Needs Help: Critical Research Failure

Hmm. I think Memers has the right idea.

How can you be sure that all major errors are intentional and all minor ones unintentional?

At the very least, I'll throw my hat into the ring in support of an earlier suggestion in this thread (from post 32): moving CriticalResearchFailure.Game Theory (Web Show) to DanBrowned.Game Theory (Web Show).

At least with Dan Browned, there seems to be a specific and narrow definition that's agreed upon: a work where the creator proudly claims and advertises the amount of research that went into making it accurate, but the work itself contradicts these claims by containing many inaccuracies, calling the creator's credibility into question.

We don’t however that’s really where a benefit of doubt comes in and well it’s Rule of Cool or Rule of Drama.

Hell Mythbusters made most of their shows debunking major Artistic License stuff that actually happens in scenes and even after debunking them to the creator’s face they still excuse it in some way so many are just impossible to prove.

edited 4th Feb '18 9:35:38 AM by Memers

Benefit of doubt means we assume the "minor" inaccuracies are intentional as well. Any intentional inaccuracy (aside from Continuity) is Artistic License.

No, minor errors are not Artistic License. The Wikipedia definition

edited 4th Feb '18 9:45:08 AM by Memers

The error is done intentionally. Now explain how an intentional error is not done to improve the work.

Pretty sure we're going in circles here. A lot of this seemed to already be settled and I'm not personally seeing a point in undoing all the work that's gone into the AL tropes.

Whether a given intentional error is done to improve the work or not is impossible to prove barring Word of God. The principle of charity posits that we should take someone's rhetoric in the best way possible, and adapting the principle of charity to media and TV Tropes, we get the idea that we should take a creator's intention in the best way possible. Or at least, we should interpret their intention in the best way that reason allows.

We should interpret "minor" and "major" errors to be intentional unless otherwise noted. Moreover, we should interpret such errors as improving the work in some way, even if it's a basic way. After all, why would a creator intentionally make any error but not do so in an attempt to improve the work? They wouldn't do that if it's intentional. And again, there's no way to prove it isn't intentional unless there's some admission by the creator.

The reason I think creating a Darth Wiki article to catch these complainers, and personally I would think of them more as assholes than just complainers, is because we aren't here to complain. Time and time again, mods will fill us in on the not-secret that the wiki is "by fans, for fans." If people want to just complain about minor inaccuracies, then they can do it on Darth Wiki or not at all. Even in the forums, such behavior is more or less verboten.

I dont see it as really 'complaining' as we define it in tropes though there is no arguing about its existence. Its completely an utterly objective its there it exists and it is notable.

For example Space is not blue but in Zeta Gundam it is [1]◊.

Now explaining as to why it is wrong though is where it becomes an issue on complaining for some examples but not for others. For Zeta Gundam its an issue of Purple Is the New Black (err in this case blue) as black lined animation + Black background = loss of detail.

This and Darthwiki tropes like Dethroning Moment Of Suck are not even remotely comparable. Tropes Are Not Bad and all.

edited 4th Feb '18 10:49:53 AM by Memers

I agree that a given error exists in a given work, and I agree that such a thing is notable. However, we have seen in the DNDTR and Somewhere A Scientist Is Crying tropes that tropers cannot handle discussing errors without complaining. That's why the AL tropes are named "artistic license" rather than "intentional error that improves the work." The fact that complainer-tropers took their complaints to Critical Research Failure tells us two things:

1. There are tropers who enjoy complaining, even though such behavior is frowned upon at TV Tropes generally.
2. Complainer-tropers will find some page around the wiki no matter what we do and they will complain on that page.

This is why I disagree that noting "unintentional" errors or errors that "don't improve the work" as being a good or workable thing.

This is also why I support the suggestion to make a new page specifically designed to let complainer-tropers do their complaining thing, while simultaneously poking fun at the idea (hence my suggestion of "slightly" rather than "technically" inaccurate). Darth Wiki is suited for complaining, so it makes sense that such a page would be in that namespace.

EDIT: regarding the example with space being black. There are technical limitations to consider as well. For a designer to get true black, they cannot just give red, green, and blue values of zero (or cyan, magenta, and yellow values of zero and key a higher value). It's just easier to make a black surface purple or blue. So, yes, such an "error" would improve the work in some way.

edited 4th Feb '18 10:56:49 AM by WaterBlap

Complainers are a job for the long term projects thread though. They can literally fit complaints into any trope in existence, this trope is not unique at all.

I don't see any difference from these and Writers Can Not Do Math.

edited 4th Feb '18 10:55:40 AM by Memers

This is a unique problem with complainer-tropers, though. They literally migrated from Did Not Do The Research to Critical Research Failure. They did not spread to random pages on the wiki. There is something about Critical Research Failure that attracted them as being the appropriate place to put their complaints. That is not the same as the complain-y example clean-up issue.

Also what are "these" compared to Writers Cannot Do Math?

I think by "these" Memers means things like the way Jupiter Jones misuses a maxi pad in Jupiter Ascending. Errors where if you got it right the plot wouldn't be any different.

Artistic License would then be restricted to stories where if the topic was portrayed realistically, the plot wouldn't work or would have to be very different. (For example, Holy War, the infamous X-Men story by Chuck Austen, would have a very different plot if the Catholic Church was portrayed realistically),

That would be Artistic License – Religion yeah but things like using rosaries as necklaces would not be. The latter happens a lot in anime.

edited 6th Feb '18 10:56:08 PM by Memers

Coming from another angle: are slight and accidental inaccuracies that don't affect the plot even tropeable? On the face of it such mistakes sound like People Sit On Chairs but on a more meta level. To use the rosary example, how does that affect the work or storytelling in a meaningful way? If it's just "some people's suspension of disbelief is affected," then why can the AL tropes not be flexible enough to cover that?

If tropers can't talk about inaccuracies without complaining, I might support what we're doing now, in spite of what I pointed out. But if I had to guess whether something was Artistic License of research failure, I'd guess based on how likely the creator knew it, not on how major it is. (That does not mean I support removing all examples that seem to be unintentional from the AL pages).

Also, for what it's worth, this TRS thread said that AL tropes should be Trivia.

edited 7th Feb '18 5:03:06 AM by Lymantria

Quick note: no consensus was reached about them being trivia and that thread says it'll take a dedicated thread to make that decision.

Why not bring it up on the Trivia cleanup thread and put them on the crowner?

It shouldn’t be at all, a math error is not Artsitic License at all.

To go with the page image, Superman getting an extra zero is not Artistic License, it has no effect on the work at all.

If you want to argue the point, write a new thread. If you want to comment on Sandbox.Critical Research Failure, go ahead.

It should cover those minor non-world/story affecting things such as wearing a rosary like a necklace, it should not require Word of God that the thing was an error at all.

That is the difference between Artistic License and this.

That is not what the crowner voted for.

I don't think MST3K Mantra should be contrasted here but rather mentioned in the description of the trope. I don't think it's particularly related to CRF per se.

Here's my suggestion for revising the description.