Main Authors Saving Throw Discussion

Collapse/Expand Topics
 

noxteryn
Topic
08:27:38 PM Mar 26th 2016
I am removing this entry under Video Games for the following reasons:

"After the developers of Assassin's Creed: Unity made asses out of themselves explaining that the lack of female assassins in the game was because "women are hard to animate", the next installment of the franchise, Assassin's Creed: Syndicate, was released with a playable female assassin who serves as one half of the leading Brother-Sister Team, and they also made some of the random mooks in the game female as well."

Aside from being needlessly inflammatory, this entry doesn't qualify as an Author's Saving Throw, and it doesn't reflect the truth for what actually happened.

Ubisoft itself had made an earlier announcement mentioning their desire to put a playable female character in an Assassin's Creed game, as they had already done so in Assassin's Creed: Liberation.

However, since Unity was made under a new game engine, this would mean that all animations for the female model would have to be redone from scratch (motion capturing, rigging, coding, etc), and that's not even taking into account the added writing and voice acting.

Since Unity was already behind development schedule and its shipping had already been delayed once, Ubisoft decided to scrap the idea because it would be too wasteful on resources, and instead put it in the next game, Assassin's Creed: Syndicate.

Therefore, as explained, Ubisoft didn't attempt to make any bold changes in their franchise. They had already developed and published Assassin's Creed: Liberation, which featured a female-only protagonist, so putting one in Assassin's Creed: Unity would not constitute a change in status quo. As such, there was also no sudden backpedaling or retcon-ing as a response to fan outrage, since the only outrage was that they couldn't afford to do what they wanted to in the first place. So, the fact that Assassin's Creed: Syndicate featured a playable female character was par for the course, not an Author's Saving Throw.
DaibhidC
Topic
02:24:26 PM Mar 3rd 2016
edited by DaibhidC
  • There are some fans who have shown distaste for the Cybus Cybermen from "Rise of the Cybermen"/"The Age of Steel". When "The Pandorica Opens" aired, the Mondasian Cybermen make their return (Steven Moffat confirmed that these were the Mondas Cybermen; they just didn't have the budget to change the costume.) However, it's not much of a throw. All "reappearances" of the old Cybermen are the new Cybermen looking and acting exactly as they always have. People who really want the old Cybermen back often consider merely saying they're back a cop-out, and people who don't (or just don't care) wonder why bother pretending.

I dunno. Given that New Series Cybermen look a lot more like what most people mean by "classic" Cybermen than the original Cybermen do, I'm not sure the appearance means much. If there hadn't been a Cybus Industries, and we were just told "This is what Cybermen look like now", I suspect most people would have just accepted it. It's nowhere near as drastic a change as the Silurians got, for example. Moffat apparently got the budget to redesign them as of "Nightmare in Silver", but they still didn't look like the old ones because that's not what New Who does. Maybe some day we'll get "Asylum of the Cybermen", with "Moonbase" white plastic and "Revenge" tinfoil and "Tenth Planet" giant headlamps all coexisting.

As far as behaviour goes, Moffat's Cybermen have spaceships and fought in Cyberwars, just like in the classic series, whereas Davies's Cybermen showed no signs of ever leaving Earth (although they could jump universes and time travel, so it wasn't always the same Earth). Beyond that, they're stompy metal monsters who hate emotions and convert people into more Cybermen, whatever era you're in. (I suppose Moffat's Cybermen do say "Delete!", because when has Moffat let go of a catchphrase?)
Angus
Topic
06:33:32 AM Sep 25th 2015
If I understand correctly, this trope is about an author (or authors) changing something, with the intention of keeping it that way, and then it turns out to be an extremely unpopular change, and due to fan backlash the author recants and changes it back. It is not so much about the author having planned the retcon all along, ie. the change being intentionally temporary all along.

Some of the examples given in the main page do not seem to conform to this (for example, the Naruto example sounds a lot like it was planned to be like that from the start of the arc, rather than it being a haphazard solution in response to fandom backlash. Of course I don't know if this is the case, but it just sounds heavily like it.)

Of course one could also argue that the trope works either way. The author made a "saving throw" in the eyes of his or her fans, even if it was planned all along. (The story could have gone to the unpopular direction, but the author never even intended for it to go there, and was only temporarily stirring the water a bit. The effect of the "saving throw" when things go back is still effectively the same.)
MrDeath
07:42:31 AM Sep 25th 2015
That's because the trope is not exclusive to that format. The trope is, basically, Aspect X of a work makes fans mad; Aspect Y is introduced and either A. adds context that justifies X in a satisfactory way; B. overwrites X and removes it as a factor; or C. acts in suitable contrast to X.

It doesn't matter whether Aspect X was a change to something previous or not.
DaibhidC
02:05:03 PM Mar 3rd 2016
Then the trope description should probably reflect that, because at the moment it says it's about reversing a change.

But Angus's point seems to be slightly different to that, namely that if Aspect Y was intended all along, is it a saving throw? I can see his point, although in a YMMV trope, it's probably enough that it looks like Aspect X was intended to be permenent and Aspect Y was added specifically to fix it. (Who knows what retcons lurk in the minds of writers?)
Waterlily
Topic
03:02:32 PM Oct 13th 2014
edited by 198.53.110.96
Do you have to have confirmation that this is what the creator intended or is it kind of a Wild Mass Guessing thing? I have a few possible examples but I'm not sure if they were intentional.

The early Tintin books were widely considered to be racist. In one of the last books, Gypsies (one of the most maligned ethnic groups in Europe who also have a reputation for stealing) are accused of theft. Tintin believes in their innocence and is eventually proven right. It seemed like the creator was delibrately being as unracist as he could to apologize for his previous works.

An early book in the Alice Series has a girl falsely accuse a teacher of sexual harrasment. A later book has another girl actually be sexually harrased by a teacher. I wonder if the author was worried that she was sending the message that girls who claim they are sexually assaulted are lying so she used the second example to counteract it.

In Student Bodies Romeo has to ask his friend Cody's permission before dating Cody's ex-girlfriend Emily. When the girls find out about it they think it's the stupidest thing they've ever heard. Cody even dates Emily's friend Grace without any problems. I've heard complains that the show made it seem like that was only a guy thing. Later in the show, Cody falls for his girlfriend's friend and has to find a way to get around the "rules" so he can be with her.
MikeRosoft
Topic
02:26:46 AM Jul 15th 2012
Does this count?
SymAntares
Topic
09:11:35 AM Mar 6th 2011
A possible better example for Sonic the Hedgehog is an arc that sums up several (admittedly minor) issues with Tails' actions, relationship with the other characters, and overall attitude by claiming that for the past several months the real Tails was being held hostage by Mammoth Mogul (in his god-like Turbo mode to boot) and the one that we've seen was a clone created by Mogul's Chaos energy. The whole thing felt shoddy (the entire thing was explained and resolved in one issue; Sonic and Fake Tails wait for Mogul to explain everything then beat him in less than a page) and was never hinted at before or mentioned again
Galaxyspinner
Topic
10:05:56 PM Jan 10th 2011
Oftentimes, Michael Scott is a bumbling idiot but when things have really gotten serious at episode's end, he often has come through and we see that a trait like loyalty or perseverance really comes through

Is this Office example really valid? I'm not entirely sure I understand what it's talking about, but I suspect that the spirit of the trope is being misunderstood here. This trope seems to be about backpedaling in the face of a regrettable error, while this example seems to be more about a character having multiple facets.
Collapse/Expand Topics
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/remarks.php?trope=Main.AuthorsSavingThrow