Cleaning Up Needless References To Reviewers

Throughout this site, some tropers have a habit of adding in potholes and references to their favorite reviewers in entries, e.g. "Come see (reviewer)'s take on it here!"

Not only is it often unnecessary, but in some cases if the critic in question is a Caustic Critic it can be used to invite complaining, on top of crossing over into Reviews Are the Gospel territory since these tropers often treat these reviewers as if their opinion is fact.

Per this thread in Wiki Talk, this thread has been created in Long-Term Projects to clean up this kind of thing and Reviews Are the Gospel-type stuff in general.

REMEMBER: This criteria, made by mightymewtron, should be followed for knowing when to keep reviewer potholes:

Edited by themayorofsimpleton on Feb 3rd 2021 at 3:28:10 PM

I'll start us off with a big one: the Horrible pages.

Throughout the pages, there are constant "come see (reviewer)'s take on it here!" sections that are completely unnecessary and seem to invite problematic entries based on whether or not they got a review from a Caustic Critic.

What should we do about them?

I’ve always found that to be unnecessary myself. The opinions of some more “official” critics (ex. Roger Ebert) can help reinforce an example, but some works accumulate far too many references to reviewers under their entries. The Emoji Movie is one particularly bad offender, having a grand total of 14 different reviews under it (15 if you count the xkcd strip), all of which take up more vertical space than the main entry itself:

• The Emoji Movie. Mercilessly panned from the instant it was announced, the film went on to prove all its critics right. The story is ridiculously clichéd, insultingly predictable, embarrassingly unsubtle, Totally Radical, and it contradicts every one of its own messages. The subplot is barely even there to begin with. The characters are all one-note at best—more effort seems to have gone towards the relentless Product Placement. Its Metacritic page currently stands at 12 out of 100 (so far the lowest Metascore of any animated movie), its Rotten Tomatoes page currently stands at 7% (the third-lowest for an animated film, above Yu-Gi-Oh! The Movie: Pyramid of Light, which is on the other end of the spectrum, and fellow Horrible entry Happily N'Ever After), and often appears on IMDb's Bottom 100 list. Furthermore, it's the first-ever animated film nominated and awarded Worst Picture, Worst Director, Worst Screen Combo, and Worst Screenplay at the Golden Raspberries. Ironic, as Sony had submitted the film for Best Animated Feature consideration at the Oscars). The film spawned a ton of Internet reviews, with even xkcd getting in on the action.
  • Chris Stuckmann tears this movie a new one (and in his review of The Nut Job 2: Nutty by Nature, he mocks this film as "the recent animated version of cancer on film"), and he later named it his worst film of 2017, beating out other stinkers like Fifty Shades Darker and the Flatliners remake due to how angry he was at its shameless pandering to children and its awful moral of "Text more often!" that he wanted to find every copy of the movie and destroy it.
  • AniMat also tears the film apart here (at one point saying that the film's attempts at humor are so awful that even Dunkirk, a war film, is a funnier film), and he later named it his #1 worst animated film of 2017, going so far as to say that it's a fact that the film is bad by that point, as well as his #1 pick for worst animated film of the 2010 decade.
  • I Hate Everything analyzes his open disgust in great detail.
  • Bobsheaux points out the film's Idiot Plot here.
  • PhantomStrider gives the movie a dressing down over its pandering nature here and named it the worst film of 2017.
  • CellSpex also takes several shots at it, and would later give it the "Mostly Justified Hate Magnet" award on her end of the year list.
  • The Double Toasted crew also shared their thoughts on the matter. Token White guy Grits would call it his personal worst film of the year.
  • Max Gilardi (of Brain Dump) came up with a much better plot for the film.
  • Joey Tedesco also shared his thoughts in this vlog and later did a Cartoon Palooza review here.
  • The Mysterious Mr. Enter also has some choice words for the film, and he points out how the film has the audacity to insult its own audience while pandering to them at the same time. He also compared the film to the infamous Seltzer and Friedberg films and their low-brow brand of humor.
  • RebelTaxi would later call the film the 9th "WORST CARTOON News of 2017".
  • MovieBob also talks about it here, and later named it his 5th worst film of 2017.
  • 24 Frames of Nick also joined the club and ripped it apart here
  • The Nostalgia Critic rips this movie apart here.

Yeah that's too much.

I wonder if we could set some kind of standard about when it is appropriate to cite reviewers on this site. Like, in what situations is it appropriate, what kinds of reviewers can we cite, etc. Maybe that would help with the goal of this thread.

Any other thoughts?

I like the reviewer references on those pages. I often find myself interested when reading the examples, and the reviewers satisfy that craving for more information about the work and why it's so bad. They're what helped me get into reviewers like Phelous in the first place. They can be evidence that this work not only exists but it as awful as the example is claiming. To a point, they're harmless and can help cap off the example, as long as:

• The example stands on its own, not just going off of what (insert reviewer here) said one time.
• It's not an extreme chain of reviewers like with the Emoji Movie example; a handful of people will suffice.

Edited by WarJay77 on Feb 3rd 2021 at 2:40:19 PM

The Horrible pages kind of need some sort of external proof in order to give credibility to the examples, and the reviewer links help with that. I also worry about trimming The Emoji Movie because people might get offended that some reviewers are "worth keeping" over others, so to speak. Maybe we could put the review links for that film under a note or something, and make a commented-out note not to add any more?

Personally I see no problem with mentioning reviewers in YMMV items to give some credibility, as long as it doesn't suggest their opinion is the gospel. If it's a widespread opinion and the entry can stand on its own, and the reviewer just helps explain it, then I don't think it's doing harm.

Edited by mightymewtron on Feb 3rd 2021 at 2:50:49 PM

I agree with this. If it helps put a cap on common issues or points of praise for a work, then it should be fine.

One related issue I have noticed, however, is people putting quotes or overt references to reviewers/riffers on work pages for material they've covered. All-Star Batman & Robin, the Boy Wonder is particularly lousy with allusions to the series' Atop the Fourth Wall review, though other pages simply have a few more quotes or mentions scattered throughout the examples (including Zap Dramatic and Earnest Evans, both covered by Retsupurae, and Manos: The Hands of Fate, riffed by Mystery Science Theater 3000).

Yeah, that's an issue. Examples should stand alone and the reviewer bits should be supplementary; if the example is specifically referencing certain reviewers to describe why it's bad, we might need to do some rewriting.

What you are mentioning is one of the main reasons I created this cleanup: to help remove complaining in the form of reviewer mentions.

mightymewtron's criteria sounds good. We should stick to that I guess when cleaning this stuff up.

Actually, is it alright if I add the criteria to the OP? It helps establish criteria for what is and isn't allowed.

Go for it. We might want it pinned too; you can holler a mod for that.

How would I holler for it to be pinned? Is it just like a regular holler, but I'm just asking for it to be pinned?

Yep.

For The Emoji Movie, we could choose one or two to put on its entry, and the rest can go on the discussion page.

I'd rather do the note, just so we don't look like we're "playing favorites". People get very touchy about these things for some reason.

Alright, I've hollered the OP.

I think linking to reviews is needed on the Horrible pages. We need some external evidence that it's not one editor who thinks it belongs on the page. No one review, as has been stated, is enough, but it is good evidence.

My problem with the entry posted is the format. It would look much better condensed as "For more information, see the reviews by [[link X]], [[link Y]], [[link Z]]."

Alright, so clearly the Horrible pages need citations. I rescind that claim.

Are there any pages anyone here knows besides Horrible that have a large number of problematic and unneeded reviewer citations?

Yeah, something along the lines of "so and so provides extra insight here" at the end of an example actually seems like a pretty good way of referencing reviewers, not just on the Horrible pages but in general. It makes it so that the example isn't totally reliant on the reviewer's thoughts, while at the same time, giving tropers the option to check out what the reviewer has to say in case they want to do so.

Pinned the top post per request, but the pin only becomes visible once the thread is at least two pages long.

Thanks!

I'm for this project, so I just want to note that if the reviewer has a page, the example can be saved as a "regular" example via In-Universe.

Found this on Sonic Boom:

Eggman's Anti-Gravity Ray," Knuckles manages to give a surprisingly insightful speech on how to do feminism correctly. Several viewers have pointed out that not only would this viewpoint be a healthier one for the feminist movement in general but that it would be healthier for any group feeling maligned and/or mistreated. The point is so good that The Mysterious Mr. Enter uses it to help explain the problem with "fake-breaking stereotypes" in his list of Worst Animation Cliches.

Amy: It all comes down to this one penalty kick. Can the young woman break the glass ceiling and prove once and for all that a female can be just as good an athlete as a male?
Knuckles: You know Amy, any time someone calls attention to the breaking of gender roles, it ultimately undermines the concept of gender equality by implying that this is an exception and not the status quo. (the others stare at him in stunned silence) What? Just because I'm a meathead doesn't mean I'm not a feminist.

That entire entry seems like a flagrant ROCEJ violation on top of having an unnecessary mention of Mr. Enter. I would argue for it to be cut, but I think some consensus may be needed.

It's an Awesome entry and it certainly seems to be the intended reaction to the situation. I think the last sentence is the only one that needs to be cut (because it's meta; reacting to a reaction).

Ah, OK, I was just concerned about ROCEJ stuff.