X Killer Cleanup

Parts copied from my ATT query about the subject.

Franchise Killer (which now has a 5-year waiting period,) Creator Killer, Genre-Killer, Star-Derailing Role, and Stillborn Franchise all suffer from quite a bit of misuse. Problems include:

Genre-Killer: definition of "genre" is often too narrow and borders on shoehorning at times, plus which work is the "killer" is often not defined (and scandals that are not a work are listed as "killers.")

Creator Killer: Non-work scandals that ended careers (Role-Ending Misdemeanor fits that better) and a stretched definition of "creator" to apply to shoehorned items and things not covered by TV Tropes.

Franchise Killer: Multiple "killers" listed despite the fact that the description says only one can be, and once again stretched definition of "franchise" to include shoehorns and things that are not franchises.

Stillborn Franchise: Attracts complaining and speculation about why works were cancelled.

Star-Derailing Role: Suspected of similar problems to Creator Killer.

Per this post, this thread has been approved and created to clean out bad examples, potentially so that we can eventually discuss adding a time limit to Creator Killer and Genre-Killer. If anyone finds bad or questionable examples on the three tropes, please bring them here and discuss.

EDIT: Different standards applied via TRS, had to change a bit

EDIT 2: Stillborn Franchise and Star-Derailing Role are now also being cleaned up

Edited by themayorofsimpleton on Feb 6th 2021 at 11:35:20 AM

I will start us off with this example from the Film section of Genre-Killer:

• The Cat in the Hat killed off Dr. Seuss' work being made into live-action films as his widow hated it so much, she stopped them from being made. Animated adaptations, while not great, have at least gotten better reception.

Is "live-action Dr. Seuss adaptations" really a genre? There have definitely been none since the Cat, but I don't think this example counts.

Negative. I don't remember Dr. Seuss Live-Action adaptations being a trend, nor a franchise.

Example has been removed.

How about this example?

• In general, traditional animated films were dead after a one-two punch in that number of years with the 2003 release of Finding Nemo and the 2004 release of Shrek 2 the former of which became the best-selling DVD of all time and the latter of which was critically acclaimed at release. After the release of those films, future animated films that were not CGI were based on TV shows such as The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie and Teacher's Pet. Disney would try again two more time to make animated films in a 2D style with 2009's The Princess and the Frog and 2011's Winnie the Pooh, but the poor critical reception of the former and the poor box office performance of the latter pretty much put the last nail in the coffin for traditionally animated films.

This one seems a bit odd. Traditionally animated films have been dead in mainstream theater for a while, but foreign and indie movies (e.g. The Secret of Kells, Song of the Sea, Persepolis, etc.) and adaptations of TV cartoons (e.g. The Sponge Bob Movie Sponge Out Of Water, Teen Titans Go! To the Movies, etc.) still tend to dabble in it. And I certainly don't think the releases of Finding Nemo and Shrek 2 killed it. I would argue if anything killed it, it was the death of the Disney Renaissance and multiple other 2D box-office failures in the early 2000s, meaning there would be no singular "Genre Killer" for 2D animation. And that's assuming you consider 2D animation a "genre" to begin with. What does everyone else think?

On a side note, The Princess and the Frog did not do badly with critics-85% on Rotten Tomatoes and Certified Fresh to boot, so at least that part is invalid.

From here: Should CreatorKiller.Sports be cut? I personally see no reason to keep it around as sports are not creative media works. I also cut CreatorKiller.Automobiles.

I don't know. It depends on if you consider sports to be a tropable work. Consensus from the link seems to generally say yes, and I would support a cut because I do not believe sports to be tropable as they are not a creative work, so I'm in favor. What does everyone else think?

Sports (as in the action on the field/pitch/court/etc.) are tropable in the same manner as anything else that happens in real life. Anything having to do with the production/broadcast of the event is a different story.

As this trope is impossible in real life and stretching "creator" to mean "sports team or athlete" is a bit far, I'd go with a cut. The existing off-field examples are better served in Role-Ending Misdemeanor anyway.

Ah OK. So it should be cut listed then?

Another questionable example from the main Genre-Killer page:

• Because of the negative reception of the epynomous show it attempted to bring into the U.S., the PBS Kids version of Caillou killed off framing devices to sandwich foreign shows together in order to make them more marketable to Americans, as no show of this sort as been attempted since.

"Framing devices to sandwich foreign shows together in order to make them more marketable to Americans" definitely does not sound like a genre. What does everyone else think?

Indeed, that's not a genre.

Alright, cutting

Here's another from Franchise Killer:

• The violence at Altamont killed not only Meredith Hunter but the whole idea of the "peace, love and music" late-'60s outdoor rock festival that Monterey had pioneered and Woodstock made legendary.

I don't think "the whole idea of the "peace, love and music" late-'60s outdoor rock festival" is a franchise. Permission to cut?

Edited by themayorofsimpleton on Sep 6th 2020 at 5:34:50 AM

I've cut the ocassional dooby examples from the X killer tropes but I haven't been as dilligent as I probably should have been; glad to see this thread.

I'm going to ask about this example from the Genre Killer video game subpage, since it seems a case of shoehorning, but not being a puzzle games fan, I'm not sure if it could be the scenario I am going to describe below:

Also I wonder if Genre-Killer should have a more detailed criteria in the description for what counts as "dead". There's a lot of iffy shoehorning, especially in the video game sections (ex: "Pokemon killed any chance of other mon-collecting series being as successful as it"). At the same time, it can't be too literal:

I'm going to cite the example of space combat video games, there was clear a pre-Freespace 2 and a post-Freespace 2 for its commercial health: post Freespace 2 there were much less games released, popular series stopped releasing new games, much less money was put in the ones that did get released etc. At the same time that doesn't mean there were literally no new space combat video games being made, but the popular perception was that space sims were "dead". I'm not sure what list of criteria I would propose.

The descripton for Genre-Killer actually says that they "often aren't permanent." Should a rule be imposed that says they should be?

As for the Planet Puzzle League example, not knowing a great deal about "puzzle games on mainstream consoles," that A. while puzzle games are indeed a genre, "puzzle games on mainstream consoles" is quite a bit of a stretch and B. the indie scene has put out quite a bit of puzzle games as I've learned through Google, some of which have ended up on consoles, so this "genre" isn't really dead. Hell, I'm pretty sure the Captain Toad game on the Switch has puzzle elements, and that one was made by Nintendo. So I am inclined to believe the example is invalid.

Also, I feel that space combat video games could count. It definitely seems like more of a genre than some of the other examples from the page like the now-removed "Dr. Seuss live-action adaptations."

EDIT: Upon further inspection, the example actually contradicts itself. "Puzzle games on mainstream consoles are dead" "The only holdouts are indie games/juggernauts" The two are contradictions, since the entry is stating that they are dead, followed by listing still-alive examples. I now strongly do not feel the example counts.

Edited by themayorofsimpleton on Sep 6th 2020 at 7:28:58 AM

Also, sorry to bombard people with examples, but this Genre-Killer one is just flat out wrong:

• While aggressively politically incorrect animated shows for adults were already starting to wane in popularity by the early 2010s due to the critical and commercial success of less lowbrow animated series like Archer and eventually Bob's Burgers, the notoriously negative reputation of Brickleberry pretty much killed the trend entirely, resulting in the rise of more nuanced adult animation like Bojack Horseman and Rick and Morty.

Big Mouth, a show that could fit the bill for "aggressively politically-incorrect cartoon," has been renewed for a sixth season. A show called Hoops just premiered that seems to fit the bill for the definition. There are definitely still South Park-esque adult cartoons.

As a believer of the idea that nothing is ever *truly* out of style forever, I wouldn't go that far but I think there should be some "Wait X years" clause like Franchise Killer currently does, because high-profile flops often lead to hysterical and hyperbolic entries on the __ Killer page. I remember removing an entry that made the insane claim that Pixels (the Adam Sandler movie) "killed Summer Blockbusters". Or that the Playstation Mini "killed microconsoles" even though Sega, Capcom, etc. would announce and release their own mini console after the PS 1 Mini came and went. Basically anything to prevent hasty entries.

Sorry if I was not clear: What I was saying is that I feel space combat video games are a valid thing to put on the page, but that if we decide to add more precise criterias for what count as a "dead genre" and that those were too strict, someone could argue "but oh they were still some licensed games like Star Wars Starfighter that sold some copies, and there were still other space combat games like the X series getting released so clearly the genre doesn't fit the page" while ignoring the clear (and objectively measurable) decline in commercial success and money invested in that type of video game.

Ah, I see. I agree, I think a discussion may need to be had about what qualifies for the Killer tropes.

Also, I had actually suggested that there be a time limit for Genre-Killer and Creator Killer in the NREP thread and as the linked comment shows, it was agreed upon that examples should be cleaned first and a waiting period imposed after based on how bad the misuse was/is.

EDIT: Thank you for editing the Video Games page to remove misuse. How were "cartridges on consoles" even a genre?

Edited by themayorofsimpleton on Sep 7th 2020 at 7:14:39 AM

Found in the Music subpage of Creator Killer:

• Milli Vanilli's career came crashing to the ground in 1990 when it was revealed that the faces of the band were not only lip-syncing during live shows, but had never recorded the vocals on the album at all, the songs having actually been sung by other artists in the studio (who, after the controversy, recorded an album of their own as The Real Milli Vanilli). This was enough for the duo to have their Grammy for Best New Artist revoked, and more broadly, the affair triggered a strong backlash against dance-pop that lasted well into The '90s and fueled the growth of adult alternative during that decade.

While Milli Vanilli are one of the most famous cases of a career downfall in musical history, I have a few issues. First off, this would fit better under Role-Ending Misdemeanor, since Milli Vanilli's career did not die with the failure of an album, but rather a massive scandal. Second, did their downfall really "trigger a strong backlash against dance-pop" in The '90s? Weren't Nirvana the real killers of that whole genre?

If anyone has second thoughts about this entry, let me know.

Bumping a little bit to see if others can help with the cleanup.

On the Film subpage of Franchise Killer, I found another potentially shoehorn-y example:

• The critical and financial failure of Doug's 1st Movie led to the abandonment of whatever hopes Disney had for any more films based on the Doug series; the film had been crafted as a direct response to the success of The Rugrats Movie by Nickelodeon, with the latter performing much better. For most, it felt more like an extended episode better suited for a Direct-to-DVD release.

Doug is a franchise. I don't think "movies based on Doug" are a franchise by themselves. This example might potentially fit on Stillborn Franchise though if "Doug movies" are considered a franchise. Any second thoughts?

According to the other wiki, the movie came out in March 1999, after which ABC aired the TV episodes they had left in the can, with the final episode airing on June 26, 1999, and then failed to renew it.

After that, new releases in the franchise were limited to a Walt Disney World stage show that ran until 2001, and a Gameboy Color game released in 2000.

So the movie roughly coincided with the effective end of the franchise, but I think you'd have a harder time arguing that it actually killed the franchise. As I recall, the three ABC seasons of the show (marketed as "Disney's Doug") were already considered a step down in quality; I doubt the movie "killed" the franchise so much as "failed to resuscitate an already-dying" franchise.

That said, the title— Doug's First Movie (emphasis mine)— certainly implies that someone at Disney thought there was sequel potential at the time it came out, and that the reception was such that no sequels were forthcoming. So maybe?

Edited by HighCrate on Sep 9th 2020 at 3:16:22 AM

I'm just gonna cut. In my opinion, if X is a franchise, movies based on X aren't an individual franchise just by themselves, they're just movies based on X. The Rugrats movies aren't themselves a franchise, they are part of a larger Rugrats franchise. Doug's 1st Movie isn't itself a franchise, it's a movie based on the Doug franchise. Is that alright?

That would be a rather large departure from the way Franchise Killer has defined "franchise" up to this point; even the trope image is Superman movies, not all Superman things everywhere.

Colloquially, you often hear people talk about "the [blank] film franchise."

As far as Doug goes, though, a single film doesn't a franchise make, so defined that way it would be Stillborn Franchise if it's anything.

Edited by HighCrate on Sep 9th 2020 at 5:18:33 AM

Alright then, I'll go with your explanation. I will see if it is on Stillborn Franchise.

EDIT: It is not. If it stayed as is, would I be able to move it?

Edited by themayorofsimpleton on Sep 9th 2020 at 10:20:19 AM

Alright I was thinking it over and I realized that the description of Genre-Killer does not actually describe what constitutes a "genre." Perhaps some of the misuse could be coming from there.

In that case, what should be done next?