Ambiguous Name: Franchise Original Sin

Deadlock Clock: 1st Dec 2012 11:59:00 PM
Total posts: [51]
1 2 3
That's splitting hairs. Tropes Are Not Bad and this page is YMMV to begin with.
Never mind.

edited 7th Aug '12 11:11:08 AM by Arha

29 SeptimusHeap8th Aug 2012 12:55:53 AM from Laniakea , Relationship Status: Mu
First off, stop bumping things after just one day.

Second, 70 inbounds ought to require a better check before a rename.
31 Xtifr13th Aug 2012 03:40:19 AM , Relationship Status: Having tea with Cthulhu
World's Toughest Milkman
Dude, we're all waiting on you to finish the wick check. If you're not going to bother, we might as well just close this up.
Speaking words of fandom: let it squee, let it squee.
Sorry. I've done it now.

It seems this is alright save for the name, which I think is rather ambiguous. If the majority overrules me, then this thread should be closed up.

33 Ookamikun13th Aug 2012 10:46:08 AM from the lupine den
Wolves, wolves, wolves!
The trope, as I read it, sounds more like Jumping the Shark.
Lone wolf? Hah! "Lone" wolves die out of hunger and loneliness. The wolf needs the pack, and the pack needs the wolf.
34 SeptimusHeap13th Aug 2012 10:49:01 AM from Laniakea , Relationship Status: Mu
Nope. The point is that the show gets bad because of something it already had when it was good. It's a Trope By Contrast.
There's some overlap at least. Fonzie was "always in the show" (even though sharks and waterskis weren't), so that Trope Namer sort of fits on a superficial level.

Anyway, if the name is a little obtuse but it isn't causing much problems, we should probably just remember that Redirects Are Free.
36 Ookamikun14th Aug 2012 12:36:56 PM from the lupine den
Wolves, wolves, wolves!
I still have a bit of trouble understanding it a bit though. So essentially it's a specific form of shark-jumping that involves a certain aspect of the original entry being played out?
Lone wolf? Hah! "Lone" wolves die out of hunger and loneliness. The wolf needs the pack, and the pack needs the wolf.
37 SeptimusHeap14th Aug 2012 12:46:26 PM from Laniakea , Relationship Status: Mu
Yes. Which is not to say it can be merged.
38 Xtifr14th Aug 2012 03:34:44 PM , Relationship Status: Having tea with Cthulhu
World's Toughest Milkman
[up]Did you mean to say "not to say it can't"? Because it seems to me that it certainly could, although I have no opinion yet on whether it should.
Speaking words of fandom: let it squee, let it squee.
39 SeptimusHeap14th Aug 2012 03:38:05 PM from Laniakea , Relationship Status: Mu
No, I say that it can't be merged. Jump the Shark is about running out of ideas. Franchise Original Sin is when a show is doomed by something it already had when it thrived. Compare/contrast: It's already here, only now it makes problems.
40 Xtifr14th Aug 2012 03:43:46 PM , Relationship Status: Having tea with Cthulhu
World's Toughest Milkman
Sounds kind of like a case of being forced to jump the shark. I don't know. I'll have to give it some thought.
Speaking words of fandom: let it squee, let it squee.
I see this as more general than Jumping the Shark, because it can apply to any work that declines in quality, and there are several ways to do so with no sharks involved.
42 nrjxll14th Aug 2012 08:20:56 PM , Relationship Status: Not war
Agreed. Jumping the Shark represents a "point of no return" in show quality. This, however, merely requires that the work gets worse, not that it becomes irretrievably bad (or at least that's how I understand it).
The kind of stuff listed here are things you see in arguments of "when did the show start to suck?" that get brought up to counter an accusation of Ruined FOREVER.

As in, "Man, the series started to suck in book 4 when the creator's obsession with hamburgers overtook the plot." "But there were excessive mentions of hamburgers even in the first book, but the descriptions of hamburgers were more low-key and well-written!"

Which means this page is pretty useless at what it alleges to do. It has its own purpose backwards. These examples aren't for complaining, they're generally addressing the subjects of common complaints. I'm not really sure how useful the page is, though, since the subject matter is always going to be YMMV or worse.
I see an alternate purpose:

"I heard the latest season of Crazy Orange Fun Times Gang 3 was starting to suck. I wonder why. Let's go check TVTropes!"

(later) "Interesting! It looks like the series got derailed by the Foreign Exchange Student that loves hamburgers. She was introduced two seasons ago as Comic Relief, but things have been going downhill ever since the "hunt for the ultimate hamburger" arc started eighty episodes ago."

Trope pages can accomplish multiple things at once.

edited 17th Aug '12 7:33:39 PM by EnragedFilia

Then it is an observation on the same line as Growing the Beard or Jump the Shark, both of which are no more subjective than this. I personally find the page an interesting read about the idea of diminishing returns, elements that worked or were not as annoying gradually become detrimental.
46 RJSavoy18th Aug 2012 12:17:06 PM from Edinburgh , Relationship Status: I'm just a poor boy, nobody loves me
You know, I would have expected this article to be a magnet for complaining, but it's actually well written and definitely most examples have something to them. But I still feel it has problems.

I disagree with some of the examples as written, especially the Star Trek entry. The first two elements worked fine in their time and only became a problem when reused all the time and the franchise did not keep up with television that was evolving around it. And how is the Mirror universe a problem? "In a mirror, darkly" was for me the best two episodes in all of Enterprise. And the World of Warcraft entry hardly explains much.

The other is that the trope seems to me a mix of Plot Tumor, and People Sit on Chairs in the form of "when writers run out of ideas they bring back existing elements and give them too much emphasis". Or maybe just a failure to keep things in balance from losing sight of the global package. There may be something genuine here, but I'm not seeing it.
47 SeptimusHeap18th Aug 2012 12:18:56 PM from Laniakea , Relationship Status: Mu
What has People Sit on Chairs to do with anything here? It's an Audience Reaction. The difference between this and Plot Tumor is that the latter isn't usually bad and that the badness occurs for reasons that already existed when it was good.
49 DonaldthePotholer17th Sep 2012 07:09:00 PM from Somewhere in (not)Miami
I shall demonstrate my understanding with what I think is an example:

Ash Ketchum's lack of tactical comprehension. In the early days of the Anime, Ash could act like a rookie because he was. The Fleeting Demographic demands that lessons need to be applied repeatedly, at least once per Region. The problem is, Ash's starter, Pikachu, is the series mascot. So it's left to Ash to be the Audience Surrogate. And with the Fleeting Demographic, it means that Ash is Not Allowed to Grow Up and thus, have to (re)learn most of the same lessons even after he competed in 4 Regional Leagues and 2 Challenge Series (the former of which he always lasted long in the Tournament Arc, and the later he conquered).

tl;dr: Ash could be an Idiot Hero back when he started, but his still being, and acting ten years old discredit his past achievements. And yet, it's necessary due to the Fleeting Demographic of the Anime.

Which means, to me, half of the examples, and a quarter of the description, is wrong.

EDIT: In effect, the offending element had to be there from (almost) the start, a central element of the series or one of its key characters/settings, was not offending at first, but later proves dated or irrelevant or is the source of Fridge Logic when applied to or compared with later episodes of the series.

(By comparison, Brock's Casanova Wannabe act is not this because it's not essential to the series.)

edited 17th Sep '12 7:20:30 PM by DonaldthePotholer


Total posts: 51
1 2 3