Misused: Franchise Original Sin

Franchise Original Sin is a "trope" that is long suspected of having been a magnet for complaining. The definition of the trope, according to the Laconic, is "A flaw with the franchise that was there before it became 'bad', but now lacks what first balanced it out." That kind of definition is practically asking for complaining inherently.

A wick check revealed something interesting though. While the trope does attract complaining, it has an even bigger problem with misuse. Many examples do not explain why the supposed "flaw" was tolerated in prior installments, and sometimes simply complain about them. Specifically what the wick check revealed was the following:

• 26% of examples were correctly used and didn't complain
• 20% of examples were used to complain or used complain-y language
• 40% of examples were misused in some way
• 8% of examples were ZCEs, and
• 6% of examples were unknown or unsorted.

Making the complaining portion even worse is that the description mentions this trope's relation to Jumping the Shark, a trope that was made In-Universe Examples Only due to attracting complaining itself when non-IUEO examples were allowed.

I am of the opinion that this concept is not particularly tropeworthy, or even worth having as an Audience Reaction, and I believe it should be cut completely. I feel that this trope exists to do little more than complain and attracts a ton of misuse that I personally can't really figure out how to fix without cutting.

If anyone has any other suggestions to try to fix this trope other than cutting it, feel free to share them as well.

EDIT: Changed some of the wording a bit.

Edited by themayorofsimpleton on May 2nd 2021 at 5:31:58 AM

19000 inbounds speak against cutting. I wonder if a regular cleanup effort may work here.

That's actually not a bad idea.

Honestly I think it'd help complaining to cut the requirement that the old installments that use this element must be "better" than the new installments. The item can just be, "An unpopular element with fans in new installments was actually present in earlier installments," and the differences can be mentioned if needed but without the insistence that the new content with the element is actively worse. That makes it fan-shaming at worst, but the focus is more on clearing up facts — fans may talk about a certain element as if it ruined the series, which may make people believe it's new when it isn't actually new.

I also support a cleanup thread.

Edited by mightymewtron on May 18th 2021 at 8:48:13 AM

100% agreed. I like those options.

Yeah cleanup.

With that change.

I completely agree; I never understood why that was a requirement myself. Removing the “they once did it bettah!!!!1!” requirement would help get rid of a lot of complaining.

Honestly the requirement doesn't seem as bad as people make it out to be, but I have no issue with its removal.

Also note that much of the misuse on the wick check is only misuse because it lacks the "they did it better previously" requirement.

Edited by mightymewtron on May 18th 2021 at 10:18:27 AM

Yeah, I'm good with cutting that requirement and then giving this a cleanup.

I'd be fine with the "how it wasn't an issue in prior works" becoming optional. But how then would it be different then Older Than They Think?

Also, another issue FOS had genre wide examples that would be valid if not for the "Franchise" part. Since we're talking about cleanup any ideas about that?

Older Than They Think states it's "a fan thinks a trope, plot or line was invented by a show they watch, when in truth its origins lie farther back in history." If FOS is this for criticisms, is there justification for keeping it separate from Older? (Merging them would allow the genre wide examples.)

Isnt older for other works that are older then the current work where said thing comes from ?This should be for things from the same franchise ?

Edited by miraculous on May 18th 2021 at 3:01:31 AM

FOS is specifically, well, for franchises, and is less about fans not noticing those things before but not caring before.

OTTT is about fans assuming the work invented a concept.

Could we broaden the scope of Franchise Original Sin? Or would it be better to introduce something like Genre Original Sin?

Genre Original Sin might work, but I’d say that’s out of the scope of this thread.

Maybe propse on trope launch pad.

It's kind of a tough call. Back in the old days, TV Tropes had a bit of a problem where people would pile on the complaints incessantly onto newer, less popular works, while inordinately lionizing earlier entries in the series *cough Star Wars cough*. FOS was intended as something of a criticism leveler - pointing out that the earlier works in the franchise that were not beyond reproach, not Sacred Cows, but works that had flaws. A neat (and important) idea in concept, I can see why it's gained a reputation of being a complaining magnet. I agree that it needs a tune up, but I'm a bit scared that removing it entirely will open the floodgates to dogpiling on the little guy again.

I agree, because it works to deter complaining if used correctly, but somewhere along the way it got that "but here's why it was tolerated in earlier installments" clause that just comes right back around to Nostalgia Goggles.

Yeah, it becomes a way to deflect people pointing out that the old works also did the thing people complain about, because it was "good when they did it". So instead of pushing against Nostalgia Goggles it just reinforces them.

Edited by TheMountainKing on May 18th 2021 at 8:08:49 AM

and FWIW I am 100% in favor of abolishing the "why it was done better" rule, as that appears to be the source of most of the complaining.

That, and of course a cleanup thread.

If the "why it was done better before" requirement is causing complaining, then I agree with removing it and starting a cleanup project.

Edited by GastonRabbit on May 18th 2021 at 10:19:14 AM

Though I have to ask, what exactly constitutes "complaining" as opposed to legitimate use?

Complaining examples can be used correctly, the difference is in their tone. You can correctly define an example and use it for bashing.

I think most overly complainy entries involve stating an opinion as if it were true: "it's a fact that this plot point is bad because" instead of "viewers/fans/etc. took issue with this plot point because..." (and the same goes for overly gushy). I can't really get more specific than that because tropers sorta have a different bar for complaining (and gushing).

I get removing the "why it was overlooked in the original" criteria if it failed to filter complaints.

But I don't see how removing the one theoretical filter would remove the negativity that is causing the problem as opposed to open it up for more complaining.