Why is Critical Research Failure considered a YMMV?

Correct me if I'm wrong but the trope concerns when a character (or a reviewer) makes a factual error about something, right? I don't see how that's subjective.

It's not about a character committing a factual error.

It's about a character committing a factual error that even people not intimately familiar with the subject would not have made.

The italicized part renders it subjective.

Yep. That's exactly it. There was far too much disagreement over what sort of information should be considered "common enough knowledge" to qualify. Which led to scads of natter and justifying edits, and short essays on why everybody ought to recognize that <this> was wrong, or why <that error> wasn't well-enough know to count.

We've had extensive re-organization of the factual error tropes, creating the Artistic License index for most of them and a few more general ones like Critical Research Failure and Dan Browned still around.

Basically, when telling a story these errors don't come up because They Just Didn't Care but because they deliberately fudge the facts to make it work. Spongebob Squarepants creator has a degree in marine biology, Futurama writers have degrees in physics and mathematics. Yet much of the internet population find themselves to be so clever for noticing those things, such that "armchair criticism" spreads over the wiki like a weed instead of being about the trope.

It's a better idea to have the approach be "Why did they go that direction?" instead of "They're lazy bastards who don't know what they're talking about." The more specific sub-types of Artistic License are working well enough, but CRF is too open ended to avoid that (and really, is redundant as any example could probably fit under another AL trope).

edited 21st Nov '14 1:05:59 PM by KJMackley

Where do you put under a video reviewer making an error?

Such as Bob the Reviewer reviews a movie and says the movie bombed in the box office, but the movie actually made more than twice its budget back.

Or a character in a show states something as fact and we're suppose to believe that it is true.

Artistic License is usually for the sake of story, like "people can't actually breathe in space but for this show just go with it"

edited 21st Nov '14 2:13:30 PM by Batman39

It is not all that important why a certain thing in a work of fiction diverges from reality. We do not have mind-reading powers. Now, most - if not almost all - tropes have specific storytelling functions but simple factual inaccuracies are murky.

I don't think we have a page for that reviewer-getting-the-box-office-result-wrong thing.

Nor should we. It's grossly tangential to what we are about.

Well movie reviewers are in a weird condition that is part fiction (the story is their opinion of the media) and part reality (they are generally portraying themselves). So something like that could be an actual trope like Failed a Spot Check.

I think it's a super-slippery slope to assume all reviewers are playing a part.

That's not what I said, but real people have trope pages related to their work. And the majority of reviewers who have their own pages ARE playing characters.

I'd lump them in the same category as news articles. Cowboy BeBop at His Computer is along those lines.

edited 22nd Nov '14 2:42:27 AM by AnotherDuck

I'm still confused about Critical Research Failure being YMMV - if a character doesn't know a fact that he absolutely should know considering his professional background, doesn't that mean he failed to do some critical research?

Example: In 'The Man From U.N.C.L.E.', KGB spy Illya Kuryakin doesn't know what an aircraft carrier is. It's true that the Soviet Navy did not use aircraft carriers at the time in which the movie is set, but surely a Russian spy would be aware of American and British aircraft carriers if he'd opened even a single book on NATO military forces?

Is there another trope name I should be using instead of Critical Research Failure?

That's a borderline example — it would only apply if the average viewer could be expected to call bullshit on the character in question not knowing that. The biggest problem with Critical Research Failure is misuse — hence its YMMV status. It is not just "story misrepresents a fact", it is "story blatantly misrepresents a fact that any reasonable person should be able to call it out on". However, people seem (shockingly) to disagree on what meets that criterion.

To make up a hypothetical example, if Batman were to discuss some obscure facet of bats' echolocation abilities and get it wrong, there is no reasonable expectation that the average audience member would pick up on it. However, if Batman were to call bats insects, or say they hunt by smell, it would count.

That stories get facts wrong is not a trope. At best it's trivia, but really there is no way to have an article on it that doesn't turn accusatory towards writers when that is largely unjustified. CRF applies when (a) they really should have known, (b) the audience should be expected to call 'bullshit' on them not knowing.

edited 3rd Nov '15 2:28:02 PM by Fighteer

I don't think that's an example. It's not technically an error. It's just a very implausible lack of knowledge.

The putative error is that the authors didn't realize that the character should have known that fact, but it's a really big stretch.

edited 3rd Nov '15 2:25:48 PM by Fighteer

Also consider that Illya may been joking. Denying the existence of something that was not invented in Russia is a common joke about and sometimes by Russians.

Nothing in the movie suggests that Illya is joking about not knowing what an aircraft carrier is, and his question is also taken at face value by Waverly, who answers him.

The Critical Research Failure is not on part of the script authors, but on Illya's part - Illya is the one who failed to do the research. If the trope only applies to writers, not characters, what is the proper trope name?

You can try Trope Finder for that question, but CRF is definitely not the right one.

Couldn't that be an In-Universe version of Critical Research Failure?

Only if another character acknowledged it and called her out for it.

Critical Research Failure is specifically an audience reaction. It cannot be used In-Universe for one character reacting to another character's goof. It can only be used in the sense of a character in a story noting a horrible goof on a Show Within a Show.

edited 4th Nov '15 1:18:45 PM by Fighteer

I had a look at the In-Universe/Invoked section of Critical Research Failure and it doesn't seem to be used consistently.

Examples:

Acknowledged by characters in-universe:

• A Series of Unfortunate Events:
  • The villains of The Slippery Slope proudly boast about how they control "two of the greatest mammals: the lions and the eagles!" Klaus calls them out on their error, but they don't care.

Audience reaction:

• The title character in The 40-Year-Old Virgin displays his complete lack of sexual experience when he mentions that breasts feel like bags of sand.

I am lost at what this section on the page is trying to encapsulate.

Neither of those fits the definition of the trope. I don't know if we have a trope for a character calling another character out on getting something horrifyingly wrong, but we should.

edited 4th Nov '15 3:22:50 PM by Fighteer