Main Executive Meddling Discussion

Collapse/Expand Topics

04:19:55 PM Jan 13th 2012
edited by Sniperk
A little question. If an Executive Meddling is done In-Universe, do I list it in the work page or on the Trivia page?
05:37:23 PM Apr 5th 2012
Work page, but make sure to say it's In-Universe. Same goes for any In-Universe YMMV tropes.
06:00:03 AM Sep 19th 2011
well, hoever's responsible for this trope entry should certainbly be relieved

... of duty. The whole intro denies that executives ever fuck up. Here's what it sounds like:

"This trope is about stupid meddling execs. But note that there aren't any. That's right, the execs are competent behind the scenes and bring in all the money with no recognition at all. You don't see what a good job they do because they run everything so smoothly.

Unless one of them fucks up. But that never really happens. They don't REALLY fuck up; the director is just lying about this esteemed, savvy leader and blaming him for the director's own failure".

This, in the article about netwwork executives fuck up.

On top of that, apparently someone posted a laundry list of executive fuck-ups and you deleted them as "unsubstantiated".

Yeah, right.

This is as bad as wikipedia. Several editors there (including me) were fighting to put recent research results in an article. The findings in question are shocking, but they're peer-reviewed, duplicated every which way in universities all over the world, and very reliable. The topic in question is now completely uncontroversial among scientists, but it's such a hot potato that they know not to EVER talk about it public. It's certainly never been in the newspapers.

An angry, near-psychotic bully who didn't like the truth was very abusive,and we took him to wiki-court to be admonished. But he had an admin pal, and the admins are actually a "gang" that backs each other up no matter what the issue is. That way, they too will get muscle behind them when they push their own untrue statement in wikipedia.

So instead of chastising the bad guy, they permanently banned every single plantiff in the case without saying why.

You're doing the same thing with the "meddling network executives" trope article.

10:25:15 AM May 4th 2012
Are you sure you weren't mistaking the satire of the description for something serious? The text you quoted sounds exactly like a satirical view of an article that's been screwed with by someone else (Self-Demonstrating Article).

Also, TV Tropes is not Wikipedia. As the site proudly says, it's much more informal. I have no idea what the last half of your post is talking about, but I think you take wiki's way too seriously, and you need to calm down.
08:35:29 PM Sep 24th 2010
I still don't see why, if Protection from Editors has to have all examples removed because they 'cannot be proven', that the examples here remain. And then we should probably go after Armed with Canon and Running the Asylum, since by the same logic I don't see how you can prove them.
02:49:23 AM Sep 25th 2010
Did you read any of the discussions? There is no way to prove whether or not a writer has had reduced or no editorial oversight, because there's no way to be sure they're telling the truth in the first place. A lot of those examples were second-hand accounts that could or could not be true (and there's no way to prove which is which). Examples in Executive Meddling, by contrast, are easier to prove because (as the page states) "when something breaks, everyone knows about it". There are many more written and spoken accounts (from all levels of media) about how publishers/movie companies/etc. have tried to change things against a creator's will.

Tou went and deleted all the examples without consulting anyone first. Not cool, dude.
02:21:49 PM Jun 14th 2010
I'm striking the below entry. I don't know enough about the facts to write the proper version but it needs more neutrality before it goes back.

But hey, wanna talk Executive Meddling? Donna Troy and Kyle Rayner were in a well written positive romantic relationship that elevated both characters (it helped that Donna's previous relationship with was with a Marty Stu, who made Kyle seem positively Scrappy-esque in comparison. Then John Byrne decided he wanted Donna back, just so he could shit all over her in order to make his personal creation, Cassie Sandsmark look better to DC editorial by rendering Donna a radioactive Continuity Snarl ala Hawkman. Making things worse was that Ron Marz's editor changed and the new editor basically forced Marz to replace Donna with Jade, the daughter of the Golden Age Green Lantern. Adding injury to insult? The new editor declared Marz couldn't use Donna in the pages of Green Lantern and Devin Grayson (who ironically DIDN'T LIKE Kyle/Donna, but publicly sympathized with readers who kept asking her about the pairing) was told point blank that Kyle/Donna was no more and would never, EVER get back together as far as Jade/Kyle becoming the "official" OTP for Kyle.
08:59:37 AM Sep 24th 2010
Thank you for that. I occasionally thought about trying to rewrite that little snarl, which reads almost like high school gossip: "OMG, and you'll never BELIEVE what Ron did to Devin, and I bet John put him up to it!"

Unfortunately, this involves pretty much the only DC books I wasn't reading at the time, so I'm also fuzzy on the actual facts of the matter.
08:34:06 AM Jun 3rd 2010
It's not in the entry, but has it been hinted that Akira Toriyama was encouraged or forced to continue Dragon Ball beyond Frieza?
08:17:20 AM Sep 24th 2010
Yes. That wasn't the only time he was pressured by editors - I remembering reading that one of the reasons why the villains in the Cell Arc kept changing was because the editors kept rejecting them.
Collapse/Expand Topics