TV Tropes community

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Valkorion said:
Sorry, but I have never heard of that before.
Click to expand...
You've never watched Anchorman? Shame on you.

As for the bears thing, it was a brick joke where Steve Carell’s character (also named Brick) brings up the old legend that bears smell menstrual blood as an excuse for why they couldn't have a woman in the studio. Come the climax, Ron and Veronica were attacked by bears because Veronica was on her period. Stupid, but funny
 
Flaming Insignias said:
You've never watched Anchorman? Shame on you.

As for the bears thing, it was a brick joke where Steve Carell’s character (also named Brick) brings up the old legend that bears smell menstrual blood as an excuse for why they couldn't have a woman in the studio. Come the climax, Ron and Veronica were attacked by bears because Veronica was on her period. Stupid, but funny
Click to expand...
One of the few instances where it actually makes sense to have that stuff in the story, as the joke was constructed around it. All other times it would just be unnecessary and would just grind the plot to a halt, and you don't need a TV Tropes page to explain that.
 
Valkorion said:
One of the few instances where it actually makes sense to have that stuff in the story, as the joke was constructed around it. All other times it would just be unnecessary and would just grind the plot to a halt, and you don't need a TV Tropes page to explain that.
Click to expand...
Also it tends to be creepy.
 
From The Uncanny Valley said:
Also it tends to be creepy.
Click to expand...
And indeed it is. There is a point to list story-appropriate exceptions to the long-standing taboo of referencing bodily functions in media, but TVT always seems to become kind of creepy in their desire to list every example they can come across and praise it as something stunning and brave instead; this is not helped by a lot of modern productions using references to shitting and menstruation simply because they can instead of for anything resembling a good reason.
 
LightDragonman1 said:
I really need to stop posting what the tropers think of the new Top Gun movie, but it never ceases to irritate me.

View attachment 3395874
And now they're getting into the legal side of it. Including claiming that the film is "woke". Yes, really.
View attachment 3395882
View attachment 3395885
And cue Fighteer still thinking that someone should've died in the final mission.
View attachment 3395891
That said, the Analysis section for the film is surprisingly good, and even notes that it is successful because it doesn't try to subvert expectations or anything.
Click to expand...
I saw Top gun maverick again on Father's day and reading those gives me aneurysm. They wonder why woke shit bombs in the box office.
 
Last edited:
Valkorion said:
The biggest WTF on TVTropes for me has to be Nobody Poops. I mean, they acknowledge why it is that (almost) no one uses the bathroom in movies, but that is fucking self-explanatory. Why would they even make a page for it? Was there some toilet-obsessed autist who noticed that no one takes a shit in movies (because nobody wants to see that)?
Click to expand...
Yeah I never understood that Trope. Like it's pretty self explanatory in nature. So why do you need a page that explains why no one wants to see someone take a shit in a movie. I agree it must be someone's fetish on there.
 
So, the powers that be on TVT still has an hateboner for stuff that happened IRL...So I'm archiving whatever pages that happens to catch my interests...again.

Sheltered aristocrat.

Hegemonic Empire

Ironically, Nobody Poops actually mentions that talking about gross stuff is unsuitable in most circumstances.

The coof delaying shit.

Russian glowies "accidentally" killing people with sleeping gas.

And Nurses intentionally killing people
Flaming Insignias said:
And indeed it is. There is a point to list story-appropriate exceptions to the long-standing taboo of referencing bodily functions in media, but TVT always seems to become kind of creepy in their desire to list every example they can come across and praise it as something stunning and brave instead; this is not helped by a lot of modern productions using references to shitting and menstruation simply because they can instead of for anything resembling a good reason.
Click to expand...
Did you ever get an chance to read the Fetish Fuel wiki on Fandom?
 
Last edited:
Well. I can tell this is going to be their another 1/6.

From General US politics thread ofc.

1A36F57B-9021-423C-8FC6-D7B361247838.jpeg
7E1D491C-5DFE-44ED-9DA2-0787BB074485.jpeg
4CBF5142-814B-4A0A-BD9A-90C5A2263652.jpeg
46875D7C-1A5D-4F38-9750-5A0E5580219C.jpeg
C54330F7-23BF-47B7-AEBB-7D6EB4CD56D1.jpeg
939F2B68-4EE6-4BDC-946A-8381F841EA72.jpeg
81DDB797-779B-40B2-B31E-8D2531C40CDA.jpeg
485232C5-B06C-478A-96D7-1481C101CDF9.jpeg
055075B9-1571-48E5-B077-55056133ABE4.jpeg
81603D1A-FAC4-4E1A-917B-F017708EB470.jpeg
C14124E4-3C60-44D8-B093-B6EA559131F5.jpeg
 
Joe Exotic’s Tiger said:
Well. I can tell this is going to be their another 1/6.

From General US politics thread ofc.

View attachment 3421084View attachment 3421087View attachment 3421088View attachment 3421092View attachment 3421093View attachment 3421095View attachment 3421096View attachment 3421100View attachment 3421101View attachment 3421102View attachment 3421104
Click to expand...
I love how these retards don't understand how the constitution works. The Second Amendment clearly states that "[...]the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed", so the SCOTUS was probably right in overturning a state's (New York, in this case) law that did infringe said right. However, the constitution says nothing about abortion, and Roe v. Wade was repeatedly criticized for stretching the right to privacy guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to cover abortions and effectively being "legislation from the bench" meaning that the Court overstepped its boundaries with that decision.

The difference between guns and abortion is that the constitution explicitly guarantees a right to bear guns (yes, it refers to "arms" but that term covers firearms and is usually interpreted as doing so) while it does not make a single mention of abortion. Therefore, it can be argued that the constitution does not confer a right to abortion, and the Supreme Court was right to hand the decision back to the states, in the absence of federal legislation.

That being said, this year truly is the year of the chud.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom