Discussion Main / SpringtimeForHitler

Where did this trope get its name? Is it a reference that I’m missing?

GO CRAZY!!! Hide / Show Replies

Removed the Rush example from music, which for reference was:

• Canadian Prog-Rock band Rush had just released their third album, a proto-concept piece entitled Caress of Steel, to poor sales and even worse reviews. Fans and critics alike were confused by the fantasy-literature-based lyrics and increasingly complex musical experimentation; and their record company was unhappy by the non-conventional song structure and lack of single-release material. The band was pressured by Mercury Records to return to their earlier blues-rock sound, and create more single-friendly songs. Believing their next album to be their last, they decided to give a big "fuck you" to the Mercury execs, do the album their way, and push their musical experimentation to its limits; resulting in a science-fiction concept album inspired by Ayn Rand's Anthem featuring some of their most complex music to date. The album, 2112, would go on to be their comercial breakthrough, becoming a major commercial success, and going triple platinum. It would eventually be hailed as a landmark of the evolution of Progressive Rock music and would catapult the band into major international stardom.

Took it out due to not being an example. My understanding of the trope is that the person or entity has to be trying to fail at their ostensible goal. While it's true that part of the mentality of 2112 was "This is our last shot, and if we crash and burn with this album, we'll at least have the satisfaction of having done so our way", failure was definitely not Rush's goal—Geddy, at least, noted in an interview for the 40th anniversary of the album that "Thankfully, our second attempt (At producing a prog-style epic)" went a lot better than our first."

Hide / Show Replies

The Asterix examples here are the wrong trope. Asterix and Obelix are not failing at trying to fail, they are trying to succeed and failing normally.

Linking to a past Trope Repair Shop thread that dealt with this page: RenameFalls on the wrong side of the witty/informative spectrum, started by Plumbum on Jul 30th 2011 at 12:08:26 AM

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

Linking to a past Trope Repair Shop thread that dealt with this page: RenameWitty over informative, started by Plumbum on Jul 30th 2011 at 12:12:11 AM

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

There were loads of times on Sesame Street when an attempt by Oscar the grouch to make someone miserable led to someone doing something else that made someone happy. Do those count as examples here?

This page eluded me when i was looking for it, because it seems to be a strong example of Trope Namer Syndrome. I passed it over two or three times before I realized it was the page I was looking for.

A more descriptive title like "Failing at failure" would be more appropriate.

I'm starting to consider Real Life examples should get their own page, like with Mean Character, Nice Actor and The Alleged Car.

Something.

What about 'epic own goal' as an alternative trope name?

Not that my levels of political correctness are that high, but the pun is not so explicit outside of the united states, while even non-sportive people could use a more direct approach?

That, and 'winning the rigged game' might be too long, don't you think?

P.D: I have no idea how popular the movie 'the producers' and its recursive adaptations are out of the english speaking world, so that might biase my perceptions a little.

Thanks for your time anyway.

Hide / Show Replies

The Pastafarianism entry in 'Real Life' section does not belong here. Yes, The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster was a joke aimed at organized religion based on 'guy in the clouds' concept, but the fact that they are a formally registered religion in some jurisdictions* only proves the point of religion's founders that any made-up story can become basis of worship. That was their intended goal all along, so no Springtime for Hitler here. As far as I can tell, it is still considered a joke and 'take that' against religious people by its adherents.

• In such places, the only requirement for registration is a written application backed by a certain amount of adherents (sometimes as little as 30 people is enough).

Strictly speaking I'm not sure William Ashbless counts. Yes, Blaylock and Powers were writing deliberately bad poetry, but not with the intent of failing; they were trying to prove that their college magazine was uncritical enough to publish terrible poetry without realising, and they were right.

Here are some examples that might count.

Arrested development: Maeby enters a beauty contest under her wheelchair bound alias, Shirley, to prove that disabled girls can't win beauty contests. When she wins, she gets out of her wheelchair to be disqualified only to instead have someone say it's a miracle.

South park: Butters has a crush on Kim Cardashian and Wendy tries to convince hem that she is Photoshoped. Wendy then Photoshops the unpopular girl at school to prove a point, but this gets Butters to fall for the girl instead.

There's an important difference between Springtime for Hitler and Monadnock Valley (which is the development mentioned in The Fountainhead). The difference is that Monadnock Valley really is good, in the author's opinion. The larcenous financiers don't see this because of their wrong convictions (no pun intended).

Not sure if I should add it to the entry, so I'll plonk it here instead:

The Batman: Gotham Adventures entry: Ivy and Harley's movie did so spectacularly, even though releasing it was basically a 'fly or die' on the movie company's part, that Harley won an award (apparently an Oscar expy) as best director!!!

The last page (in the collection I read it in) has Harley living it up in Arkham with what her fans and new Hollywood friends send her.

Coming back to where you started is not the same as never leaving. -Terry Pratchett

Wait a minute. The image is back.

Why is the image back when an IP thread specifically asked for it to be removed?

Catch me where? See my profile! Hide / Show Replies

Took this Natter out of the article:

• The omnipotence paradox states that God does not have the ability to do everything, because God would not have the ability to fail. If he could create a rock so heavy he could not lift it, then there is something he cannot do. If he can create a rock of any kind that he can always lift, he has failed in showing he can do anything.
  • This argument assumes God to be a completely physical entity, though; asking the creator of the universe how much it can lift is liking asking a star its IQ.
  • No, this has nothing to do with physicality. Lifting a rock was only an example. This kind of argument claim something different: concept of literal omnipotence is self-contradictory, thus truly omnipotent being cannot exist.
  • It's a ridiculous question no matter which side you support, because it essentially asks for infinity plus one.
  • As any Maths and Philosophy Studnet will tell you, it's entirely possible to have infinity plus one. It's just a different infinity. Thus, an omnipotent being could create a rock so big it could not lift it, and then would be able to lift it.
  • The fallacy of the argument lies in that "a rock so big God can't lift it" is evidence of God's non-omnipotence (by description), and that failure to produce the item is assumed to prove His non-omnipotence as well. Assuming God is omnipotent, the rock is an impossibility. God can create a rock of any size because he can lift anything; he cannot create "a rock so big God can't lift it" because the concept makes no sense. The fault lies not in God's inability to lift, it lies in the rock's inability to exist in a universe where God is established as omnipotent. Isn't it obvious?
    • So if God is so omnipotent, how come he can't create an impossible rock?
    • The above response that this is a nonsensical question is an example of Completely Missing The Point. Which is that the concept of "omnipotence" leads to nonsensical questions. Because the concept itself is nonsensical.
  • Actually, the answer is simple, especially for us tropers. God would create a rock that even him couldn't lift, and then lift it.
  • This Troper always figured that God could create the rock, but if he did he'd stop being omnipotent. If one can do anything, one can remove this ability from oneself.

Edited by Poochy.EXE Extra 1: Poochy Ain't Stupid Hide / Show Replies