Well they've done it in every other entry in these recaps. This is the first time I've seen it being contested. I don't see the harm in adding it.
Edited by Retro7 It all good, just try to keep it that way. Neh?
"People got away with it before" is not a defense. The trope definition is what matters. If the example doesn't fit, it has to go, period—and for that matter, maybe its use in all the other recaps should be reviewed as well.
Meh fine. I honestly don't care.
Edited by Retro7 It all good, just try to keep it that way. Neh?
I read the description for Absentee Actor, and just I don't see it having the standard you're trying to set. In fact, one part seems to outright contradict it: "Maybe there was just nothing for the character to do that episode."
I think the trope should stay here. It's meaningful. I have no personal stake, though. I suggest that if the opinion is that it's inappropriate to use it here, then the trope definition itself needs to be clarified.
The first two paragraphs of the description set the standard quite clearly, especially this part: "A character (main or bit) whose presence would be either plot-relevant or at least plausible in the episode, and is completely absent for the episode. They don't even get a non-speaking cameo even though they should be involved with the plot at hand, or at least present in the location." The absence has to be conspicuous.
The part you're pointing to is listed as a possible reason for the absence, and it would fall under the Law of Conservation of Detail. It simply means that if you asked the writer why the character was absent, the writer might reply that "there was just nothing for the character to do"—that is, that their presence wouldn't have served any purpose in the episode as it was written. It does not negate the requirement that the character's absence be eyebrow-raising.
Edited by MrL1193
You're cherry-picking. "A character (main or bit) whose presence would be either plot-relevant or at least plausible in the episode, and is completely absent for the episode."
Meanwhile, the part you bolded reads to me like a possible example of the trope in use, rather than a key portion of the definition.
As for what you said here: "The part you're pointing to is listed as a possible reason for the absence, and it would fall under the Law of Conservation of Detail. It simply means that if you asked the writer why the character was absent, the writer might reply that "there was just nothing for the character to do"—that is, that their presence wouldn't have served any purpose in the episode as it was written." that is exactly the case in Bloom and Gloom.
The description of the trope is obviously not clear, since this disagreement exists. I read it again. I still don't see the "requirement that the character's absence be eyebrow-raising". The trope description seems to say that's something that might happen, or that it might be a particularly conspicuous example of the trope, but it doesn't seem to be a requirement for the base trope at all.
I'm doing nothing more than interpreting the trope definition in a way that gives it meaning. If you remove the requirement that the character's presence be expected in some way, then the trope loses all meaning. Since "main character" is specifically ruled out as a requirement, you could, in theory, go back and put on 80-90% of the recap pages, "Cheerilee doesn't appear." She lives in Ponyville, so a background appearance by her would at least be "plausible" in most episodes. But there would still be one big problem: It wouldn't mean anything.
"This character should have been present in the episode but wasn't" is a trope.
"This character wasn't present in the episode" is People Sit On Chairs.
It is also important to note here that MLP:FIM is different from many other shows in that episodes that don't feature some of the main characters are a regular occurrence. In a show like I Love Lucy, the absence of the title character would be remarkable in any episode, but in MLP:FIM, main characters are absent all the time. (That is why Absentee Actor has been slapped onto so many of the recap pages, is it not?) That's why we have to be more choosy about applying the trope than just saying "Twilight/Applejack/Rainbow/Rarity/Fluttershy/Pinkie didn't appear."
Edited by MrL1193
I remember seeing Absentee Actors in a lot of recap pages, though after hearing about this discussion I thought about it and it does feel unnecessary to do it every time a Mane cast member fails to appear. The two episodes I can think of right offhand that would qualify might be "Look Before You Sleep" (the first episode to leave any of the characters out) and "Sisterhooves Social" (the first episode to leave Twilight out).
Admittedly, not so much because the Absentee characters would have been plot relevant, but more because there would have been an expectation to see them either way. Especially in Sisterhooves Social where, new format for Friendship letters or not, Twilight had appeared in literally every episode before that point so there would be an expectation to see her which is what I mainly take from the definition (not seeing a character when you'd have every reason to think they would appear)
Edited by sgamer82
The trope's description is more focused on one-time absences than instances where a new pattern is being set, but I can definitely see where you're coming from with those two episodes. Hm...
Is Apple Bloom's winking cutie mark really a Take That! to Friendship is Witchcraft? If anything, I think it might be more of a Fandom Nod, but I'm not so sure about that either.
I'm thinking it was meant as a clue to Apple Bloom herself that she was responsible for her own nightmares, and to the audience that a cutie mark always represents the pony wearing it. Or maybe it was just something completely meaningless, like the Cheese Guy in the Buffy episode "Restless".
Edited by pvsage Hide / Show Replies
That entry did catch my attention, but since I have no familiarity whatsoever with Friendship is Witchcraft, I left it alone. I must admit, though, that I have difficulty imagining how the winking cutie mark could be derogatory.
"Cute from the Hip" (abridged mostly from "Call of the Cutie") replaced the generic cutie marks that Twilight tried to magically make appear with a series of odd marks, the first of which was Twilight herself making the face from the FIW page image, to which Twilight responded "Oh, who is that pretty lady?" Maybe that's what the troper was referring to. I'm mostly leaning toward the changing cutie marks being a Continuity Nod to "Call of the Cutie", with the Apple Bloom cutie mark being an example of Real Dreams are Weirder.
It makes me think of it often, and it feels like one to me. I didn't mean to be stubborn, but that scene from that one episode of FiW makes me think of the same thing happening in "Bloom and Gloom". I just think it is.
Co-author of Code Wings 3.0. Also... I'M RUNNING FOR THE RIVER!!
I'm still more inclined to think it's a Continuity Nod to "Call of the Cutie".
I'm more inclined to think the rest of the Apples' reactions to Apple Bloom's cutie mark in the third dream before The Reveal might me a nod to the Camaraderie is Supernatural episode "Call of the Creepy", suggesting the possibility of an embarrassing or profane cutie mark...but even that would be a stretch.
Need some more opinions on whether Apple Bloom's dolphin cutie mark in the third nightmare is a Continuity Nod. Yes, there were dolphins present in the previous dream episode, but they were used as a symbol of good luck there, and they didn't look particularly goofy. Is it really more than a coincidence?
Hide / Show Replies
Description you offer looks like coincidence.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
This episode looks into a lot of what fans wondered about the CMC (would they still be friends after getting their cutie marks, what if they got ones they didn't want, would they be shunned for them?), would that fall under Deconstruction, Ascended Fridge Horror, or any other tropes?
Hide / Show Replies
I think it would fall under Jossed. By putting these issues within the context of the nightmares, they are probably saying "These concerns are silly."
AB's 3 nightmares actually are quite interesting to analyze from a psych. point of view. The first one is basically the fear of responsibility. Here she is, the only one capable of catching a swarm of Shock and Awe bugs and when she fails, Ponyville and Equestria are basically doomed.
Second nightmare increases the emotional pain level: the fear of rejection. The fear of a group of friends trying to find a purpose in life and when one accomplishes it, the rest would look like they haven't accomplished nothing so their reaction would be shunned. Worse, if the others accomplish things and there's one left. The remaining one will be shunned. That really hits home when you have friends who basically have either "outgrown you" or you "outgrew them".
Third nightmare is the worst type of rejection: The one from family. Some kids have families that have high hopes for them, possibly going into a career just like them or something that would be born of greatness...only for the child to choose the complete opposite. How would the family react? In worst case scenario, just like what happened: A complete and total humiliation and rejection of the family member, making him or her fend for themselves.
Yes, it's a kid's show, but it's this sorta thing that makes adults and grown-ups stop and think. Are we moving too fast to find our purpose in life? Will the weight of responsibility be too much? Will our friends still accept us for what we become? Will our families accept us for what we turn into? it's stuff like this that make me glad I watch this show.
Ok, enough overanalysis. Back to the ponies.
Edited by JD2K Hide / Show Replies
Seems like you could write an analysis on Analysis.My Little Pony Friendship Is Magic S 5 E 4 Bloom And Gloom, I think.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
In Apple Bloom's second dream, her shadow says "Sounds to me like cutie marks and trouble are two peas in the same pod." Given the beliefs of Starlight Glimmer in the season premiere, does this look like a Bait-and-Switch? Before Apple Bloom's first Catapult Nightmare, even though I was sure it was a dream sequence, I was willing to accept the possibility that Starlight was involved, and I the second dream I was half-willing to believe Starlight was a Dream Walker.
So, as is often the case, it seems like people are eager to add Absentee Actor to the examples list just because members of the Main 6 are not present. The problem is, there's more to the definition of the trope than just a character being absent. They have to be conspicuously missing from a scene where you would have expected them to show up.
I really can't see any reasonable expectation for characters like Fluttershy and Rainbow Dash to show up at the farm or the clubhouse. The only absent character whom I might have expected to see is Twilight (during the twittermite infestation in the first nightmare), but even that seems like a stretch.
Edited by MrL1193 Hide / Show Replies