Once Original, Now Common cleanup (formerly "Seinfeld" is Unfunny)

Thinking about it you're absolutely right.

TFA has an entry on the films page, and its exactly as meandering and nattery as you would think:

• The Force Awakens has become somewhere between this and Condemned by History. At the time of its release, it was considered spectacular to see a continuation of the movies as well as have the first female main protagonist in the series in Rey, showing promise for the sequel trilogy as a whole. Then came The Last Jedi and The Rise of Skywalker, whose divisive-to-negative reception dashed those hopes. After those two movies, Star Wars fans going back to The Force Awakens now see its flaws much more apparently as consider it only the beginning of the problems the sequel trilogy has, decrying it as being basically "A New Hope 2.0", accusations of Rey being a Mary Sue (which only got worse in the two sequels), as well as the wasted potential of Supreme Leader Snoke and unsatisfying resolutions of certain plot points. Because of this, it can be hard to realize just how much of a positive buzz The Force Awakens had when people watched it for the first time.

Nothing in this entry states the core concept of SIU, there is no unique or innovative thing there (in fact it complains about the movie being a rehash of New Hope). Honestly, the whole thing should just be cut.

Yeah that just sounds like Franchise Original Sin snuck onto a page where it isn't relevant. I'd also say cut it.

Maybe "seems derivative" isn't quite the best wording, perhaps "no longer seems fresh and innovative" is better. Taking the trope namer, Seinfeld is still enjoyable, and certainly still has its fans. But the things that Seinfeld pioneered, the unsympathetic protaganists, plots based entirely on observational humor, etc, have all been since done and redone. Basically kids watching it today just don't see what the fuss is all about.

That definitely feels easier to work with and gives an adequate degree of flexibility. Would it be a good idea to update the Laconic page to match that (it currently uses the "seems derivative" wording)?

Most definitely add that in.

Cutting TFA entry.

Sticking with the Live Action Films page, since I'm already there, the first six entries are general examples, some with natteriffic sub-bullets. Some of them, like Contractual Purity and Deleted Scenes, actually have pages of their own.

Does anyone feel those are salvageable?

• Delete the first one about early films, but turn the sub-bullet about The Kiss into a main bullet, adjusting it to more overtly focus on how it's been outdone over the years by raunchier films.
• Delete the one about the MPAA.
• Delete the general point about horror films, turn the sub-bullet about The Exorcist into a main bullet and adjust it.
• Rewrite the one about Contractual Purity to focus on either the 1934 adaptation of Of Human Bondage or the 1947 adaptation of Black Narcissus (depending on which one had a greater and longer-lasting impact) and how their use of the Beauty Inversion trope counts. Of note is that Black Narcissus already has a separate point on the page about its use of color and convincing set design.
• Delete the one about Special Effects.
• Rewrite the one about Deleted Scenes to focus on the Star Wars special editions.

And, of course, re-alphabetize the remainders accordingly.

Edited by bowserbros on Sep 6th 2021 at 12:11:21 PM

Aside from the Contractual Purity (only because I am not familiar enough with those films to do a rewrite) I've cut and moved as per above.

Moving Deleted Scenes entry to Star Wars, brings me to the entire Star Wars entry. It is nattery, complainy, indentationous, and much more. I'm going to put my thoughts in bold:

• Star Wars both exhibits and inverts this: (SIU is YMMV, cannot be inverted, played with etc)
  • The first time Emperor Palpatine unleashed Force Lightning on Luke at the climax of Return of the Jedi, it was a shocking and frankly terrifying moment as the withered old man revealed he wasn't the Non-Action Big Bad he appeared to be, as well as a horrific perversion of the Force (which had previously just enhanced and guided Luke's fighting and piloting abilities and enabled some basic telekinesis) into something unfathomably evil. Radical overuse of the ability in the Expanded Universe and the prequel trilogy has made Force Lightning such a common sight (it's basically the default ability of any Fallen Jedi or Sith now) that the impact of Palpatine's first usage is greatly reduced. (assumes that everyone is as familiar with the Expanded Universe materials, I say cut)
  • The Luke, I Am Your Father trope in general. At the time of release, this was a huge, shocking plot twist that threw the fanbase into an uproar, and fans had to wait three years before the next film finally clarified everything. Nowadays the tropes has billions of parodies and straight examples, to the point where the main villain being related to the main hero is almost expected. To whit, when The Last Jedi revealed that Rey wasn't a Skywalker or Solo and was instead a "Nobody", the reaction was polarising to the point that the next film, The Rise of Skywalker, would attempt to mend this by deciding that Rey was descended from Emperor Palpatine, which was even more polarizing. (Unnecessary bashing of the Sequel Trilogy, cut everything after saying it has been copied and parodied billions of times)
  • After the three-plus decades of pulp sci-fi blockbusters that the film (directly or indirectly) inspired, the film might not seem so original. (This says nothing in particular, I say cut)
  • Modern audiences often perceive Leia as the typical Token Female, but at the time she was viewed as incredibly progressive and a large leap forward in the representation of women in film. (Do modern audiences consider Leia a token? Was Star Wars the first to have a female protagonist?)
  • In the other direction, the original trilogy in particular had this effect on many of the older Space Opera tales that inspired them, such as Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers. It didn't help that both of those series were revived (the former as a movie, the latter as a TV series) to cash in on the post-Star Wars sci-fi craze. (This belongs on an entry for Flash Gordon or Buck Rogers, move to those entries)
  • As the first Star Wars film, A New Hope suffered the most. (Cruft, a statement that conveys nothing, no need to create a new set of sub-bullets)
    • At the time, it was so controversial that the film didn't have opening credits. The Director's Guild of America let it slide for George Lucas only because they thought it would tank in the box office. It obviously didn't, but despite this, when Lucas did it again for The Empire Strikes Back, he got a huge fine from the DGA, which he paid before he quit the guild altogether. Today, many filmmakers forgo traditional opening credits or even opening titles that now, it looks as though the DGA overreacted. (seems fine)
    • The once awe-inspiring lightsaber fight scene between Obi-Wan and Vader now comes off as stiff and arthritic compared to other duels in the later films. (seems fine)
  • While Han Solo is still very popular, many people feel that that the character's appeal as a Lovable Rogue has diminished over time. When Star Wars first debuted, many audiences found Han to be rather novel since he was a relatable yet morally ambiguous scoundrel whereas every other prior major Sci-Fi character was an otherworldy Ideal Hero. However, as the Sci-Fi genre began introducing more grounded heroes and anti-heroes, Lucasfilm began to rely more on Harrison Ford's performance to make the character still stand out. This was one of the reasons why Solo flopped as few audiences are interested in seeing a Han Solo movie without Harrison Ford when there are dozens of other space rogues like Star-Lord and Mal Reynolds. (seems to wander alot, cut it down to just Han Solo being the prototypical lovable scoundrel)
  • Star Wars has in particular been frequently compared to Warhammer 40,000 as a setting featuring a galaxy-spanning empire ruled by a Sorcerous Overlord. In particular, it's been pointed out that Planet Destroyers such as the Death Star, which are rarely used, mostly for shock value, and three entire movies are centered around the destruction of each, are fairly commonplace in 40K and often mounted on regular flagships. It's also been said that Palpatine, with the powers he displayed in the Original and Prequel trilogies, would receive a Curb-Stomp Battle from even a rank-and-file psyker from 40K, let alone the big guys. This finally gets addressed in The Rise of Skywalker, where the Final Order fleet has hundreds of normal-sized Star Destroyers which can each blow up a planet in seconds and are pretty trigger-happy with them; Palpatine's powers also get an upgrade from a single-target Agony Beam to a lightning storm which can fry a huge fleet, making him at least adequate by 40K standards. (I've never heard Star Wars be compared to WH 40 K, and even if true, this is just pure natter, I say cut)
  • The first Star Wars action figures were manufactured in pretty small quantities—not only because of the aforementioned idea that the film would bomb, but also because the toy companies weren't sure if kids would even want to have toys of characters they saw in movies. It may seem pretty obvious today that action figures of Luke Skywalker, Han Solo, and Darth Vader would sell like hotcakes, but at the time, toy companies derived sales from their own franchises, while movies, including those aimed at children, got their revenue exclusively through the box office, never intersecting. That Fox accepted, without question, George Lucas's condition that Lucas owned the merchandising rights to Star Wars was because there was no real precedent to what he was doing. He made such a killing off the toy sales that it would be odd for a family-oriented franchise today, regardless of medium, not to have a toy line. Movie and TV executives nowadays accept or turn down pitches based on their potential for merchandise. (keep)
  • The Phantom Menace pioneered the use of Motion Capture, with Jar-Jar Binks being the first character with a major role animated entirely in this way. (seems fine, if true)

Edited by laserviking42 on Sep 6th 2021 at 4:11:58 AM

So going back to the Tsundere example I mentioned earlier, can I cut it?

Cut away, if there's a show that innovated the genre, perhaps an entry about a (one) show in particular merits an entry.

The following entry from the Music page is steaming bullshit:

• The Beastie Boys' sampling, particularly on Paul's Boutique - was a huge influence on rap producers and helped create the slicker, jazz-sampling style of rap music that would evolve into G-Funk. However, most new listeners will notice their high pitched rapping styles and the fact they are white, and not really see what has made them so popular.
  • Likewise, Hello Nasty was considered a remarkable achievement upon release in 1998 as, until then, nobody had ever heard a hip hop album with so much variety. The album seemed destined to become a classic along the lines of Paul's Boutique and Licensed to Ill. Over time, however, its critical standing has significantly diminished, thanks to the work of rappers like Kanye West (whose music has the same kind of variety but with more focus). It's now considered by most to be one of the band's weaker albums.

Paul's Boutique is still widely regarded as one of the greatest Hip-Hop albums of all time. Hello Nasty is not as well-remembered, but is not considered "one of the band's weaker albums"—3.56 on RYM isn't that bad (I've seen worse), and Anthony Fantano ranked it highly on his Tier List video for the Beasties.

I feel like this trope is being used as a shittier Condemned by History without that trope's cleanup thread/restrictions.

Edited by themayorofsimpleton on Sep 7th 2021 at 10:48:12 AM

I'm pretty sure that even listeners back in the day noticed the Beastie Boys being white ...

Agreed

Thanks. The example has been cut.

Thoughts on the Star Wars examples?

About the Force lightning example—it's usage isn't just limited to the Expanded Universe. The example also mentions that the ability was used in the prequel trilogy too, and while the example doesn't mention this, Force lightning was also used in The Last Jedi and The Rise of Skywalker. The usage of Force lightning in four succeeding films resulted in the power not being as shocking and more of a general expectation. I think it's valid.

Regarding Star Wars being compared to 40K, that actually happened in our literature forum, but only about Star Wars Legends. Since this comparison hasn't (to my knowledge) happened with the films, the example should be cut anyway.

I lack the necessary knowledge to comment on the Leia example. I agree with everything else.

Well, even if true about the Warhammer thing, it wouldn't be applicable. The entry points out that it has many similarities, but that still doesn't mean that one of those two works innovated the concept that now seems stale. An ancient and powerful sorceror, galaxy spanning empires and giant world killing machines are concepts that long predate both works.

I'm leaving the Princess Leia entry, even though the trope of a headstrong and brave princess is far far far older than the franchise, unless someone else feels that its inapplicable

Going down the films list, this one jumps out at me:

• Austin Powers, while not the first film to use an Overly Long Gag, was perhaps the first film to derive the majority of its humor from it. Nowadays, the Overly Long Gag has become such a comedy staple, it's become harder to tell why the Austin Powers films were such a big deal to begin with.

There is no way Austin Powers innovated or popularized the Overly Long Gag, I seem to recall The Simpsons doing the famous Rake Gag years before AP came out.

Agreed. It can be cut.

Done

Moving on:

• Ace Ventura: Pet Detective, Billy Madison and Happy Gilmore: It seems hard to believe that movies such as these were actually considered raunchy, filthy films when first released in 1994, 1995 and 1996 respectively. Today, they seem pretty tame compared to most comedy films being released.

First off, this is three very unconnected examples. Also, raunchy comedies aren't new, we just keep pushing the envelope more and more.

Agreed on that as well. Blazing Saddles alone came out in 1974. The entry can go.

Speaking of:

• Blazing Saddles is rumored to be one of the first, perhaps the first film ever, to include a fart joke. It wasn't, since there were fart jokes as early as the Great Depression era. It was, however, the first film to blatantly do a fart joke, without bothering to be coy about it.

Personally I don't feel Blazing Saddles belongs on this list, it's still quite shocking in many respects as it tackled race related humor in a way that we still couldn't do today. Thoughts?

Star Wars fan here: that 40k comparison also seems to act like the additions and changes to Palpatine in The Rise of Skywalker were a deliberate response to 40k, which is plainly inaccurate.

Agreed. I've heard actual discussion about how Saddles is a little uncomfortable today because of how frank it is. The entry can go.

Done.

Here's one I'm kind of iffy on, just gonna toss it out there to see if anyone has opinions on it:

• Blade. The rebirth of the Super Hero movie genre also comes to mind. Most people credit X-Men's smooth cinematography and darker take... and completely forget that X-Men borrows heavily from it. At the time, it was a sleeper hit and probably the film that truly revitalized the comic book movie market after Batman & Robin single-handedly killed it.

I would credit Tim Burton's Batman (1989) for the rebirth of the superhero genre (it even has an entry stating this). But maybe that's just me romanticizing one of my favorite movies as a kid ...

That's an interesting one. Batman (1989) definitely kicked off the nineties hero movie boom, but Blade (1998) is talked about as being the beginning of the boom that led to X-Men and Spider-Man. They are actually two different booms, with the alleged "killer" of the first boom being the infamous Batman & Robin.

I, however, have questioned for some time this narrative. Blade (1998) came out one year after Batman & Robin, so did the latter really kill the genre? The accepted narrative is that it did, but I am suspicious.

I guess I could say that Blade (1998) was the precursor to the boom that X-Men and Spider-Man started. Blade (1998) itself didn't kick off the boom, X-Men and Spider-Man did, but Blade (1998) was the precursor to it.

You get me?

Edited by themayorofsimpleton on Sep 8th 2021 at 10:37:49 AM