History Main / ExecutiveMeddling

10th Mar '16 4:40:45 PM Oddstar6
Is there an issue? Send a Message


While this tends to have [[TropesAreNotGood negative connotations]] due to the idea that the people calling the shots are not the creative heads, the results [[TropesAreNotBad can be positive]]. Executives aren't always wrong, after all; just like there are good and bad creators, there are execs that are good at their job and execs that are bad at it. Creators have the capacity to cause issues because of a CreatorBreakdown, or too much ProtectionFromEditors leaving their ideas unchallenged regardless of their quality, or putting in an unnecessary AuthorFilibuster or WriterOnBoard moment that can taint a work. All of these issues can be stopped if a higher up puts their foot down, and the work can benefit from it. But since when does someone doing their job ''right'' get any attention? There is a noticeable anti-executive bias, as the times when ExecutiveMeddling works are rarely reported no one complains when the system works. However, when something breaks, ''everyone'' knows about it.

to:

While this tends to have [[TropesAreNotGood negative connotations]] due to the idea that the people calling the shots are not the creative heads, the results [[TropesAreNotBad can be positive]]. Executives aren't always wrong, after all; just like there are good and bad creators, there are execs that are good at their job and execs that are bad at it. Creators have the capacity to cause issues because of a CreatorBreakdown, or too much ProtectionFromEditors leaving their ideas unchallenged regardless of their quality, or putting in an unnecessary AuthorFilibuster or WriterOnBoard moment that can taint a work. All of these issues can be stopped if a higher up puts their foot down, and the work can benefit from it. But since when does someone doing their job ''right'' get any attention? There is a noticeable anti-executive bias, as the times when ExecutiveMeddling works are rarely reported no one complains when the system works. However, when something breaks, ''everyone'' knows about it.
it. Additionally, there is reason to believe that harmful cases of executive meddling are rare but over-reported, while helpful executive meddling is common but under-reported: creators talk much more to the public about the creative process than do the executives, and creators, like most people, tend to like to take credit for what went right and pass blame for what went wrong.
3rd Mar '16 12:54:21 PM YasminPerry
Is there an issue? Send a Message


While this tends to have [[TropesAreNotGood negative connotations]] due to the idea that the people calling the shots are not the creative heads, the results [[TropesAreNotBad can be positive]]. Executives aren't always wrong, after all; just like there are good and bad creators, there are execs that are good at their job and execs that are bad at it. Creators have the capacity to cause issues because of a CreatorBreakdown, or too much ProtectionFromEditors leaving their ideas unchallenged regardless of their quality, or putting in an unnecessary AuthorFilibuster or WriterOnBoard moment that can taint a work. All these issues can be stopped if a higher up puts their foot down, and the work can benefit from it. But since when does someone doing their job ''right'' get any attention? There is a noticeable anti-executive bias, as the times when ExecutiveMeddling works are rarely reported no one complains when the system works. However, when something breaks, ''everyone'' knows about it.

to:

While this tends to have [[TropesAreNotGood negative connotations]] due to the idea that the people calling the shots are not the creative heads, the results [[TropesAreNotBad can be positive]]. Executives aren't always wrong, after all; just like there are good and bad creators, there are execs that are good at their job and execs that are bad at it. Creators have the capacity to cause issues because of a CreatorBreakdown, or too much ProtectionFromEditors leaving their ideas unchallenged regardless of their quality, or putting in an unnecessary AuthorFilibuster or WriterOnBoard moment that can taint a work. All of these issues can be stopped if a higher up puts their foot down, and the work can benefit from it. But since when does someone doing their job ''right'' get any attention? There is a noticeable anti-executive bias, as the times when ExecutiveMeddling works are rarely reported no one complains when the system works. However, when something breaks, ''everyone'' knows about it.
3rd Mar '16 12:42:14 PM YasminPerry
Is there an issue? Send a Message


While this tends to have [[TropesAreNotGood negative connotations]] due to the idea that the people calling the shots are not the creative heads, the results [[TropesAreNotBad can be positive]]. Executives aren't always wrong, after all; just like there are good and bad creators, there are execs that are good at their job and execs that are bad at it. Creators have the capacity to cause issues because of a CreatorBreakdown, or too much ProtectionFromEditors leaving their ideas unchallenged regardless of their quality, or putting in an unnecessary AuthorFilibuster or WriterOnBoard moment that can taint a work. All these issues can be stopped if a higher up puts their foot down, and the work can benefit from it. But since when does someone doing their job ''right'' get any attention? There is a noticeable anti-executive bias, as the times where ExecutiveMeddling works are rarely reported no one complains when the system works. However, when something breaks, ''everyone'' knows about it.

to:

While this tends to have [[TropesAreNotGood negative connotations]] due to the idea that the people calling the shots are not the creative heads, the results [[TropesAreNotBad can be positive]]. Executives aren't always wrong, after all; just like there are good and bad creators, there are execs that are good at their job and execs that are bad at it. Creators have the capacity to cause issues because of a CreatorBreakdown, or too much ProtectionFromEditors leaving their ideas unchallenged regardless of their quality, or putting in an unnecessary AuthorFilibuster or WriterOnBoard moment that can taint a work. All these issues can be stopped if a higher up puts their foot down, and the work can benefit from it. But since when does someone doing their job ''right'' get any attention? There is a noticeable anti-executive bias, as the times where when ExecutiveMeddling works are rarely reported no one complains when the system works. However, when something breaks, ''everyone'' knows about it.
3rd Mar '16 12:41:33 PM YasminPerry
Is there an issue? Send a Message


While this tends to have [[TropesAreNotGood negative connotations]] due to the idea that the people calling the shots are not the creative heads, the results [[TropesAreNotBad can be positive]]. Executives aren't always wrong, after all; just like there are good and bad creators, there are execs that are good at their job and execs that are bad at it. Creators have the capacity to cause issues because of a CreatorBreakdown, or too much ProtectionFromEditors leaving their ideas unchallenged regardless of their quality, or putting in an unnecessary AuthorFilibuster or WriterOnBoard moment that can taint a work. All these issues can be stopped if a higher up puts their foot down, and the work can benefit because of it. But since when does someone doing their job ''right'' get any attention? There is a noticeable anti-executive bias, as the times where ExecutiveMeddling works are rarely reported no one complains when the system works. However, when something breaks, ''everyone'' knows about it.

to:

While this tends to have [[TropesAreNotGood negative connotations]] due to the idea that the people calling the shots are not the creative heads, the results [[TropesAreNotBad can be positive]]. Executives aren't always wrong, after all; just like there are good and bad creators, there are execs that are good at their job and execs that are bad at it. Creators have the capacity to cause issues because of a CreatorBreakdown, or too much ProtectionFromEditors leaving their ideas unchallenged regardless of their quality, or putting in an unnecessary AuthorFilibuster or WriterOnBoard moment that can taint a work. All these issues can be stopped if a higher up puts their foot down, and the work can benefit because of from it. But since when does someone doing their job ''right'' get any attention? There is a noticeable anti-executive bias, as the times where ExecutiveMeddling works are rarely reported no one complains when the system works. However, when something breaks, ''everyone'' knows about it.
3rd Mar '16 12:41:12 PM YasminPerry
Is there an issue? Send a Message


While this tends to have [[TropesAreNotGood negative connotations]] due to the idea that the people calling the shots are not the creative heads, the results [[TropesAreNotBad can be positive]]. Executives aren't always wrong, after all; just like there are good and bad creators, there are execs that are good at their job and execs that are bad at it. Creators have the capacity to cause issues because of a CreatorBreakdown, or too much ProtectionFromEditors leaving their ideas unchallenged regardless of their quality, or putting in an unnecessary AuthorFilibuster or WriterOnBoard moment that can taint a work. All these things can be stopped if a higher up puts their foot down, and the work can benefit because of it. But since when does someone doing their job ''right'' get any attention? There is a noticeable anti-executive bias, as the times where ExecutiveMeddling works are rarely reported no one complains when the system works. However, when something breaks, ''everyone'' knows about it.

to:

While this tends to have [[TropesAreNotGood negative connotations]] due to the idea that the people calling the shots are not the creative heads, the results [[TropesAreNotBad can be positive]]. Executives aren't always wrong, after all; just like there are good and bad creators, there are execs that are good at their job and execs that are bad at it. Creators have the capacity to cause issues because of a CreatorBreakdown, or too much ProtectionFromEditors leaving their ideas unchallenged regardless of their quality, or putting in an unnecessary AuthorFilibuster or WriterOnBoard moment that can taint a work. All these things issues can be stopped if a higher up puts their foot down, and the work can benefit because of it. But since when does someone doing their job ''right'' get any attention? There is a noticeable anti-executive bias, as the times where ExecutiveMeddling works are rarely reported no one complains when the system works. However, when something breaks, ''everyone'' knows about it.
3rd Mar '16 12:35:32 PM YasminPerry
Is there an issue? Send a Message


While this tends to have [[TropesAreNotGood negative connotations]] due to the idea that the people calling the shots are not the creative heads, the results [[TropesAreNotBad can be positive]]. Executives aren't always wrong, after all; just like there are good and bad creators, there are execs that are good at their job and execs that are bad at it. Creators have the capacity to cause issues because of a CreatorBreakdown, or too much ProtectionFromEditors leaving their ideas unchallenged regardless of their quality, or putting in an unnecessary AuthorFilibuster or WriterOnBoard moment that can taint a work. All these things can be stopped if a higher up puts their foot down, and the work can benefit because of it. But since when does someone doing their job ''right'' get any attention? There is a noticeable anti-executive bias, as the times where ExecutiveMeddling works are rarely reported no one complains when the system works. However, when something breaks, ''everyone'' knows about it. After all, what creator would say "my original idea wasn't that good, but some corporate suit gave me one that worked better" rather than "The corperate suits are responsible for this pile of crap because they prevented me from doing my original idea"?

to:

While this tends to have [[TropesAreNotGood negative connotations]] due to the idea that the people calling the shots are not the creative heads, the results [[TropesAreNotBad can be positive]]. Executives aren't always wrong, after all; just like there are good and bad creators, there are execs that are good at their job and execs that are bad at it. Creators have the capacity to cause issues because of a CreatorBreakdown, or too much ProtectionFromEditors leaving their ideas unchallenged regardless of their quality, or putting in an unnecessary AuthorFilibuster or WriterOnBoard moment that can taint a work. All these things can be stopped if a higher up puts their foot down, and the work can benefit because of it. But since when does someone doing their job ''right'' get any attention? There is a noticeable anti-executive bias, as the times where ExecutiveMeddling works are rarely reported no one complains when the system works. However, when something breaks, ''everyone'' knows about it. After all, what creator would say "my original idea wasn't that good, but some corporate suit gave me one that worked better" rather than "The corperate suits are responsible for this pile of crap because they prevented me from doing my original idea"?
it.
3rd Mar '16 12:33:47 PM YasminPerry
Is there an issue? Send a Message


While this tends to have [[TropesAreNotGood negative connotations]] due to the idea that the people calling the shots are not the creative heads, the results [[TropesAreNotBad can be positive]]. Executives aren't always wrong, after all; just like there are good and bad creators, there are executives that are good at their job and executives that are bad at it. Creators have the capacity to cause issues because of a CreatorBreakdown, or too much ProtectionFromEditors leaving their ideas unchallenged regardless of their quality, or putting in an unnecessary AuthorFilibuster or WriterOnBoard moment that can taint a work. All these things can be stopped if a higher up puts their foot down, and the work can benefit because of it. But since when does someone doing their job ''right'' get any attention? There is a notice anti-executive bias, as the times where ExecutiveMeddling works are rarely reported no one complains when the system works. However, when something breaks, ''everyone'' knows about it. After all, what creator would say "my original idea wasn't that good, but some corporate suit gave me one that worked better" rather than "The guys behind the desk are responsible for this pile of crap because they prevented me from doing my original idea"?

to:

While this tends to have [[TropesAreNotGood negative connotations]] due to the idea that the people calling the shots are not the creative heads, the results [[TropesAreNotBad can be positive]]. Executives aren't always wrong, after all; just like there are good and bad creators, there are executives execs that are good at their job and executives execs that are bad at it. Creators have the capacity to cause issues because of a CreatorBreakdown, or too much ProtectionFromEditors leaving their ideas unchallenged regardless of their quality, or putting in an unnecessary AuthorFilibuster or WriterOnBoard moment that can taint a work. All these things can be stopped if a higher up puts their foot down, and the work can benefit because of it. But since when does someone doing their job ''right'' get any attention? There is a notice noticeable anti-executive bias, as the times where ExecutiveMeddling works are rarely reported no one complains when the system works. However, when something breaks, ''everyone'' knows about it. After all, what creator would say "my original idea wasn't that good, but some corporate suit gave me one that worked better" rather than "The guys behind the desk corperate suits are responsible for this pile of crap because they prevented me from doing my original idea"?
3rd Mar '16 12:32:05 PM YasminPerry
Is there an issue? Send a Message


While this tends to have [[TropesAreNotGood negative connotations]] due to the idea that the people calling the shots are not the creative heads, the results [[TropesAreNotBad can be positive]]. Creators have the capacity to cause issues because of a CreatorBreakdown, too much ProtectionFromEditors leaving their ideas unchallenged regardless of their quality, or putting in an unnecessary AuthorFilibuster/having a WriterOnBoard moment that can taint a work. All these things can be stopped if a higher up puts their foot down, and the work can benefit because of it.

to:

While this tends to have [[TropesAreNotGood negative connotations]] due to the idea that the people calling the shots are not the creative heads, the results [[TropesAreNotBad can be positive]]. Executives aren't always wrong, after all; just like there are good and bad creators, there are executives that are good at their job and executives that are bad at it. Creators have the capacity to cause issues because of a CreatorBreakdown, or too much ProtectionFromEditors leaving their ideas unchallenged regardless of their quality, or putting in an unnecessary AuthorFilibuster/having a AuthorFilibuster or WriterOnBoard moment that can taint a work. All these things can be stopped if a higher up puts their foot down, and the work can benefit because of it.
it. But since when does someone doing their job ''right'' get any attention? There is a notice anti-executive bias, as the times where ExecutiveMeddling works are rarely reported no one complains when the system works. However, when something breaks, ''everyone'' knows about it. After all, what creator would say "my original idea wasn't that good, but some corporate suit gave me one that worked better" rather than "The guys behind the desk are responsible for this pile of crap because they prevented me from doing my original idea"?
4th Jan '16 6:57:38 PM Karxrida
Is there an issue? Send a Message


'''Please remember that TropesAreNotBad when adding examples.'''

to:

'''Please remember that TropesAreNotBad TropesAreTools when adding examples.'''
3rd Jan '16 10:09:24 PM shimaspawn
Is there an issue? Send a Message


----

[[AC:{{Advertising}}]]
* Used in-universe by Sprint for a movie theater commercial: An animated movie is almost finished, and the studio demands [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeOuyCtsGBQ&list=FLi3JB0b6S3cztt8S271kWuw pants on the hedgehog.]]

[[AC:TableTopGames]]
* In an example of ''distributor'' meddling, Upper Deck Entertainment pressured Konami into letting them rearrange the rarities, severely alter the construction of the Structure Decks brought over, and create their own cards for the newest ''TabletopGame/YuGiOh'' collectible card game sets. This has had the end effect of widening rifts between Japanese and Western versions of the game, and eventually led to Konami taking the game back.
* ''MagicTheGathering'''s Mythic Rares. Magic had always had Common, Uncommon, and Rare cards (though not always-always: some early sets only had Common and Uncommon cards, with Rares not really existing at all). However, Hasbro, Wizards' owner, wanted the game to have "very rare" cards [[FollowTheLeader like every other trading card game out there]]; keeping in mind that one major draw of Magic was the nonexistence of "very rare" cards like everyone else. Wizards' response? Fine. But sets will now be much smaller, so that the probability of getting any one Mythic Rare in the new sets is now the same as the probability of getting any one Rare in the older sets. This hasn't changed the general public's perceptions that [[PowerEqualsRarity Mythic Rares are much more powerful and thus should be worth more money]], but as a whole the game hasn't suffered much from this.
This list shows the last 10 events of 54. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Main.ExecutiveMeddling