Removing complaining, bashing and other negativity from the wiki

Drop the "More egregiously" part from the fourth example, and remove the bold, and the first example needs to be rewritten along the lines of "this background track almost sounds like it could be a cover" or something. Second and third are fine IMO.

Found this on the Trivia page for The Adventures of Batman & Robin E17 "Lock-Up";

• Creator Backlash: The episode was considered a failure, due to its awful script, blatant plot holes and bloopers (Batman changing into his costume out in the open, not letting us figure out how he escaped), and slow, aimless scenes.

Not only is this misuse (it doesn't even mention how the creators themselves felt about the episode) but it has an overly negative tone to its writing (e.g. "awful script"). From what I can tell about the episode's reception from its YMMV page, and both Youtube comments and Tumblr posts, the episode is at its nowadays considered mildly divisive at worst (though I do recall people noting that the main appeal of the episode came from the first half, which the second half apparently didn't measure up to). Though, granted, maybe it was far more poorly received back in the day, only to be potentially Vindicated by History. But, as previously mentioned, Creator Backlash isn't the correct trope to use for what was written above, given that the edit doesn't mention the creator's feedback to the episode.

On a further, while this may not be the place to ask about it, the Designated Villain, Strawman Has a Point, Unintentionally Sympathetic and Unintentionally Unsympathetic edits on the YMMV page clash rather heavily with the edits on the rest of the page, particularly the Alternative Character Interpretation, Jerkass Woobie and Misaimed Fandom. Hell, the Designated Villain, Strawman Has a Point and Unintentionally Sympathetic edits, in their current state, honestly argue with themselves.

Edited by WiryAiluropodine on Sep 20th 2023 at 8:45:49 PM

The Creator Backlash entry can probably be cut unless someone has some information on what the creators make of the episode.

As for the YMMV entries in question:

The Designated Villain entry probably doesn't count because it's pretty obvious that Bolton is supposed to be a Well-Intentioned Extremist and that two of the three villains who have issues with him (Harley and the Ventriloquist) are two of the more sympathetic villains in the show (and this incarnation of the Scarecrow doesn't have as much general personality as most of the other major villains), and the Alternative Character Interpretation entry notes that Bolton isn't seen going after the really bad ones (Joker et al).

As for Unintentionally Sympathetic and Unintentionally Unsympathetic, those entries can be taken to the Unintentionally Sympathetic/Unsympathetic cleanup thread. I don't remember if I've ever seen a Strawman Has a Point cleanup thread around here, though.

I couldn't find anything about the writers regretting the Lock-Up episode. The closest I found to Creator Backlash, was writer, Robert N. Skir, thinking he should've used the Mad Hatter in place of the Scarecrow.

Edited by Monsund on Sep 20th 2023 at 9:08:33 AM

2D Visuals, 3D Effects has a bit too many examples where the CGI effects the trope is about are bashed and described as "crappy" "painfully bad" and other terms like that.

Edited by PhantomDusclops92 on Sep 23rd 2023 at 8:35:12 PM

I suggest you start a cleanup thread for it.

That's probably a relic from back when it was called Conspicuous CGI, which was a name that attracted complaining.

Bringing these up from Audience Shift, and its another set of pro wrestling complaining. These examples are a bit whiny and snarky, and need a cleanup, especially the last sentence of the second example, which is just some needless WrestleCrap-level snark.

• Raw is basically a three-hour variety show, or a commercial for a national tourist board. Everyone's goofy and having fun, smiling and laughing, making jokes, nobody is being serious about the fact that they're supposedly fighters trying to settle feuds and obtain championship belts. This is amplified by the commentary team consisting of three salesmen constantly trying to pitch you something (which isn't even being presented at the moment). Come to the WWE... We have entertainments.
• Spurred on by the more athletic product being delivered by WCW at the time, the New Generation Era morphed into the Attitude Era around 1998. No longer making any pretense of being child friendly, the Attitude Era was aimed squarely at the rich in disposable income 18-to-25 demographic, with a heavy emphasis on in-ring violence, sex appeal, and more adult storylines. After WCW collapsed and WWE was left standing on top of the heap, the need for the Attitude Era had passed. The avid teen viewership was starting to grow up and move on and, thanks largely to its edgy product, younger viewers had been discouraged from watching. Starting in late 2002, the second major retool began with the rise of stars like John Cena and Randy Orton, largely discouraging blatant swearing and over-the-top hardcore violence on the weekly shows and toning down the amount of female Fanservice. The result is a much more family-friendly, if not as revolutionary product, albeit one that acknowledges a more "educated" wrestling audience by not insulting their intelligence. As much.

I understand that Obvious Beta is undergoing repairs at the moment, but I'd like to bring this example from ObviousBeta.Video Games to attention. I think it could use a rewrite to be less complainy in tone:

• The GTA Definitive Edition trilogy fell flat on its face from this trope. Messed up textures, a ridiculous number of bugs and glitches, broken launcher, and low FPS pretty much made the game a failure at launch. It was just that bad. Even the rain looked terrible. Oh and Rockstar games also removed the original versions of the games from Steam without offering refunds. Yikes. This resulted in a LOT of memes about Rockstar spreading over Twitter and the rest of the internet like the plague.

Probably something like...

• The GTA Definitive Edition trilogy proved to be anything but, as the collection launched with a multitude of bugs that weren't present in the originals, low FPS, messed-up textures, a broken launcher, and rain that looked like a bunch of white lines and made it difficult to see anything. Not helping matters is that Rockstar Games removed the original versions of the games from Steam without offering refunds when the Definitive Editions came out.

Yes, like that!

I assume the next step is for either you or me to replace the old example with the rewrite? Please bear with me, still learning cleanup etiquette.

EDIT: Went ahead and replaced the example, crediting the writer and citing this thread in the edit reason.

Edited by Riolugirl on Sep 25th 2023 at 12:10:52 PM

Bringing these up from Audience Shift, and its another set of pro wrestling complaining. These examples are a bit whiny and snarky, and need a cleanup, especially the last sentence of the second example, which is just some needless WrestleCrap-level snark.

• Raw is basically a three-hour variety show, or a commercial for a national tourist board. Everyone's goofy and having fun, smiling and laughing, making jokes, nobody is being serious about the fact that they're supposedly fighters trying to settle feuds and obtain championship belts. This is amplified by the commentary team consisting of three salesmen constantly trying to pitch you something (which isn't even being presented at the moment). Come to the WWE... We have entertainments.
• Spurred on by the more athletic product being delivered by WCW at the time, the New Generation Era morphed into the Attitude Era around 1998. No longer making any pretense of being child friendly, the Attitude Era was aimed squarely at the rich in disposable income 18-to-25 demographic, with a heavy emphasis on in-ring violence, sex appeal, and more adult storylines. After WCW collapsed and WWE was left standing on top of the heap, the need for the Attitude Era had passed. The avid teen viewership was starting to grow up and move on and, thanks largely to its edgy product, younger viewers had been discouraged from watching. Starting in late 2002, the second major retool began with the rise of stars like John Cena and Randy Orton, largely discouraging blatant swearing and over-the-top hardcore violence on the weekly shows and toning down the amount of female Fanservice. The result is a much more family-friendly, if not as revolutionary product, albeit one that acknowledges a more "educated" wrestling audience by not insulting their intelligence. As much.

Here's a couple of entries that I found on the YMMV page of An Extremely Goofy Movie:

• Designated Hero: Max. In the first film, he was a Troubled Teen dealing with peer bullying and school ostracization. Here, he's portrayed as an ambitious up-and-coming extreme sports competitor whose glory-seeking gets hampered by his father suddenly joining him in school. Max, not wanting to deal with Goofy's embarrassing antics, dupes him into joining the Gammas in hopes of not only sabotaging his rival team's chances but also to get a few laughs at his own father's expense as Goofy is humiliated on live TV. When his plan backfires and Goofy ends up becoming a school celebrity, Max turns into The Resenter and starts detesting Goofy for the crime of unintentionally stealing his thunder. Max's behavior, while understandable to an extent, makes him come across as a very selfish, self-centered, and ungrateful son, driven by his own petty ego, and only worth rooting for because Bradley and the Gammas are much worse in comparison. It doesn't help that when he finally makes the gesture to reconcile, it's mainly because he needs Goofy's help to win against Bradley, not because he seriously reflects on his own actions.
• Jerks Are Worse Than Villains: Max's treatment of Goofy (especially with his lashing out at him midway through the film) makes him too unlikable to root for in the eyes of many viewers. Bradley, on the other hand, is a cruel psychopath who has no issue having his opponents killed for the sake of winning and even leaving Tank, his right-hand man, to die, yet he is still considered quite an entertaining character in his own right. While Max does eventually apologize to Goofy, viewers still feel it doesn't quite make up for everything he did.

These just seem like nothing more than character bashing that willfully ignores the Character Development that Max undergoes, and how he admits his own faults, like when he calls out to his dad for help, and when it seemed like he wasn’t coming.

Max: Well, I wouldn't blame him if he didn't come.

Edited by WretchedDog on Sep 26th 2023 at 10:31:23 AM

I admittedly haven't seen the movie, but from what you're saying, it sounds yet another case of a troper accentuating the negative to smear a character they don't like.

I can see where the complaints are coming, but I agree that they are a bit of an exaggeration. I'd remove these entries personally, though the "Max comes across as unlikeable" part might be salvageable as an Unintentionally Unsympathetic way.

Max isn't said to be Unintentionally Unsympathetic in the original movie. So why is it any different in the sequel?

Because people sympathize with him in the original?

I'm not even sure Max is meant to be sympathetic in this movie, given he needs to learn to treat his father better and all that while in the first one he and Goofy just had different goals for their vacation and he pretty much instantly felt bad for his choice when they came to the fork. That said, it's been forever since I've seen Extremely Goofy Movie.

Yeah, Unintentionally Unsympathetic would be a worse option becuase, even if he was unsympathetic, it was not unintentionally.

I say that the example should be removed as it seems to just be accentuating the negative. I think it is a common problem that some people believe if a character is not a complete saint with absolutely no defects whatsoever, then it is a Designated Hero.

I said "might" because I also disagreed with calling Max Unintentionally Unsympathetic, I just meant that this was the best-case scenario for that entry.

Crossposting here as that other thread rarely gets any attention.

The lone entry in Haiku.Asperchu may be a bit snarky. Objections to cutting?

Okay, will do. I'll also lock after cutting; there's a blanket entry in PRLC that covers this now-cut subpage, so I won't need to add it there.

Edited by Berrenta on Sep 28th 2023 at 9:41:48 AM

It was added by a now-banned vandal, so I think anyone can delete it automatically (or just get the whole page cut by an engineer/mod).

Edited by Coachpill on Sep 28th 2023 at 10:19:41 AM

Most people haven't bring this up but here's one from ValuesDissonance.Anime And Manga:

• Omamori Himari and the tsundere Rinko. While at the beginning it was the normal set up of "lovey-dovey" childhood friend, it has evolved into a full-on abusive relationship. While at the start she was no role model (throwing a cat to a person who is allergic to them... really?), she has been shown lately to punch, slap and hit him with a baseball bat with nails until he bleeds. And his transgression? To have other girls ogle him, feel herself inadequate in the chest department or show any interest in anything that is not her. And we are supposed to find it endearing... It's like this with Girls Bravo and any number of works: either the mangaka really had no idea of what a healthy relationship is, the Harem Genre is heading to its breaking point, or Japanese people are kinda insane.
  • That happens in 98% of harem-type series, despite the general Japanese attitudes. Apparently, Double Standard: Abuse, Female on Male is in effect and the male is loved by several girls.
  • This same issue's roots can be followed all the way to Love Hina, one of the, if not the, first manga that turned the Harem Genre on its head by having the girls not as objects as desire to be conquered but with their own unique quirks, except that several of them are violent towards the male protagonist who is also a loser and many a Mega Ton Punch happens. It became so influential that almost every harem story after it for about a decade had the same format, until people started to realize that "Hey, beating up a guy for absolutely no reason whatsoever is kind of gross!" By now, Love Hina is generally considered Seinfeld Is Unfunny by many manga fans and mangaka are slowly turning away from the sexist idea that Double Standard: Abuse, Female on Male is entirely fine.

Indentation failure aside, this example would've been fine if it didn't fall into the "using a universally-condemned trope as a excuse for character bashing (with the obligatory Dude, Not Funny! pothole)" category. How everyone overlooked at this for a couple of years is beyond me.

If there is any bit of actual Values Dissonance in there, it's buried by the rambling complaining about the harem genre. Just cut the whole thing, nothing of value will be lost.

the 2nd bullet and everything past that is a LOT of natter. call it a hentai no baka and punch it into the stratosphere

Edited by worldwidewoomy on Sep 28th 2023 at 3:51:22 AM

Yeah I would cut it all.

As a side-note, I really wish people would stop with the whole ("blah blah blah...really?") thing, as it not only pointless natter, but it looks completely personal, not neutral and unbiased like example are supposed to be.

Same thing with the "And what did character X do about it/to deserve it? Y and Z."