believability. As an example, I never felt any tension between Booth and Brennan in 'Bones' or Josh and Donna in 'The West Wing', but I'm reliably informed by 'everyone' that it was/is there. I noted the actors' attempt to portray it, in the former case, but that didn't make me FEEL it. The difference being feeling and seeing.
Many of the examples seem to be due to shipping, as well, with fans who really like both characters projecting their hopes for the show, as in 'Rizzoli & Isles'.
I suppose I could take the trope name to refer to instances where the writers and/or producers directed the actors to behave in a manner that clearly said 'these two are supposed to fancy each other', but that only goes so far.
I guess my point is that an example cannot be stated categorically as being true or factual, which leads me to suggest that this shouldn't be a 'true' trope.
Edited by 81.227.161.142 Hide / Show Replies