The non-example has already been nuked.

Three entries in Unbuilt Trope were inquired about in a TRS thread that is now closed since matters would be more appropriate here.

How can we improve the following gathered in this folder to be less complain-y? Any boldfaced text are notes added in myself here.

God, the Natter and Example Indentation. I might be able to salvage a couple in the morning (tag me if I don't respond again in 12 hours).

Yeah, those issues you mentioned are just as glaring.

Since it has been (beyond) 12 hours: ~Karxrida, how are things faring for you? If it's too much, I may lend a hand.

edited 13th May '16 6:13:53 PM by Berrenta

Didn't bother with Sailor Moon, since the description seemed to lack any actual deconstruction (I think) and was focused on the parody (which I don't think counts for this). If I was more knowledgeable on the show or its genre I might have been able to figure out if it counted. Probably delete it? I'd get second opinions from an anime buff or two.

Yu-Gi-Oh! doesn't seem to be deconstructing anything, either. The example is basically "it was really dark before it became Merchandise-Driven". I'd delete it wholesale.

This is all I could get out of the Final Fantasy VII stuff that was relevant.

• Final Fantasy VII: Cloud is credited with kicking off the tendency for JRPG leads to be amnesiac and/or phlebotinum rebels, but he actually reads like a deconstruction of how those tropes usually go down. His memories are screwed up, but when the truth comes out, rather than turning out to be some sort of plot-relevant badass, he was about as important as a faceless mook. He got experimented on, but rather than nifty powers, he got insanity and the ability to be mind-controlled by the Big Bad.

edited 13th May '16 7:03:57 PM by Karxrida

The FFVII revision looks pretty good. I'll reread the two anime entries. I'm fine with nixing them if they don't fit.

That's an, errm, very interesting interpretation of Yu-Gi-Oh, I gotta say.

Deader Than Disco has a lot of complaining as well as Example Indentation problems, Natter, Thread Mode, and generally reading like TVTropes 1.0. Most often, I'm seeing it used as "thing Jumped the Shark" (when it's not just Complaining About Shows You Dont Like) instead of what it's ostensibly supposed to be, which is "once-popular thing suffered such a massive backlash that consensus has turned against it and even the stuff from when it was popular is no longer well-remembered."

I've made a preliminary pass through the page and its example subpages to remove the most egregious offenders, but I'd appreciate some second and third glances to catch anything I may have missed, especially as some of the stuff I've removed is starting to get put back and I don't want to get involved in any Edit Wars.

All of those subpages need to be locked, honestly.

I also think Fallen Creator may have a lot of stealth complaining. At the very least I strongly believe that people such as George Lucas, Chris Claremont, and Elton John (who the entry itself admits quickly bounced back) don't belong on the same page as walking scandals like Mel Gibson, Woody Allen, and Roman Polanski.

In my opinion, that's a job for TRS.

edited 20th May '16 9:17:20 AM by Spinosegnosaurus77

Music has a lot of negativity and complaining, even for a Narm page. A good deal of it is possibly misuse for "music I don't like" or rather, "lyrics I don't like."

While I'm on the subject of music, its folder over at Snark Bait might need to be looked at.

edited 21st May '16 12:20:40 PM by katethegr8

Narm tends to be a misuse magnet in general. People tend to forget that the failed attempt at being serious or dramatic is important to the definition.

Sorry I can't really help, but I don't listen to a lot of music.

edited 21st May '16 4:12:02 PM by Karxrida

That's fine. The kind of misuse I tend to see is "this scene made me groan," rather than the correct "this serious scene made me laugh."

The Broken Base entry at All-New, All-Different Marvel is literally over three-quarters of the page. Granted, all these things are controversial but I think it could do with some abbreviation, no.

I can trim it down.

EDIT: On review, I decided being moved to its own page was a better idea. Nothing there really warrants being deleted.

edited 23rd May '16 10:26:19 AM by VeryMelon

I wasn't sure whether I'm supposed to post this here or in the Is This Is An Example thread, but I figure'd I might fight as well just try here first.

Given that this film is already quite controversial and hasn’t yet been released yet, could someone take a look at the following examples from the Trivia and YMMV pages of Ghostbusters (2016) and see whether these are legitimate examples or just straight-up complaining:

• Approval of God: Dan Aykroyd gave the film his whole-hearted endorsement after an early screening. Parts of the fandom, however, have accused him of being paid off by the studio.
• Executive Meddling: The movie is the latest of many to fall victim to Tom Rothman, who slashed the movie's budget from $169,000,000 to $154,000,000. Of course, with the movie being negatively received by many, some may consider this a case of Tropes Are Not Bad.
• Fan Nickname:
  • Infamously referred to as Lady Ghostbusters or The Female Ghostbusters so as to separate this new film from the Original, and the fact the only real difference between the two is the Gender Swap to a female cast.
  • Bridesmaids 2: The Ghost Catchers.
  • The cast themselves are mockingly referred to as the "Patriarchy Busters".
• Flip-Flop of God: Is the movie a Continuity Reboot, or does it actually have some connection to the prior two films? Paul Feig claims the former, but the trailers mention the events of the first movie 30 years prior, and other promotional materials have (possibly unintentionally) connected the two universes in some way, leading some to speculate that Sony may have backpedaled some on the "reboot" bit in response to the enormous fan backlash.

Assorted Trivia

• With over 800,000 dislikes, the first trailer is the lowest-rated movie trailer on YouTube.
• The first trailer was lowest-rated trailer for any form of media at the time it was made; it was subsequently beaten by Call Of Duty Infinite Warfare's reveal trailer, which has over 2,000,000 dislikes.
• Melissa McCarthy recently admitted she took issue with the "confusing" nature of the trailer, even going as far as voicing her concerns to the studio — who flat-out told her "we don't care what you think."

• Audience-Alienating Premise:
  • Many have dismissed the film for being a remake of Ghostbusters (1984) instead of a sequel (as the trailer text sort of implies with "30 years ago", but it's appealing to nostalgia instead). Others would have preferred that there be no more Ghostbusters movies, especially since Harold Ramis (Egon) has passed away and it's now impossible to get the whole original crew back together.
  • It's a remake of Ghostbusters with a female team. Like the talk of all-female Expendables movies from years ago, this has become controversial in itself.
• Hilarious in Hindsight: When fans reacted negatively to the trailer, the director went onto Twitter to insult them to their faces and throw a temper tantrum. Said directer, along with the studio he's working under, is also dismissing any sort of legit criticism as nothing but bigotry towards the actors involved. Certain development bumps of the movie get leaked online and serve as warning signs about the finished product. Finally, there's the infighting between the cast members and the director, as well as between the cast members themselves. Sound familiar? It almost seems as if Sony learned nothing when 20th Century Fox suffered through a similar debacle.
• Memetic Mutation:
  • The cast visited a children's hospital with gigantic, goofy-looking grins on their faces in a number of photos. Unfortunately, many of the patients looked like they were about to die (or at, least, were very, very ill), and a number of viewers with morbid tastes in humor joked that they were there to capture the ghosts of the dying kids. Others simply made fun of the sheer contrast in the images and note how the images themselves appear to be in poor taste.
    • Another running joke is that the kids look so depressed because they wanted to see the original Ghostbusters, and got these "knockoffs" instead.
  • A variant of the Catchphrase, as employed by the film's detractors: "'Who you gonna call?' Someone else."^note This phrase actually comes from the movie Casper, where Dan Aykroyd cameos as Ray Stantz to rid the house of Casper's uncles, then remarks this as he flees from the house.
  • After Ernie Hudson expressed optimism for the reboot (with it being announced that he was also given a cameo), this little number◊ went around.
• Signature Scene: For many with a negative view of the movie, the scene from the second trailer where Patti insults a crowd of people while expecting her to catch them, then accuses them of racism and/or sexism when they don't catch her^note even after the same crowd caught one of the other Ghostbusters is considered a perfect representation of the film and the director's attitude.
• They Just Didn't Care: The overall opinion critics felt Sony's intention of the remake is. Especially in bringing in original cast members but playing different roles than continuing on from the original movie.
• They Wasted a Perfectly Good Plot:
  • How a lot of people feel about the movie being a complete reboot is that it completely erases the possibility that the new Ghostbusters will ever team up with the original ones. Many wonder why Sony even bothered getting the old cast to do cameos if they're playing completely different characters.
  • Some fans were hoping for a soft reboot akin to Creed or The Force Awakens that would show one of the original cast members mentoring and training a new generation of Ghostbusters. The movie opted to be a Continuity Reboot instead.
  • The original movie's lines about the Ghostbusters possibly franchising out to other cities was a clear set-up for new teams in new places, but instead it's a Continuity Reboot staying in New York City.
  • The Ghostbusters fighting the Ghostbusters logo itself would seem like an interesting idea, were it not for the fact that it's being used here to recreate the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man scene from the original movie.
• Unfortunate Implications: The trailer... aw crap. Many fans, many hardcore Ghostbusters fans, movie fans, who wanted a third film were not happy with what they saw, thinking it makes a mockery of the franchise or the idea of women in a lead role. Here is just a sampling of the reaction and accusations of feminism trying to claim the only reason people hate this is because a Stay in the Kitchen viewpoint.
  Alpha Omega Sin discusses the backlash to the trailer reaction.
  LanceCplThomas talks about how poorly the trailer portrays women and the reaction here.
  As does MrRepzion specifically in the context of James Rolfe being accused of misogyny.
  Hybrid Nerd discusses how feminism makes the film above criticism and the case of the backlash on using an all female cast poorly.
  Here, The Amazing Atheist discusses on the accusations of AVGN dancing around not seeing the film solely because it's women.

edited 31st May '16 5:55:27 PM by Anddrix

Oh god.

I'll go fix the Trivia page right now. We should consider locking the YMMV page.

edited 31st May '16 6:18:48 PM by Karxrida

Man, I'm glad I'm not a Ghostbusters fan.

Holy shit. I kind of think it would a good idea for the mods to just mass-ban everyone involved in that. And definitely lock the page(s).

edited 31st May '16 6:43:47 PM by nrjxll

Flip Flop of God looks like literally the only valid one that isn't pointless bashing at best.

To be honest, I'd rather just erase all of it, and lock the pages. This is beyond stupid at this point. The movie is not out and it's just trailers(which has little chance of being exactly what happens in the movie. Everything tends to change due to various issues within the development of it).

And I don't agree with a mass ban, but it would be a good idea to perhaps made a Mod post in the Ghostbusters 3 movie thread about this issue. The topic in question is already full of pointlessly dumb vitriol too, so... maybe it's about time something is done. :/

I've been trying to avoid looking at the YMMV page for the movie for this exact reason. But it's going to need to be managed at some point.

I'll jump in and see what I can do to help as well.

Alright, there's two examples on here I need some input on.

While it's true that the film has been Overshadowed by Controversy, the trope is being used to fuel the controversy rather than talking about how it's overtaken discussion of the film. It just talks about what the controversy is.

I'm of a mind to wipe the whole thing and replace it with something like,

Overshadowed by Controversy: The many arguments and fights between the film's detractors, it's supporters, and the staff involved in its creation has become next to impossible to ignore even for those who were not previously interested or didn't even know the film existed.

What do you guys think?

The other one is at the bottom of Unfortunate Implications:

It's a bunch of You Tube links to various people talking about the controversy surrounding a video James Rolfe made where he said he wouldn't watch the movie. I'm of a mind to cut that entire section.

Oh noes, not wimmenz in mah movies! Yeah, take all that except Overshadowed by Controversy out back and shoot it.

The only corrections I'd make to your proposed Overshadowed by Controversy rewrite are (extremely pedantic) grammatical ones: it should read "...staff involved in creation have become next to impossible to ignore..." and "it's supporters" should be "its supporters," like so:

Overshadowed by Controversy: The many arguments and fights between the film's detractors, its supporters, and the staff involved in its creation have become next to impossible to ignore even for those who were not previously interested or didn't even know the film existed.

Other than that, I'd call it pretty perfect. It's definitely a legit example, but we don't need a point-by-point recap of every bit of controversy sparked by the film. A broad overview is more than sufficient.

There's probably a valid Unfortunate Implications entry buried in all that cruft, too, but it's probably the right move to remove it until/unless someone steps up and volunteers to try and summarize it succinctly. It ain't gonna be me. (-:

edited 1st Jun '16 4:35:28 PM by HighCrate