Condemned by History is a problem trope for many reasons. It leads to edit warring and confusion over what qualifies. In this thread we'll look for bad examples, and look for feedback. Here are the guidelines for this trope:
- The franchise has to be truly popular and loved at first. Things that are So Bad, It's Horrible don't count.
- Simply losing popularity isn't enough. We need to see an actual backlash, with liking it being considered bizarre. Otherwise, every not-so-famous film or concluded television series would be here.
Let's go!
Edited by GastonRabbit on Mar 16th 2024 at 4:23:01 AM
Didn't we discuss Super Size Me before and we agreed to keep?
Works That Require Cleanup of Complaining | Troper WallAt the very least, we could acknowledge the fact that its sequel is nowadays generally regarded as superior.
In that case, should its Even Better Sequel entry be changed to Surprisingly Improved Sequel?
There’s an example in the Real Life section for Richard Nixon. Since it’s agreed we shouldn’t add non-creator real humans, should it be removed? You could say that it’s about his presidency, which could qualify.
He/Him | Elsewhere (2017)Oreimo was the vanguard of romantic-subtext-with-little-sister-genre, it got a lot of imitators, and the genre as a whole fell into disgrace after 2018's My Sister, My Writer, widely cited as they year's worst show. The general understanding is that trying to accommodate both general audiences (or at least otaku in general) and those looking for outright porn produced a mess that pleased neither. Japan still makes little sister stuff, but it's pornography with overt incest for a narrower market. So however Oreimo is still viewed, it was part of a trend that audiences turned against.
As if to mark the death of the genre, in 2019 we got Do You Love Your Mom and Her Two-Hit Multi-Target Attacks?, where a teenage boy has romantic subtext with his mother.
Stories don't tell us monsters exist; we knew that already. They show us that monsters can be trademarked and milked for years.Honestly the entry for Crunk on the main Cb H page is pretty bashy. The main page for Crunk itself is also more snarky than is necessary.
Could probably do with a rewrite to be a bit more neutral.
Our part on LiveJournal seems to be about the website getting worse rather than people seeing it as worse in retrospect. Cut?
Edited by StarManatee on Jun 25th 2023 at 8:28:25 PM
He/Him | Elsewhere (2017)Do it now. It's not a retroactive look at Live Journal, but an actual worsening of the site - more fit for Seasonal Rot or similar.
The pessimist sees a dark tunnel, the optimist sees a light, the realist sees two lights and the engineer sees three idiots.From the live action film section - a quick search can't immediately find any record of this one being discussed:
- Steven Seagal made a name for himself in the early '90s as the star of gritty action movies like Out for Justice and Under Siege, typically playing stoic badasses who fought against criminals and terrorists by using Aikido martial arts. With a string of box office hits under his belt, the media was quick to build him up as the next big Hollywood action star. However, Seagal started losing his box-office momentum in the mid-'90s following On Deadly Ground (his directorial debut) and Under Siege 2: Dark Territory. Critics began catching on to his limited acting abilities and film choices, and audiences gravitated towards similar films made by Jackie Chan and Will Smith. His fate was sealed in the 2000s by a combination of reports about his abusive on-set behavior (most notably, multiple claims of sexual harassment), a pattern of near-pathological lies about his career, early life, ancestry, and accomplishments coming forward, and his ties to organized crime, The New Russia's government, and Vladimir Putin, which put a dent in his "all-American badass" image (made worse by the propaganda he did in Russian-occupied zones of Ukraine during Russia's war of aggression there in 2022). Another notable hit to his "badass" credentials was growing disdain for aikido itself; the system was meant for personal enlightenment and understanding nonviolence and is known for being largely ineffective for self-defense or combat sports, which is ironic when Seagal's onscreen fighting style was known for its brutality. Finally, Seagal went into a very noticeable physical decline that made it harder to take him seriously as an Action Hero, especially as it took a toll on the fight scenes in his films; he famously used stunt doubles even just for shots of his character standing still.
By the mid 2000s, Seagal had burned every bridge in Hollywood and retreated to doing Direct-to-Video flicks mostly filmed in Eastern Europe, which were slammed for their extremely repetitive nature, incoherent stories, frequent production errors, rock-bottom production values and less-than-successful attempts at covering up Seagal's stunt double. Nowadays, Seagal is widely seen as a laughingstock, a product of '90s edge culture who lacked any of the charm or talent of his contemporaries. While other action stars of the era like Dolph Lundgren, Michael Jai White and Jean-Claude Van Damme have experienced revivals and are still highly respected and popular among action fans, Seagal has not gained any such reassessment. Whatever praise his earlier films get these days usually concerns the style and technical competence supplied by the filmmakers behind them and the supporting casts, not Seagal himself.
Apart from the Wall of Text and the elements that are closer to Role-Ending Misdemeanor territory, as they're not actually about the work... is there much worth saving here? Or do we cut as misuse?
Somebody added The Force Awakens and honestly while it's definitely been controversial especially with how divisive (to say the least) the new trilogy has been I highly doubt it qualifies since a lot of people still consider it a good movie and it's mainly the plot threads left hanging by Last Jedi that made it retroactively controversial, what do you guys think?
I'm wondering if it would be valid or not, but would the Guinness World Records count? Maybe it's just the type of content I watch, but I've seen it be heavily criticized in for having very low verification standards that often just seems to be about who has the money to claim an absurd record.
Edited by DDRMASTERM on Jul 1st 2023 at 7:01:13 AM
I've heard plenty of bad, but the fact that people are still trying to spread awareness implies that it's not a common opinion.
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper Wall

How accurate the documentary is isn't the point of CBH: it's whether the response to it has went from "very positive" to "very negative".
Welcome To Ideals' World