Discussion YMMV / MadMaxFuryRoad

Becuase Nux isn't a woman. This Vocal Minority is complaining about the lagre female presence.

Is that genuinely the only reason for the complaint? 'Cause if it's not I don't want to generalise.

(There was a post here, but I erased it because I posted it in the wrong text box. The text is a new discussion topic, and has now been put in its proper place. Sorry for the mistake, I am new to TV Tropes).

Does anyone have thoughts about whether any of the Five Wives stand out above the others in terms of qualifying for an Ensemble Dark Horse?

''Please disregard this. I meant to put it elsewhere in the discussion

Yeah that's ridiculous. Cut.

It's also an absurd lie. The movie did get praised for its feminist themes, but it's not the only reason, or even the main reason, why critics liked it. Being a kickass action movie made with practical effects instead of relying on CGI is a point raised a lot more often by people who liked it.

No because:

• Miller's opinion doesn't matter in a trope like Broken Base, which is an audience reaction
• Broken Base is when the audience is divided between those who hate an aspect of a work and those who love it. You need to show that both sides exist, and not just that some people don't care for it.

Not only that both sides exist, but that they loudly and acrimoniously disagree and that there's little or no middle ground.

Seems like a stealth criticism in the form of a sinkhole. Good catch.

There's a lot of those all over these pages, IMO. That one just stuck out the most.

Everything in that example past the first sentence reads like a Justifying Edit. I suggest editing that out.

Edit: Nevermind, I'm misremembering.

In any case yiu might want to look at the previous thread below. I was against adding the trope in the first place.

I know, right?

I... don't see much difference between what you're saying and what the entry says. We know almost nothing about them, what little we do know about them raises questions about their ability to replace Joe's regime with a truly egalitarian one (you cite The Chain of Harm as the reason they're "cautious" around men, the entry says their apparent xenophobia can be "chalked up to the necessities of survival," which strikes me as six of one, half a dozen of the other), yet the audience is expected to simply assume that they're heroic.

Also, I point out that they're introduced laying a trap. It's not defensive, they're setting up to ambush strangers.

At the end of the day, I think an entry would be worthwhile. We just know so little of them that, when I think about it, they are kinda jerkasses.

BUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUTTTTTTTTTTTTTT... can we have a Designated Hero without a Designated Villain? Because even if they're not that heroic, they're by a ridiculous margin better than the villains.

I don't see anything about Designated Hero that requires them to be worse than the villain of the piece, just that they be presented as unambiguously heroic despite Jerkass qualities that go unexamined by the narrative.

High Crate: You mean you don't see much difference...aside from the part that I showed to be flat out false? Also "the necessities of survival" is a statement which is vague to the point of meaninglessness. Someone could argue, for example, that the Citadel culture is a necessity of survival since, for all the faults of Immortan Joe, it is nigh-invincible due to waving the Bigger Stick of the wasteland. As far as I can tell, we don't know enough about the Vuvalini to make a judgment call on the necessity or wantonness of their actions.

The Vuvalini are, at WORST, Unscrupulous Heroines. Designated Hero requires that the character be ,at best, a Jerkass. Jerkass, in turn states that a character is so obnoxious that you don't know why other characters even team up with or interact with them, but their asshole nature is somehow entertaining. The Vuvalini, on the other hand, are shown to be quite amicable once they know you well enough to trust you.

And when they don't know you, they set traps for travelers that prey on their altruism (if anyone in the world of Mad Max has any) by using a false Damsel in Distress as bait. Not traditionally a heroic trait. Traditionally, in fact, a villainous one, and that's their Establishing Character Moment.

Again, there's not enough information from that one incident. Just having villainous qualities doesn't make you a villain; in fact we flat out have an entire category for that, and I flat out said, I'll give you that they're Unscrupulous Heroines. However, simply being ruthless enough to set traps for strangers doesn't make them a Jerkass. That is one hell of a stretch to make, especially given how desperate and traditionally oppressed they're hinted at being.

Not saying that preying on travelers makes them nice people. Just saying that isn't enough to make the Designated Heroines.

If setting a trap that is specifically designed to prey on the altruism of someone who would stop to help a person who has apparently been condemned to a slow death isn't a Jerkass move, I'm having a tough time thinking of what is.

An Unscrupulous Hero is a hero who uses morally ambiguous or downright evil methods to punish evil, but their methods aren't aimed at evil. They're aimed at anyone who passes by who happens to be gullible enough to take the bait.

Let me put it this way: Furiosa isn't a Designated Hero. We know that she's a hero because the first action we see her take is rescuing the Wives, an action she takes at great personal risk with no apparent gain to herself. She's not Designated: we know she's a hero because we see her act heroically.

We never see that from the Vuvalini. We see them prey on travelers, and then we see them join the actual heroes because risking a quick death trying to take over the Citadel beats the slow but certain death they're currently facing. That's it. No, it's not a lot to go on, but of the two major actions we see them take, one is villainous and the other is neutral. Their heroism is Designated because it's not shown, it has to be guessed at from the way the narrative portrays their victory as a happy ending.

It might fit personal definitions of Jerkass somewhere outside of this wiki, but it doesn't fit the definition of Jerkass provided by this wiki. That requires someone to be so abrasive and so obnoxious that you can't see why nicer characters even bother with them. That doesn't apply to the Vuvalini unless you squint real hard.

The Unscrupulous Hero trope, on the other hand, says:

• They are usually defined by dark experiences that have made them cold and unforgiving, and due to the settings in which they exist, there will usually be no compunctions to using more extreme methods. They are as much about payback (or any assorted type of catharsis) as they are the greater good, and their targets will be deserving of it, more likely than not. You probably shouldn't expect them to be mindful of collateral damage, though.

Again, considering what type of world they live in, and the contact we know they've had with their closest neighbors (who would be the Citadel and the Crows), we can assume their experiences have hardened them. Even if not, they aren't shown to be overly cruel; to them, any innocent bystanders that take their bait are probably just collateral damage acceptable for their survival. Which fits the Unscrupulous Hero.

As for their heroic actions, they didn't HAVE to try and get the wives and Furiosa to safety. Before they knew about the Citadel, they were willing to go with and help the women because (as Furiosa put it) they were looking for hope That's a heroic act. Maybe not as heroic as Furiosa's but it's something.

Great. You've convinced me. They count as Unscrupulous Heroines as well. Write up an entry for it. But since a Designated Hero is a Jerkass at best and villainous at worst, and since the Vuvalini's actions are villainous, they count as that, too.

From Designated Hero: "They are often mean people with no redeeming qualities aside from some superficial virtues, and they do not undergo appreciable character development. They're generally given a pass by the writers, freeing them from the consequences of their actions."

Check, check, check. They have no redeeming qualities that we are shown other than the superficial one of being somewhat friendly to some potential victims they decide to spare after Furiosa vouches for them as being useful to them ("They're reliable."), undergo no character development that we are shown, and are given a pass by the writers (their villainous actions are never examined by either the narrative or the other characters).

It's really not complicated. A Designated Hero is a character that is presented as heroic by the narrative but, upon further inspection, their actions don't bear it out. That's the Vuvalini to a tee.

Again, this only works if you squint real hard.

They are Flat Characters, no doubt. However saying that they have no redeeming qualities given the short screentime they have is a stretch. They have as many redeeming factors as the one negative one we see for all of 30 seconds. They're kind, caring, and accepting as long as they know they can trust you.

For another thing, they aren't given "a free pass" for their actions. When the subject of killing comes up again, two things are said: "I thought you girls were above all that" (an acknowledgment that they are Not So Above It All) and "Back then, there was no need to 'snap anybody'.'" They refer to killing as a need''—not something they do just to be assholes.

Like you said, it's really not complicated. This is square peg trying to be filed down into a round trope with a vengeance.

And, as you yourself said above, Immortan Joe could easily argue that the harshness of his regime is necessary for survival. We're never actually shown that their preying on travelers is necessary for their survival. Show, Don't Tell.

Interesting how I put more weight on their Establishing Character Moment, while you put more weight on the dialogue. It's almost as if this were a matter of viewer interpretation, an issue in which an individual viewer's experience might vary in the same way that a car's gas mileage can vary depending on how the driver uses it. If only we had a section for that.

Yeah. My goal isn't to prove that Immortan Joe and his cronies didn't have good reasons (in their own heads) for what they did. Your goal was to state that the Vuvalini had "no redeemable qualities" in order to cram them into the Designated Villain and/or Jerkass tropes. However, here's the difference: Immortan Joe has tons of screentime, and numerous moments of being exceedingly cruel or spiteful with little other context to offset, justify or examine. The Vuvalini have one such moment, surrounded by moments that do that. Their little screentime, proportionate to Joe's, is filled with both moments of questionable morality and ones of compassion and heroism. They also demonstrate great bravery and courage (opposed to the War Boys' zealotry and martyrdom based on personal glory) and mourn their own when they're killed. Again, feel free to see them as jerks for the one vague action that introduces them, but "no redeemable qualities" is trying really hard to paint their actions as self-serving.

My goal is to demonstrate the story doesn't just let the Vuvalini off the hook, either. They're called out for being Not So Above It All, and they state that their actions were necessary and mourn for The Beforetimes when such things weren't necessary. Feel free to disagree, but the point is that "they get let off the hook" and "they had no redeemable qualities" are flat out false statements.

Also, YMMV is not a free-for-all. Entries still have to fit the basic criteria of the trope being stated and not be shoehorned in. This is shoehorning with the passion of a million exploding suns.

Since we seem to have become deadlocked on this topic, I brought the issue over to the "Is This an Example?" thread on the forums to get outside opinions.

Ironically, I think the older version you posted looks pretty good.

Granted, I still don't think the Vuvalini qualify as the trope, but I'm not going to put up a fight if the example as written is added to the YMMV page. *shrug*

In that case, I'm going to restore that older version for now. We can always bring it back down or make changes if the "Is This an Example?" thread decides further action is necessary.

Again, the Vuvalini don't do enough wrong to count in my opinion. For example, would the first Star Wars movie count just because it's implied that Han Solo was a bit of a prick before he decided to smuggle the good guys? In that movie, all we know about him is that he's a liar, a smuggler, and so on.

The way we meet the Vuvalini gives us no more info than that they leave traps for people and that one of them has "snapped" ever person she's ever met (which she refers to as a necessity). We don't know anything else about them.

Also, if you have reputable sources talking about the unfortunate implications, then no problem. A page like this, though, tends to attract a lot of attention from Internet misogynists and anti-feminists, so I'd say any such "source" has to be carefully examined.

I had an idea! While pondering how much they fit under Protagonist-Centered Morality, a potentially better trope occurred to me.

How about listing the Vuvalini under the trope Unintentionally Unsympathetic? While they are portrayed in a heroic light and, as you said, haven't done enough wrong, there are issues with them as I and others here noticed; the aforementioned tendency to set traps for people and their insular, xenophobic nature spring to mind. It's possible they have a degree of misandry, and there has been some debate about that here, but that could still fit under the envelope of this trope. While they are anti-heroes, there appears to be difficulty determining how heroic or villainous they are. They fit the (here paraphrased) laconic description: "We're supposed to root for them even though they come across as jerkasses". How does that sound?

As for the unfortunate implications, I am still searching for citations and shall post here when I find them. I would like to point out that it is a proven fact that every bad guy in the film is a man and every woman is portrayed in a heroic or at least positive light; for proof all that's needed is to watch the movie.

That isn't how Unfortunate Implications works. By wiki rules, there has to be a decent source that talks about it. AND the unfortunate part has to unintentional—which is gonna be hard considering that the director intended for a lot of it.

As for Unintentionally Unsympathetic? Yeah I personally can see that working as long as it doesn't devolve into complaining.

I see your point. I was also thinking that the text that was under Designated Hero could be used for Unintentionally Unsympathetic. The point would be like this:

• Unintentionally Unsympathetic: The Vuvalini, portrayed as the most heroic faction, prey on travelers and, from what little we see of them, seem to have an insular and xenophobic culture with signs of misandry (Max and Nux are nearly killed before Furiosa vouches for them while the Five Wives are immediately welcomed with open arms; Furiosa was accepted because her mother was a member of the Vuvalini). Part of this can be chalked up to the necessities of survival in a harsh environment, and it's certainly possible that absent that pressure, they'll rule the Citadel in a more egalitarian manner than Joe's regime, but the audience is not actually shown that this is the case; it's simply taken for granted.

I think that will work. What do you think?

By the way, regarding the following bit of text:

• On a side note, while I understand where you're coming from on the subject of complaints, some complaints can be legitimate. I also won't add anything under Unfortunate Implications without a source to back it up.*

I've decided not to add anything under Unfortunate Implications and keep it under Anvilicious, because while I think the filmakers had good intentions, the gender politics in the film are deliberate, even if the message has been potentially muddled.

Are you kidding? No. That's literally what I took out just repackaged and put into a new entry.

Also, complaining is complaining and not only is it not for this wiki, a page that inspires this much hatred from questionable groups has to be extra careful.

You have a point about complaining. The problem with this situation is that it involves gender politics, which is a sensitive issue to put it lightly; it's too easy for one to slip into agenda editing for whatever side of the debate that one is on (not pointing fingers at anyone or implying anything, just stating observations of other forums and this discussion page).

To stay on topic, I think we agree that Unintentionally Unsympathetic is the trope to be used.

You are right about the Vuvalini when you say "They also demonstrate great bravery and courage (opposed to the War Boys' zealotry and martyrdom based on personal glory) and mourn their own when they're killed." I would also like to point out that it's possible their methods, as stated before, weren't completely altruistic. They were stuck in a wasteland forced to make tough, morally questionable decisions to survive (such as the often mentioned setting traps for people), so it's possible their attempt to get Max, Furiosa and their charges back to the Citadel wasn't completely out of altruism; it was so they could get to the closest thing left to their Green Lands of old.

On the subject of whether or not they're misandrist, this is my perspective on the matter; The fact that a nude woman was the bait in their trap makes it possible their intended targets were men. A Wounded Gazelle Gambit would still work if she just pretended to be injured, so why is she nude? Also, while this could be seen as stretching, the fact that the Vuvalini drew attention to the gender of Max and Nux when they could've just said "who are they?" without bringing their gender into it. Combined with the possible in-universe reason for their name (Vuvalini AKA "The Vuvalini of Many Mothers") that, as someone else stated on the YMMV page, the first five letters of the faction's name can be rearranged to spell the name of a part of female anatomy, this does look iffy.

What text do you think would fit?

Given what we have reached a consensus on, I shall take a leap of faith and see how the text goes.

We haven't reached consensus. Other people not replying for one day is not a consensus.

Since you have agreed in principle that they fit under Unintentionally Unsympathetic, at this point I'd like to ask you to propose example text that you would consider acceptable.

Not replying for a day may not be consensus, but unilaterally deleting examples and then rejecting every proposal in discussion without offering any of your own does not come across as a good-faith effort to reach it either.

I deleted examples that were added by a sockpuppet of a banned user.

Also, my exact words were: "I personally can see [Unintentionally Unsympathetic] working as long as it doesn't devolve into complaining." That doesn't mean or imply that I need to write my own version of it, nor that I don't have the right to point out problems in versions proposed by others.

Beyond that, I have been busy with personal stuff. So you'll excuse me if I didn't have time to do much beyond housekeeping and replying.

However, since you asked:

Unintentionally Unsympathetic: Several characters engage in actions of questionable morality while still ostensibly being written to be sympathetic characters. For example, Max holds pregnant women at gunpoint, leaves them to die in a desert, and briefly considers returning them to the warlord who uses them as unwilling Sex Slaves. The Vuvalini are introduced via a pretty ruthless Honey Trap, are immediately suspicious of the first men they meet, imply that a Child by Rape would be less "ugly" if it were a girl, and one of them states that she's killed every person she's ever met in the wasteland. The most sympathetic people in the story are the wives, and from there everyone else's level of sympathy is assigned based on how helpful or threatening they are to them.

Most of that looks reasonable. I'd suggest breaking the individual examples out to their own bullet points, however, which would look something like:

• Unintentionally Unsympathetic: Several characters engage in actions of questionable morality while still ostensibly being intended to be sympathetic:
  • Max holds pregnant women at gunpoint, leaves them to die in a desert, and briefly considers returning them to the warlord who uses them as unwilling Sex Slaves.
  • The Vuvalini are introduced via a pretty ruthless Honey Trap, are immediately suspicious of the first men they meet, imply that a Child by Rape would be less "ugly" if it were a girl, and one of them states that she's killed every person she's ever met in the wasteland.

Looks good to me. Indentation always mixes me up, so I decided to hold off on it. But that gets my thumbs up.

(Sex Slaves should probably be fixed as a pot hole, though.)

Oops, good catch; missed that pothole when I copy-pasted it over.

Draco in Leather Pants also includes controversial characters, not merely villainous. Are the Vuvalini controversial and can it be demonstrated that fans of the Vuvalini downplay their negative qualities and flaws?

If the writers have made it clear that they were using gender politics then it's not WDYMINP.

DILP says "controversial or downright villainous" in the first line, but after that the description talks exclusively about villainy, so it's hard to say whether the Vuvalini are "controversial" in the way the trope means.

At its heart, though, DILP seems to be about a dissonance between how the audience reacts to a character and how the work / creator intends them to react. Matters of authorial intent are always tricky to deal with without clear Word of God, but as far as I can see, the most common audience reaction is exactly the one the film intends: "hey, look at these kickass old ladies!" The problematic aspects of their characters aren't dwelt on and are likely to be noticed only in retrospect or on a very close rewatching.

Edit: And as far as What Do You Mean, It's Not Political?, I think the fact that they hired feminist playwright Eve Ensler as a consultant should put to bed any question of whether the film is meant to explore gender politics. You can argue about whether it's meant to be a centerpiece of the film itself in the same way it's become the centerpiece of the conversation about the film, or whether it was simply meant to be a subtle subtext in what's otherwise just a big fun action movie, but it's definitely supposed to be there.

... good lord, that's insane shoehorning for Draco in Leather Pants.

• The fact that of the two main male leads, one ends up dead and the other in self-imposed exile from what is potentially about to become the most decent place to live in the entire franchise, among other factors, has led to accusations of misandry. Suffice it to say that this point continues to be debated vociferously.

I feel like this could better establish that there are two sides to it. "it is being debated" doesn't seem like enough does it? Though I don't know how to go about it...

That's Unfortunate Implications without citations disguised as Broken Base. Axe it.

The pertinent Broken Base (is this misandrist or just "not-misogynist") covers it fully.

Now, the movie does 100% deserve an Anvilicious entry. If only because of the whole "who killed the world?" question, and the implication that it's the men. That's enough to earn it an entry, in my opinion.

^ If you're referring to the first bullet point, that asks "is this feminist or just not-misogynist," not misandrist, so it doesn't cover the same point. And the treatment of the male characters is enough of a Base Breaker that it deserves its own entry.

@Eagal, I could see more being said about the "it's not misandrist" side of the Broken Base. How would you suggest summing up the most common counterarguments against the film being misandrist in a sentence or so?

As for Anvilicious, I'm inclined to agree that the trope probably does apply, although the way the entry was worded before was, to put it kindly, a mess. I'm all in favor of trying to arrive at a better-worded entry. Does anyone have any suggestions for how to put it?

Ah. I think a 3-way entry of "Is this movie feminist, not-misogynist, or misandrist" would be appropriate, honestly. They're intrinsically linked. Maybe each argument can get its own 3rd-level bullet spelling out the arguments, but they should definitely be under one 2nd level point.

Like I said, the movie needs an Anvilicious entry. Buuuuuuuuuuuuut the existing writeup was garbage and should be discarded.

• Anvilicious: The movie is not subtle about its feminist message. The bad guys are all men. Every woman is a good guy. Even the title character is just a Supporting Protagonist to a strong, independent woman who ultimately takes power from the patriarchy. An early Armor-Piercing Question is "who destroyed the world?" with the implication that it's the men in power who are the cause of the Crapsack World of the setting and the movie makes no attempt to claim otherwise.

I also think it's earned a Some Anvils Need to Be Dropped entry.

• Some Anvils Need to Be Dropped: The film is not subtle about its message on feminism, but the anvilicious message ultimately helps the film. It gives the movie more relevance to our world, and the movie would certainly not have had anywhere near as much critical acclaim if it weren't for the message. Its social commentary prevents it from being seen as just another popcorn flick.

I can get behind adding "misandrist" to the first second-level bullet point as a compromise solution. It's a legit example of Broken Base that should be mentioned, but it doesn't need to be dwelt upon.

Your suggested Anvilicious entry is about a thousand percent better than the old one. I say we give it a day or two in case anyone has any proposed additions or changes, then put it up.

I agree that there's probably a place for a Some Anvils Need to Be Dropped entry, but I'm not sure about the current wording of the entry. It explains why the film benefits from having the message that it does, but not why it benefits from that message being as Anvilicious as it is. I'd add something along the lines of, "Everything else in the film is so stylized and over-the-top that a more subtly delivered theme could easily have been lost among all the sound and fury."

Ooooh, I like that idea.

• Some Anvils Need to Be Dropped: The film is not subtle about its message on feminism, but the anvilicious message ultimately helps the film. It gives the movie more relevance to our world, and the movie would certainly not have had anywhere near as much critical acclaim if it weren't for the message. Its social commentary prevents it from being seen as just another popcorn flick. And given the sheer amount of style and over-the-topness of the film, an attempt at a subtly delivered theme could easily have been lost in all the sound and fury, accomplishing nothing.

Looks good to me.

Plus 1 vote.

Added them.

Now for the fun part... Broken Base.

• Broken Base:
  • The fandom (and hatedom) is torn asunder by factions claiming the movie is varying levels of feminist. On one end, you have a crowd hailing it as feminist, one not going so far and simply calling it not-misogynist, and a very vocal faction claiming it's outright misandrist.
  • Whether it is as good as the original trilogy. There are many people who think Fury Road was just an overblown cartoonish flick while others consider it the best movie in the series. The competition is especially tight between Fury Road and Road Warrior.
  • Max as the Supporting Protagonist. This is either a bold and clever choice to give focus to a new character, or upstaging the established hero and hurts the movie.

I'd alter the first bullet point a bit:

• Broken Base:
  • The film's audience is torn asunder by factions divided by their reading of the film's stance (if any) on gender politics. On one side you have a crowd hailing it as a Feminist Fantasy, another in the middle calling it "not-misogynist" but not outright feminist, and a very vocal faction on the other end claiming it's outright misandrist.

Works for me. Though I think we can lose the "(if any)". We know it has a stance, and we don't need the parabombing.

Eh, fair point. There IS a faction that would have you believe that it's just a big fun action movie that everyone is reading too much into, but they're 1.) small, 2.) not particularly vocal, and 3.) wrong, so I'm not going to argue too hard for their representation. (-:

Word. Want to add it?

Done. I think that pretty much takes care of things for now. I'd like to thank everybody for being willing to get together and work through this. Some of these entries touch on some pretty contentious issues, but I'm really happy with how this discussion went and I hope everyone else is too.

Good work with these edits. In case you're wondering why I'm commenting on this, I am the troper that Spectral Time had a vendetta against and the one who made the edits you've discussed.

Let me set the record straight, I did not add those tropes and am not sure about the shoehorning issue. The tropes were already on the page, I merely edited the descriptions to include observations of mine or elaborate on existing views. On Broken Base it was a mistake for me to cite Return of Kings. I did so because I didn't know, at the time, they were a hate group or that examples in Broken Base do not need citation.

While I re-examined their website and realized my mistake, the points presented remain valid. It was my own observation of the film that, to borrow this thread's wording, "the film's treatment of male characters (is) problematic". As far as I know, I was the first to point out on the YMMV page that all the bad guys are men, that all women in the film are heroic and question the morality of the Vuvalini, albeit with different words.

I was uncertain about the exact use of the trope Draco In Leather Pants so I put it on the YMMV page just in case as they have received such treatment by the fanbase. Going by this thread, I wasn't the only one unsure of the term's applicability. I had also forgotten about the trope Designated Hero, or I would've used that instead. I also appreciate that when you inferred that my deliberate misspelling of Vuvalini was juvenile, you didn't make it a personal attack; I did it as a tongue-in-cheek way to point out the fact, but I won't use such methods in the future.

Now the air has been cleared on the issues and they have been fixed. Once again, great work everyone involved.

Please explain how they're poorly written or juvenile and I will rewrite them if that's proven correct (I also noticed that you said "most", not "all", so I assume there are some thing I stated that you agree with or at least understand). The fact that not everyone sees things the same way is why I put those point here on the YMMV page. Some of my earlier posts were poor, but after thinking about them I did seek to address the issue.

Whatever you or anyone else may think of what I've added, I have as much right to post my views as you or any other troper does. This puerile attempt to gang up on a fellow troper could end up bringing the moderators down on both (or all, if anyone else gets involved) of our heads, so I'd be careful if I was you.

...Okay. From the top:

"Vuvalini" is indeed a silly and unsubtle name. It does not belong under Anvilicious. Narm is a better fit.

The "Broken Base" entry is just a list of complaints. It does not demonstrate two camps of disagreeing fans divided by an issue, but rather lists a bunch of random complaints not addressed by practically the only vocal critic of the film. It is thus reaching.

The "Vulvalini" are not an example because the film depicts them quite sympathetically. "Draco" is for a villainous character the fanbase loves and makes excuses for, not for an anti-heroic one. If you insist on putting your weird little rant in there, it fits better under "Designated Hero."

Your edits to a previously clean and easily-understood "Narm" entry serve no useful purpose other than to clutter it up with your irrelevant politics.

The What Do You Mean It's Not Political entry is, ironically, the best of the lot, writing problems aside.

As to how the politics are juvenile, well, you fail to convincingly demonstrate at any point how a film directed by, written by, and starring men is somehow "anti-man," beyond a couple crudely-formed complaints that "all the main bad guys are men with no villainous women." If you were attempting to argue that the finished product is not "anti-man" but could be misconstrued that way, you do not manage to do so in a way that is coherently distinguishable from shouting "misandry."

Also, you try to argue that there aren't any mean women in the movie right before complaining the Vuvalini are militantly anti-man. Can't have both.

Nice to see you've gotten off your high horse and are willing to be reasonable (that attempt to rally tropers against me was behavior approaching that of the worst type of SJW, don't do it again). Thank you for elaborating on your reasons for disliking my text. To address your points;

I understand what you're saying about "Vuvalini" not being Anvilicious and disagree. You agreed with me that it's a silly and unsubtle name, which is the reason I listed it as Anivilicious in the first place. I agree with you that it fits under Narm, and you failed to notice that I DID put it under Narm in one of my edits. By the way, my "vuvla" quip on the page was just a tongue-in-cheek poke at the name, hardly "juvenile" if that's what you think of it.

My entry in Broken Base was to point out that some people have this view of the film; whether you or anyone else likes it or not this view exists and I was acknowledging that. I did not say that the film's misandrist; while I don't agree completely with everyone who says it, I reached a similar conclusion (that some elements appear misandrist) for mostly different reasons.

The trope Draco in Leather Pants refers to, and I quote from the trope's page on this very wiki, "...when a fandom takes a controversial or downright villainous character and downplays his/her flaws, often turning him/her into an object of desire and/or a victim in the process..." The key word I want to point out is controversial. The trope page makes a distinction between controversial and villainous characters, yet says both can qualify as a Draco in Leather Pants, so it sounds like an Anti-Heroic character can qualify. There are fans who have made excuses for the Vuvalini's anti-man stance (I can provide the links if you wish).

How does my edit clutter the "Narm" entry? It is in a neat, little NOTE package, so it only clutters, to use your word, when one opens the note. As for my statement in brackets, that doesn't add much length and hardly clutters the article in my opinion.

I didn't write or edit all of the What Do You Mean It's Not Political entry, so you would be wrong to blame me for it's shortcomings or praise me for it's strengths.

The film may star men, but as I said how men are used in the film can lead to it being construed as anti-man. To elaborate on my complaint, not just all the main bad guys are men, EVERY SINGLE BAD GUY IN THE MOVIE AND ALL OF THEIR HENCHMEN are male; every one of Joe's, the People Eater's or the Bullet Farmer's minions that pursues Mad Max, Furiosa, the wives and Nux is a man. The tribesmen that Furiosa has an arrangement with that turn on her are all men. All of them are portrayed in a negative, if sometimes sympathetic, light, being seen as red shirts to blow away or monsters that the audience enjoys seeing die. That can come across as the trope Men Are the Expendable Gender.

You are right that I can't have both, and I do view the Vuvalini's anti-man stance as mean. The problem is I have yet to hear or see anyone besides myself, in the movie or real-life, call the Vuvalini out on it. The violently misandrist Vuvalini are portrayed in a positive light while every misogynist is (rightly) portrayed in a negative light. That is quite the Double Standard. If there were women among the villains to balance things out I wouldn't have taken issue, but there are not.

...See, I hate all your posts and think they have no place on this page or wiki. And you haven't defended a single one of them (or, to be frank, your politics) to my satisfaction. I still feel the page would be a better place without them.

But, wiping all of them based entirely on my own opinion is bad form. If no one else responded, then I would feel compelled to let all of those things be, even though I believed and still believe that they're shoddy, politically-repulsive nonsense.

And no one did, so I do.

You are wrong, this page is the perfect place for my posts. This the purpose is the YMMV page; the Your Mileage May Vary page. To quote from the YMMV home page describing the purpose; "The article might call for a value judgment and your judgment call could be different from another troper's". Just because you (and perhaps others) don't like my points or disagree with them does not justify removing them because, as mentioned before, listing and explaining subjective tropes is the entire purpose of this page. Even if other people agree with you that won't justify removing my posts here. I am repeating myself to drive the point home.

It is obvious that my reasons will not be good enough for you because you appear to be using just feelings now, not reason; you said you hate my posts and "feel" that they have no place here. In this case, no reason would be good enough no matter how valid. Even if I wrote a thesis or published a book on the subject it still wouldn't resonate with you if you don't use reason over feeling. You also missed the point that not everything I typed was my view. I do not consider the movie misandrist. I was pointing out these alternate views that exist as well as posting other views of my own (such as how the Vuvalini's misandry gets a pass compared to the villains misogyny). I also have no problem with you disagreeing with me. I do have a problem with having my views, OR facts that I present, be slandered.

You said it was bad form to wipe my posts based solely on your opinion. That sounds like if even one other agreed with you, you would take up arms against my posts again. On that note, I forgot to mention that your attempt to rally people against me is a form of cyberbullying. As stated before, I have as much right to my posts as you do yours, whether you like it or not. So even if someone else agrees with you, accept their agreement but let the matter between us rest and make no further attack on these posts of mine.

Let this be the end of the matter.

Eh, I agree with most of the examples being reaching (seriously, the deliberate misspelling of vuvalini and then the pointless backtrack is downright weird) and the whole thing in Draco In Leather Pants doesn't fit.

Seriously, to even write that is self-defeating because for the complains to work then the movie has to present the Vuvalini as heroes (which is what it did) and thus can't possibly fit for Dracon In Leather Pants.

If we're to keep (part of) that rant then the best fit would be the opposite and with an inversion of the tone, under a Ron the Death Eater entry.

Man, I am yet to understand the deal with this movie. I only watched it once and found it ok (I fall entirely within the Hype Backlash camp) and definitely not deep enough in either story or character for it to be analyzed this much.

And it's pointless anyway, the movie was sexist, at times, against both women and men: The five wives are introduced (and I quote the editing room) in an impromptu budweisser commercial, they all would have died without having a Man™ telling them what to do instead, two incapacitated men handily defeated a group of five healthy and one pregnant women, etc. On the other end of the spectrum, all men are evil, all women are heroes, the only rebuttal for a pregnant girl being afraid of what she might give birth to is "it could be a girl", etc.

My point is that critiquing a movie that, sometimes, does a disservice to women because sometimes it does a disservice to men, or viceversa, is hypocritical at best.

Also everything out of Return of Kings doesn't belong in this wiki. That place is despicable.

And, finally, this sole thread is also very juvenile. While I agree with you, SpectralTime, this was not the way to approach things.

I have no regard for Return of Kings. I only posted the link because I thought at the time that citation would be needed and that Return of Kings would be a case of Jerkass Has a Point. However, after a second reading of that site, I realized that they were a hate group and I shall not reference them anyway.

The remark about every bad guy being a man and every woman being a good guy was my own observation, not from that site. Despite your low opinion of most of my previous edits, that is something we agree on.

I am grateful for you setting the record straight regard use of the Draco In Leather Pants trope; I had forgotten about the trope Designated Hero.

I actually kind of liked his edits, but... well, if they're unpopular and need to be changed, they're unpopular and need to be changed.

I would like this to show up somewhere: it's essentially a battle for the future course of human civilization, with the heavy implication that it's stern father-figure patriarchs like Immortan Joe that led to this Crapsack World while Furiosa’s Amazon naturalists represent hope and progress - and those who support them("Battle Fodder" such as Nux) are complicit in their crimes and accomplishments.

George Miller has gone on the record( http://www.craveonline.com/site/837957-sxsw-2015-interview-george-miller-on-mad-max-fury-road-and-the-apocalypse/2 ) saying that the movie theme isn't just feminist, but about how modern civilization spends way too much of its time and effort trying to get more slices of the pie rather than maintaining what it already has and building on it; "We are killing for gasoline."

Central Theme might be a good place for that.

I liked the idea behind the edit... but the edit itself was a bit all over the place, had poor Example Indentation, and seemed shoehorned into Anvilicious.

I agree it should go... somewhere, but either find a more appropriate trope or redo the wording to actually explain why it's anvilicious.

Hmm. Is there a trope for multiple Central Themes? Feminism (with a hefty dose of With Us or Against Us - Nux isn't one of the people that "killed the world" but he's still wilfullly supporting Immortan Joe, and together they're no different from the people who *did* kill the world) is the central theme of Fury Road, but the Central Theme theme of the entire Mad Max franchise is the idiocy of No Blood for Phlebotinum.

Oh, and the Narm entry needs *something* there, as Nux's dedication to being mindless battle fodder is *THE* character arc of the movie - men like Nux helped men like Immortan Joe kill the world, and him changing sides is what helps the Vuvliani start rebuilding it.

I think there can be multiple Central Themes; at least, it doesn't say anywhere on that trope page that there can be only one example per work.

It does say, though, to "go to a work's Analysis sub-page to get a more detailed explanation of its central theme—or add your own insight." So I would try to make any Central Theme entry or entries on the main page as concise as possible, and then make an Analysis page for any further elaboration you feel like making.

That sounds like agenda-editing, in my opinion.

Agenda or not, still doesn't seem to count as misaimed fandom.

You framed your issue as "the movie doesn't remotely ponders (sic)" the issue in question. That's the point of a Misaimed Fandom. There are fans for a POV that the movie never intended.

Nux was not "barely tolerated" within the context of the film. Capable (backed up by Word of God) flat out loved him. Max flat out gained their trust.

The only "men" they hated were the ones who tried to kill them—which was basically everyone else.

... What?

Read the entry again, it's specific about the Dag and the Vuvalini, Capable is mentioned nowhere, and they were indeed very suspicious of Max and Nux while nothing in the movie showed that they changed their opinion.

"That's the point of a Misaimed Fandom. There are fans for a POV that the movie never intended."

... Read again what I wrote. The movie very much vilified men. That some people would walk away from it with confirmation bias in that regard is not really that surprising and, thus, not Misaimed Fandom.

Had the movie done differently and actually presented men in a good or neutral light (and not two examples as exceptions to the rule and one of those barely), then it'd be Misaimed Fandom.

... Meh, I won't discuss this any longer, it's not like this movie is worth it anyway.

Yeah, k. Bye.

I think phylos has a point that the movie shows men in a negative light and that some may like the Vuvalini for that. I tried bringing up something similar and it kept getting edited out until I found out how to word it diplomatically. If I may offer a tip, phylos, link a website where women talk about the Dag and the Vuvalini in a positive light for their anti-male views.

It also ties into a double-standard manifest in Western society, especially the media; a woman doesn't like men "SHE'S JUST EMPOWERING HERSELF AND BEING INDEPENDENT", a man doesn't like women "WHAT A BIGOTED IDIOT, MOCK HIM, PUNISH HIM OR FORCE HIM TO CHANGE HIS MIND!"

After some time to think on the above I came to a realization. Misaimed Fandom refers to when the fanbase interprets something differently from what the creator intended. The Vuvalini are portrayed in a positive light despite their anti-male views, so that is not Misaimed Fandom. However, theses views and how they express them are extreme and controversial, but their fanbase (which could include those aforementioned misandrists) ignores it or makes excuses for the Vuvalini. On that note, I added them as an example of Draco in Leather Pants and I hope that helps the issue.

This thread deals with Complete Monster matters.