That's only for boys. Girls are always the losers on the gender playing field, and that's not only a stigma, but a bonafide trope.NewClassic said:
Trope-a-Dope
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Oh dear jeebus, the amount of time I've spent on TV tropes recently...
I find myself worrying about following this road sometimes, and I constantly have to remind myself what is good in movies, TV, video games, etc. lest I become too jaded. Yes, apparently there is such a thing.
A similar phenomenon occurs in other things as well-for example "being rebellious" becomes a marketed trend...and if you can't see the fallacy in that you need eye surgery. Extending cultures to pretenders who sort of grasp the basic concepts, but miss the spirit. Criticism should be about improving quality by explaining what's enjoyable and what isn't. Not making yourself seem smart when really you're just pretentious.
Oh, and I almost feel like scolding moviebob for putting a link to TV tropes in this article. You've doomed them all to countless hours of wiki-surfing, only to later wonder where the hell the last 3 days went! How could you!? Sending anyone that link is an unspeakable act of cruelty...(which is why I do it all the time)...on a related note, my favorite TV tropes page- http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Uncyclopedia ...which links to the Uncyclopedia page on TV tropes, which links back, also links to the wikipedia page on TV tropes, which links to the TV tropes page...that whole juncture just exploded my brain the first time I saw it. Not to mention that both the TVtropes and the uncyclopedia page are spot on.
I find myself worrying about following this road sometimes, and I constantly have to remind myself what is good in movies, TV, video games, etc. lest I become too jaded. Yes, apparently there is such a thing.
A similar phenomenon occurs in other things as well-for example "being rebellious" becomes a marketed trend...and if you can't see the fallacy in that you need eye surgery. Extending cultures to pretenders who sort of grasp the basic concepts, but miss the spirit. Criticism should be about improving quality by explaining what's enjoyable and what isn't. Not making yourself seem smart when really you're just pretentious.
Oh, and I almost feel like scolding moviebob for putting a link to TV tropes in this article. You've doomed them all to countless hours of wiki-surfing, only to later wonder where the hell the last 3 days went! How could you!? Sending anyone that link is an unspeakable act of cruelty...(which is why I do it all the time)...on a related note, my favorite TV tropes page- http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Uncyclopedia ...which links to the Uncyclopedia page on TV tropes, which links back, also links to the wikipedia page on TV tropes, which links to the TV tropes page...that whole juncture just exploded my brain the first time I saw it. Not to mention that both the TVtropes and the uncyclopedia page are spot on.
Frankly, i'm amused by people who can say "i've seen it all before" just because they read TV Tropes Wiki. They are so foolish. Tropes are not cliches, and what ultimately matters is assembly and delivery anyway. I could pick any work described there, and rearrange elements so that it becomes completely different. Then i could create a masterpiece of literature or a godawful B-movie out of that script.
The most important thing Moviebob noted though, is that broad strokes may be similar - but subtle details is what creates true uniqueness. Warhammer 40.000 and Supreme Commander are both about pan-galactic war dragging on for millenia, but can you say they're exactly similar to each other? Not with a straight face.
The most important thing Moviebob noted though, is that broad strokes may be similar - but subtle details is what creates true uniqueness. Warhammer 40.000 and Supreme Commander are both about pan-galactic war dragging on for millenia, but can you say they're exactly similar to each other? Not with a straight face.
There are still a few original stories floating around. Parts of them will be broken down, without doubt, but those parts that are original still stand out. Of course, we could always collapse the whole set by setting a trope for those that check tropes, in a manner of moebius-style tautology, and catch the whole pompous lot of them into a net. It would be like one of those "How to keep an idiot busy" shirts, keeping them locked in a circle of tropes until they fade from existence.
I say that's a point for Chipman!
If all movies decided that it's all been done before, they'd simply become parodies of themselves without being able to express any actual thought. Sometimes, we need movies to take themselves seriously, even if it does mean they'll be mercilessly lampooned by people with no ideas of their own. For my part, I'm glad some directors are still willing to take the risk.
On the other hand, Avatar made $77 million over its opening weekend, so maybe it's not as risky as it looks...
If all movies decided that it's all been done before, they'd simply become parodies of themselves without being able to express any actual thought. Sometimes, we need movies to take themselves seriously, even if it does mean they'll be mercilessly lampooned by people with no ideas of their own. For my part, I'm glad some directors are still willing to take the risk.
On the other hand, Avatar made $77 million over its opening weekend, so maybe it's not as risky as it looks...
You make a perfectly good point; your rebuttal of the whole "lulz been there saw that" attitude is astute - and there you go and spoil it all by saying something like "Avatar really is original!".
No. It's not. You're really playing devil's advocate, here. I've rarely felt more embarrassed in my movie-going career. The originality lies in the details, you say. Well, I'll give you that. The ecosytem is well done, the USB braids are cool, it's visually stunning, aaaaaaaand that's it. The rest is cliche valley. Yes, cliche - forget the trope stuff.
These narrative elements hardly qualifies as "trope". They're just cliches; sad, boring, mind-numbingly overused cliches.
"Most profitable film of all times!" will be the obligatory response. Yes, I know that. And I'm depressed!
In short: good piece, but I had to get this out of my chest
PS: for some reason, the accents look all weird in the live preview... I therefore apologize for the accentless "cliche".
No. It's not. You're really playing devil's advocate, here. I've rarely felt more embarrassed in my movie-going career. The originality lies in the details, you say. Well, I'll give you that. The ecosytem is well done, the USB braids are cool, it's visually stunning, aaaaaaaand that's it. The rest is cliche valley. Yes, cliche - forget the trope stuff.
The good guys are good, the bad guys are bad, the hero is strong, overcomes dangers nobody else could face, seduces the princess, and is saved by a deus ex machina (or natura, if you will, though I doubt the latin is correct.) I'm not summarizing the plot - there is nothing more to the plot! Nothing! The rest is beautiful trees, flashy dragons and explosions. It should have been a trilogy: maybe we could have seen the characters... I don't now, grow, or change a little? What's that word? Development?
These narrative elements hardly qualifies as "trope". They're just cliches; sad, boring, mind-numbingly overused cliches.
"Most profitable film of all times!" will be the obligatory response. Yes, I know that. And I'm depressed!
In short: good piece, but I had to get this out of my chest
PS: for some reason, the accents look all weird in the live preview... I therefore apologize for the accentless "cliche".
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. Strange.Altorin said:
Also, if you're not being sarcastic, then you misunderstood him. He wasn't saying you're not original if you dislike things. He's saying you're an asshole, and, more importantly, are depriving yourself of large opportunities at enjoying media.
EDIT: I'm using "you" in the general sense there, not the specific. I'm not trying to insult anyone.
The word trope itself is slightly unpleasant to me and I don't like how the site seems to be informing a lot of people's language and world view. It's like, the internet is raising a generation of comic book guys and maybe someone right now is looking up comic book guy on TVTropes right now to find out exactly where my argument falls down or has resonance. Don't do it.
Sure, things don't need to be entirely original to be good or great. I'm a fan of Arthurian mythos and that stuff crops up all the time in everything. That's fine.
What's not fine (to me) is going into a movie because you've had a really stressful week and want to relax and being treated to a 2 1/2 hour lecture about things you have no control over. So I didn't like Avatar. Oh well.
What's not fine (to me) is going into a movie because you've had a really stressful week and want to relax and being treated to a 2 1/2 hour lecture about things you have no control over. So I didn't like Avatar. Oh well.
I agree to some extend, but you can hardly blame people for discussing the reasons they didn't like a movie that is now one of the most successful movies ever made. A lot of the discussion about Avatar assumes that the only reason people didn't like it was due to it being unoriginal. This is not true. It has many original details, I just thought all of those details were silly, stupid, or just plain insipid. I don't like the techniques it used in an attempt to manipulate my opinion. It was fine for a spectacle, but it just didn't appeal to me. I don't like spectacle without substance.
Out of curiosity Bob, why do you feel the need to defend Avatar every other week? Long after most of 'the internet' has stopped discussing it, here you come to write an article that you know will illicit the exact kind of responses you're railing against. Is it just to laugh from behind your computer and say 'gotcha!' at people who disagree with you?
Out of curiosity Bob, why do you feel the need to defend Avatar every other week? Long after most of 'the internet' has stopped discussing it, here you come to write an article that you know will illicit the exact kind of responses you're railing against. Is it just to laugh from behind your computer and say 'gotcha!' at people who disagree with you?
props to mr. Chipman for this excellent article. However, I do think that some things are overused, and you don't have to be jaded or someone who likes to think he is.
I don't want to troll you, but do you have examples? He defended it in his review of it, in his review of Shuttah Island, and this article. That's three.AcacianLeaves said:
In the space of like two weeks. I'm not saying you are wrong, but please clarify here.
Hm. While these are valid observations and cause some interesting thoughts, I dunno if I agree with the scope. The 'jaded' fucktards who denigrate anything that does not meet their nebulous standards are really just edge-cases; thing is, they are more noticable because they are usually the loudest and the most obnoxious. I honestly think if it was as rampant a condition as Bob implies here, James Cameron wouldn't have so much money as to be able to build himself a 14000 square foot mansion constructed completely of bricks of 100 dollar bills.
I personally don't tolerate people like that: as I said, they're fucktards who seem to be determined to be unhappy and 'forever longing'. Usually not barrels of fun to hang out with.
The bit about there is nothing original also deeply saddens me. I would like to think that there are still stories yet to be told and songs yet to be sung, but I can understand where a person could think that is not the case. However, instead of a lack of inspiration, I'd chalk it up to commercialization- the capitalist system rewards low-risk investments with guaranteed returns over high-risk, all or nothing gambles, and this attitude bleeds over into our art and culture as well as our economics. Better to rehash a subject that is known to resonate with audiences than to attempt something avant garde. (I mean, shit, the fact that we have a phrase to describe exactly things that are experimental, different, and risk-taking should tell you something right there.)
other than that-- wow, Krull. Man that was a stinker of a movie. Saw it in the theaters, even.
I personally don't tolerate people like that: as I said, they're fucktards who seem to be determined to be unhappy and 'forever longing'. Usually not barrels of fun to hang out with.
The bit about there is nothing original also deeply saddens me. I would like to think that there are still stories yet to be told and songs yet to be sung, but I can understand where a person could think that is not the case. However, instead of a lack of inspiration, I'd chalk it up to commercialization- the capitalist system rewards low-risk investments with guaranteed returns over high-risk, all or nothing gambles, and this attitude bleeds over into our art and culture as well as our economics. Better to rehash a subject that is known to resonate with audiences than to attempt something avant garde. (I mean, shit, the fact that we have a phrase to describe exactly things that are experimental, different, and risk-taking should tell you something right there.)
other than that-- wow, Krull. Man that was a stinker of a movie. Saw it in the theaters, even.
seriously? you couldn't tell I was being sarcastic? even when I mentioned his dog dying? Or described every kid's sports movie that plagued cinemas after Mighty Ducks made it big? It's ok though, at least you didn't come off like some mouth breathing fanboy, so I salute you.Hexenwolf said:
He also defended it in his Oscar Nominations video, the article Blue (Skin) State, the article Going Negative, and a few other mentions in various articles and videos. So that's 6 times that he's directly defended the movie since about the time it released. This article in particular strikes me as odd given that all the heat surrounding Avatar has died down and people have finally shut up about it.sooperman said:
There are, approximately, THREE "newsworthy" current-events stories in mainstream film journalism: "Avatar" being a huge phenomenon possibly rewriting the rules of blockbuster movies and movie releasing (i.e. EVERY DAMN MOVIE is being made for 3D now,) The Oscars which this year is dominated by the Avatar/Hurt Locker rivalry, and "what's gonna happen to Roman Polanski?" That last one I've previously sworn-off covering until something new happens, so... there ya goAcacianLeaves said: