Well that's why I was just asking the question and speculating, not making any definitive statements. I'm perfectly willing to believe that racism just doesn't exist in this universe, at least not as we in the real world understand it, all I meant was that it's kind of ambiguous
Edited by Loopytires55
You raise some good points, but there's a difference between there being some ambiguity with the facts presented in the story which allows for the character to be interpreted in different ways and there being no facts whatsoever so you have to engage in speculation and that speculation allows you give different interpretations to the character. .
Essentially you've raised a discussion that would be better suited for the tvtrope discussion forums or reddit r/Incredibles/ where you can try out different speculations and discuss how that affects Frozone.
As I said earlier, this example doesn't hold to the purpose of Alternate Character Interpretation trope.
Edited by rva98014
&)$;@9?@4$/8&;’
How did it take this long to overturn Syndrome’s Complete Monster permaban? Like, I remember the ruling basically being increasingly less sympathetic to Syndrome’s backstory and eventually judging his actions to not so unreasonably high standards.
I got my political views from reddit and that's bad
I'm helping!
Pulled:
- Accidental Innuendo: Averted. During the Jack-Jack Attack short, Kari asks absently why her 'replacement babysitter' has a big 'S' on his chest. Syndrome says he was going to have the initials for Baby-Sitter put on there, but...
"The Sitter": ...then I'd be going around with a big 'B S' on my chest. You can see why I didn't go with that.
Accidental Innuendo is for innuendo not meant by the creator, that's why it's YMMV. This clearly is meant by the creator — it's a trope.
I'm not sure what trope this really is, though.
Edited by wingedcatgirl Trouble Cube continues to be a general-purpose forum for those who desire such a thing.
Is the Aesop "It's better to cheat than to be mediocre" part of the Family-Unfriendly Aesop or a completely separate Family-Unfriendly Aesop or a Broken Aesop?
Never trust anyone who uses "degenerate" as an insult. Hide / Show Replies
It's a Family-Unfriendly Aesop for sure.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Removed Johnny 2071s edit to this page for the following reasons:
- 1. Misuse of tropes ""Stop Having Fun" Guys" since it refers to video game play styles and "And I Must Scream", which refers to supernatural torture without hope for calling for help.
- 2. [Helen Parr] ties the entire family down, just for her own selfish intentions of fitting in. Or rather because it's the law that supers can't use their powers, and further misuse might get them relocated again or arrested.
- 3. She won't let Dash use his speed, let alone complete in the school track team. Of course not, because Dash will use his powers to cheat and the incident with his teacher shows he doesn't know how to be responsible with them. And note that they find a compromise at the end of the film.
- 4. she gets on Bob's case just for doing the thing that he was born to do, and thing that makes him feel alive: Appeal to Nature fallacy.
- 5. She doesn't even consider how demeaning and soul-crushing his day job is: Yes she does. Right after the message from Mirage she tells Bob about how she knows his job is hard and he has her sympathy for it.
- 6. she was most likely the first to give up everything: Prove it. There is no proof.
- 7. If she had her way throughout the whole film, the Parrs would be the most perfect nuclear family, while the rest of the city falls under crime, corruption, and degradation, and no little person would be safe.: Or, because, like said above, it's the law and they could get arrested for rebelling. And the city seems remarkably fine without active supers. There's some crime, but it's not Gotham City yet.
Its called YMMV for a reason. Others have made less sense than me, so I simply went with the bandwagon, since no one objected. This however, sounds like a person debate on another person's YMMV entry. Heck, YMMV might as well not exist. Even referring to one's self ("I", "Me", "this troper") doesn't seem like much an issue. The only reason this area even exist is because the tropes lister here don't fit in anywhere else. Even though certain tropes are incorrect, they can be replace by the correct tropes, instead of all this lip.
But even so, there has to be at least some acknowledgement that she is an unpleasant pain in someway, as opposed to just saying nothing but good things about her. Even certain protagonists are called jerkasses, sociopaths, and scrappies. What keeps her in the holy light on TV Tropes.
So your entire argument against all my rebuttals is "but it's my opinion and this is YMMV." Not even going to address my arguments at all. I see.
Even certain protagonists are called jerkasses, sociopaths, and scrappies.: When it's clear in-universe that they are written as jerks. That's not the case with Helen, as she's not intended to be a jerk, but caring and reasonable. A sociopath wouldn't warn her children that the guards on this island have no qualms with killing them. Your claims are obvious Ron the Death Eater at work.
Edited by 199.19.146.37
And you have to remember that Audience Reaction items are supposed to catalogue a fairly significant portion of the fandom, not just one person's opinions. If the threshold for qualifying for something was simply one troper's opinion, then almost every single character would be on almost every YMMV page as Ensemble Dark Horse, The Scrappy, etc. because someone out there will like/dislike a character.
Not to mention the entry was just poorly written, factually inaccurate, and a wholly unrelated trope.
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
There's been a recent addition to Alternate Character Interpretation:
It includes the following edit reason:
While YMMV has a strong degree of subjectivity, the entries still have to adhere to the definition of the listed trope and this example doesn't hold to the purpose of Alternate Character Interpretation.
That trope is intended to be a way of looking at a character from multiple interpretations about precisely who they are and what makes them tick. However, one of the key requirements of the trope is "as long as the facts are accounted for, nobody is too badly hurt."
The challenge with this example is too much of its premise is based on speculation and not facts presented in the movie.
Consider:
1) "The Incredibles" is clearly set in an alternate universe that is similar to but not an exact analog to ours. For example, we didn't have VCRs in classrooms and computers on business desks in the 60s. Therefore we can't make assumptions that their social development exactly tracked with ours and the movie provides no clear facts regarding this. So, "being set in the 60s" effectively tells us nothing.
2) We don't know anything about their Civil Rights movement. Is it currently going on? Has it been going on for decades? Did they even need one? There will always be prejudice in society but the Civil Rights Movement on our world was fighting against institutionalized racism but their society may have developed differently. Again, we have no clear facts regarding this.
3) The NSA records were provided more for fun than complete accuracy. Yes, Frozone is the only African America listed among the 40+ entries, but is that an indication of racial profiling implying some kind of "glass ceiling" for black superheros or is it because the "superhero gene" is less common in the African genotype which resulted in few black heroes to begin with?
4) The cartoon "Mr Incredible and Pals" short has commentary provided by Craig Nelson (Mr. Incredible) and Samuel Jackson (Frozone). The premise is that they are sitting down to watch the cartoon short for the first time and behind the scenes info has said the recording session had a very improvisational feel to it. Frozone comments that "The black superhero gets caught" and that his own character looks more tan than black. However, one can only speculate how much Sam Jackson's comments reflect racism, prejudice or just a poor, shoddy, cheaply made cartoon.
Ultimately, the example is full of speculation on what things might mean but no facts are actually presented in the film on how "The Incredibles" world has dealt with issues like racism.
Therefore it's not really a good example because it's not possible to discuss or debate its content because it lacks a foundation to allow us to truly play around with the idea that Frozone could have been a civil rights vanguard in his world.
Edited by rva98014 Hide / Show Replies