bashing: After Last Season

See title.

Doesn't seem too bad. Maybe just the page quote and the "No, really" and the end of the third paragraph.

Normally I'd agree with you but have you seen this movie? It really is that bad. I am not kidding when I say that this is a home movie level of production (minus the horrible CGI) and yet somehow it was released in theaters. You can't discuss this movie honestly without bashing it.

Sure you can. Or if you, personally, can't, let someone who can do it.

edited 15th Aug '11 7:50:30 AM by Madrugada

3: If we can talk about FATAL without bashing it, we can talk about anything without bashing it.

That would be a better argument if it wasn't for the fact that I've never seen a single page that talks about FATAL without bashing it.

Of course, I agree that we should be able to. Saying that it's impossible to talk about any work without bashing it is wrong and an attitude that doesn't belong on this site. But that wasn't the best example for it.

The FATAL page is actually quite neutral - it mostly tells you how the game's a horrible piece of crap, rather than outright saying it is. Show, Don't Tell, as it were.

^ I agree. It's the tropes that damn it. There's very little "this game is horrible" bashing on the FATAL page.

I was thinking more about examples from it I've seen elsewhere. That's good to hear and really seems like a demonstration of why flat-out bashing is so stupid - if the work is really, truly, honestly awful, the facts will speak for themselves without need for "This work sucks" stuff.

Consider also The Eye Of Argon.

It's not so much that there's bashing, as that there's almost only bashing. The description doesn't say anything about plot, characters, setting, etc. It's all viewer response.

So what you're talking about is the difference between phrases like "This movie is a horrible piece of crap" and phrases like "The carboard MRI machine is one of the memorable set pieces of this film"

edited 16th Aug '11 10:11:20 AM by gibberingtroper

"Memorable" is still subjective.

I agree that the article could use a better balance between bashing and summary, but when did TV Tropes ever care about being objective?

…it ALWAYS did.

We've always been about being relatively objective. Opinions go in the Reviews and YMMV section.

Alright, let me put it another way. Since when have we striven for dry, wikipedia-style, neutral perspective? We are not wikipedia. We are buttload more informal. Balance? Sure. Objectivity? Where is the fun in that?

My objection, my dear Deboss, is that you seem to want to drive anything even remotely resembling humor from the article.

edited 16th Aug '11 10:50:00 PM by Strannik

We aren't striving for "dry". Neutrality doesn't have to be dry; they're two very different things.

If the work is that bad, the trope list will make it clear. The purpose of the wiki is not to judge works, it's to catalog the tropes they use.

The purpose of the page is to list the tropes, not to talk about the hilarious review Spoony gave it, or to quote some film teacher calling it a piece of crap in a lot more words than that.

edited 16th Aug '11 11:27:46 PM by Madrugada

I haven't seen an invocation of Tropers Law in a while. Thanks for that.

@Madrugada: That quote has long since vanished from the front page. I don't see anyone clamoring to bring it back. As for the synopsis - yeah, someone should probably do that.

@0dd1: I haven't been a very active contributor.

And yes, I am one of those people who thought this wiki was more fun when we didn't worry about this wiki's reputation, but that argument is beyond the scope of this discussion. So let us return to our sheep.

Does the story need synopsis? Absolutely. If nothing else, to balance out the snark. Does it need a more neutral quote? *shrugs* Wouldn't hurt. But I don't think it's bashing to, for example, call the cardboard MRI "memorable." This is one aspect of the movie that has been discussed in nearly every single review online, so it would not be that much of a stretch to assert that this is the one thing people tend to remember about the move.

edited 17th Aug '11 12:06:55 PM by Strannik

De Boss. I've not seen an article about a work that's as neutral as you seem to want this one to be. And nobody seems to complain when a good work is praised. Objecting to the use of the word "memorable" suggests that you really do want a Wikipedia style article.

The constant talk of the notoriety is the main problem. The reaction to the movie does not matter at all.

We do, in fact, complain about praise. Namely with the word "gushing". We don't define works as good or bad, we document the tropes used.

I edited the description a bit to try to take out some bashing. I would appreciate it if someone checked my edits or used them as a base for further edits that would help make the page more neutral.

We don't define works as good or bad, we document the tropes used.

@Deboss: Except... we do. All the bloody time. See the pages for Manos the Hands of Fate, FATAL, the Last Airbender film adaptation, etc. Sure, that's not quite the same as outright bashing or gushing, but to pretend that we never reference the quality of the work in any shape or form on all of the main pages is absurd. Nor, in my unhumble opinion, is something that could be reasonably achieved, given the biases each of us brings in every time we hit the "Edit" button.

edited 20th Aug '11 9:58:17 PM by Strannik

Unless I missed something Film.The Last Airbender was locked and cleaned for just that purpose. If someone wants to voice an opinion, that's what the Reviews section is for.