We need to do something about all the potholes.: Better Than It Sounds

During the campaign to axe out the Darth Wiki Redirects, among other things, Main.Worse Than It Sounds was redlinked to make whining difficult.
Its not-evil twin, Better Than It Sounds, is just as opinionated and just as proliferated. Seriously, I see it on every work with an even remotely Audience-Alienating Premise.
We need to do something, put up a sign, make it difficult, something, to get the point across that this is bad form.

Ah, but it's not "mean" or "negative," and that makes it okay.

But it's still a subjective trope, and thus, still opinionated.
If we cut Main.Most Triumphant Example, we still need to at least make some effort to keep an air of neutrality.
I hate to sound like a killjoy, but in terms of our apparent objectives, praise is just as bad as spite.

The problem I've always had with Better Than It Sounds is that its "examples" rarely give even a modest summary of what a work actually is about, which is a problem when describing what a work is actually about is exactly what's supposed to be happening on the page. Better Than It Sounds is NOT about spinning minor details from a work as significant and crucial plot points.

Case in point, Reservoir Dogs is not about "well-dressed men talking about Madonna and wondering if one of them is a police officer." 12 Monkeys is not about "John McLane being almost as crazy as Benjamin Button."

Nobody in their right mind would ever describe most of these works being listed to anybody unfamiliar with them as they are on these pages. This isn't even YMMV; this is more like a Just for Fun game in which editors describe works in intentionally dull and highly inaccurate terms.

edited 30th Apr '11 12:17:52 PM by SeanMurrayI

Exactly. Hadn't even thought of that.

Really, if there's any problem with Better Than It Sounds, it's that.

This isn't YMMV; that would, at least, imply the presence of a stated opinion. Instead, all we have is a joke.

If someone was to ask you, "What is Alien about?" I'd say it's fair to assume that the straight-forward answer you would give would much more closely resemble one of IMDb's plot summaries for the movie than it would what's currently on Better Than It Sounds ("A stomach cramp gets out of hand").

Even if this is supposed to be a catalog of "summaries that would make a person say, 'This would never sell,'" it should, at least, be a catalog of summaries that accurately describe the work and its plot. Certainly, nobody pitched Alien to any studios as "a story about a stomach cramp getting out of hand."

It would certainly be easier in its present form to reformat this as a Just for Fun game. "Examples" do very little (if not, nothing at all) to explain to people unfamiliar with any given work what that work is about; instead, it's mostly just silly jokes that only the people who are familiar with the works listed might get.

edited 1st May '11 10:06:25 AM by SeanMurrayI

Perhaps that's because it is a Just for Fun game, hence its inclusion in the Just for Fun index and this paragraph:

The problem is, the links aren't treating it the way the page itself says it's being used.

edited 1st May '11 10:28:04 AM by Micah

^Like I already wrote,

The current description says nothing about this space being intended for deliberately writing up misleading and incorrect outlines that spin minor, insignificant details from a scene or two as being a work's main plot, which is what most "examples" of Better Than It Sounds are.

And, again, the page in practice still has nothing to do with YMMV and should not have that banner.

edited 1st May '11 10:37:39 AM by SeanMurrayI

I'm siding with micah on this one. And besides, it keeps getting used where Audience-Alienating Premise would be better, much like Most Triumphant Example would Trope Codifier.

Wait, we already have an audience reaction equivalent to this? That would have been really nice to know.

^^ That would be a problem that needs fixing, too, but my point about the "summaries that would make a person say, 'This would never sell'" being deliberately misleading and incorrect is still valid.

The way I see it, (1) the description of Better Than It Sounds needs to include some mention of this being intended as a Just for Fun game with works given summaries that are intentionally written to sound dull/ludicrous, even if they would be misleading (which I think would be easier than culling the current catalog and starting over in a more accurate way), (2) the YMMV tag at the top of the page needs to be replaced with a Just for Fun one, (3) the name should be changed to better reflect this page's nature as a Just for Fun joke game, and (4) wicks should be corrected to reflect the page's intended use (whatever we may want to agree that is).

edited 1st May '11 12:12:05 PM by SeanMurrayI

"Objectivity"? Meh, TV Tropes is becoming more and more like Wikipedia.

Anyway, what if we move the page to Sugar Wiki and delete the main namespace redirect? That's as much as what can be done without having to kill the page itself.

We are nothing like Wikipedia.

And Better Than It Sounds is nothing like the Sugar Wiki.

edited 8th May '11 11:07:09 AM by SeanMurrayI

We do have some things in common, like they have an equivalent of Just for Fun, here.

Also, should Better Than It Sounds be its own namespace like Laconic Wiki?

edited 8th May '11 11:07:23 AM by nuclearneo577

No.

Well, simply put, SNDL, we've been making an effort to keep all the hate in a place where we don't have to look at it, but made comparatively little headway on the worship.
And, once again, it's just a link to a game. Not an audience reaction.

To make all examples follow the rule of accurately describing the work, how about we necessitate the use of the work's actual Laconic text? They're supposed to be concise yet accurate.

To make all examples follow the rule of accurately describing the work, how about we necessitate the use of the work's actual Laconic text? They're supposed to be concise yet accurate.

I could buy that. 'Three middle-aged Brits self-indulgently cocking about with cars on tv' would certainly qualify, for example, so you couldn't argue that there wouldn't be any examples.

^ That would be an okay way to go.

Another thing we should take a look at is both this page's name and description.

The first half of Better Than It Sounds describes the act of summarizing a work to someone unfamiliar with it and realizing that it sounds ridiculous, mundane, or ridiculously mundane. The second, on the other hand, ends with the phrase, "these are only made ridiculous by us mentioning things out of context," which I'd point out is incredibly different from the first half of the description and not an idea that is encapsulated in the title Better Than It Sounds (though it's also this ugly portion of the description that has apparently set the direction examples have gone off in on the subpages).

edited 10th May '11 11:50:22 AM by SeanMurrayI

Can we have a single item crowner for making this less of a forum game i.e. disallowing misleading entries?

Crowner.

I gotta tell you, none of the current crowner options are particularly good.

The least worst would probably be "move the page to Just for Fun and leave it the way it is," only the page should be renamed because "the Just for Fun intentionally misleading description game" is no way accurately encapsulated by the phrase "Better Than It Sounds" or the majority of the page's present description. Both the name and description would likely need changing if a true Just for Fun format is to be put into place.

edited 15th May '11 9:30:06 AM by SeanMurrayI

Just noticed this was on the workshop, and I think I've got a few things to say about Better Than It Sounds.

I really enjoy this fad of oversimplification, I must admit. A lot of the entries are 100% accurate representations of the works, and hilarious. Some aren't completely, but they are still funny to read and unmistakable when the work is recognized. But then there are those that are just short, inaccurate, and unfunny.

Thus, I would like to submit the following idea:

Brevity is not the soul of wit unless there is actually wit. Otherwise you just get Laconic entries, and we already have a namespace for that. I don't see why the "Few words as possible" restriction also applies here, making this "Laconic, but misleading". I think if you can create an accurate but obnoxiously misleading entry, it should be as long as you want.

Anyway, my suggestion is thus: Make Better Than It Sounds into a namespace.

Reasoning:

• The game has a lot of entries. There's an entry for almost every work on the wiki.
• We already have "entertaining" namespaces like Haiku, Pantheon, or Trope Co. This would make a perfect addition.
• It would allow for multiple entries per work. If you don't like one entry and think it's too inaccurate or boring, just add your own.
• Better Than It Sounds could be used as a legitimate trope for in-universe examples, making some potholing okay. The page could link to the namespace index for the game.
• The contents of Worse Than It Sounds could be added to the pages, as those entries are similar in spirit and are often equally as entertainingly misleading.
• I understand it would destroy the game of "guess the work" because you'd already know what the work is by navigating to the page... but let's be honest. If you visit one of the pages more than once, the game is already spoiled and you're not playing the game anymore. If you're looking at Better Than It Sounds, you're doing one or more of the following things:
  • Looking for works you recognize to laugh at the entry.
  • Reading them off to friends and seeing if they can guess the works.
  • Reading with spoilers turned off, or you pressed Ctrl+A to reveal them all.

So yeah, I've thought about it for quite some time and I think this solution would be best. Do with it what you will.

edited 12th Jun '11 5:02:37 PM by CAD

I'd say that's good, but we should still drive the point home that Better Than It Sounds is not acceptable as a subjective trope. Dethroning Moment of Suck has some in-universe applications, but we've redlinked the Main redirect for a reason.

edited 18th Jun '11 8:29:18 PM by SoWeAteThem

Bump for resolution.