I'd say it falls under "Funny Aneurysm" Moment. It's a joke that's funny at the time, but outside factors (in this case, the quality of the film) make it Harsher in Hindsight.
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
I believe it's the troper crazyrabbits that deleted both my edits and another troper's edits, saying that it doesn't fall under "Funny Aneurysm" Moment because, in his words, there's nothing traumatic or unsettling about it.
Maybe it's Harsher in Hindsight ?
I think he's taking FAM a little too narrowly. It doesn't need to be traumatic or unsettling, the laconic page points out it could just be "awkward" and the page itself uses the very apt phrase "makes the viewer cringe" which is pretty damn fitting. It does specifically say that traumatic events are a cause, but Tropes Are Flexible should cover that.
Harsher in Hindsight isn't as good a fit because that's supposed to be for serious moments. They're essentially the same thing, but one is for jokes. As this is a joke, it's a FAM.
Edited by Larkmarn Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
I guess I'd just send him a PM, then. Thanks for the clarification. I'm always confused between Harsher in Hindsight and "Funny Aneurysm" Moment.
Yes, ask him to come here to hash it out. He may not see eye-to-eye on this, so it may come to it that we should Ask The Tropers to mediate if we can't decide whether the FAM has to be caused by a traumatic event.
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
Well, trope drift is a thing. Read through the entries on FAM, and you'll see that most (if not all) of them are related to moments that are less amusing due to the real-world death of someone involved in production. This just sounds like someone trying to pigeonhole it into a trope.
Nothing about that line in the context of the film causes me to "cringe". For all intents and purposes, the film is successful, even if it has a mixed critical reception. Sure, it's Self-Deprecation, but I'm still failing to see what is so wrong about it can cause the joke to be less funny, or even less awkward. It's not the first, or last, superhero film to have a polarizing critical reception.
If anything, the fact that someone's calling out their own work for not meeting the heights of the first two films, then having the same thing happen to the work this was called out in, is Hilarious in Hindsight.
This ties into the discussion below about the YMMV page being excessively negative in general.
Edited by crazyrabbits
Okay, I guess I'll reword it to fit in the Hilarious in Hindsight trope and make it a little less negative, then. I never intended to make it sound negative, it's just that, coincidentally, what Jean said regarding third films in a series that is meant to be Self-Deprecation also applies to itself as well considering the general consensus so far. That's a fact and not me trying to make it into something it's not. Sure, some people love this film, and I have no problem with that, but most still say that they love First Class and Days of Future Past even more, and Apocalypse, being the third film of the 'new X-Men trilogy', isn't as well-received as them.
At any rate, thanks for the clarification.
I'm a little annoyed by the negativity on this particular page. Literally most people I've talked to enjoyed the film a lot. Yet this page portrays the movie as one that was universally reviled. Seems a bit biased.
And I find the comments about Jennifer Lawrence to be quite offensive. Beast isn't wearing the blue make-up for a good portion of the movie, so why aren't people claiming Nicholas Hoult was using Wag the Director too? Nice Double Standard from the masses once again.
Hide / Show Replies
You could always, y'know, rewrite the entries to make them more neutral.
And that's just what I did. But just wondering - can a movie qualify both for Sequelitis if it's also a Contested Sequel? Sequelitis seems to be when a sequel is universally seen as a worse film than its predecessory, while Contested is where it's more divisive. Seems like an oxymoron to have them both on the page.
Considering both tropes are YMMV, I don't see a problem of having both on the page. Some people enjoy the movie, others see it as Sequelitis
Is anyone saying it's better, though? Contested Sequel is "some people think it's an improvement, some think it's worse."
Personally, I haven't heard anyone say it's better than the past two. Anecdotal, of course, but even those who liked the film didn't think it was better than the earlier ones.
Though I have to say, how are the blue makeup things offensive? Beast and Mystique are a false equivalence there... Beast is explicitly someone who has been ashamed of and trying to hide his mutation from day 1. Mystique at this point is supposed to be past that point "mutant and proud" is practically her motto.
Edited by Larkmarn Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
Well I'd say that in the movie, Raven has an in-universe reason to stay in disguise. She's going underground rescuing mutants that are being persecuted. She's not trying to blend in and go against her philosophy. She needs to stay disguised so she can help people. And it's established that she's very distinctive, and a bunch of other mutants look to her as an idol - and she hides to avoid being recognised. And in the final battle, she appears in her true form and is as such at the end. So the character clearly has no problem with her blue form - but she knows there are times when she has to hide it.
The part I find offensive is that people's default assumption is Jennifer Lawrence being a diva. Perhaps it's budget reasons, and perhaps it's - like Nicholas Hoult (presumably) - not wanting the actor to spend hours in the make-up chair and then have to do so many scenes in them. It's not as though make-up instantly goes on and is good to go for the rest of the day. If Jennifer is doing action scenes - under hot studio lights mind you - she's going to sweat and the make-up is going to need constant readjustments. And on a film set, time is money. Even if it's a stunt double in her place, they need to wear the make-up too. She's also said that the fumes from the make-up make it difficult for her to breathe, so that's a health and safety risk too. So being concerned about her own health makes her a primadonna?
Has Hoult actually complained about the makeup process?
If not, then I see no point in trying to use him as an counter-example of Jennifer Lawrence probably wagging the director.
As it is, the excuse the movie gives is flimsy at best which means that it is very likely the she's only a limited time in makeup because she didn't want to.
As for contested sequel vs sequelitis. People have different opinions.
Okay, I gotta ask. The whole 'Jean Grey watched Return of the Jedi and said "third movies are always the worst"' is probably meant to be a jab at X-Men: The Last Stand, but it also can definitely be applied to this movie as well considering the general consensus of this film. Me and one other troper have already tried to add this under "Funny Aneurysm" Moment trope but someone deleted both of it because it isn't that trope. So what trope should this be applied to instead? Or if it should even be added at all?
Hide / Show Replies