Complaining: He Panned It Now He Sucks

I've read through sections in the page and, especially in the video game section, the trope has been used to stealth bash reviews the editor disagrees with. For a trope polarizing like this, shouldn't it be a "No Example" one just like Base Breaker?

I assumed this page would be about bashing fans for bashing reviews for bashing games. I thought you'd be bashing that, so I could bash you. But no?

The TGWTG section is also pretty stupid, with a lot of entries admitting that the movies there weren't actually completely panned.

I cut up one dozen new men and you will die somewhat, again and again.

Really, all the "X, now Y sucks" tropes seem like they're practically designed to be for complaining, if not limited to In-Universe examples (I don't know if any are, haven't looked).

All your safe space are belong to Trump

The trope is supposed to be describing the reaction of fans who her upset over bad reviews. It's reaching the stage though where editors are enacting the trope itself though.

I'm personally not big on audience reaction tropes in general, especially ones like The Scrappy since they rapidly devolved into bashing characters the editor doesn't like and other edit wars. To be on topic, my solution would be either to cut examples in general since it's describing fandoms not a work, or turn it into a Darth Wiki.

edited 2nd Aug '12 9:14:31 PM by Lionheart0

I'm not sure I'm seeing much more in this trope than, "people are disagreeing on the Internet (when it comes to reviews)".

Check out my fanfiction!

It's technically a form of Complaining About People Not Liking the Show, except that it's listed with regard of reviewers than works.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

Reviewers are people, my friend.

As far as I care, these two pages you bring up are indistinguishable.

edited 3rd Aug '12 6:56:30 AM by SeanMurrayI

Should this become a "non-example" one like the other then? This trope is suppose to be about the fandom complaining specifically about negative reviews, but I see what you mean there's a lot of overlap. Maybe a merge of the two?

At the moment, Complaining About People Not Liking the Show seems to be In-Universe examples only, so that's an option too.

Soooo... keeping Complaining About People Who Are Critics Not Liking a Show separate from Complaining About People in General Not Liking a Show and limiting both of those to In-Universe examples should be a valid option?

He Panned It, Now He Sucks! is just more of the same, except way more specific. There's no way we need more than one page about somebody (real or fictional, troper or character) complaining about other people (whoever they may be) not liking the same things that he/she likes, especially a page that only limits the basic concept to griping about the viewpoints of specific set of people. Quite frankly, I'm annoyed that any such page would need to be here, anyway, but if I have no choice but to tolerate that, can't everything here be referred to just one title?

edited 4th Aug '12 12:52:54 PM by SeanMurrayI

Criticizing critics in-universe is quite common, and, I think, noticeably distinct from just criticizing people who don't like something.

Speaking words of fandom: let it squee, let it squee.

Okay, now tell us how or why you think it's "noticeably distinct".

I honestly see no substantial difference. None of it amounts to anything more than an attributed source lashing out at criticism. Whatever the reason for the original criticism, whatever the reason for the lashing out, whatever it is that's being targeted {an irate public audience, "a high-profile" columnist, blogger, or vlogger, Youtube comments, Twitter, Moral Guardians, whatever...), IT'S ALL THE SAME THING—Complaing About Other People Having Negative Opinions.

All right, I'll play devil's advocate.

Complaining about people in general panning a work shows adherence to your own opinion and possibly intolerance of alternate view points.

Complaining about moral guardians is very different. Moral Guardians do not attack a work's artistic merit. They attack it for encouraging immorality. You may well insult and reject all Moral Guardian pronouncements, whether they pan a work you like or a work you hate.

Reviewers are a unique category. Reviewers receive backlash not because fans take offense at their personal opinions but because of the effect of those opinions. The anger isn't that "Armond White doesn't like my movie" it's that "Armond White dragged my movie's aggregate score down by 5 percentage points."

I'm not saying we should collect examples of any of these complaints. But they are different from one another.

From my reading of it, it's not complaining about reviewers criticizing something.

It's about reviewers, who until this point, were fairly well-regarded and maybe even popular. But because he pans something his fans like, they turn on him.

Sudden popularity deflation.

Rule of fanworks reviews: The amount of constructive criticism a work receives is in inverse proportion to the amount it needs.

I thought it was a movie that got 1 bad review, now suddenly, everyone saying bad things about it, regardless of what came before.

That would be He Panned It Now IT Sucks.

Never mind. Now that I look closer, what I was defending is not this trope. I have no defense for this trope.

Speaking words of fandom: let it squee, let it squee.

Honestly, my compromise/idea would be to merge all the Complaining About People Not Liking the Show / He Panned It, Now He Sucks! into one large trope just like Fan Dumb or Hate Dumb.

Agreed. Seems to be the most harmonious solution.

Rule of fanworks reviews: The amount of constructive criticism a work receives is in inverse proportion to the amount it needs.

Hating a reviewer for sinking the show you like is still something different than complaining about the show's hatedom.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

Theoretically, yes. But, so far, that's not how it's being applied. That's the heart of the current problem.

Take another look at the examples. Very few of them mention the views the various groups held of the critic before the disputed review. It's just stating that people disagreed with a review.

In other words, the descriptions are of one trope and the examples are of a similar, but different one.

If we took the option of simply changing the name/description to match how it's overwhelmingly being used, it will become a Critic-specific version of Complaining About People Not Liking the Show. Well, it's already that, the description just doesn't match at the moment.

Given the amount of entries, this could be a decent solution. It's thriving quite well as the trope it is instead of the trope it was meant to be, after all.

Edit: Ugh. Sorry for the redlink. x.x

edited 5th Aug '12 8:56:02 AM by Doxiedame

Rule of fanworks reviews: The amount of constructive criticism a work receives is in inverse proportion to the amount it needs.

The description is really, really mean towards critics:

Seriously? It's one thing to attack a reviewer's opinion, but look at the "who they really are" bit. Specifically referring to the person, and not their reviews. Basically says that reviewers who pan things are horrible, disgusting assholes, and every person will realize that when the reviewer pans a game/movie/show that he or she likes. Also kind of attacking fans of reviewers. It's basically telling them "you just don't see how horrible the reviewer is because he never panned something you like".

edited 5th Aug '12 9:27:25 AM by ThatHuman

something

That paragraph is clearly sarcastic. But I agree, I don't see a whole lot of value in this trope. At least, it should have an example sectionectomy.

It does not matter who I am. What matters is, who will you become? - motto of Omsk Bird

I think the word you're looking for is "hyperbolic". If it were sarcastic then it would be suggesting that overly negative reviewers are a good thing.

But anyway, the wording specifically targets the reviewer, even if it's not meant to be taken so harshly, which isn't something I find appropriate.

something