YKTTW: Walrus Tusk.
I'm bringing it up here first, before going to YKTTW, since I'm not sure whether it is already a trope (have looked), and whether it should be.
Walrus Tusk (named by Chuck) comes from the "Miracle Day" reviews. It means a codename for a project, operation, technology, etc. that is meaningless on its own. It reveals nothing to the main characters about the thing it names, nor advances the plot in any way. Therefore, said codename, whatever it is, could easily be replaced with "Walrus Tusk", an equally meaningless name.
A more "proper" name for this trope would be "Meaningless Clue", since it is a clue whose only purpose is to reveal that there are more clues out there to be found, rather than actually providing a clue in itself. Of course, by naming it "Walrus Tusk" it becomes a This Trope Name References Itself, which is awesome (not sure whether that's desirable, but still cool).
Opinions?
Hide / Show Replies
Did you look up in Lost And Found? If so, feel free to take it to YKTTW.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Posted in Lost and Found, though I think it won't be found there.
What do you think about naming it "Walrus Tusk" though? Is it too vague? Because I would really love to name it after Chuck's quote if I can.
"Walrus Tusk" to me is a meaningless string of letters. Or in other words, too unclear for being name of a trope. Maybe Plan Walrus Tusk but I don't think YKTTW will accept that.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
- "Walrus Tusk" to me is a meaningless string of letters.
That's exactly the point of using it, it's a self-demonstrating trope title. The only question is whether that is an acceptable trope title.
Given that What Could Have Been is for when the producers discard ideas and not for reviewers giving ideas on how a show could do better, I cut the following list. Perhaps it could be incorporated elsewhere:
- Pointing out instances where he sees wasted potential especially in bad episodes and movies is something Chuck does frequently.
- He reviewed Star Trek: Insurrection. He ripped it apart. However, at the start of part 4, he theorized about an internal conflict among the crew, with each character having different motivations which conflict with the rest, causing a rift between them. If this had actually been in the film, it would have been greatly improved.
- In a video dedicated to Kes, he theorizes that had her character arc been better planned out, she could have been an effective "River from Firefly" type character.
- In his review of Star Trek (2009) he points out that Nero was far more fleshed-out and sympathetic in the comic book tie-in to the film. He points out Nero could have been the most compelling Trek villain since Khan, and gives a chilling monologue regarding the villain's motivations, finishing with a lament that instead of an effective villain, Nero's lack of on-screen development put him across as some "emo with a trident."
- In response to a bogus rumor that Edward James Olmos was considered for the part of Janeway, Chuck ruminates that we'd see "a lot more of Neelix being bludgeoned with a flashlight, so that's one serious loss we've suffered." The VOY premiere would have doubled as the Series Finale, with the crew getting home immediately after throwing the Kazons Out the Airlock.
- In his review of "Non Sequitur," he points out a way the episode could have been infinitely more compelling and developed Harry Kim's character - instead of having him fight being planted in a branching timeline from the very start, have him go with it, tell the truth to everyone who thinks he's acting so weird, and only have him consider going back to Voyager after he learns that his inaction in this timeline resulted in Paris's death.
- He speculates in his review of "Out of Gas" what could the creators have done with the universe and the characters of ''Firefly if the show hadn't been cancelled.
- In his review of "Acquisition" he notes how for a fleeting moment the episode manages to make the Ferengi look truly intimidating, and muses about how things might have turned out if that had always been the case with them.
- When reviewing the episode Timeless, he talks about how great LeVar Burton was at directing this episode, how he worked with the actors to get them to give their best performance, and laments how utterly screwed he got when the higher-ups decided to hand the reins of Star Trek: Nemesis over to Stuart Baird.
- When discussing the much-hated Reset Button ending to "Year of Hell," he offers a way the story could have had lasting impact without derailing the whole show: just one room on the ship didn't get the shields down in time to go through the time erasing effect, and Harry Kim was inside. This would double as a great new angle for a character so boring they were planning to kill him off before his actor was named one of the year's sexiest people.
Perhaps this should simply be renamed to Wild Mass Guessing instead of What Could Have Been. Or some sort of Fanon trope.
Scratch that, I just remembered the existence of They Wasted a Perfectly Good Plot and They Wasted a Perfectly Good Character.
The former actually exists as a point in TropesS-Z. I'm going to add any non-duplicate examples from this discussion into that section now. The rest will be added to a new point for They Wasted a Perfectly Good Character.
Edited by Headrock
Welp, I did that, but all examples for They Wasted a Perfectly Good Character show up as YMMV. I know there's a way to override this (justified, since this is all In-Universe), but I don't remember how to do it...
Don't know whether you still needed, but you can either write In-Universe or [invoked].
Does anyone know why some reviews like "Twisted" and "Innocence" are missing?
Hide / Show Replies
I think they were from his old Youtube channel that got suspended for using 99 Red Balloons; the ones on Blip now are remakes rather than reuploads. (That's my understanding, at least; I didn't know about this guy until recently.)
He got a warning from Youtube when whoever owns Star Trek this week (sorry, just had to) flagged his review of Trials and Tribble-ations and because of his earlier warning from BBC (Red Dwarf) he only have one strike left so he removed his reviews from youtube and put them up again on blip with remade script and audio. Those two episodes will probably be up relatively soon as he said he would be putting up an old Voyager episode each week (though it seems he won't this week due to the 3 part DS 9 and the late Avatar review)
Without love, it cannot be seen.
Brainiac0982
Is anyone else having trouble getting to the site because of "security warnings"? And how would we contact the site owner about it?
Who Lives, Who Dies, Who Tells Your Story?