Discussion YMMV / AvengersInfinityWar

Wait, did it burn it out? I'm sorry where was that said, I didn't catch it. If it isn't explicitly stated that's what happened then maybe just put it as a caveat something like "although the implication that it burnt out the gauntlet might be the reason for that"

After he snaps his fingers, the gauntlet is shown to be damaged and smoldering. It isn't destroyed, but it appears to be nearing its limit.

Endgame show that using the Stones a second time fused the gauntlet with his arm.

Run it by the Hindsight cleanup thread first.

The link isn't working; it keeps directing to a 404 page.

Remove the tags flanking it, or look it up on the search bar above then; you'll find it there. If you still have trouble, it's under Long-Term Cleanup on the forums. At any rate, I believe that particular example was raised then zapped as shoehorning.

Long story short: a character dying does not, just by itself, justify a Harsher in Hindsight entry when the actor dies. Everybody will die at some point. For a death to be Harsher in Hindsight the on-screen death of the character should have some similarity to the real-life way the actor died. There is no such similarity, so it is not an example.

I feel like, "the villain's plot is short-sighted and unfeasible" is practically People Sit On Chairs.

Of course it's short-sighted and unfeasible. That's why he's the bad guy that needs to be stopped.

All of that is Fridge Logic.

Yep. Fridge Logic.

Were you arrested?

Not that it matters. "I don't think it was racial" is irrelevant because the public at large most certainly does.

Given that Starbucks closed its stores for mandatory anti-racial bias training even Starbucks thinks that it was racial.

But the thing is that it's *wrong*. I wasn't arrested because I left when I was told to. Given that the friend I was waiting for (who worked there) told me flat out that they WOULD have me arrested if I'd stayed just furthers that. And Starbucks are closing their stores for "bias training" because they're trying to cover their ass and not lose business.

What do you mean "it's wrong"?

What is wrong? That Starbucks isn't mired in a racial controversy right now? Because it is. Just because you don't think race was involved doesn't mean anything, considering the vast majority of people do. Even if Starbucks is just trying to "cover their ass and not lose business" then hey, guess what? That still proves that a lot of people think it's racial or else they wouldn't be worried about losing business.

Your anecdotal story has absolutely no bearing on this discussion whatsoever, whether or not it happened.

But it really doesn't matter what the public thinks. People as a whole are dumb. And since every news station is playing up the racial angle OF COURSE that's what they think. Why should public opinion mean anything when you can see people who belive that vaccines cause autism or that the world is flat? It's a fallacy just to say that because a lot of people belive something that it's true. The policy has fucked over people of every creed and nationality.

Has it, though? I've never heard of anyone else being arrested for waiting for someone in a Starbucks.

The grounds for removing a YMMV item are pretty standard. If it's misusing the item, or if it's factually inaccurate. Surprisingly, this isn't misuse. FAM gets misused to hell and back, but this isn't the case. It's a joke that later becomes uncomfortable because of later developments. Is it inaccurate? No, it's not. The fact is that Starbucks is facing a racially-charged scandal. Just because you don't feel like it's racially-based, and in fact seem to be denying that it could even possibly be racially based doesn't mean the scandal isn't racially charged. Facts don't care about your feelings.

How's about a compromise, can we make it more netural and mention that it's slightly uncomfortable in light of Starbucks being criticized for something that the public has largely taken as racial?

That's considerably less neutral. In fact, using such Weasel Words is implicitly saying that it's not a racial thing. And even if it wasn't racially motivated (which many would think is a stretch), it most certainly objectively has a racial scandal now.

The fact you cannot come to grips with that is unnerving.

^ Ninjaed.

That's not a compromise at all. It's glossing over the real, potent issues of the controversy in question.

Your very first posts argues how people reacted when you call it "blown out of proportion", acknowledging that "slightly uncomfortable" is a gross understatement of the Audience Reaction. You also acknowledge this public reaction while also trying to equivocate them to anti-vax and flat-earthers, as if this was a case of scientific consensus versus a fringe opinion.

There is no controversy. That's what I'm arguing. Two men broke a long standing rule and were arrested when they were told to. It's only an issue because the news are trying to drum up views by pretending it's racial.

Then you're straight up denying reality. There is a controversy. That is an objective fact. Just because you choose to believe it is unfounded doesn't rewrite reality.

Those men did nothing wrong and your arguments assume a mass media conspiracy with no substance.

Let's take a step back here and ignore for the moment the specific details about the real-world event. Is the example here on the wiki is even relevant to that event? In my opinion, the answer is no, and here's my reasoning:

T'Challa: What were you expecting [to see]?

Okoye: The Olympics. Maybe even a Starbucks.

She was just throwing two ideas at T'Challa to see what he would say. That doesn't link it with anything that happened or happens in a real Starbucks. Just because you have black people talking about Starbucks doesn't mean that everything involving black people and Starbucks relates to that. Now if she had made a joke about being treated poorly in a Starbucks, that would indeed be a valid example, but with the pieces we have there's not enough information to justify the connection between the event and the "Funny Aneurysm" Moment trope.

Let's just comment this out and wait until we hear the line in the proper context. Once we see the film, it should be obvious whether or not this belongs as an example.

I'm seeing it Sunday. Guess we'll see if it's a one off joke or if there's more too it.

"Now if she had made a joke about being treated poorly in a Starbucks, that would indeed be a valid example..."

That seems ridiculously specific.

The trope is: "A "funny aneurysm" moment is when a scene, joke, or offhand line that was originally meant to be funny or lighthearted becomes cringeworthy due to the unfortunate and/or traumatic events in future installments/episodes of a work or in real life." Emphasis mine. There is no reason the line needs to be about how Black people, or any people, are treated in Starbucks.

So, does the line at least illicit a "cringe" at the mention of two Black people eager to see a Starbucks, in light of an example where Black people not being treated welcomely at a Starbucks has made international news?

Seems quite a few people feel that way about it.

And speaking personally? Yeah, that line makes me wince a little. I mean, not enough to insert "TRIGGERED" joke here, but enough to make me Face Palm.

Two *people* were not treated welcomely. The barrista didn't use any slurs and there was no evidence that it was racial except that the men were black. If they'd been white or asian the same thing might've happened. It's stupid to say "twitter thinks X so it's true" since Twitter is just as dumb as everyone else.

Whether or not the barista was motivated by race in calling the cops is something we could argue about until Thanos comes home. The fact is, the Starbucks controversy has taken on a racial aspect that's an intrinsic part of how the story is now playing out.

If you don't think it's justified, I won't waste time arguing (I will say implicit bias is a thing and it's quite possible to be racist without dropping n-bombs) but the fact of the matter is that questions of race and racism are now part of the story. It's impossible to discuss the story divorced of how it's now been placed into larger ongoing conversations about race.

"Twitter is just as dumb as everyone else"

YES. And that's exactly why we trope their opinions, en masse, just like everyone else's.

Every time you type something, you just further confirm that this is a thing. Just one you personally don't care for.

So, powerman, that's just Moving the Goalposts to be amenable to a troper who is ignoring reality to further an agenda, which obviously doesn't sit well with me. It also redefines "Funny Aneurysm" Moment, which has no need for it to be a major point or a 1-to-1 correlation.

It's an Audience Reaction, but we've got a guy arguing "just because the audience reacts like it, they're wrong because one time I went to a Starbucks and they said the same thing to me." Funnily enough, the same guy has argued in the past to keep opinions on the page that were much less well-founded than this one.

Interestingly, said opinions were also trying to downplay allegations of racism. Funny, that.

Sure, call me a racist. That's great. The entire thing just reeks of an "us vs. them" mentality and Starbucks being Mistaken For Racist. And yes, I do have an issue with non-racial issues being made racial. Not hiding that. Want me to dig into YOUR history and accuse you of something? Quit being an ass.

Keep arguing that it was "non-racial" as if it's a fact all you like. It isn't, and no one's buying that.

But while we're on the subject of "non-racial issues being made racial", no one here has called you a racist. At best, he said you were "furthering an agenda" and "downplaying allegations of racism", the former of which is backed up by your history and the latter of which is literally true. Something is alleged to be racist, and you are specifically downplaying that.

If you're willing to jump to the subject of "racist" from that argument, then you lose all credibility arguing about the Starbucks incident...which, as I said before, has no substance to begin with.

"Funny Aneurysm" Moment is a YMMV trope for a reason, y'know.

So, I'll try to use a metaphor you can understand. It would be like saying that the You Tube shooter is a radical Islamic terrorist because she's middle eastern even if there's no evidince that she actually *was* Muslim just because the public believes it. Public opinion has no actual effect on the facts of the case. And if I'm trying to "downplay allegations of racism" then I could just as easily accuse you two of trying to further racial tensions. But that'd be an asshole move so I don't.

You'll try to use a metaphor 'I can understand', eh? Okay, I'll bite. To start with, that's not a "metaphor". It's an analogy, and a poor one.

Either the shooter IS a Muslim or she isn't. It's an actual religion.

Whether or not the Starbucks employees actually hated those two Black people is irrelevant to whether or not their actions mistreated two Black people. Problem is, you—like many people—think people need to be card-carrying bigots to actually be racist. They don't.

And accuse us anything you like. That doesn't change the fact that what you are doing is literally downplaying an accusation of racism; your argument is specifically what the sentence means. So it doesn't really matter what you accuse but then try to backpedal with "but that'd be an asshole move".

There was a controversy, and there was a racial aspect to it, so I think it counts as enough of an example for a YMMV page.

I think it's worth mentioning that it doesn't necessarily matter if the people at Starbucks were being racist or not. What matters here is how audiences perceive the joke to be cringeworthy following controversy they believe to be racist. Arguing over whether or not the event itself had racist intentions seems to be missing the point, it's audience reaction, all that matters is how the audience feels about the joke and the controversy.

Accurate. Even if the barista's actions weren't racially motivated (something impossible to prove or disprove), what's relevant here is the Audience Reaction to the film, which means that all that matters is peoples' perceptions of the incident, which objectively skews heavily towards at the very least "it's now a racial thing" especially given Starbucks' reaction.

Tossing my hat in to say that I agree with the tropers above.

So it seems:

• Keep: Larkmarn, Nubian Satyress, Dr Sleep, War Jay 77, Cryptic Mirror
• Cut: Andy Yagami
• Unclear: powerman228 (seemed to be "wait and see"), A Fell Mind (Looks more like a keep, but to be fair I'm placing it here).

That's pretty overwhelming.

Capsarc undid my my commenting-out of the section without discussion. I'd re-add them and state in the reason to come here to discuss, but I don't want to edit war.

Noting here that I added the entry to the "Funny Aneurysm" Moment page, considering there's five definite pros, 0 against (since that troper is no longer on the site), and two undecideds. Even if both of those became con, the majority would still be heavily for.

So, I'm going to go ahead and say the example shouldn't really go there at all, subverted or not. The only one glazing over the death and destruction caused by the snap is Thanos himself. The film ends minutes after the snap, and is the first movie in what is essentially a two-parter. Not to mention, as The Stinger shows, given the amount of time left in the film, disastrous effects were shown pretty dang explicitly, more or less immediately. Yes, it focused on the heroes' reactions first but pretty dang quickly we see the rest of the world's reaction. It's not like there was a scene in between where people we going "well, this is certainly the worst of it."

I can get behind that.

Seconding what Larkman said, Inferred Holocaust doesn't really apply.

The trope entry for Inferred Holocaust states: "Keep in mind that this is an inferred holocaust. If the work explicitly states that there's a horrible aftermath or if it ends on a cliffhanger (for example, depicting an undetected bomb about to explode), then it isn't an example of this trope."

The movie ends literally minutes after Thanos snaps his fingers, and even then The Stinger features multiple car crashes and a helicopter crashing into a building as their drivers/pilots disappear. In other words, the movie ends on a cliffhanger, and explicitly shows there's a horrible aftermath. It's straight up an averted trope, and as such doesn't really warrant mentioning.

I kinda agree. If this is still going on by the next film he appears in, then yeah, that trope definitely applies. Thor's one I think doesn't really count, as although it was a mistake, he didn't really make the situation worse by making it, but I'm still unsure as to whether or not that aversion deserves to be mentioned.

Honestly, I'm not a big fan of this trope being limited to purely comedic actors. If Tommy Wiseau were to give a heartfelt, moving performance in a movie, I think that it would more than qualify for this trope, even though he's never been a strictly comedic actor. That being said, I agree that Tom Holland doesn't qualify for this trope either way. He's proven himself as an actor multiple times now. I say remove it.

Ok, I'm going to cut it!

I think the tradition is to wait a month or so to see if people are still mad about it. Base Breakers have to have sustained conflict, and not everyone has seen the movie. It may calm down over time.

Definitely.

Reported.

Not me. I was laughing my head off.

Perfectly fits with Drax's character too.

Same, though it is YMMV, maybe just rewrite the entry to be more impartial?

Deleted, nevermind, guess enough people wrote that they experienced the joke didn't fall flat!

Agreed. Half means, well, half of everybody.

I’d say let’s wait on that one until we see the film and we know what his motivation for creating the new weapon is.