Unintentionally Unsympathetic and Unintentionally Sympathetic Cleanup

Looking at YMMV.Bluey and I gotta say, some of the UU entries confuse me.

• Unintentionally Unsympathetic:
  • The conflict of 'The Sleepover' is Bingo and Bluey trying to keep a sleep-deprived Muffin awake at their sleepover so they can stay up later, as Chilli promised them. Although Muffin needing to be put to bed is fair (since the episode is meant to teach young viewers that sometimes, promises have to be broken for someone else's well-being), Chilli offers no compromise, and even blames Bluey for the fact that Muffin wasn't in bed long ago. Is Chilli meant to be sympathetic? What's there to feel bad for? And what compromise exactly could she have provided?
  • 'Movies' has Bingo being disruptive and messy in the movie theater, eventually getting up and running around, and Bandit more or less allowing her to, rather than taking the opportunity to teach good theater etiquette. ...And? How is this portrayed? Are we supposed to be on their side?
  • Chilli in 'Omelette' feels bad for sidelining Bingo from the preparation of Bandit's morning omelette, so she enlists her help in making a second — even though it means forbidding Bandit from eating the first, sending him back upstairs to wait, and making him eat a horribly done omelette full of shells. This would be less of an issue if it were any generic morning, but it's happening on his birthday. Are we supposed to not side with Bingo? Or at least, not feel bad for him?
  • Bandit in 'Ragdoll', if not for the fact that he reclaims money Bluey and Bingo found around the house, for reneging on his promise to take them for ice cream if they can get him to the car. Conversely, viewers who are more sympathetic to Bandit's initial point ("Correction: You found my moneys") may find Wendy's actions — barging in to take over parenting his children without listening to his side of the story, to the point of taking his keys and driving his car without asking his permission — to be quite unsympathetic. Unfocused, and doesn't explain the first part at all
  • Calypso in 'Typewriter' takes the titular typewriter, hides it, and when Bluey comes looking for it, nudges her into using an imaginary typewriter instead. Bluey, needless to say, already has an excellent imagination, but she can't read, making the typewriter a fun sensory exercise in reading and hand-eye coordination that Calypso took from her simply because. Once again, is Calypso meant to be sympathetic here?

Edit: Looking at the history, these were hidden for weird reasons by Hot Scorpion, only to be unhidden by Spacecoyote, again with weird reasons; both of these happened in 2023. Neither troper addressed or fixed the issues.

Edited by WarJay77 on Mar 26th 2024 at 2:17:43 PM

If they don't explain why they were supposed to be sympathetic, cut.

Molly’s entry was removed but do you think Norman’s should be removed or condensed https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=15194292110A03429900&page=89#comment-2223

I would say that Norman's entries should warrant a discussion before I would say to remove these examples from the page in my eyes judging from what I have read.

I'm not really familiar with Adventures like I am with the movies, so I can't speak on whether any of that's accurate. But at the very least it should be cut down, the entire last half of the paragraph reads like somebody trying to list a bunch of justifications for their interpretation, especially since it's employing fridge reasoning like the "he was only six so he probably wouldn't have been punished anyway" bit.

x3 Speaking of Molly, I’m beginning to think that the Unintentionally Unsympathetic subpage of Pokémon needs a serious cleanup.

The examples about Serena and Iris are just fans complaining about their poorly written portrayals. I’ve watched both seasons of these respective poke girls and I don’t think you were supposed to sympathize and side with Iris when she calls Ash a kid nor were you supposed to sympathize with Serena when it comes to her issues with her mother (especially since Serena has been nothing but respectful towards her mother). I feel like Pokémon in general attracts so much complaining.

Edited by MsCC22 on Apr 1st 2024 at 4:42:35 AM

Found on YMMV.Trolls World Tour:

• Unintentionally Unsympathetic: Poppy. Even those who liked her in the first movie, didn't like her in this one. You're supposed to root for her while also wanting her to realize that her mistake for not listening to what anyone tell her not to do. Unfortunately, that's not the case, since she spends the entire movie as a selfish ignorant, making bad choices, putting her friends in danger and only then, in the climax is when she does something right.

Honestly unsure if this really counts considering she gets repeatedly called out on her actions multiple times throughout the movie (including the Big Bad herself) so I don't think it's unintentional.

Found this on Invincible (2021) YMMW under Unintentionally Sympathetic.

• The forewoman in Season 2 Episode 2 is framed as an asshole bureaucrat for berating Eve when she uses her powers to fix the last corner of the building. However she is completely correct that Eve is not a trained architect or construction worker and should not be taking over construction without asking (and that Eve's actions scared her workers, which could have resulted in an accident). No one has any idea if Eve built the building to code or made sure it was properly designed, making the belligerent reactons from both Eve and the single mother seem rude to a woman who was 95% done reconstructing an entire apartment building in a month.

Considering episode later has park Eve created with her powers collapse and gives her huge My God, What Have I Done? moment, I feel like the forewoman was suposed to be vindicated in her anger towards Eve.

& Feel free to cut both due to being intentional from what I can tell.

Here is an example for Shrek Forever After that I think needs purging.

• Unintentionally Unsympathetic: When Shrek snaps at Fiona and says he wishes he had never saved her from the Dragon's Keep, Fiona is meant to be viewed as sympathetic, except she doesn't come off any better than Shrek since she brushes off his feelings when the guests at the babies' party drive Shrek off the deep end, getting mad at Shrek and accusing him of being ungrateful even though it was clearly shown that Shrek is grateful for what he has and was simply so aggravated by everyone's demanding behavior towards him that he just couldn't take it anymore. Fiona instead comes off as insensitive towards Shrek for refusing to understand Shrek's problem and also refusing to sympathize with him for what everyone put him through. Only until we go to the alternate universe do we actually start to feel bad for her. I agree that Fiona was definitely in the wrong for brushing off Shrek's feelings, but Fiona was just badly written in this scene. Also, Fiona wasn't completely wrong in this scene. Shrek was still in the wrong for his outburst and ruining the cake at his kids' party, and the cake situation is Shreks's fault.

All that matters if fans side with Shrek. We aren't saying whether or not she was objectively at fault or something.

I mean I have seen more fans say that Shrek was out of character then what Fiona does in that scene.

If so, then fair. Once again though the original argument was more like "this is an incorrect opinion"

x3 But fans are siding with Shrek in that scene and he is sympathetic…until he smashed the cake. Fiona was somewhat justified in calling Shrek out for his outburst since Shrek smacking the cake wasn’t necessary at all.

Edited by MsCC22 on Apr 2nd 2024 at 12:02:30 PM

Again, this is an opinion. The context matters less than reaction.

Recently the discussion section for Pokémon had somebody comment that Iris and Serena’s pages come across more as complaining about how they’re written in the anime that being UNINTENTIONALLY unsympathetic. For context here are the entries, to help determine if they need to be rewritten or scrapped:

• Iris' dynamic with Ash was supposed to be seen as a replica of Ash's dynamic with Misty from the Indigo Series. However, since Ash would only occasionally snark back at Iris in Best Wishes (unlike Kanto Ash who would always snark back at Misty when Misty insulted him), this is what caused some fans to feel like Iris' constant teasing of Ash came across as unnecessarily mean spirited (unlike Ash's dynamic with Misty).
• Serena can come off this way in her relationship with her mother, Grace. We're meant to see Serena feeling as though Grace is pushing her into following in her footsteps as a racer and wanting her to do things she doesn't want to do as being valid and having reason to root for her. But it's made clear that Serena chose to try out Rhyhorn Racing, actually does have a talent for racing but doesn't enjoy doing it because it gets too rough for her, and indeed has a history of giving up on something she takes on the moment it starts getting too hard and requiring more extra effort from her. Grace thus seems insistent that Serena stick to racing because she knows that's something she's skilled at and pushes for her to put in more effort and work harder at it so that she can get better at it, which isn't an unreasonable thing for a mother to want for her child. Yet Serena acts as though her mother was overbearing, even when Grace has given her enough comfort and freedom of choice that her striking out on her own in order to join Ash on his journey was possible in the first place.

Edited by Mariofan99 on Apr 2nd 2024 at 5:52:50 AM

I'm already discussing this in the Pokemon anime forum.

The UU trope is supposed to be about characters who are supposed to be portrayed as woobies and sympathy that failing to obtain sympathy. Those posts are just complaining about Iris and Serena being badly written in certain aspects of their story.

Edited by MsCC22 on Apr 3rd 2024 at 5:51:17 AM

x3 I suggest we re-write the Fiona entry. While Fiona is UU for brushing off Shrek's feelings and pinning all the blame on Shrek (when really it is partially his fault), she was still correct to call Shrek out on his outburst at the party. Shrek was right to be angry and annoyed, but him smashing the cake does come off as OOC as Bullman pointed out.

This trope is a fan reaction trope and there are fans that point out that Shrek was not only OOC, but he was still wrong for smashing the cake, thus running the kids party.

Edited by MsCC22 on Apr 3rd 2024 at 5:46:20 AM

Can you draft said rewrite? I'm genuinely having trouble understanding exactly what you're aiming for if it isn't "the fans are wrong though".

I'm not an expert on that movie, but based on what's been argued, perhaps Misaimed Fandom would be a better fit, as it seems like fans are viewing the confrontation as a binary, when in actuality, both Shrek and Fionna were right and wrong in their own ways. (i.e. Shrek was out of line for destroying the cake and ruining the party, and Fionna was right to call him out on it, but she was equally out of line for blaming his outburst entirely on him because he had valid reasons to be upset).

Thank you. I mean Fiona was wrong for pinning all the blame on Shrek, but she still rightly criticized Shrek for his outburst. Even before Shrek smashed the cake, fans are ignoring how Fiona was concerned asked Shrek if he was okay. I’ve been busy and I will re-write the whole thing much later today.

Edited by MsCC22 on Apr 6th 2024 at 10:00:35 AM

Recently the discussion section for Pokémon had somebody comment that Iris and Serena’s pages come across more as complaining about how they’re written in the anime that being UNINTENTIONALLY unsympathetic. And that kind of issue is also making me second guess Goh’s entry. For context here are the entries, to help determine if they need to be rewritten or scrapped:

• Iris' dynamic with Ash was supposed to be seen as a replica of Ash's dynamic with Misty from the Indigo Series. However, since Ash would only occasionally snark back at Iris in Best Wishes (unlike Kanto Ash who would always snark back at Misty when Misty insulted him), this is what caused some fans to feel like Iris' constant teasing of Ash came across as unnecessarily mean spirited (unlike Ash's dynamic with Misty).
• Serena can come off this way in her relationship with her mother, Grace. We're meant to see Serena feeling as though Grace is pushing her into following in her footsteps as a racer and wanting her to do things she doesn't want to do as being valid and having reason to root for her. But it's made clear that Serena chose to try out Rhyhorn Racing, actually does have a talent for racing but doesn't enjoy doing it because it gets too rough for her, and indeed has a history of giving up on something she takes on the moment it starts getting too hard and requiring more extra effort from her. Grace thus seems insistent that Serena stick to racing because she knows that's something she's skilled at and pushes for her to put in more effort and work harder at it so that she can get better at it, which isn't an unreasonable thing for a mother to want for her child. Yet Serena acts as though her mother was overbearing, even when Grace has given her enough comfort and freedom of choice that her striking out on her own in order to join Ash on his journey was possible in the first place.

• As a result of his desire to catch every Pokémon species, Goh is meant to be seen as an ambitious and vigorous boy, but a number of fans find the way he goes about achieving this goal (or even the goal itself) to be rather callous in nature. While the games encourage players to catch every Pokémon to fill out the Pokédex, the anime made it clear in the very first episode that catching a Pokémon is not required to obtain that species' Pokédex entry in this continuity. This means catching every Pokémon serves no purpose beyond bragging rights in the anime. Moreover, the anime throughout its entire run has emphasized that having fewer but stronger relationships with Pokémon is more desirable and respectable than having several shallow ones. Adding to the problem, Goh clearly favors certain Pokémon over others (out of the 115 Pokémon Goh owns, only 27 have made multiple appearances, with three of those Pokemon being permanent fixtures in his party). It doesn't help that any headway Goh makes toward treating his Pokémon better rarely transfers over to other species, with Goh having to constantly relearn the same lessons.

——

Similarly this entry has also come into question in the past

• Pokémon Adventures: Norman from the Ruby & Sapphire chapter is supposed to be seen as a noble Papa Wolf who cares for his son deep down in spite of their differing interests, and is simply frustrated by the fact he was forced to take the blame for his son letting a Rayquaza escape captivity, note which delayed his promotion to Gym Leader by five years and forced Norman to spend multiple years searching for Rayquaza. The reader is supposed to see Norman as a good father and person given that Norman's death triggers Ruby's Heroic BSoD and his revival by Celebi being treated by the narrative as a joyous moment. However, there are multiple reasons that some fans doubt Norman's love for his son and feel Ruby would be better off without him. For starters, Norman was at best annoyed by his son's decision to become a Coordinator, which Ruby did in part due to the trauma of the Rayquaza incident. It's implied this disapproval is because Norman carries resentment towards Ruby for the Rayquaza incident, but ultimately, there was no reason to take the blame. Ruby was only six at the time, so it's highly unlikely there would've been any serious punishment given, making Norman's choice to protect Ruby a Stupid Sacrifice and his subsequent viewpoint on Ruby's choices feel like a cruel dismissal of Ruby's trauma. Furthermore, when Ruby runs away under the belief Norman would never approve of him being a Coordinator, Noman goes searching for him. However, when Norman manages to locate his son instead of trying to talk things out, Norman proceeds to punch Ruby and try to take him home by force.

Two and a Half Men:

• Unintentionally Unsympathetic: The show often alternates between who should be "right" about his brother, i.e. Charlie is often portrayed as an uncaring ass who treats Alan as a burden on him, and Alan is often portrayed as a lazy bum who won't move out. The problem is that Alan's financial troubles that led to Charlie having to take him in are 100% Charlie's fault, which goes all the way back to the pilot episode. Even if they weren't, Charlie is absurdly wealthy and could easily buy Alan his own house if he wanted him out that badly, so it comes off as a rich snob complaining that people who aren't as well-off as him have the gall to ask him for help. Though it should also be noted that it is not Charlie's place to buy Alan a house as it's ultimately up to Alan to improve his financial troubles, which he rarely, if ever, attempts to do. Not to mention Alan has repeatedly expressed no desire to leave Charlie's house even if he could afford to and he seems more than happy to mooch off his brother rather than spend any of his own money. Additionally, some episodes reveal Charlie's finances aren't as good as they appear, such as when he's hospitalised and reveals he's leaving the house to Alan, but it has two mortgages and the property taxes are $50,000 a year, or when the royalty payments slow down and he has to wait for his commercials to start airing again and his accountant reveals he has very little saved up, meaning buying a house for Alan might not be possible.

This starts out be arguing how Alan is sympathetic and Charlie should support him, only to then turn around and defend Charlie. The other thing is it brings up how Alan's financial situation is Charlie's fault, but doesn't elaborate. For those who haven't watched the show, Charlie slept with Alan's divorce attorney. When he broke it off, she took it out on Alan by giving Judith a very one-sided divorce settlement.

That's because it started out normal before the second half was added and expanded upon by other tropers.

Should the example just be cut? Not only does it have issues, but both Alan and Charlie are Base Breaking Characters. I don't think there's a fan consensus on who is sympathetic. Plus, who is meant to be sympathetic varies from episode to episode.

Edited by SharkToast on Apr 10th 2024 at 7:57:33 AM