Unintentionally Unsympathetic and Unintentionally Sympathetic Cleanup

I feel it can stay, just because it varies doenst change the complaint it’s YMMV after all

x5 I want to apologize for not responding since I have been super busy for weeks, but here goes. I think the Iris, Serena and Goh examples should be cut. This trope is about examples in which you were supposed to feel sorry for the characters and see them as woobies, but it's the opposite. The examples of Iris, Serena and Goh are just complaining about poorly written aspects of their characters. I have seen all the respective seasons for these these three characters and I fail to see how these three were supposed to invoke sympathy.

The Norman example should stay, but it should only be edited to highlight this one particular scene in which you were supposed to sympathize with Norman for his motives despite him not being that great as a parent towards Ruby.

Edited by MsCC22 on Apr 13th 2024 at 12:14:45 PM

Though by that logic I’m dont we’re supposed to sympathize with Norman when he punches Ruby, so should he stay?

It sounds like that makes Norman intentionally sympathetic.

What do you think of the other three examples?

it sounds like we need to cut the other 3, though I guess Norman brings up the question if redemption arcs that people feel go too far to sympathize with them count

Complaints about a character being poorly written do not disqualify from being UU in fact the poor writing is why they are UU (if Values Dissonance counts is another question). So the examples being discussed:

• Shrek: Shrek even if he was acting OOC to facilitate it was supposed to be wrong and Fiona right. If Fiona had valid reason maybe this is a better case for Unintentionally Sympathetic?
• Iris: Misuse as while explains the problem doesn't explain why she was supposed to be sympathetic for/despite it (prior cleanup cut the part that might have, that Ash should have been experienced enough to make it invalid, as irrelevant).
• Serena: Sounds more like her mother being Unintentionally Sympathetic / Informed Wrongness than complains against Serena.
• Goh: Only the last part explains possible UU, that his redeeming development meant to counterbalance those flaws not sticking.
• Norman: The creators admitted they came of less sympathetic than intended. Just a question of boiling the entry down to the unintended aspects.
• Charlie and Alan: As written that last part defending Charlie and critiquing Alan is speculation, so I say cut that or the whole thing as arguing with itself (or rework so examples are the case by case moments they were supposed to be in the right).

Speaking of the Pokemon anime, from UnintentionallySympathetic.Anime And Manga

• At the end of the Indigo League, Ash is scolded for moping about his loss and told not to make excuses. However, this results in some of the audience siding with Ash more, for the previous episode had Ash getting kidnapped by Team Rocket and being forced to use his more powerful Pokémon to get away... and fight Richie using Squirtle, Pikachu, and a disobedient Charizard. Thus, some people feel that his sadness at the loss of the league (which he fought pretty hard for) is justified. As The Hero, Ash is overall meant to be sympathetic, so Informed Wrongness seems a better fit.]
• There were numerous times when Misty and Brock would self-righteously claim that Ash only got his first two badges out of pity. However, they're exaggerating at best, and lying at worst. Misty's sisters gave Ash the Cascade Badge because he saved their gym from Team Rocket, who attacked in the middle of Ash and Misty's match- which, by the way, Misty technically cheated in. She coddled Pikachu so that it wouldn't want to battle against her, in other words- tampering with her opponent's Pokemon, which is both unsporting and frankly unprofessional. As for Brock, Ash had him and his Onix on the ropes, when Pikachu accidentality set off the gym's fire sprinklers and only relented because Brock's siblings threw a fit and guilt-tripped him into forfeiting. It was Ash who felt sorry for Brock, so he chose not to win when he could have. It's unfair to label Ash as a charity case, when all he did was be the better sportsman, which comes off as Unintentionally Unsympathetic for his two companions, since repeatedly saying that Ash only got their badges out of pity, when he simply showed better sportsmanship than them, can come across as sour grapes for Misty and outright hypocritical for Brock. Same as above and overlooks he was being arrogant/overconfident about those "wins" at the time, more UU for Brock/Misty.
• And of course Team Rocket. Very often the show liked to play on their pitiful qualities more than their actual villainy, and in some cases they even get condemned for taking Pokemon and goods through legitimate means (just they have a more dastardly demeanour about it). The Running Gag for each episode is the trio getting viciously barraged with Pokemon attacks until they go "blasting off" (launched in the air and crashing down somewhere nearby), and depending on how provocative they are, this can often be applied for very petty reasons or even after doing little to nothing wrong at all. Alternately, only one or two team members play up while one is uninvolved or even opposes, something the heroes very rarely make exception for. This generally happened a lot more in the Hoenn and Sinnoh eras, due to undergoing the worst of their Villain Decay and Straw Loser roles. Maddie Blaustein, one of the voice actors for Meowth in the English dub, once put it very well when half-joking to the fans on message boards that "Team Rocket are the good guys. The Twerps are the villains." First part says it was oft intentional, Karmic Overkill might be better fit they in total got worse than eviler villains.

I still think that the Shrek stuff is being looked at in the wrong way. We don't police examples based on whether or not the opinions are correct. Fiona having a point is just as much an opinion as thinking that Shrek was correct, not objective truth that we can use as justification of stuff. It may be a base breaker since opinions are varied, but this whole conversation kept bouncing back to the idea that since Shrek was "wrong", he can't be US

Nobody was saying that Shrek wasn't US, though. We were contesting the Fiona UU entry. You said that it needs to be re-written, and I should have done it earlier (but I got busy).

Here's the edited entry I wrote:

• Unintentionally Unsympathetic: Fiona. While she was justified in calling Shrek out for the latter destroying the cake and ruining the kids 1st birthday party, Fiona comes off as very unsympathetic since viewers were meant to side with her for unfairly blaming everything on Shrek. Only until we go to the alternate universe do we actually start to feel bad for her.

Edited by MsCC22 on Apr 13th 2024 at 7:59:57 AM

I think my concern is that saying she was justified is, in and of itself, opinion based and starts off the example on an assumption that she was in the right at all. Obviously not everyone thinks she was. I didn't say it needed to be rewritten so much as ask you to do it so that I could understand what you were actually saying. Because your points weren't landing.

I'll cop to forgetting what example exactly we were discussing, though.

We're discussing this from YMMV.Shrek Forever After

• 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.

Turns out the entry is different than the points we were debating. Also the AU part is irrelevant as technically a separate character.

How's this rewrite?

• Unintentionally Unsympathetic: Fiona was supposed to be justifiably upset with Shrek for ruining their children's birthday and his snapping that he wishes he had never saved her from the Dragon's Keep. Many however felt Fiona was unfairly treating Shrek and contributed to his actions by ignoring or brushing off his growing stresses and frustration over the movie until he hit his limit.

I know, I remembered that now. Just didn't before.

That rewrite is better. I mainly just don't want us to inject our own opinions into the cleanup to say whether or not what Fiona did was justified. That was what I was saying the whole time.

Edited by WarJay77 on Apr 13th 2024 at 2:34:41 PM

x2 I don’t think Fiona was wrong to be upset with Shrek for ruining the party. Fiona was in the wrong for pinning all the blame on Shrek and for unfairly labeling Shrek as ungrateful when Shrek was understandably fed up with the others behavior towards him. I think the first rewrite was better.

I’m not even trying to defend Fiona, but you are letting Shrek off the hook too easily when it comes to the cake thing. Shrek had every right to be annoyed with the villagers, but him ruining the party came off as assholish on his end.

I think this should be a better example:

• Unintentionally Unsympathetic: Fiona was supposed to be seen as sympathetic for pinning all the blame on Shrek when things go awry at their kids first birthday party. Many however felt Fiona was unfairly treating Shrek and contributed to his actions by ignoring or brushing off his growing stresses and frustration over the movie until he hit his limit.

Edited by MsCC22 on Apr 14th 2024 at 4:29:26 AM

How about something like this for Norman’s entry:

• Norman is meant to be seen as a parent who wants what’s best for his son Ruby while struggling with the fact an accident Brendan caused cost him a major promotion and hit to his reputation. In practice, many people see Norman as a controlling Abusive Parent due to his dismissal of Ruby’s trauma and willingness to use violence to bring him home after he ran away.

I suggest you put "sympathetic" between "a" and "parent" because this trope is supposed to be about how a character is supposed to be sympathetic but they aren’t.

x3 I’ll remove the Iris, Serena and Goh examples. I’ll get to the other later.

I meant to put “good” or “caring” between the words, so how’s it the entry otherwise

The entry is good.

I'm not defending Shrek or bashing Fiona. Not once have I given my own opinion about the scene. Do you know why? What matters is the overall reaction of the audience, and in every single response to this conversation you've ignored that in favor of claiming there's some objective way to look at this stuff. .

I'm not letting Shrek off the hook, I'm arguing against injecting any personal opinions into this.

Edited by WarJay77 on Apr 14th 2024 at 11:17:37 AM

OK. My bad.

Edited by MsCC22 on Apr 14th 2024 at 8:50:26 AM

How's this tweak?

• Unintentionally Unsympathetic: Fiona was supposed to be seen as justifiably pinning all the blame on Shrek when things go awry at their kids first birthday party. Many however felt Fiona was unfairly treating Shrek and contributed to his actions by ignoring or brushing off his growing stresses and frustration over the movie until he hit his limit.

Also, keeping and revised Iris's UU entry per Pokemon forum. Others are being discussed there.

Also Norman's revised entry. Wondering first if the old entries argument of his taking Ruby's blame was self-inflicted stupidity as Ruby was too young to be seriously punished should be kept or moved somewhere.

Edited by Ferot_Dreadnaught on Apr 14th 2024 at 3:56:53 AM

That works.

As the person who wrote the original Norman entry, I could see an argument that the point relies too much on speculation, but if other people have had the thought Norman brought the situation upon himself I could see it staying

Can I add this to YMMV.Disturbia?

• Unintentionally Unsympathetic: Julie is meant to be sympathic regardless of punishing Kale, her stern personality being the result the stress of raising him after Kale’s father died and wanting the best for him. But for most of the film, she constantly antagonises Kale when he’s clearly depressed, punishes him when simply talking or reprimanding him would do, and blames him for his father’s death, and to top it of trusts the serial killer next door way too easily. All this does not exactly endear her to the audience nor makes her changing for the better at the end feel all that earned.

Edited by generation81 on Apr 18th 2024 at 11:16:58 AM

If no obe objects, I'm just gonna add it.

x2 I've watched the movie and all I can say is to that example staying. You were supposed to see Kale's mother as this good mother who was right and sympathetic when really she had issues with raising her son.