Complaining: Executive Meddling

The trope's often used for complaining about Executive Meddling that others don't like.

The fact that the page image itself makes a jab against the executives themselves does not help, as well as the fact that it's a "trivia trope".

Another thing that doesn't help is these two paragraphs which implies that Executive Meddling is a bad thing:

While these two parts can be safely removed without damaging the article (heck, the paragraph after that says that the results are frequently positive, but are seldom depicted as such by the writers), the damage seemed to have already been done, as a glance to ExecutiveMeddling.Video Games tells me (due to several of the entries looking like complaints, particularly the EA folder, Modern Warfare, almost everything related to Miyamoto and his "story-phobia" (which are all somehow sub-bullets to Super Mario Galaxy which, itself, doesn't seem like complaining), etc.)

Granted, they aren't all complaining, but the fact that several are implies to me that there's a problem with this trope when it comes to complaining about Executive Meddling. (Case in point: a few examples state "a positive example" like Phineas and Ferb {when it comes to songs}, Epic Mickey (which also has a "negative example" as a sub-bullet), Thunderbirds, a sub-bullet to Batman: The Animated Series (calling it the "most ironically positive bits of Executive Meddling known to man" and calls whomever tried to get the scene censored "Those Suckers"), Codename: Kids Next Door, etc.)

Looking back, I've discovered a Trope Repair Shop thread related to this very topic exist back in 2012 already, but it was closed for "not being Trope Repair Shop Worthy" (partially because the original poster failed to cite at least some examples on the complaining like what I tried to do, and partially because of the fact that according to someone, it was closed because of the there's no problem other than complaining that resulted from the site, having the general rule, "[tending] to have a "writers good, executives bad" mentality that is not always rooted in reality", all the more reason to open the thread nowadays.^note From what I can get from this, TV Tropes standards were apparently different back then.)

edited 12th Oct '14 6:41:52 AM by KarjamP

Opening. I don't think there is a fix for this, though - this kind of behaviour is looked down upon.

Other than cleaning up the description and the examples, is there anything to do?

I suppose the trope name has negative connotations, but I don't think it's a good idea to change that, considering the amount of wicks and inbounds.

This is another of the Sturgeons Tropes. Executive Meddling isn't always bad, but the good examples are harder to notice than the bad ones.

I think we need a cleanup thread. Oh, and a rewrite to make this more neutral and perhaps a different non-jabbing-at-the-executives image.

Oh, and just because many people use this trope for complaining about Executive Meddling (as well as wick it and have inbounds to it) doesn't mean it's not counter-productive to this wiki. After all, we're supposed to aim for a neutral POV about stuff^note which's why YMMV lists opinions from the general public and not opinions from the tropers themselves, not to complain about it. This's a perfect example of a trope where most tropers, even those (apparently) outside of the wiki itself, use it to complain about Executive Meddling they don't like.

edited 12th Nov '14 10:16:20 PM by KarjamP

It generally is seen as a bad thing, but I've noticed that individual examples will point out when it's a good thing.

Like: Originally the writers planned for Alice to leave Bob at the altar for Charlie, a character who hasn't been seen since season 2, but the network vetoed it.A rare example of Executive Meddling being a good thing.

I think it would definitely be a good idea to try and do something about the negative spin here, as I think it's not only a problem in its own right, but also can contribute to the misuse of other tropes. For example, I've said before that I think one of the things fueling the misuse of Getting Crap Past the Radar is that a lot of tropers seem to prefer to believe that creators are getting something past the executives rather than the executives seeing it and being totally okay with it.

Obviously there's only so much we can do about mindsets, but I think we can certainly tweak the description to make it not seem as much like the wiki itself considers Executive Meddling "normally" bad.

edited 15th Nov '14 7:50:05 PM by nrjxll

As I said, if several examples have to point out that it's "a rare positive example", then something's wrong with the trope.

That's one of my issues with Getting Crap Past the Radar is that often tropers don't seem to understand what that means.

Getting Crap Past the Radar has to be subtle and often I see examples where it's obvious that the censors/network/BS&P/FCC/whatever didn't take issue with it.

Bob calling Charlie a turdmonkey isn't getting crap past the radar.

And yeah now that I see your point I think the Executive Meddling page could point out that Tropes Are Not Bad and that it can often times be for the best just as much as it can be for the worst.

edited 16th Nov '14 2:39:05 PM by Batman39

Doesn't the word "meddling" itself have excusively negative connotations? I mean, if you say that the exececutives are meddling, then you are implying that the executives are interfering in matters they really should leave alone.

Going by the name, this is an inherently negative trope. There is no such thing as "good meddling". If the "meddling" leads to a positive result, then it's either a coincidence, or it wasn't meddling, but for example executives overriding a bad creative decision (which of course was taken as meddling by the creative staff at the time).

So, what's my point? I suppose either we rename the trope to something more neutral, or keep the name and accept that most examples will be complaining.

It's more than just the name - part of its description and even the page picture implies this's negative.

Besides, we can't just get rid of the name anyway due to how much this trope's been wicked. The best we could do is to move the page to a new name then turn the old name into a redirect, but we can't just get rid of the old name.

I agree it's not just the name, but my point was that the name alone makes it negative, so I don't think it will help changing the trope description.

Maybe keep it and accept that it's negative?

But then again, Tropes Are Not Bad

When Executive Meddling is used as a trope (that is, in-universe), it is not bad. The problem is when it is used in Real Life.

Almost all the examples of the trope I come across is a Real Life example, though.

Not true in the slightest. There are plenty of times where Network meddling was for the better. Sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly.

a case of the meddling actually working out for the better, The Emperor's New Groove started out as a Prince and Pauper movie called Kingdom of the Sun, heavy on the aesoping. Due to heavy production issues and poor reception from test audiences, the plot of the entire movie was ordered to undergo an overhaul. The whole film was retooled in the space of about six months, becoming a zany buddy comedy with more in common with Looney Tunes than typical Disney fare. And it was AWESOME. The only thing it really lost in the retool was a rockin' Villain Song sung by Eartha Kitt, though the curious can still find it on the official soundtrack.

The ending of The Lion King is an example of executive meddling done right. The original (like Hamlet) was going to be a total Downer Ending, but it was not liked by the execs. Interference from the higher-ups also lead the unfocused and unengaging script to become the basis of Disney's highest grossing film of all-time (until Frozen).

A few examples concerning Frozen, which one could say ended up being positive examples. The movie was originally going to be hand-drawn, and first titled "The Snow Queen", then "Anna and the Show Queen". After The Princess and the Frog underperformed, they made it CGI and the title was changed to "Frozen" (which actually fits the film's theme more, anyway). Even the Signature Song, "Let It Go", went through a slight lyric change. The third line was originally going to to be "Couldn't keep it in, God knows I tried". It wasn't because they wanted to remove religious references (as some people initially thought), but it didn't want to be considered to be taking the Lord's name in vain. The final line is instead "Couldn't keep it in, heaven knows I tried", which fits better with the song's pattern anyway.

Another example of Executive Meddling having a positive effect; when he completed Clerks, first-time director Kevin Smith initially experienced a lot of trouble raising interest from a distributor in order to sell it. It was suggested that he remove the unnecessary and out-of-place Downer Ending in which Dante is killed by a robber. The rest is history.

A rare good case occurred with Monty Python's Life of Brian. The initial studio abandoned the film just as the Pythons were getting ready to shoot ("when they finally read the script," according to Michael Palin). Enter former Beatle George Harrison, who happened to be a) extremely rich and b) a total Python fanboy. He founded a production company for the sole purpose of financing the film and more or less let the Pythons do whatever they wanted. When asked why, Harrison said, "Well, I wanted to see the movie." Eric Idle later called it "the most expensive movie ticket ever purchased."

In the pilot episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, the character Willow wears drab clothing that her mother picked out for her. Network execs told creator Joss Whedon that they wanted Willow to "look more like Buffy" who wore brighter, preppier, and more stylish clothing. This had a positive result, however, as Whedon decided to give Willow colorful, if geeky clothing, leading to the famous fuzzy sweaters and silly clothes.

In the original draft for the show Glee, there was no Sue Sylvester. FOX decided the show needed a villian, so Sue was created. She quickly became one of the most, if not the most, popular characters on the show. It was a case of Executive Meddling working out for the better.

Similarly, when asked to do a show about Batman in High School, creative interpretation of that concept gave us the Cyberpunk dark future of Batman Beyond.

All of the above are straight from the Executive Meddling Page.

Executive Meddling can also lead to Getting Crap Past the Radar; the Network tells the showrunners that something is too extreme and the showrunners get back by changing what was asked but making it worse South Park does this frequently.

edited 17th Nov '14 4:09:31 PM by Batman39

I second the motion for new title.

Maybe Exceutive Interference?

Batman39: You misunderstand me, or perhaps I was not being clear.

I agree with you in that many cases of executive "meddling" actually improved the work. After all, if the executive know what they're doing, that's their job.

What I meant was that if somebody is *talking* about "executive meddling" in a real-world case, he or she almost certainly means it in a negative sense. "Meddling" is a derogatory word. At least I wouldn't say "the executives meddled with the work to make it better", I'd say that they intervened or that they overrode the director, or something like that.

Maybe "executive intervention" is a more neutral term?

To me, "interference" still sounds a bit negative. Executive Intervention, perhaps?

This is a trope with 5000+ wicks and almost 9000 inbounds. That's too large to rename, nevermind the amount of work required.

Even with the negative connotations I don't think a rename is necessary. I think the page description should just make it more clear that Tropes Are Not Bad. Even the image on the main page makes the trope look like it's always negative.

What's the problem with renaming it, keeping Executive Meddling as redirect and left all of the wicks be?

What would we call it?

Demands From Upstairs? Network Request? Executives Stepping In?

To fix the significant amount of complaining as well, we could start a Long-Term Project thread dedicated to removing the complaining.

@Dan: Renaming a trope while leaving the wicks is pointless, especially if the wicks aren't cleaned.