Misused: Creators Pet

Right, that's why even protagonists can be scrappies in rare cases (as in, people can be fans of the work but find the main character insufferable).

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

I think it's more that it's hard to say that a main character is receiving the undue focus that's one of the requirements for this trope. The issue gets blurrier the more main characters there are - ST TNG is sufficiently an ensemble cast that it doesn't seem unreasonable to list Wesley (especially because if there is a main character for any given Star Trek series it's usually the captain, which he obviously wasn't), but it doesn't seem like an unreasonable argument to me.

Well, the thread apparently operated under the idea that any major character is excluded. For instance, Hermione isn't the protagonist and she does get a lot of undue focus due to the movies giving her most of Ron's important moments while downplaying or removing any of her flaws; basically she was given a status even beyond what was expected of her character, despite already being a major character.

I'd think as long as it's disproportionate to what audience's expect or want, it'd count. I agree that it's a lot more difficult for literal protagonists, but I think that even super major characters can fit that criteria if the circumstances align.

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

I agree with Warjay. It should be case-by-case, but i think a blanket "no major characters" requirement does more harm than good

Absolute destiny... apeachalypse?

As a refresher of the criteria (emphasis mine):

It's that third point where major characters often (and main characters almost always) fail. I can agree with allowing them on a case-by-case basis, but a lot of major characters this term gets thrown at are in those scenes for some actual reason, even if it's a reason the audience doesn't like.

I mean, remember that it's still subjective at the end of the day; the reason may be nonsense to some and valid to others.

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

I know that. It reminds me of fellow YMMV item Ass Pull, where the plot twist has to have no foreshadowing, but a lot of plot twists with some foreshadowing were put there anyway if the audience didn't like said foreshadowing. Even if it's subjective, "no X" does not mean "X I don't like".

Well, of course. I just don't think there's an objective metric for "good/bad reason" if the audience ultimately feels like the character had an unwarranted amount of focus.

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

If we are allowing major characters, would Andromeda's Dylan Hunt be allowed as an example again? It was pulled because he is the main character (but in the last seasons, went from the leader of a crew to the only hero who mattered).

Stories don't tell us monsters exist; we knew that already. They show us that monsters can be trademarked and milked for years.

I guess that particular case depends on how we define "creator" - part of what made it so notorious is that it wasn't so much a showrunner or writer pushing it as it was his actor Kevin Sorbo staging a hostile takeover of the show. But I do think the focus point isn't really an issue there, from everything I've heard anyway.

Would characters have to be Scrappies to qualify? As several Base-Breaking Character pages mention characters getting accused of being a Creator's Pet

Yes, one of the criteria is that the character must be hated.

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

Im guessing expanding it to divisive characters would bloat the entries. Though in that case should we remove stuff like "accused of being a Creator's Pet" from Base-Breaking Character pages?

Yeah, I don't think it's possible to be accused of being a Creator's Pet by the definition of that page since it includes unintentional audience hate. Accused of being a Creator's Favorite, maybe.

Well Creator's Favorite is a trivia trope, not a YMMV trope like Creator's Pet, so should entries that state something like "gets accused of being a Creator's Pet" be changed to "gets accused of favoritism"?

I think it'd be a good idea to add the criteria to the OP and pin it for easy reference. Does anyone else agree?

Edited by badtothebaritone on Apr 1st 2023 at 2:54:14 PM

So regarding Wesley? Does he stay or go? And its a no on anybody listed under Base-Breaking Character?

That is correct. The criteria specifically require Scrappies, who by definition cannot be base-breaking.

Edited by badtothebaritone on Apr 10th 2023 at 1:16:24 PM

So does Wesley stay on account of being the former trope namer or go given this entry on Star Trek: The Next Generation?

• A running gag in some Star Trek circles claims that Wesley Crusher has broken the fanbase between those who simply hate him and those who loathe him. Joking aside, Wesley does have actual fans, who point out that he's supposed to be unusually gifted and he only saved the ship six times. His detractors still see him as overpowered, though.

Edited by Mariofan99 on Apr 14th 2023 at 8:25:15 AM

Has fans = doesn't count.

Its hard to say how many fans there are as every instance of The Scrappy has fans

If there are enough fans to be mentioned in an example... IDK.

You're right, of course. Even scrappies have fans. But they need to be a major minority.

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

I'm gonna bring up this entry that I deleted several months for being about a major character on the off-chance it's salvageable.

• Infinity Train: Blossoming Trail: Parker Cerise. Not only is he the only family member Chloe trusts, but he gets away with a lot of questionable actions in Arc 1 (like, for example, trying to smash Yeardley's head with a bat). He is the one family member to never get calling outs, and the story almost always takes his side when he's the one calling people out. Despite being five, he accomplishes several major events in Arc 1 that could have easily been done by older and more reasonable characters like Professor Cerise and Trip. Even as he turned into an antagonist in Arc 2, many characters would defend him to some degree or another (particularly his parents), and his court scene in the aftermath still has him able to call out people and make them feel responsible even after everything he did, and few characters if any enforce the reminder that, five year old or not, he is still one of the worst people in this story. Author commentary from a chapter where Delia does call him out even suggests doing that was a struggle. Future works by Green continue to prominently use Parker, little changed from his characterization in Blossoming Trail, and when one of the co-writers attempted to give a Parker an ending where Ash and Goh got Parker to admit he was wrong, Green flipped out and wrote a "canon" ending where Ash and Goh trying to do this gets them mentally violated and forced to apologize to Parker and put in an asylum, and only took it down following immense backlash from pretty much everyone who saw said 'canon' ending.

A couple of questions/observations:

• Is Parker actually a Scrappy? I know the author loves him to death, but are there other fans of the work defending him?
• It sounds to me like he might have reasons to be where he is and do what he does, what with being Chloe's brother and later an Arc Villain.

I took it to the BBC thread and it was determined that Wesley doesn't have enough fans to count as a Base-Breaking Character meaning the Creator's Pet entry can stay

So IMO, the Comic Book subpages - specifically the Marvel and DC ones - for this feel like they've got a serious issue with not fitting the "must be generally disliked" requirement. Mainstream superhero comics, for a lot of reasons related to their age and turnover, are generally going to be pretty difficult to apply this particular trope to, but I feel like stuff like Damian Wayne's entry at the top of the DC page where it literally goes on about how he won over many detractors and people were sad when he died before suddenly going "but some people still hate him tho" still seems clearly wrong.