TV Tropes: Love 'em or Loathe 'em

[Constant Viewer]

On 8/4/2021 at 10:47 AM, kariyaki said:

I’ve always found that deadly Australia trope to be funny, considering in Texas, it’s pretty similar as we have rattle snakes, water moccasins, wild hogs, alligators, scorpions, black widows, brown recluses… but I’ve managed to survive living here just fine. I don’t think Australia would be any different… except for the vegemite, bleh.

I always thought Australia and Texas were kind of similar. 

[Anduin]

4 hours ago, Constant Viewer said:

I always thought Australia and Texas were kind of similar. 

We're bigger with a smaller population. More and better beaches. Many other factors in Australian supremacy.

[DoctorAtomic]

Also, Farscape.

[Anduin]

5 hours ago, DoctorAtomic said:

Also, Farscape.

Well, yes, but don't take that as representative of anything. It's great and all, just not exactly typical of anyone's life.

[smittykins]

On 8/5/2021 at 10:34 AM, ABay said:

Don't sell yourself short, my Canadian friend! Do you also say soh-ry for sorry and pronounce been like bean? I've heard a lot of jokes about aboot but that's just ignorant. It's really more like aboat.

A couple of years ago, I had a physical therapist who was Canadian and working in the US.  It was very subtle, but I could hear a tinge of “soh-ry,” aboot,” and “mum”(for “mom”) in her voice, plus she referred to the bathroom as “the washroom.”

[meep.meep]

On 8/4/2021 at 4:20 PM, juno said:

The only time I talk funny is when I am drinking maple syrup with beer and watching hockey in my igloo with my pet moose (Mike is his name, he also speaks French).

Do you refer to the igloo as your "hose"?

[juno]

27 minutes ago, meep.meep said:

Do you refer to the igloo as your "hose"?

LOL, no. Not even my hoser. 🕸️

Just like Americans, different regions of Canada have unique dialects. I usually don't use the word aboot or eh or soh-ry. If I do I usually have a laugh aboot it.

Edited August 6, 2021 by juno

[meep.meep]

Not your hoser!  There's a Canadian pronounciation for "house" that comes out very different from the American or British pronunciations.  I did it badly - we say "howse" and you say "how ose"

On the shows on HGTV that aren't House Hunters, they never want to say where they are.  Half the shows are set in Canada and eventually someone uses the Canadian pronunciation of house and they are busted.

[ratgirlagogo]

My Montreal born friend always calls the front porch the "gallery."

[Fool to cry]

 

 

[CoderLady]

Is that because he can't wait to get out of the shower? Because if he finishes his shower he has the option of getting out, grabbing his towel and wiping his fogged-up bathroom mirror so that he can stare pensively at his reflection.

Personal preference, I guess.

[Mabinogia]

I don't see why he can't do both. Take a ponder your moral ambiguity shower followed by a nice, pensive stair into the mirror of can I change, or is this just who I am. If he's feeling really angst he could then stare mournfully at the photograph of the woman who left him and/or died because of his dangerous profession while one masculine but sensitive man tear trickles down his stubbled cheek.

[DoctorAtomic]

Unless it's after a big heist. Then you can let the water run down while you laugh. 

[juno]

1 hour ago, DoctorAtomic said:

Unless it's after a big heist. Then you can let the water run down while you laugh. 

But isn't there an even badder bad guy waiting in the bathroom that will only show up when the steam is wiped from the mirror?

[DoctorAtomic]

I was thinking of the scene in Goodfellas.

 

[Haleth]

13 hours ago, CoderLady said:

Is that because he can't wait to get out of the shower? Because if he finishes his shower he has the option of getting out, grabbing his towel and wiping his fogged-up bathroom mirror so that he can stare pensively at his reflection.

And then smash the mirror with his fist. 

 

[Mabinogia]

17 hours ago, juno said:

But isn't there an even badder bad guy waiting in the bathroom that will only show up when the steam is wiped from the mirror?

Which is exactly why I let the steam dissipate on it's own. If there is some big bad in my bathroom waiting to kill me, he's just gonna have to keep waiting cause I'm outta there!

It is the same mindset that keeps me from ever looking behind my shower curtain. Knowing someone is behind it doesn't increase my chances of survival, but maybe just letting them stay there, lurking, will and hopefully, they will just grow bored and leave eventually. 

[DrSpaceman73]

Whenever someone is creating a military strategy on tv, they will always use a pincer movement ......and they will say 'a classic pincer movement'

[Kel Varnsen]

On 8/6/2021 at 4:16 PM, smittykins said:

plus she referred to the bathroom as “the washroom.”

Washroom would be for a public place like a room without a bath. Because it is not like you can take a bath in the men's room at a McDonald's.

Another one I notice last night because my wife and I are doing an OC rewatch. Cooking a turkey is somehow incredibly complicated to the point where people always screw it up. Now sure it takes long, but it literally just sits their roasting in the oven at a constant temperature. And since it is so big it feels like it would take a really long time to actually burn. OK now stuffing is more complicated but you don't have to cook the turkey with stuffing in it. And you can even buy pre-stuffer turkeys.

Edited August 24, 2021 by Kel Varnsen

[DoctorAtomic]

I miss the 70s and and the hijinks over cooking the souffle. I don't even know what one actually is or know anyone that ate one, but they cooked them all the time. 

[Browncoat]

2 hours ago, DoctorAtomic said:

I miss the 70s and and the hijinks over cooking the souffle. I don't even know what one actually is or know anyone that ate one, but they cooked them all the time. 

They never ate the souffles because they always ruined them by slamming doors!

[DoctorAtomic]

You just never see a good souffle plot anymore. 

[Mr. Sparkle]

5 hours ago, Kel Varnsen said:

Another one I notice last night because my wife and I are doing an OC rewatch. Cooking a turkey is somehow incredibly complicated to the point where people always screw it up. Now sure it takes long, but it literally just sits their roasting in the oven at a constant temperature. And since it is so big it feels like it would take a really long time to actually burn. OK now stuffing is more complicated but you don't have to cook the turkey with stuffing in it. And you can even buy pre-stuffer turkeys.

You can't have a good clueless dad without burning the turkey (or a "roast") and cutting to them sitting sad in a restaurant! Bonus points for plumes of black smoke. 

[DoctorAtomic]

TV never heard of a crock pot.

[Ohiopirate02]

Just now, DoctorAtomic said:

TV never heard of a crock pot.

This Is Us has entered the chat.

[DrSpaceman73]

2 hours ago, DoctorAtomic said:

You just never see a good souffle plot anymore. 

You really don't! Would younger kids even understand?

[DoctorAtomic]

I don't even understand, and I wrote it.

[Shannon L.]

An Innocent Souffle (The Mary Tyler Moore Show)

https://youtu.be/JY8oMtkxliU?t=34

🤣

Edited August 24, 2021 by Shannon L.

[Kel Varnsen]

8 hours ago, Superclam said:

You can't have a good clueless dad without burning the turkey (or a "roast") and cutting to them sitting sad in a restaurant! Bonus points for plumes of black smoke. 

I'm a dad and I can make a decent turkey (although I can't seem to crack making gravy from Turkey juice and flour). But what I don't get is how long does it take to actually burn a turkey? It usually takes at least 3 hours to get a decent sized one to safe eating temp, so how many more hours do you leave it in before you get smoke? It must be hours later.

Edited August 25, 2021 by Kel Varnsen

[Mr. Sparkle]

23 hours ago, Kel Varnsen said:

I'm a dad and I can make a decent turkey (although I can't seem to crack making gravy from Turkey juice and flour). But what I don't get is how long does it take to actually burn a turkey? It usually takes at least 3 hours to get a decent sized one to safe eating temp, so how many more hours do you leave it in before you get smoke? It must be hours later.

Apparently you're not a clueless TV dad. 🤣

It would probably take 5 hours at 500 to burn a turkey like that. I've had dry turkey, and well done roast beef, but I've never seen a charred husk pluming black smoke. 

[Bastet]

My oven is from the late '50s and has an integrated thermometer - stick the probe into the meat, select what temperature you want to cook it to, and wait for the signal to buzz when that temp is reached.  My mom's oven that's just a few years old has an updated version.  I'm assuming many ovens made in the years in between have similar features.  Hell, there's probably a wireless thermometer that will text your smartphone.  So it should be pretty damn hard to accidentally turn food into cremated remains, yet TV characters manage it regularly.

[DoctorAtomic]

I want a 50s stove to cook ALL THE SOUFFLES. 

Seriously though, I'm getting pushed into getting the induction stove bs, and I want a retro so bad. 

[DoctorAtomic]

EW has a fun article on a variation of the breakfast trope we've discussed here.

[juno]

On 8/24/2021 at 6:06 PM, Kel Varnsen said:

I'm a dad and I can make a decent turkey (although I can't seem to crack making gravy from Turkey juice and flour). But what I don't get is how long does it take to actually burn a turkey? It usually takes at least 3 hours to get a decent sized one to safe eating temp, so how many more hours do you leave it in before you get smoke? It must be hours later.

Great job. I usually get all my Turkey related recipes from Les Nessman. Hasn't worked too well.

[DoctorAtomic]

Turkey chili in the crock pot. #ProblemSolved

[Danielg342]

On 8/24/2021 at 7:42 AM, DrSpaceman73 said:

Whenever someone is creating a military strategy on tv, they will always use a pincer movement ......and they will say 'a classic pincer movement'

Speaking of the military, it amazes me how badly Hollywood gets its tactics wrong in general.

Two summers ago, I visited L'Anse aux-Meadows in Newfoundland, the site of the Viking settlement in North America. They have a recreation of the Viking settlement (as best as they can given modern standards) and they have hired actors to portray the colonists but also to answer questions visitors like myself may have about the Viking way of life.

Anyway, I remember my brother started asking about all the weapons and armour that were on display there, because he was of the mindset that military confrontations usually work like they do in Hollywood- the armies charge at each other, the soldiers mix up real good, there's a lot of hacking and slashing (or shooting, if we're in modern times) and everyone's engaged in deep one-on-one battles, unless one soldier is a real badass who can kill several opponents at once.

I remember turning to my brother and telling him that real battles don't work like that. The vast majority of them involve the combatants spending hours- if not days- trying to find the best places to set up their corps so that, when they do actually have to engage the enemy, they're in the most advantageous position possible.

Then I remember the Viking character chiming in and saying, pointedly, that a good general has won the battle before the first shot is fired.

That just hit me because it highlights just how wrong Hollywood gets its military tactics. Even its police procedural tactics, especially when have that annoying "cowboy cop" that dives head-first into a crowd of criminals hoping to mow them all down.

Every military planner- heck, anyone who's ever planned a raid or an attack of some kind- knows that direct confrontation is the last thing that you would want. You want to plan the attack to minimize the amount of damage you'll take, which means doing things like attacking at night (when visibility is hard and guards are usually lowered) or meeting the incoming army at a narrow pass (how the Japanese won their war with the Russians in 1905).

In short, Hollywood tactics go against everything military planners have been taught from the start.

Now, to be fair, I know why Hollywood loves having their armies charge at each other head-on and fight to the bitter death. It's simply far more entertaining and dramatic, especially when you don't get a sense that the "army of heroes" will emerge victorious in the end.

TV shows and movies also have the advantage of being able to end the audience's "perspective" of the events when it chooses to. The view into a show's or movie's universe ends when the producer thinks it's the right time to end that view, because they're done displaying the events needed to tell whatever story they wanted to tell. The aftermath is irrelevant...usually.

So, even though in real life the victorious army that just "fought to the death" would likely mean it's no longer a useable, effective fighting force anymore (e.g. Napoleon's Grand Armee despite taking Moscow), on TV or in the movies, you can have your dramatic, climactic battle ending with the heroes standing tall with the credits rolling right afterward, because it finished the story it wanted to tell and that's all that mattered to the producer.

[Spartan Girl]

Not sure if this counts as a trope or not, but whenever a parent on a show uses the excuse “I know what’s best for my child” for crappy parenting.

*long aggrieved sigh*

I’m so tired of hearing that. It’s complete and total bullshit. Having a child does not automatically make you an expert on what’s good or bad. Let’s be real: no parent is perfect. Even the most well-meaning parent doesn’t know everything, they just do the best they can with what they know. And too often, some parents base “what’s best for their child” based on solely on their own beliefs, and not necessarily what’s actually good for them. Depending on the situation, sometimes being a good parent means having an open mind and taking advice from other people who have more knowledge. Or, you know, listening to your own damn child.

[merylinkid]

2 hours ago, Danielg342 said:

unless one soldier is a real badass who can kill several opponents at once.

While the opponents conveniently wait to take him on in turn, unless one of them will be used as a projectile against another.    they never think "Hey there are 8 of us and only one of him, if we all charge, he can only hit one of us at a time, the rest can hit him while he is busy."  

[Danielg342]

13 minutes ago, Spartan Girl said:

Not sure if this counts as a trope or not, but whenever a parent on a show uses the excuse “I know what’s best for my child” for crappy parenting.

*long aggrieved sigh*

I’m so tired of hearing that. It’s complete and total bullshit. Having a child does not automatically make you an expert on what’s good or bad. Let’s be real: no parent is perfect. Even the most well-meaning parent doesn’t know everything, they just do the best they can with what they know. And too often, some parents base “what’s best for their child” based on solely on their own beliefs, and not necessarily what’s actually good for them. Depending on the situation, sometimes being a good parent means having an open mind and taking advice from other people who have more knowledge. Or, you know, listening to your own damn child.

Parents in real life do that and it drives me nuts for obvious reasons. On TV, there's an added problem when this is invoked- usually writers will use "I know what's best for my child" as a plot point to show how stubborn the parent is or set the kid up for some catastrophe that could have been avoided if the parent wasn't so headstrong.

2 minutes ago, merylinkid said:

While the opponents conveniently wait to take him on in turn, unless one of them will be used as a projectile against another.    they never think "Hey there are 8 of us and only one of him, if we all charge, he can only hit one of us at a time, the rest can hit him while he is busy."  

Gotta love Mook Stupidity Chivalry. None of them ever seem to learn that no matter how badass someone is, they don't have eyes in the back of their heads...or on top of their heads either.

Unless we're dealing with a fantasy setting, but that's a different matter.

[DoctorAtomic]

7 hours ago, Danielg342 said:

Two summers ago, I visited L'Anse aux-Meadows in Newfoundland, the site of the Viking settlement in North America.

I don't know if you're familiar with Williamsburg in Virginia, but they have a colonial settlement like that with the actors. There's a smaller place in Massachusetts too. You get to go in the houses and mills and all that. 

7 hours ago, Danielg342 said:

Then I remember the Viking character chiming in and saying, pointedly, that a good general has won the battle before the first shot is fired.

That's the first lesson in Sun Tsu. 

 

[Spartan Girl]

12 hours ago, Danielg342 said:

On TV, there's an added problem when this is invoked- usually writers will use "I know what's best for my child" as a plot point to show how stubborn the parent is or set the kid up for some catastrophe that could have been avoided if the parent wasn't so headstrong

Yes, they do it on SVU. All. The Time.

[Danielg342]

12 hours ago, DoctorAtomic said:

I don't know if you're familiar with Williamsburg in Virginia, but they have a colonial settlement like that with the actors. There's a smaller place in Massachusetts too. You get to go in the houses and mills and all that. 

Never been (though I think I want to now), but I am aware of those types of setups. Fort William in Thunder Bay (Ontario) is the same way.

12 hours ago, DoctorAtomic said:

That's the first lesson in Sun Tsu.

I figure he had to have gotten it from somewhere...doubt the actors playing Vikings are real military planners. :P

[Wiendish Fitch]

Maybe I'm just getting cantankerous in my old age, but with each passing year, I lose more patience with how characters carry a torch for someone years, decades, or even centuries (depending on the character) after they should have just let go. Don't think me too callous; loved ones come and go in our lives, and it's hard when we lose someone. That's easy to sympathize with.

My problem is when said characters knew their ONE TRUE LOVE for... I dunno, maybe a long weekend, and then just rule out the possibility of a new love from then on. I get that everyone copes with loss in their own way, but at a certain point, surely it's time to move on and take off the figurative widow's weeds and chastity belt?! Especially if you didn't even know that person for very long? This has been a recurring theme in movies for ages, and I know plenty of TV shows are guilty of it, as well.

 

Edited August 30, 2021 by Wiendish Fitch

[BlackberryJam]

1 hour ago, Wiendish Fitch said:

Maybe I'm just getting cantankerous in my old age, but with each passing year, I lose more patience with how characters carry a torch for someone years, decades, or even centuries (depending on the character) after they should have just let go. Don't think me too callous; loved ones come and go in our lives, and it's hard when we lose someone. That's easy to sympathize with.

My problem is when said characters knew their ONE TRUE LOVE for... I dunno, maybe a long weekend, and then just rule out the possibility of a new love from then on. I get that everyone copes with loss in their own way, but at a certain point, surely it's time to move on and take off the figurative widow's weeds and chastity belt?! Especially if you didn't even know that person for very long? This has been a recurring theme in movies for ages, and I know plenty of TV shows are guilty of it, as well.

 

Like wanting to smack Ted Mosby and say, "Robin doesn't love you. She doesn't want anything you want. You're relationship incompatible."

She didn't die or anything, but the whole freaking show was Ted's inability to get over Robin, and then when he sort of did, it was just so he could fall for a woman who would birth his children, then conveniently die. So he could go on pining for Robin. 

 

[Wiendish Fitch]

13 minutes ago, BlackberryJam said:

Like wanting to smack Ted Mosby and say, "Robin doesn't love you. She doesn't want anything you want. You're relationship incompatible."

She didn't die or anything, but the whole freaking show was Ted's inability to get over Robin, and then when he sort of did, it was just so he could fall for a woman who would birth his children, then conveniently die. So he could go on pining for Robin. 

 

Excellent point. Heck, you made me realize that I was thinking too small; it doesn't have to be that the ONE TRUE LOVE had to die/get sucked into a dimensional vortex/whatever, but just that they were a youthful crush, or they attempted to have a relationship, but failed.

It's always bothered me that Ross was just incapable of moving past Rachel despite no longer being in high school, despite having been married, despite their relationship constantly failing, despite having nothing really in common, and on and on. If the writers had had any guts, they would have addressed this, and both Ross and Rachel could have handled it like adults. But nooooooooo.

[Bastet]

2 minutes ago, Wiendish Fitch said:

Excellent point. Heck, you made me realize that I was thinking too small; it doesn't have to be that the ONE TRUE LOVE had to die/get sucked into a dimensional vortex/whatever, but just that they were a youthful crush, or they attempted to have a relationship, but failed.

Adjacent characters can't let old crushes/relationships go, either.  You can have two 40-year-olds in a stable relationship of five years, and if one of them runs into a high school sweetheart the other one gets jealous and suspicious about something as simple as them grabbing coffee to catch up.

[PrincessPurrsALot]

On TV, people kiss folks on the forehead all the damn time.  In my life, I have never had someone kiss me on the forehead unless it was when I was a small child.  Is this really a thing?  Are others kissing folks on the forehead all the time? 

On the never-ending longing, Yes!  Seriously, people do move on with their lives.  If they don't, they are the problem.  We often are shown this as a positive quality in male characters (unless it's a stalker movie) when they really should learn to accept "no, I'm not interested in pursuing a relationship with you." 

Weirdly, I do have an old friend from college who makes hints now and then that we should try to start a more than friends relationship.  We never even dated. I also had someone call me out on facebook for how I broke someone's heart in high school and that this person supposedly never got over it.  I pointed out that he was now happily married, met his life goal of living in Japan and had a child.  All of his dreams have come true so maybe I was not an insurmountable loss in his life.  People do move on; at least healthy people do. 

[Wiendish Fitch]

Even though I bailed on This is Us after season two, I did greatly appreciate that, even though Jack was the great love of Rebecca's life, she found some happiness marrying family friend Miguel. I know the Pearson kids (and viewers) found it weird, but I didn't. I love that Rebecca didn't give up on life, love, and herself, even though Jack was gone. Frankly, I thought that was one of the most emotionally mature things I've seen on a show... and I'm sure the writers have since blown their noses with it. Sigh.

[Ohiopirate02]

7 minutes ago, Wiendish Fitch said:

Excellent point. Heck, you made me realize that I was thinking too small; it doesn't have to be that the ONE TRUE LOVE had to die/get sucked into a dimensional vortex/whatever, but just that they were a youthful crush, or they attempted to have a relationship, but failed.

It's always bothered me that Ross was just incapable of moving past Rachel despite no longer being in high school, despite having been married, despite their relationship constantly failing, despite having nothing really in common, and on and on. If the writers had had any guts, they would have addressed this, and both Ross and Rachel could have handled it like adults. But nooooooooo.

I loved Friends back in the 90s, but find rewatching it as an adult (with actual adult life experience) painful.  I can dig pining and a well-written second chance romance, but "third time's the charm" does not work.  Ross and Rachel got together, broke up, got together, broke up, somehow conceived a child together, were separated and then Rachel (why is it always the woman in this type of situation) gets off the plane to be with Ross.  

This Is Us also has a couple that has broken up one too many times for my taste.  And I know the show has this couple as their endgame, and I hate it.  

[Haleth]

I know a lot of This is Us fans are rooting for Kevin and Sophie to get back together but that would be so unrealistic.  They tried not once but twice to make it work and found they were just not compatible.  If they end up both getting out of their current marriages and run back to each other in the end, yeah, it would be a nice fairy tale ending, but in real life they'd be doomed to fail.  Again.  Not to mention the trail of broken hearts left in the wake.  I'll be very angry if Kevin leaves Madison and the kids for his childhood sweetheart.  Keep Alex Breckenridge on her other show and never appear on TiU again.  (Funny, she's in a similar situation on Virgin River too - boyfriend has twins (no less) with another woman, but yearns for Alex's character.)

15 hours ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

This Is Us also has a couple that has broken up one too many times for my taste.  And I know the show has this couple as their endgame, and I hate it.  

Is that who you mean?  Kevin and Sophie?