TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Overshadowed By Controversy Cleanup

Go To

Overshadowed by Controversy has several examples, particularly under the Fan Works, Webcomics, and Web Original folders, that don't fit the trope as described. The controversy is supposed to overshadow the work, so if it doesn't do that it shouldn't count as a valid example.

The media folders, such as Anime or Western Animation, could also use a look, as some entries deal with shows, while others deal with actors, fans, or creators. Additionally, some of the entries are not controversial anymore or are not known enough to overshadow the show completely, and others seem closer to Never Live It Down.

Some examples even point out that the controversy was debunked or died down eventually, which doesn't fit the trope, as well as examples saying things like "time will tell if [x] can recover." I originally tried the Real-Life cleanup section, and then a TRS thread, but I hope this is the right section to help us clean up this trope's examples. ^^

MOD NOTE: For something to be overshadowed by controversy; it has to have a significant, arguably overwhelming impact on that work/creator/thing that’s provable by pointing to actual evidence beyond social media likes or a news report. The controversy has to be bigger than the thing for it to overshadow the thing.

For a work, did it bomb directly due to the controversy? Was it pulled from shelves or streaming services? Nothing like this? Then it most likely doesn’t count.

For a creator, did they lose their job/get banned or lose all of their sponsorships or are unable to get any work directly due to the controversy? Did they at least retire directly because of the controversy? Nothing like this? Then it most likely doesn’t count.

Valid examples would be people like Gina Carano or Louie CK. As they were both fired and black listed for their controversies. Or Johnny Depp and Amber Heard are now more known for those controversies than their actual careers. Clearly being overshadowed by it.

If only chronically online people like us are going to be aware of something, it definitely doesn’t count. The controversy has to be so big that even people who are rarely online or know very little about something, would still have heard of the controversy.

Edited by kory on Oct 4th 2025 at 10:21:54 AM

MisterApes-a-lot Since: Mar, 2018
#2026: Aug 19th 2021 at 8:51:15 PM

This entry on Super Size Me has three different "controversies" listed:

  • Overshadowed by Controversy:
    • The film was responsible for leading McDonald's to drop their Super Size option from the menu on account of the health issues suffered by Spurlock in the movie.
    • Discussion of the film will often feature debates over the veracity of the experiment, with factors such as Spurlock being vegan prior to the film's beginning making the results worse than they'd be for a normal fast food eater, or whether his decades-long struggle with alcoholism had anything to do with the liver problems he alleges the diet caused him.
    • The film got this around the time the Weinstein Effect emerged in 2017 due to Morgan Spurlock confessing to sexual misconduct, which put it in the spotlight again for completely different reasons. This also resulted in a sequel to the film being dropped from its original distributor (YouTube Red, though in the end one of the original films distributors, Samuel Goldwyn Films, ended up picking it up instead.)

The first bullet seems more like a controversy for McDonald's than the movie. And I'm not entirely sure the second bullet counts as a controversy, rather more of a refutation of the message and its methods.

Thoughts?

ImperialMajestyXO Since: Nov, 2015
#2027: Aug 19th 2021 at 8:53:30 PM

[up] The third one might be a valid example if applied solely to the sequel.

WarJay77 It's NaNo, Bay-beeee! (8,356/50,000) from My Writing Cave (Troper Knight) Relationship Status: Armed with the Power of Love
It's NaNo, Bay-beeee! (8,356/50,000)
#2028: Aug 19th 2021 at 8:53:30 PM

I think only the third bullet counts.

Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper Wall
mightymewtron Word Up from New New York Since: Oct, 2012 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
Word Up
#2029: Aug 19th 2021 at 9:15:14 PM

This might be a case where film just is controversial, but every discussion does call into question the methods, so that could be called a controversy.

The third one is valid. (I misread it at first and thought the sequel was cancelled though.)

Edited by mightymewtron on Aug 19th 2021 at 12:15:56 PM

I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.
MisterApes-a-lot Since: Mar, 2018
#2030: Aug 20th 2021 at 9:39:17 AM

So should we just cut the first two bullets, then?

bowserbros No longer active. from Elsewhere Since: May, 2014
No longer active.
#2031: Aug 20th 2021 at 11:56:22 AM

[up]The first one you can cut. The second I did hear thrown around a lot before Spurlock's past came to light, so I'm in favor of keeping it. The third one can maybe be kept, though it seems to affect Spurlock as a whole rather than specifically the film (even if it did have a knock-on effect on the latter's distribution).

Edited by bowserbros on Aug 20th 2021 at 11:56:59 AM

Be kind.
ImperialMajestyXO Since: Nov, 2015
#2032: Aug 20th 2021 at 12:00:15 PM

[up] I think the fact that the third bullet point affected the sequel's release gives it a bit more validity as it pertains to the sequel.

Edited by ImperialMajestyXO on Aug 20th 2021 at 12:01:11 PM

AlleyOop Since: Oct, 2010
#2033: Aug 20th 2021 at 12:03:05 PM

Agreed. The first one has more to do with McDonalds and besides, I've not heard much about that in connection with this movie. The second has significantly tainted discussions of the movie to the point that whenever it comes up to the point that it's all many know about the film these days. I'm not sure about the third one, but the fact that it got to the point that it outright affected the work's distribution has me leaning towards keeping it somewhere, if not here.

LinkMarioSamus Since: Aug, 2021
#2034: Aug 21st 2021 at 3:50:18 AM

Would Scarlett Johansson really count as OBC? She's probably still better known in general for her movie roles (at least Black Widow) than she is for controversies surrounding people of different races or sexual orientations. Who even remembers Rub & Tug?

I have three suggestions for OBC, just to ask if they could be examples:

-When Cast Away came out, reviews would often mention how the ending was spoiled by the trailer, and this is still sometimes brought up e.g. Cinema Sins.

-Temple of Doom due to its role in the creation of the PG-13 rating and its hilariously outdated portrayal of India (that being said, as someone of Indian decent personally, I feel like the movie is too weird to be racist. Plus the first movie starts with Hollywood natives, so...)

-Kingdom of the Crystal Skull for the Nuke the Fridge scene and the aliens twist ending, though that might fit better under Never Live It Down

magnumtropus Since: Aug, 2020
#2035: Aug 21st 2021 at 5:08:41 AM

Scarlett Johansson is still known for her roles first. Her controversies are incidental. No way is she OBC

For Cast Away, not a controversy, and not the movies fault.

Temple of Doom is definitely controversial for its portrayal of India, but its role in the formation of the PG-13 rating doesn't sound like a controversy

Edited by magnumtropus on Aug 21st 2021 at 4:30:51 PM

LinkMarioSamus Since: Aug, 2021
#2036: Aug 21st 2021 at 5:23:13 AM

I mostly just brought up Temple of Doom because the movie carries a reputation for being gruesome even though it arguably isn't much worse in that department than its predecessor. And Cast Away is often cited as a big example of a movie whose ending was spoiled by the trailer. Ebert & Roeper discussed this at the time and Cinema Sins brought it up years later. Not saying these necessarily should be considered OBC, just making a case.

Would Terminator: Dark Fate count for its infamous Downer Opening?

magnumtropus Since: Aug, 2020
#2037: Aug 21st 2021 at 5:31:48 AM

Maybe - It is controversial (Dark Fate's opening scene that is)

Edited by magnumtropus on Aug 21st 2021 at 4:32:27 PM

mightymewtron Word Up from New New York Since: Oct, 2012 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
Word Up
#2038: Aug 21st 2021 at 8:43:23 AM

I don't think anything in the original few Indiana Jones movies is OBC — I know it mostly through parodies, not racism controversies.

Edited by mightymewtron on Aug 21st 2021 at 11:43:39 AM

I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.
magnumtropus Since: Aug, 2020
#2039: Aug 21st 2021 at 8:47:05 AM

Temple of Doom is controversial in India. It was banned there for its portrayal of Hinduism.

And it's just the second film that is controversial. 1 and 3 are cool, as is 4.

Edited by magnumtropus on Aug 21st 2021 at 7:55:37 PM

bowserbros No longer active. from Elsewhere Since: May, 2014
No longer active.
#2040: Aug 21st 2021 at 10:01:35 AM

From the sound of it, Temple of Doom seems to be in a similar situation as Clone High, but with the key difference of the controversy not being as visible in the Anglosphere (whereas with Clone High the protests in India are very frequently brought up thanks to them being cited as a factor in the show's cancellation). I think I've heard mentions of the film's controversial reception in India before, but most discussions I've seen rarely (if ever) bring it up, even when talking about the Orientalist elements.

Edited by bowserbros on Aug 21st 2021 at 10:02:27 AM

Be kind.
LinkMarioSamus Since: Aug, 2021
#2041: Aug 21st 2021 at 10:32:05 AM

I was more just asking for clarification on whether or not it would count as OBC more than anything.

ooh Since: Jul, 2012
#2042: Aug 22nd 2021 at 8:31:46 AM

Post deleted

Edited by ooh on Aug 22nd 2021 at 8:32:16 AM

bowserbros No longer active. from Elsewhere Since: May, 2014
No longer active.
#2043: Aug 22nd 2021 at 10:22:55 AM

[up][up]I haven't really seen any firsthand evidence to say that that's the case among the majority of audiences, though I might just be out of the loop.

Be kind.
LinkMarioSamus Since: Aug, 2021
#2044: Aug 22nd 2021 at 10:48:06 AM

I deleted Scarlett Johansson from OBC.

RustBeard Since: Sep, 2016
#2045: Aug 27th 2021 at 10:21:37 PM

I found this on Power Rangers Operation Overdrive:

  • Overshadowed by Controversy: In 2007, Will's actor, Samuell Benta, stole a banner from the first Power Morphicon, and later smugly stated that he had no intention of giving it back. Said banner was supposed to have been auctioned off to a charity for sick and dying children. Again, this happened in 2007, and it hasn't shown any indication of dying down in the fandom since then, and probably never will, either (understandably and rightfully so, it must be said — people, stealing from an organization intended to help sick kids is a very shitty thing to do). This was evidenced when he claimed he was invited back for Super Megaforce — fans were absolutely outraged, and all of a sudden everything erupted again.
    • This is not helped at all by the fact that Benta has never acknowledged the incident since it happened, despite occurring over a decade ago. He has never publicly apologized nor given his side of the story, and shuts out fans who ask him about it directly. This means that even if he does happen to feel bad about what he did, he doesn't understand and/or care about the weight of his actions. General fan consensus is that unless he apologizes for what he did and shows he has learned his lesson, he will never be forgiven under any circumstances.
    • In a pleasantly unexpected and bold move, however, Benta finally broke his silence in a video he posted on February 26, 2020. According to him, the banner did go missing, but as it turns out, he himself was not actually responsible for its disappearance. After Benta went around to get the cast to sign the banner, he went to a "green room" where he saw several fans and castmates, intending to have drinks with them. He set the banner down on a table, and when he went to retrieve it, it was gone. He stated that he truly did not know what happened to it, but speculated that a fan or crew member may have run off with it, although he still admitted responsibility for losing it. He then went on to apologize to the fans for what happened, stating that the reason he stayed silent for so many years was because the belief that he had stolen from sick children had been spread around so much that he was genuinely hurt by how much the fandom hated him, and he had no idea how to approach the situation aside from being silent. He then goes on to assure the fans that he was genuinely grateful for being a part of the series, and that he was disappointed about being banned from conventions. Although a lot of people are skeptical about his claims, most fans agree that him speaking up was at least a step in the right direction, even if they haven't fully forgiven him.
      • That being said, the overwhelming majority of people still believe Benta has not yet paid his dues in full. Since he lost the banner according to his story, he's still responsible for the money being lost from the charity regardless of whether he stole it or not. Also, though he expresses remorse, his apology isn't direct and he still comes off as though he's making it all about himself. He also has not given back to Make-A-Wish, which most fans still agree is the biggest step he can take. As of right now, the authenticity of his story is still being debated.

This is very nattery and even contradicts itself. The first few entries act as if it were proven that Benta stole the poster, while the later entries act as if it's not clear what happened to the poster.

Siegfried1337 Calabash. from The Eastern Luminant Since: Sep, 2018 Relationship Status: Will you go out with me to the End?
magnumtropus Since: Aug, 2020
#2047: Aug 28th 2021 at 12:54:58 AM

Maybe it can stay if the Banner Incident is all people know about him. At the very least it is Never Live It Down, and the entry can be shortened.

ryanasaurus0077 Since: Jul, 2009
#2048: Aug 28th 2021 at 12:59:15 AM

Here's an article about the BBFC director who hated nunchucks. This could be the source for plenty of text writing for OBC, particularly for James Ferman himself.

bowserbros No longer active. from Elsewhere Since: May, 2014
No longer active.
#2049: Aug 28th 2021 at 9:34:28 AM

[up]Honestly the most I hear about TMNT's UK censorship revolves entirely around the title change, not the nunchucks. Then again, maybe it's just a Britain-specific thing that I wouldn't get as an American; any thoughts from other UK users here?

Be kind.
mightymewtron Word Up from New New York Since: Oct, 2012 Relationship Status: THIS CONCEPT OF 'WUV' CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!
Word Up
#2050: Aug 28th 2021 at 9:52:59 AM

[up][up][up] Never Live It Down for real life incidents has a 25 year waiting period.

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

Total posts: 6,229
Top