Follow TV Tropes

Following

Discussion Main / WeWillNotUsePhotoshopInTheFuture

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.
SeptimusHeap MOD (Edited uphill both ways)
Mar 20th 2021 at 10:42:01 AM •••

Previous Trope Repair Shop thread: Snowclone, started by trekie140 on Jun 7th 2014 at 3:59:28 AM

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
trekie140 Since: Mar, 2013
Jun 4th 2014 at 5:20:20 PM •••

I thi the name of this trope should be changed, it's far too limiting. Why not call it something more related to general forgery? It would allow for many more examples of how people in fiction can be fooled so easily by falsified information. It might also help to remove The Future from the title since it also restricts examples. Perhaps it should just be called Can't Spot A Fake.

As Above, So Below Hide / Show Replies
SeptimusHeap MOD (Edited uphill both ways)
Jun 4th 2014 at 10:15:22 PM •••

I can see snowclone concerns - feel free to propose a rename in the Trope Repair Shop.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
mat Since: Jun, 2010
Jun 21st 2016 at 10:47:00 PM •••

The meaning of the page quote is also confusing to me without context. Is it saying nobody edits images or images are unbelievable because they're all edited? Sort of like "Nobody drives in New York, there's too much traffic."

randomsurfer Since: Jan, 2001
Mar 30th 2010 at 12:47:51 AM •••

I'm posting this to the discussion page because it's only half an example. On a Legal Drama show I recall seeing relatively recently - say within the past three years or so - this was Discussed: the subject of a lawsuit was a baseball player charged with murdering one of his coaches with a foul ball hit at his head. The prosecution had a video in which the player was shown to have control over where the ball was hit, but the defense argued that the video was inconclusive because it had no provenance (it was from an anonymous source) and it couldn't be proved not to have been tampered with. Problem is, I don't remember what show it was. Maybe Boston Legal or Eli Stone.

Edited by randomsurfer Hide / Show Replies
FastEddie MOD Since: Apr, 2004
Mar 30th 2010 at 1:11:02 AM •••

Century City had this one.

Goal: Clear, Concise and Witty
randomsurfer Since: Jan, 2001
Mar 30th 2010 at 1:20:43 AM •••

Don't think that was it - I don't think I watched that show, and based on the TV.com recap - "The lawyers helps a baseball player with a mechanical eye when he is given an unfair advantage" - I just plain don't think that was it. In the show I saw he was allegedly just really talented at directing where the ball would go when he hit it. No scifi/Applied Phlebotinum involved.

Ohh...maybe it was Head Cases or Just Legal, two blink-and-you-miss-it shows from 2005. I'll have to look into those.

Edited by randomsurfer
Top