Contested example, that already caused a remove-and-replace:
- Foreshadowing
- A subtle one, and it may be coincidence, but when Thor meets Dr Strange, only three minutes and 42.1 seconds passed between when Loki is dropped through a portal and when he is released, with the only cutaway being when Thor goes to the address Strange gives him. Considering that he was close enough to use magic, it is likely that Thor wasn't far from Dr Strange's house. However, when he is freed Loki say's "I have been falling for thirty minutes!" could the time discrepancy be foreshadowing to how in Avengers: Endgame Scott Lang discovers potential time travel because time passed slower where in the Quantum Realm than in the outside world?
My opinion: this is not "subtle" foreshadowing, it's plain pure speculation, and very unlikely to have been intended. As the first editor removing it stated, it's quite logical that Thor would take some time reaching the address, and he does talk for a while with Doctor Strange. Movies use shortcuts compression all the time, there is nothing unusual about it.
Besides, you're not supposed to add anything that can be considered a spoiler for a movie further the line, as with any episode in a series, even within spoiler tags. This one blatantly ignore this rule.
Edited by StFan Hide / Show Replies
I concur, the example is speculation that takes a single line "...falling for thirty minutes" and stretches it to try and apply it to time travel in Endgame when there are far too many simple explanations for the line within the current story line.
The most likely is, as noted, it simply took Thor some time to reach Beecher street plus the time to talk to Dr. Strange = 30 minutes or so. Another obvious answer is that Dr. Strange has the time stone and could have worked some form of time dilation into his spell when capturing Loki.
Ultimately, the example itself even says "and it may be coincidence", which is not an indication that it feels it has a strong foundation as a justified example.
It's just not a good example of foreshadowing. I vote to keep it removed.
Has anyone contacted the original poster Lucina 1994 and invited them to participate in the discussion?
Edited by rva98014
My thought process was that the franchise has a tendency to turn throwaway lines and Freeze-Frame Bonus moments into foreshadowing for future installments. Even if the cause wasn't the exact same, it still toys with the idea of Year Inside, Hour Outside that is expanded on in Endgame
Edited by Lucina1994
It really does not toy with that idea at all. It has nothing to do with the trope, except if you're looking for it and trying to shoehorn it in.
The simple, obvious explanation is, again, that it took Thor some time to find the address and walk to it. There's nothing in the movie that implies any other explanation except this.
This is stretching and unsupported speculation at best, not "foreshadowing."
Re Casting Gag and Actor Allusion examples. Do they all apply? What is the exact difference between two tropes?
Hide / Show Replies
Actor Allusion is when an actor is cast in role and the creative team makes a reference to something in the actor's previous repertoire for fun. Like when Christopher Lloyd appeared on Spin City which starred Michael J. Fox and the show threw in a few "Back to the Future" references for fun. However, the role that Christopher Lloyd played had nothing to do with Doc. Brown.
Casting Gag is when an actor is specifically hired to play a gag that directly references one of their previous roles. Like in Spaceballs when John Hurt was hired to play a bar patron who suddenly experiences a "chestburster" that's played for laughs.
For both of these tropes, the implication is that the creative team INTENTIONALLY did it as a nod to the actors previous work. Many times examples of these tropes are interesting trivia and, while true, weren't intentional just audience perceived similarity.
In the Thor example, Luke Helmsworth kinda works because he was hired because he's Chris' brother. Sam Neil doesn't because his role is nothing like previous roles (he may have been hired because of his previous work with Taika, but that's not what this trope is about), Matt Damon works because of his role of Loki in "Dogma".
Edited by rva98014
Matt Damon is currently listed as an example of both tropes. Does Actor Allusion apply to him? Also, can Actor Allusion be Defied? I thought only characters can defy a trope, not the creators, and one of the examples listed is:
- Defied with Jeff Goldblum. Taika Waititi claims they didn't give the Grandmaster blue skin because they didn't want to seem like they were doing a Shout-Out to Earth Girls Are Easy.
Matt Damon's listing depends on the intention of the Creative Team. If he was hired specifically to be Loki-in-Play because of his earlier "Loki" role then it's a Casting Gag. If he was hired for any other reason, then it's more an Actor Allusion.
Unless we know the exact reason he was hired, just having Matt only under Actor Allusion is the safest.
Jeff Goldblum is interesting because Taika is saying he intentionally did not want to do a shoutout to "Earth Girls are easy."
Trying to classify it as an inversion of an enforced trope seems to be overly complicating the issue. I think it would safely fall under Actor Allusion because Taika is acknowledging Goldblum's previous role and actually made a decision about character makeup to avoid an intentional shout-out.
I'd just change the wording from "Defied with Jeff Goldblum." to "An interesting case with Jeff Goldblum."
Edited by rva98014
I've been thinking over it and I'm pretty sure Matt Damon's example is a Casting Gag but not an Actor Allusion. His previous role is not alluded to in any way in the film, but he is an actor who played Loki who plays an actor who plays Loki. So he's basically playing himself. Casting Gag has this in the description "This is where an entire role mirrors or parodies an entire previous role or Real Life situation of the actor" and this in the examples "Gloria Swanson, who was an over the hill, forgotten silent movie actress, plays an over the hill silent movie actress." etc.
Re Reverse Psychology. Hjortron 18 added the entry:
- Reverse Psychology: Loki attempts this on Thor, telling him that he thinks about staying behind on Sakaar, expecting Thor to object and beg Loki to stay together. But Thor sees right through him and doesn't play along, using Reverse Psychology himself by telling Loki that he actually agrees that they should part ways since he doesn't believe Loki is ever going to change, even though he has potential.
rva98014 deleted it with the following justification:
Taika has talked about the honesty of the elevator scene and contrasts its touching moment against the humor in the rest of the film. In looking at the scene this way, it feels that while Loki was expecting Thor to object to his preference to staying on Sakaar, he was being honest when he said it was a better fit for him. Thor was also honestly summing up their relationship as he says their paths diverged a while ago and he agrees Loki should stay on Sakaar (taking Loki by surprise). Thor suspects betrayal (as usual) and slaps an obedience disk on him. But he doesn't activate it or give Loki his "The Reason You Suck" Speech until after Loki tries his betrayal. Therefore, the scene actually plays out pretty straightforward with no real Reverse Psychology going on.
I kinda agree with both — I think they were mostly honest, but Thor didn't really want his brother to stay on Sakaar. When Loki shows up on the Rainbow Bridge, the first thing Thor says is "you are late" as in "I expected you to turn up earlier". So I propose to keep the example but change the wording like this:
- Reverse Psychology: During the Climactic Elevator Ride, Thor agrees that Loki should stay on Sakaar rather than return to Asgard. Loki is visibly upset and in the end goes back after his brother. Thor's reaction once Loki arrives in Asgard? "You are late".
I really don't see Reverse Psychology at play in the elevator.
To me it seems that Loki's decision to return to Asgard came about because he took Thor's The Reason You Suck speech to heart.
As Loki is writhing on the ground, Thor says "you'll always be the God of Mischief, but you could be more" that combined with Thor's straightforward and touching admission in the elevator "Loki, I thought the world of you. I thought we were gonna fight side by side forever...".
Both statements are honest, direct statements of what Thor hoped for even as he felt they would never come to pass. They just don't come across like duplicitous reverse meanings trying to trick Loki into doing the right thing.
As far as the "you are late" comment, given the light-hearted tone of the movie, it seems the perfect snarky response to the evil brother's Heel–Face Turn and not intended to imply a "I knew you'd come because of my Reverse Psychology ploy".
Edited by rva98014
Yeah now I also agree with both! It just seemed a bit to me that Thor chose his words deliberately (like when he says "that's what you always wanted" while Loki totally doesn't look happy, or when he implies that he doesn't think Loki will actually change) to make him do the opposite etc., but it really is as likely that he was just honest. So I guess it's better to leave it cut, since examples should be as non-speculative as possible.
Agreed.
It's pretty clear from the scene that Thor doesn't want to leave Loki behind, but it's not clear as whether he's intentionally trying to alter Loki's behavior or is just regretfully stating his feelings that Loki's not going to change.
I don't have a strong opinion on that, so I'll agree that it's better to leave it cut.
When Doctor Strange requests that Thor put down his umbrella, it seemed odd that he would comply so easily and I took that to be an example of some kind of suggestion magic at work.
I wrestled with the proper trope, narrowing it down to Charm Person or Compelling Voice and finally decided on the latter for two reasons:
1) The movie adds vocal effects to Doctor Strange's line 'Thor Odinson' making it booming and resonant and it flows calmly into "God of Thunder" and then into the quite reasonable suggestion "You can put down your umbrella". There are no magical hand gestures apparent in this scene, just his voice.
2) Compelling Voice is described as being unable to be resisted whereas Charm Person can be fought through strength of will. Thor had already seen that Doctor Strange had captured Loki and at the moment they first meet was unclear whether he was a friend or foe. To me it seemed unlikely that Thor would willingly put down his main weapon without some kind of resistance.
Troper Asherinka reclassified the example as Charm Person and I don't have problem with that. Since Thor was turned into a frog by Loki, it shows he's susceptible to magic and he could have just experienced a major saving throw fail in this scene.
However, I wouldn't mind hearing feedback whether Charm Person should be considered the more appropriate trope.
Let's discuss.
Hide / Show Replies
I've been actually pondering on it myself for a while, and made the reclassification solely because we don't know the range of Strange's abilities, so going for a less extreme version (the ability can be resisted) in the absence of definitive proof is more "safe", so to say. I don't have a strong opinion on this matter though.
This link is also relevant to the discussion: A to C. Edit: Also, if the decision is made to revert the change, the same edit should be made on this page: MCU: Doctor Strange
Edited by Asherinka
I agree with the "play it safe" reasoning.
We don't know Doctor Strange's power level in this film. Is he now the Sorcerer Supreme? or still just Master of the New York sanctum?
Compelling Voice is bit overpowering so I'm fine with leaving it at Charm Person.
Thanks for the feedback. If anyone else would like to join in the discussion, please feel free.....
PS He is still not the Sorcerer Supreme in IW, he refers to himself as a "Master of Mystical Arts" in a dialogue with Thanos, which is a rank beneath the Sorcerer Supreme.
Hang on, is Mjolnir a Power Limiter? I thought it channeled and focused power, but that's not the same thing at all as limiting it. The Fridge page seems to think it is, though.
I've removed those entries, since Odin seems to say that it just channels and focuses his powers. Any disagreements?
Edited by MasterFuzzy
The scene near the end where Thor tells Odin "I'm not as strong as you" and Odin replies "No, you're stronger" feels incredibly trope-y to me, but I can't find it in the tropes page for this film. What would this trope be called, and should it be added? (Essentially: "I'm not as ___ as you" "No, you're more _____ than me")
Hide / Show Replies
I may be reading too much into this but it looks to me like there are several easter eggs to The Chronicles of Riddick, mostly visual ones:
- First, Karl Urban in pseudo-medieval armor as the henchman of the space villain whom he betrays because Honor Before Reason.
- The shot of Thor dangling out of the ceiling of a volcanic cave by a chain wrapped around his torso is reminiscent of Riddick doing the same thing on purpose to break himself free
.
- Thor gets proclaimed as king in the boxy, bluish chamber of a boxy spaceship, in front of a crowd, similar to Riddick.
Is it just me or can we count any these as visual homages?
Hide / Show Replies
Hard to say. The challenge is that the three examples you cite are pretty broad strokes. I can think of several stories with a henchman of space villian in "medival-ish" armor as well as a character being proclaimed king (or general or leader) in a chamber on a spaceship.
Maybe Taika borrowed these visual images from Riddick but they do seem to be common-ish story/visual elements in the space-opera genre.
If you had Word of God confirmation of this, it'd be easy. Otherwise, since it's iffy, YMMV might be a better location for this observation.
P.S. Don't call it a Shout-Out. That's for intentional, deliberate references made by the creative team and generally require some kind of Word of God or All There in the Manual confirmation.
Edited by rva98014
Also, LOTR homage shots? The one when Hela jumps into the chasm with the Flame Imperishable and there's a distance shot of her falling through a darkness looks pretty much like Gandalf and the balrog. Also, the fire demons in Muspelheim crawling down pillars really look like Moria orcs.
Ok, here's the thing: I am in no way sure, but for me that really did kinda sound like a joke. I mean, why let Chris train so extensive (which he actually doesn't enjoy that much because he also has too keep a strict diet) when you're gonna slim him down digitally anyways? On the other hand, there are moments (the shirtless scene for example) where he does seem more muscular than in other scenes... but might that not be just because those scenes were shot later and he gained even more muscles during shooting? Man, I'd normally suggest we just ask Taika on Twitter (he occasionally answers) but even then I doubt you could tell for sure if he's serious or not, that dude is a master troll! :D
Hide / Show Replies
Taika Waititi's sense of humor is so dry and zany that it gets really hard to tell when he's being serious or not.
As far as the Thor muscle reduction tale is concerned, it's really walking the line and I propose that this needs to be confirmed even though it was initially presented by Word of God. (The video is essentially a puff piece for Vanity Fair and prime fodder for Taika pulling their chain)
Realistically, you'd think that something that's as VFX intensive as reducing Thor's muscles in most every scene in the movie (otherwise the elevator scene would stand out as looking odd) should have some kind of mention somewhere else by someone else besides Taika.
So for now let's leave the Reality Is Unrealistic example in place but see if the muscle reduction story can be verified in some other article, interview, podcast, featurette, etc. Or if there's a behind the scenes clip that clearly shows Chris's muscles as gigantic as Taika claims. This should be findable in a reasonable time (say a month). If not, then the example should either be removed or have a disclaimer added.
I'm pretty sure the example is a joke, too, given the lack of confirmation.
Even if it was true, it's more Trivia than an objective example, and should be at best in Word of God on the Trivia tabs.
Either way, editor Tabs has started edit warring any way. I'm of two mind of reporting it immediately on Ask the Tropers.
I say we don't need a month; let's remove the example and leave a note pointing toward this discussion. Maybe asking a moderator first to not be accused of edit warring.
I've spent the past few days looking at various You Tube clips that focus on "behind the scenes" views of Thor: Ragnarok. One of the most telling is a clip of a featurette called "In It Together" in which Tom Hiddleston talks about having worked with Chris Helmsworth for 10 years as the characters of Loki/Thor. In the clip it shows both a finished portion of the "elevator scene" as well as the actors in front of the blue screen.
I have to say I can't see any differences in the size of Chris' arms. There are a few scenes in other clips were they seem a little bigger but, to me, it looks more due to lighting and arm position than having excessively large musculature that was digitally toned down.
Has anyone found anything to support Taika's claim? I've invited troper "Tabs" to participate in this discussion.
Also, FYI, we haven't yet entered into an edit war on this. Josef 5678 was the original poster of the Reality Is Unrealistic example. Then Hjorton 18 deleted it and gave a meaningful edit reason. Then Tabs added it back with a meaningful edit reason. If we simply deleted it again without any effort to work Tabs into the conversation, then we've clearly gone into edit war territory.
Right now it's still nebulous. Hopefully Tabs will respond to the invitation to participate in the discussion and we can achieve a consensus on this without needing to involve a moderator.
Yeah, the edit war not being clear-cut is why I hadn't jumped the gun and decided against posting on ATT on seeing this discussion. But that was still a close call. You're not supposed to re-add a deleted example without discussion, even if the example was initially added by another troper.
I didn't intend to start an edit war, and I'm glad you've invited me to the discussion. Having not known Taika Waititi's earlier work or zanyness(?), I took what he said at face value and assumed everything he said in the video was true. Since more editors have provided input and pointed out the lack of other sources, I think you're right that he was joking.
Edited by Tabs
Should we include Odin and the Warrior Three as "Back for the dead"? They had never been Put on a Bus, they have appeared at the three Thor films.
Ultimate Secret Wars Hide / Show Replies
They didn't return in the sense required for the trope, because they never went anywhere. The trope requires that the character be absent from the series for a while before being written out, and the characters in question have been in every Thor movie to date.
Sudden Sequel Death Syndrome might be a better match.
Odin would count as Back for the Dead considering he was Put on a Bus at the end of Dark World.
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
- Continuity Snarl
- The first two films take great lengths to clarify that the Asgardians are not gods, but just Sufficiently Advanced Aliens. In this film, however, they constantly refer to themselves and each other as gods, with no clarifications ("I'm the goddess of death", "What were you the god of again?", "Are you the god of hammers?", etc)
- The first Dr. Strange film introduced magic to the MCU, not as a Clarke's Third Law, but as actual magic. Still, it is Sufficiently Analyzed Magic, that must follow some rules to work: spoken enchantments, hand gestures, use of specific artifacts, etc. Here, however, magic does not seem to be constrained by petty rules: Strange can teleport himself and Thor around the house just by wishing so, and the cup of tea changes into a botomless beer mug with no further explanation.
This was removed with an edit summary that says "That's way, way, way below a Continuity Snarl. Barely even a Series Continuity Error, in fact. This is just trying to sneak Headscratchers on the main page.". Actually, I added it after reading a complete article about it: How Thor: Ragnarok radically changed the MCU and no one seemed to notice
That's still a complete misuse of Continuity Snarl. Seriously, this trope is way too often misused just to voice out some nitpick. A Continuity Snarl is irreconcilable incoherence between several continuities. The MCU is still one continuity, any problem within it is, at the very most, a Series Continuity Error.
And the linked article is just one opinion among many others. If you just look at the Headscratchers page for this movie, you'll see that those very specific points (or close enough) have already been asked, and plenty of very satisfying answers have been subsequently submitted.
Conclusion: don't use Continuity Snarl unless there's a real example of the trope, and don't put nitpicks/speculations shoehorned into a trope on a main page when there are subpages devoted to them.
"satisfying" answers? "real" examples? The big question is: according to whom? You said that the article of Looper is "just one opinion among many others". It isn't. The opinion of a reputed source does not stand in an equal ground with the opinions of simple users of a website. If such a source says that there is a continuity snarl, then there is.
Ultimate Secret Wars
The issue, as far as I can tell, lies in your interpretation of the article. I read the article too when it was published, and I saw it as a hugely significant yet mostly glossed-over retcon. That's not a continuity snarl. The timeline inconsistencies between The Avengers, Civil War, and Homecoming would be more like an actual continuity snarl.
Again, Continuity Snarl has a specific definition, sadly too often misused. There may be a possible Retcon here, indeed, although the examples given are probably too minor to even be qualified as that (the so-called inconsistencies are easily explainable). But let's not shoehorn the wrong trope to start with.
Edited by StFan
- "Pragmatic Adaptation: In the comics, Hela is Loki's daughter. Instead, in this film she's conflated with Angela, Thor and Loki's long-lost sister. No doubt this in part because it makes more sense for Odin to have a secret child, and partly because the audience subconsciously wouldn't be able to accept Lokinote and Older Than He Looks—Tom Hiddleston, even if Asgardians tend to be Really 700 Years Old having a fully grown daughternote ."
Am I the only one who thinks that if the audience has trouble accepting that a something-hundred year old adult could have a fully-grown daughter, then they're just being downright unreasonable?
Edited by AntMan Hide / Show Replies
The problem is that she is older than him, as mentioned in the notes.
Edit: The problem here is referring to the actors. Yes, they could have cast a younger actress, and then it wouldn’t be strange for Loki to have an adult daughter, but they wanted the best for the role and went for Cate, and that makes it unlogical for her to portray someone who is Loki's daughter.
Edited by Hjortron18
so, the audience can just measure people's exact age on sight like that?
Not exact age of course, but while Cate Blanchett looks by no means bad, you can tell that she’s older than Tom Hiddleston. You maybe can’t tell how much older she is, but that’s enough.
Should we add Villain Victory to the list, based on what I heard? Or was I misinformed?
Because from what I heard, Hela destroys Asgard and gets away with it, right? I heard Asgard was destroyed and Cate Blanchett said Hela would return if people liked her performance enough
Edited by Ghostkaiba297 Hide / Show Replies
I can't wait that long. And I just received confirmation that Thanos wins.
Well, true or not, given that this would be a huge spoiler, and as far as I know you are not allowed to put trope names in spoiler tags, I really think it would only be fair to at least wait until the movie has been officially released before adding that.
And in any case, this is a movie...you can't receive confirmation as if this was a news or sporting event...you can only verify it by seeing it.
Hela wanted to conquer the other realms. So it was not really a victory if she was prevented from doing so. She didnt even come close as she was prevented from leaving Asguard.
I've noticed that the reveal of Surtur being unleashed to bring forth Ragnarok and defeat Hela is sometimes in spoiler tags and other times left in plain sight.
It should be consistent throughout the page and I'd vote to just not consider it a spoiler anymore. Infinity War and Endgame have made it very apparent that Asgard was destroyed so it's not really a story-breaker spoiler anymore.
I'd also vote to no longer consider Thor losing an eye as a story-breaker spoiler considering it was replaced in Infinity War.
Feedback?
Edited by rva98014 Hide / Show Replies