Removing complaining, bashing and other negativity from the wiki

I just took a look at the page for Christmas with the Kranks and it had a lot of snark on it. I don't have time to get into specific examples just yet, but I think it might need some special attention. At the very least, it should be added to the list of works that attract complaining.

Kranks is already in the Complaining sandbox, but it definitely looks like it needs some inspection to see what can be rewritten or removed.

Edited by AnotherOnlinePersona on Oct 13th 2023 at 2:04:38 AM

Found these two complainy examples on That Makes Me Feel Angry:

• Ditto for Star Trek: The Next Generation, to the point where one wonders if the characters were capable of feeling anything without announcing it. You knew the writers were going for subtlety when a bit of time would pass before the emotions were publicly announced. The point of this is presumably just to show that in a utopian future, everyone is capable of dealing with them rationally, but in practice it has the opposite effect, giving off an almost uncanny vibe as if the characters are so uncomfortable with basic human feelings that they don't know how to deal with them except by announcing them. Counsellor Troi was relatively justified in this by the nature of her job (and anyone talking to her, for that matter), and Data because trying to feel emotions was his whole shtick.

• All the shows in the Arrowverse are pretty bad about this, but it's particularly noticeable in The Flash (2014), where it seems like half the dialogue is characters describing, in great detail, the emotions that they're currently feeling. Fortunately for them, they've got actors skilled enough to sell the less-than-stellar lines.

Here are some specific examples of complaining on the Christmas with the Kranks pages:

• Funny Moments: The movie had an actually pretty funny gag going involving an incident with a robber scaring the crap out of Enrique and Blair. Too bad they explained it seconds later by stating that this was Enrique's first Christmas in the USA and thus, wanted to make a good impression on him when it was too late. This is just a backhanded compliment.

• Jerkass Has a Point: Pretty much the whole reason the movie falls apart. Yes, Christmas is obviously a big deal in this community, but Luther and Nora are quite right in pointing out that they spend over $6,000 on it every year, largely to make their daughter happy—and now that she's gone, there's really no need to put in that much cash for something they don't really want or need to do.
  • Luther is upset that he and Nora couldn't make the Cruise, but suggests to Nora they could still make it now that they're having their big party, and could give Blair and Enrique time together at their hometown. While Nora rightfully calls him out for obsessing after everyone helped them in spite of the whole feud and his daughter flew back to be with them, he's not wrong to try and compromise. He bought the trip with no insurance, so he can't refund it, Blair and her fiancé are already doing the celebrating and might like some time alone together, and the neighbors that have been horrible to them are now getting their way by pure coincidence. Also, this is misuse as the movie doesn't intend the audience to agree with Luther.

• Santa Clausmas:
  • Roger Ebert noted in his review that none of the houses have crucifixes or nativities on their front yards, which is somewhat expected in a typical suburban neighborhood. Ebert suspected that showing even the slight implication of religious people forcing their views on other people's throats in the movie would offend conservative Christian groups, so the filmmakers decided to play it safe and have every house display secular decorations. Ebert wrote in a later Q&A that these same religious groups endorsed the film, which he found both ironic and (given the movie's premise) disturbing. Unnecessary reviewer reference on the main page.

This is just stuff I noticed while browsing the page. I'm sure there are more examples.

For starters, cut out any complainy language and any and all reviewer mentions, especially the Ebert one.

Does anyone else think that this What Could Have Been entry on Trivia.The Runaway Guys reads a bit like stealth bashing?

• On another one of Proton Jon's Fortune Cookie nights (specifically, "The Longest Day Edition"), another game that was pitched for the channel was Ratchet & Clank: All 4 One with Jon himself playing as Captain Quark, but the overall quality of the game led to this not happening.

If the guys decided not to play the game because they didn't like it, fine. But there must be some way to communicate that without implicitly throwing the game under the bus.

Edited by Riolugirl on Oct 14th 2023 at 9:53:30 AM

You should just cut both of those. Examples are specific and those are just incredibly vague to the point of being ZCE. If you're going to criticize a show's dialogue, it helps to mention some.

How about “but it was scrapped due to none of the guys being that fond of the game once they played it”

You could probably remove the reference to quality and trim it into just saying it didn't happen.

Maybe change the text after the last comma to "but that ended up not happening".

Edited by GastonRabbit on Oct 14th 2023 at 6:29:54 AM

There's nothing wrong with saying the guys chose not to play because they thought the game was bad. So long as that's the reason Jon gave for why they never played the game, that's just a fact.

Yeah, that entry looks incredibly tame, honestly.

There's nothing wrong with saying they thought it was bad, or at least that they heard it was bad, but the example just calls the game bad itself rather than saying they think that or heard that.

Edited by GastonRabbit on Oct 14th 2023 at 7:44:44 AM

Bumping this...

The gist is that there are plenty of trope examples and quotes that are bashing some aspects of the Devil May Cry series (mostly from Devil May Cry 2 and Devil May Cry 4)... if not outright complaining or obvious negativity.

Should I bring up every "complaining/negativity" part of an example I could find to this thread first? Or should I go ahead and trim negativity/rewrite examples myself to be more neutral while citing that Complaining About Shows You Don't Like is discouraged in this wiki?

First one doesn't seem too bad. The second and third can have the complaining removed, they are out of place. The fourth is harder. Is that caption in any way official? If not, it should go.

This entry on DracoInLeatherPants.Western Animation has bothered me for the longest time:

• According to some of his fans Zim is really a totally badass mastermind. But don't worry, he's not really evil; he would seriously regret destroying humanity, and would probably give it up if a kind-hearted human or Irken girl would just show him some love. Oh, and also, isn't Dib just such a bastard for trying to stop him so much? There's a bit of this for other Irkens too, particularly the Tallests. Apparently galactic conquest and repeated genocide and enslavement of the survivors is a-okay.

This is undoubtedly pure complaining but I'm not sure if it should be reworked into the Sugar part of DILP or just cut entirely.

the way that entry is written is... ew. just snip it for now, at least until a better entry is drafted.

Zim is absolutely an example though, so a rewrite would suffice even if this entry works for Sugar.

Edited by mightymewtron on Oct 16th 2023 at 3:07:28 PM

Maybe something like this:

• Draco in Leather Pants: In Invader Zim, Zim is a Villain Protagonist with little sympathetic qualities and who desires to enslave earth, committing some pretty vile deeds in his attempts to do so. In fan-fiction, however, he is often given more sympathetic qualities and Pet the Dog moments, with his more villainous qualities and misdeeds being toned down, if not removed entirely. In shipping fics, it isn't uncommon for him to give up his conquest thanks to the love of some kind-hearted human or Irken girl, or Dib in Slash Fics.

Edited by Tylerbear12 on Oct 16th 2023 at 2:12:43 PM

infintely better

Might as well copy and paste that to the Zim YMMV page too.

Edited by AudioSpeaks2 on Oct 16th 2023 at 8:08:19 AM

Bumping this since I haven't gotten a permission to replace the Rooting for the Empire entry, so I thought it could use some fix? Or don't do it at all?

(x4) This is a much needed improvement, thanks. (The original isn't tongue-in-cheek enough to be sugar on its own but there are parts of it that I find sugar-worthy, lol.)

That looks fine to me.

Edited by Coachpill on Oct 16th 2023 at 9:29:24 AM

I found this in Trivia.Thomas And Friends:

• Executive Meddling:
  • Thomas and the Magic Railroad got butchered thanks to Sony Pictures executives being ignorant. Specifically, the film was not received well by test-screen audiences, stating that the plot and main villain were too dark, despite the film being complete at that point. The end result was a mess riddled with plot holes that resulted in HIT Entertainment taking control when the film failed. Later, when HIT was planning on bringing Thomas back to the television screens in America, they chose PBS, whose educational stance forced the show to be retooled extensively from a show that could be enjoyed by both kids and adults alike with a subtle moral, to a show aimed at preschoolers with a blatant Aesop and writing that treats the audience like they're idiots.

I think was written before the workprint for the movie was leaked online. It leaves out stuff like the fact that test audiences complained there was barely any Thomas and co in the movie despite being called "Thomas and the Magic Railroad"; and the fact the workprint was still a mess ridden with plot holes, if not more so. If anything, the Executive Meddling here was more of an attempt to salvage the film rather than ruin it like the example claims.

Secondly, regarding the HiT era, the example acts like Thomas had never once been on PBS before this point, even though he has, and the episodes back then didn’t really need to be changed for "educational value". Not to mention the Viewers Are Morons pothole.

Edited by PlasmaPower on Oct 17th 2023 at 10:05:24 AM

Someone added this to The Simpsons S 16 E 5 Fat Man And Little Boy.

• They Wasted a Perfectly Good Plot: Due to the mistaken belief that losing his last baby tooth meant he was now an adult, Bart goes through a "midlife crisis". However, instead of focusing on the Growing Up Sucks narrative, the episode goes through a Halfway Plot Switch where Homer is given a Sympathetic P.O.V. despite the Financial Abuse he puts his son through.

I think the wasted plot is a fair point; I love the episode now but I did find the switch a bit weird at first. But Homer isn't meant to be sympathetic for the first part; the idea is that Bart gets rich from selling shirts and Homer arrogantly quits his job and starts buying useless stuff, bothering Bart for money like a child would ask for their allowance. Lenny and Carl even call him out for just being dependent on his son. After this, he realizes Bart does hold more power over him and decides to start spending time with Lisa, having good intentions but messing it up in his usual way. He also stops using Bart for money and makes things right by standing up for him in the end.

I wouldn't really say it's Financial Abuse on Homer's side if the idea is him needing money from Bart; he inflicted it on himself by quitting his job because he's able to get by borrowing Bart's income. This behavior is clearly called out by the characters. And yes, Homer is sympathetic later on, but it's after and because he stops doing this.

I think a fair replacement would be pointing out that the episode focuses more on Homer and Lisa than Bart's experiences. Permission to replace?

I also found this edit on The Simpsons S30 E17 "E My Sports" by the same user.

• It's the Same, Now It Sucks!: This episode is often compared to "Its A Wishful Life" due to the fact that both Bart and Timmy are treated as an Apple of Discord, shown to be the root of virtually all the conflict around them despite the fact that it has nothing to actually to with them. In Bart’s case, Homer’s dysfunctional relationship with his father, Patty and Selma has been around long before Bart was even born. Also similar to how Timmy’s reward for agreeing to not exist was to exist with the knowledge that his presence actively makes everyone’s life worse. This episode ends with Bart having Stopped Caring that no one in his family cares about him.

Not only do these episodes have totally different plots, I don't think people dislike the episode because it's similar to a Fairly OddParents episode, and it feels like an excuse to shoehorn a complaint about a different show (not to mention an episode every cartoon reviewer has already discussed at length).

Edited by Grotadmorv on Oct 17th 2023 at 1:47:44 AM

Sounds like it should be cut and replaced with a Misblamed entry.