I would sort by creator, since there's the chance that they've addressed Rule 34 for more than one creation (thus sorting by work or franchise would be impractical).
135 - 169 - 273 - 191 - 188 - 230 - 300
Is this trope even needed? As far as I know, the tropes regarding any work shouldn't include meta moments. But the reaction to something is by default a meta moment, so every example here would be quite unnecessary to be listed in the first place.
Hide / Show Replies
It is part of the Trivia (not trope) items regarding authors' stances on how their works are viewed (alongside the likes of Fanwork Ban, Disowned Adaptation, Approval of God, etc.), so it's definitely useful. And because it's Trivia, all examples are by nature out-of-universe.
135 - 169 - 273 - 191 - 188 - 230 - 300
Links are broken in the discussion posts, sadly.
135 - 169 - 273 - 191 - 188 - 230 - 300
Curmudgeon
i think on Scott Adams' website, there was a discussion to the effect that "Dilbert" was practically the only well-known cartoon strip that had never been turned into porn = the theory was that the characters, whatever you did to them, were so crudely drawn, so "blobby" and physically unappealing that there nothing even the most ingenious porn artist could ever do to make them sexy... I can see that, trying to encompass, for instance, the idea of Alice and Wally getting any sort of sex on together. Doesn't gel. But is there any truth in this, that "Dilbert" is the exception that proves the rule?
Edited by AgProv Elderly curmudgeon and awkward person. Professional old fart. Hide / Show Replies
So much of Rule 34 is an intentional invocation of Rule 34, not an attempt to create something that is legitimately sexy. (...Or So I Heard...) The fact that Dilbert characters are would be unappealing to draw naked just makes it funnier. I've never personally seen Dilbert porn and couldn't find any with a cursory Google search, but I couldn't confidently say that none exists.
I removed the Peanuts example. I couldn't verify the quote anywhere, and I doubt he would be cool about it (he was a fairly religious man).
Supposedly the cast of Lost enjoy reading some of the porny stuff off to each other.
Anyone know why the Bayonetta example was removed? The person removing it didn't cite a reason.
Hide / Show Replies
No idea. I'd put it back in, though folding some of the natter into the entry proper might be a good idea.
What's precedent ever done for us?
Shouldn't this page be renamed? I don't know, I just think that "Creator Reactions to Rule Thirty Four" or something similar would roll off the tongue easier.
Hide / Show Replies
So I have two questions regarding the formatting of this page: 1) How are the entries alphabetized, if they are at all? It seems like some media are going by the name of the "creator" whose reaction is being described and others are going by the work itself. 2) The Disney section seems like it should be folded into Animated Film, shouldn't it?
Hide / Show Replies