%% Image removed per Image Pickin' thread: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=1471374521010737300
%% Please start a new thread if you'd like to suggest an image.
%%
->''"A film that aims low should not be praised for hitting that target."''
-->-- '''Creator/GeneSiskel'''

ComplainingAboutPeopleNotLikingTheShow comes in many different [[{{Squick}} flavors]]. Criticisms of reviews can be overwhelmingly vicious, with statements ranging from [[SeriousBusiness death threats]] to accusations that the reviewer is just being stuck up. However, some defensive arguments can be a bit ...far-fetched. Somewhere along the line, you will be accused of [[MisaimedFandom not getting it]]. You see, whatever you criticized was [[FanDumb supposed to suck]].

"''The context of why the movie was made justifies what you consider to be poor quality and bad execution of the work. As such, you didn't understand what was going on to appreciate the work enough to realize that. If you were expecting something glorious and spectacular, you came to the wrong movie.''"

This is a line that fans have started using to [[CriticProof deter negative criticism of their favorite works]] (a common alternative seems to be "Just turn your brain off and enjoy it"). Depending on the case, this defence can be justified if the reviewer/critic genuinely [[ComplainingAboutShowsYouDontWatch lacks familiarity with the work]] or has a [[BiasSteamroller pre-existing bias against the genre or medium]]. It's true that critics can on occasion be overly harsh. However, fans can get carried away with this regard as it is mostly used to defend their favorite works in general from any and all forms of criticism, even if a reviewer/critic happens to like said work and even (or especially) if the criticism is not without merit.

The first problem with this defense is that it is on the surface quite paradoxical; a bad movie does not cease to be bad just because [[AtLeastIAdmitIt it was apparently]] ''[[AtLeastIAdmitIt supposed]]'' [[AtLeastIAdmitIt to be bad.]] Quite the opposite, in fact. Another is that regardless of the intentions of its producers, ultimately the final product has to be judged on its own merits. The producers of a film might not be trying to make TrueArt and may be trying to 'just' make an entertaining movie, but that doesn't mean they can't fail at being entertaining. Furthermore, there's a suggestion here that producers of creative works that aren't intended to be TrueArt should only be held to the lowest possible standards. The problem here is that quality and entertainment aren't mutually exclusive, and just because something isn't supposed to be High Art doesn't mean you've got a license to be lazy or sloppy with it. Of course, there's the obvious question of why you would want to [[SpringtimeForHitler deliberately make something terrible]] to begin with.

This is not to say that there's anything ''wrong'' with purely escapist entertainment or that all works ''should'' aspire towards the loftiest heights of 'worthy' TrueArt, just that making escapist entertainment isn't itself an automatic '[[TabletopGame/{{Monopoly}} Get Out Of Criticism Free]]' card for producers and fans of said entertainment. Fans who take this view can be deliberately invoking any or all of the [[AnimationAgeGhetto Animation]], [[SciFiGhetto Sci-Fi]], and ComedyGhetto tropes. This might seem contradictory of the usual purpose of these tropes (i.e. trying to get these films ''out'' of said Ghettos), but the point is that different genres should be held to different standards.

While not exactly aimed at this phenomenon, 'Ebert's Law' as coined by noted film critic Creator/RogerEbert -- "It's not what a movie's about, but how it's about it" -- has some relevance here. The idea is that he can rate a supposedly 'no-brainer' action movie higher than a serious and supposedly 'worthy' drama not because the action movie is artistically more complex or inherently superior to the drama (although it could be), but because the action movie is better at being an action movie -- and, by extension, a more satisfying cinematic experience -- than the drama is at being a drama. By this logic, the inverse is also true; just because an action movie isn't necessarily aiming to provide its audience with the same things as a drama does not exempt it from criticism entirely. What it ''does'' do is exempt it from criticism on the grounds of not being enough like a drama.

When creators invoke this trope, it often betrays a belief that ViewersAreMorons.

Compare with SpringtimeForHitler, MoffsLaw, DeliberateFlawRetcon, ParodyRetcon, and CriticProof. Contrast IntendedAudienceReaction, in which the creator of a work is deliberately doing something audiences normally don't like, for what they think is a good reason. Hopefully, they're right. Knowing the differences between FactOpinionArgument will also help. Contrast with OscarBait, which ''is'' supposed to win Oscars.
----
!!Examples:

[[foldercontrol]]

[[folder:Anime & Manga]]
* ''Anime/OsomatsuSan'': Invoked in-universe in Osomatsu's "Dayoon's Counseling Room" segment, where he wants the show's genre changed to "Anime at One's Own Responsibility" to relieve his stress from starring in comedy. Unlike a lot of examples, he's ''deliberately'' using this to shift the blame onto the viewers, so if the show's jokes don't land, it's entirely on them for not finding it funny.
[[/folder]]

[[folder:Comic Books]]
* ''ComicBook/TheTransformersMarvel'': Bob Budiansky uses this to dismiss fan criticism that his stories were more juvenile than those of his successor, noting that he was targeting his stories for prepubescent boys.
[[/folder]]

[[folder:Films -- Animation]]
* [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xl7Y9bC4rnY John Lasseter was at the premiere of]] ''WesternAnimation/Cars2'' in Paris to assert that he "doesn't make movies for critics" and that it was one of the most fun movies he's ever worked on, which doesn't automatically make it a good viewing experience for others.
* After it became a critical failure and surprise BoxOfficeBomb over its cliched story, sloppy PaintedCGI animation, and underwhelming songs, a common argument made by defenders of the film ''WesternAnimation/{{Wish|2023}}'' ([[https://www.reddit.com/r/DisneyWish/comments/18888q0/comment/kbkqe97/?utm_source=embedv2&utm_medium=comment_embed&utm_content=whitespace and by at least one of its animators]]) is that being the MilestoneCelebration Franchise/DisneyAnimatedCanon film, it makes sense for it to be a ClicheStorm of tropes from the FairyTale-inspired films in particular with BlackAndWhiteMorality, and that its numerous CompanyCrossReferences ([[CompanyCrossReferences/Wish2023 enough to warrant their own page]]) are expressions of love and admiration for the creatives who made those films and a treat for Disney mega-fans. There have been counterarguments in response, in particular that the story is too complicated for the BlackAndWhiteMorality to not feel forced and the constant references to older movies are confusing and eat up time that could have been given to properly developing the story and characters. Another common defense is that viewers were asking too much of a children's movie, which sticks out because traditionally Disney animation fans ''love'' to argue for the artistic merits and maturity of their preferred films.
[[/folder]]

[[folder:Films -- Live-Action]]
* Creator/KevinSmith:
** Said that ''Film/JerseyGirl'' wasn't for critics. His later attempts to clarify (it was meant for his daughter) didn't help.
** He took it even further after the release (and critical drubbing) of ''Film/CopOut'', saying that films, in general, aren't for critics but for fans. Creator/MarkKermode responded by saying he would quite happily accept that films aren't made for critics and not get free screenings if film-makers would respond by not using any favorable quote he made about a film as advertising material.
* Maryann Johanson [[http://www.flickfilosopher.com/blog/2010/06/060810marmaduke_review.html on the film adaptation]] of ''Film/{{Marmaduke}}'':
-->'''Johanson:''' This is one of those movies that we're not supposed to complain about because it's "for kids," as if kids aren't smart enough to recognize shit. Or as if we wouldn't mind serving our kids shit. I wouldn't want my kids, if I had any, anywhere near this, unless I actually wanted to inculcate in them scream-inducing 1950s gender stereotypes. [[AndThatsTerrible Which I wouldn't.]]
* Creator/RogerEbert often made a point of condemning a ViewersAreMorons line of thinking with regards to children's movies -- i.e. just because a movie is intended for children/families doesn't mean it can get away with lower production values, script quality, etc. than "adult" fare, and that believing kids don't care about quality insults their intelligence. Reviews that bring up this topic include ''Film/WillyWonkaAndTheChocolateFactory'' and ''WesternAnimation/BeautyAndTheBeast'', both of which he felt defied the "kids don't care" mindset beautifully, and ''WesternAnimation/TheJungleBook2'', which he saw as a product of this mindset.
* When someone wrote in to Creator/RogerEbert that he should've given ''Film/TheMummyReturns'' a pass because it was just summer fluff, he responded that there's still a difference between good summer fluff and bad summer fluff, using [[Film/TheMummy1999 the first film]] (which he adored) as an example of the former, and ''Returns'' an example of the latter.
* Shawn Levy, director of the ''Film/NightAtTheMuseum'' series and ''Film/RealSteel'', used this argument in defense of his movies. He claimed he didn't really care about what critics and snobby award shows thought of his movies and was glad that audiences had a great time watching his work.
* ''Film/{{The Room|2003}}'' was immediately panned as one of the worst movies of all time when initially released. After it became extremely popular as a SoBadItsGood film, writer/director/producer/star Tommy Wiseau started saying that [[ParodyRetcon he always intended it to be a black comedy]], which doesn't exactly work as the funniest scenes in the film are clearly intended to be serious, including Tommy's [[MemeticMutation "You are tearing me apart, Lisa!"]], a character casually dropping that she has breast cancer, only to be ignored, one actor being switched out for another, and even the sex scenes.
* [[Creator/BobChipman Moviebob]] expressed his disapproval of the notion that just because a movie "isn't trying", that makes it immune to criticism. He gave the example of ''Film/TheExpendables'', saying that its problem wasn't that it was a big dumb action movie, but that it was a bad big dumb action movie.
* Creator/SeltzerAndFriedberg defenders often use this excuse. "I know they're stupid lame jokes, they're supposed to be stupid lame jokes." Ignoring that there can be a right and a wrong way to do even [[LampshadeHanging lame humor]] and that if the audience can't tell you're doing it on purpose, it can still be judged as having failed.
%%Please elaborate * A very common defense of ''Film/SuckerPunch''.
* Website/RottenTomatoes's "critics' consensus" system does this sometimes. Chances are, if a movie turns out bad (but not below 10% bad), but is catered toward a specific demographic (children, fans of the source material, etc.), the consensus will be written along the lines of, "This movie is bad, but at least its target demographic will enjoy it." For example, the [[http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/thunderbirds/ consensus]] for ''Film/{{Thunderbirds}}'' is, "Live-action [[AnimationAgeGhetto cartoon]] for [[ViewersAreMorons kids]]." Which, in cases where [[Film/StarTrekNemesis the target demographic actually hated it]] this comes across as quite insulting. An exception was made for ''[[WesternAnimation/TheMagicRoundabout2005 Doogal]]'' where the consensus read: "''Doogal'' is too simpleminded even for the kiddies."
* The Creator/MichaelBay ''Film/{{Transformers|FilmSeries}}'' movies get this a lot, with complaints about their humor, characters, plot, and so on met with, "Look we're just here to see giant robots beat each other up, what do you expect?". Granted, "[[JustHereForGodzilla We're just here to see giant robots beat each other up!]]" is also a major complaint against [[DevelopingDoomedCharacters the humor, characters]] [[{{Filler}} and plot]], which take up a ''very'' large chunk of the usually lengthy runtime. The production crew has in fact outright admitted that their goal is not to rival other movies that may be released around the same time as the ''Transformers'' flicks, but to provide an alternative for fun free-time activities such as theme-park rides.
** It could be argued that his entire filmography, with the possible exception of ''Film/TheRock'', is actually aimed at [[LowestCommonDenominator teen-aged boys,]] with [[StuffBlowingUp gratuitous explosions]], overuse of [[SlowMotion slow-motion,]] [[ToiletHumour low-brow humor,]] [[EagleLand overt]] [[AmericaSavesTheDay patriotism,]] unsubtle [[ProductPlacement product placement,]] and [[MaleGaze objectification of women.]] And his movies still get a return to cover every expense and justify a sequel.
** After ''Film/TransformersTheLastKnight'' finally broke the streak and did so poorly that Paramount was estimated to have lost 100 million dollars, you could write an essay on how ''Film/{{Bumblebee}}'' finally got good reviews for a film franchise so openly hated by critics by dropping all the more infamous Michael Bayisms. A female lead whose not objectified, less and smaller combat scenes after the [[ActionPrologue first 2 minutes]], more characterization of all the characters including the villains, romantic tension without becoming a couple, no Eagleland portrayal of the US military, little to no [[SlowMotion slow motion]], no EthnicScrappy, meaningful emotional beats, no vulgar humor, the list goes on and on.
* Almost any film that Creator/AdamSandler has ever made save for ''Film/PunchDrunkLove'', ''Film/ReignOverMe'', ''Film/FunnyPeople'', ''Film/TheMeyerowitzStories'' and ''Film/UncutGems'' tends to get this argument.
* When promoting ''Film/ReturnToTheBlueLagoon'', Creator/MillaJovovich told reporters that the film was meant for teenagers, not critics. Though she doesn't view that movie in a positive light now, so she probably took that back.
* The producer of ''Film/TheOogielovesInTheBigBalloonAdventure'' [[https://www.thewrap.com/oogieloves-worst-ever-box-office-bow-notoriety-we-were-looking-54471/ made the exact excuse that]] "this wasn't made to win the Academy Award." Bafflingly, he said that the measly box office returns didn't bother him either.
* Extreme example: When ''Film/FreddyGotFingered'' was nominated for five "awards" at the 2001 Golden Raspberry Awards, Tom Green actually showed up to accept them (the first performer to do so in the show's history, but the second recipient to do so, following director Paul Verhoeven for ''Film/{{Showgirls}}'' in 1995) saying when he did, "[[ParodyRetcon When we set out to make this film we wanted to win a Razzie]], so this is a dream come true for me".
* A Swedish movie reviewer rated the fourth ''Film/TheFastAndTheFurious'' movie four out of five. While he didn't think the movie's plot was anything to write home about, he felt that this was unimportant since the plot's not why people go to see this kind of movie anyway.
* Print ads for David Spade's ''Film/JoeDirt'' touted "0 Golden Globe Nominations!"
* Many Christian filmmakers tend to use the notion that critics don't get the heart of their faith-based movies, especially taking into account that [[CriticalDissonance their target audiences responded much more favorably to them]]. A noted exception to this rule was Kirk Cameron's ''Film/SavingChristmas,'' where his attempt to ask audiences to endorse it in response to a critical backlash only resulted in the ''audience'' backlashing as well.
* In the documentary ''Porn Star: The Legend of Ron Jeremy'', Ron Jeremy makes an argument of this nature about the quality of acting in pornography. While he acknowledges that the acting in his movies isn't ever going to be on the level of Lawrence Olivier, he points out that Olivier was never actually having penetrative sex with any of his co-stars while he was trying to act.
* ''Film/LostHighway'' advertised Siskel and Ebert's "two thumbs down" review as "Two more great reasons to see" it. This is in spite of the fact that ''Lost Highway'' is a divisive avant-garde film by Creator/DavidLynch rather than cheap schlock by a hack filmmaker aiming for a quick buck.
* After ''Film/BatmanVSupermanDawnOfJustice'' was panned by critics, Warner Bros. and Creator/ZackSnyder claim that DCEU movies are designed specifically for ''[[NoTrueScotsman DC Comics fans]]''... Even then, the argument that the DCEU is meant for DC fans falls apart as not only do the movies have to appeal to non-fans to earn a profit, but also that many hardcore DC fans like [[WebVideo/TheAngryJoeShow Angry Joe]] and [[Creator/BobChipman Moviebob]], still pilloried the films for not capturing the spirit of the source material. Snyder's DC films (at least until ''Film/ZackSnydersJusticeLeague'') faced some criticism for being both borderline incomprehensible to non-fans and taking such a radically different approach that a lot of fans were turned off.
* Creator/JuliaRoberts may be to actresses what Creator/MichaelBay is to directors. In her own words, she's "an ordinary person with an extraordinary job", and makes it no secret that she came to Hollywood specifically to make mindless, escapist popcorn flicks. Naturally, her films tend to get mixed-to-negative reviews from critics who accuse her of pandering to the LowestCommonDenominator, [[CriticProof but the box office returns say otherwise]]. She has however won critical acclaim in ''Film/{{Closer}}'' (in which she went against type as a more flawed character), ''Film/SteelMagnolias'' and ''Film/ErinBrockovich'' (for which she did claim a Best Actress Oscar).
* ''Website/{{Cracked}}'' listed this among the [[https://www.cracked.com/blog/6-common-movie-arguments-that-are-always-wrong/ 6 Common Movie Arguments That Are Always Wrong]] (#6).
* Creator/RobertAltman defended ''Film/PretAPorter'' against the negative critical reaction on its initial release by describing it as a "silly little film" that wasn't meant to be taken seriously. In his later years, he took a more critical view of the film, saying it was an experiment that didn't quite work.
* ''Film/AWrinkleInTime2018'' director Ava [=DuVernay=] responded to criticism with statements that the film was made for "young people and people young at heart". Creator/BrieLarson also singled out the movie as an example of white male critics criticizing something that "wasn't for them". While the latter did have a point in that female critics did seem to give the film a slightly warmer reception - she found herself getting plenty of criticism for implying males were incapable of enjoying a story about female empowerment, or that females had lower standards for entertainment.
* WebVideo/ChrisStuckmann found himself on the receiving end of this statement when attempting to criticize ''Film/BlackChristmas2019'' on both a filmmaking level and for its {{Anvilicious}} message that "it wasn't made for you" and was made only for women.
--> "I don't understand the notion of alienating an [[GirlShowGhetto entire gender]] from a movie. I think that if you want to have a message heard...wouldn't you ''want'' men to understand? To relate? To feel empathy? To feel some connection, where they can leave the theatre and go 'oh, I completely understand'."
* [[https://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/21450999/disney-remakes-live-action-plus-animation According to Polygon]], this appears to be a reasonable argument for the perceived mediocrity of many Film/DisneyLiveActionRemakes.
* According to Joe Pantoliano, this was Creator/TommyLeeJones's attitude when they filmed ''Film/TheFugitive''. It's all the funnier when Jones ended up winning [[UsefulNotes/AcademyAwardForBestSupportingActor an Oscar]] for the film, which was also nominated for Best Picture.
[[/folder]]

[[folder:Live-Action TV]]
* ''Series/{{Glee}}'' fans can fall back on this when encountering any criticism of the show's unlikely plot points or character interaction. "It's ''supposed'' to be unrealistic and silly. It's a parody of musicals!" TIME reviewer James Poniewozik explicitly rejected this in one review, not because he dislikes the show, but because he thought so highly of the first season that he expects greatness [[SophomoreSlump from the rest of it]]: if a show is trying for genuinely emotional moments or Aesops and fail to deliver them effectively, a ParodyRetcon is an insult to both the viewers and the creators.
* ''Series/ICarly'' had an in-universe AuthorTract that was LeaningOnTheFourthWall to say that the webshow (and by extension, the actual real-life show), was just a "stupid pointless comedy" and looking for deeper moments or any kind of continuity or emotional moments was pointless and against the intention of the authors. An interesting example as it wasn't directed at outside critics, but at fandom and its desire to turn the show into a {{Shipping}} drama. Its spin-off, ''Series/SamAndCat'' ran into the exact same criticism -- and ironically enough it was compared as a pale imitation of ''[=iCarly=]''.
** The problem in ''[=iCarly's=]'' case is that the first 3 seasons before that episode came out had a good number of episodes that expressly fueled shipping and other things through having genuinely heartfelt moments and continuity, so it felt like either Dan Schneider saw the show very differently than everyone else, or he was lying through his teeth and punishing people for watching and paying attention. Even afterwards, the show genuinely tried for some more heartfelt moments and used continuity very effectively.
* An interesting variation happened as ''Series/TrueBlood'' encountered accusations of SeasonalRot in its third and fourth seasons. When critics who liked the show's first two seasons complained of [[AbortedArc Aborted Arcs]] etc. they were told that not only were they wrong to apply such standards to SupernaturalSoapOpera, but that the show had ''always'' been like this - retroactively undermining critical praise for ''Series/TrueBlood'''s early run.
* In an interview with Comic Book Resources, Jed Whedon, producer of ''Series/AgentsOfSHIELD'', said the show's disappointing viewership shouldn't be expecting so much, because it's a TV show being compared to movies. It doesn't have the same budget and it works in a different medium.
** Which walked around or outright ignored fans complaints, namely that other than names and a brand there was little connecting the show to the movies (which was ''the'' main hype point of the show, that it and the movie universe were connected), the stories it was telling were bland, monster-of-the-week fodder, and budget or not was overall lacking for something bearing the "Marvel" name.
*** The second half of season one, however, namely the reveal and the biggest connective thread the show has ever had - that [[spoiler:in ''Film/CaptainAmericaTheWinterSoldier'' Hydra had been infiltrating SHIELD for decades, they had no idea who they could trust in their own organization, and that Grant Ward, one of their own, was Hydra himself]] - brought a lot of people back onto the show's side, making them re-look at the first half with different eyes. This goodwill only lasted so long, as the show fell back into the same rut of complaints as before.
* After ''Series/{{Iron Fist|2017}}'' became the most-panned TV show in the Franchise/MarvelCinematicUniverse thus far, star Finn Jones claimed that Marvel made it not for the critics, but for the ''ComicBook/IronFist'' fans.
* Drew Carey, host of ''Series/ThePriceIsRight'', insists that his name be kept out of contention for Outstanding Game Show Host when the Daytime Emmys are handed out.
[[/folder]]

[[folder:Music]]
* When Music/GeorgeHarrison was sued for plagiarism (the "He's So Fine"/"My Sweet Lord" comparison), he invoked the trope lampshading it with a verse from his 1976 tune "This Song":
-->''This riff ain't tryin' to win gold medals''\\
''This riff ain't hip or square, well-done or rare''\\
''May end up one more weight to bear''
[[/folder]]

[[folder:Puppet Shows]]
* Franchise/TheMuppets fansite ''Tough Pigs'' received criticism for its negative review of ''Jim Henson's Mother Goose Stories'', with the point being that the Tough Pigs crew were adults looking at a show aimed at young children. They replied that no-one ever used that defense for ''Series/SesameStreet'' or ''Series/FraggleRock'', because they didn't have to; those shows were ''good''.
[[/folder]]

[[folder:Radio]]
* Parodied on KnowingMeKnowingYouWithAlanPartridge where Alan Partridge stated that his recently self-published book 'Alan's Book Of Sporting Anecdotes' was 'Just a toilet book. It's not going to win the Booker Prize..........be nice if it was nominated though'.
[[/folder]]

[[folder:Theatre]]
* A woman who attended the final weekend of the New York City staging of ''Theatre/CharlieAndTheChocolateFactory'' [[https://www.app.com/story/entertainment/theater/2018/01/17/charlie-and-chocolate-factory-broadway-success/1034378001/ tried to argue that the show was "a grand success"]] -- but not because it made money, was a LongRunner, was critically acclaimed, or won significant awards, since by her own admission it did '''none''' of those things. She said that it qualified as a success simply because it made the children in the audience she was with happy. When she posted [[https://www.broadwayworld.com/board/readmessage.php?thread=1106800&dt=69 a link to the article]] at [=BroadwayWorld.com's=] message boards looking for comments from other theatergoers, a common response to her piece was that ''many'' things make children happy but that in and of itself doesn't make them successful; moreover some responders had seen the show earlier in the run and were forced to put up with kids who were bored and/or disruptive, or even personally knew kids who hadn't enjoyed it when they had enjoyed other family-friendly musicals. (As a note the far more elaborate London version of the show, which came first, managed a far longer run along with better reviews, though it wasn't a critical blockbuster.)
[[/folder]]

[[folder:Video Games]]
* Many of the criticisms heaped on ''VideoGame/NoMoreHeroes'', notably the rather empty overworld, bad driving physics, and generally low-scale environment assets, were deflected by the fanbase by saying that the creator meant to lampoon games like ''VideoGame/GrandTheftAuto'' by deliberately making a clunky overworld. It's not certain how true this explanation actually is since in the Platform/PlayStation3 port, part of the overworld is actually ''blocked off'' because absolutely nothing happens in that particular section.
* Inverted: This is a ''complaint'' about ''VideoGame/SaintsRowTheThird'': While it's only meant to be a mindless, over the top affair of action and violence, many, especially fans of ''VideoGame/SaintsRow2'', criticized the plot since it doesn't have anywhere near the quality of context and narrative of its predecessor that served to contrast and semi-justify the batshit insanity, making it that much more fun and rewarding. The Third was an incoherent mess in comparison. ''VideoGame/SaintsRowIV'', thankfully, returned to reasonably good writing.
* Runic has often had to trot out a similar response to players demanding that ''VideoGame/TorchlightII'' have X successful feature or that it be released on time to crush Y competing game in sales (X is usually a ''VideoGame/DiabloII'' or {{MMORPG}} feature and Y was commonly ''VideoGame/DiabloIII'' but now tends to be ''VideoGame/GuildWars2''). The oft-repeated WordOfGod is that ''[=TL2=]'' is simply meant to be an all-around improvement over ''[=TL1=]'' and a testbed for some MMO concepts that interest the developers.
* Fans of ''VideoGame/DukeNukemForever'' often use this defense against the game's many critics. Enough that [[http://www.ign.com/articles/2011/06/30/comment-comeback-duke-nukem-forever-edition several]] [[http://www.destructoid.com/the-duke-delusion-why-duke-nukem-isn-t-a-parody-203745.phtml critics]] wrote special editorials addressing it.
* Defenders of ''VideoGame/EnchantedArms'' justly referenced this trope when it got attacked by critics complaining that it had a linear storyline, and strategic combat, both of which are perfectly standard for a jRPG. So their complaints boiled down to that it was a jRPG that played like a jRPG, instead of playing like a western RPG. ''Webcomic/PennyArcade'', of course, [[http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/09/06 was on the scene.]]
** On the other hand, when Kevin Smith tried to alibi for the decidedly mixed reviews that "Film/JerseyGirl" got by saying it "wasn't for critics", they were [[https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/24/the-adventures-of-twisp-and-catsby quite willing to call him out on it.]]
* ''VideoGame/PAYDAY2'' had gained a lot of criticism for producing DLC that makes the game look and feel more like ''VideoGame/TeamFortress2'' or ''VideoGame/SaintsRow'' in regards to over the top weapons (flamethrowers, rocket launchers, katanas, etc.) and silly heists (stealing goats, forcing grown men in Christmas elf costumes to make coke, etc.), saying that the game has become too silly and not serious like the first game was built upon. Fans defending the game say that ''PAYDAY 2'' is not meant to be taken seriously since it's a video game and not a movie.
* A common reaction to criticism of TankControls, especially in SurvivalHorror game, is to assert that they are purposely bad so they would "deprive the player the ability to act like an action hero".
[[/folder]]

[[folder:Web Animation]]
* ''WebAnimation/ZeroPunctuation'': In his review of ''VideoGame/BatmanArkhamAsylum'', Yahtzee, while generally favorable to the game, criticized the writing. He acknowledged that one could argue that you shouldn't expect much from a game based on a comic book, but then immediately countered that with the argument that just because it's a comic book, it doesn't mean that it ''has'' to have bad writing.
-->'''Yahtzee:''' Was ''ComicBook/{{Watchmen}}'' just comic book writing? Was ''Film/SchindlersList'' just a bunch of flickery lights on a wall?
[[/folder]]

[[folder:Web Original]]
* ''WebVideo/TheSpoonyExperiment'':
** The Spoony One acknowledges this in his [[Film/{{Twilight}} Twilight:New Moon]] Vlog, saying that he has to judge it on whether it does what it sets out to do well. He says that insofar as it seeks to show the audience [[{{Fanservice}} shirtless Native Americans]], it sort of does, but it fails at everything else it attempts to do. And with that, couldn't they just find it on the net?
** He revisits this idea in his review of ''Film/DOADeadOrAlive'', following twenty minutes of mockery with an admission that it's actually a pretty good adaptation. After all, the ''[=DoA=]'' games are best known for being about sexy women in martial arts fights, and the movie is mostly about sexy women in martial arts fights. It's a dumb movie, but it knows exactly what its audience wants and delivers on its premise (and after the other fighting game movies he did that month, one can see how important that is).
** He also touches upon this point in his ''VideoGame/SaintsRowIV'' and ''Film/TheWorldsEnd'' vlog, stating his dislike of this trope's use as an excuse in the case of the two subjects of the vlog.
* ''WebVideo/TheNostalgiaCritic'':
** The Critic passes the low quality of ''Series/TheSuperMarioBrosSuperShow'' and ''WesternAnimation/{{The Legend of Zelda|1989}}'' cartoon off on the fact that they were intended for children; however he does comment that just because something is for kids doesn't really give its makers an excuse to be lazy with it.
** Also, in his review of ''Film/IndependenceDay'', he says that people tell him that it's a "Popcorn movie", but he insists on criticizing the movie anyway.
** Despite his seething hatred for ''WesternAnimation/TheCareBearsMovie'', he still recommended it for children from the age of one to... one. In the commentary for that review, he and his brother admitted that five-year-olds and younger generally would like it (as they did at that age), and that it at least had the merit that it didn't resort to violence in defeating the villain (which in his opinion would've broken its own [[AnAesop Aesop]]) and that the children resolve the conflict themselves.
** In his review of ''WesternAnimation/ATrollInCentralPark'', he claims that one of the reasons he makes the videos is to try and convince studios that they shouldn't just resort to padding and pandering when making kids movies when great and memorable films could be made instead.
* WebVideo/TheNostalgiaChick went on a similar rant at the end of her "Worst Disney Sequels" review, saying that it was negligent parenting to not care how idiotic your child's entertainment is.
* Mike and Jay [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IE_B3VK1mQ sarcastically invoked this trope]] when reviewing ''Film/{{Movie 43}}'' for ''WebVideo/HalfInTheBag''.
* WebSite/SFDebris brings up this trope in his review of the ''Series/DoctorWho'' episode [[Recap/DoctorWhoS28E11FearHer "Fear Her"]]. In the first two minutes he parodies this, by stating that those who will be offended that he tears this episode a new one are not the intended audience--mocking writer Matthew Graham's shrugging off the criticism of the episode itself. He then discusses the flaws of this attempted deflection of criticism, and points out that his own children (the purported target audience, as opposed to traditional Whovians) didn't like the episode, finding it boring.
* WebVideo/TheCinemaSnob addressed this in his review of ''Film/TheOogielovesInTheBigBalloonAdventure'', citing that "a small child will probably like it, in that they'd like anything with bright colors; but that doesn't mean that's all you have to show them!" He then goes on to add "as education, it teaches nothing, as a comedy, it's lowbrow, and as a potential franchise; it's cynical and manufactured as hell!"
-->It's the kind of movie a parent would show their child when they have zero respect for them, but it's the kind of movie an internet series would feature [[SelfDeprecation because we have no respect for ourselves.]]
* WebVideo/{{Caddicarus}} addresses this in his review of [[Creator/DingoPictures Dalmatians 3]], where at one point, he notes that some might call his review unfair, due to it being for kids, to which he immediately objects, since, while kids are easy to entertain, they are not stupid.
* Parodied in ''WebVideo/EpicRapBattlesOfHistory'' when Creator/MichaelBay crashes a battle between Creator/StevenSpielberg, Creator/AlfredHitchcock, Creator/QuentinTarantino, and Creator/StanleyKubrick in his [[StuffBlowingUp signature style]]:
--> ''"If there's one thing I've learned, [[ThisIsforEmphasisBitch bitch]], this game is about motherfucking '''money!''' ...\\
I give the people what they love, while the {{critic|alDissonance}}s say I'm evil! Got no time to read reviews when I'm working on the {{sequel|itis}}!"''
* WebVideo/TheMysteriousMrEnter hates this argument as far as cartoons are concerned. In his own words, "It boils down to 'This is supposed to be bad, you're wrong for wanting it to be good.'"
[[/folder]]

[[folder:Western Animation]]
* Used to counter complaints about ''WesternAnimation/FamilyGuy'', as it's a show that "doesn't have to try and have morals or life lessons to be learned. It's supposed to be funny above all else." This argument is not altogether unfamiliar in comedy but it doesn't work too well with, for instance, episodes that ''are'' message-heavy at the expense of humor like [[AuthorTract "Not All Dogs Go to Heaven"]]. At the same time, much criticism comes from people inherently against the use of {{Overly Long Gag}}s used as {{Padding}}.
* ''WesternAnimation/LooneyTunes'': Leon Schlesinger, the original producer of the shorts, was quoted as saying about his cartoons "Let Disney make chicken salad and win awards. I'll make chicken shit and make money."
* ''WesternAnimation/SouthPark'':
** InUniverse with ''[[Franchise/{{Pokemon}} Chinpokomon]],'' a ShowWithinAShow that the boys like. After watching an episode Randy notes that it's not horribly violent or vulgar, but Sharon objects that it's incredibly stupid, which could do just as much damage to a child's psyche. It's also brainwashing them to bomb Pearl Harbor, but that's a whole different can of worms.
** Later, we have ''The Tale of Scrotie [=McBoogerballs=],'' which directly addresses this, using the offensive book as a stand-in for ''South Park'' itself, saying that it uses VulgarHumor just because it's [[RuleOfFunny funny,]] and that there aren't any hidden morals or messages in it.
* The typical argument used by ''WesternAnimation/{{Ultimate Spider|Man2012}}-Man''[='s=] creators, especially, Creator/ManOfActionStudios, to defend the show against the many complains about its lack of quality, is that it's intended to be a kid's show. Usually, this kind of argument only results in the fans being even more pissed off. As Creator/BrianMichaelBendis pointed out, the show does quite well with younger demographics, who are Disney's target audience to begin with. The [[PeripheryDemographic adult fans complaining on the message boards aren't the ones Disney and the toy companies are after]], which is sadly one of the reasons ''WesternAnimation/TheAvengersEarthsMightiestHeroes'' (which did well with adults but not as well with kids) was not renewed.
* Used on occasion by the producers behind ''WesternAnimation/TeenTitansGo'', which is heavily disliked by some adults, ''especially'' fans of the 2003 ''WesternAnimation/{{Teen Titans|2003}}'' series. [[https://www.cbr.com/teen-titans-go-producer-revels-in-stupidity-of-young-justice-crossover/ The creators have noted]] multiple times that the juvenile, QuirkyWork nature of the cartoon is the entire point, and that it isn't supposed to be the story arc-heavy action/drama that its predecessor was. Some episodes use the "kids show" defense when poking fun both at itself and at its massive {{Hatedom}}. Though, in an ironic example of this trope, this show actually managed to get two Primetime Emmy nominations.
-->'''Robin''' (to [[AuthorAvatar Control]] [[AudienceSurrogate Freak]]): "Ooh, I'm so sorry that you didn't get any precious golden statues or industry accolades, BUT WE DON'T CARE!"
* Deliberately spoofed InUniverse in season 2 of ''WesternAnimation/BojackHorseman'', where [=BoJack=] repeatedly asks Abe, the newly-assigned director for ''[[{{Biopic}} Secretariat]]'', why he doesn't ask for second takes, especially when things in the first take actually go wrong. Abe brushes those off by saying "Hey, we're not making ''{{Film/Casablanca}}''." [=BoJack=] just assumes that Abe doesn't care too much about the project and, later, casually refers to it as "shit," only to discover that [[spoiler:Abe [[LiteralMetaphor literally meant they weren't making the 1942 Humphrey Bogart movie]]. Offended, Abe then forces [=BoJack=] to do as many takes as possible of each scene just to spite him]].
** [=BoJack=] has also an utterly pragmatic and completely sincere defense of his one-hit wonder SitCom from the mid-nineties, today mostly remembered as InUniverse [[SoBadItsGood Sarcasm Fodder]]
-->'''Interviewer:''' People still see you as the guy from that sucky show from the '90s. \\
'''[=BoJack=]:''' ''Horsin' Around'' was NOT a sucky show! It lasted nine seasons! Its whole purpose was for people to watch it so the Network could sell ad time, so the show could make more money than it cost to produce. It did that well. It was a good show! \\
'''Interviewer:''' ... yeah, but it sucked. \\
'''[=BoJack=]:''' IT DIDN'T SUCK!
* ''WesternAnimation/DangerMouse'': As DM proceeds into a dark hallway:
-->'''DM:''' Come on, Penfold. You'll have people laughing at you.\\
'''Penfold:''' (''to us'') So what does he think this is...''King Lear''?
[[/folder]]
----