Cleaning Up Needless References To Reviewers

Found on Coconut Fred's Fruit Salad Island:

• Alternate Character Interpretation:
  • Both The Mysterious Mr. Enter and Nothing But Cartoons seem to interpret Fred as a God of Evil with a sadistic sense of humor and limitless power.
  • Pan Pizza interprets Fred as a Mad God unable to feel anything but joy. As a result, he is unaware of the pain he is causing.

These entries consist entirely of the opinions of the three mentioned critics. What should be done?

I would rewrite it this way:

• Alternate Character Interpretation: The Nothing But Cartoons blog has posted a review that sees Fred as a God of Evil with a sadistic sense of humor and limitless power.

Alright thanks, replaced the entry

The bolded portion of this entry in YMMV.Bugsnax was added here:

• What Do You Mean, It's for Kids?: The game has a lot of cartoony charm and fun Mon-style collection gameplay that clearly establishes that it's meant for a young audience, but a recurring talking point among players and critics alike is that for better and for worse, there is a bizarre, horror-like undercurrent to the whole thing with its quasi-Body Horror and the uncanny nature of capturing googly-eyed Bugsnax knowing that they'll be eaten. It also features pretty sophisticated interpersonal conflicts among the cast, which — while it never becomes "inappropriate" — can come off as very unexpectedly mature and complex given the presentation of the rest of the game. Yahtzee Croshaw compares it to "Fraggle Rock as directed by David Cronenberg."

Is it actually necessary?

Not really. The bolded portion can probably be cut.

This is on Ed Edd N Eddy S 5 E 2 Smile For The Ed:

• Angst Aversion: The episode is so mean-spirited, even by the show's standards, that fans find the episode nearly impossible to watch. In fact, a YouTuber named Jem Reviews stated that after he watched the episode, he had to get therapy due to the cruelty.

Is the last sentence really necessary?

Edited by fragglelover on Mar 12th 2021 at 5:39:26 AM

The whole entry seems complain-y. At the very least the last part can be deleted, but the example may actually need a rewrite.

From Critical Dissonance:

• Big Mouth has a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes and is actually the most reviewed animated show on the entire website with unanimous praise (Season 2 at least). Despite this, the series can be either loved or hated, with The Mysterious Mr. Enter even going so far as to call it the second worst cartoon of the 2010s.

I don't really know anything about the show other than it's incredibly divisive, but I'm mostly putting it here because I'd rather forget about Enter's list. ^note Family Guy was #1, by the way. That's pretty much the whole reason why I didn't like it.

The version of Critical Dissonance on the show's YMMV page reads:

The show received unanimous praise from critics, with a higher-than average percentage rating on IMDb and a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Viewer response, on the other hand, has been more mixed-to-positive.

I think this is a better way of putting this trope. I'm not sure if the show has what could be called Love It or Hate It reception among viewers (which is what the entry you mentioned implies), but the Mr. Enter reference just comes across as the (rather negative) opinion of a single person. The review websites and overall viewer response, on the other hand, are much more widespread than just one person's opinion.

I would have no problem cutting it.

Edited by Shadow8411 on Apr 5th 2021 at 1:42:48 AM

It’s funny, because I thought the dissonance in Critical Dissonance was supposed to be between critics and normal audiences members, but actually the divide here is between the Rotten Tomatoes critics and critics elsewhere (in fact, this scored HIGHER on the Tomatometer than the audience score).

So, really this isn’t truly an example of Critical Dissonance in the first place.

Edited by antenna_ears on Apr 5th 2021 at 1:46:08 AM

Agreed. It can be cut based on the above post.

Is the part I've bolded from the Hilarious in Hindsight example from Superman Returns necessary?

• The wig Lex wears is the same hairstyle that Jesse Eisenberg sports in Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, as pointed out by Honest Trailers.

Nah, I think Honest Trailers is funny, but they probably weren't the first or only ones to have that incredible observation.

Edited by antenna_ears on Apr 6th 2021 at 7:25:05 AM

From LJN Toys:

The company is probably best known today as a frequent target of The Angry Video Game Nerd's ire, who has joked that the name is an acronym for "Laughing Joking Numbnuts".

The Angry Video Game Nerd also referred to the logo as the "Shit Rainbow", the colors are as follows:

Cut. I believe that we aren't allowed to list the reception of a work/creator in the description anyway.

I've cut it for being "(an) unnecessary reference to a reviewer, excessive negativity, and reception outside YMMV pages", while also citing this thread.

It should be noted that prior to March 2021, the page just said about the company being a frequent target of AVGN and the acronym he came up with. Most of the entry I cut wasn't added until March 6th 2021.

Edited by Shadow8411 on Apr 12th 2021 at 6:23:23 AM

Seems like Film.The Blood Waters Of Dr Z spends as much time talking about the MST3K episode about it as it does the film itself. Is this the kind of stuff that should be removed?

Correct. I also see a reference to RedLetterMedia in the description, which should also go.

Homeboys In Outer Space has a Referenced by... entry that consists of two reviewers' reviews of the show. Does Referenced by... extend to "This reviewer reviewed/mentioned the show"?

Not sure, but I'm inclined to say no since we don't trope people's opinions.

(Side note, I'm going to add the series to Works That Require Cleanup of Complaining because the description needs a rewrite.)

I don't think "reviewer did a review" counts as a "reference".

Edited by Primis on Apr 18th 2021 at 5:38:35 AM

In contrast, I'm perfectly fine with it. Referenced by... is the inverse of Shout-Out. The episode that Reviewer B makes about Work A is a shout out to Work A, therefore Work A is referenced by Reviewer B.

Neil Breen's page quote is a sarcastic pun from YourMovieSucks.org's review of Fateful Findings, and both the image caption and first paragraph are references to the Best of the Worst review of Double Down. None of these seem to work as anything besides complaining or forced references to the reviews; it doesn't help that the Best of the Worst review in question has since been unlisted.

Yeah the quote and references can go. The entire page is bloated with complaining anyway—I'll add it to the Works That Require Cleanup of Complaining.

Edited by themayorofsimpleton on Apr 24th 2021 at 8:00:37 AM

Done. I also cut a bunch of review links from the last paragraph (including YMS and BotW) while leaving the actually-relevant links to Neil Breen's Twitter and YouTube.