06:15:14 AM Nov 3rd 2016
- In the creepypasta Clockwork: Your Time is Up, after the protagonist, Natalie, snaps and becomes a Jeff the Killer Expy as a result of doctors experimenting on her, she murders her entire family in a disturbingly lovingly-detailed fashion. The author tries to portray this as justified by making her suffer massive abuse from them as a child, with her father being an Abusive Parent and the brother being an incestuous child rapist. Problem is, Natalie's brutal, over-the-top murders of her family easily cross the Moral Event Horizon, with the tamest one (her mother's) involving her paralyzing her, cutting her chest open, and ripping out her heart and waiting until she bleeds out (the more gory ones are certainly NSFW). Suffice to say, with how Natalie remorselessly butchers her family, it makes them surprisingly pitiable (yes, even the incestuous child rapist) and makes Natalie look a lot less likeable.
06:45:02 AM Nov 3rd 2016
edited by MagBas
edited by MagBas
As was pointed in the Ask The Tropers discussion about Freeza, even if someone concurs that someone deserved something, this not means that they will not pity this person. Specially if this fate involves horrible torture. Quoting one of the tropers in the discussion, " From what I have seen, no one is arguing that Frieza isn't a Complete Monster who deserved to suffer. More like, actually seeing him suffer caused some fans to winced. "
09:29:01 AM Jul 7th 2013
- King Candy/Turbo from Wreckit Ralph also gets this from same fans. He has done a lot of bad things like putting his and another game in out of order and making a child's life hell, But many believe that he was programmed to be an Attention Whore or had to play dirty to survive.
05:56:10 AM Jan 21st 2013
edited by KSonik
edited by KSonik
Edited Miko's entry as it made her seem far too blameless despite the fact that she has shown herself to to pretty mean spirited and altogether not as virtuous as she would seem despite being a Paladin. Miko's unpleasantness is on display (refusing to learn V's name, undermining Roy's authority, rushing off to battle without telling them the battle plan, yelling at a random hotel staff over a mattress tag, and a couple more instances in the compilation book involving herself alone or other paladins).
- Here she refuses to take Roy's advice and treat them with respect. Note that she justifies not doing so because of her authority, which is one of the earlier demonstrations that she generally cares more about following the letter of being a Paladin, not the spirit. Being of a class that is supposed to strive for ultimate Goodness, it is always their duty to treat even prisoners with dignity and respect. Heck, she doesn't even have the (flimsy) alignment excuse as she knows almost none of them are Evil aligned
- She comdemn the Order for not wanteing to sleep in the dirt. Whilst not all that bad compared to some other examples as an action, Miko's attitude was certainly self-righteous, calling it corruption. That is one of the many examples of her attitude not altogether being that great for a Paladin.
- She blamed the Order (most of them helped the innocent) for something that was so not their fault!
08:09:56 AM Jan 21st 2013
Also, the "believes in honor" part is invalidated with how she deceives the ogres/trolls (I don't remember exactly what they were).
10:01:04 PM Feb 17th 2013
edited by k9feline5
edited by k9feline5
I've been in disputes with The Order of the Stick loyalists before and they didn't end well for me, so I don't expect I'll win this dispute (one reason it's taken me so long to comment; I'm really not looking forward to this). Still, I'll make at least one last stab at restoring the original entry as it was, because I don't think it's right for OotS fans to suppress any kind of negative criticism on YMMV pages:
- Miko of The Order of the Stick manages to be a huge Base Breaker for the fandom even after her death due to this trope. She's meant to come across as an ignorant Jerkass, but some fans see her as more of a case of Good Is Not Nice. This has a lot to do with how Anvilicious her characterization was; most of the comic's protagonists started hating her almost immediately, which to her fans both made her something of a woobie and made the Order look like jerkasses themselves.
- Miko:A paladin never compromises.Roy:Does a paladin ever remove the stick up their ass?Miko:No. It's a class feature.
- Haley refers to her as a "stupid paladin". V refers to her as a "foul shrew". Again, note this is before Miko addressed V as "elf".
- V refers to her "simple mind".
- Elan claims she "took a few levels in the Mean Old Cranky-Pants prestige class." Note that Miko didn't actually insult Elan. All she did was express exasperation at Elan's normal obtuseness.
- V calls her "intellectually inferior to myself". Roy declares, "I really just want to kick her in the head." Since at the time, I was impressed by Miko being a Badass my personal response to Roy's final comment was "WTF?!"
- Haley refers to her as "Little Miss Stick-Up-Her-Butt".
- V tries to bill Miko for rescuing the dirt farmer even though no bill had been discussed. The bill is ridiculously high because of a "roaming charge" for every mile V's away from V's homeland, which is especially ludicrous since Miko hadn't summoned V from V's homeland or even met V anywhere near V's homeland. When she understandably refuses to pay the idiotic bill, V tries to blow her up with explosive runes.
- V, ever the charmer, refers to her as an "insufferable cretin".
- Haley makes Miko pay for the entire hotel bill.
- Elan spends an entire strip ranting about how "mean" Miko is. It should be noted that up to this point, Miko had never done anything at all against Elan! She didn't even attack him during her initial confrontation with the Order. Elan'd be the poster child of an Order member who treats Miko far worse than she ever treated him, except there's somebody even worse.
- Haley claims Roy's been letting himself get emasculated by Miko.
- Roy claims, "plans and Miko don't mix well." This is less "mean" than it is simply untrue. Earlier with the ogres, Miko had come up with her own plan which she mixed with very, very well. And this claim is disproven by what follows. Miko does nothing to undermine Elan's first plan to evacuate the inn (which fails due to no fault of Miko's). Nor does she undermine the second, more successful plan (and unless the graphic novel version said otherwise, she might even have come up with it herself).
- Haley calls her a witch. Miko does call Haley a "criminal" (the only time during this period Miko has ever actually insulted an Order member). The facts that these insults are both in the same panel and the left-to-right placenment of Haley and Miko makes it look like 1) Haley insulted first, and 2) Miko heard her.
- V calls her a shrew for the second time while gloating and rejoicing at the possibility that SHE MAY HAVE BURNED TO DEATH! Miko once called V "elf" and during her initial confrontation with the Order got V's robes temporarily sticky. V insults her on 5 seperate occasions (using one insult twice), tries to bill her an exorbitant amount for ridiculous reasons, tries to blow her up, and rejoices at her possible death. V's the winner of the prize of Order member who treats Miko the worst during this period, completely out of proportion to anything she had done to V.
- Roy calls Miko a "bitch". Haley hugs him for it.
- Roy elaborates.
06:29:10 AM Jul 1st 2013
edited by 126.96.36.199
edited by 188.8.131.52
Still, I'll make at least one last stab at restoring the original entry as it was, because I don't think it's right for Oot S fans to suppress any kind of negative criticism on YMMV pages: That was never my intention, particularly as I have disagreed with a few events that have happened, such as Celia inexplicably acting idiotic when she and Haley were in Greysky City. In fact that’s not even what this is about- it’s about countering against ill founded criticisms. She doesn't "condemn" them, she's just trying to persuade them to sleep in the same rough environment she would sleep in. Miko: "Well, yes, if you wanted to give in to gluttony and corruption" Doesn't sound to me like it. When that fails, she goes along with them to the inn and even agrees to pay the entire bill, even though the Order has a huge fortune while she only has a small stipend. Fair enough. I'm sorry, but I couldn't disagree more. The destruction of the inn was so totally the Order's fault, it's not even funny. It's a trifle unfair that she's blaming all the Order equally, but that's only because she doesn't know (and never learns) the full facts of what happened. If she did, she'd realize it's mostly Roy's fault. No it was not. There was no way in which the Order could reasonably expect to know that somehow impersonating someone would cause them to be the target of an assassination. In fact no one within the readership, considering how little was already known at that point of that particular King could have know and frankly, if Burlew used that situation to show just how Roy was wrong, that would be an incredibly stupid Space Whale Aesop. “Impersonate someone and you and all the other people(who had nothing to do with the king and so were innocent) will always be in an immediate danger.” And that would be a legit example of Anvilliciousness, particularly that of the Can’tGetAwayWithNuthin variety. But hey, I guess Roy shouldn’t have said “assassinate me” during Truth or Dare!:P Now that that point has been covered, whilst Roy was still wrong to impersonate someone that does not mean that the consequence was any less contrived because if the intention was for Roy to get what not just was reasonable consequence, but a just one, he would have simply gotten arrested for impersonation, and that would be the end of that and just him. But because this somehow “led” to an assassination attempt that Roy would have to be a future psychic to be able to predict (because somehow, political enemies send to assassinate the King somehow coincidentally being able to find the place where the ”King” is residing in a place, which mind you, is in the middle of nowhere, doesn’t sound contrived) the idea that the inn being blown up is Roy and the rest of the Order of the Stick’s fault has been disproven. And as for that barrel? That was only there in the first place because the assassins brought them with them! If anything, it’s more like Nice Job Breaking It, Assassins! Anyways, Even if none of these things were true, there was still no way in which Miko would reasonable know (given the knowledge that she had of the situation) that it was somehow the Order’s fault, if it hypothetically was. In fact she only “knows” this based on conclusions that she has jumped, thinking that the Order’s gluttony and corruption was the cause, when in reality, it was contrived coincidences, because, again, the assassins “knowing” that the King of Nowhere was residing in a random hotel in the middle of nowhere due to coincidentally eavesdropping does not sound like a valid and organic consequence of impersonation. This point is made blatantly clear when she cruelly blamed Haley for her speech problems, which is the next and second final point against the idea that the Order were being unreasonable against Miko. It is clear and obvious to people that despite Haley’s flaws, she is still not a fundamentally monstrous being but rather at worst a Loveable Rogue type character that despite her flaws, genuinely does care about. Sure it may not be something that Miko would necessarily be aware of, but she should obviously know that Haley isn’t exactly anywhere near morally deficient enough to somehow deserve having her ability to speak taken away. What Haley actually is doesn’t help Miko’s condemnation of her, but the fact that Miko has no real legit reason to believe that she deserve this doesn’t help Miko’s image because frankly condemning Haley for something that was her fault is just wrong and shows that for how much she would like to see herself as a morally pure person who is never in the wrong, she doesn’t act like how a Paladin is supposed to act. Paladin’s are about mercy and compassion and comforting people when they are down, not for kicking them down when their words and actions would really be helpful-which is what Miko has exactly done when she act as if losing her speech was somehow supposed to be Haley’s punishment. So yeah, hardly the words of someone who is supposedly morally superior, because guess what? Someone who genuinely is as moral as a normal Paladin (as opposed to self righteous Lawful Stupid characters) would not have condemned someone suffering in this particular kind of context. And the final thing that goes against the idea that the Order’s reaction towards Miko was unreasonable? She tried to straight up murder them for something only Elan (accidentally, not deliberately) caused-the destruction of a Gate. Elan, the only person who could hypothetically have any real blame for this, had no idea about the long term consequences of blowing up the Gate (nor could he),but only pressed the self destruct button because of genre convention. Was it still stupid of Elan to press the self destruct button? Yes! Does it mean that he deserves to die for something for consequences no one at the time could foresee? No! And yet, Miko tried to kill Elan and the rest of the Order of the Stick, even though they were even less blameworthy than Elan. In other words, Miko was going to murder a bunch of innocent people just because she relied on a flawed method of determining their guilt-Detect Evil. Any reasonable Paladin would know not just of the various ways in which it can be fooled, but also of the fact that just because someone is Evil, it doesn’t mean that they automatically deserve to die. The fact that she was explicitly told not to kill them by Shojo, an order she disobeyed, does not help. Of course, whilst killing them could have had been due to legitimate beliefs that they were Evil, this wasn’t the case in this particular scenario because the manner in which Miko determined that they “deserved” to die was incredibly stupid and ultimately wrong, and not the kind you can just say “Oops! My mistake” and expect it to all sort out. So in conclusion, considering that Miko tried to murder them in the first place, the Order weren’t just being jerks, but acting naturally and logically to a the actions of a frankly poor excuse of a Paladin. Does all of this mean that Miko can’t be seen as sympathetic? No, but it does mean that any resentment that Miko got by the Order was well deserved and the fact the entry try to leave out such important details to make the Order look bad is problematic. So whilst the entry can still stay, that part trying to criticise the Order for acting like they would naturally needs to go. And if anyone still tries to put that part back in, they should take it to the discussion page to see why that part is wrong.
04:54:36 PM Jul 8th 2013
edited by 184.108.40.206
edited by 220.127.116.11
I have disagreed with a few events that have happened, such as Celia inexplicably acting idiotic when she and Haley were in Greysky City. In fact that’s not even what this is about- it’s about countering against ill founded criticisms. I'm sure there are OotS fans who'd disagree that Celia is inexplicably acting idiotic and would find your criticism "ill founded".(I wouldn't know, I lost interest after reading Miko's death.) YMMV and this is a YMMV page. Miko: "Well, yes, if you wanted to give in to gluttony and corruption" Doesn't sound to me like it. It does sound to me like it. Specificly, it sounds like a casual, sarcastic, "Well, yes if you want to do this bad thing," because she honestly believes they wouldn't want to do such a "bad thing". When they do it anyway, she objects, but ojecting's not the same thing as condemning. There was no way in which the Order could reasonably expect to know that somehow impersonating someone would cause them to be the target of an assassination. Roy wasn't just impersonating "someone", he was impersonating a king, as it turns out, a real king, the leader of an actual nation (in the story). Even in Real Life, the leaders of nations take a lot of precautions against assassination attempts since that's a genuine occupational hazard that comes with being the leader of a nation. That's even more true in the Action/Adventure Fantasy universe of OotS, where multiple assissination attempts are a regular occurence. if Burlew used that situation to show just how Roy was wrong, that would be an incredibly stupid Space Whale Aesop. “Impersonate someone and you and all the other people(who had nothing to do with the king and so were innocent) will always be in an immediate danger.” I think a better, more generalized aesop that could still be legitimately applied here is that actions have consequences, and the more dishonest and selfish your actions are, the greater your responsibility you bear for those consequences. But because this somehow “led” to an assassination attempt that Roy would have to be a future psychic to be able to predict (because somehow, political enemies send to assassinate the King somehow coincidentally being able to find the place where the ”King” is residing in a place, which mind you, is in the middle of nowhere, doesn’t sound contrived) I'm afraid you've got the wrong idea about the situation. I know because I just got through reading this damn storyline for the third time, which is twice more than I wish to. The assassins are at the inn because the real King of Nowhere is scheduled to be at the inn two days later to join the King of Somewhere (who's alreay at the inn) for a Peace Conference. The assassins arrive and are shocked to discover the "King of Nowhere" (Roy) is already there. It's still a contrived coincidence, but considerably less contrived than you're making it out to be. the idea that the inn being blown up is Roy and the rest of the Order of the Stick’s fault has been disproven. No it hasn't. At all. The fact that Roy is at least partly responsible for the inn being blown up is explicitly pointed out in the webcomic itself: "Although I suppose there would never have been an explosion in the first place if you had refrained from pretending to be-" The quote's from the bottom of the strip, and it's being said by Vaarsuvius, hardly a member of the Miko fanclub. The conclusion that Roy is at least partly responsible isn't just a reasonable conclusion to come to, it's explicitly stated. No, Roy and the rest of the Order can't predict the future. But they still did something dishonest and selfish that is explictily stated within the comic as being responsible for the inn's destruction. To be as fair and accurate as possible on this, I'd say there are three different levels of responisibility for the inn's destruction. From most to least responsible the people on each of these levels are:
- Belkar and the assassins: None of these three were trying to blow up the inn, but they directly caused it while committing a felony. Specifically, all three were committing Attempted Murder at the time.
- Roy: Committed the Fraud that led to the felonies that led to the destruction of the inn.
- The rest of the Order: Knew about Roy's Fraud and went along with it, making them accessories after the fact.
03:36:31 AM Jul 10th 2013
edited by 18.104.22.168
edited by 22.214.171.124
It does sound to me like it. Specificly, it sounds like a casual, sarcastic, "Well, yes if you want to do this bad thing," because she honestly believes they wouldn't want to do such a "bad thing". When they do it anyway, she objects, but ojecting's not the same thing as condemning. That's really streching it. Gluttony and corruption have the exact obvious negative connotation that you are glossing over. I shouldn't need to further discuss this point, but all I have to say is, that interpretation was never supported within the actual comic and that is purely unsupported theory. Roy wasn't just impersonating "someone", he was impersonating a king, as it turns out, a real king, the leader of an actual nation (in the story). Even in Real Life, the leaders of nations take a lot of precautions against assassination attempts since that's a genuine occupational hazard that comes with being the leader of a nation. That's even more true in the Action/Adventure Fantasy universe of Oot S, where multiple assissination attempts are a regular occurence. You seemed to be ignoring the important part that thery were in the middle of nowhere I think a better, more generalized aesop that could still be legitimately applied here is that actions have consequences, and the more dishonest and selfish your actions are, the greater your responsibility you bear for those consequences. That’s not what I was arguing against. I was arguing against the idea that being assassinated for impersonation is not a valid consequence, No, she didn't. Your criticism of Miko on this point is ill-founded. First, she demands the Order's surrender. Yes, in the same “Surrender or die!” manner that hardly would seem heroic to the Order, having initially little knowledge at first that Miko was on the side of justice. It's only when Roy refuses that she attacks. Just one question. Who on earth within that land gave her the legal justification to carry out that death? No one! Yes I’m aware of the fact she was acting under the order of the Twelve Southern Gods, but that is not the same as the local law enforcement. And guess what? Not having the local authority to kill them means the Order have the right to refuse to surrender to her as they had no reason to initially believe that she was going to be reasonable.And frankly, she explicitly said that she was going to kill the Order entirely which once again, has been ignored. That said, this is the last I will try to discuss of this point. If this important point will still be ignored, then there is no point in going to discussing why I feel justified removing that justification. all of the Order agreed to go with her to Azure City. They all had their reasons, but expcet for Haley, they all actually wanted to go. Whatever ill will the Order members might've felt towards Miko after the fight wasn't enough to make them decide they wouldn't want to travel with her. No, but it certainly does explain their "apparent" hatred of her. And really, the fact they didn't go because they liked her (excpet for Roy) but for their own reason does not invalidate that argument. And the fact that Roy initially wanted to go because of Miko and ignored what she attempted on the Order reflected badly on him, not well on Miko, seeing as he only went along because of how he objectified her, which ewas deservedly treated as an absolute wrong reason. “Judging by the comic itself, the reasons why the Order hates Miko have little or nothing to do with the initial fight but simply because Miko is supposedly such a "bitch" during their journey. And that's where some of us found Miko sympathetic, completely at odds with Burlew's intentions.’’ Which is perfectly okay, what isn’t okay, is that line in the entry suggesting that the Order had no legit reason to dislike Miko. "The quote's from the bottom of the strip, and it's being said by Vaarsuvius, hardly a member of the Miko fanclub. The conclusion that Roy is at least partly ‘’responsible’’ isn't just a reasonable conclusion to come to, it's explicitly stated." Maybe. But the keyword the at most is partially. Even then, if you are going to call my example of Miko attacking the Order as ill founded criticism a due to the fact it was never brought up as a reason, then you should note that Miko only blamed them for the wrong reason, saying that “If you had all been willing to sleep in the muddy ditch, as I suggested, you would still have your precious dragon treasure” Which is just plain old ridiculous. And even Elan recognized that the idea that “they bought all of this upon [themselves]” ridiculous, humorously pointing out assassins were to be blamed. Anyways, I have already tried to explain twice why on earth Miko is not as innocent from hate from the Order as that entry suggest they were and frankly YMMV is a poor excuse to leave something as blatantly inaccurate as that out. YMMV does not mean that one creates an entry that blatantly favours a character leaving out any possibility that they were in the wrong. YMMV simply means that not everyone is going to recognize the same opinion on the character. At the very least, two different views on Miko would have to be acknowledged as legit in equal measures or neither point is simply discussed. What one does not do with a YMMV entry is make one blatantly in favour of a particular character and use the excuse that it is YMMV.’’ "And yet she still managed to make a point that was technically correct: the inn wouldn't have been destroyed if the Order had followed her suggestion of sleeping on the muddy ground. " No, it was not a valid point at all. You're shifting way too much blame on the Order, conveniently ignoring there would be no danger of the inn being blown up if there was no keg, which was brought by the assassins. And that was not the Order's fault. And for all that Belkar has done, he cannot be blamed for that in which he accidentally have done, and that is knocking over the keg. Apparently, Belkar accidentally knocking over the keg = the entire Order's fault
05:27:17 AM Jul 10th 2013
07:07:29 AM Jul 10th 2013
edited by 126.96.36.199
edited by 188.8.131.52
To Larkman: Whether or not she was seen as justified to some was never the problem. The problem came from the the entry being one sided and wrong. At K Feline: To try and conclude the argument I have made, the fact that Miko had no legal justification to even make that demand cannot be intepreted otherwise as could neither the idea that she had no right to demand a "surrender or die" ultimatum is she was apparently "not" trying to kill them. The Order cannot be faulted for not accepting surrender from an illegitimate moral or legal authority, especially when they were obviously threatened. Again, this is not something that can be reasonably interpreted as anything otherwise. So yeah, there is no other way to intepret Miko's action, especially when she declared her intention to kill them. And frankly, this incidence does not need to be blatanly brought up in order for one to be able to see how this incident would have shaped most of the Order's feelings towards Miko. This comic isn't exactly foreign to the idea of usign subtle implications. It can be obvserved how the Order in general immedietly became hostile towards Miko after her attempted killing of them. Again, this cannot be interpreted in any other way. The comic needs not spell this out. More importantly, it was the assassins that brought the kegs, despitethe fact that they would not obvously need it to assassinate the "king." It is blatanly common sense for anyone who is trying to become a professional assassin that if you do not want to unintentionally risk the life of lots of people, they shoudln't have brought something as dangerous as that. Again, whilst Roy was impersonating a king, he was only, at most, reasonably endangering his well being. There is no way one could easily intepret the kegs prescence as anything other than the assassins' fault. To ignore this is to say that somehow Roy should have known that assassins would have been either evil enough or stupid enough to bring the kegs along to a covert assassination attempt. The fact that Belkar accidentally (something that, again, cannot be interpreted as otherwise) knocked over a keg is not an argument for blaming everyone in the Order, but against it. So for Miko to blame everyone is not just slightly unfair, but incredibly unjust and any argument she made was invalidated the moment she picked on Haley. Which funnily enough proved that what Roy said a mere moment after was completely correct oins saying that she was a "mean socially inept bully who hides behind her holier-than-thou morality" and not following the spirit of the Good alignment. So yeah, to say that somehow Miko did not deserve her treatment by the Order for trying to kill them, not apologising for that attempt to kill them, being jerks to them (them being jerks to her is obviously due to the fact she tried to kill them in the first place. Haley was initally against joining Miko, Belkar wanted to kill Miko and V called her a "foul shrew" moments after she tried to kill them) ending up with the her blaming the entire Order for the fact that the assassins were careless enough to bring the kegs in the first place. So for that reason, that part will have to go because that part is not in any way shape or form justified.
08:46:20 AM Jul 10th 2013
I know, but the current wording is sufficiently neutral. Personally, I hate her and don't get the defense of her, but the current wording is sufficient in my opinion. Maybe add a line about Rule of Cautious Editing Judgement.
06:47:07 AM Jul 11th 2013
Hi, folks. I'd like to throw in a bit of perspective here. In my mind Miko doesn't belong on this trope because being sympathetic is not "unintentional" on the part of the author; he deliberately wrote her to be controversial. Miko is both a perpetrator and a victim; she is not blameless but she has good reason to feel that she is awash in lies and deceptions, as she was conditioned from a young age to absolute obedience of an absolute principle by a man who never believed in it to begin with. She was socially isolated and told that her very existence served a holy purpose. She then took the bit and ran with it until she murdered her own lord for no reason other than her belief in her own infallibility. I would say that if you can't see how that is supposed to be perceived as sympathetic (even if you don't agree), then you are badly missing the point. It is also true that Roy and company were colossal jerks to her, but in their defense, they saw no reason to be otherwise. She didn't exactly go out of her way to appreciate their world view; she just barged in and took over, treating them as captives to be delivered to her lord (which was, in fact, her mission). Conflict was inevitable. So, again, I see no reason why Miko should be in this trope. Everything about her character was designed to make the audience sympathize with her motives whilst hating her actions in service of them.
11:34:28 AM Dec 25th 2012
I just removed this instance of Natter regarding Lot R's Orcs:
- You mean other than the fact that they are explicitly Tortured Abominations in how they are created? Morgoth and Sauron created the Orcs by twisting elves into perverted abominations. Oh, and the Orcs do plenty of onscreen evil (slaughter of civilians, hewning defeated soldiers on ramparts, etc.) Other than their creation, they aren't portrayed sympathetically at all and how is it 'one-sided'?
10:42:10 AM Sep 29th 2011
Okay, way too many of these examples didn't really get the memo about it being U Nintentionally sympathetic. I'm gonna do a major clean up on this page soon unless someone objects.
04:36:49 PM Jan 23rd 2011
Any particular reason why Fawn shoved all of the posts into one or two paragraphs together without changing the words? Because it sort of looks like there's now people contradicting themselves in mid paragraph.
08:39:05 PM Jan 23rd 2011
That's proper formatting. One bullet point to one example. **s are only for multiple examples occurring in the same work. We should never see contradictions in the main page, mid paragraph or not. If something's blatantly wrong, delete it. If it's open to interpretation, take it to the discussion page. It looks like Fawn did the basic clean up, putting everything into one paragraph. If you see examples where there are contradictions, feel free to remove whichever half is wrong.
11:33:23 PM Jan 11th 2011
edited by nrjxll
edited by nrjxll
03:36:03 PM Nov 13th 2016
07:29:17 PM Jul 26th 2010
I don't think Cloverfield is an example. There's nothing in the movie that says it's a baby - in fact, many viewers thought its fleas were its babies and that it was an adult. The only way we know the monster's a baby is by Word of God. So it's unsympathetic in the movie, and intentionally sympathetic outside of it.
08:53:07 AM Jul 1st 2010
edited by Flyairth
edited by Flyairth
Removed this "justifying" edit: