No, the other one.That one has more problems with ZCE than this, I believe.
True, but even with most of the examples that DO provide context, it's mostly just editorializing and generalizations. Just to name one example that I know doesn't belong in the article is Survivor. That show has(or at least used to have, back when it was still popular) a huge Periphery Demographic of viewers who watch it for reasons other than schadenfreude. I think for something to qualify as a "Point-and-Laugh Show", the show(or whatever medium it is in) has to be very clear about the fact that it's about laughing at the protagonists.
Sorry, I meant it could only "qualify" if it wasn't going to become a YMMV article. If it does become one, the article can stay the way it is. Provide content for the ZCE's, but otherwise leave it be.
SF-81A Black Knight"Nominating "Point-and-Laugh Show", because obviously not everyone watches/listens to the shows listed or reads the books listed just to laugh and feel superior to the contestants/protagonists. I know I don't." So why do you watch them? Because of the intelligent, cultured discussions? Point-and-Laugh Show is a genre. Maybe a more neutral name is in order, but I don't think it's YMMV.
No, the other one.It also doesn't mean that everyone watches it for that reason. It's just one (of potentially several) aspect the show markets itself for, hidden or not. Take many reality shows, as they deliberately pick people who will eventually/probably get into a fight, but they're not really open about it (or was; it's less secret nowdays). It's not about absolutely everyone watching it for that reason. It's about what kind of audience the show is aiming for.
"So why do you watch them? Because of the intelligent, cultured discussions?" I haven't seen most of the examples listed, but as to the ones I have seen, yeah. Greed was actually a pretty unique and decent game show, and I never once thought of it as trashy. Survivor as I mentioned above used to have a big demographic of fans who legitimately liked the show, and on certain message boards, there were some very bright people who analyzed the contestant's various strategies as well as editing patterns to speculate on who would win early. But besides all that, I don't like being told that "this show/book/whatever is objectively worthless except to laugh at dismissively". Unless the show is clearly a PAL show(to be fair, some of the listed examples ARE explicitly PAL shows) then I think it belongs in YMMV. The fact that the article is very small shows that it's probably a brain fart. Who are we to say what's "humiliating"? What I may find embarrassing is different from what you find embarrassing. And what is embarrassing to you would not be embarrassing so to a third person, and so on and so forth. Where do we draw the line?
"It also doesn't mean that everyone watches it for that reason. It's just one (of potentially several) aspect the show markets itself for, hidden or not. Take many reality shows, as they deliberately pick people who will eventually/probably get into a fight, but they're not really open about it (or was; it's less secret nowdays). It's not about absolutely everyone watching it for that reason. It's about what kind of audience the show is aiming for." Then the article should be rewritten to express that, and go in depth about it. I don't think it's fair to dismiss practically an entire genre because of a few bad examples.
No, the other one.So pull up a thread about it. Either in the trope description improvement thread, a TRS thread, or whatever is appropriate for what you think needs to be done. I have no idea what you mean by "dismissing an entire genre because of a few bad examples" though. It's a genre. Genres aren't exclusive.
edited 18th Apr '13 12:33:58 AM by AnotherDuck
I don't seem to even have edit privelages for YMMV pages. Everytime I try, I'm redirected to the main YMMV page. How can I be able to edit?
I have no idea what you're talking about, but you should try PMing a mod about that. See Know the Staff for more information.
A Wizard boyThat doesn't look like a ban thing; the Wiki Tech Wish List is probably a better place.
I would like to bring up Standardized Leader. This article has no YMMV banner, but it has a bolded notice calling it YMMV. Since this is not a proper YMMV banner, I'm adding it to the crowner so that it's categorization can be decided properly.
edited 2nd May '13 3:15:45 PM by MyTimingIsOff
Easily Forgiven doesn't sound like it's subjective as much as it sounds like it's suffering some misuse.
Seeking for LightI will point out that Standardized Leader used to be on the Subjective Tropes index (which was YMMV before we had YMMV by that name). It was then on YMMV until it was deleted from there, without discussion as far as I can tell, three years ago.
Flat Character is The Leader."
edited 2nd May '13 6:38:04 PM by MagBas
Second Season Downfall: A negative reaction to a Post Script Season, related to Seasonal Rot and Jumping the Shark.
I added that to the crowner.
Seeking for LightI think that's an Audience Reaction rather than just YMMV.
I'm surprised this one doesn't have a banner already: Self-Fanservice. It's a fandom phenomenon along the lines of Draco in Leather Pants.
A Wizard boyI am not clear at all what Self-Fanservice is.
No, the other one.Essentially the fandom designing more fanservicey characters themselves. Definitely an Audience Reaction trope, but it's not really opinion-based at all.
Since Dude, Not Funny! is apparently In-Universe Examples Only now, there's no reason for it to have the banner.
TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from firstname.lastname@example.org.