What does /tv/ think of tv tropes?
>>67099139
they need to bring back the rape tropes
wtf is a trope. why do women write articles with that word so often?
is this the new wave way of saying "stereotype" ?
>everything in existence is a trope: the website
Reddit tier shit trash
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEJQqUN2buE&list=PL65885E08173B69BB
the final word on this garbage site
I liked reading the long example lists of random bullshit no one cares about.
>>67099167
What did those fuckers do?
>>67099276
They got infiltrated by SJWs because most of them are pasty whiteknighting nerds and had to get rid of offensive tropes.
>>67099276
>>67099448
why does rape need a category?
>>67099185
It's idioms, motifs. Memes before everyone started meaning any picture with words on it.
>>67099679
cuz it's a thing that happens enough in movies to warrant mention
>>67099185
categorizing reoccuring things in media.
>>67099220
someone cant come up with an unbuilt trope.basic bitch.
>>67099448
>They got infiltrated by SJWs
So like /co/mblr in 2012 (succeeded), /tv/ on 2014 (failed), and /a/ on 2015 (failed but a few janis and underageds left)
>>67099714
it has no defining traits though.
unless you count the angle or time of occurence? still pretty dumb imo.
>>67099247
I closed the video and still waisted 20 seconds of my life, thanks son.
>>67099745
every site that allows fags to share their opinions has people that have sjw ideals.its unavoidable.
>>67099745
>implying all jannies on this site aren't sjws
who do you think moot would have left in charge?
>>67099778
this
>>67099247
Huh. Been going there years and don't read about cartoons so never seen any underbelly to the place. Leeewwd
>>67099907
they got rid of most of the stuff like that but then want too far.seems like they have a problem with moderation..gee i wonder what site that reminds me of.
>>67099955
went too far*
>>67099139
It suffers the same problems of Wikipedia, something it tries to distance itself from. It desperately tries to be neutral while pretending to be informal. It is useful as a general starting point like Wikipedia, but it's definitely panders to appear mainstream. It at the very least well documented double standards against males before I left
THIS TWOPER
>>67100225
I agree.I've been using the site for the past few weeks and I've never encounterd the sjw menace,maybe the people itt should stop browsing shitty pages that are bound to have trolls and idiots submitting info on them.
The only issue i have is they will list the same things over and over again but with different titles.other then that its a pretty decent hobbyist website.
>>67099139
I've come across this website so many times over the years and I STILL have no clue what a single fucking word of it means
>>67101425
It's middle school level reading...
>>67101425
You should try reading it.
>>67101645
This.
A site for autists. I browsed it obsessively when it was new, got bored of it and then eventually fed up with how obnoxious its user base is. It's really telling when you can spot a TV Tropes user just by the way he words his arguments.
>>67101684
its not one singular hivemind,its many different users.just like /tv/
>>67099185
>i'm from the 80's: the post
>>67101684
>browsed it obsessively
>fed up with how obnoxious its user base is
>browsed it obsessively
>how obnoxious its user base is
>>67101749
I was a teenager and thought it was clever. It got old fast. Sorry I'm not one of those cool people who automatically hates everything right at the start, I tend to adjust to things over time.
>>67101706
It's not even remotely similar to /tv/.
>>67101775
It isn't trying to be clever.It exists as a labeling system.If an page is pompus its the authors fault not the websites.
>>67101794
it is in the way that multiple people submit information so there is no definate /tv/ user or tvtropes writer,there are multiple viewpoints/ideas.
>>67101814
if a*
>>67101814
>It isn't trying to be clever
Almost every article is written in a deliberately casual and sarcastic way. It reads like an article from an e-zine most of the time. It's very much something that tries to appeal to teenagers.
>It exists as a labeling system
Which is the problem. It should be an encyclopedia or reference, not an autistic labeling machine.
all the dumb frogposters probably come from there
>>67101851
Which has nothing at all to do with what I meant. I mean when you see somebody talking about movies or whatever anywhere on the internet, you can tell if they're from TV Tropes just by how they word their arguments. Because they tend to reference tropes and argue from the premise that tropes are self-evident and self-defining.
>>67101775
>>67101814
Great but I generally like the place and give no shits about their community.They're effectively categorical, and up bring things already made from entertainment.
>>67101882
Again its not just one person,Not ALL submissions are going to be like that.
>It should be an encyclopedia or reference
thats just a fancy way of saying "labeling system" aka what it is.
>>67101914
Im sure not all of them do that.I use it as a reffence to avoid certain things but I understand that not all tropes are inherently bad and im sure other users feel the same way.
Just like not all /tv/ users are memesters and want serious discussion etc.
I like it for trivia.
Are they are any other good film trivia sites?
>>67102254
imdb
The was a period of my life where, after I finished watching, playing reading any piece of media, TvTropes was the first place I went to
>>67099745
T/u/mblr has been infested with effeminate SJW longer than any other board
>>67102377
nerd
>>67099139
Used to be kinda interesting when it first started, then it got infested by weeaboos, then tumblr, plebbit and the SJW took over, then shit got so bad they actually banned >opinions, the owner is also a total fascist who loves to ban anyone who doesn't worship him and then makes them suck his e-penis to get unbanned
>>67102404
>/lgbt/ has a schism between the gay and trans posters
>>67102476
he has to die someday.
the pages i browse are fine still
>>67102476
Project management is a bitch
And they're somewhat influential
It's like, I know what a trope is. But half the shit on that website isn't a trope, it's just some autistic shit someone noticed and wrote a fucking page of garbage about.
>>67102404
>SJW
opinion discarded
>>67102549
examples?
>>67102557
point proven
>>67102570
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Wendigo
>>67102606
what is wrong with an article about something that is reoccuring in media?
are you assuming tropes are bad?
>>67102549
There are plenty of weak or nontropy things. But there's so much on point stuff it can be boring.
>>67102488
More of a schism between the gay men who are pretty much normal 4channers in all regards other than their sexuality and literally everybody else who uses /lgbt/(fag hags, bisexual whores, dykes, trannies, pandemiromantic trisexual special snowflakes ect)
>>67099185
>wtf is a trope
archetype, mythos
>>67102645
they need to label stuff better,sometimes there will be tropes that have the exact same meaning as other ones.Thats my only qualm.
>>67099745
Literally just entered a thread on /co/ with multiple people being a-okay with the idea of a theoretical story about a Native American
>>67102725
>When you click send too soon
being all about white guilt.
>>67102657
Thats hilarious. All the /b/ traps threads really did make 4chan gay
>>67099139
they think theyre the smartest assess around and actually understand cinema
I used to go there so much back in about 2008 but I slowly just stopped caring about it. Not to mention the Buffy/Doctor Who/Supernatural pages among others are the most autistic cataloging of nothing I've ever seen
>80 percent of tropes are in these shows
>the other 20 percent are always averted or deconstructions
>>67102773
you certainly sound like you do
>>67102720
Yeah. But unpopular stuff luckily never gets forced to relevance outside of there.Though volume of missing trope-to-work connections is their main work. New tropes are preceived less frequently. Shitty pages likely have the merit to stay.
>>67102773
To be fair most serious academic papers on film studies basically read like "no fun allowed" versions of tv tropes articles
>modern academia
>>67102797
dw is the only one out of the three that actually created something new so that makes sense.
whedons work is built upon tropes,for better or worse.
>>67102697
>>67099185
tvtropes is just repackaging what the ancients have already known for a long long time.
Major archetypes
http://mythsdreamssymbols.com/majorarchetypes.html
>The Hero Archetype
In almost all movies and fiction, there's a hero
>The Wise Old Man
In the Matrix, it's the black dude and the oracle, in Star Wars it's Yoda
>The Trickster Archetype
In female form, she's what modern humans call the Femme Fatale
...and many more. These archetypes don't just exist in movies and literature, they exist in the real world too. If you can see these archetypes in the people in your life, it can help you immensely. You'll know which people to avoid and which ones to keep.
>"Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAuo4EDhkiE
>>67102725
So?
>>67102900
thats why i love it,i dont give a shit what the sites agenda represents and its easily avoidable.
>>67102869
Its not about whats new or even good. Its just a lot of manhours inputting a connection to most of the website on one page. It can also reveal how nutty a show is when you see slivers of it cut up infront of you.
>>67099769
It had themes to go with it, the same way death is categorized, it isn't "death" itself, it's "death of X archetypes" or the like.
>>67099448
>They got infiltrated by SJWs because most of them are pasty whiteknighting nerds and had to get rid of offensive tropes
Go back to r/theredpill or stormfront you liar. The rape tropes are still there and always have been, as are tropes such as 'Injun Country' and other racial tropes.
>>67102968
because most media is connected or based with similar guidelines?
if you want something that doesnt follow them watch/read about expiermental films/lit/anime.
I like them because I can process a media, think "Oh hey I really liked that part/character/idea" and find a shit ton of new things. It's been a very helpful thing in my life.
Autist's paradise though, and they did go full SJW.
>>67102990
I don't know if they're still there but they've been deleted before due to triggerings and hurt feelings
>>67099139
Great concept ruined by autistic fans.
They think every single thing in a movie is a trope, which defeats the point.
I've a different question
What does /tv/ think of searching up the meaning behind a movie right after watching it, instead of pondering it yourself?
>>67103013
Again this isnt about the media being listed from. It ruins the fun of things when you can read through a show, and every little motif or scene is put up. Itll just go on and on. Thousands of manhours used to list every use of tachyons in Star Trek type a stuff. It stops being a notable mention list as lesser trope connections are filled, the interesting ones can be lost
>>67099679
Its categorical by nature, its a category of crime and a category of sex, how else should it be organized, would you prefer if they alphabetized the rape scenes that went really well?
>>67102976
the only way i can see it as being definable is
>rape of a protagonist/side character
>raped by someone they know
>raped by a stranger
>raped in house/park/work and the time it occured
>sodomized/different types of rape
death seems a lot more expansive and intricate to a TV/Films plot compared to rape,and tvtropes is assumingly used as a refference for writers or hobbyist,so if they need to look up each instance of rape in media they are either weird or retarded or easily triggerd and are trying to avoid it.
>>67101975
Encyclopedias are observational. They record information as is. They describe, they don't prescribe. If an encyclopedia includes classifications of its entries it bases them off of well-established categories backed by consensus among experts, because the task of justifying a classification method is better left to such experts in their theses rather than to a general overview of knowledge about a subject which is meant to be used as a reference by laymen.
TV Tropes attempts to classify everything it encounters into some sort of Trope. Literally all form of media has to be tropified. If there does not exist a trope to describe something they invent one or simply change the definition of existing tropes to accommodate new entries until it reaches critical mass of vagueness and they split it into numerous sub tropes of ridiculous specificity. What I'm saying is that a good deal of what is cataloged on that site are not actually tropes, it's just movie trivia and blog entries masquerading as observational analysis of media.
>>67103123
>ruins the fun of things
not for me,i noticed half of these tropes on my own anyway and it makes me happy others are aware aswell.
>>67103172
its almost as if entertainment has existed for hundereds of years and every story that could be told has and it takes intelligent people to create new tropes.
>>67099139
Terrible as people twist the trope to how they want to see it.
I think anyone who contributes to the site must be a moron, as so many entries are full of misinterpretations of scenes. It's like they just watch things so they can jot shit down for their trope site and don't even really pay attention.
>>67103231
someones butthurt their show isnt as special snowflake as they thought it was
>>67103198
Naw dude some really bad stuff has come around. "People sitting in chairs" had to be argued against so many times it when from being a great example of a nontrope to a joke to a trope about not being a trope.
>>67103198
The entire point of what I said is that not everything is a trope. The fact that they feel the need to include entries which they claim are "inverted," "subverted," or "averted" versions of a trope shows their obsession with labeling things. If it's any of those then it's not the trope is it? Yet they still feel the need to include it, because they can't let anything exist outside their system.
>>67103252
What kid of retard shit are you spewing? You must be a tvtropes contributor.
>>67102032
He's talking about how some not very well known tropes have nicknames decided arbitrarily by the site, then people who regular the site just talk in TVTrope jargon, rather than articulate themselves properly
It's the equivalent of someone from /tv/ talking in memes in day to day life, or a SJW using their jargon in conversations outside tumblr and reddit.
>>67103305
im not
>>67103231
It's a combination of fanboys and people who think they are much smarter than they really are.
>>67103317
if it fits the show why does it matter?
>>67103317
It's that, plus the way they write sounds like they're regurgitating a TV Tropes article.
>>67103340
sounds like /tv/
>>67103359
ive been on there like 3 times now,stop being so fucking paranoid.
>>67102640
Because that's not what a trope is.
A trope is some plot device that's reoccurring, ie not just a character but the way the character fits into the plot or their personality.
>>67103393
how is that any different from what they do?
>>67103099
It means you need people to form your opinion for you.
You're better to form your own defined opinion first. Otherwise what's the point in listen to others if you have nothing to compare theirs too.
>>67103354
Usually the nicknames come from a completely different show.
>>67103099
Probably means you're not a very insightful person, that you prefer knowing the answer rather than understanding it.
>>67103540
probably the shows that defined the tropes.
>>67101749
Kek.
>>67101775
>i'm a salty bitch
top kek
>>67103259
Isn't that just an inversion of the People sitting backwards in chairs trope?
>>67103581
lol
>>67102488
Actually they should just rename that board T because its over run with trannies crying how they are the victims of everything because everyone hates them. Man i wonder why. Theres really not much else on the board.
>>67102581
no.
>>67102377
I used to as well.
I finally broke the habit last night after watching Zodiac for the first time.
I remember it being funny when I first saw it. The way they listed tropes I've never quite even thought of existing, named them cleverly and listed a bunch of examples on where they're seen was entertaining.
Later on when I've visited, much of the cheek-on-tongue approach seems to have vanished and it's as if they're trying to find every possible trope there is in a very no-fun-allowed style, and even the exampled tend to reek of autistic people trying to include every god damn thing that's even remotely related to the trope at hand.
It's like the site transformed from ED to Knowyourmeme.
>>67105340
its all related pleb
>>67099185
A "trope" is an act of audiovisual rape. The word comes from combining "tv" with "grope".
>>67105405
lol
>>67105340
>It's like the site transformed from ED to Knowyourmeme.
>ED
>better than anything
>>67105428
Protip: it's about the style and not if ED is good or not.
>>67105450
because every page on tvtropes is in the same "style"
>>67099139
Poor quality.
>>67105579
just like /tv/
>>>67099139
It's cool and everything, but their definition of "trope" is very lax, imo. I also feel that their community thinks that using tropes = poor writing, when in fact this is far from truth. Movies that autistically try to deconstruct genre tropes (e.g. Cabin in the Woods) are way more obnoxious.
>>67102725
1/10
>>67099185
>i don't know what words mean
