Unintentionally Unsympathetic and Unintentionally Sympathetic Cleanup

As the person who added the Ayo thing, I can attest to it having been an actual major point of discourse around that episode, dumb as I personally find it. Though, no offense to people who are disabled, as while I did side with Ayo there, I do think their viewpoint is worth documenting, hence why I added the entry in the first place.

This was added under YMMV.The Binding Of Isaac and I just wanted to make sure about it since the game has a bit of open interpreation and Mind Screw to it:

• Unintentionally Unsympathetic: Mom. We're supposed to feel bad for her when she sees how Isaac views her in the Corpse ending. However, the way she tends to treat Isaac as shown in the cutscenes, which include giving him poop for a gift, telling Isaac his father never loved him, and even saying that Isaac is "mentally disturbed" like his father. And keep in mind, that last one was before the divorce happened. It's not helped that in the aforementioned ending she locks Isaac in a dark space instead of just, you know... talking to him about why she feels upset about him making her like that. While meant to just come off as a mother who is also going through rough times like her son, Mom's actions only serve to paint her as an abuisve and unstable woman who is more disturbed than she is clearly willing to admit.

Isn't she meant to be unsympathetic? Mom is almost never presented in a really positive light, the entry itself even gives examples of that, there isn't that much reason to believe the Corpse ending is any different. That seemed more like it was reaffirming how bad she was, not trying to make her sympathetic. Just checking that this isn't a me-thing and if the game was really going for that. If there's something like Edmund confirming in a Tweet that the ending was supposed to try to make the players feel sorry for her then, okay, that would count. Because otherwise it looks like the ending was going for the same point the entry is.

I write stupid crap about naked people.

Yes, Ayo doing that was absolutely a point of discourse and deserves documentation.

I mean... I don't think any part of Isaac attempts to portray the Mom in any light better than "Troubled Abuser."

Edited by Riley1sCool on May 14th 2021 at 11:49:13 AM

While I haven't played The Binding of Isaac in years, I do know that you aren't supposed to sympathize in anyway with the Mother, so yeah cut it.

YMMV.RWBY Unintentionally Unsympathetic entry:

• At the beginning of Volume 8, Yang's argument about how to deal with Atlas and Mantle's plight leaves many fans finding it hard to side with her due to actions she took in Volume 7. When Yang questions Ruby's leadership abilities, she insists on saving Mantle while Ruby opts for completing Amity Tower to warn Remnant about Salem. While both plans are carried out, fans struggled to sympathize with Yang because her and Blake's decision to leak the Amity information to Robyn contributed to Ironwood turning on the heroes; this was done without Ruby's consent, making Yang seem like she's deflecting blame onto Ruby.

This entry is a valid description of the fandom reaction to Yang at the beginning of Volume 8. So, my question is not whether her coming across as unsympathetic is valid (it is).

Before the volume began, the creators said during RTX2020 that they couldn't reveal the volume's theme because that was a spoiler. They could, however, reveal that Yang's personal theme for the volume was "mistrust". Towards the end of Volume 8, she's trying to lift Ruby's spirits who (among other things) feels like the plan she backed during this argument was a failure. Yang acknowledges that the plan she backed was also a failure. She then goes on to mention that they've all achieved other things that wasn't in either of their original plans, turning it into a lesson about balancing risk and hope. However, one thing that is never revisited is the fandom's feeling that she's blaming Ruby for things beyond Ruby's control.

So, my question is, is the lack of sympathy for her initial position unintentional? I find myself on the fence about this, so I wanted to get other input. I'm wondering if this is possibly a question of scale: whatever the creators intended Yang's portrayal to be, the fandom latched quite hard onto the feeling that Yang's blaming Ruby, and that possibly was unexpected?

Edited by Wyldchyld on May 16th 2021 at 6:03:03 PM

If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.

YMMV.Ralph Breaks The Internet has this:

• Unintentionally Unsympathetic: Vanellope. While Ralph is justifiably chastened for his overprotective clingyness, Vanellope's own misdeeds don't draw much condemnation from any of the characters (even those who suffer most from them). To wit: she seems to show little appreciation for Ralph's enormously impressive effort to save Sugar Rush and she decides to abandon her own game for Slaughter Race and never bothers to discuss the move or its ramifications with the people she's leaving behind, such as Ralph and the Sugar Rush racers. Permanently game-jumping was overwhelmingly associated with the villain in Wreck-It Ralph. The original film even treated Ralph game-jumping without considering the consequences negatively, and he did it never intending to be gone permanently, not to mention having a much worse life than Vanellope does in this film.

On the same page, she's listed as a Base-Breaking Character, and yeah, I'm pretty sure there are people who dislike her as well as people who still find her sympathetic.

I still don't get why BBC and UU or US can't coexist. It's YMMV for a reason. If a good chunk of the fanbase considers her unsympathetic while the rest considers her sympathetic as she was intended to be, why can't we note that the former opinion exists? BB covers the tension b/w sides of a fandom and UU explains the reasoning behind one of those sides.

I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.

Here's a Wall of Text from YMMV.The Last Of Us.

• Unintentionally Unsympathetic: The climax of the story makes it clear that Joel is ultimately doing a bad thing by choosing to save Ellie from the Fireflies, thus robbing humanity of the vaccine needed to inoculate against the cordyceps. However, the Fireflies are (to put it bluntly) absolute morons and jerkasses of the highest order. Their first scene in Salt Lake City has them knock Joel unconscious while he was in the middle of resuscitating a nearly-drowned Ellie rather than assisting him or even just subduing them both after helping her to be revived. When they receive Ellie, they briefly run some tests on her and immediately move to dissecting her, which would both ruin the opportunity for further testing and is morally repugnant, since Ellie is in a coma from nearly drowning and thus has not voiced her opinion on the matter. The Fireflies also needlessly antagonize Joel during his captivity rather than praise him for his efforts in delivering Ellie to them, and seem like they're either about to execute him or throw him out onto the street after Marlene tells him about Ellie's planned dissection. They are then shocked when Joel starts his Roaring Rampage of Revenge and decimates a huge chunk of their forces, including killing their leader Marlene. Finally, how exactly the Fireflies will go about dispersing the vaccine is never outright stated, and considering their bad relationship with the military it's entirely possible that they will either hoard it for themselves or create even more infighting among humanity as everyone clambers to receive their inoculation. All in all, while Joel isn't completely good in this situation either, the audience is likely to end up rooting for him anyways since the Fireflies are so difficult to empathize with that the destruction of their plans seems like karma.

Dosen't this game mostly run on Grey-and-Grey Morality anyhow? I just recently beat the game and I don't think the Fireflies were nessisarily meant to be seen as "right" for what they did as described in the entry. In fact, they have Well-Intentioned Extremist on their trope page.

Edited by PlasmaPower on May 23rd 2021 at 8:18:06 AM

Thomas fans needed! Come join me in the the show's cleanup thread!

Here are a couple of articles I found on Marge and Lisa Simpson. Can anyone tell me it they left anything out? And how much do you agree?

Edited by BrianKT on May 23rd 2021 at 7:10:26 AM

Those two articles are from another website. Have either of them been cited as evidence for why Lisa and/or Marge is Unintentionally Sympathetic / Unintentionally Unsympathetic in certain episodes?

Yeah, I'm not clicking random links.

Current Project: The Team

Should I delete that The Last of Us entry?

Thomas fans needed! Come join me in the the show's cleanup thread!

I'd be fine deleting it as in addition to the arguments raised it seems like hate over The Last of Us Part II is retroactively spilling over to that faction. (Hence they're only complaining now.)

From YMMV.My Little Pony Friendship Is Magic S 5 E 26 The Cutie Remark Part 2:

• Base-Breaking Character: Most everything about Starlight Glimmer, including if her backstory is good or not and if she should have been redeemed or not. Some feel her Freudian Excuse works and justifies her actions and her Heel Realization works, others think her excuse isn't good enough and her redemption happened way too fast that it just didn't work. Another problem is the fact that she's the latest villain to get reformed - some feel that there needs to be one villain that gets to show up from time to time and not either get redeemed or killed.
• Broken Base: Another thing fans debate about Starlight was her refusal to accept that her actions would doom Equestria. Some fans feel this comes off as inconsistent since Starlight never intended to harm Equestria and makes her look even more unsympathetic for those who already didn't sympathize with her Freudian Excuse. Others think that it makes her Heel–Face Turn have more realism since Twilight had to actually try and convince Starlight to abandon her villainy instead of just believing Twilight on the spot.
• Unintentionally Unsympathetic: The critics of Starlight Glimmer's Heel–Face Turn found her Freudian Excuse to be too underwhelming to find her actions justified or sympathetic, as she created a cult that forced ponies to lose their Cutie Marks and almost unintentionally doomed Equestria over petty revengeon the Mane Six, all started because she lost her friend once he got his Cutie Mark. Even those who otherwise approved of it felt it only proved her villainy was fueled by utter selfishness, yet was still Easily Forgiven despite her crimes being among the worst of the villains in the entire series. Even until the end of the series, she is still the main representative of the show's Base Breaking Characters.

Starlight is UU series wide, but I question if she counts as UU here as: 1. This was before her planned before the controversy redemption arc in Season 6 (I not UU yet if they're planned to own up to karma later, the UU over criticism of said redemption fit better under the series wide-UU page). 2. This is redundant with Fan-Disliked Explanation. 3. the BB entries argue there's even split on the issue as opposed to widespread and I've seen UU/US entries cut if BB/BBC addresses the issue.

I still don't think Broken Base should nullify an UU / US entry. A Broken Base can also acknowledge a character fitting something like Evil Is Sexy.

Listing a trope on YMMV doesn't mean the entire fandom sees it that way — that's kind of the point. The Broken Base entry can summarize the basic disagreement between the fandom, while the UU or US entry can explain in depth why a certain portion of the fandom sees the character in that manner as opposed to the intended reading.

I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.

Understood. What about my other arguments (that this being before her planned redemption arc to potentially address those made it too soon to judge in this and redundancy with Fan-Disliked Explanation)?

Edited by Ferot_Dreadnaught on May 26th 2021 at 1:19:39 AM

I've come across a weird instance where we have US and UU listed for the same character, in this case, Courtney from Total Drama (That UU entry feels too long, pardon the wall of text):

Unintentionally Sympathetic:

• Courtney in both World Tour and All-Stars. For all the unpopularity she received for her raging against Gwen following her kiss with Duncan, there are still those who felt for her for having been betrayed by the two people closest to her at the time, and for when she openly cried after this discovery. Astoundingly enough, this also was for many the reaction towards her downfall in All-Stars, where some felt that her punishment exceeded what she deserved for her sudden Face–Heel Turn; the fact that it came on the cusp of a season-long arc that saw her briefly reconcile with Gwen and enter a new relationship with Scott incensed many among a thoroughly broken base.

Unintentionally Unsympathetic:

• Courtney again, for similar reasons as Unintentionally Sympathetic. While she is clearly the victim of Duncan's and Gwen's betrayal in World Tour, most definitely in-universe given Duncan and Gwen's 0% Approval Rating, some viewers find it hard to feel sorry for her, considering how emotionally abusive she's been to Duncan throughout their relationship and how hypocritical and haughty she has been to the other contestants in general. In the very same episode when she finds out Duncan cheated on her, beforehand she's discussing that if he changes her "little list" of 47 things about himself, then he will be perfect. What Duncan and Gwen did to her was undoubtedly wrong; that no one called her out on her emotional abuse of him and treated his infidelity as far worse (and blamed Gwen more than him) comes across as letting her off the hook for her emotional abuse. Worse still, when she sings "Boyfriend Kisser" she's hitting on Lindsay's boyfriend.

Courtney is a weird case here because I'm not 100% sure how sympathetic she's supposed to be, I think she's meant to be seen as someone who you pity, but you don't root for. I guess she can be both UU and US if she's a Jerkass Woobie who is seen as more Jerkass than Woobie and vice versa. At the very least the UU entry needs to be trimmed, I think we can also get rid of the stuff about the cheating in US because I'm pretty sure she's supposed to be sympathetic there.

Edited by RainbowPumpqueen on May 26th 2021 at 8:52:15 PM

Sandbox help wanted.

Courtney's abusive behavior towards Duncan was always Played for Laughs but she was never meant to be sympathetic over it. I'm pretty sure her "47 things to change about Duncan" list was meant to paint her as a bad girlfriend and make the audience sympathize more with Gwen. It's a bit complicated but I always interpreted the narrative as trying to make us side more with Gwen, who did something bad but deeply regretted it, while painting Courtney as stuck in a blind rage. They rectified this a bit in TDAS with Courtney and Gwen reconciling but then painted Courtney as a bad guy out of nowhere, as the entry mentions. So all in all, if I had to choose one, I'd say she's US (with Gwen being UU).

I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.

Here's a double entry on The Simpsons episode "You Only Movie Twice" that I have an issue with.

• Unintentionally Unsympathetic: The reason Marge is unhappy and wants to go back to Springfield? She's bored because there's nothing for her to do but drink a glass of wine a day. She could've done a million things: taken up painting again, get a job of her own, make new friends, anything... It's a problem that could easily be solved by actually leaving the house. ^note  Much of this owes to the fact that in an early draft, she was supposed to become The Alcoholic (an idea that remains in the final product but doesn't get carried through), but this was seen as too depressing.
  • While Bart and Lisa had genuine reasons to be unhappy ^note  The Book Dumb Bart is treated like he's mentally handicapped which makes him more miserable at school than ever. Lisa is so badly allergic to what seems to be everything in the forest that she loses her sense of smell and taste. they're still just running away from their problems without making any effort to fix them. If Bart's so upset about being in remedial class, he could have sought out tuition or actually studied to catch up to the rest of the class. Lisa could have asked a doctor if they could give her anything for her allergies, or at least stopped sniffing every flower she came across. Really they all come across as too lazy to try solving their own problems.

The editor seems to be saying that Marge, and by extension Bart and Lisa, are really only miserable at Cypress Creek because they choose to be, which is pretty pathetic if you ask me. Are they normally that lame? I certainly don't think so.

I'm not sure what your objection is, though, considering it's an Unintentionally Unsympathetic entry.

Those does seem to be legit claims since the their reason for being unhappy could be fix easily. Maybe Bart might be more difficult because we could go he a bad student because he is a delinquent but Bart gets a F does show he does struggle with studying.

I could see the Marge one, but the Bart and Lisa one reads as weird. As someone else said, it's already established that Bart isn't great at studying (I think he has an Ambiguous Disorder related to learning difficulties).

The Lisa entry seems even weirder to me. Allergies aren't always an easy fix and a child (even a smart one like Lisa) isn't guaranteed to be great at thinking logically when their senses are all messed up. Plus it's not like her family or the doctors are always great at solving problems like that.

I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.

I guess my only objection about Marge is that if she's choosing to be miserable, I just don't believe she, of all people, would be that pathetic.

Edited by BrianKT on Jun 3rd 2021 at 1:06:39 AM

I need to ask if this would fall into Unintentionally Unsympathetic or even Moral Event Horizon. Or maybe neither, but there's certainly an unintended audience reaction in play.

The game It Takes Two (2021) concerns two parents in the brink of divorce that get magically turned into living dolls. It is set in a Toy Time sort of setting where toys and other objects are alive. One of these toys includes "Cutie", an stuffed elephant with a childish mentality who loves hugs and making friends. Because Cutie is the daughter's (Rose) favorite toy, she's the "queen".

In what seems to be a botched attempt at Black Comedy or symbolism, the game quite literally forces you to Kill the Cutie. The parents turned into dolls when their daughter started crying, so they sort of assume that if they deliberately make her cry again they'll be back to normal. They decide that the best way to go about this is to murder Cutie. To this end, they sneak into her castle and quite literally drag her by the feet to hurl her down a table. While she's being dragged, Cutie is mutilated, one of her legs and an ear being ripped off, and she "bleeds" cotton. The toy pleads for her life during the entire sequence claiming that she "just wants to be friends" and she "loves Rose". While carrying out the act, the parents make pseudo-humorous comment to the tune of "I'm gonna need therapy after this!", but never actually hesitate or stop. After they throw her off the table (portrayed very much like a cliff here), Rose discovers her mangled toy and begins to cry. The parents happily walk up to her daughter and quite literally bathe in her tears while laughing. Ultimately, this does not actually make them human again, making the whole thing pointless. The scene can be seen here.

Per Word of God this was at least partially meant to be an Intended Audience Reaction showing that the parents are being selfish, and they later ostensibly receive Character Development. Thing is it's pretty hard to walk back on committing callous and drawn-out murder on a sentient being with the mentality of a child. Discourse around the Internet seems to be that a large chunk of the audience thinks the parents gleefully hopscotched across the line and are not truly redeemable, sympathetic or worth caring about.

These characters are already listed under Designated Hero for this, but I'm not sure if at least one of the above tropes above should also be applied to them.

Edited by WackyPancake on May 28th 2021 at 5:33:03 PM

"I like girls, but now, it's about justice."

It's not Moral Event Horizon if they're not meant to be seen as irredeemably amoral by the end of it, and I doubt it's Unintentionally Unsympathetic if the creator meant for them to look selfish. If people exaggerate that scene to make them out as callous murderers, it could be Never Live It Down.

Edited by mightymewtron on May 28th 2021 at 12:22:24 PM

I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.

Thing is the way people describe the scene really is not very exaggerated. It does play out very much like a callous murder of a completely innocent character.

I guess my question is if it's Unintentionally Unsympathetic if a creator attempted to make his characters come off as flawed, but seriously overdid it to the point they become repugnant and irredeemable in the eyes of many.

Edited by WackyPancake on May 29th 2021 at 8:06:52 PM

"I like girls, but now, it's about justice."