The criteria for Unintentionally Unsympathetic says:
"When a character's supposed insecurities or embarrassing quirks are supposed to inspire sympathy, but fail to impress the audience because they're mishandled or plain written badly. It can be made even worse if they have to learn a lesson. Without being at least somewhat invested in the characters, the audience might have passed the point of caring when the character finally comes around."
This is the basic criteria of the trope. There is more after but I am not sure what was present from the start and what was edited in afterwords to expand the definition. This trope is becoming more popular, with the page starting to be split-off into sub pages and such. And like all popular YMMV tropes this is causing an influx of bad examples that are probably just one-sided complaining, shoehorning, and bashing which is not in the spirit of this wiki. You can see this is causing issues just by looking at the pages discussion thread. I felt that the trope needed a dedicated cleanup thread. This way edits can be done without causing edit wars and getting people banned.
Some guidelines if a character or event is Unintentionally Unsympathetic.
1. It has to be unintentional on the authors part. It is in the title. All examples that were intentional on the author's part are disqualified by definition.
2. The example should state exactly why the author or narrative intended the subject to have been sympathetic and why it failed to resonate with the audience. If the example can not clearly state these two points, it is a bad example and needs to at minimum be rewritten.
3. Neutral tone: No insults. I know it is fun to complain about stuff but complaining is not in the spirit of the wiki. So long as one side isn't promoting hate speech examples should be written without taking a side. Examples that are heavily favoring one side or insulting the other side are probably not valid examples.
4. There should be a wide accepted disagreement between the audience and the author to be a valid example. By that I mean that there should be large consensus in the audience disagreeing with the author over why the character is unsympathetic instead of sympathetic. If the audience is too divided and one section thinks agrees with the author and the other doesn't, the example could be a pet peeve of a single person, which isn’t noteworthy.
Lastly, always consider Square Peg, Round Trope and be mindful if the example may fit better under a different trope such as Base-Breaking Character, Broken Base, and The Scrappy. Please visit other cleanup threads if you have questions about tropes that do not involve Unintentionally Unsympathetic.
Feel free to help if you spot some bad examples or can point out more rules for the trope. Or argue with me over the definitions, this is a cleanup thread after all.
MOD NOTICE: As of October 26, 2022, this thread now covers Unintentionally Sympathetic as well.
Edited by GastonRabbit on Oct 26th 2022 at 8:15:48 AM
Came across this on YMMV.According To Jim
- Unintentionally Unsympathetic: The show's tone is built around Jim's stance that he shouldn't apologize or be seen as in the wrong for "just being a man." To this end, Jim often acts like an unabashed jerk who is shamelessly mean spirited and self righteous in his actions, regularly lying and manipulating Cheryl and constantly treating Andy like dirt. Despite this, the show will never fully call him out on his actions and will almost always ensure that he is painted at least partially morally right in all conflicts.
He's not "painted at least partially morally right in all conflicts," he's frequently shown as wrong and his actions depicted as petty. There's plenty of episodes where he loses the conflict or gets outsmarted and he gets called out all the time, and part of the humour is how ridiculous his attitude is.
YMMV.Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 2003
- Unintentionally Sympathetic: Stockman's constant mutilations by the Shredder. Granted he's an amoral Mad Scientist who clearly would cut open the Turtles if given the chance, but Shredder himself is so, so much worse, and it's hard to see Stockman's punishments as anything else than an act of needless, abominable cruelty by a truly horrific villain.
- Unintentionally Unsympathetic: As always, Michelangelo is the silly, lovable Plucky Comic Relief, but as his warm, emotional side is far less prominent in this incarnation than in most others, some fans have complained that his Innocently Insensitive moments, while played for laughs, get too frequent, and that he comes across as a bit of a douche because of it. This criticism is not as pronounced as what eventually befell his 2012 counterpart, however.
Baxter Stockman literally has Ineffectual Sympathetic Villain on his character sheet. The point of Baxter's punishments were to show that the Shredder is cruel, like the entry says. And that chained sinkhole describing the Shredder is ugh.
Mikey's entry here seems kind of sus, given the Weasel Words here. He's often reprimanded for all the stupid things he says, so I don't think he counts.
Edited by PlasmaPower on Nov 22nd 2021 at 9:23:21 AM
Thomas fans needed! Come join me in the the show's cleanup thread!
From 'Ell's 'eart Oi stab at ye!
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
& Yeah I think you can both delete those entries.
This is from A Song of Ice and Fire:
- Unintentionally Sympathetic: Littlefinger pushing Lysa Tully out of the moon door is very easy to interpret as Rape and Revenge once you know how the latter essentially forced herself on the former while he was delirious. However, given that Petyr is a man, combined with multiple other instances of the author considering what are pretty clearly rape scenes as consensual (Jaime and Cersei in the Sept, Dany and Drogo's entire relationship), it's likely GRRM intended Littlefinger's killing to be seen as a Kick the Dog moment rather than justified revenge.
The thing is, this isn't an example of a character who was meant to be unsympathetic coming off as sympathetic. This is a character coming off as sympathetic, but it isn't clear what the authorial intent was.
Showtime!
In order to be Unintentionally Sympathetic, a character has to be widely perceived as such by the fandom, and the vast majority of even the asoiaf fandom don't perceive the man who sold an 11-year-old into sexual slavery and is actively emotionally and sexually grooming a thirteen year old as tragic and sympathetic
That entry comes off as Draco in Leather Pants, downplaying or ignoring his villainous actions to make him seem more sympathetic.
Showtime!
Yeah, I'm inclined to agree. I think that's a problem with the Unintentionally Unsympathetic / Unintentionally Sympathetic and Ron the Death Eater / Draco in Leather Pants reactions, in that they're very much the same things but one implies the writer is on and one implies the fandom is wrong.
But the entry wasn't talking about the character as a whole. It's talking about one specific scene and I've seen a lot of people in the fandom think he was justified in that scene. The issue is, it's not clear if that was intentional or not.
Industrious Incisors
- Unintentionally Unsympathetic: People are supposed to feel bad for Phineas when he's understandably angry at Perry for keeping his identity a secret, but he comes off as an ungrateful Jerkass who cruelly disowns Perry by kicking him out into the cruel, cold world and entering the house like nothing happened.
Can I remove this from YMMV.Phineas And Ferb The Movie Across The2nd Dimension? There's definitely Ron the Death Eater in the mind of the troper who wrote that, as the only scene I could think they're talking about had Perry exit the building they're in first, and Phineas calling him out on still trying to keep secrets.
SoundCloud
Angry babby
I haven't seen the movie in ages, but I do think Perry indeed leaves in shame himself. Phineas has the right to feel hurt in that movie and I don't recall him acting overly cruel. Mission Marvel, on the other hand...
Big Catch, Sparkle Edition
I remember feeling bad for Perry, and I remember being pretty frustrated with Phineas for not actually listening to Perry's attempts to explain (via the pamphlet, since he couldn't exactly talk to him), but Perry did indeed leave on his own and Phineas wasn't overly cruel.
Current Project: Incorruptible Pure Pureness
Industrious Incisors
Removed, citing this thread
SoundCloud
I have just recently found this entry on A Loud House Christmas
- Unintentionally Unsympathetic: Lincoln. While it is understandable that he wants his whole family to be together on Christmas Day, especially considering that he saved up all year for a sled big enough for all of them to ride in, the lengths he goes to sabotaging his family's plansnote make it very hard to root for him. Even when he tries to make things right by bringing the Sharkodile prop to the Royal Woods Mall to explain the hoax, he still causes thousands of dollars' worth of property damage in the process. While it’s said in the end to have to perform 300 hours of community service to pay it off, he’s still otherwise Easily Forgiven and gets his way despite all he's done.
The entry seems to say that Lincoln had no excuse for his actions, but these entries:
- Bittersweet Ending: Lincoln receives the proper punishment for ruining everyone's plans by having 300 hours of community service, Lori has to go back to college, and the rest of the family is going to Miami after all. But Lincoln's not upset about it, as at least the family got to spend time together and it's possible they'll make new traditions as well.
- My God, What Have I Done?: Lincoln, after realizing that his efforts to bring his family together have made them depressed.
- Well-Intentioned Extremist: Lincoln goes through extreme measures to keep his family together for Christmas.
They seem to indicate that the aforementioned Unintentionally Unsympathetic entry was not really unintentional, and that Lincoln did indeed receive some form of punishment.
I’ve seen some Unintentionally Sympathetic entries on normally good characters before, but this really feels like Double Standard to me.
Edited by BrianKT on Dec 7th 2021 at 6:04:38 AM
I'd cut it. One of the arguments is he causes "thousands of dollars of property damage" and then has to do three hundred hours of community service.
That is very much the opposite of Easily Forgiven.
Plus the entry itself says his motivations were understandable.
Goku Black
Like what more do they want. Actual prison time as that's rather harsh for a kid.
"That's right mortal. By channeling my divine rage into power, I have forged a new instrument in which to destroy you."
From 'Ell's 'eart Oi stab at ye!
Yeah and while I guess it's possible for some people to think the kid's actions cross a line they can't forgive even with remorse & community service, it would have to be a commonly-voiced sentiment to qualify for an entry.
Coffeenix! (She/Her)
Hi all. I watched some more Gumball episodes yesterday, one of them being "The Parents". The plot of the episode is that Nicole encounters her parents after decades of them never speaking to each other. To make a long story short, both sides are presented as being in the wrong. Daniel and Mary are portrayed as giving Nicole every chance to succeed, but going overboard with their impossibly high standards. Nicole is portrayed as being justifiably stressed because of said standards, but in the wrong for resenting her parents because of them, because it was really just Tough Love or whatever.
The reason I'm bringing this up is because I have a question, if both sides are portrayed as being in the wrong, can they still qualify as Unintentionally Sympathetic/Unintentionally Unsympathetic if one side still comes off as more justified than the other?
Sandbox help wanted.
- Author's Saving Throw: Part of the reason Cortana's Face–Heel Turn in Halo 5: Guardians was so disputed is that it undid the emotional impact of her death in Halo 4. In this game, Cortana is given another chance to perform a Heroic Sacrifice by destroying part of Installation 07 to prevent the Banished from using it to their own ends, earning her a Dying as Yourself moment with the Chief.
- Unintentionally Unsympathetic: Despite Cortana having a reckoning with her actions and performing a Heroic Sacrifice, it ultimately all rings hollow as she's previously acted as a megalomaniacal A.I supremacist who killed an untold number of innocent people and sent whole planets back into the Stone Age in an imperialistic attempt to enforce peace on the galaxy while imprisoning Blue Team in a Cryptum for ten millennia after John refuses to toe the line with her agenda… all without batting an eye. The scene where Cortana spitefully uses the Guardians to commit genocide against the Jiralhanae on Doisac after Atroix refuses to submit to her (those Brutes having apparently done nothing to invoke her ire at all or even been planning against her) made many fans view her as undeserving of redemption after everything she's done and feel that her following Heel Realization was far too little, too late. In general, her apology seems like she is not upset about her actions themselves, but because of having no partners with her or about some of the consequences. The actual genocidal actions do not matter much to her as far as we are shown.
Besides the entries seeming to conflict, I believe UU doesn't apply to too much which is too subjective (and given they sacrificed their lives they did everything possible to atone), but for objectively different reasons than acknowledged by the work. The last part of UU was recently added explain that. Is this a widespread enough to count (there is a lot of valid but unrelated salt over her Face–Heel Turn in the first place that could be influencing this)? Should it be reworked to emphasized she's UU due to seemingly only regretting the consequences as opposed to her evildoing?
Angry babby
So a while ago, the now-banned High Crate cut all the Unintentionally Unsympathetic entries on BoJack Horseman, mostly on the basis of the show's grey morality, but I don't think that was entirely warranted. Namely, there's an entry for Todd that I think should be re-added.
There's a story arc where BoJack and Todd's ex-girlfriend (as in, he hasn't dated her in almost a decade since they were teens) Emily hook up and don't want to tell Todd. When Todd learns out, he flips out at BoJack. This moment paints Todd in the right, giving an incredibly poignant speech about why BoJack needs to be a better person.
However, many fans (especially on the show's subreddit) don't think Todd's reaction was warranted, because he wasn't dating Emily at the time, they'd only just reconnected, and the encounter with BoJack was entirely consensual and fine. Todd also learns he's asexual shortly after this and would never have been able to give Todd the sexual relationship she wanted. So a lot of people find Todd to be weirdly possessive of Emily in this moment even though he's reasonably not entitled to know everything about her sex life.
I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.
I agree with that. The action from Bojack is supposed to be a last straw moment for him. Even though Bojack did way worst in sabotaging his musical.
In The Great, I was wondering about this entry:
Unintentionally Unsympathetic: Catherine for some viewers, especially if you have some knowledge about history and are aware of her less admirable sides such as reinstating serfdom
The reason I'm unsure is the show isn't exactly based on real history.
I cut up one dozen new men and you will die somewhat, again and again.
Goku Black
Isn't this series like really loosely based on reality? Like really loose. If its not mentioned (as in probably doesn't happen in the show) just cut it? Listing actual historical misdeeds for figures in fiction that also didnt even happen in the work for this trope also feels like crossing the line into real life examples anyway.
Its a ZCE anyway as it doesn't really explain what's supposed to be unintentional.
"That's right mortal. By channeling my divine rage into power, I have forged a new instrument in which to destroy you."
Got it, thank you for validation.
I cut up one dozen new men and you will die somewhat, again and again.
x6 Thoughts about the Halo entry? It has since added different than intended reasons they're unsympathetic such I'll just rework the entry unless I hear anything.
Also, bottompost.
More a formality me bringing this up, but on the JoJo's Bizarre Adventure: Diamond is Unbreakable, this Unintentionally Sympathetic entry should be listed as Karmic Overkill instead right?
- Terunosuke Miyamoto, the eponymous Enigma Boy of his arc, was a frightening piece of work and bastard, few would argue, but a lot of people feel like his fate of being permanently fused with a book, implied to still be alive was several steps too harsh for someone who claimed to have just gone overboard with his new stand ability.
There's also this one on Part 5's page, which is a bit more questionable.- Unintentionally Sympathetic: Illuso. While he's seen as one of the more ruthless and unpleasant members of La Squadra, a lot of fans thought that his gruesome and horrifying death at the hands of Purple Haze was undeserved since he's nowhere as nasty as Hate Sinks like Cioccolata or Diavolo. That said, readers of Purple Haze Feedback may think otherwise due to his characterization of being a serial killer who was responsible for the murder of Sheila E.'s sister.
This would be more appropriate as a Karmic Overkill entry, but would it even be that? Unlike with Miyamoto and Diavolo, who were deliberately given needlessly cruel fates, Giorno and Fugo killing Illuso with Purple Haze was really the only way they could've beat him. I’m gonna put some Gloom in your eye.