|
Donny posted:Hey guys, so this is the TVTropes thread? Have you seen the page on Game of Thrones yet? The tropes they come up with can be so obscure, yet hilarious and punny! The timing on this post, given the username of who posted it, is absolutely perfect. Volume posted:I think you need to step away from the computer, man. He's right about those GitS posts, though.
|
| # ? Jun 24, 2012 04:06 |
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2013 10:12 |
|
Gamma Nerd posted:It's been a while since people were posting stuff from the Ghost in the Shell article, but just a little note to Benny The Snake or whoever it was because I honestly forgot. Dude chill, we're making fun of internet losers.
|
| # ? Jun 24, 2012 04:08 |
|
Gamma Nerd posted:(yeah, they do mention that some people in Ghost in the Shell have sexbots, that's because it happens in the first loving episode) It's the 3rd episode.
|
| # ? Jun 24, 2012 04:32 |
|
DoctorWhat posted:Dude chill, we're making fun of internet losers. Please, explain to me why any of this nonsense needed to be posted: Benny the Snake posted:
Listing every thing that happened in a show may be an inane waste of time, but even worse is looking at a list of every thing that happened in a show and playing six degrees of overused emoticons to "prove" that they're all secretly about surprise sex despite having nothing to do with surprise sex. We're making fun of tropers for the horrible, horrible things they do; acting like the ordinary things they do are just as bad because "hey I can use emoticons am I witty now?" undermines the entire point of these threads.
|
| # ? Jun 24, 2012 04:35 |
|
Yeah I overuse the smileys. I'm still new to this thing. I've made...like four quotemining posts so far; I'm still getting the hang of it. Look if it's all to you I'll use much less. Or hell I'll just drop it all together Edit: Yeah I get the picture. I'm gonna stop quotemining for a while.
|
| # ? Jun 24, 2012 04:43 |
|
Lottery of Babylon posted:And some of us are doing a really terrible job at it, and it's becoming more and more obvious that the call is coming from inside the house. No one is defending the post. It was a pretty poo poo post but you know what? People moved on. I don't think any one commented on it or dragged it out like what is happening now. One post was lovely, don't keep dragging it out for the whole thread.
|
| # ? Jun 24, 2012 04:44 |
|
To commemorate the release of Pokemon Black and White 2 I've decided to trawl through the absolutely massive collection of pages for the Pokemon series on TVTropes and share the more obnoxious/insipid/terrifying tidbits I come across. Rather than starting with the main page I'm going to go through the character pages...Of which they have 26. These cover all the characters from the games, spin-offs and animes in addition to housing personalized tropes for each of the 649 current available Pokemon. gently caress. Let's start with the page for the generation 1 Pokemon quote:Bulbasaur, Ivysaur, and Venusaur (Fushigidane, Fushigisou, and Fushigibana) I'm just sharing this little bit of inanity because I wanted to mention that every single Pokemon has its own little paragraph like this written on the site. All 649 of them. Tropers are nothing if not crazily dedicated quote:Poisonous Pokémon: It has never had a large number of Poison moves to choose from though. They include this trope in the list for every poison type. Same goes for similar elemental tropes with other pokemon types. Because we couldn't figure this out ourselves quote:Charizard quote:Your Size May Vary: Officially, a Charizard is about as tall as an average adult human, standing at around 5'07" (1.7m) in height - but aside from the main games, you'd be hard-pressed to find a human-sized Charizard in any other form of Pokémon media, be it the anime, various manga, or fanart. Charizard are more usually shown to be around 8 to 25 feet tall, depending mostly on how awesome/badass the writer or artist feels like portraying it. Keep in mind that Venusaur is actually supposed to be the largest out of the Kanto starter trio. NO DETAIL TOO SMALL FOR THE TROPE GODS!!! quote:Blastoise Literally 90% of these are just boring dorks rambling at length about the minutia of Pokemon. This wouldn't be so remarkable if not for the fact that the entire format of the TVTropes site makes this exercise pointless. If someone's looking for information on how to competitively play Pokemon they're obviously not going to come here quote:Butterfree Flying is a trope. Not flying as used in any sort of narrative sense, or flying as symbolism for something just flying. Every pokemon that can fly has this trope listed. quote:Pikachu I will bet you ten to one that the Troper who added this entry is actually a big sweaty man in cat-ears quote:The Everyman: Pikachu, to a certain extent. ...How? quote:Tsundere: Pikachu as a whole seem to have a knack for being Type 2 in various different continuities. quote:What Happened to the Mouse?: Aside from being a literal mouse, it's oddly unobtainable in Pokémon Black and White via normal gameplay despite its status as the series mascot and a relatively common Pokémon in all prior games (even making a few cameos in the game and being heavily promoted in related material). The actual meaning of this trope, as listed on the site is "A plot point or character disappears from the narrative without resolution". quote:Nidoran quote:Cartoon Creature: Bulbapedia describes Nidoking and Nidoqueen as "sharing traits of rhinoceroses, gorillas, rabbits and porcupines." Lord knows what species Game Freak was really thinking of when they made these things, if any. First two entries in what will be a long line of "Tropers too afraid to edit another's entry who instead just add their own commentary underneath it" quote:Clefairy Does this make any sense to people not familiar with Pokemon? quote:Vulpix quote:Disproportionate Retribution: Touch one of Ninetales', well, tails, and prepare to be cursed for life. (Specifically 1,000 years - if you're not immortal, there's no way you're living that long.) quote:Vileplume Yes, I suppose being named after the thing you are is rather meaningful... quote:Golem quote:Mighty Glacier: Slow, but can easily take a punch. If the punch is not watery or covered with leaves, that is. quote:Slowpoke Considering half the trope entries for this guy are about the drat Shellder on his tail I'd say it's a little harsh for tropers to be calling others nitwits about it... quote:Magnemite quote:Magnet Hands: Literally, with the trope taking effect as the Magnet Pull ability, which attracts fellow Steel-types... Actual Trope entry for Magnet Hands: "In most platformers, the hero can carry a readied weapon of any given size without taking any penalty to his ability to run, jump, climb, dangle by one hand or perform any other acrobatic feats. Equally, he never loses his grip on the weapon when unexpectedly flung through the air or forced to catch a ledge to avoid falling to his doom. You get the impression that the weapon is magnetically attached to his hand, and that his fingers don't have to actually hold it in order to maintain a grip." And it wouldn't be literal either since the drat things don't have hands! quote:Tyrogue KICKING PEOPLE ISN'T A TROPE! gently caress! quote:Magikarp Wouldn't "double-subverted" just make it a regular example? quote:Shout Out: Magikarp and Gyarados are a reference to a Chinese legend of a carp that leapt over "The Dragon's Gate" and became a dragon. The legend is an allegory of the hard work needed to overcome a difficult task (such as getting a Magikarp up to level 20 when it doesn't learn an actual attack until level 15). quote:Ditto quote:Porygon quote:Mewtwo quote:Missingno. And that links to Atop The Fourth Wall. Because no trope page is complete without fellating a member of TGWTG. And that's all for the first page. So far we're heavy on Up next is the Pokemon from Generation 2
|
| # ? Jun 24, 2012 05:23 |
|
Gamma Nerd posted:This is a very efficient way of communicating your dislike for tropers, but in terms of mockery it is roughly on the level of the Fark Politics tab. If you're going to go to the trouble of calling out an entire thread and a specific user in it, and then say "We can do better", maybe give examples of things you think would be a better way to do things? Otherwise it's just rolling in, saying "You guys are poo poo at this
|
| # ? Jun 24, 2012 05:30 |
|
Also, I discovered an unrelated oddity unrelated to Pokemon: There's someone on TVTropes who has a serious thing for an inconsequential character from the Nickelodeon cartoon Dougquote:Cloudcuckoolander: Willy! So adorable, yet, so dumb. For those who don't remember minor details about cartoons you watched as kids Willy was one of the three hangers-on who followed around perpetual antagonist Roger Klotz. He had roughly one or two episodes that focused on him as being more than a personality-less face in the crowd. This is how he looks: ![]() I'm legitimately at a loss as to why this person finds him so cute...
|
| # ? Jun 24, 2012 05:41 |
|
Commissar posted:If you're going to go to the trouble of calling out an entire thread and a specific user in it, and then say "We can do better", maybe give examples of things you think would be a better way to do things? Otherwise it's just rolling in, saying "You guys are poo poo at this Some people just need to remember that brevity is the soul of wit. Also that you don't need to use emoticons every other line. 'Least that's what I'd say is the problem with those posts, dunno what that guy thinks.
|
| # ? Jun 24, 2012 06:04 |
|
Install Gentoo posted:Some people just need to remember that brevity is the soul of wit. Also that you don't need to use emoticons every other line.
|
| # ? Jun 24, 2012 06:10 |
|
Martello posted:It's the 3rd episode. However, robot geishas appear in the first episode. Don't you know, geishas are concubines, a fancy word for prostitute. (although, mostly geishas were just entertainers and not full-on harem girls)
|
| # ? Jun 24, 2012 06:16 |
|
Young Freud posted:However, robot geishas appear in the first episode. Don't you know, geishas are concubines, a fancy word for prostitute. I totes knew he was talking about the first season, but since I was just watching 2nd Gig again I decided to be an awful shithead about it. 3rd episode is the one with all the sex dolls.
|
| # ? Jun 24, 2012 06:39 |
|
Lottery of Babylon posted:Let's begin every book by forcing readers to read a dictionary because that's clearly an engaging way of writing. But more importantly, gently caress those pretentious assholes who talk about "literary fiction" as if that means anything, how can you objectively say Heart of Darkness is better than Animorphs? I can think of at least two works where in-universe slang was so heavy that a glossary would be needed. Both times were pretty good at producing an alienating, othering sort of feeling: Watership Down (rabbits do not think like us, they are not just people with fur) and A Clockwork Orange. Then The Handle drives that bus straight into stupid town by making one of his examples "Literary fiction".
|
| # ? Jun 24, 2012 07:25 |
|
KingJackalope posted:I can think of at least two works where in-universe slang was so heavy that a glossary would be needed. Both times were pretty good at producing an alienating, othering sort of feeling: Watership Down (rabbits do not think like us, they are not just people with fur) and A Clockwork Orange. Trainspotting is another one. Some characters sections were written in Scottish.
|
| # ? Jun 24, 2012 08:06 |
|
KingJackalope posted:I can think of at least two works where in-universe slang was so heavy that a glossary would be needed. Both times were pretty good at producing an alienating, othering sort of feeling: Watership Down (rabbits do not think like us, they are not just people with fur) and A Clockwork Orange. To be honest, my recollection of Watership Down (which I really loved as a kid) is that there weren't really enough "rabbit words" to justify a glossary and they all got explained in footnotes or the text anyway. A Clockwork Orange sounds more like it, as the main protagonists speak a made-up language, but I can't be sure as I've never actually read the book. There are actually older books written totally or partly in Scottish that require that kind of glossary. James Hogg's Memoirs and Confessions of a Justified Sinner is one of them.
|
| # ? Jun 24, 2012 08:33 |
|
General Panic posted:To be honest, my recollection of Watership Down (which I really loved as a kid) is that there weren't really enough "rabbit words" to justify a glossary and they all got explained in footnotes or the text anyway. Yeah, it's been a few years since I've read Watership Down so I could be exaggerating the importance of Lapine. Still seems relevant, though. I've got a copy of The Heart of Midlothian, which has big swatches of dialogue in Lowland Scots. Some versions have a glossary, but mine doesn't. There's even a part where it's Scots mixed with legal Latin. It's not an easy read for me.
|
| # ? Jun 24, 2012 09:07 |
|
And now, totally out of left field, an old-ish exchange that left me speechless: Troper Says: (paraphrased) "My lines dither when I colour directly onto the linework layer with the fill bucket! How can I undo this terrible curse? (Also what is vectoring)" Madrugada posted:You have two choices in that sort of case: You can run the artwork through a vectoring program (like Inkscape) and color it in with the vector program, or, you can zoom way in on it (I usually zoom to about 800% magnification) and color each uncolored pixel individually in your raster program. A Voice of Reason posted:An easier way to do it is to get your lines on one layer (set on normal or multiply mode) and put all the colors on a layer beneath the lines. You can color right up to the lines and the rough edges won't be visible, provided you don't go outside of the lines. This is usually how I see it done with people who use lined artwork. Madrugada posted:Layers are a whole other tangle. I hate doing layers. Layers are too hard. Individually colouring in every single dithered pixel on a drawing is easier than learning how to use layers.
|
| # ? Jun 24, 2012 10:10 |
|
When people talk about how terrible this thread has supposedly gotten, I get all paranoid because I think the cool people are talking about me and my recent sign-up date!!! Civilian Tom talks about the weather. Unremarkable, except for this brief exchange: rumetzen posted:Oh how awful. Who could take that unbearable, unbearable heat? Civilian Tom posted:^^ Your location makes me think sarcasm but I'm not sure. rumetzen posted:Yeah, I'm being sarcastic. It's just a big pet peeve of mine when people complain about the heat when that kind of thing is normal to me. Like, I have to run in 100 degree weather pretty much every day. Civilian Tom posted:And we're at 5000+ feet vertical elevation and in full brunt of the fire season. rumetzen posted:Okay I see this is about to go bad places, but that doesn't make much of a difference. I was able to run just fine in Tennessee, which has an elevation of 6000 feet. Civilian Tom posted:Eh okay. rumetzen posted:Alright then. Civilian Tom posted:Didn't work as long as I wanted, It's a Long Story. I don't know who rumetzen is and I'm sure this is unintentional on his part, but there is a bit of humour to be found in people wording comments as if they are prodding Tom over his military (possibly Moment of Truth-related) failure. It may be a long story, but don't forget that HE. NEVER. QUIT. Live Action Film forum on improving film sequels. I don't know about this one really, it's just people assuming that they're great, unrealised screenwriters. In some cases people just fail to identify a film's/series' themes, coincidentally a running theme of TV Tropes itself. The first post for instance fails to note the nostalgia at the core of the Back to the Future films. Others... well, I'll save you the trouble. Jack Mackerel posted:Transformers: Cut out the Fifteen Minutes With Jerks, up more robot slapping and dial the military presence down a bit. Buscemi posted:Transformers: have the film take place in a retro future where everything still looks like 1984, make Bumblebee a Volkswagen again and put almost all focus on the robots. shiro okami posted:Transformers: Cut out the Twenty Minutes with Jerks, have Sam and his parents be normal rather than wimpy, introduce Megatron earlier, and have more robot battles. Also, make the robots have the plating and insignias that they had in the cartoons so that you can tell them apart. Yes, I'm aware that this talk is hardly uncommon outside of TV Tropes (because frankly the Transformers films aren't very good; I'm a pretentious rear end in a top hat critic). What's more irritating is the tone of presumed all-knowingness, that sense that you can imagine them watching a rough cut and yelling, "You fools! You should've taken out the Twenty Minutes with Jerks! Do I need to forward you the TV Tropes page again? Argh!". I award everyone in that thread the honourary title of Harvey Troperhands. I have to say I'm glad that Troper "talents" are largely restricted to (not) writing. I don't think I could sit through two straight hours of robots fighting, at least not without the outstanding presences of Craig Charles, Jonathan Pearce and that feeling of self-hatred synonymous with being unemployed. My favourite part of the thread is this: terlwyth posted:Attack of the Clones: Keep that scene where Padme brings Anakin home, have Anakin not Obi-Wan jump out the window after the assasin, and maybe make it a few years earlier, instead of an unholy 10 years after Episode 1 The Star Wars prequels have flaws and I've read decent arguments about them before, some surprisingly enough on the TV Tropes forums (as not seen in this thread because cherry-picking)! This though... why is the ten-year gap between films "unholy"? What does this guy hope to achieve by switching character actions around? Yes, Anakin is the more hot-headed of the two and so jumping out of a window could be more "characteristic" of him, but really it doesn't matter in the context of the scene where the duo are acting as bodyguards. To think I'd ever be coming close to defending George Lucas' terrible screenwriting ability. TV Tropes man. Just as a bonus, because that "unholy" hyperbole reminded me of a Skyrim review that refers to Oblivion as an "aborted fetus". I wonder why these people haven't yet got their dream jobs reviewing games?
|
| # ? Jun 24, 2012 10:15 |
|
General Panic posted:To be honest, my recollection of Watership Down (which I really loved as a kid) is that there weren't really enough "rabbit words" to justify a glossary and they all got explained in footnotes or the text anyway. I dunno, I think the glossary in Watership Down is pretty warranted -- most of the terms are defined within the text, but they're not defined every reference, and it's good to have something to refer to easily without having to page back and find the first use of the term. (I recently read WD during breaks at work, which is the kind of reading schedule that wrecks one's immersion and attention span for a book, and it was nice to just be able to flip back to the glossary when I was blanking on a Lapine term.) Overall, I'd argue that WD is one of the better uses of in-book glossaries and constructed languages in fantasy fiction; there's just enough of it to really make it clear how foreign rabbit society and thought processes are to humans, without it ever cluttering up the book like every nerd "look, I made my own fantasy language! Tell me how cool and smart I am!" effort. (You could argue that Tolkien falls into the latter category, even; the man was an exceptional linguist and storyteller, but there are definitely chunks of his work that make it clear that Middle-Earth was largely a vehicle for his constructed-language project. Oh, the songs.) To add actual content to this post, I went to skim the TVT page on Watership Down. It's shockingly competent, maybe because it's a fantasy novel or maybe because it's one of the very few authentic examples of the "Animation Age Ghetto" they love yammering about. Predictably enough, the tropes listing appears to be bloated with the usual assortment of "well, something kinda like this happened or maybe could be speculated to happen, so throw it in"; the most groan-inducing thing I saw in my brief glance was an invocation of the overly general, gratuitously Japanese-named trope Red Oni, Blue Oni... as "Red Coney, Blue Coney." I'm not sure what's sadder: that some dude was probably legitimately proud of that, or that it's as close to wit as TVT has ever managed.
|
| # ? Jun 24, 2012 10:29 |
|
Man, this whole post is TVTropes encapsulated. "Double-subverted" sounds like something we'd make up to make fun of them. I also like how repeatedly they gently caress up using their own tropes. There's the Magnet Hands that you pointed out but alos that "Bizarre Gender Dimorphism." How bizarre? Well: Nidoran's male line on the left, female on the right. ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Different colors and the males have bigger horns like most horned animals in real life? How bizarre~~ For reference, all the examples on their actual page are huge differences, the occasional "The male aliens look like human men, the females are horrifying bug monsters" and like 90% the fact that monsters in fantasy can have weird, monstrous males while their females are just big-boobed human women with different color skin, like in World of Warcraft (not strictly Another troper even calls him out on it (politely of course, you can't just delete it for not being a real example, that would be being a dick! What I'm trying to say is, how do they gently caress up their own tropes this badly?
|
| # ? Jun 24, 2012 14:16 |
|
KingJackalope posted:I can think of at least two works where in-universe slang was so heavy that a glossary would be needed. Both times were pretty good at producing an alienating, othering sort of feeling: Watership Down (rabbits do not think like us, they are not just people with fur) and A Clockwork Orange. More to the point, in both cases the characters weren't using made up words just because, they had a reason behind it. As mentioned, in Watership Down the characters are actual rabbits and we're given their dialogue in a way that helps indicates they really are different from humans.. In Clockwork Orange, the characters are speaking a certain kind of made up slang to emphasize that it's a future version of teenage criminals. There' s plenty more books where words get made up en masse to describe things and it works fine. But in that original post, all the examples they gave were pretty much "I have regular humans in a regular past times/present day/near future setting; I want to give them special words for normal things because then I'm special! I'm going to have them call water 'eeloeet', brown hair 'yustani', red hair 'uskzir' and the concept of feudalism will be referred to as 'reykjavism'!" Antivehicular posted:like every nerd "look, I made my own fantasy language! Tell me how cool and smart I am!" effort. (You could argue that Tolkien falls into the latter category, even; the man was an exceptional linguist and storyteller, but there are definitely chunks of his work that make it clear that Middle-Earth was largely a vehicle for his constructed-language project. Oh, the songs.) Tolkein certainly indulged his taste for making up languages BUT he actually did construct full, working, languages and scripts (as in for writing) for his books. There's a fully worked out grammar system, even historical examples (in the series) of given languages' predecessors. He didn't just say "oh here's some elf words: dur means dark, calan means day, and lim means forward".
|
| # ? Jun 24, 2012 14:16 |
|
That's the thing though. Like a scientist writing science-fiction, an educated linguist writing fantasy is not only a story, but also an educational experience. When you read a story by Isaac Asimov, you can be confident that that science you read is written down by an educated man. You can enjoy and absorb the story, knowing that the science isn't entirely made up. You don't need to treat it like education in any way, but if you learn that the author knows what he's talking about, it gives something extra to the tale. Similarly, when you read Tolkien, you know that this is written by a man knowledgeable in history and languages, and the world becomes a little more rich and real. When you read something by a troper, you're left wondering if the guy even finished high-school before he bolted the basement door shut. Or in the case of the Methods of Rationality dipshit,
|
| # ? Jun 24, 2012 14:55 |
|
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.p...n/TheBucketListquote:World's Most Beautiful Woman: One of Edward's points on his list is to kiss the world's most beautiful girl, who turns out to be his granddaughter. Only TV Tropes would have the need to have an addendum like this. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.p...ikeYouWereDying quote:The two become friends and have a lot of fun. The good, healthy, swimming-naked-in-the-sea-at-night sort of fun, not the waste-time-surfing-the-net sort naturally. Yep, that's TV Tropes alright!
|
| # ? Jun 24, 2012 17:31 |
|
On the language chat, it's also important to note that in all three cases above, (Watership Down, A Clockwork Orange, LotR) the author integrated the words into the text in away that made you intuit what they were supposed to mean. A glossary was useful as a reminder now and then, but it wasn't asking you to sit down and read dictionary entries before starting the book. And none of these authors changed words for no reason, each word they invented existed for a reason. Tolkien didn't just say "swords are murburs now, everybody keep up", because the idea of sword didn't need to be changed.
|
| # ? Jun 24, 2012 17:43 |
|
Maybe 3 or 4 are former tropers. I've been to the tv tropes site maybe once in the last 6 years. anything I've seen since then is screen caps, full of people obessessing over surprise sex fetish video games. I am stating here and now, I do not merely 'dislike' TV Tropes, I think it is a terrible cesspool that normalises surprise sex, pedophelia and misoginy, and should be wiped from the face of the earth.
|
| # ? Jun 24, 2012 18:00 |
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2013 10:12 |
|
|
| # ? Jun 24, 2012 19:54 |




emoticon, and making a comment about how this innocuous bit of text is obviously a cryptic allusion to the well-known truth that all tropers are raping a baby right this moment. 























