Discussion WesternAnimation / Zootopia

Yes, during the waterfall plunge Judy pulls her legs together then crosses them and straightens her body to adopt a more sensible position for hitting the water. It even looks like she might have brought one hand up to hold her nose just before impact.

This was obviously done to contrast with Nick who simply falls head-over-heels while screaming all the way down. It's a nice, fun moment for the sharp-eyed viewer.

FYI though, the discussion page is generally for opening a discussion about the content of the tvtropes page at hand. For example, challenging the validity of listed trope, questioning the wording of an example, or asking to remove a trope that seems inappropriate.

It's not really for general discussions about the movie itself.

Well, I didn't know where else to point this out. ^////^

Well, I didn't know where else to point this out. ^////^

Right here, ideally.

EDIT: Wow, that URL is mangled, even though the wiki code is fine. Here's the raw URL instead: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13761136140A44272400 Even then, you're gonna have to copy and paste it 'cuz it's prepending "https : // tvtropes.org / '" and appending "%27" for some reason.

Edited by ShadowHog Moon◊

Thanks, ShadowHog, I had forgotten about the Zootopia discussion forum here.

However, MotleytheCat, be aware that there hasn't been any activity over there since 12/2017. You might want to consider the Zootopia subreddit for more active discussion (disclaimer: I don't follow it myself but I've heard it's pretty good.)

Edited by rva98014

I see no reason why we should remove the tags, honestly... I don't believe it's TV Tropes policy to turn pages into Spoilers Off like that at any point, unless it predates copyright or something.

Moon◊

As a complement to Spoilers Off there is also the page Handling Spoilers.

One of the issues it points out is the balance between keeping a story twist a secret verses having a trope page turn out looking like "Swiss-cheese entries, entries where single words and short phrases are cut out and other text is left visible. Face it, it looks like crap to people who have the spoiler font blanking effect turned on, which is the vast majority of the readers. It is the default."

To that end they advocate "Think about the casual reader, who doesn't care about spoilers. We know it seems important to fans of a given work, but the far and away majority of readers are not people with a fannish mindset at all. We who edit are mostly fannish, but the people who edit are less than 1% of the people who read the wiki. "

If you look at the Zootopia main page with spoilers turned off, there are sections have have that swiss cheese look. The main story items that are spoiler tagged are:

1) Bellwether as the Big Bad

2) Lionheart is running Cliffside and is a red-herring Big Bad.

3) Mammals are going savage because of Nighthowlers not biology

4) Nick and Judy pull a Batman Gambit at the end to fool Bellwether

5) Mr. Otterton is missing because he goes savage and has a relationship with Mr. Big

6) Nick had a bad childhood experience the Junior Ranger Scouts

7) Nick joins the ZPD at the end.

8) Judy temporarily quits the ZPD

9) Gideon becomes a Reformed Bully

10) Flash is the street racer at the end

Of these items 1-4 are really the biggest story twists. Items 1/2 have kinda already been outed because of numerous articles that have commented on Disney's trend to have an innocent, unassuming character turn out to be the "surprise villain". Item 7 was outed during the ads for the Blu-ray release that showed scenes of Nick in a ZPD uniform.

Even if we decide not to remove all spoiler tags, there is some spoiler tag cleanup needed on this page because I'm finding things like "Bogo plays the Gazelle app", "predators go savage" and Zootopia is about "racial issues" being spoiler tagged.

Edited by rva98014

If nothing else, at least #10 should be stripped out.

If spoiler tagging is to be reserved for substantial plot twists, then trivial stuff like that probably shouldn't be spoilertagged, even if it ruins a minor joke.

Instead of, or in addition to, reducing the amount things we hide behind spoiler tags, another option to fix the swiss cheese problem is to reword the entries so that they don't need the spoiler tags to avoid revealing too much. This seems to be the preferred option, though I'm personally ambivalent to it because it can lead to excessively vague or oblique wording.

Although, contrary to what ShadowHog said, there does seem to be a precedent for just turning spoilers off. Handling Spoilers says:

If this policy would cause a page to contain an unconscionable quantity of genuine spoilers, then remove all spoiler tagging and place a bold warning at the top that unmarked spoilers are present.

So if it's just too hard not to spoil without swiss-cheesing the page, you can just despoiler the whole page and put a warning. We already did that to the Character sheet, so I guess it would really be more consistent if we did the same thing to the main page.

Edited by BURGINABC

I took a preliminary pass at removing unneeded spoiler tags and/or rewording some examples to not need them in the first place. Even in tackling the low-hanging fruit, there are still 239 spoiler tags on the main page and there is a prevalent swiss-cheese look to many of the examples with "show spoilers" turned off.

I found that a lot of the examples tend to be heavy on plot-summary details... many could be made spoiler-free by removing the nice but unnecessary details but that would take considerable time and effort to reword the examples down to their bare essence. Other spoilers could be removed by rewording things like "Bellwether and her sheep minions" to the "Big Bad and their minions" or "savage Manchas" to "a savage jaguar", but honestly it makes the text read rather vague, boring and generic.

Also we tend to shield a lot of details regarding Nick and Judy having a Plot-Mandated Friendship Failure which I'm not sure really needs spoiler tags.

I guess I'm not adverse to just removing spoiler tags entirely and just going with a warning at the top of the page.

I'm just gonna be blunt: I flatly oppose the proposal to remove all spoiler tags from the work page.

Like, all of the points listed in that ten point list are valid things to hide from newcomers. Hell, even of the three at the end, the predators going savage is presented as a twist in the film, so yes, it'd fit into a spoiler tag. (The other two... well, the first is a gag, I guess, but not really needed to be spoiler-tagged, and it's hardly a secret that Zootopia is themed around prejudice, so that tag is safe to nix.)

I also feel like you're overthinking the "swiss-cheese" rule. That's meant to cover lines that look like this, going in and out of spoiler tags willy-nilly. (An exaggerated example, I admit, but that's sort of the idea behind it.) A cursory skim of the current usage of spoiler tags on the article only shows judicious spoiler tag usage, not... that.

This all just seems like a solution in search of a problem.

Moon◊

I don't mind a lot of these spoiler tag eliminations or rewords, but I don't agree with the ones that removed characters' names to avoid spoilers. Trying to hide Bellwether's identity in plain sentences looks awkward and for Manchas I think it's unnecessary, since we learn that savage predators exist (and he goes savage) in the same scene we meet him.

I definitely oppose any rewordings that, as rva98014 put it, make the text "read rather vague, boring and generic" for the sake of avoiding the need for spoiler tags.

That's just trading one style issue for another, but excessive obliqueness doesn't have an off switch the way spoiler tags do.

Edited by BURGINABC

The consensus I'm getting here is that we don't want to make the Zootopia main page a Spoilers Off page.

Nor do we want to adjust the wording of examples to be vague, generic, or oblique just for the sake of removing spoiler tags especially if it requires removing the character's names from the example.

The preference is to have meaningful example text and we'll just deal with a potential swiss-cheese look as an acceptable consequence.

To that end, I'll start rolling back the generic "Big Bad did this" examples to the more specific and spoiler-tagged "Bellwether", as well as restore Manchas over "the jaguar".

I think there are times where it makes sense to use generic descriptions (e.g., Big Bad) rather than spoiler-tagged names (e.g., Bellwether). If the emphasis is on what some other characters are doing, then the identity of the spoiler character is somewhat incidental. The entry can read more smoothly with the generic description than with the spoiler-tagged name.

For example:

While fleeing the Big Bad, Judy and Nick lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

While fleeing Bellwether, Judy and Nick lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

I agree that rewording to avoid the need for spoilertags doesn't always make the text overly generic. It's just something that one needs to watch out for.

Edited by BURGINABC

To be honest, while I didn't read through all of the changes rva made, I was actually sort of okay with them? Removing spoiler tags by finding ways to word around name-dropping isn't a terrible idea. It's just also not always possible, at least not cleanly, so in that case I still support keeping spoiler tags around.

Moon◊

Fru Fru states that the wedding and Weaselton chase were on different days.

Yep. When she arrives in Mr Big's office (wearing her wedding dress), she says: Fru Fru: Wait. Wait! She's the bunny that saved my life yesterday! From that giant donut!

Good catch. Thanks! That's why I wanted another set of eyes (or two or three) to review it.

I'm revisiting the time-line in light of this new reference to see if Fru Fru's statement can be reconciled, but right now it's looking like it breaks the timeline.

It makes Nick's statement of "10 left" closer to truth but Judy's "36 hours" virtually impossible. It's also suggesting that Judy was way overdue by the time she found the animals at Cliffside.

It also introduces two huge unexplained delays.

1) At least a day must pass from Judy reviewing the case file with Clawhauser until she finds Nick (since they meet Fru Fru the day she finds Nick).

2) They realize Bellwether can help with the jam-cams at sunrise but don't visit city hall until 4pm.

Edited by rva98014

I had already rewrote the example before I realized this discussion was here.

Yes the original example was a mess, trying to make three points and doing a poor job. I think I cleaned it up satisfactorily. Look it over and let me know if you still feel it should be separate bullets.

Mmm, enough to run with, I suppose. It does read more like a listing of the logic behind which animals were chosen (ie: why it's mammals-only, and why specific mammals were omitted) than the original text did.

Did a slight grammar/whitespace tweak, but otherwise left it roughly as you had it. Good thing this went as quick as it did!

Moon◊

Hmmm... I hadn't considered it a parody, but I guess that could apply. It is fully what Judy was intending because the amount of "blood" simulated by the ribbons and ketchup would be far more than a young bunny like Judy would actually have in her body.

This interpretation is supported when we turn to face the audience and see Stu's look of disbelief; Bonnie doing a facepalm and the rather shocked looks in the audience (including Gideon).

So maybe.... but I'd like to hear other feedback.

As before, I think the Show Within a Show nature of the context makes it hard to classify how the trope is being played — do we go in terms of how it's played by the movie, or how it's played by Judy's in-universe stage show?

I think Played for Laughs probably fits better than Parodied Trope, but I'm pretty confused overall so don't put too much stock in that.

I see how the Show Within a Show aspect of the play within the movie complicates the issue. Here's an attempt at trying to acknowledge the multiple levels with regards to the trope. Feedback welcome.

• Overdrawn at the Blood Bank: Within the context of her childhood play, copious amounts of blood is clearly the effect Judy is intending using the materials available to her as young kit (ie red ribbons and ketchup). Judging by the generally shocked faces of the play's audience reacting to her overblown death scene, she has managed to play the trope straight. However, to the actual movie audience watching the scene, it comes across as Played for Laughs.

Edited by rva98014

Given that there's been no further feedback on this suggestion, I'm going to add it to the main page.

I don't think the first example counts as Arson, Murder, and Jaywalking - false advertising is an equally light crime as selling food without a permit and transporting undeclared commerce.

And the other example doesn't qualify as Arson, Murder, and Lifesaving because in that case "lifesaving" should outweigh all the previous crimes of the Anti-Hero, whereas Bogo says "stopping a master criminal from stealing two dozen moldy onions" in a very sarcastic tone, implying that Judy's disobedience and endangerment of rodent lives outweighs it by far.

In response to the charge of false advertising, Nick responds to Judy's charges with:

Judy: You told that mouse the popsicle sticks were redwood!

Nick: That's right, ''red wood'', with a space in the middle; wood that is red.

And wouldn't Judy in Bogo's office possibly be considered a Downplayed Trope, or would there be some other misdemeanor variant involved?

Edited by snichols1973

The "moldy onions" bit as Arson, Murder, and Lifesaving doesn't qualify for Downplayed Trope, but rather Square Peg Round Trope.

Arson, Murder, and Lifesaving requires the "lifesaving" part to outweigh all the crimes committed in the process, or it simply does not count.

A downplayed example would be one where the crimes being outweighed are not very significant to begin with, or both the crimes and the redeeming action that leads to their forgiveness are very minor in scope. But if the heroic act doesn't make up for the crimes, and the boss is still pissed off afterwards, that's a non-example.

Edited by BURGINABC

The second example does sound like a subversion of Arson, Murder, and Lifesaving.

A subversion of a trope is where the viewer is set up to expect it to happen, but then it doesn't. As the supposed example comes in the form of an openly sarcastic remark which makes it quite clear that he doesn't think it made up for her reckless behavior, and there was nothing else beforehand that even remotely suggested that this would be an Arson, Murder, and Lifesaving situation rather than a straightforward instance of the Cowboy Cop being chewed out for her recklessness, I don't think that's a subversion.

Arson, Murder, and Lifesaving is a pretty hard trope to subvert, given that the trope itself is nothing more than a subversion of the type of straightforward "Hero screwed up and is now getting chewed out by the boss" scene which this is.

In order for it to be subverted, the audience would, at minimum, have to be led to believe that she had done something so monumentally heroic that anything else she did would have to be forgiven. She'd merely caught a common thief, not saved the entire city, so there's no reason to be surprised when her getting-chewed-out session doesn't culminate in being praised for heroism and forgiven.

That scene as a whole might instead be considered a subversion of Turn in Your Badge, as it looked like she was about to be fired, and she would have been if Bellwether hadn't intervened. A Turn in Your Badge plot (which is not simply any instance of a cop being fired, but a plot arc of them getting fired and then solving the case as a civilian anyway, which is fairly common in movies and shows with a Cowboy Cop protagonist) typically resolves in an Arson, Murder, and Lifesaving followed by reinstatement, but this scene doesn't really subvert that directly.

Edited by BURGINABC

As for the first example, when Judy arrests Nick for selling food without a permit (unlicensed street-vending), transporting undeclared commerce across borough lines (smuggling?) and false advertising (which consisted of Nick merely selling "wood that is red, with a space in the middle"), wouldn't Nick's example be considered more of an Exact Words misdemeanor, as contrasted with publicized advertisements with fraudulent claims (such as miracle drug infomercials)?

Edited by snichols1973

This is the index for playing with the Arson, Murder, and Lifesaving trope: http://www.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/PlayingWith/ArsonMurderAndLifeSaving,

while this is the index of playing with Arson, Murder, and Jaywalking:

http://www.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/PlayingWith/ArsonMurderAndJaywalking

Edited by snichols1973

Hmm... The "moldy onions" scene is pretty similar to some of the exaggerated examples of Arson, Murder, and Lifesaving, except that Bogo's tone is sarcastic rather than genuine.

@snichols1973: Yes, that is a case of Exact Words, but I don't see how that makes the example of Arson, Murder, and Jaywalking valid. Judy's list was was still three crimes of similar severity, without a strikingly less severe one at the end. His Exact Words were used to defend against the false advertising claim, but he had defenses for the other two as well, making them all equally non-actionable.

@mcgrew:

And the fact that his tone is sarcastic rather than genuine makes all the difference as to whether it's an example or not. It can be very tempting to list a situation which appears similar to the trope as an example even if it fails a critical criterion of the trope. Tropes Are Flexible, but not infinitely so.

The trope is about someone in a position of power over the hero listing all the mistakes they made, then praising them for a heroic act that forgives all of that. This just simply does not have have the second part.

It must be admitted that the sarcastic remark causes this bit of dialogue to resemble that trope in structure, if not in spirit.

The one form of playing with that might be applied is Parodied Trope, as that seems to be the catch-all for any instance of deriving humor from twisting a trope (though most examples given in Playing With subpages seem to be mixes of Exaggerated and Played for Laughs, I think the definition of Parodied may actually be more flexible than that, so that it can get away with twisting a trope nearly beyond recognition so long as it's clear which trope it's making fun of.)

But I still think that even that is a stretch. Clearly some people seem to disagree, feeling certain that this must be a deliberate attempt to reference this trope in some way, but to me it seems less like an attempt to lampoon the Arson, Murder, and Lifesaving trope, and more like just a sarcastic remark that flows organically from and is simply incidental to the very straightforward she-screwed-up-and-now-the-boss-is-chewing-her-out scene, and that any resemblence is coincidental.

Edited by BURGINABC

Most of Chief Bogo's reprimanding Judy is done in a serious, no-nonsense manner, with a touch of dismissive sarcasm applying to stopping a theft of moldy onions, while the previous charges are played straight. Wouldn't a Parodied Trope tend to trivialize the last item in the sequence, if not the sequence itself?

Edited by snichols1973

The fact that the character is serious, doesn't mean the writers weren't poking fun at the trope.

But as I said, I still think Parodied is somewhat of a stretch, just to a lesser extent than other possible played-with variants. I really think it's not an example at all, but simply incidental, with the resemblance to the trope probably not even being intentional.

Edited by BURGINABC

Since Nick's offenses were of similar severity, wouldn't that make this an averted version of Arson, Murder, and Jaywalking; in addition, how would producing the permit and receipt of declared commerce affect the main trope?

Edited by snichols1973

in addition, how would producing the permit and receipt of declared commerce affect the main trope?

I don't think it would, actually, since the trope is about the list itself. Sorry, I got a bit distracted there.

Since Nick's offenses were of similar severity, wouldn't that make this an averted version of Arson, Murder, and Jaywalking

Yes, that's what I've been saying the entire time. Of course, Averted Tropes are not listed unless there's some reason for their absence to be surprising. If a trope isn't listed under the Omnipresent Tropes index, then aversions shouldn't be listed without a very good reason.

Edited by BURGINABC

According to the Exaggerated vs. Parodied section of the Recommendations and Common Misunderstandings tab of the Playing With Wiki page:

• It is possible for "Parodied" to overlap with "Exaggerated", but they are not the same.
  • "Parodied" is when the trope or parts of the trope are directly mocked or spoofed for explicit humour value. (Parody examples on "Playing With" pages should not be exaggerations.)

  • "Exaggerated" is an extreme or over-the-top manifestation of the trope, but may still be played straight or taken entirely seriously. (It helps get the point across if your exaggerated examples are serious.)

http://www.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PlayingWithWiki

A parodied version, according to the definition, would be mocked or spoofed for explicit humor, which doesn't appear to be the case with Bogo and Hopps...

Edited by snichols1973

Could it be said that Bogo's reprimanding Judy is an exaggerated variant of Arson, Murder, and Lifesaving, since the scene mainly appears to be played mostly straight with a touch of sarcasm, as contrasted with a parodied variant, which would be spoofed for laughs?

If it was a parodied variant, she would probably have been rewarded with a medal, given a raise, or promoted...

Edited by snichols1973

Exaggerated? No, Exaggerated means an unusually extreme example.

What you described as a hypothetical parodied version actually sounds more like exaggerated than parodied.

But as for what actually happened in the movie, I don't see how that qualifies for exaggerated.

You describe it as "played mostly straight with a touch of sarcasm". Not only does that have nothing to do with Exaggerated Trope, but it's not true.

It can't be straight, exaggerated, or downplayed if it fails a critical criterion of the trope's definition. This example fails Arson, Murder, and Lifesaving's requirement that the character's good deed outweighs the crimes they committed and obligates the authority figure to forgive them.

This simply does not have that, utterly disqualifying from straight, downplayed, and exaggerated.

I only suggested it might be parodied since it may be construed as poking fun at the trope in some way. But as I already expressed, I still think that's a stretch; it's not something I was confident in to begin with.

Really, I think it's just a non-example.

I definitely don't think the trope was exaggerated, as I don't think it was really present at all — in other words, it was Averted, but that's only worth mentioning if the trope's absence is noteworthy or surprising in some meaningful way.

If Averted examples were noteworthy by default, then every single work would have to list an example for every single trope, since a trope not present in any other capacity is, by definition, Averted.

What I'm ultimately getting at, is that I don't think this situation should be listed as an example of this trope at all.

Edited by BURGINABC

Could the scene with Judy in Bogo's office be counted as any variant of Arson, Murder, and Jaywalking since it was about the charges which included abandoning her post, inciting a scurry, recklessly endangering rodents while stopping a thief from stealing "moldy onions", with the list ending with could be considered petty larceny and is treated as a minor offense, as contrasted with saving the city from a major threat (such as terrorism, rioting, or massive vandalism)?

Ok so whats going on here?

For a month now snichols1973 has been focused on getting Arson, Murder, and Jaywalking on this page to cover Nick and Judy's discussion about selling food without a permit, transporting undeclared commerce across borough lines, and false advertising and Arson, Murder, and Lifesaving to cover the "moldy onions" discussion between Bogo and Judy. Even though the consensus has been that neither of these exchanges fit the respective tropes, snichols1973 kept bringing up for discussion various permutations to try and squeeze it in (ie exaggerations, parodies, etc) Each time it never quite fits.

Now they've broken discussion and added the Arson, Murder, and Jaywalking example back by squeezing it in as an aversion of the trope because all three offenses are equally bad and Nick only can provide paperwork to justify two of them. Which is a confusing and inaccurate interpretation of aversion to say the least.

I'm not sure what's going on but it's starting to feel like discussion just isn't working. Should we consider taking this up to the moderators? I'm not sure I want to do that but at the same time discussions explaining why the tropes just do not fit doesn't seem to be providing any solace to snichols1973 and they're still focused on getting the tropes on this page somehow.

Thoughts?

Edited by rva98014

If it will make anyone feel any better, I've decided to forsake future attempts at AM&L, and I've since edited out the paperwork details, with just the portions regarding the charges remaining on the averted variant of AM&J with Judy and Nick.

Edited by snichols1973

As I've said multiple times before, Averted tropes are not listed unless there is a very good reason for the trope's absence to be surprising, which there is not in this case.

Reasons an Averted Trope might be listed include:

• It is an Omnipresent Trope. (e.g. Nobody Poops)
• It is such a standard part of a genre, that seeing a work in that genre without the trope is surprising (e.g. Heroic Build in a superhero story)
• The trope is absent in an adaptation or reboot of a story where that trope was prominent.
• An entry in a Strictly Formula series deviates from the formula by averting the trope.

That wasn't an exhaustive list, but the point is, there need to be special circumstances surrounding an Aversion before it's worth mentioning, and that's not the case here.

Arson, Murder, and Jaywalking simply shouldn't be listed on this page.

Yes, it is an "averted variant" but so is every single trope that doesn't appear in the movie. If it were proper to list aversions without a special reason, then we would need to list every single trope on the site.

The scene at Bunnyburrow's train station is an aversion of The End of the World as We Know It since it doesn't involve the destruction of the world, but obviously we're not going to list that. And listing the scene with Judy accusing Nick as an aversion of Arson, Murder, and Jaywalking because the crimes are of equal severity, is equally silly. The trope doesn't apply, and there's no reason for this to be interesting.

Is this finally getting through to you? Because I can't think of an any more detailed way to explain this.

Edited by BURGINABC

Burginabc has already gone into great detail on the discussion page why an averted variant of a trope does not belong on the list.

I'm getting ready to remove the entry and I'll try adding one more angle on why this example doesn't belong.

Arson, Murder, and Jaywalking is a comedy trope involving the listing of several strong items followed by a weak item (which is the joke).

By saying Nick and Judy's discussion about selling food without a permit, transporting undeclared commerce across borough lines, and false advertising is an aversion of the trope because all the items are equally lightweight infractions of the law, you're also saying there is no joke here, the scene is just about Judy listing three possible reasons for arresting Nick.

Thus there's no interesting reason and no particular meaning in listing this example in the first place.

Edited by rva98014

While being in a World of Funny Animals does kinda imply an alternate universe from our own, the social commentary of Zootopia was facilitated by showing how similar their world was to ours in terms of technology (civil engineering and terraforming notwithstanding).

So the zeppelin in the rainforest was less an indicator of "YOU ARE IN AN ALTERNATE UNIVERSE" and more artistic Rule of Cool showing off the Solar Punk aspect of the city. Therefore, I agree that since the trope focuses on using zeppelins specifically to illustrate that we're in an alternate universe, it's not a strong example.

That said I'd like to keep the example for nostalgic purposes if possible. I love zeppelins in fantasy art and one of the first production drawings of Zootopia I came across was the rainforest scene with the zeppelin!!!!!!!. Maybe it would fit as Cool Airship? Or even as an example of Awesome, but Impractical given the whole drawbridge scenario?

Edited by rva98014

I don't think that Squee really justifies Square Peg Round Trope. That having been said...

If it's really artistic license for showing off the Solar Punk aspect, that might actually qualify as an example.

I don't think the key is using it to scream "ALTERNATE UNIVERSE"; I think that's just an example of how the trope is commonly used. I think the real key to the trope is simply if airships are being portrayed as commonplace in this setting while planes and helicopters are conspicuously absent.

While that certainly has the effect of setting a world apart from the real one, I don't think it has to be an establishing shot for the expository purpose of letting the viewer know this is an AU, I think it's more flexible than that, and really is a general trope for characterisation of a setting.

So the question is one of whether or not there's any indication that airships are common in this setting, and used for purposes that would be served by heavier-than-air craft in real life. My objection is that the canal district blimp could easily just be a tourist thing ^note (which could also explain why it goes through the drawbridge instead of just flying a few feet higher. Though I suspect the tree canopy may also play a role in its low altitude.) and not really representative of the state of flight technology in this setting.

As for alternative tropes that might apply... The Awesome, but Impractical example might work, though I'm a bit skeptical. I'm pretty sure it's not special enough for Cool Airship, though.

EDIT: Actually, Awesome, but Impractical looks to be defined strictly as a video game trope. There may be existing examples similar to this usage, but it definitely doesn't fit the listed definition. The general trope closest to what you seem to be thinking of seems to be Cool, but Inefficient, but as I read it, I'm very doubtful that it applies either.

EDIT 2: Now this is secondary to the actual matter at issue, but... was that the canal district where the blimp was, or were they still in the rainforest district? I'd assumed the train had crossed into Canal, but the foliage still looked rainforest-y, and upon looking at a map of Zootopia, I realized that the train would have been going awfully far out of its way to run through Canal on the way to Downtown, and also the RD seemed to have a river in it.

Edited by BURGINABC

Awww... Squee doesn't trump Square Peg Round Trope? I'm shocked and dismayed. ;-)

It's scary that Zootopia is such a well thought-out and designed place that I can say that according to the ZTA map, the Bunnyburrow Transit Line that Judy took into the city travels through Sahara Square then crosses the climate wall into Tundra Town then crosses the climate wall again into the Canal district first before entering the Rainforest District and finally ending at Savanna Central.

Rewatching the scene, the blimp appears while the train is still in the Canal district. It is also hauling some kind of freight so it's not a tourist vehicle.

Wow...it just hit me... as I think it over, it's actually Fridge Brilliance. With so many houses and businesses residing in the various levels of the canopy of the rainforest, delivery to these places would be difficult, if not impossible by motor vehicle. This would require the delivery mammals to park as close as possible then carry large crates up to the destination. Or... a fleet of blimps could exist to service the area that would allow for delivery of large freight at any level of the canopy safely and easily.

This seems to suggest a biome-specific use of airship technology and doesn't preclude that other forms of air-travel exist.

Edited by rva98014

Was that a cargo package? I had thought it was a hot air balloon style basket. But you have the Blu-Ray while I'm stuck squinting at the DVD, so I'll take your word for it, since I don't have enough pixels to really call it accurately. :(

Assuming this reasoning is correct, that would make it a frustratingly borderline example, as it is something specially connected to the setting, but not really having the trope's usual implication of technology developing along different lines.

Based on that, you could call Tropes Are Flexible and try to stretch it, if you feel confident enough in this interpretation as something more than speculative.

Which IMO may not actually be too much of a stretch if you can clearly identify this as a cargo-bearer.

If all else fails you might make an entry on the Fridge page, though that's not as satisfying as matching it to an actual trope.

Edited by BURGINABC

I'll give some thought to what you said but I'm shutting down for the night.

In the meantime, here's an image of the Canal District blimp◊ off the Blu Ray. I think it shows pretty well that it's transporting some kind of wooden crate resting on a pallet.

Edited by rva98014

Yeah, the added resolution makes it clear, albeit just barely, that it's a crate.

Also, the gondola has little pontoons for a water landing. Interesting.

At this point I'm leaning towards keeping it as a stretched example, though the example text will have to be rewritten of course.

Edited by BURGINABC

We don't know if other forms of air travel exist in this universe or not, but we know that space travel does, because of the lamb at the beginning of the movie that wishes to be an astronaut.

I'm not sure that's relevant, as a rocket is not really the same as an airplane.

As the trope page says:

It is important to note that the presence of airships doesn't imply that the technology of the Alternate Universe is inferior. Just like with biological evolution, Zeppelins are not "more" or "less" evolved technology, what's used is whatever is the best available fit for the niche. It could just as well be that Zeppelins in the Alternate History were better able to suit the situation than airplanes were, say if there was a massive resource shortage that demanded efficiency and payload over speed, or some other economic factor.

So, having a space program doesn't guarantee that they've invented airplanes or widely use airplanes. ^note Though I suspect that airplanes have been invented and are widely used, and the little airship we see is for a specialized purpose of delivering cargo within highly vertical rainforest communities as per rva98014's theory. As I said earlier, this makes it a borderline example since the airship is connected to special circumstances in this world, but doesn't otherwise imply a substantial divergence in the setting's evolution of technology.

Edited by BURGINABC

Ok, I took a first stab at rewording the example to accommodate this discussion. Look it over and adjust as necessary.

The 10 to 1 ratio is based upon a biological ratio of the food chain called the "rule of tens" where for every one predator there needs to be 10 prey (or lesser predator) animals for it to consume in order to sustain it. That was the basis for the nit-pick on the "10 to 1" vs "9 to 1" discrepancy.

I agree with wingedcatgirl that being off by such a small amount because the script changes between using raw percentages and "X to 1" ratios doesn't really stand out as major math failure. I have no problem with removing the example.

Edited by rva98014

I agree, it's only a marginal difference because a 10 to 1 ratio would be 9.1% predator and 90.9% prey, which is not that far from 10% vs 90%. Not a serious error.

+1 Every time I've read that example, I've thought it was a rather nit-picking example of "cannot do math". I'm glad someone finally did something about it.

Edited by mcgrew

Agreeing with pull

Weasels are quite short-legged, so the legs wouldn't add much to this height.

While real weasels are very short-legged, anthropomorphizing is necessarily going to throw off the proportions quite a bit, since making a realistically proportioned weasel bipedal is going to result in something ridiculous-looking that waddles like a penguin :p

Looking at his actual appearance in the movie, his legs look to be about half as long as his torso, which would extend his height significantly. But assuming a long-tailed weasel, that still only gets us ~18 inches, which still doesn't fit well with his height relative to Judy.

His species isn't specified, so despite the name "Weaselton" we could allow for him to possibly be a larger mustela species. But the problem is, he doesn't really look like a polecat or a mink.

---

EDIT: This source gives a much higher upper bound on the length of a long-tailed weasel, saying they range all the way from 11-22 inches not including the tail.

The body of the long-tailed weasel is long, slender, and sinuous, having a long tail and short legs. They range from 11 to 22 inches (28-56 cm) in length with the tail measuring an additional 3 to 6 inches (8-15 cm)...

This means with the legs factored in, his height relative to Judy actually fits. This would still put him near the upper end of the range, an unusually large specimen of a long-tailed weasel.

Edited by BURGINABC

Indeed, the Wikipedia article on the long-tailed weasel makes a point of how inconsistent reported size measurements seem to be for this species, and it also cites that website for providing one of the higher size range values. The fact that body size varies widely across the range of the species probably doesn't help.

However, at least from a cursory search I can't help but wonder if the claim given on the NU website is a typo. At the very least, it appears to be an outlier out of the references I've dug up. Encyclopedia Britannica says "about 10-12 in" without the tail, Walker's Mammals of the World 4th ed. reports 250-300 mm (~10-12 in) without the tail for large males, NY Department of Environmental Conservation reports 13.5-17 in total length for males, Mammals of the Great Lakes Region 3rd ed. reports 11-17 in total length, Wildlife of Virginia and Maryland and Washington reports 12-17 in total length, and Adirondack Mammals reports 12-18 in total length. (I was able to access "[...] Great Lakes Region" and "Wildlife of Virginia [...]" via Google Books, if anyone wants to double-check the figures. A shame I do not currently have access to my copy of Hunter and Barrett's Carnivores of the World, possibly the most up to date recent reference on the subject.)

The fact that NU puts 11 in as the lower bound for the head+body length is particularly suspect, considering that other sources appear to agree that long-tailed weasels can be smaller than that, but it would match well with the lower bound given for the total length by other sources (and the upper bound it gives is also more consistent with the upper bound for total length given in the other sources).

Edited by albertonykus

Yes, I suppose it's possible that source is just not accurate. Though associated with a university, it was listed at the bottom as a student work.

That brings us back to: either Weaselton really isn't to scale, or he's of one of the larger species in genus mustela.

But again, he doesn't really look like a polecat or a mink. Polecats tend to have a distinctively ferret-like appearance, and minks tend to be solid-colored with thicker fur.

EDIT: had appended something here, moved down to its own comment when I realized a reply appeared while I was editing.

Edited by BURGINABC

Right, agreed that he's unlikely to be a polecat or mink. Another large-bodied Mustela species is the Siberian weasel, but it is uniformly-colored rather than having light-colored underparts and lacks a distinct black tail tip. As far as I can tell, his appearance is still most consistent with either short-tailed or long-tailed weasel, in which case he may indeed qualify as a legit example of Animals Not to Scale.

Of course, relatively subtle cases of Animals Not to Scale (as opposed to extreme cases, like the page image of Mordecai and Rigby from Regular Show) are going to be confounded somewhat when the species is ambiguous. Depending on whether she's a supposed to be a rabbit or a hare (she always just self-identified as a "bunny"), Judy herself could qualify, as rabbits should probably be smaller than that.

...Man, we're really getting in-depth on this. I'm not sure this is worth the thought we're giving it; it is a downplayed example at best, given that the trope seems to be defined in terms of freakish, extreme, obvious cases that don't require research to identify.

But I will agree, his coloration is most consistent with a species that he seems to be too big for. At this point, I won't personally object to an example mentioning that Weaselton is bigger than a weasel realistically should be.

I'm curious what rva 98014's views are on this, though, as he's the one who zapped the original example, but has yet to participate in this conversation.

Edited by BURGINABC

Sorry, gang, I saw the discussion was raised this morning just as I was heading out and have only now gotten back to chime in.

My contention to the original trope example was based upon reviewing the Animals Not to Scale trope and how both the definition and the examples all seem to reflect a size/scale disparity so obvious that virtually anyone in the audience will notice it.

My thought was that if the river otter/rabbit/fox disparity was the most notable example, it really wasn't something the average audience member would have really noticed. My quickly put-together sizing math example was intended to show that even if albertonykus was accurate that Mrs. Otterton was too small for Judy, the scale disparity was in the realm of 4-6 inches, and not featuring chickens the size of foxes or rhinos just a head taller than goats (both are examples from Disney's 1973 Robin Hood).

I'm tending to agree with Burbinabc that the amount of in-depth analysis that's been done on Weaselton is really piling up and is again an example that the average audience member really isn't going to be looking at Weaselton and feeling visually cheated because he should be much smaller if he's really a weasel.

Is there enough substance to put the trope back? Possibly. But I would have to say if it goes back up I would vote that it would need to be listed as a heavily downplayed example and if Weaselton is used as the proof, it should mention that the example is based on speculation on his exact species.

Tropes Are Not Bad, so I don't think the audience feeling "visually cheated" is a prerequisite.

But it is still a really minor example.

That may not be an obstacle to listing it though, since there's certainly no policy against listing examples of Downplayed Tropes. The only examples considered non-notable by default are straight examples of Omnipresent Tropes and Averted examples of non-omnipresent tropes.

But on the other hand, if you list every single thing that kinda sorta somewhat applies, then the page can potentially get bloated and you end up with a Signal To Noise Train Wreck.

Generally I think that's more of a problem for lengthy series than for standalone movies, though, so that's probably not a good reason to avoid listing this. Just make sure the example is written concisely, so that such a trivial example doesn't take up too much of the page.

Edited by BURGINABC

All I meant when I said "visually cheated" was that Weaselton possibly not being to scale wasn't something that was likely to register for a majority of the audience and/or trope readers. As you said it's a rather trivial example and like the Righteous Rabbit example it's a case of it being technically accurate but not really amounting to much. I'll take a stab at putting it back in a concise way using Weaselton as the example, but it may take me a day or two. If albertonykus would like to try their hand before then, they have my blessing.

That's all fair. I concur that it's at best a minor example. Though I suspect that the reason it isn't noticeable to the average audience member is in part because most people aren't familiar with how small weasels are, beyond them being "small" for a mammal.

In any case, my attempt at the entry:

• Animals Not to Scale: Most of the animals in the film avert this and are realistically scaled relative to each other. A minor exception is Duke Weaselton, who is slightly larger than real short-tailed and long-tailed weasels, the real life species he most closely resembles.

Hey, I didn't know Downplayed Example was a valid redirect. I might have to start using that more often.

Anyhow, that's pretty reasonable. It might be made even simpler and more concise, though. Like this:

• Animals Not to Scale: Mostly this is averted, but one minor example is Duke Weaselton, whose relative size is too big for any of the weasel or stoat species that he resembles.^note He's almost as tall as Judy, but really shouldn't be much taller than Finnick.

Edited by BURGINABC

Question: If weaselton is the only example, should we consider it a character trope, or should it still stay on the main list?

---

EDIT: Since his unusual big-ness this doesn't appear to be specifically portrayed as an aspect of his character (e.g. Clifford the Big Red Dog), but rather is something incidental that the audience isn't even expected to notice, I'd guess probably no. I think it should probably stay on the main trope page.

Edited by BURGINABC

I'm leaning toward keeping it on the main list. As it's most likely a Doylist example of the animators exaggerating Weaselton's size to allow his overall presence to be of the same scale with Judy during their chase in Little Rodentia (which if you think about it, if he were smaller, Judy would have found it more difficult to track him there and he wouldn't have been able to steal and carry enough "moldy onions" to make him worthwhile to Doug).

Sounds good to me on all fronts. I'll add it to the article now.

Weaselton's coloration also somewhat resemble a marten. If he is one of those rather than a weasel or stoat, he's more in scale with Judy.

Martens aren't even in the same genus as weasels, and I don't think they look that similar.

Although the marten's much longer legs do match Weaselton's too-long-for-a-weasel limbs, I had attributed that to the requirements of anthropomorphization.

Earlier we had been confining our search to the genus mustela,^note (weasels, stoats, polecats, ferrets, minks) because once you go into the broader family of mustelids you get to some things that are very clearly not weasels, such as wolverines, badgers, otters, etc.

But I guess, aside from the longer legs (which Weaselton's appearance actually matches up with), the pine marten looks weasel-like enough that you could argue Weaselton might be one. But it seems like a stretch to me.

Edited by BURGINABC

Agreed that Weaselton as a marten is a stretch. Note that Weaselton's lighter underparts extend past his belly, consistent with the summer coloration of stoats and long-tailed weasels, whereas martens that have a pale throat patch have it confined to the throat and chest region as a "bib". The dark tail tip, which he has, is also a notable feature of the aforementioned weasel species. Martens generally also have longer, bushier tails, but his appears to be relatively short and thin.

Edited by albertonykus

I just realized that we've been missing a really obvious example of this trope the whole time: Bellwether.

I mean, you could argue that she is some sort of "dwarf sheep" variety, but even the smallest real-world sheep breeds such as the Ouessant/Breton Dwarf or the Babydoll Southdown are just too big for the anthropomorphic version to be so close in size to Judy.

It could also possibly be argued that, individually, she has some sort of rare dwarfism condition or something like that, which could explain why she's smaller than normal for any kind of sheep. By that token you could also try to argue that Weaselton has some sort of gigantism, but putting speculation aside, the most obvious conclusion is that Bellwether is way too small for a sheep.

And even in the unlikely event that any of the speculative reasons suggested for the unusual size gets confirmed by way of a sequel or Word of God, I think that would still just make it a Justified or Hand Waved example of Animals Not to Scale, rather than an aversion.

Edited by BURGINABC

You're right, she's way too small for any kind of sheep (and much smaller than the other sheep seen in the movie). Will you add her as an example?

Boy, talk about missing what's right under your nose. It's a good example and I don't think there's any good Watsonian answer to her small size. Closest I have is a Doylist explanation based upon the writers/directors commenting that Bellwether was intended to be a Shadow Archetype to Judy so it would make sense that they, for story-reasons, sized Bellwether relative to Judy. Her small size also gives Bellwether a major chip on her shoulder and explains her frequent use of "us little guys"

I'm adding the example now.

I suspect we'd all had the "dwarf sheep" headcanon fully internalized for so long that we forgot there was anything strange about her size.

Indeed, a lot of analysis of her character around here seems to assume it. As a result of her being Judy's Shadow Archetype, people analyzing her tend to go beyond what was directly shown and ascribe to her a Freudian Excuse where, like Judy and Nick, she had some sort of childhood trauma that affected her deeply. Hypothesizing further about this, they tend to propose that she might have been bullied as a child even by other sheep because of her small stature, ^note which dovetails into the type of Freudian Excuse that tends to accompany the Depraved Dwarf trope and that only later on when working for Lionheart did her resentment for those bigger than her get redirected towards predators.

This still seems plausible to me; I still think it's far more likely for Bellwether than for Weaselton that her unusual size is intended to have in-universe significance (that is to say, that the other characters would recognize her as being quite abnormally small for a sheep). While Weaselton is the only weasel shown in the movie and his abnormally large size is never treated as significant, Bellwether is clearly shown to be smaller than other sheep, and much is made of her apparent Napoleon Complex.

But even if she has some rare genetic condition that explains her abnormal size (which is still ultimately speculative), that wouldn't nullify the example, but would only make it a Justified Trope.

Edited by BURGINABC

I took the liberty of making some changes to the example. Any thoughts?

The page was cut because most of the entries were very minor points of contention, rather than things that legitimately broke the fanbase. There's currently a thread for cleaning-up the Broken Base entries across the site, and you can make a post there if you think there were any entries that are worth keeping on the YMMV page. The entries were moved to a Sandbox page, so you could fiddle around with them before posting.

I'm inclined to agree with the decision. Reviewing the trope definition says that a broken base is "a sustained and exceptionally vicious conflict between two or more large, vocal, and entrenched factions with little or no middle ground to be found between them." It is not about "fans simply disagreeing about something".

After reviewing the Zootopia broken base entries, all the examples on that page were simply fan disagreement on personal preferences rather than a true broken base. The Zootopia fanbase has been rather well-behaved.

I such, I think the current broken base entry on the YMMV page also falls into the "personal preferences" category and should probably be removed referring to this discussion.

I would say it's too likely to be a coincidence to be either, but I think it would only qualify as a Mythology Gag if they were connected to (different continuities in) the same franchise, not just the same production company.

Edited by PPPSSC

Indeed it's most likely a coincidence, as it never been confirmed by Word of God as far as I know. Maybe it fits under one of the YMMV tropes, such as Hilarious in Hindsight or Fridge Brilliance?

I added it to Hilarious in Hindsight.

Edited by Snicka

As I said in the other discussion, I'm not adverse to pulling the character subpages back into one big character page if it doesn't cause sizing issues but I think we should ensure that we have a consensus from the regular Zootopia contributors before we do that.

I conducted a simple test of copying the contents of Zootopia residents and Bunnyburrow Residents onto the Main Characters page and ran it through a page preview without any complaints. While I didn't save the changes, it seems like that amount of content on a single page was not enough for the preview to trigger any size warnings so likely saving that amount of content wouldn't cause any server issues either.

It looks like we would be in good shape re-assimilating the character pages back into a single character page. All we need now is more feedback as to whether that re-organization is preferred.

Edited by rva98014

Urgh. Character pages inflation is a real problem for some titles. Sometimes a split is warranted, but in this case it really was unneeded and gratuitous. I'd like it to stop being a reflex for some editors.

Edited by StFan

I went a step further and merged all three into one article and actually saved it to the wiki — on Wiki Sandbox, of course, not the actual Characters page.

There were no warnings thrown. Heck, there weren't any warnings for what was already on Wiki Sandbox, and that's actually longer than all three Zootopia Characters pages combined into one article.

If you wanted to go ahead with this, off-hand you should be safe to go.

Edited by ShadowHog Moon◊

We now have 4 tropers who have checked in & are in favor of re-assimilation. I went back and rechecked the original discussion when the split first took place and after 3 days there was no real response for or against though it did occur right before New Years eve.

It seems we have a reasonable consensus of active contributors to justify a re-merge. I'm picking up my laptop shortly so if there's no objections by the time I get home I'll do the re-merge unless someone else would like to.

Content from all the character sub-pages have been re-assimilated back onto the main Zootopia character page and the sub-pages have been submitted to the cut-list.

I put a BOLD warning on the subpages that they have been migrated back to the main page and that no further edits should be made to them.

I also peppered a comment throughout the main Zootopia character page source requesting that no large scale changes should be made to this page without opening a discussion first. Don't know if that will amount to anything but here's hoping.

Also, for those that have added the sub-pages your watch list, I don't know if the watch is automatically removed when the page is cut. You may want to revisit the pages and manually remove the watch.

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Characters/ZootopiaMainCharacters https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Characters/ZootopiaZootopiaResidents https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Characters/ZootopiaBunnyburrowResidents

EDIT: Also, I made an executive decision and changed Nick and Judy's Header from "Main Characters" to "Main Protagonists" as it better describes their role and doesn't imply that everyone else in the film is a "minor character" EDIT: The subpages have now been deleted from tvtropes.

Edited by rva98014

FWIW, I posted to Ask The Tropers: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/query.php?parent_id=51792&type=att

So, from the discussion over at "Ask the Tropers", it's appearing that the consensus is to roll back Night Shade 96's split into sub-pages and re-assimilate those back into the Zootopia main page. Is that correct? Any volunteers? My laptop is in the shop today (I'm writing on my tablet) but I expect it back by tomorrow and could take a stab at re-assimilation at that point. Unless someone else wants to.

Edited by rva98014

Also, based on that discussion, it sounds like the Characters page should be re-merged (unless the Characters page had grown so large that the server was warning people to split it).

I'm not adverse to pulling the character subpages back into one big character page if it doesn't cause sizing issues but I think we should have more feedback from the regular Zootopia contributers to ensure we have a consensus before we do that (maybe as a separate discussion topic?) If we do, I'd recommend keeping the group headers "main characters", "Zootopia residents" and "bunnyburrow residents"

Edited by rva98014

I forked the Characters discussion into its own topic. Meanwhile...

Is there any objection to merging the Zootopia subpages for Animal Stereotypes, Does This Remind You of Anything?, Foreshadowing, Freeze-Frame Bonus, Rewatch Bonus, and Shown Their Work back into the main Zootopia page?

None here. Maybe I'll even chip away at it a bit later tonight...

Moon◊

No objections either, if ShadowHog would like to take first stab at it, go for it!!

Done.

Just for Zootopia, though, I think he did it for some other pages and frankly I don't have the patience to go through this rigmarole for every single one of them at the moment.

Moon◊

Good job!!! It is much appreciated. As for the other changed pages, it would probably be best to let the other page's community of editors decide if they want to roll them back. Thanks again for stepping up.

There's a piece of concept art floating about the internet which has the fox character surrounded by rabbit characters... It doesn't really mean much without proper context though.

The sign with the constantly increasing population number for Judy's home town.

Pre-release it was just a piece of concept art. Post-release, we know it made it into the movie. :)

[oops]

Edited by mcgrew

No I don't think its a good example of foreshadowing either. There's so much going on during the press conference and to say it's an example of Judy's good intentions blowing up on her is very simplistic. Its comparison with her parking duty feedback is forced. I vote it should be removed.

Edited by rva98014

BTW, I liked the way you cleaned up some of the other foreshadowing examples.

Besides which (and I know this is completely missing the point being made here, so I'll just agree it should go before moving on to this): 260 parking tickets? Where'd that number come from? I thought the plot only made a point to highlight 200 before noon, and left everything after that indeterminate.

Moon◊

During her afternoon ticket-writing (when she spotted Nick and Finnick at work), there was a shot where we saw her electronic ticket writer.

FYI... the ticket writer read 262 tickets. BTW, I'm going to go ahead and remove the example.

Edited by rva98014

I posted a reply in the repair thread. The short version is that I think there are a number of options that are better than the new page quote, including the original page quote.

I agree that the current quote should be replaced something that establishes the premise rather than the morale of the story.

FWIW, right now, it looks like we're leaning toward this abbreviation mcgrew suggested in post 4525 of the thread:

I'm tempted to add an ellipsis at the start (as I think that's proper quotation style), though I'm also concerned it'd look like Quote Mining.

Moon◊

This quote works for me, it tells the main premise.

I'm not sure what the needed number of people for consensus is (I know it's 7 in Image Pickin', but the quote thread seems to move from topic to topic with every post and thus doesn't build consensus in the same way), but given we've got three people agreeing on this, I'm gonna go ahead and plop it up for now.

Moon◊

If you add all the subpages to your watchlist, their respective discussion pages will show up also.

Edited by BURGINABC

There's been no response to the discussion and I reviewed the definition of Subverted Trope coming across "the work is ultimately revealed not to be using the trope at all, but in the meantime was played up to look like it was." which seems to support the Otterton limo claw marks scene as an example of a subverted Bloodless Carnage. I'm adding this example back.

It kinda makes my head hurt too.

Intuitively it makes sense, but your argument against it also makes sense, so now I'm really just confused.

Depending on your perspective, her assumption that Nick was up to something shady "just because he was a fox" could just as easily be considered correct or incorrect.

It's one of those weird semantic things where there's multiple ways to interpret the same exact question.

I'm kinda leaning towards keeping it, but I can't really articulate why that would be better than getting rid of it.

Edited by BURGINABC

Trying to simplify it. (yeah right)

Judy was initially right for the wrong reasons (due to knee-jerk profiling) but then it was revealed that she was right for the reasons she originally supposed but had abandoned ("you lied to me, you liar"). But then she was only right because Nick intentionally behaved as a sly fox even though he was also aware that he didn't have to but was expected to be.

Whew!

Therefore I think this is a case of a Zig-Zagging Trope, especially in reading the definition....

"Sometimes, a trope is handled in a way that is, quite frankly, beyond our normal categorizations of subversion, aversion, Double Subversion, or inversion. Such tropes wind up as those rare complexities that can make the readers grin (or shoot their brains out due to being Mind Screwed), or those subverted more than twice. Thus, the Zig-Zagging Trope.....In other words, think of an example of this as any that is too screwy or complex to be one of the other Trope Tropes. As a rule of thumb, if someone cannot describe a use of a trope any better than "played with", it's likely this."

I think we should keep it, identify it as a Zig-Zagging Trope and add some verbiage to highlight what a Mind Screw it is as the layers unravel.

Edited by rva98014

I think it's less a zig-zag and more of a semantic issue, where whether it's even applicable at all depends on how you define "just because he's a fox".

If that is taken to imply "because foxes are just inherently untrustworthy", then this is a simple, straightforward example of Right for the Wrong Reasons.

If, however, you define "just because he's a fox" more broadly to simply mean "because foxes are known to behave that way" (regardless of the actual reason that they do so), then it's not an example at all.

Edited by BURGINABC

A great evaluation. I had based my assessment on the levels as they were defined on the Sliding Scale of Anthropomorphism web page which, because it was more succinct, played up "humanness" of the Funny Animals level and downplayed their animal qualities even more than than on its dedicated webpage. Given how much of the story of Zootopia draws heavily from the animalistic qualities of the characters, it just didn't seem that Funny Animals with its "all but human except for having realistic animal forms" was appropriate for Zooptopia.

Reviewing your comments and the full pages of Funny Animals and Civilized Animal made me realize how much Zooptopia pulls the strengths of both of these levels into its story such that it truly doesn't fit into either classification.

It does focus on the lifestyle, social structure, and advanced civilization of Funny Animals but also draws heavily on the animalistic mannerisms favored in Civilized Animal for much of the story elements of racism, stereotypes, profiling and predator/prey conflict. As you summarized, "the animal characters in Zootopia are not a perfect fit for either trope."

The city itself is a perfect example of this. In the way a Funny Animals world is usually portrayed, a polar bear walking down the streets of a city without suffering from heat exhaustion wouldn't be given a second thought. Yet Zootopia capitalizes on the marvels of advanced civil engineering to construct different ecosystems that directly acknowledge that the polar bear is an animal that needs a place like Tundratown to realistically survive.

But since there isn't currently a level that effectively blends Funny Animals and Civilized Animal, and since Tropes Are Flexible, I agree it would probably be better to reclassify them as as Funny Animals with an explanation that Zootopia makes much heavier use of animal mannerisms than most of the other representations of this trope.

I'll adjust the classification accordingly.

The page for Primal Stance makes it fairly clear that it is about a gorilla-like posture. If it's being used for anthropomorphic animals assuming a normal quadrupedal animal posture, then this is misuse.

I think the appropriate replacement depends on the context:

• When the sane anthropomorphic animals do it, Running on All Fours can probably stretch to fit, and is the best option I can think of, since nothing else I can find comes remotely close to fitting.

• In the case of the big cat in the museum diorama, it may not have been anthropomorphic at all, in which case its quadrupedal nature is a flat-out chair and shouldn't be potholed to a trope.

• As for the mammals which went savage due to Nighthowler, I'm not actually sure what is appropriate. Probably either Running on All Fours again, or maybe Anthropomorphic Zig-Zag. ^note Anthropomorphic Zig-Zag is about moving up and down on the Sliding Scale of Anthropomorphism, but whether Nighthowler poisoning actually qualifies as this or is better simply classified as insanity is up for debate.

Edited by BURGINABC

Yup, I was bothered by the confusion between Primal Stance and Running on All Fours too.

Primal Stance clearly is misused. Running on All Fours is mentioned in its description as a possible form of Furry Reminder, so it isn't stretching it too much.

Edited by StFan

The challenge we're facing is that here at TV Tropes there are tropes that deal with human characters taking on animalistic qualities and tropes that deal with the level of anthropomorphism of animals in stories but those are usually "static" tropes that cover all animals for the duration of the story. Zootopia is unique in that it takes place in a World of Funny Animals that is dealing with the crisis of some of it's citizens sliding down the Sliding Scale of Anthropomorphism and there aren't many tropes that cover this situation.

Over time, we kinda adopted Primal Stance to be a "shorthand" trope to indicate that an animal had gone savage as the most obvious physical manifestation was permanent quadrupedal movement. This was to specifically contrast with those instances where a sane mammal intentionally shifted to quadrupedal movement for extra stability and/or dexterity (as we've discussed before). Since it seems we've be applying the trope incorrectly, we're looking to see if there's another more appropriate trope out there.

So far the two tropes that come closest to this situation are Running on All Fours (which addresses shifting between two and four legs but it covers both sane and savage animals and would require additional example text to distinguish the state of the animal) or Anthropomorphic Zig-Zag (which specifically covers shifting on the Sliding Scale but isn't limited to just quadrupedal movement and the trope name itself doesn't immediately convey the "savage condition" Primal Stance did)

I'm going to spend some time today on a focused effort to see if there's a better trope that covers this situation. I'll check back and let you know what I find.

Ok, I've searched and there really isn't a trope (or series of tropes) that covers the situation we've been discussing. So here's what I propose.

1) Add an entry for Anthropomorphic Zig-Zag on the main page to acknowledge the unique situation of Zooptopia and the Sliding Scale of Anthropomorphism.

2) Remove all references to Primal Stance on character and main trope pages. For the most part they don't need to be replaced with anything else as they were mis-used to begin with.

3) When necessary to describe a savage predator adopting a "primal stance" we should use the term "four-legged stance" or "four-legged movement". I suggest this over quadrupedal because there's a precedent in-story when Manchas describes Otterton going savage he specifically says "He was an animal. Down...on all fours. He was a savage!"

4) We could consider using quadrupedal when describing a sane mammal intentionally shifting to four legs allowing the sesquipedalian verbiage to convey intelligence at work.

5) When Running on All Fours is used, the example context should clarify whether the character is sane or savage.

Thoughts??

Part 4 of your proposal there doesn't make much sense to me, but the rest seems reasonable.

Also, this may only be tangentially related to the discussion at hand, but I just removed the Four Legs Good, Two Legs Better example as being a poor fit and redundant with Running on All Fours.

I went ahead & purged Primal Stance from the main page.

There may be some left on the character sheet, though...

Thanks, I'll do a sweep myself and purge what I find.

Item #4 was a sorta half-baked idea that we could use "4-legged" when describing savages and quadrupedal when describing sane mammals, but as I think it over it's needlessly complex and doesn't add much value. Chalk it up as "it seemed a good idea at the time".

Bellwether's plan was to have prey fear savage predators and unite against them because their greater numbers would give them the advantage. My feeling was that the diorama behind them showed that more literally than symbolically. A group of prehistoric bunnies (ie prey) uniting together to use their greater numbers to hold a savage predator that they feared at bay. To me this seems a more straightforward depiction of her plan than symbolic (spears notwithstanding). I'm open to rewording the example. How would you phrase it?

Edited by rva98014

I think we are operating under different definitions of "literal" and "symbolic".

Symbolism doesn't have to be cryptic; obvious and straightforward symbolism is still symbolism.

The fact that, for the benefit of the audience, the camera is placed so as to frame that diorama in the backdrop of Nick and Judy's approach of Bellwether, symbolizes what Bellwether is trying to do: have prey gang up against predators.

That's how I see it anyway.

Even though I'm quite certain "literal" is not the right term, it's possible my own definition of symbolism could be wrong. If symbolism per se is required to be something much more abstract, and cannot include something this complex, then perhaps it would more accurately be described as "metaphorical" rather than "symbolic". In that case, the example can stay dead.

As for how I would reword it if keeping it, I would rewrite it to focus on the specific camera shot we are discussing, as the rest of the example (apparently talking about the entire natural history museum segment) seems rather dubious.

Edited by BURGINABC

I agree that it's probably not "zoology", but I'm not sure it's "zoo", as in, the place where wild animals are kept for study and public observation, either. ^note  I'm pretty sure "zoo" in that context is actually just an abbreviation for "zoological garden". I think the most likely construction is "zoo-" (note the hyphen), a prefix for anything animal related, + "utopia".

Since one of the parts is a prefix and not a full word, I'm not sure if it even counts as a portmanteau. Even if it does, I'm not sure Portmantitle is applicable, since Zootopia is an in-universe location, which would mean that the applicable title trope would actually be The Place.

Or you could even break apart the original construction of "utopia" in Greek { [ "eu-" (prefix for "good") or "ou" (prefix for "no")] + "topos" (place) + "-ia" (suffix for place names)} and just replace the first part with "zoo-", forming "animal place". I really don't think this would be a Portmantitle, though you might argue it is still a Pun-Based Title since "Utopia" is still clearly being referenced.

I say we just nuke the example altogether; never mind reverting it. I don't think it's a good example.

Edited by BURGINABC

Quick research shows that "zoo" as we think of it was a shortening of "zoological garden" or "zoological park" so technically the city could be a "zoological utopia" . Given that a 4-word example has generated this many words of discussion ;-) without a solid conclusion, I'm all for just removing it entirely.

Well, I rambled on at length about it, but the number of opinions in the mix is still fairly small actually.

Although if I just went ahead and took it down, that wouldn't necessarily have to end the discussion I suppose...

As it is right now, it's not worth keeping. I'll get rid of the example and maybe we can write a new one if further discussion yields anything interesting (though I doubt that will happen).

If there is trouble with Trailer-exclusive tropes, they can be put down in a separate folder at the bottom of the page. There is however no reason to remove them; the trailers are part of the work, and plenty movies have mentions of tropes that you can only see in them — including tropes that are exclusive to it like Never Trust a Trailer.

If a trailer introduces a trope that only appears in the trailer and never plays out in the movie, is the trailer representative of the movie?

We've discussed before how the first teaser trailer was likely put together as the story of Zootopia was still in flux and that while the Disney marketing department did the best they could with what they had, it still wasn't a very good representation of the movie that Zootopia turned out to be.

I don't feel the need to keep them as I don't think they accurately portray the movie. However, if the consensus is to keep the trailer-exclusive tropes, I think we should clump them together into their own folder away from the tropes of the movie itself.

I wonder what the official policy is on this, or if there even is one.

StFan justifies it on the basis that he's seen other work pages do it, but those pages could themselves be wrong.

After all, there are plenty of other proscribed things that run rampant in many pages, e.g. Conversation In The Main Page, etc.

So I still don't really know what the policy is on listing tropes that are peripheral to the actual finished work. He does have a point that Never Trust a Trailer is a main page trope specifically about trailers and their relation (or lack thereof) to the final movie, but I'm not sure what that implies for listing tropes that lie wholly within the trailers and don't show up in the finished movie.

The tropes are now moved to their own folder. That's not many compared to the whole amount in the movie, but still enough to have a well-filled folder. That should clear up things for everybody.

While the new folder looks good, I'm wondering about including Trailers Always Spoil and Never Trust a Trailer there because they specifically deal with the relationship between the trailer and they way it represents or misrepresents the actual movie.

Thoughts?

Edited by rva98014

Unfortunately, I'm not really sure about that either. The folder was made for tropes that apply to the trailer and not the movie, but those two tropes apply to the trailer and also to the movie.

On the one hand I'm sort of leaning towards keeping them in the movie section since that's what we're doing for other examples that are in both (e.g. World of Funny Animals), but then again those tropes are immensely relevant to the trailer, so that would point towards keeping them in the trailer section simply due to topical relevance and making the new folder a comprehensive one-stop list of trailer-related tropes ...

Edited by BURGINABC

Vote to keep in the trailer folder, since I consider them examples about the trailer that just require the movie as part of the context, akin to, say, a source work in a Shout-Out or Mythology Gag example.

Upon reflection, I find myself agreeing with the point that there's value in making the new folder the "comprehensive" list of trailer-related tropes. It may be too subtle a point as to why Trailers Always Spoil and Never Trust a Trailer appear in the main list when they clearly have "trailer" in the trope name and end up causing confusion among tropers that focus only on the trope name and not read the trope details.

That said, maybe we should change the Folder name from "Tropes Exclusive to Trailers" to "Tropes Related to Trailers" ? Just to have some semantic wiggle room?

I agree with the point above; avoiding confusion for future editors should be the main concern.

You can change the folder name if you want, it's fine by me.

I agree with the two points above. Those edits were needlessly pedantic.

This has been resolved. The School Play pothole was restored, while the prehistoric wording was not since the new wording was fine.

This may not have been clear since rva90814 read my initial post and went ahead and made the fix without bothering to post a reply here (which was not a good idea even despite the fact that he did not contest the points I made, since it made it look as if the discussion is still unresolved).

Edited by BURGINABC

My apologies on not adding a final comment wrapping things up and allowing the discussion to appear unresolved. Mea culpa. I'll make note to do this in the future.

And to qualify, I kept "primitive" as it was the word used in the play itself and it comes back to haunt Judy at her press conference disaster when she says predators seem to be "reverting back to their primitive, savage ways".

Edited by rva98014

I had a huge comment written up analyzing this, about how it seemed that no such trope existed and it might even be necessary to launch a new one.

However, most of it was rendered irrelevant when I realized that Never Trust a Trailer actually covers most of this if you stretch it just a little. I think. Though that might not cover the February release...

---

One little aside note: You mention that no one from Frozen or Big Hero 6 was involved in making Zootopia, but I think Jennifer Lee was supposedly involved in the story development at some point.

Edited by BURGINABC

Thanks for the feedback. I'll consider whether to take my points and fit them into Never Trust a Trailer.

Reviewing IMDB I see your point about Jennifer Lee and I'm sure she was part of the collaborative Disney Story Trust that helped shaped Zootopia (and probably other Disney stories). I've adjusted my example in Advertising by Association accordingly. It still shows that the marketing team didn't have a good deal of faith in "Zootopia" at first because they picked the most well known ("Frozen") and most recent ("Big Hero 6") Disney offerings at that time to list in the trailer instead of the previous work of the actual directors of "Zootopia".

Oh, good, there's already a thread on this.

I wanted to chip in and say the first bullet's actually sort of been explained (though whether officially or just by fans putting 2 and 2 together, I'm not sure): it hit around the same time they were doing the total rewrite of the plot to move away from the shock collars, and as such they weren't entirely sure what was concrete and what wasn't, beyond Nick and Judy being paired together and a lot of the already-existing character/set designs. Hence, the trailer focused only on the things they knew for a fact they were going with, which... wasn't much.

It's also why Judy has a tranquilizer dart gun: because she had one - and used it, no less - in the previous version.

Moon◊

I realize the teaser trailer was put together when the story was in a state of flux and marketing was doing the best they could with what they had. That doesn't change the fact that the first trailer was pretty lame, didn't provide any real clue on the story and didn't play to the strengths of the excellent character designs they did have. It also tended to show that their marketing didn't have a good idea how knowledgeable their audience was. For a Disney trailer to feel the need to define "anthropomorphic" would be like a "The Force Awakens" trailer needing to explain what a "lightsaber" is. Some things just come with the territory...

I remember when I first saw the trailer, because Nick and Judy were in a wide shot with no dialogue and Judy was wearing her clown vest covering most of her body, I really had no idea the bunny was supposed to be female. And nothing really excuses the "be-fur" pun, it's just bad on so many levels ;-)

I knew nothing of Zootopia prior to that trailer and ultimately I came away feeling it was going to be a cute but lame G-rated "48 Hours" with funny animals. How wrong I was.

Edited by rva98014

I'm just wondering if the reasoning behind the lousy trailer should be mentioned somewhere, not necessarily to excuse the shortcomings, but to at least explain why some of them were there.

Moon◊

Hard to say where such explanations would go.

Given that Never Trust a Trailer is on the main page, I tried to keep the examples as objective as possible. Listing the various trailers and how they failed to accurately/effectively portray the movie. To go into the backstory of why they failed seems to be better suited for a discussion forum than a trope list.

Maybe over in Trivia or Headscratchers or Fridge?

If Word of God is available saying the reason the trailers are so terrible is that they were made when the movie was in a state of extreme flux, then I agree with ShadowHog it's worth mentioning in the trope listing for Never Trust a Trailer.

Not so if it's just speculative, though. Can official confirmation of this be tracked down?

I'll try and look. If I don't find a source for wherever the heck I heard that from, probably best to assume it's speculation; I'll agree to that part.

Moon◊

Hmm... the key is how to distinguish what was clearly there, from what can merely be inferred, as the latter is Fridge Horror rather than Backstory Horror.

My writeup initially had more substance, but then I cut it down when I saw that much of it could be seen as too speculative for the trope.

It's frustrating, because Fridge Horror is a YMMV item which is often associated with very far-fetched examples. But something really seems to be implied here, yet the page describing Backstory Horror led me to believe that it was incompatible with Implied Trope.

Edited by BURGINABC

I believe I've found a solution to fleshing this out without adding speculative material.

Since the implications of the museum exhibits are fairly vague, simply describe them in a way that is equally vague.

I just edited it to that effect, what do you think?

I think in the absence of greater details from Word of God, your vague implication is probably the way to go.

The more I thought about it last night the more Fridge Horror it became. The staggered emergence of sapience would have been especially hard for the obligate carnivores because until they gained enough knowledge to find safe alternatives for the amino acids/proteins their own bodies don't produce, they would have been forced to continue eating prey (sapient or not) in order to survive. Shudder. Best to just leave it vague.

No longer speaking relevant to the tropes, but..

On that note, the obvious choice for a protein supplement would of course be fish.

But then, it would still have taken quite some time to develop the infrastructure necessary for this to supply enough to feed all the preds, especially those living far inland away from the coastline...

Notably, Zootopia, which was said to be the first place where predators and prey coexisted peacefully, is next to the ocean. One wonders how much longer it would have taken this peace to be possible in inland areas like Bunnyburrow...

Of course fish is going to be the obvious supplement but as you pointed out, those predators living inland in a dry environment (like a savannah) would be struggling to adapt their diet over to fish as their traditional prey becomes sapient and starts intelligently fighting back over being eaten.

During this chaotic time, I wouldn't be at all surprised if some predator species died off because the prey in their area evolved a little faster than the predators which then couldn't adapt their diet quickly enough.

That has the makings of an interesting WMG on why relatively few species were seen in the movie ^note (notwithstanding the Doylist explanation that it was due to limited modeling/rigging resources for the background characters) , maybe the diversity of mammal species is lower in this world due to extinctions during this chaotic period.

Edited by BURGINABC

(ED: wrong thread)

Edited by ShadowHog Moon◊

I don't think it did happen in the past. Predators used to eat prey... before either one was sapient, or when only one of them was. It might qualify as discussed because of the worries of the prey that it might happen, but that's it.

I don't think predators eating prey stopped as soon as both of them were sapient. The history of Zootopia includes the truce between predators and prey at the watering hole. Why would there need to be a truce if the lions weren't eating the zebras?

Anyway, it's discussed as something that happened in the past. And there may be a threat of it in the savage attacks, although at that point the attackers don't really seem to be sapient. So I don't think it's really averted. But I'm not sure what the appropriate description is.

Edited by mcgrew

Hmm... yeah, I don't think the Night Howler victims count, since they're not really sapient while under the effects of the drug. So, saying that Bellwether Invoked it is right out.

However, there are still the references to predation having occurred historically. I think it's fairly likely that there was a gap in between the time when the mammals first became sapient, and the time that they swore to stop eating each other (though it's not clear exactly how long or how short this gap was). That would be enough to disqualify it from being fully Averted.

Edited by BURGINABC

There have been some fanfic stories about the NH victims dealing with the horror of what they did (or might have done). But that still isn't Sapient Eat Sapient. That's more guilt over what you did when you weren't in control.

I see that "Averted" may not be the best choice because predators eating prey is mentioned several times in the film but it never actually occurs (I don't count savage predators as sapient so their potential actions wouldn't count). However given the rather lengthy discussion we all had over the Vegetarian Carnivore trope, we established that the moral unacceptability of actually eating prey seems to be pretty ingrained in their present culture. So probably "Discussed" and "Defied" are the best terms for the trope.

Hmm... I just looked up what Discussed Trope means, and it actually seems too closely bound to Genre Savvy to fit what's going on here. Defied Trope might fit, but it's still quite a stretch.

I kinda favor just using the generic "Played With", on the basis that I wouldn't say it's played straight, yet none of the usual variations seem to apply.

Either that, or no label at all, but just immediately launch into the example. Like this:

---

• Sapient Eat Sapient: The animals don't actually eat each other... any more. Though they have made peace, there is still a great deal of racial tension between the species that used to be predators and the ones that used to be prey.

Edited by BURGINABC

Actually, I just read the description of Implied Trope, and it might actually work. Maybe.

Edited by BURGINABC

I'm a little surprised he changed the wording of the break-up being temporary in that third bit.

Because, well, it was. Even if the timespan wasn't explicitly defined, it was still temporary.

Moon◊

I was under the impression that Word of God was an acceptable source to use to justify a trope example. It's been used in other trope examples to support Finnick being older than Nick and that Officer Delgato is a female. I was the last to make edits to the "Easily Forgiven" trope and I'd like to petition that the three month timeframe reference be restored there as I feel it's important to the sense of why Nick was irritated and walked away when Judy first finds him under the bridge. He was hurt by her statements at the press conference and although he was ready to forgive her, having her first words after not seeing him for three months be about her Nighthowler theory rather than an apology really seemed to hurt him a little. It's something Judy picks up on immediately which leads into her heartfelt apology.

Edited by rva98014

I agree that murder isn't the right term. The question is whether you're eating other mammals, not whether you're killing them.

In the biological sense, cannibalism always seems to refer to someone/something eating someone/something else of the same species, as far as I can tell. But in non-biological senses, cannibalism can refer to the "consumption" of parts that are compatible, even if they are from different types of systems.

But in the world of Zootopia, where the the words "animal" and "mammal" are used the way we use the words "person", would it be cannibalism to eat another mammal (or sentient animal)? It certainly seems to be taboo.

Maybe that's a way to resolve this without an edit war. The word "taboo" is more general, and avoids the quibbling over whether it is strictly cannibalism.

I admit that I have a strong distaste for the word cannibalism. No matter how you refine its definition, cannibalism carries the strongest meaning of something eating something of the same species. In Real Life, humans are mammals but we're ok eating cows (also mammals) but not other humans. There isn't the same feeling even if a human were to eat a chimp (our closest biological neighbor). We might go "ick" but I don't think we'd feel cannibalism was involved.

While the mammalian society in Zootopia tries to be unified, much of the core tensions in the story revolves around them not being as unified as they'd like due to the wide variety of species involved and the historical divide between predator and prey. (Which itself is muddled because in real life predators don't limit themselves to just prey animals, many will also eat smaller predators).

I was wanting to convey, especially in the context of the food chain that was the basis for the Vegetarian Carnivore trope, that there is a social mandate in the Zootopian universe that a sapient mammal does not eat another sapient mammal for the simple reason that they *are* sapient. Douglas Adams played with this discomfort in his "Hitchhikers" series with the "Dish of the Day" where a sapient, talking cow comes out and introduces them-self to the customers pointing out their choice parts for consumption.

"Taboo" would be an acceptable alternative over "Murder" or even remove the line altogether but I'd prefer "Cannibalism" to be avoided if possible.

Edited by rva98014

The "social taboo" wording sounds a bit too mild. It's not like farting in public ;)

Anyway, I just took the liberty of massively overhauling the whole example to be simpler and more concise since it was kind of a mess overall, and as per this discussion I avoided using either "murder" or "cannibalism".

I think it suffices to simply say that eating other mammals is considered "morally unacceptable". I think that's a reasonable way of wording it in a way that avoids controvertible terms, while also being a bit stronger than "social taboo".

Edited by BURGINABC

Judy and Nick both shift into quadrupedal movement when they sneak into the Banyon Street Station, also while they are sneaking around under the table in Doug's Lab (Judy especially), when Nick sneaks by the wolf guard at Cliffside Asylum, and when Judy is boxing the Rhino, she does a 4 legged run to leap into the ropes. Duke Weaselton can also be seen dropping into four legged running while being chased by Judy. This is especially noticeable in the overhead shot where he is making a beeline towards the entrance to little Rodentia after he has tossed his bag into the air.

Edited by rva98014

Also, Nick is getting up from a quadrupedal stance in his very first shot in the film, where a sheep (possibly Doug) almost ran him over with a truck and is angrily telling him to watch where he's going (Nick presumably having assumed quadrupedal stance to get out of the way faster). Takes place right at the end of the parking ticket sequence, if you wanted to verify.

Moon◊

One aspect of this example that I do question, though, is that they can actually run faster that way. I'm not really so sure about that.

To me it seems like they drop on all fours on purpose when trying to be stealthy (for example, in the lab) or to otherwise assume a low profile (for example, in the boxing ring, where Judy needed to duck under the rhino's punches.)

It also seems like they reflexively drop on all fours when startled. Judy nearly being stepped on on the sidewalk and Nick nearly being run over seem like examples of that. Also, for a split second when Judy finds out that Yax is naked, for a split second it looks like she wants to drop to all fours and scurry away, but stops herself.

But it doesn't seem to me that it actually offers any speed advantages. Judy is shown to be able to move quite fast on two legs, and I don't really recall any case where she assumed a quadrupedal stance in order to move faster.

Edited by BURGINABC

Regarding quadrupedal speed, there are two approaches here. Either we limit discussion to just what's shown in the movie or we acknowledge that the creators of the film did a good deal of animal research and allow ""real world" findings to have weight in this discussion.

If the former, then the speed advantage of quadrupedal running may be hard to justify as the examples shown are brief and characters aren't shown shifting to quadrupedal running when it would make obvious sense to do so. Such as when Judy is chasing Weaselton.

If we allow for real world findings, then a quick search of Google will reveal articles and research papers that outline how quadrupedal running is indeed faster than bipedal running. Bipedal movement does offer advantages beyond speed (such as taking less energy, allowing the head to be elevated, and freeing the front paws to use smartphones) which is likely why the evolved mammals adopted it.

I would go solely by what's actually shown in the movie.

If you want to go by what realistically makes sense, then none of it should realistically make sense since it shouldn't be possible for their spines, pelvises, etc. to accommodate both bipedal and quadrupedal movement with equal efficiency, since efficient bipedal movement requires a substantially different skeletal configuration than quadrupedal movement (which is why humans slow to a crawl when on all fours, and quadrupedal animals are much less graceful when reared up on their hind legs).

If, from there, you really want to keep overthinking it, you could reconcile this and get it to make some degree of sense by allowing for the possibility that these animals have some bizarre, alien, and highly complex "gear shift" mechanism in their skeletons that allows switching to "4-wheel drive" on the fly whenever they want. But that would introduce enough complicating factors that you could no longer really guarantee that the four-legged movement would actually be faster in practice.

So, I would just go by what's shown in the movie.

Edited by BURGINABC

OK, <grin> then it seems what we have is that the animators are invoking Rule of Cool to animate various characters shifting beautifully and gracefully between bipedal and quadrupedal running as the scene requires but because these lapses are so brief, the speed advantages of quadrupedal running are inconclusive. That said we could reword the examples from "when speed or stealth is called for" to "when stealth or extra dexterity is called for". As this dexterity is shown during the Weaselton chase as he shifts between two, three and four legged running to dodge the crowds and maintain a hold of his bag or when Nick and Judy need to squeeze through a small gap in the gate of Banyon Street Station.

Edited by rva98014

...not to mention, Headscratchers doesn't even work that way; it isn't a trope list.

Supporting restoration to main page.

Moon◊

Restore. Even if it was directed to a trope example list, it's bad form to write examples where all or most of the context is elsewhere.

Restored.

Putting objective tropes on the YMMV page because people can't agree on whether they happened is always incorrect, but if there are any particular examples that seem to be argued over we can discuss whether or not they qualify on this page.

I think it works better as a Genius Bonus because it's unlikely that the general population would know that.

Actually, I think that does work as Foreshadowing.

I don't agree that you have to be a genius or an expert to notice that it sounds like a regulated substance. And even if you do want to consider it a Genius Bonus, it's still foreshadowing since it hints at something that comes up further on down the line. I certainly don't think Genius Bonus and Foreshadowing are mutually exclusive.

Edited by BURGINABC

The reason I disagreed with it was that I interpret the trope as being from the audience's perspective rather than the characters (this was from reading the trope description itself, not from looking at existing examples, some of which my violate that assumption)

From that perspective, the fact that Lionheart and Dr. Badger very heavily foreshadowed the importance of figuring out why the mammals had gone savage, prevented the beginning of the press conference from seeming like it was going to be an ending at all.

If it helps to understand my reasoning, the reason I interpret it being strictly from the audience's perspective, is that the trope makes reference to the ending of the story. From the characters' perspective, (at least in works with a functioning fourth wall, such as this one) it's not a story. Only from the audience's perspective is it a story.

Edited by BURGINABC

Maybe. I think the definitions given mainly applies to video games than other medias, no surprise considering the origin of the trope. In video games' cases, then it might be as you describe it, as we the audience go through something and thought we have arrived at the end of the game only to find out it isn't and that there's something more that needs to be resolved.

Other medias are similar, except from the examples given in them, they put the focus on characters in-story rather than audiences' PO Vs. The characters believe whatever is going on has already been resolved, when in reality it isn't, or there's a twist waiting to be revealed, which we the audience might or might not know or guess beforehand (if it's a book, we can guess that the story isn't over by the amount of pages left, and the same goes for movies with their runtimes.)

Edited by Willy2537

Although Spoiled by the Format can indeed become an issue, I don't think that the definition is too skewed towards video games. The main point seems to be that they set up (for the audience) like it's the ending, then subvert it.

Then again, most examples given in the Film - Live Action section on the main page are too obvious to the audience in that the film isn't over, like the aforementioned Air Force One, Austin Powers cases, The Dark Knight where Joker gets arrested just halfway through the film, The Lost World: Jurassic Park where the characters succeeded in escaping the island but the company also brought a T-Rex with them back to civilization, etc.

Maybe let's see how others think about it, perhaps?

Hmm... A large number of examples that seem to go against the trope description itself... maybe this discussion page is too small in scope for the real disagreement we're having. This almost sounds more like a job for the Trope Repair Shop.

The only problem is when I post threads there, they always seem to get ignored :/

I don't know much about trope repairs lol. I'm just one of the many normal tropers who just add tropes that I think fitting, but I agree, the trope needs repairs. Either the trope description itself or make a separate trope about it altogether, whatever works. :)

Every attempt I've made at using the trope repair shop has ended with my issue not being opened for discussion to begin with. I'm not really sure what I'm doing wrong, but the moderators always seem to pass over my complaints as not worth discussing. So I've given up on that.

But it's a shame, because the issue at hand right now is clearly a discrepancy within the trope itself.

Let's hope some major tropers notice this discussion and give advice on it, I suppose. There's a whole lot of tropes I wished it could be repaired or given more clarifications as well, but I don't know other ways except to send P Ms or putting it up on the discussion page. So far, I've seen the Base Breaker page changed to Base-Breaking Character, so I guess that's progress.

I read through the Your Princess Is in Another Castle! description and examples, and I agree that Zootopia fits nicely with the other non-game examples. Everything has been building towards solving the missing mammals case, and Judy and Nick have found them. "Wow! I'm impressed!"

Except that the "wrap up the story" scenes don't really wrap up the story, and before long, Judy and Nick are hot on the trail of the underlying conspiracy.

So, do we need someone to take this to the trope repair shop? Or is there some other way to clean this up? Is there a relatively clean edit to the YPIIAC description that would clarify the trope's application to non-game media, without fundamentally changing the meaning of the trope?

No, I don't think you could change the description to make it fit with those examples, without dramatically changing the meaning.

Which is what the Trope Repair Shop is for, but I've never had much luck with it.

Theoretically, if the discussion were actually opened there, they would discuss whether to either redefine the trope to fit with how it was being used in examples, or else prune out a massive amount of examples as bad examples, or possibly even split it into two tropes.

Edited by BURGINABC

Reading some more, maybe Minor Crime Reveals Major Plot covers it.

I already added that trope on the main page. It could work on its owm, but I added YPIIAC trope too because of reasons given above.

So, uh, how's this discussion going now? Should the trope be re-added or remained removed?

I don't think a conclusion was reached, due to a complete lack of agreement about what the trope even is, and whether to go by the actual definition or to go by existing examples.

I don't really know what else to say...

It's okay. I guess we'll just leave it as it is at the moment, then...

Possibly Character Tic? Her tic is the twitching nose when she's afraid, and the fact that it doesn't twitch for Nick going "savage" is a hint that she's not actually afraid.

Could be seen as an inversion of O.O.C. Is Serious Business. The lack of twitching means no serious business.

I don't see any definitions of "naturalist" that apply. They don't seem to be studying natural history. They aren't practicing artistic naturalism. They aren't practicing philosophical naturalism.

While it is true the animals are doing things that are "back to nature" for them the club also offers things like Massage, Yoga and Volleyball, and the fact that everyone in the club is sans clothing first and foremost reinforces that this is a nudist club of which "naturist" is another term. The writers are playing a Malaproper joke here as many people (in the real world) often confuse Naturist and Naturalist as identical terms and they are not, as other tropers here have pointed out. The fact that the "Naturalist" term is given by Yax, who is most likely stoned or a Cloudcuckoolander, just adds to its intention as a joke.

Edited by rva98014

I agree with the above, it is pretty clearly just a Malaproper joke playing off of Yax's quasi-stoner personality, and the proper term would be "naturist club".

Edited by BURGINABC

I didn't find her acting that bad as a child, just melodramatic. Count me in for keeping it as an example.

I think her performance/public-speaking skills as a child were pretty good. But that's different from the acting ability she displayed as an adult, to convince Bellwether that she was genuinely afraid of the presumably savage Nick. But that may be based on my experience with GURPS, which distinguishes between the skill of Acting (convincingly portraying something that isn't real) and the skill of Performance (entertaining others with a dramatic performance).

Edited by mcgrew

I agree. With the lights being shut off, and the bright light shining in his face, the whole episode felt like a "secret initiation" that was setup so the prey kids could haze, humiliate and bully young Nick without any adults present.

By the same argument, you could say Adults Are Useless at the Carrot Days festival, because no adults were around when young Gideon clawed young Judy's face. Both are examples of kids doing bad things, and choosing to do those bad things when there are no adults around to stop them.

The trope isn't "kids doing bad things when the adults aren't around". The trope is "kids save the day without adult help, while the adults do nothing".

This does make sense.

Bogo seemed to be doing a day shift, given that he held the morning briefing on Judy's first day. Him being on duty in two nightly scenes (first night bridge, second night Cliffside) is pointing towards the writer trying to keep the cast small by having him Always on Duty. This partially also applies to Clawhouser, who seems to work late hours, receiving Judy's Distress Call when running from Manchas on the first night.

Edited by eroock

I agree that Chief Bogo is established as being on day shift and it seems unlikely to be on night shift when Judy calls in the 10-91. Does this lean toward removing the Always on Duty trope and example?

I must be missing something; I'm looking over the trope description but I'm not seeing anything about it being to a different work.

Moon◊

Ditto. Where does it say that a Call-Back must refer to another work?

Looking at your specific examples:

1. Why can't the second of a pair of Bookends also be a Call-Back?

2. I think this is more Foreshadowing, actually. Nick's "under a bridge" comment is just part of a larger Silly Rabbit, Idealism Is for Kids! speech, and Judy finding him under a bridge doesn't really Call-Back the speech.

3. Maybe this is Fridge Logic. Or maybe Foreshadowing. But there isn't anything specific that acts as a Call-Back. Although I think Nick's pride at wearing his ZPD uniform and receiving his ZPD badge does mirror the pride of young Nick wearing his Junior Ranger Scout uniform.

4. I don't think it's a Brick Joke, because there is an initial payoff, when Judy actually uses the interview technique when answering the first question. Lionheart using the technique during the jail interview is a second payoff. It could also be a Call-Back.

5. I think it's a big stretch to consider it a Call-Back when Judy's second "Eureka!" Moment comes from an off-hand comment made by another fox. I'm not sure it's really anything, actually.

Let's assume Call-Back is a thing within the same story, and just see if the examples are warranted.

^ 1. Bookends would be a more specific version of a Call-Back and hence should hold the example.

2-5. Are we perhaps missing a trope, where a plot element is reused in a meaningful way like Meaningful Echo just for situations? It would also be similar to Bookends, just not restricted to the beginning and end of a story.

Edited by eroock

I guess it could be read that way. But to me, it just seemed like he was joking and she was sort of playing along.

Basically an extension of the carrot pen prank as a whole, where his point was to make it clear to her that he had fully gotten over being upset at her, by showing that he was even willing to joke about it.

I'll have to watch that scene again. But I think it felt similar to the sky-car scene, where the scene started to get emotional and then Nick deflected with the jam-cam joke. I think the "trying to steal the pen?" joke felt like a similar deflection, except this time Judy is playing along.

I think most are fine where they are.

Unfortunately, I'm not exactly sure what the official policy is on allowing tropes to be duplicated between the character sheet and the main list. When there is no character sheet, then of course all go on the main list.

My impression was that if a character sheet exists, very prominent character tropes with large impact in the story would still be listed on the main list as well as on the character sheet, while ones that are played more subtly or less importantly would be exclusive to the character sheet. I'm not sure if that's right or not though.

Is there an expert on this that can comment?

Edited by BURGINABC

I am not sure on the policy either, so I opened a discussion here.

For tropes that are already on another page (Characters, Shout-Out, whatever), and which people often keep adding back to the main page, it might help to leave comments on the main page where the tropes would appear, directing them to the separate page.

Other than that, my main thought is that tropes that really apply to specific characters, and not to the movie as a whole, should be on the Characters page. But there might be some "character tropes" that are fundamental to the movie as a whole, so there could be exceptions. Tropes like Guile Hero that apply to both Judy and Nick and that therefore color much of the storytelling might be examples of this.

^ Good idea. I am gonna leave placeholders with comments for moved tropes.

I think you're in the right, of course, but have you PM'd him for a response?

Moon◊

I don't think it's a strong example of a Triumphant Reprise, because both versions of the song are pretty upbeat. The version at the Dance Party Ending does have more of a "live concert" feeling ("put your paws in the air" and "shake your tails with me" and so on) though, with a little more energy than the initial version. So I think it fits, just not as strongly as some of the other examples on the trope page.

But I'm also concerned that Kirayoshi seems to have stomped on several other changes that have been made in the meantime.

I see where the guy's going with this, but I don't think it's a clear and direct example.

@ShadowHog, no I have not PM'd him. I suppose that is considered the proper response, but I don't usually PM people.

@mcgrew yeah, I guess he did undo a lot. I have no idea, for example, why he removed the example for hand signals. He also inexplicably reverted a simple grammar fix where someone put a space between a period and the beginning of the next sentence.

Although I actually agree with the reversion for Easily Forgiven, since it's pretty clear from the carrot pen prank that Nick was only pretending to still be upset to get a reaction out of Judy.

Given that he did all this without even an edit summary, I'm guessing this is either trolling, or possibly an accident.

I could see something like this happening by accident if he copied the whole article source into a text editor to escape the 20 minute time limit, then copied his modified version back when he was finished not realizing there were other edits made in the meantime that he was steamrolling.

Edited by BURGINABC

Actually, I think I'm going to act under the assumption that this edit was the result of the accidental scenario I described in the previous post.

I'm going to leave his correction of I Always Wanted To Do That into I Always Wanted to Say That since it was probably the only intentional action in the entire edit.

I'm also going to leave the example for Easily Forgiven reverted pending further discussion, since I do disagree with the claim that Nick was still actually angry at the beginning of that scene and only forgave her after she groveled, it seemed clear to me from the carrot pen prank that he was just pretending to still be upset to get a reaction out of her, and was in fact ready to forgive her long before she showed up.

Other than that, I'm going to undo the rest of this edit.

Edited by BURGINABC

I undid his removal of Hand Signals and his re-addition of Triumphant Reprise. I was also going to put that space back in, but it was mysteriously already there.

I removed another Shout-Out entry that referred to something that was already on the Shout-Out page, and left a comment in the trope list (where Shout-Out would appear alphabetically) directing people to the separate Shout-Out page. Hopefully this will help...