What's Happening

Troperville

Tools

collapse/expand topics ykttw archive back to Main/CriticProof

irishladdie727
topic
04:50:30 PM May 4th 2012
I think this could be divided into two tropes, or at least some could be moved into Vindicated By History. There's a difference between things that critics initially pan that later go on to be revered (Star Wars, Led Zeppelin) and things that are panned because they suck, but still achieve financial success (Nickelback, the Transformers sequels). There are more factors than quality that affect what most people are willing to spend their money on.
EMY3K
04:57:06 PM May 4th 2012
In some cases, that might be defined by personal tastes, though. For instance, Nickelback has its detractors. It also has genuine fans who adore the songs. That doesn't mean that the band sucks abut was financially successful anyway.
romxxii
08:05:31 AM Jul 16th 2012
shouldn't this trope be merged with Critical Dissonance? It's essentially the same thing: Critics hate it, masses love it.
ArtfulCodger
06:31:30 AM Jul 17th 2012
No, the other way around. Critical Dissonance should be merged with this. This one's older.
MartyD82
11:59:39 AM Jan 21st 2014
Actually, Critic Proof seems more like a subtrope of Critical Dissonance, since Critical Dissonance could also imply that critics loved something but audiences hated it.
WillyFourEyes
topic
03:27:41 AM Jun 15th 2011
Can we officially count Duke Nukem Forever? Tepid-to-caustic critical reviews, but it topped the international sales charts the week after its June 7 release.
gameragodzilla
09:22:56 AM Jun 15th 2011
We should. Analysts are predicting good sales even though the game averages at around 50%. This troper has read pretty much all the reviews and it's clear that the reviewers simply fall outside of the demographic. Most gamers this troper talked to liked the game.
MutantRobot
topic
03:52:11 PM Apr 28th 2011
I'm probably sitting on a powder keg here, but I deleted the Atlas Shrugged, Part One example. The original post said that audiences were going wild, but they really weren't, despite the online reviews. It had a decent opening for a limited release film, then the audiences dropped off pretty quickly in the following weeks. It probably won't earn back its $10 million budget. Even if some people like it, it still isn't a success.
70.107.111.136
topic
05:52:50 PM May 7th 2010
I restored the Ctrl Alt Del example. Strangely enough, I don't know why it was not recorded in the history.
WaxingName
04:45:30 PM Dec 12th 2010
edited by WaxingName
deleted by poster
94.5.121.102
topic
12:22:12 AM Apr 26th 2010
Does Halo fit? The first three fames at least got good reviews at the very least.
94.8.141.31
topic
10:15:43 AM Mar 19th 2010
edited by 94.8.141.31
Just in case it gets deleted, I want it here for posterity:
  • It doesn't matter [about The Simpsons still having sustainable ratings]. The Simpsons is like pizza; even when it's bad, it's still good enough.
I think this is a perfect description of the show (at least when, or a year or two after, Al Jean took over in 2001, the previous showrunner, not so much).
ykttw archive back to Main/CriticProof

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 thestaff@tvtropes.org.
Privacy Policy