TV Tropes

[D'Snowth]

They launched another new trope of mine:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RecastAsARegular

 

[Harleena]

The word "yandere".... refers to a character who is crazy about someone else...often literally and violently.
The character almost always appears perfectly cute and harmless on the surface... but underneath they may be obsessive, controlling, and sometimes just plain insane. Woe to anyone who happens to be the object of their often genuine affection.

Some of these break-ups might tend to lead the scorned lover into a temporary or psychotic state of insanity.....

Napoleon XIV's "They're Coming To Take Me Away, Ha-Haaa!" could very well epitomize the yandere trope....

Oh, I get it. I was focusing on the more extreme side of the scale (like Yuno Gasai, for example)

 

[snichols1973]

Is there some sort of distinct trope along the lines of "idiomatic backfire" based on the "It's an idiom, you idiot" line and its variants?

From TM (2011):

Tex Richman: To the end of the Muppets!
Tex: Deadly! What are you doing?
Uncle Deadly: Enough! Just because I have a terrifying name and an evil English accent, does not preclude the fact that, in my heart, I am a Muppet, not a Moopet! Looks like it's I who will have the last laugh!
Tex: What does that mean?
Deadly: It's an idiom, you idiot, because you cannot laugh! Ha ha!
[Tex falls from the roof and lands on the ground]
Deadly: Oopsie.
[he laughs maniacally]
Deadly: Now that's a maniacal laugh for you!

And from the 2006 remake of The Pink Panther with Steve Martin as Clouseau:

Clouseau: You are the soccer player known as Bizu?
Bizu: Yes.
Clouseau: You were acquainted with Yves Gluant?
Bizu: I am glad he is pushing up daisies.
Clouseau: He is not pushing up daisies, he is dead!
Bizu: It's an idiom.
Clouseau: You sir, are the idiom!

 

[MikaelaMuppet]

I love the fact that there are a whole bunch of Tropes for Whose Line Is It Anyway.

 

[Drtooth]

There clearly seems to be some sort of fan bias on certain entries. Sure, TTG and Fantastic 4 2015 (among others) have lots of entries on how terrible they are, but then I came across this page for "Making Fiends". And this page made it seem like some long lost, amazing classic. I was excited to see Nicktoons is running it for Halloween on the weekends. Then I actually watched an episode.

I gave a resounding "I don't get it."

It wasn't...good. It wasn't a Stone Quackers level of suck and laziness, but it was hardly the amazing thing that the TVTropes Page built it up to be. I've seen better morbid, dark humor for kids cartoons than this. Maybe the webtoons are better? I just didn't get the hype and the "righteous indignation" that the series was pulled.

 

[Pig'sSaysAdios]

There clearly seems to be some sort of fan bias on certain entries. Sure, TTG and Fantastic 4 2015 (among others) have lots of entries on how terrible they are, but then I came across this page for "Making Fiends". And this page made it seem like some long lost, amazing classic. I was excited to see Nicktoons is running it for Halloween on the weekends. Then I actually watched an episode.

I gave a resounding "I don't get it."

It wasn't...good. It wasn't a Stone Quackers level of suck and laziness, but it was hardly the amazing thing that the TVTropes Page built it up to be. I've seen better morbid, dark humor for kids cartoons than this. Maybe the webtoons are better? I just didn't get the hype and the "righteous indignation" that the series was pulled.

I would love it if they showed Aaah!!! Real Monsters! or Invader Zim this month.

 

[D'Snowth]

There clearly seems to be some sort of fan bias on certain entries. Sure, TTG and Fantastic 4 2015 (among others) have lots of entries on how terrible they are, but then I came across this page for "Making Fiends". And this page made it seem like some long lost, amazing classic.

It depends on how long the pages have been in existence, and who contributed to them. TV Tropes have become real fuddy-duddies about complainy content, they prohibit anything that comes off as snarky, sarcastic, or negative - you can get in trouble for that; the former two may have been in existence for quite some time and haven't gotten much attention from the mods, otherwise, they'd probably be locked or nuked for being complainy pages. Even their Darth Wiki section (Wallbangers, Crowning Moment of Suck, etc.) are under constant surveillence.

 

[Schfifty]

I've been wondering if I should ever join TV Tropes and start contributing, since wiki-editing is sorta my thing (I'm pretty active on Muppet Wiki). However, I'm thinking the site is more of a reference for writers and story developers (and the various examples on the site are written in kind of an informal tone and jargon)...and that's not much of my forte than writing straight-out facts about things like on Wikipedia.

There's an example I wish I could add to the "Good Angel, Bad Angel" trope someday: on Muppet Babies, Gonzo gets a case of this after he decides to share a box of cookies for himself instead of with the other babies. His good angel enforces the rule of sharing, and his bad angel (devil) enforces eating them himself. I see the list of examples on the Western Animation subpage isn't exactly sorted alphabetically by show, so do examples just get stuck in a random spot?

 

[D'Snowth]

TV Tropes is very rulesy, and they're very inconsistent with their rules at that (they say something isn't allowed one point, then later says it's okay, while suddenly making something against the rules when it never was before but they insist that it was), and it's easy to tick them off for any minor infraction. I'd say don't waste you're time - they'll just look for reasons to suspend your editing privileges, and they'll hold all your mistakes against you, regardless if you've learned and improved from them.

 

[minor muppetz]

I've been reading some of the "Strawman has a point" entries, which is for characters who are supposed to be against the main characters or seen as "wrong" for what they say or do, when they do make good points. And I find that I agree/identify with/feel sorry for the strawmen more than the others.

But on the subject of that trope, I've seen a "Strawman Has a Point" example from The Weird Al Show which seems confusing: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/YMMV/TheWeirdAlShow

"In The Competition, there's no stated rules for the contest, so it's hard to say what criteria would count for not playing fair. Further more, Al for once did try to be the bigger person and did choose to just run his show properly...until Uncle Ralphie actively began to harass him on the set of his show with no immediate repercussions. We're supposed to see Al and Ralphie as equally culpable of breaking the imaginary rules and Fred Huggins as morally superior simply because he didn't cheat...but Fred Huggins also wasn't the victim of any sabotage. He was literally ignored and basically seems to have won by default simply because he's such a loser nobody would ever bother him. Dovetails nicely with Broken Aesop in that the real lesson seems to be less "Play fair" and more "It's easy to avoid being bullied if you're so pathetic nobody will try.""

So from that passage, who is the strawman? Seems like it should be Al, except I feel viewers were supposed to be rooting for him (since he was the star). I can't see how Uncle Ralphie (would he qualify for "designated villain" or "Villany-Free Villain" for that episode? I kind of feel like he's not quite a villain, though he does start the sabotaging, and at the end while Al is shown to be a good loser Uncle Ralph is a bad loser who takes it out on his sidekick, but he was invited to Al's holiday party at the end of the season where he's not portrayed as an antagonist to Al).