I don't think "Continuity Porn" is the most appropriate trope for listing all of those references to past Muppet movies and shows. Remember, Continuity Porn is described on its own trope page as the "name for a story overly focused on continuity, to the detriment of the story," and manifesting itself as either a) a story focused on resolving existing continuity problems (something we all know the writers behind the Muppets have NEVER cared about), or b) a story where a new or casual fan who doesn't already know the continuity would be completely lost (and if they were trying to do this they failed miserably, given how many new Muppet fans this movie created). As written, the current "description" of the trope on this page is basically just a long list of Continuity Nods and Call Backs that appear in the film, that doesn't say anything about how or why the film as a whole constitutes "continuity porn." Unless someone is prepared to argue that the movie is cp, and to rewrite the introductory paragaph to illustrate exactly how the movie fits the description given in the cp trope itself, the trope should be removed and its contents relocated to Continuity Nod and/or Call Back as appropriate. I'm willing to do that myself if no one objects.
Where would it be best filed that Dr Teeth was playing out We Built This City from a mono radio-cassette?
So, I just watched the movie, and Tuesday is Black's trigger word, just as it was in the film. I let it fly when it was in theaters because I figured I just misremembered it, but no, there it is on home video. The line is "Tuesday". As funny as the word being "Friday" might've been, it's simply not the case. So I'm gonna fix it.
Maybe you'd be less disappointed if you stopped expecting things to be Carmen Sandiego movies.
It it just me or did they completely ignore the fact that The Jim Henson Hour, Christmas Carol, Treasure Island, and maybe Muppets Tonight and Muppets from Space ever happened?
Hide / Show Replies
Every Muppet film has picked and chose its own continuity.
"Freedom is not a license for chaos" -Norton Juster's The Dot and the Line: A Romance in Lower Mathematics
See Negative Continuity on the main page.
In The Muppets Take Manhattan, they are graduating university students wanting to make it big in New York.... when they worked in Los Angeles in The Muppet Movie and never went to school together?? If Muppets Tonight never happened, what are Bobo and Pepe doing in the movie??? It's all depending on the director and producer's choices. Most of the movies never had the same writer or director between them, so most fans just shove it off.
Pittsburghmuggle
I originally thought it was, but my research is coming up as a no on this. Is the car in Mary's classroom one of the cars from the original Muppet Movie?
Here's Fozzie's Studebaker
◊ and the car they bought from Mad Man Mooney
◊.
I was hoping it would match one of them, but I guess it doesn't. (I can't check the movie right now - the kids aren't watching it right now and I'm enjoying the break) A missed opportunity, if you ask me. Just putting it here in case the car was a cameo from another of the Muppet films.
Edited by pittsburghmuggle "Freedom is not a license for chaos" -Norton Juster's The Dot and the Line: A Romance in Lower Mathematics
What's UMG? They're deleting all the The Muppets soundtrack songs on You Tube! I am in the process of finding another link for the opening quote!
Hide / Show Replies
Universal Music Group.
"Freedom is not a license for chaos" -Norton Juster's The Dot and the Line: A Romance in Lower Mathematics
It would seem self evident that a web page about a film should consist of a list of tropes used in the film. Not tropes listed in "junior novels", or posters, or toys, or whatever. I would think that if one were determined to list tropes deployed in a "junior novel" version of The Muppets that one would start a Muppet Literature page or something similar.
Hide / Show Replies
I need to look up what this "junior novel" is, but I'm guessing it's like a novelization of the movie (junior, because it's considered a kid's movie, I guess). If that's the case, then listing it would be quite appropriate. Novelizations tend to work off of earlier scripts, and so basically, the examples that use this source are sort of like an advance version of "deleted scenes". I don't see an issue with mentioning details of a novelization for any movie.
Hodor
Yes, you're right, probably safe to assume that it's a book of the movie or something aimed at little kids—but the title of the page says "Film: The Muppets", and the introductory matter makes clear that it is about the 2011 feature film called "The Muppets". I can't see how a trope that is used in a novelization of the film is appropriate for the film page. Where do we draw the line? Toys? Lunchboxes?
I asked on Ask The Tropers and apparently anything supplementary materials connected specifically to this film can have trope examples here.
I doubt toys and lunch boxes will produce tropes.
Maybe you'd be less disappointed if you stopped expecting things to be Carmen Sandiego movies.
Well, all right then, I won't edit that out anymore. Although if that's the case we should probably change the page title from Film: The Muppets to All Media: The Muppets. Or, conversely, make clear in the front matter that this page does not apply just to the film, but to any and all ancillary material connected to the film. This will prevent other people from having my reaction of coming to a page about the film called "The Muppets" and wondering why the page was cluttered with material about a "junior novel".
You're really hung up on that junor novel stuff, aren't you? It's like - GASP - you don't like a novelization written for kids, about a kid's movie!
And there's two references to it, so that makes it "cluttered". Huh.
Edited by PacificMackerel
^^ I don't really get why are are so hung up on it. A novelization is like a step removed from a screenplay- it's like the same work, it just happens to be written rather than visual. The comparison with toys and lunch boxes makes no sense.
Hodor
To say nothing of the fact that, due to novelizations being written way in advance, they often contain things that might've been in the film with a bit less editing.
Maybe you'd be less disappointed if you stopped expecting things to be Carmen Sandiego movies.
Vidor, does this "junior novel" concern events in the old Muppets tv show? Or the other Muppet films, or the revived muppets tv show, or muppets on ice, or any of the other muppets franchise? Or is it about this specific iteration, this storyline, this movie? If it is just this movie, then what is the problem? It's not going to leave people scratching their head as to how it fits into tropes used in Muppets on Ice, or Muppet Treasure Island. People will see it as the novelisation of this specific film.
I wouldn't have thought there was any way to translate the English word "Film" as meaning something other than "film", but apparently it is so.
Your sarcasm is absolutely biting, and would be more so if these namespace changes weren't so overly specific but still allow promotional and tie-in material to be added. Bravo, sir.
"but still allow promotional and tie-in material to be added"
Yup, that's the problem.
Yup. If it allows natter about "junior novels" to clog up a page about the film, then yes, it is.
"Clog up"? Really dude? It's mentioned maybe three times.
Maybe you'd be less disappointed if you stopped expecting things to be Carmen Sandiego movies.
There's an entire trope listed—Our Dragons Are Different—which there is no basis for in the movie at all.
Uh.
Did you... watch the movie?
Uncle Deadly is a dragon.
HOLY SHIT STUFF ABOUT MATERIAL FOR A FILM IS CLOGGING AND NATTER. Obviously a bulletpoint is now natter.
I sure did. And nothing in the movie says Uncle Deadly is a dragon. And the listing actually admits that:
"His exact species isn't referred to"
and it isn't, in the film. Yet that trope is still listed here, apparently because it comes from the junior novel and the junior novel only. In fact, if the Muppet Wiki can be relied on, there doesn't appear to be anything in the Muppet canon anywhere besides this junior novel that identifies Uncle Deadly as a dragon.
Okay, here is a list of mentions of the Junior Novelization. (Line numbers are based on a fullview monitor, as opposed to widescreen, so the actual numbers for the a
- Five lines under All in the Manual. All in the Manual is specifically for when supplementary material explains plot points relevant to its source. (Given this trope's continued existance it's hard to understand why you consider putting supplementary material on the page bad, but I digress.)
- Four lines on Cerebus Retcon.
- Two lines under Negative Continuity.
- Two lines under Our Dragons Are Different.
- Three lines under Rock Bottom.
I'd think the answer would be that supplementary material shouldn't be on a main page unless it falls under All In The Manual, which, as you note, deals with supplementary material that explains a work.
To look at the other examples you provide:
- Cerberus Retcon is an entry which has nothing to do with anything in the film. (And in fact that entry doesn't really make sense anyway; just how does that comment imply that "The Muppets Take Manhattan" was the end of their golden age?
- Our Dragons Are Different, as noted above, is another trope conjured up from the junior novel which has nothing to do with anything in the movie.
- Rock Bottom lists a subversion which isn't actually a subversion (living in a pond in the zoo would be playing straight, wouldn't it?), supplementing a main entry for the trope that is also wrong (living in a mansion, even a dusty dilapidated one, is not "rock bottom").
From my count the junior novel is used correctly exactly once, in the All There In The Manual trope that really should be the only place anything from the junior novel is listed, and the rest of the entries on the page either add tropes to the page that aren't in the movie, or add supplementary information that isn't in the movie (and incorrectly at that).
I still don't get what would lead anyone to list tropes that are not in The Muppets on the page for The Muppets, but the consensus opinion seems to support that, so I guess that will have to stay. It would seem logical if that material must be on the page to create a Main page and specify that it is not just for the film, but there doesn't seem to be any support for that either. Oh well. I wish all that stuff were gone but I promise not to delete it.
Who was the lady at the anger management clinic? She seems so familiar, but I can't remember who she is ...
Hide / Show Replies
She's most well-known for her role in The Daily Show as one of Jon's correspondents who says ridiculous stuff.
Trapped in a Human Body
So who was the guy who appeared in the mirror during Walter's solo? The audience reacted, but I have no idea who he was.
We don't have to be mean. Remember - no matter where you go, there you are. —Buckaroo Banzai Hide / Show Replies
To clarify, it's Jim Parsons from The Big Bang Theory. It's his most famous role, but he's recognizable even without being attributed to the show.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cC-8xg2Yj1g
Like this on facebook.
Now, please excuse while I go to the next room and squee like a teenage girl at a boy band concert.
I watched this movie with my sister, yesterday. She called Walter a *Marty Stu, but I am not sure why. Can you help?