Follow TV Tropes

Following

Discussion Main / DecompositeCharacter

Go To

You will be notified by PM when someone responds to your discussion
Type the word in the image. This goes away if you get known.
If you can't read this one, hit reload for the page.
The next one might be easier to see.
MrStranger616 Since: Feb, 2020
Nov 28th 2020 at 3:10:13 PM •••

Can this trope work for whole species? Because the goombas look different in Super Mario World, and the SMW design was reused for a separate enemy called the "galoomba" in Super Mario 3d World.

Hide / Show Replies
MrStranger616 Since: Feb, 2020
Feb 26th 2021 at 8:10:01 AM •••

I guess it can, since it can apply to objects, like Caliburn/Excalibur.

MrStranger616 Since: Feb, 2020
Jul 4th 2021 at 6:28:46 PM •••

Nevermind, they were listed in "Absentee Actor"

MrStranger616 Since: Feb, 2020
Oct 26th 2020 at 4:59:42 PM •••

I guess this trope doesn't deal with show development, because Krusty the Klown was originally gonna be Homer Simpson's alter-ego, but that was scrapped because they thought it would've been too complicated.

Hide / Show Replies
MrStranger616 Since: Feb, 2020
Feb 26th 2021 at 8:12:34 AM •••

I added it anyway, and linked it to "What could've been".

MrStranger616 Since: Feb, 2020
Nov 28th 2020 at 3:10:40 PM •••

As for the Baby Mario thing, my guess is time travel.

DaibhidC Wizzard Since: Jan, 2001
Wizzard
Dec 23rd 2016 at 4:05:48 PM •••

Pulled this:

  • The DC Rebirth-era Action Comics storyline "Superman, meet Clark Kent" ultimately reveals the truth of the mysterious Clark Kent that showed up in the previous storyline by revealing that the New 52 Superman was never really Clark Kent to begin with — he took up Clark's identity to help him protect him from retribution by a shady company.

That is what "Clark" believes, but nobody who's in the know believes it can possibly be true, and it doesn't jibe with any previous stories. The truth behind the mysterious Clark Kent has yet to be revealed.

Edited by DaibhidC
XFllo There is no Planet B Since: Aug, 2012
There is no Planet B
Jun 10th 2013 at 2:46:57 AM •••

I removed this from the examples. Very dubious at best, and I am convinced not examples at all. TNG was a sequal, not an adaptation. Data, Riker, Worf and Troi are new fresh characters and not Spock distilled and split into four. Come on!

Edited by 70.33.253.45 Hide / Show Replies
DonaldthePotholer Since: Dec, 2009
Dec 11th 2013 at 10:21:19 AM •••

Technically, Friendship Is Magic is not an adaptation either. Granted, it's not technically a sequel, either to Gen 3 or Gen 1, but the point is that the relationship between the works is irrelevant so long as they are part of the same franchise.

That having been said, the point about the examples being dubious is valid and caused me to reduce my PokemonAnime examples from 2 to 1, as Misty to May (female character) and Max (Vitriolic Best Buds) is similarly dubious. The more recent example that I posted today, I find much less dubious, as at least one directly involves a stick of the diverged character.

EDIT: Actually, I won't post the other either unless I actually see and verify Clemont's side:

  • In their Anime persona, siblings Bonnie and Clemont (from Pokémon X and Y) split off of earlier companion Brock: Clemont garnering his The Smart Guy traits (Team Dad?) while Bonnie gets his "mad about girls" side... properly modified into a Mommy complex.

Edited by 68.1.57.131 Ketchum's corollary to Clarke's Third Law: Any sufficiently advanced tactic is indistinguishable from blind luck.
Azaram Since: Jan, 2001
Mar 4th 2014 at 8:25:10 AM •••

I'm not going to put it back, but it does look to me like the characters in TNG were the original characters split between a couple. I thought this back when the show originally came out, and was actually on this page to see if it was here. I'd have split them in two, though; Spock as Data (emotionless logic) and Troi (half breed telepath), and Kirk as Picard (captain, tactician) and Ryker (hot blooded man of action and 'bones everything that moves').

PaulA Since: Jan, 2010
Mar 4th 2014 at 6:09:45 PM •••

I think there's a case to be made that characters in TNG represent a splitting up and re-arranging of the plot functions served by the original characters. For one thing, if memory serves, it's been specifically said by the show's makers that they divided Kirk's functions as Captain and as Man of Action between Picard and Riker because they didn't want the ship's captain to be risking himself leading away teams all the time.

But that's not the same thing as saying that they divided the characters. Picard is not just Kirk with bits missing, he's a new and different character who happens to occupy the same place in the plot of TNG that Kirk occupied in the plot of TOS.

surgoshan Since: Jul, 2009
Mar 5th 2014 at 8:32:30 AM •••

But isn't it the case in the first season that ST:TNG wasn't yet independent from the first show, and that the characters were strongly tied to the original?

Larkmarn Since: Nov, 2010
Mar 5th 2014 at 8:50:04 AM •••

I think a sequel series can have a Decomposite Character if the rest of the cast is sufficiently filled with Expies of the original cast. Now, I don't know Star Trek at all so I can't say, but if you've got the rest of the cast who is a Generation Xerox and then two characters who are clearly a single character divided into two, then it would count.

That said, the example itself really looks like massive shoehorning.

Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
Top