YMMV?: Shallow Parody

Here's my point in a nutshell: There's no concrete way to tell whether or not the creators of a parody actually took the time to Show their Work. This trope just seems to me like it's open to individual interpretation of a parody.

So to YMMV or not to YMMV?

I guess one argument for Shallow Parody being objective is that you can compare the parody and the work being parodied and point out how the former shows a clear misunderstanding or lack of information about that latter (i.e., pretty much anyone familiar with the work can tell that the jokes do not really apply to it). I am not sure how convincing that is, but it is one argument. I am a bit concerned that Shallow Parody and its related tropes like Narrow Parody and Parody Failure might need some work to not be as complaint centered as well.

Honestly, I am a bit more concerned about Narrow Parody, if only because it seems to suggest that all good parodies have to reference both old and new material. Maybe that is a discussion for another day though.

edited 6th Jan '12 4:21:18 AM by LouieW

I think the fairly loose definition of the trope leads to many of the more complainy examples. The ideal definition of a Shallow Parody would be a work that parodies its source material on only the most superficial level, e.g. character names, basic storyline, setting, etc., without looking at what really makes that work tick in any insightful manner. In many cases, as the description suggests, such a parody could be made after only watching a trailer and reading a summary.

On the other hand, many of the examples seem to read the trope as "a parody that Did Not Do The Research", and thus add any examples of parodies that change plot elements of the original. An extreme example (since removed) concerned a parody of Harry Potter on a Hallowe'en episode of The Simpsons, lamenting among other things that Springfield's wizard school apparently has ten grades rather than Hogwarts' seven.*

While the former definition seems much more fitting as a trope in my opinion, such assertions will be very much open to debate. The second definition is more objective, but less interesting or relevant and more likely to come across as Complaining About Shows You Dont Like.

Attention to doing the research is often a good indication of how insightful a parody is, but the two are not the same thing. Also, changing any superficial details about the fictional universe should not always be considered evidence of a lack of interest by the makers of the parody.

• Edit: Fixed link.

edited 8th Jan '12 4:26:41 AM by KorKhan

The main problem I have with the trope is just that- most die-hard fans of a work will see ANY superficial change as Did Not Do The Research. Even with the Tropes Are Not Bad message on the page, people don't see the trope as a comedy one. It's mostly just an excuse to complain.

Also, I thought the entirety of Did Not Do The Research was YMMV tropes.

so what will be done?

I says simply limit it to examples that made jokes that were already made by the series they were parodying. That would still leave us with what, an X-men and two Harry Potter examples right? It would be objective and hit the minimum three examples. Tropes Are Not Bad because it can still be funny right?

I'm looking at Narrow Parody, and unless it gets a description upgrade, it reads as 'people make parodies of very narrow subject matter'. However, I think Shallow Parody is well-defined, is more objective than not, and would benefit from examples. What it really needs is a dire warning about what represents a bad, barnacle-like example.

edited 13th Mar '12 9:54:34 AM by pawsplay

That's not this "trope." That's Parody Failure, which is being split into five separate YKTT Ws.

How about, dropping the "did not do the research" complaints and just stating when the parody brought up something that was incorrect or otherwise never happened then?

Clock's ticking.

So if I understand correctly, this is already covered by the existing parody tropes, except that this page adds "and that is bad"?

No, it actually has a pretty clear Tropes Are Not Bad section. I think this one actually has a pretty clear description; it's a parody of a handful of popular elements without any great knowledge of the target.

But like I've said, the viewer knows little about what the creator did or did not know about what they're parodying, and this trope can be easily misused by the most pedantic of fans. The only real way to know whether or not a creator actually knew about what they're making fun of would be by Word of God outright saying that they have no clue about what they're doing, an admittance that will, let's face it, never happen. This leaves the amount of research done up to interpretation, and thus, Your Mileage May Vary.

If you want to make something YMMV, we now have this thread, where it is decided via crowner.

Is there something else to discuss here?

Nope. Lock away.