History Main / Misblamed

28th Aug '16 12:07:35 PM nombretomado
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* Arguably ''Series/LizzieMcGuire'' qualifies as an inversion of type 1 (not that the show had no flaws, just that it's the successors that had the flaws generally associated with the work) mixed with type 2. It is usually blamed by people (especially on the Internet) for DisneyChannel's current batch of low budget StrictlyFormula shows with over the top humor, wacky plots, weird premises, and laugh tracks, despite the fact that it really had none of those (Lizzie was supposed to be a normal girl, albeit one with a cartoon avatar, there wasn't a laugh track, and the show didn't look particularly cheap) and wasn't even made by the same production company. This may be because the success of the show that really promoted Disney Channel to the forefront in the young female demographic.

to:

* Arguably ''Series/LizzieMcGuire'' qualifies as an inversion of type 1 (not that the show had no flaws, just that it's the successors that had the flaws generally associated with the work) mixed with type 2. It is usually blamed by people (especially on the Internet) for DisneyChannel's Creator/DisneyChannel's current batch of low budget StrictlyFormula shows with over the top humor, wacky plots, weird premises, and laugh tracks, despite the fact that it really had none of those (Lizzie was supposed to be a normal girl, albeit one with a cartoon avatar, there wasn't a laugh track, and the show didn't look particularly cheap) and wasn't even made by the same production company. This may be because the success of the show that really promoted Disney Channel to the forefront in the young female demographic.
22nd Aug '16 4:35:53 PM Joe32
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** The real season is that Sonyís [[ExecutiveMeddling executives disagreed about the budget]] and caused the would be director Jan De Bont to drop out. There were several attempts to re-negotiate, and get a director, Tri-Star brought in Roland Emmerich (the fi first director to turn down directing Godzilla 1994 because he explicitly stated that he didn't like Godzilla.) and Dean Devlin. The condition they agreed to direct was that they would rewrite the entire thing however they wanted, and we [[InNameOnly all know how that went.]] The even sadder irony is that the budget went way over the budget Sony didnít agree on, meaning that the whole screw up was really meaningless.

to:

** *** The real season is that Sonyís [[ExecutiveMeddling executives disagreed about the budget]] and caused the would be director Jan De Bont to drop out. There were several attempts to re-negotiate, and get a director, Tri-Star brought in Roland Emmerich (the fi first director to turn down directing Godzilla 1994 because he explicitly stated that he didn't like Godzilla.) and Dean Devlin. The condition they agreed to direct was that they would rewrite the entire thing however they wanted, and we [[InNameOnly all know how that went.]] The even sadder irony is that the budget went way over the budget Sony didnít agree on, meaning that the whole screw up was really meaningless.
22nd Aug '16 4:35:10 PM Joe32
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

** Before the ''Film/{{Godzilla 1998}}'' film, a [[Film/{{Godzilla 1994}} 1994 Godzilla film]] was planned:The film was originally going to have Godzilla fight against a giant monster named the Gryphon and have special effects done by none other than Creator/StanWinston Studios. A misconception that has been circulating was that the reason the Gryphon never manifested was because Toho veto'd the idea, and proposed Mothra and King Ghidorah instead. Both were turned down because they were extremely expensive. The real reason was actually worse.
** The real season is that Sonyís [[ExecutiveMeddling executives disagreed about the budget]] and caused the would be director Jan De Bont to drop out. There were several attempts to re-negotiate, and get a director, Tri-Star brought in Roland Emmerich (the fi first director to turn down directing Godzilla 1994 because he explicitly stated that he didn't like Godzilla.) and Dean Devlin. The condition they agreed to direct was that they would rewrite the entire thing however they wanted, and we [[InNameOnly all know how that went.]] The even sadder irony is that the budget went way over the budget Sony didnít agree on, meaning that the whole screw up was really meaningless.
21st Aug '16 1:36:24 PM SeaRover
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* At the height of the Wii's popularity, Nintendo was heavily blamed for "allowing" shovelware games to plague the console and how Nintendo should have been more restrictive with the games as they supposedly had done years back with the Nintendo Seal of Quality. In actuality, Nintendo only greenlights games that won't screw up the game console and run well enough without the game crashing from a button press or the like. Most shovelware games fall into this category. The developers of the shoddy games themselves rarely get blamed.
** To reiterate, The Seal of Quality has a bit of a MisaimedFandom. It was never meant to outright block poor-quality games from being on the system. (Ask anyone -- the NES had a ''load'' of poor games that, in fact, bear the seal, though admittedly, America did not get as severe a deluge of Shovelware as Japan did during the same period.) Yes, they did have quality control, but their definition of "Quality" meant "This game will actually work if you put it in the system", not "this is a good game". Quality control generally tends to be quite subjective in any case.
* King George III of England in the USA, both historically and today. Although he was opposed to the idea of American independence, many of the grievances listed against him in the Declaration of Independence were actually the fault of individual government ministers in successive governments. Similarly, comparatively, he was rather moderate for a European monarch of the time. However, "Down with the tyrant George"" is easier to chant than "down with various ministers and the institutional ignorance and indifference to colonial concerns within successive British administrations!" Similarly, the nature of the British constitution would have made it hard for him to intervene anyway. He certainly had flaws in his foreign, colonial, and domestic conduct, but he was less of an EvilOverlord and more of an ineffectual figurehead. Then again, the colonists placing the blame on Parliament would have been a ''de facto'' recognition that Westminster had the power to govern them without their representation.

to:

* At the height of the Wii's popularity, Nintendo was heavily blamed for "allowing" shovelware games to plague the console and how Nintendo should have been more restrictive with the games as they supposedly had done years back with the Nintendo Seal of Quality. In actuality, Nintendo only greenlights games that won't screw up the game console and run well enough without the game crashing from a button press or the like. Most shovelware games fall into this category. The developers of the shoddy games themselves rarely get blamed.
** To reiterate, The Seal of Quality has a bit of a MisaimedFandom. It was never meant to outright block poor-quality games from being on the system. (Ask anyone -- the NES had a ''load'' of poor games that, in fact, bear the seal, though admittedly, America did not get as severe a deluge of Shovelware as Japan did during the same period.) Yes, they did have quality control, but their definition of "Quality" meant "This game will actually work if you put it in the system", not "this is a good game". Quality control generally tends to be quite subjective in any case.
*
King George III of England in the USA, both historically and today. Although he was opposed to the idea of American independence, many of the grievances listed against him in the Declaration of Independence were actually the fault of individual government ministers in successive governments. Similarly, comparatively, he was rather moderate for a European monarch of the time. However, "Down with the tyrant George"" is easier to chant than "down with various ministers and the institutional ignorance and indifference to colonial concerns within successive British administrations!" Similarly, the nature of the British constitution would have made it hard for him to intervene anyway. He certainly had flaws in his foreign, colonial, and domestic conduct, but he was less of an EvilOverlord and more of an ineffectual figurehead. Then again, the colonists placing the blame on Parliament would have been a ''de facto'' recognition that Westminster had the power to govern them without their representation.
17th Aug '16 1:07:37 PM TheWanderer
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** The 1986 World Series would produce its own epic case of misblame, one which has become entrenched in baseball lore. In Game 6 of the series, the New York Mets would come back in extra innings, scoring the winning run of that game when first baseman Bill Buckner made an error and his glove missed a ground ball hit between his legs. The Mets promptly won Game 7 and became champions, prolonging the legendary agony of the Red Sox. Easy case for blaming Buckner, right? Not so much. Those who do conveniently ignore the fact that Boston's bullpen had already blown two leads before the error occurred, with Boston having lost a 3-2 lead in regular innings and a 5-3 lead in the 10th before Buckner's error. The situation in the 10th is particularly notable, since it happened despite the fact that when the Mets rally started they had 2 outs and no baserunners, and just about everyone except the Mets players themselves had conceded defeat (the TV crew had already announced one Red Sox player the player of the game and named another Sox player the World Series MVP, the message board in the Mets stadium briefly displayed a message congratulating the Red Sox on their victory, etc.). Boston relievers then gave up three hits in a row and pitcher Bob Stanley allowed the Mets to tie the game by throwing a wild pitch nowhere near target that let the tying run score and the winning run to move to third base. On top of ''that'', Buckner (who was nearing the end of his long career) had injured knees that should have kept him out of game, except that Boston manager John [=McNamara=] insisted on Buckner playing so he could take part in the victory. Last but not least, Buckner had to play the ball far behind first base, and it is highly doubtful that he could have beaten the speedy basrunner Mookie Wilson (who held the Mets team record for stolen bases until 2008) to the bag even if his knees were healthy. And even with the loss, Boston still had Game 7 to work with, where they once again jumped out to an early lead and blew it.

to:

** The 1986 World Series would produce its own epic case of misblame, one which has become entrenched in baseball lore. In Game 6 of the series, the New York Mets would come back in extra innings, scoring the winning run of that game when first baseman Bill Buckner made an error and his glove missed failed to field a ground ball hit between his legs. The Mets promptly won Game 7 and became champions, prolonging the legendary agony of the Red Sox. Easy case for blaming Buckner, right? Not so much. Those who do conveniently ignore the fact that Boston's bullpen had already blown two leads before the error occurred, with Boston having lost a 3-2 lead in regular innings and a 5-3 lead in the 10th before Buckner's error. The situation in the 10th is particularly notable, since it happened despite the fact that when the Mets rally started they had 2 outs and no baserunners, and just about everyone except the Mets players themselves had conceded defeat (the defeat. (The TV crew had already announced one Red Sox player the player of the game and named another Sox player the World Series MVP, the message board in the Mets stadium briefly displayed a message congratulating the Red Sox on their victory, etc.). ) Boston relievers then gave up three hits in a row and pitcher Bob Stanley allowed the Mets to tie the game by throwing a wild pitch nowhere near target that let the tying run score and the winning run to move to third second base. On top of ''that'', Buckner (who was nearing the end of his long career) had injured knees that should have kept him out of game, except that Boston manager John [=McNamara=] insisted on Buckner playing so he could take part in the victory. Last but not least, With regards to the play itself, Buckner had to play the ball far well behind first base, and it is highly doubtful that he could would have beaten the speedy basrunner Mookie Wilson (who held the Mets team record for stolen bases until 2008) to the bag even if his knees were healthy. And even with he had fielded the loss, ball cleanly. (Buckner had about 1.6 seconds from when the ball reached him to when Mookie Wilson touched first base, not exactly a lot of time to make the play.) Lastly, if Buckner had fielded the ball cleanly and gotten the out, it would have preserved the tie and sent the game into a new inning, it would not have given Boston the win, something which quite a few people overlook. ''And on top of all that'', Boston still had Game 7 to work with, where they once again jumped out to an early lead and blew it.
3rd Aug '16 8:14:25 PM Blazer
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

* An interesting version involving ''Film/SuicideSquad'': when early reviews came in and Website/RottenTomatoes revealed that it was given a combined total of 30% liked, fans blew up at this and started a petition in an attempt to shut down the website, accusing it of creating reviews to destroy the Film/DCExtendedUniverse. This is despite the fact that Rotten Tomatoes just ''gathers'' the reviews, that Creator/WarnerBros has a stake in the website and the movie hadn't even been released yet.
31st Jul '16 11:18:08 AM BKelly95
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* The opposite happened with reactions on La:Sadie's disbanding when almost every time Kisaki was solemnly blamed. Most typical reason is "the band wanted to go major while Kisaki wanted to stay indies". Which doesn't make sense because: 1)There is no clear reason for why an aspiring musician would want to stay indies (major gives a lot more possibilities). 2)And Kisaki was never against becoming major and his later activities kind of prove it. Every band he's been involved ever since was significantly more major than the previous one. Up the last band Phantasmagoria which was a living definition of majorism and him founding his own major record company Undercode Productions. Now he said he's retiring to focus on producing (producing = promoting various indies band to majors; Undercode had done dozen of these already). So the more legit reasons are Kaoru's lead persona and the fact that the band met Toshiya from D+ L on a joint concert and liked him so much, that they "stole" him.
** There are reasons an aspiring musician may not want to go Major. The main one being that, while going major does bring more exposure and opportunities, it can also bring a lot of ExecutiveMeddling and loss of creative control, which not every artist wants to have to deal with.

to:

* The opposite happened with reactions on La:Sadie's disbanding when almost every time Kisaki was solemnly blamed. Most typical reason is "the band wanted to go major while Kisaki wanted to stay indies". Which doesn't make sense because: 1)There is no clear reason for why an aspiring musician would want to stay indies (major gives a lot more possibilities). 2)And because Kisaki was never against becoming major and his later activities kind of prove it. Every band he's been involved ever since was significantly more major than the previous one. Up the last band Phantasmagoria which was a living definition of majorism and him founding his own major record company Undercode Productions. Now he said he's retiring to focus on producing (producing = promoting various indies band to majors; Undercode had done dozen of these already). So the more legit reasons are Kaoru's lead persona and the fact that the band met Toshiya from D+ L on a joint concert and liked him so much, that they "stole" him.
** There are reasons an aspiring musician may not want to go Major. The main one being that, while going major does bring more exposure and opportunities, it can also bring a lot of ExecutiveMeddling and loss of creative control, which not every artist wants to have to deal with.
him.
23rd Jul '16 1:02:24 PM nombretomado
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* Fans of the American version of ''BigBrother'' seemed to have blamed that the recent eviction of Jeff was somehow the producer's fault. Sure, ExecutiveMeddling has been the most likely culprit for several game-changing instances, but there was clearly no ExecutiveMeddling, obvious case of [=misblame=] there. Why would CBS meddle in a ratings dog? (The viewers literally dropped by ''half'' after his eviction.)

to:

* Fans of the American version of ''BigBrother'' ''Series/BigBrother'' seemed to have blamed that the recent eviction of Jeff was somehow the producer's fault. Sure, ExecutiveMeddling has been the most likely culprit for several game-changing instances, but there was clearly no ExecutiveMeddling, obvious case of [=misblame=] there. Why would CBS meddle in a ratings dog? (The viewers literally dropped by ''half'' after his eviction.)
13th Jul '16 7:34:11 PM gman992
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

* This is part and parcel in American history. People don't mention that intra-tribal warfare was on-going by the time Columbus arrived, and that the tribes joined forces with Europeans (and their guns) to kill their enemies.
13th Jul '16 7:24:56 PM gman992
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** Additionally, the Beatles were horrible businessmen. They opened the Apple Boutique in London in December 1967 to support the arts and sell Beatles-related products, and it closed seven months later in July 1868 due to rampant thefts and bad business. Among other things, shoplifting occurred on a daily business with employees stealing directly from the stock. One could even claim that the end of the Beatles started when manager Brian Epstein killed himself, leaving the Beatles directionless. Without a strong manager, the group imploded with squabbling and arguing over went direction to take.

to:

** Additionally, the Beatles were horrible businessmen. They opened the Apple Boutique in London in December 1967 to support the arts and sell Beatles-related products, and it closed seven months later in July 1868 1968 due to rampant thefts and bad business. Among other things, shoplifting occurred on a daily business with employees stealing directly from the stock. The Beatles-founded Apple Records has had its own share of business problems throughout their history, including being sued by Apple, the computer giant. One could even claim that the end of the Beatles started when manager Brian Epstein killed himself, leaving the Beatles directionless. Without a strong manager, the group imploded with squabbling and arguing over went direction to take.
This list shows the last 10 events of 453. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Main.Misblamed