Have a question about how the TVTropes wiki works? No one knows this community better than the people in it, so ask away! Ask the Tropers is the page you come to when you have a question burning in your brain and the support pages didn't help.
It's not for everything, though. For a list of all the resources for your questions, click here. You can also go to this Directory thread
for ongoing cleanup projects.
Did people really expect those two movies to flop, though? Especially NWH?
I personally don't see a problem with either of the deletions.
The first rule of troping is that you don't just go by the laconics. The second rule of troping — don't just go by the laconics.
Fight Club reference aside, laconics are infamous for being misleading and overly broad/specific compared to the actual trope. So don't take them at face value if someone makes a claim about a trope. You have to, always, read the actual description.
Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness
I suppose that's fair. Just figured I'd ask. After all, I didn't want to risk an edit war by trying to add them back on. Nonetheless, I'm still willing to hear further responses from other people who might have thoughts on this.
Though I watched and loved both movies, I can only speak for NWH because I sat out the hype machine of TR. I don't recall any fans "hoping" NWH to flop. There were some dissenting voices about the characters' portrayal in the MCU, but they were at worst a Vocal Minority (since Homecoming and Far From Home were acclaimed, with over 90% in RT), so in the grand scheme of things No Way Home was very anticipated.
With that in mind, I support the deletions.
135 - 169 - 273 - 191 - 188 - 230 - 300
If there wasn't any expectation for the movies to flop, then it's alright for Edgar to delete those entries.
Your receipt. You can keep the freakin' change.
"Even putting aside the fact that the laconic doesn't make that distinction Edgar seems to be holding to such high importance, was he still correct to delete these examples?"
I dont like the tone in this statement. Please dont use it elsewhere.
Discord: Waido X 255#1372 If you cant contact me on TV Tropes do it here.
^ Yeah, my bad. I'll try to avoid using a tone like that in the future.
All that said, thanks everyone. I feel my question has been answered satisfactorily, and this thread can be considered resolved and closed. Have a nice day everyone ^_^
NWH is simply misuse. No one thought it would fail.
Ragnarok, on the other hand... well, I don't know about "fail" but it was not expected to be nearly as successful as it was. The previous Thor movies were probably the worst regarded in the MCU, and it was going head to head with Justice League. The deck was stacked against it. And yet it did incredibly well, commercially and critically.
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
Regarding Raganok I thought the general feeling was it would make money (so not expected to fail) just not as much as TJL. However expectations of TLJ curb stomping Raganok wasnt that common as CA.Civil War out preformed Bv S last time Marvel and Dc went head to head.
Edited by Tuvok
I agree that it was assumed that Ragnarok would make money, so we can honestly prolly remove it on those grounds alone. But CW outperforming BVS doesn't seem directly applicable since CW was basically "Avengers 2.5" whereas Ragnarok was "sequel to the least liked Marvel movies" going up against what was supposed to be the DCEU's biggest gun of them all.
It's not "Marvel beating DC." It's "Marvel's B-List beating DC's AAA-List."
Edited by Larkmarn Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
^ This is a good point. I agree Ragnarok doesn't fit the quoted trope description, but I think the evidence in the query is incorrect. It's not accurate to say that Ragnarok was part of a franchise "that didn't have any "flops" beforehand:" it was a sequel to Thor: The Dark World, which was universally considered a disaster of a movie.
That said, while the example should be deleted, I wonder if the definition should be altered. Successful movies that are expected to fail because they are sequels to flops seem to fit the spirit of the trope.
There is no war in Ba Sing Se.
The "expectation" part of the trope is defined as follows: "Critics mock it. The public isn't expecting it. It gets even worse if things go awry on its production." Nowhere does it state that the expectation has to be of financial failure. If that's what the trope is supposed to mean, the description should definitely be updated.
This isn't to say that I agree Ragnarok currently fits as an example. I just think that the trope needs to be clarified one way or another.
There is no war in Ba Sing Se.
Edgar 81539 recently deleted two entries from the Live-Action Film section of And You Thought It Would Fail pertaining to Thor: Ragnarok and Spider-Man: No Way Home for the following edit reason: Quoting from the main page definition "A work of literature, film or television — just getting started, purely original (if there is such a thing), unaffiliated with any previous book, movie or TV show, or if it is an adaptation, the work is relatively obscure — has little hope of standing out among the established goldmines of franchises". Both of these films are sequels of highly popular franchises, that didn't have any "flops" beforehand. To act like they were underdogs is very disingeneous.
Was he correct to delete these examples?
- Edit: As pointed out in a response, I probably took on a less then respectful tone in an earlier form of this query. Apologies for rudeness.
Edited by SimbafanA1