YMMV Steven Universe Discussion

Collapse/Expand Topics
 

Syrika
Topic
05:56:16 AM May 30th 2017
Can I make Ensemble Darkhorse into its own subpage?
Crossover-Enthusiast
12:53:12 PM May 31st 2017
Not yet.
WaywardTotodile
09:55:19 PM Sep 26th 2017
edited by WaywardTotodile
....oh.

Apologies for that then, i went and made it a page before realizing this page existed.

I found Ensemble Darkhorse to be incredibly long even for its folder. (i closed everything else to make sure; it had a rather large impact on my scroll bar) Edit: I learned to timestamp. It's late over here. Anyway, that page is substantially larger than it would have been earlier, so it might have a reason to exist now.
ScotieRw
Topic
08:17:45 PM May 29th 2017
Someone keeps deletong my entry under squick about how steven and connie fused being two children having metaphorical sex and I can't figure out why. Is this in someway against the rules?
Sugarp1e1
08:27:50 PM May 29th 2017
I've seen the edits that you're talking about and at the risk of sounding rude, I take it that you didn't read the edit reason.

Word of God stipulates that fusion is not metaphorical sex. It's a metaphorical relationship. Romantic or otherwise.

So no. Steven and Connie are not having metaphorical sex. They're just giving their friendship a physical form.
ScotieRw
10:52:12 PM May 29th 2017
I don't know how to read edit reasons.

And how does that change the fact some people find it to be squicky? This is an ymmv trope, and if I understand correctly, ymmv tropes are subjective, audience reactions and the like.
Sugarp1e1
05:30:51 AM May 30th 2017
In the page history, the edit reason is right below the edit itself.

Because the Squick factor rides on the notion that fusion is metaphorical sex, which is false.

And just because it's an opinion doesn't mean nobody can question it if the reasoning behind it is faulty. Fusion has been outright confirmed by the creators to not be a metaphor for sex. So fusion isn't sex. Period.
ScotieRw
04:04:36 PM May 30th 2017
Oh ok thank you.

But people who don't follow the show's creator's social medias won't necessarily know that. And even if they did it doesn't matter, if it did then every alternative interpretation proven false would have to be removed too.

Look, just go read the pages explain YMMV. You transparently don't understand the concept of "your mileage may vary".
Sugarp1e1
09:10:18 PM May 30th 2017
So? I fail to see the issue with that. If you're referring to tropes similar to Alternate Character Interpretation, in most cases, creators fail to, or refuse to, elaborate on how something should be interpreted. In that case, no one is in any position to tell someone how they should interpret something. For example, Life of Pi. The ending is ambiguous as to which story is true, the one with the animals or the one with the humans. Since it's left up to the reader's interpretation, nobody can jump in an say "This interpretation of the ending is false!" because neither the book, nor the author, ever hinted at which story is true. However, the phrase "the curtains are blue" exists for a reason. Misinterpretation is a thing. If you provide an example that rides on a misinterpretation, then you're feeding the readers incorrect information.

I... do not understand how to process that statement. Are you saying that I don't know how opinions work? Because I do. Not everyone likes Harry Potter. Not everyone hates Family Guy. "Your mileage may vary" on those works. Are you saying that opinions can't be questioned because opinions vary between people? Because that's a bad mindset to have. Yes, opinions themselves cannot be proven wrong. However, you can still use facts to question the reasoning behind said opinion. For example, let's say that somebody doesn't like Five Nights At Freddy's because they believe that Jump Scares are a cheap and lazy way to scare people. Well, fine. But I can still point out how the game's main method of scaring you isn't the jump scares, it's the tension and paranoia of sitting a dark, quiet room waiting for something that's trying to kill you. The jump scares are just the payoff. Granted, that sort of horror isn't going to scare everyone, but to imply that FNAF relies on jump scares alone is incorrect.
ScotieRw
12:51:54 AM May 31st 2017
Ok let me put it this way as you didn't seem to understand what I said with that. The reason squick is a YMMV trope, and not a main page trope, is because they are not in universe examples. We are not documenting something that happened in the show here, we are documenting something someone outside the show thought about something that happened within the show. It is an audience reaction.

No I'm saying you don't know how tv tropes works. You can go ahead and question my reasoning all you want. You can disagree with my opinion all you want. But it doesn't matter that you disagree with me, or think my reasoning is flawed, this trope is asking for my personal opinion, so as long as I'm not being a dick, I can give my personal opinion, even if you disagree with it or feel it's based on faulty reasoning.

Basically, say we were on a website about color. There is one page dedicated to letting people to talk about their favorite color. I said my favorite color is pink because it's an innocent color, and you deleted my posting because an artist somewhere said white was the color of innocence. It doesn't matter what the artist said because this page was asking how I felt, not what the artist said.
Berrenta
09:27:19 AM May 31st 2017
If it's based on a misinterpretation, it's not a legitimate example of Squick.

Unless if you can prove that it's not, keep the example off the page.
Larkmarn
01:54:25 PM May 31st 2017
Basically YMMV entries still have definitions that need to be met. And if the entry is based off of something explicitly false in the work, then the entry is still false and needs to be pulled.
Sugarp1e1
08:29:43 PM May 31st 2017
That's... not a very good analogy. Nobody created color; it just exists. Therefore, there's no "objective" way to view certain colors. So deleting a subjective post about why pink's your favorite color just because some random artist associated the reasoning you gave with the color white would be unfair. From an artistic perspective, the only factual things you can say about pink and white is that pink is a mix between red and white, and that white technically doesn't qualify as a color. Pink and white have different interpretations throughout the world. For example, in Japan, pink is a masculine color and represents the samurai who died for their masters, while white is associated with death when paired with purple. But in North America, pink is a feminine color and represents girls in general, while white represents purity and innocence like you said. Neither country's interpretations of these colors are wrong because, again, nobody created color. So if pink's an innocent color to you, then fine. However, if an artist used pink to represent, let's say, evil, in their work, and you still interpret pink to represent innocence within the context of that work, then it would be a misinterpretation of the work and, within the context of the work, factually wrong.

Just because most of TV Tropes' pages are subjective in nature doesn't mean you can post whatever you want regardless of context or facts. That's why Dethroning Moment of Suck has a rule stipulating that entries can be removed if they're blatantly wrong. Such as this one case in D Mo S' Western Animation page where someone deleted an entry listing the scene in Frozen where Anna punched Hans because the OP forgot certain bits of information and used biased sources to back up their opinion.
superboy313
Topic
08:15:08 PM Mar 29th 2017
What if there was a Complete Monster in Steven Universe?
TaylorHyuuga
08:16:30 PM Mar 29th 2017
There probably won't be. I think Rebecca Sugar said that basically none of the antagonists would be pure evil.
WaywardTotodile
09:57:38 PM Sep 26th 2017
...isn't this veering into Death of the Author territory by default? Sugar said no episodes were filler either, and that's gotten to be pretty disputed.
TaylorHyuuga
Topic
11:32:40 AM Feb 26th 2017
Does anyone else think that the criticism against Rocknaldo could be put under Misaimed Fandom? I mean, the end of the episode showed that he realized he was acting like a giant jackass and would at least try and make up for it, which is more than he's done in previous episodes.
Crossover-Enthusiast
10:30:08 AM Feb 28th 2017
Yeah, they seemed to be more focused on the fact that he was a jerk, not that he had a Jerkass Realization. I say go for it.
valozzy
Topic
08:14:22 AM Jan 4th 2017
Um, we're STILL not supposed to talk about any leaks, right?
AlleyOop
12:07:13 PM Jan 4th 2017
Not until they've been released officially, no.
CapitanHappyFace
01:53:24 PM Jan 5th 2017
Kytseo
Topic
06:16:51 PM Aug 10th 2016
edited by Kytseo
I remember my edit about this series being a Spiritual Adaptation of Dragon Ball being deleted a while back, so let me clarify:

An animated series starring a Half-Human Hybrid son of a human and a Humanoid Alien, said Half-Human Hybrid gains Parental Substitutes (one in one case, three in another case) in other aliens, and, though he'd rather be a pacifist, he has to help protect the Earth from evil aliens that come from his ancestral homeworld.

Death Is Cheap because there's a way to revive fallen main characters, occasional instances involving monsterous versions of said Humanoid Aliens, the "war with beings from the ancestral homeworld" plotline gets really kickstarted with the arrival of two invaders loyal to said homeworld (one short and stubby with pointed hair, the other big and burly).

Said Half-Human Hybrid causes one alien to go from Big Bad to Aloof Ally, the short invader pulls a Heel–Face Turn after a while. There are plot elements that involve fusion (mostly temporary, one being nigh-permanent due to being a special case).

Also, the Half-Human Hybrid's Love Interest is a full human that's a pretty good warrior in her own right, and there are factors that point to said Half-Human Hybrid being a Superior Successor to his Humanoid Alien parent.

There's my case, would it have been better if I said it was a Spiritual Adaptation to Dragon Ball Z?
AlleyOop
11:53:00 PM Aug 10th 2016
Sounds like it would fit the broader Spiritual Successor more than Spiritual Adaptation.
Kytseo
04:27:08 PM Aug 11th 2016
Fair point, though you can see my logic right?
TaylorHyuuga
05:57:52 AM Aug 12th 2016
The biggest problem with this whole thing: You're not describing the main character. You're describing his son. Gohan is NOT the protagonist of Z. GOKU is. Although one could realistically call Steven an Expy of Gohan.
Silverblade2
05:45:32 AM Aug 15th 2016

___ It's a Zero-Context Example because you basically redirect the reader to the discussion page which is distracting.
ClownToy
Topic
08:36:28 PM Jul 27th 2016
edited by ClownToy
To the ones who have seen Monster Reunion. Do you think that the half-healed centipeetle should be considered Ugly Cute.?
Elosva
Topic
05:58:18 AM Jul 2nd 2016
edited by Elosva
posted this in the wrong place please ignore
Raidrik
Topic
06:18:20 PM Nov 2nd 2015
edited by Raidrik
I really do feel the whole Zamii070 incident needs to be mentioned in some form. Seems to be a delete-add war brewing around. I feel that as a very notable occurrence, both in the fandom and from outside perspective; it does deserve some mention. Some mention, nothing hugely explicit, but no sweeping it under the rug. Nothing informality, but notation should be accepted without getting deleted by the next edit. This is YMMV, not "Your Mileage My Vary as You Want It To". Like it or not, it IS important because it involved a huge portion of the fan base with both transgressors and defenders, even getting the show staff involved.
SeptimusHeap
01:23:16 AM Nov 3rd 2015
There has to be a way to stop these pages from becoming battlefields. I've put a note in.
RavenKingSage
07:14:30 AM Nov 3rd 2015
edited by RavenKingSage
I see no reason why it shouldn't be mentioned here. It's been a big deal in the fandom. Honestly it looks bad on TVT's part that people keep removing it, because it looks like "oh we don't want people to know about this" and that you're seriously defending people who nearly bullied someone to death for their show. This issue, that is, whether or not she deserved to be bullied, isn't really an issue you should be neutral on.
MagBas
09:47:03 AM Nov 3rd 2015
edited by MagBas
It sounds as a Fan Dumb example, and Fan Dumb is listed is Flame Bait, meaning that this can not be listed.
RaineSageRocks
05:06:45 PM Nov 3rd 2015
I have to agree with Mag Bas, but I see where you're coming from Raidrik and Raven King Sage. The issue is definitely not something that should be ignored or thrown under the rug by anyone.
SeptimusHeap
11:31:21 PM Nov 3rd 2015
Um, we don't have to mention that stuff at all. Especially since we can't help anybody here.
TheMeteorKing
06:06:22 AM Nov 4th 2015
I think if it gets mentioned at all, it should be put along with other things the fandom has done as a reason for the Fan Haters trope being placed.

The SU fandom has had tons of shit being done in it's fandom, and everywhere, even on tumblr, there's an enormous outrage with how the people flocking to this show treat others. It wouldn't be inappropriate, imo, to have some mention of how the fans are seen.
Lopiny
02:32:12 PM Nov 9th 2015
Way I see it, it's kind of too big to end up ignoring even actively so. I mean, from now on whenever anyone explains why they dislike the fandom the incident's gonna come up. That doesn't mean examples of that WILL make it in, since this wiki doesn't exactly catalogue fandom hate, but it ends up being necessary at some point or another, to explain some things.

And depending on the creators' response it pretty much HAS to go in, what with Why Fandom Can't Have Nice Things. Either way, it's gonna end up inside, but let's not go out of our way to list it.
AlleyOop
02:10:44 AM Nov 10th 2015
It's significant to the point that the creators got involved, and it sorta made Internet infamy. It deserves to be recorded for historical purposes at the least, and possibly so that future fans don't make the same mistake ("Those who do not know history's mistakes are doomed to repeat them", etc).
Vi47
12:31:34 AM Nov 14th 2015
edited by Vi47
I further agree that some further notation is needed. If the creators got involved, it's a big enough deal that it needs mention. Almost every other YMMV or Trivia page for larger fandoms has some notation about the darker side and incidents within the fandom, deleting it here IS just sweeping it under the rug and acting like nothing is wrong. History is doomed to be repeated by those who don't heed it. Tvtropes is a reservoir of information for a lot of people and this would just be doing what TV Ts has been doing all this time.

As it stands, this is probably THE biggest event within the fandom that has occurred, causing many conflicts within the SU fan base (both internally with Transgressors vs. Defenders and explaining why many other fandoms now have a tainted relationship with SU). Leaving it out not only ignores probably the biggest problem the fan base has had, but also an explanation as to why things are the way they are between the SU base and others.

It's been about two weeks since the drama hit its peak, I think we can pen something now without it being provocative; just informative.
SeptimusHeap
01:37:15 AM Nov 14th 2015
We strongly prefer not to have information on Internet controversies though, as it tends to drag us into the controversy. And it has nothing to do with tropes.
Lopiny
08:19:03 PM Nov 14th 2015
Well, except when it does, with some of the semi-outside-the-work stuff like creator breakdowns, take-thats, why fandom can't have nice things, things inspired by events outside the actual show and everything.

It'll be added when it becomes relevant to those, naturally. And my guess is it will.
Eagal
04:12:04 PM Nov 19th 2015
Even if adding it were permitted, the only relevant trope here is Fan Dumb, which as mentioned is flamebait.

What else are you gonna put it under? It's not Why the Fandom Can't Have Nice Things unless the writers pull up stakes and quit the show over it.

Internet Backdraft is about backdraft specific to the show, non? This is fans being shitty to other fans. The show is only tangentially related.
KarkatTheDalek
Topic
11:41:52 PM Oct 15th 2015
On the Creator's Pet entry: doesn't that trope require a large majority of the fanbase to hate them? Pearl has a very large and devoted fanbase.
Codex
Topic
09:27:18 PM Oct 3rd 2015
edited by Codex
How is Connie worrying about her optametrist finding out about her healed eyesight narm? That's a completely valid concern.
AdricDePsycho
01:33:40 PM Oct 17th 2015
She ISN'T worrying about her optometrist, which is why it's narm.

I mean, come on, she explicitly mentions how her eyesight was healed about a year ago, and her mother never notices, and she's worried about her mother finding out. The narm comes into play because she never mentions how her optometrist would react, given that you'd think her eye doctor would know more about it than her mother. How would she hide it from her optometrist?

That's where it gets narmy. She isn't concerned about her optometrist.
ElegantVamp
04:20:50 AM Oct 18th 2015
Her optometrist doesn't even play a role in the series, so I don't know why she (or the writers) would make such a big fuss over it, aside from one line.
AdricDePsycho
07:31:00 PM Oct 18th 2015
It's more to do with her NOT being concerned, because...seriously, there's some major Fridge Logic involved with that.
Eliptl
Topic
10:02:37 PM Sep 27th 2015
There is no confirmation Peridot actually started or participated in the Cluster experiments on the on-set, much less knew a lot about the Gem Wars on Earth, given her confusion a la "the Crystal Gems?" during her introduction to them. Isn't it jumping the gun to say that she should be considered morally responsible for them? It always struck me more that she was just checking up on the experiments but otherwise had no more direct involvement, and so I feel like she shouldn't really be held accountable, and these can be edited out.
AdricDePsycho
04:16:44 PM Oct 1st 2015
The most recent episode, When it Rains, confirms that Peridot was NOT present for the creation of the forced fusion experiments. I would, however, like to hear a counterargument before deciding whether or not to edit the page.
SomeRandomBastard
06:19:15 PM Oct 1st 2015
I was actually just about to remove that entry. "Catch and Release" and "When It Rains" make it clear that she had no part in the experiments and wasn't actually trying to reactivate Kindergarten. Given the nature of this particular trope I think it makes more sense to remove it, even if it is YMMV and that was the fanbase's initial reaction. The whole point of a Moral Event Horizon is that you can't return from it.
AdricDePsycho
06:30:13 PM Oct 1st 2015
I edited the entry and a few similar ones.
piearty
Topic
08:20:11 PM Jun 15th 2015
This is just a trivia thing but it's not really that surprising that Nicki Minaj can act considering she went to school for drama...
ElegantVamp
07:16:33 PM Jul 13th 2015
Meh, I didn't think she was that great.
DeathsApprentice
Topic
02:35:41 AM Mar 13th 2015
One of the storyboarders confirmed that Ruby/Sapphire was supposed to be romantic. Is their subtext still allowed to be under Les Yay?
greatpikminfan
Topic
01:26:05 AM Mar 5th 2015

This reads more like complaining about the actual episode than mentioning the subplot as the idea that went to waste, which is not what the They Wasted a Perfectly Good Plot trope is about. (It even says "Note that this does not include those plots/ideas you dislike in an otherwise well-written story/well-made game/etc.") The fact that this is not the first or last time that the Gems have had an offscreen mission also raises suspicion that it's only going off of their mission and using that as means of getting the episode to fit the trope in the first place. Why exactly is that one instance listed on here and not, say, the Gems fighting a living island in "Cat Fingers?" If it's because Cat Fingers wasn't a "Wangst-filled teenage romance plot," then that kind of is complaining about the given plot while using something occasionally mentioned as the "Perfectly Good Plot" to say that it was wasted.

I and another editor have removed this before for almost the same reason (with an additional one that focusing on the Gems without Steven in any way might be contrary to what the show is about, but this alone is not grounds against the bullet point) but it was added back as it's fan consensus that they wanted the episode to be more about the Gem's underwater mission. Even if the majority of fans did not like the episode (unpopular episodes are not a trope as far as I know, the closest being Wall Banger or Dethroning Moment of Suck but neither of them are for YMMV pages), that's still not a reason to misuse They Wasted a Perfectly Good Plot to list it. Again, the trope is about a good storyline idea that either never went anywhere or was executed poorly, not when one storyline is completely sidelined over another that people don't like as much. It's kind of like (though this is admitedly an exaggeration, it's the closest fit I can think of) going to the YMMV page for Super Smash Bros., making an entry under They Wasted a Perfectly Good Character for Geno/Waluigi/Ridley/etc, and saying that instead of them, there's Dark Pit/Diddy Kong/whatever hated character of note. It's probably a common fan opinion that pops up (a lot of people do want Ridley at least and Dark Pit and Diddy are Scrappies at least in the west), and under the list for subjective fan opinions, but it's not a real Waste since TWAPGC is about a character's spotlight or story role being executed poorly and not a less-liked alternative being in their place.

To summarize, this seems to be misuse, or at least more complain-ish than necessary. Is it?
Jice_Wumpkin
04:55:05 PM Mar 30th 2017
Agreed, it's mostly complaining, since there's no actual plot that was wasted
Tropesofknowledge
Topic
03:09:41 PM Nov 16th 2014
edited by 72.200.39.190
  • Alexandrite, big time. Some fans kept on complaining on how her design was lazy and her color scheme was odd, even though actual alexandrite is a pink gemstone with shades of green. This, coupled with a disagreeing statement made by Pearl, garnered a lot of criticism. Said criticism itself is fairly divisive in whether or it was justifiably pointing out contradictions between episodes or downright harassment towards a particular writer (who ended up deleting his Tumblr account) over a fairly minor detail.

I think that everything in bold is not really necessary. Base Breaker is all about a controversial element within the show, not the controversy over how the fans discuss said element with the writer over Tumblr.

Thoughts?
ElegantVamp
07:17:38 PM Jul 13th 2015
I agree. Everything that is bolded there isn't really needed.
Collapse/Expand Topics
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/remarks.php?trope=YMMV.StevenUniverse