Needs work: Contested Sequel

I don't even know where to start.

First, laconinc definition says "A sequel's quality is compared to the first installment.", actual describtion says " It's for sequels where many fans think it's bad and others think it's good, usually for different reasons.", which is Broken Base, and first paragraph starts like this "Sometimes there's a sequel that attempts to address complaints people had with the original, or build upon the original's perceived strengths." and goes on describing what appears to be completely different trope. Examples are full of Complaining About Shows You Dont Like, and half of other examples could just fit Broken Base, They Changed It, Now It Sucks! and First Instrallement Wins.

I'm advocating either general cleanup and change to more specific describtion or nuking this.

edited 12th Oct '11 12:21:59 PM by PrimoVictoria

Merge with Broken Base.

It was written as a compromise between Even Better Sequel / Surprisingly Improved Sequel and Sequelitis. I've never really bothered with it, as the fact fans argue over somethings quality is a given with everything. It might work merging with Broken Base, but on it's own it is talking about a unique event within a fandom.

Base Breaking Sequel?

Contested Sequel is like Base Breaker for installments — the thing which causes a Broken Base. It's a divisive installment that many love and many loathe.

First Installment Wins means hardly anyone remembers any of the sequels. They aren't hated. It's just that only the first is iconic.

They Changed It, Now It Sucks! may be a reason it becomes a Contested Sequel.

Base Breaking Sequel is fine for a name, but I don't think the name's the problem really. The description is muddied. That the examples would be prone to both types of Complaining is not surprising. Merging it would not solve that problem — it would transfer it to the other, already crowded pages which are also YMMV.

edited 12th Oct '11 9:44:21 PM by Tyoria

This really is a useless collection of sequels that people liked or didn't like. And I mean useless, literally - it serves no purpose. We could compile a list of sequels that change in tone (that people may or may not like), sequels that change casts (that people may or may not like), sequels that escalate, sequels that tone it down, sequels that continue with no basis for continuing... but just sequels that people disagree on? There's nothing there. There's no trope there, there's no anything else there. It's as broad as Contested Show.

You could say the same for characters that people disagree on. Characters that don't fit the tone of the show, characters that soak up a disproportionate amount of screentime, characters that are late additions to the cast...

Yet they all get lumped in under Base Breaker.

That doesn't stop us from having tropes like Spotlight-Stealing Squad (to address one of those issues), but it doesn't mean Base Breaker as "a character people either like or don't like" is a useless trope.

Likewise I don't think Contested Sequel is useless. The page could use work, but the idea is sound. I mean, as far as Audience Reactions go.

You're right - Base Breaker looks quite useless.

If we're noting the breaking itself, okay, that's fine, so long as we understand it's a reaction. But we have a page for that. But if we're looking at the characters, we should have pages like Spotlight-Stealing Squad, as you point out, whose examples actually fall under one category.

I'm not saying we can't list contested sequels. But if have one page for them, for all of them, we'll have nothing to say about them other than "people contest some sequels" - and then we leave it to the examples to form some sort of thesis. Instead, why not make pages for the individual types of contested sequels? Then we can explore the flaws or merits of each, linking each to relevant tropes. And there'll be less unfocused complaining and more of, "This is an example, and here is why."

You want us to spawn new pages of the specific kinds of Base Breaker or Contested Sequel? That's a YKTTW project, not TRS.

Or simply cut Base Breaker and Contested Sequel.

I would cut the entire It Sucks index long before I got around to considering whether to axe Contested Sequel or Base Breaker. At least those two aim to be about neutrally discussing the fandom, rather than accusing the "haters" of being stupidly biased.

That's actually an index?

Yeah, there's a couple other tropes I think are even worse then this. To the TRS Mobile! (at least when a space opens up)

I don't see why this needs to exist independently from Broken Base, though.

We already have a thread that is trending toward giving Base Breaker an Example Sectionectomy. I see no reason why we can't apply the same treatment to this article.

I don't see how this benefits from examples.

It doesn't. It also doesn't benefit from being a separate trope from Broken Base.

Clean up the description and examples?

I like having examples. I'm getting a little fed up with TRS's apparent addiction to sectionectomy. Clean up the complaining.

This.

Isn't example cutting one of the last resorts?

And I'm getting fed up with all these "tropes" that cover the 4,056 possible variations of how fans can whine about something. It's all right to have separate pages, but I fail to see why we need examples for each and every kind of Fan/Hate Dumb. This is literally nothing more than Broken Base FOR A SEQUEL!

edited 29th Oct '11 11:14:22 PM by nrjxll

Yeah, I'd be for merging it with Broken Base. I wouldn't even consider this a distinct article.

edited 29th Oct '11 11:30:59 PM by INUH

Tropes about opinions contain opinions. The complaints I've been seeing are complaints against any and all Audience Reactions having examples. I know there are folks who feel that all of those pages should be example-free, and even folk who think we shouldn't have the pages at all, but I don't share that opinion and I'm not seeing what's wrong with the page outside of that. Yeah, a Contested Sequel is a subtrope of a Broken Base, but that's not to say it isn't a phenomenon that's observable enough on its own to warrant its own article.

If there's a complaining problem, cleaning it up should be the first proposed solution. I agree with sectionectomy on occasion, but when it's the FIRST proposed solution out of people's mouths, it seems like... natter isn't even really the issue we're talking about. If we honestly want to nuke pages related to Audience Reactions, that should be something talked about as a whole separate site-wide issue. Not this whole gunning them down one by one thing.

Speaking for myself, I don't want to gun Audience Reactions down one by one. I do want to give an Example Sectionectomy to every "trope" that documents fandom drama, except possibly a single supertrope like Broken Base, and I've always been fairly up front about this.

I don't really like most Audience Reactions or the effect they have on the site, and if I ran this site as absolute dictator I'd probably give them all the chop. But that's not what I am actually proposing - I merely do not see why we need so many pages categorizing all the many, many ways fan dumb can find to fight about something. And considering that every fandom larger then a half-dozen people is going to disagree over things, having examples just seems nonsensical.

And natter is a real concern, not just an excuse as I feel you're implying. I don't feel like it's worth the effort to try and fight it off pages with so little direct relation to our main purpose - cataloging tropes. We have, by and large, the rest of the internet to deal with ways fans can fight about things.

There is now a page action crowner for this trope here. Feel free to add options as you see fit.

bumping for more votes.

Bump. Needs more consensus.