Removing complaining, bashing and other negativity from the wiki

Audience-Alienating Premise also requires the work to be shown to have failed precisely because of that alienating premise.

At the very least it requires public perception of some kind. From AAP itself:

Edited by sgamer82 on Jul 16th 2020 at 4:56:55 AM

It doesn't technically have to fail, but if it hasn't it's hard to actually say if AAP applies.

That is a bit of a complicated question, because the premise of the comic has drastically changed over time. It used to be a light-hearted, moderately risque webcomic, but it has over time grown into somewhat of a personal platform for the author to exhibit his political ideas.

What does "coming into contact with" entail here, exactly? Do we count it from the start of the comic, or from the point where a new reader comes in, which would likely be near the end of it?

I think we also need to take the current reputation of the comic into account to see if AAP applies or not.

Edited by Redmess on Jul 16th 2020 at 2:33:13 PM

Looking over the examples, it seems to be about media that would be unlikely to get an audience to begin with, that people disliked as soon as they heard the basic idea of the show. The only example I saw so far that dealt with what the show eventually became is an example about House of Cards that noted people avoided the show after Kevin Spacey's abuse allegations, and even that noted that the premise was already hard to stomach.

The entry might be able to be rewritten into something more concise, though. I think a man writing radical feminist diatribes that insult women who disagree with him would qualify as an audience-alienating concept, since it's likely to alienate both anti-feminist and pro-feminist audiences. But again, I'm not familiar with the comic firsthand.

Edited by mightymewtron on Jul 16th 2020 at 8:54:59 AM

I found this in Frankenstein's YMMV page.

• I Am Not Shazam: Many people call Frankenstein's Monster "Frankenstein", while he actually has no name. "Frankenstein" is the name of his maker, Victor Frankenstein. But we can probably blame Mary Shelley for that; it would be a lot clearer to all if she'd called her novel "Doctor Frankenstein".^note Though as not above, Frankenstein was not a doctor. This confusion dates back nearly as far as the novel itself, and became established during periods when the actual book was out of print, but its characters and plot were being emulated by stage plays, knockoffs and parodies throughout the pre-copyright 19th century. Ironically, since one could argue that Frankenstein is the "father" of the creature, you could say that the creature's last name is Frankenstein. Mary Shelley referred to the Monster as Adam in letters to her friends, which does make some sense, seeing as it is the first of its kind.

Does the bold part sound a bit complainy here?

More ridiculous than complainy, honestly. Frankenstein is just as prominent a character as his monster, if I'm correct, and reading the book would provide enough context. It's like complaining that Coco isn't called "Miguel." The note says that "Dr. Frankenstein" isn't even accurate either. Nuke it.

Edited by mightymewtron on Jul 16th 2020 at 10:02:05 AM

Indeed, doctor Frankenstein is arguably the main character of the novel, we follow most of the story from his point of view, after all. And I agree that there is no confusion in the novel itself.

The Spacey-House of Cards example and the Sinfest might count for Audience Alienating Creator if we needed such a page (which I am not convinced of)

I'm not really even sure what the premise of Sinfest is these days. Everything basically revolves about hammering home the TERF messaging these days.

I’ll keep that in mind.

So let’s talk about Silver Surfer. The quote is from AVGN bashing the game, and the image is the death screen, which players will ostensibly “see a lot”. The trope work description and some of the tropes also have an air of complaining to them. For example:

• Shoot 'Em Up: Well, what else could do Silver Surfer justice? (not that comic fans thought it did)

Pulled. Will start the thread. EDIT: Sorry, didn’t know you started the thread.

Edited by PurpleEyedGuma on Jul 17th 2020 at 8:26:02 AM

The quote can be pulled, definitely.

As for the pic, I'll take it to IP.

I feel like Overshadowed by Controversy would cover cases like that enough.

Edited by mightymewtron on Jul 17th 2020 at 5:53:20 AM

This Too Dumb to Live example seems REALLY passive aggressive.

Recap.Family Guy S 6 E 4 And 5 Stewie Kills Lois And Lois Kills Stewie

• Too Dumb to Live: Several characters act like complete idiots.
  • Sure Stewie, gloat to Brian about your murder of Lois. He won't try to look for evidence against you at all.
  • Stewie's on the run? Let's just go back home and pretend that everything is okay. He TOTALLY won't be waiting there to take us hostage or anything.
  • Yes Chris, your family is tied up and Stewie forgot to tie your hands, go ahead and just sit there rather than untie everyone.
  • Yes Joe, Brian is talking monotone and acting suspicious, but go ahead and focus on the fact you got a fake compliment and then feel depressed.

Not to mention using Too Dumb to Live to mean "just being an idiot" is misuse, it only refers to being stupid in a way that puts yourself at risk.

To be specific, Too Dumb to Live is supposed to be about characters making dumb decisions that directly leads to their deaths. None of the moments listed lead to the characters dying immediately afterwards, so they can be cut. Maybe move them to What An Idiot or Idiot Ball, but they don't fit Too Dumb to Live.

Edited by chasemaddigan on Jul 21st 2020 at 4:46:49 AM

The recently added Ass Pull entry on Persona 5 about the identity of the true evil mastermind seems like a reach and also argues with itself.

I don't even know what that is saying. Tbh

Yeah, there's probably a lot of misuse of Too Dumb to Live for just calling people dumb. Chances are we need a cleanup thread for that.

Does it count as Too Dumb to Live if it causes them to almost die?

We might need the criteria tightened. I personally would say that they could survive, but only through ridiculous luck or outside intervention that they had no reason to expect.

I think it just needs to endager their lives. I mean, Tropes Are Flexible after all.

That's how I've used it in the past.

Not exactly. Too Dumb to Live requires that a person do something that should logically result in death. If they are saved by a plot contrivance, that's one thing, but if it's just "very dangerous but not automatically fatal", it doesn't qualify. The trope sees a lot of misuse.

Walking on a tightrope without a balance bar is not Too Dumb to Live, because it is something that could be done by a sufficiently skilled person and a fall won't always lead to death.

Going out an airlock without a helmet is Too Dumb to Live, because a human cannot survive in that situation no matter what. If a Deus ex Machina saves the person, it doesn't absolve them of the original stupidity.

Edited by Fighteer on Jul 22nd 2020 at 3:15:14 PM

I mean, I guess it depends on how you interpret "endanger their lives" then. I didn't really mean something just "really dangerous", but more what you meant- they did something where they probably should've died, or else they came really close to actually killing themselves, but they don't necessarily need to actually die from it.

Dying should be the expected and predictable result of their actions. If it's not, it's not the trope.