The Inimitable
I was thinking, perhaps a new entry is called for: Our Humans are Generic? In reference to how often humans are the "average" race, such as in D&D and Mass Effect.
Hide / Show Replies
Sentient Species have their own List of Tropes.
Reviewing movies is a lot like Paleontology: The Evidence is there...but no one seems to agree upon it.
Look at the way this is stratified on the Index of Fictional Creatures. They're here for the title alone.
Reviewing movies is a lot like Paleontology: The Evidence is there...but no one seems to agree upon it.
@Majin Gojira You mean "Sapient"? All animals are sentient! I'm sick of people confusing the two!
I think there should be Our Mummies Are Different
Hide / Show Replies
Might want to post that in YKTTW.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
So there's been discussion on this page, on the archived page, on various forums thread (this one I reference in particular
) and there's a common theme to these discussions:
This index has decayed. People have missed the point to the name format. This is not "Just any creature". So I made an index for just any fictional creatures. The Index of Fictional Creatures. The tropes that actually deal with the original reason why Our Vampires Are Different and Our Zombies Are Different were named as such stay here (to be more accurate, those that were named in such a way were left here, I didn't check whether they kept to the spirit of the snowclone).
If the "Our X Are Y" monster tropes imply that the monsters in question differ from the established preconceptions, shouldn't the examples be - well, different? Any work that features orcs will invariably have Our Orcs Are Different on its page — even when they're not. Same with dwarves, dragons, elves, and pretty much everything else. Unless "Our Orcs Are Different" just means "this series has orcs in it." Maybe this has been brought up before, I don't know. Just bugs me.
The index title and description seem to imply that this was made for supernatural creatures. Why are there a bunch of aliens and robots on this page? Shouldn't non-supernatural entries have a page of their own?
Hide / Show Replies
Cleared it up a bit.
Given the link that contained the word "Mythological" linked to the trope Aliens And Monsters, it makes perfect sense for it to contain other nonhuman monsters, mythical or not.
The origin of the beast type should not be considered—there are multiple origins for Kaiju both fantastic (gods and so on) and scientific. Same for many of the monsters listed. Vampires as viruses or as demons, doesn't matter for the sake of the trope. It's still by definition a Monster.
To use webster:
1 a : an animal or plant of abnormal form or structure b : one who deviates from normal or acceptable behavior or character 3 a : an animal of strange or terrifying shape b : one unusually large for its kind 4 : something monstrous; especially : a person of unnatural or extreme ugliness, deformity, wickedness, or cruelty.
4 is a little off as it goes to the trope Complete Monster. But for this list, Monsters can serve as the frightening, barely-human "Other".
Reviewing movies is a lot like Paleontology: The Evidence is there...but no one seems to agree upon it.
That's all well and good, but all of the individual types of aliens and robots are all listed on indexes of their own. And I remember that a few months ago, this index was limited to monsters that are typically featured in fantasy and horror. Now I know that there is a TON of overlap when it comes to speculative fiction genres, but to me it seems like there probably be some limits.
If possibly removing them is absolutely out of the question, then could we streamline this index a little? I know that at one time Vampire Tropes were listed underneath Our Vampires are Different, couldn't the same be done for Our Robots are Non-standard? Or maybe since all beastman and undead monsters are organized under single headings, couldn't the same be done for robots and aliens?
Looking at the list, it doesn't seem like The Virus or The Corruption seem to fit either because they seem to be more about how the monsters are created than the monsters themselves.
When I initially added many of these species, I worked from that very word—species (or really, genus, family, order and class). I went with mechanical life form over most other robot entries, and Clockwork Creature fits the previously used fantasy definition. The only other robot trope is what you mentioned: Our Robots are Non-standard.
Same with Aliens. Species/entity type ruled.
As for Virus and Corruption, look at the entries again. Both are indexed under "Otherness Tropes" and "Villain Tropes". Fitting the definition of "Monster". Often, especially in the case of the later, it is portrayed as a separate entity.
Biologically, virus' tend to inhabit a gray area between chemical reaction and life form. The fact that some forms of the Virus are effectively bacterial (and thus life) does help it.
Reviewing movies is a lot like Paleontology: The Evidence is there...but no one seems to agree upon it.
Fine, the Virus stays. However, I just placed my finger on why this page bugs me. You can barely distinguish it from Fantastic Sapient Species Tropes. Further, the last sentance on FSST says "Mythical creatures are covered by Our Monsters Are Different."
Given that this index once had nothing but mythical creatures in it, I believe this is a case of Trope Decay.
Fair point.
Let's mention Fantastic Sapient Species Tropes in this trope header, and remove the overlap between the two.
Though most of these monsters have a humanoid appearance, they don't get the "you murderer!" response when you kill them.
Edited by MajinGojira Reviewing movies is a lot like Paleontology: The Evidence is there...but no one seems to agree upon it.
There should be "Our Martians are Different" Because Martians from Mars Attacks look WAY different from the ones in DC Comics and Looney Tunes.
Edited by MrStranger616 Hide / Show Replies