Condemned by History cleanup thread

They should know that South Park is still ongoing, right?

Would this entry fit Fashion? I might need a rewrite but I tried listing the basics.

The "heroin chic" style, characterized by pale skin, stringy hair, and a waifish appearance. Credited to supermodel Gia Carangi and sported by Kate Moss and Jaime King, the look was extremely popular in the early 1990s thanks to the stigma against heroin dying down, the popularity of heroin within the grunge scene, and a backlash against sex appeal and the vibrant fashion of the 1980s. However, with the drug-related death of photographer Davide Sorrenti in 1997, figures such as then-U.S. President Bill Clinton and anti-drug activists began criticizing the fashion industry for glamorizing heroin, while King (Sorrenti's girlfriend) eventually went into rehab. The waning popularity of grunge and the rise of "beautiful" models such as Gisele Bündchen swiftly killed off the heroin chic style. The look has since remained dead in the water, with the models who popularized the look having since moved on, and concerns about glamorizing eating disorders have since become the main criticism of the fashion industry.

Edited by SkylaNoivern on Jul 31st 2021 at 9:00:15 AM

The South Park example is pretty easily disproven given that it still has a wild and overdefensive fandom, and last year's special has an Emmy nomination. I think it's just gone from Sacred Cow status to attracting criticism like any other show. (And it's still hard to criticize the show without getting mobbed, which is what happened to Dana Schwartz.)

I think Fred could count with a rewrite. It's only brought up nowadays as a joke (usually at the expense of the movies and the flop of a TV show), and even Lucas Cruikshank himself makes fun of it all the time. It was divisive at the time too, but I think kids still liked it then.

Edited by mightymewtron on Jul 30th 2021 at 9:16:33 AM

I think the Heroin Chic entry works.

Let me make something for Fred.

In 2006, Lucas Cruikshank created the web series Fred. In it, Cruikshank played the eponymous Fred Figglehorn, a hyperactive child, using an artificially sped-up voice. The channel became a internet sensation, becoming the first channel to reach 1 million subscribers on the then new Youtube. The success resulted in a television show on Nickelodeon, and three films.

However, things went wrong. The three films were all poorly received, criticized for their humor, acting, and Fred's irritating voice. The television series only lasted one season thanks to poor ratings. The original youtube channel went through many changes, including animated shorts and an attempted retool, with a new actor playing Fred. This didn't endear the remaining fans. Soon, the channel started new skits, completely unrelated to Fred. It then shut down in 2015. Nowaways, despite being one of the first youtube channels to cross over into "traditional" entertainment, Fred is barely remembered. It's only really brought up to show how different the landscape of youtube was during the 2000s.

"Barely remembered" =/= hated. The entry should focus on why it is hated now.

• Heroin Chic. It works.
• Fred. All I could say it has been buried in the digital sands of time once Lucas left the channel.

I feel like Fred was hated more viciously while it was popular. Now the reputation has kind of plateaued, though it skews consistently negative with nobody really defending it.

Forgot to mention the crossover with Icarly regarding Fred.

And I do think Fred belongs in there, is an icon of an era that is no longer around.

But that's not what CBH means. It's not just about fading into obscurity, it's about a complete 180 in terms of audience opinion.

And might I remind everyone again that Fred was always a Base Breaker? He was very polarizing. He was never loved by everyone. Again, this whole thing depends on what we consider his niche to be- the children, or the whole of YouTube.

The following was removed from the Music subpage unilaterally with no edit reason by Avenging-Hobbits (of whom I have sent a notifier):

• Traditional pop, spearheaded by crooners like Perry Como, Patti Page, and Doris Day, virtually monopolized the charts during the late 1940s and early 1950s. Once lauded for placing focus on the vocalist in an era where people were likelier to listen to music in a cozy suburban home than the dance halls of the swing era, today, the entire movement is either ignored or forgotten altogether. With the swift rise of rebellious teen culture in the mid-'50s, traditional pop became immediately emblematic of the chaste, sanitized culture enforced by the Moral Guardians of the day and had extremely little influence on the music that followed.
  
  Only a few big names, such as Frank Sinatra and Tony Bennett, survived with their legacies intact, while the likes of Perry Como and Eddie Fisher devolved from hit-making factories into pop-cultural punchlines. Far and large, Sinatra's most iconic songs today are the ones he released in the 1960s, like "Strangers in the Night" and "My Way" (as well as 1980's "Theme from New York, New York"), while almost all of his hits from before the rock and roll era have been lost to history unless they were re-recorded with production techniques more attractive to younger generations. Tony Bennett is a lot more iconic for his 1962 hit "I Left My Heart In San Francisco" than his early '50s #1's like "Because of You", "Rags to Riches", or "Cold, Cold Heart." It helps that in the 1990s, he was marketed to a younger audience. Even Johnnie Ray, once a teen idol who helped bridge the gap between black and white audiences in popular music, saw his career swiftly derailed as soon as Elvis Presley hit it big. Nowadays, discussions on the history of popular music almost never go further back than 1955 with the breakthrough of rock and roll, while traditional pop is generally not considered worth anybody's time. '50s nostalgia entertainment is much likelier to feature music from the first half of the 1960s than anything from the early 1950s. None of this is to say that the crooning style itself is completely dead, but very few actual pop songs from the decade after World War II are still fondly remembered today.
  
  The one big exception is for Christmas music, as the holiday is laced with enough nostalgia and traditionalism that the Glurge aspects of traditional pop seem charming in that context. Even modern celebrities will try to swing in front of a big band while covering "Baby It's Cold Outside" and "Frosty The Snowman" on festive TV specials; even here, though, the season's pop sound cuts the treacle with glittery sleigh-bell-led Wall Of Sound-influenced pop-soul fare (in America) and early '70s Glam Rock party stompers and '80s New Wave oddments (in the UK).
  
  Johnnie Ray also developed a semi-ironic fandom/reappraisal in The '80s in the UK, as trends towards sadder music and celebration of teen misfits left some younger artists fascinated by the idea of a forgotten teen idol who had once been famous for crying on stage. Dexys Midnight Runners gave a Shout-Out to him in their major hit "Come On Eileen" to evoke an atmosphere of post-war romance (Poor old Johnnie Ray/ Sounded sad upon the radio/ moved a million hearts in mono/ our mothers cried, sang along, who'd blame them), Billy Idol included him in his music video for "Don't Need a Gun", and Morrissey modeled his image on Ray, including wearing a similar hearing aid ^note which Morrissey didn't need, making this in poor taste and using him as reference for his stage moves. This little Eighties echo gave Johnnie Ray a reputation as being something of a forgotten treasure and is arguably the biggest influence any of the discarded traditional pop idols had on the youth culture of the future.

It's a big Wall of Text, but should it be restored in some capacity?

Edited by themayorofsimpleton on Aug 5th 2021 at 5:17:17 AM

Maybe it's because of the limitations of my own personal lens, but I don't recall hearing about any major backlash against or retrospective disdain towards traditional pop. Easy listening probably, but not traditional pop as a whole. If anything the reactions I notice towards it nowadays lean more towards indifference at worst, with many folks even bringing up positive aspects of the genre's heyday (e.g. Frank Sinatra being hugely ahead of his time when it came to race relations).

At worst it looks mostly like a case of "was big then, but just got lost in the face of changing trends as decades passed." If there was a backlash against it, it doesn't seem to be around anymore, at least not where I've looked.

Edited by bowserbros on Aug 5th 2021 at 5:06:12 AM

Thanks, the example will remain removed.

...And despoa just added it back. Permission to cut again per this thread?

Call them in here to talk. If they can provide evidence of a backlash, past or present, we'll put it back up.

Alright.

~despoa, care to offer your thoughts as to why it should stay?

To be clear, "backlash" isn't enough; it needs to be a full 180- backlash from everyone.

Oh sorry. I added it back because a reason wasn't given in the history.

That's alright. A good thing to remember in the future is to send a notifier if someone does something against the rules, which is what I did with the troper who removed that entry. Likewise, generally with tropes that have forum cleanup threads it's a good idea to confirm with the thread before restoring/deleting an example. Just some things to remember.

I think Fred should have an entry because of his former extreme popularity (he was the first Youtuber to reach 1 million subscribers after all). And I wouldn’t say he’s faded into obscurity since I still see people talk about him and people still know who he is, I’d say a more accurate term is that he’s faded into irrelevancy.

Edited by TheLivingDrawing on Aug 8th 2021 at 10:02:54 AM

I was going to come here to ask about that 1950s entry, so...if you wanted another opinion, it should almost certainly be cut; these artists are simply barely remembered rather than hated.

I just removed this.

• When it came out, The Greatest Show on Earth was a box office hit and and well-liked by critics. However, its reputation took a nosedive when it won Best Picture at that year's Academy Awards, hitting films that people thought deserved the title more (High Noon, The Quiet Man, Ivanhoe, and the not-even-nominated Singin' in the Rain) with an Award Snub. Nowadays, it's only ever discussed when people are making "worst Best Picture" lists.

So people think there're better films out there and it doesn't deserve the award. But ultimately there's no mentioned of what's wrong about the film itself. It might count as Overshadowed by Controversy, although I'm not sure.

This part sounds like it's an example though "Nowadays, it's only ever discussed when people are making "worst Best Picture" lists."

If people are still roasting it.

I've seen a few people bring up the movie when it comes to how much it whitewashes Barnum and jokes about how it feels more like a movie Barnum would make about himself than an accurate biopic.

But, I do know these critiques were around when the film first came out, so I dunno...

Edited by chasemaddigan on Aug 8th 2021 at 6:01:56 AM

Does Eden Lake qualify as an example of this trope? Here's what the film's YMMV page says on the subject:

• Condemned by History: Despite being beloved by critics and audiences when it first came out, the film is largely strongly disliked by most modern horror fans, who typically interpret it as a rather disturbing statement that the poor are fundamentally and inherently evil, especially if they partake in cultural signifiers of poverty.