Cleaning Up Needless References To Reviewers

YMMV.Robo Cop 2014

• Surprisingly Improved Sequel:
  • Doug Walker also gave the film credit for reuniting Alex Murphy with his family and exploring what life may be like with a cyborg father, a plot point that got dropped abruptly in RoboCop 2. On this note, Murphy's family even factors into the finale and are there to help Alex find the strength to overrule his computer components and end the showdown with Raymond Sellars.
• They Wasted a Perfectly Good Plot: In his review, Doug Walker felt that the movie missed the opportunity to satirize modern development such as social media by limiting itself to only parody a single Strawman News Media program with Pat Novak rather than showing more points of view reacting at the events happening around Murphy and OmniCorp and thus taking the movie on different directions with the world-building, instead of coming off as being less satirical to the modern era than the original film was towards the '80s.

I don’t think the first example counts anyway, as it’s a remake, not a sequel.

Should this example on YMMV.Sucker Punch be kept if it seems to only be describing one person's opinion?

• Critical Backlash: The Cinema Wins video had this reaction towards the accusations that the film made no sense or portrayed women badly.
  Are we so thick-headed that we need to take everything so literally? Or deep down, are we afraid of what this film is really saying? Reminding us that women are abused?...What it is is a male director making strong feminist statements. Did he do it perfectly? Obviously not, since so many of us missed the point.

I'm also unclear on if that's even a valid example of Critical Backlash.

I would say cut it because the quote is needlessly hostile. If there are other people who disagree with the critical assessment of the movie, we can rewrite the entry to be more neutral.

The Star Wars entry on Opening a Can of Clones (which itself is debatable if its even that trope or just pointing out Plot Hole / Ass Pull) has not one but two references to Angry Joe and The Critical Drinker. Is that really necessary?

Honestly that entire entry is kinda bad, it's an extreme wall of text, and some of the complaints do not fit the trope

And even setting aside the quality/validity of the example, the reviewer references only serve to bloat the entry and make it an even longer Wall of Text.

Is the throwaway reference to a review by Lindsay Ellis in the description of Magical Queer appropriate? She's not the Trope Namer, Trope Maker, etc. so I'm not sure why it's in the description rather than listed as an example under Web Original.

Edited by MonaNaito on Jul 9th 2023 at 11:13:09 AM

I guess it's just to strengthen the connection to Manic Pixie Dream Girl, and it could be valid if Lindsay's term caught on as an alt name for the trope.

Found this on Protagonist-Centered Morality:

• Patch Adams: Dean Walcott is unambiguously presented as the film's villain because he tries to block the title character's graduation from medical school. This despite the fact that Patch frequently behaves immaturely in class, impersonates a third-year medical student so he can get in to see hospital patients, sneaks into patients' rooms late at night to bombard them with balloons, advocates a "laughter cures everything" approach to medicine that he never even attempts to prove with science, practices medicine out of his house without a license, steals supplies from a hospital, and gets some of the highest grades in school even though no one ever sees him studying (making it perfectly logical to suspect him of cheating). Worst of all, his methods directly lead to the murder of another med student. But of course, since he's the protagonist, anyone who doesn't think he would make a good doctor must be evil. The real Patch Adams was quite upset about this portrayal of his life, which was highly inaccurate. The Nostalgia Critic had a field day with this.

As it stands, I don't think that last line adds anything of value.

This is on Addressing the Player, regarding Nier:

• Whatever you decide to put in as your character's name is called out by a supporting character during a cutscene (at which point Yahtzee regretted the naming choice of "Twattycake").

I really don't see the point of having the part in parentheses.

Done.

Edited by KUnlimited on Jul 26th 2023 at 1:30:33 PM

Neither do I. I say cut.

Found these on YMMV.Secret Invasion 2023 and YMMV.Secret Invasion 2023 S 1 E 4 Beloved:

• I Knew It!:
  • The idea of Rhodey being replaced by a Skrull impersonator can be tracked back as far as 2017 when youtuber Nando v Movies made a series of videos about it. He now sells merchandise highlighting that he figured it out.

• I Knew It!: The theory that Rhodey was replaced by a Skrull has been floating around the internet for years. It's popularly attributed to the youtuber Nando at Nando v. Movies, who predicted it as far back as 2017, six years before the airing of this episode.

Cut out the mentions of that obscure reviewer.

I don't see the issue, particularly if the reviewer either gave the theory more attention or got more attention after the theory came true.

So this example was recently added to the Barbie page.

• Both Sides Have a Point: As this article suggests, the movie showcases how both radical feminism and toxic masculinity are merely superficial constructs that only exist to make the other side feel good about themselves. It's made clear with Ken electing to make choices for himself without having to be dictated on what he's meant to be, both in a patriarchal world and Barbieland. And Barbie chooses to become human and leave Barbieland as she elects reality rather than a fanatical utopia.

First, it's a poorly written example (toxic masculinity does not exist to make men or women feel good about themselves), but I don't think an example is supposed to be based on some random article, right? Especially not one from The National Review, of all things.

I'd cut it for the reasons you gave.

Plus there's no radical feminism even in the movie!

The whole "Barbie ended feminism" thing that the film calls out is more a criticism of corporate feminism, if anything, which has different problems. I do think Both Sides Have a Point applies because while Barbie is right to call out the Kens' complete takeover and subjugation of the Barbies, Ken is right about the Barbies not taking the Kens seriously enough, as the film draws direct comparisons to the real-world subjugation of women, but we don't need an article to make that clear when the movie itself very much does.

Found this on Recap.Star Trek Voyager S 6 E 5 Alice:

• Death Glare: Literally—Alice's glare almost makes Tom's head explode.
  Jim "Reviewboy" Wright: She gives Tom the kind of skunk eye Janeway is famous for. And unlike the legendary Janeway glares-o-pain, Alice's actually does some serious physical damage. Tom's massive forehead becomes a spider's web of overtaxed blood vessels. His scream of agony would give Jamie Lee Curtis a run for her money.
  Everyone on Voyager has a purpose, and a unique talent. Tom's is to sound utterly convincing when he's being folded, spindled and mutilated. Nobody—and I mean nobody—screams like Helm Boy.

The quote probably isn't necessary, but the example is bare bones without it. So I guess hide the rest.

Found this on Bubble Bobble when copying over Puzzle Bobble examples to the Puzzle Bobble sandbox:

• Checkpoint Starvation: In Space Puzzle Bobble/Space Bust-a-Move, unlike other/previous Puzzle Bobble/Bust-A-Move games, when you continue, you start from the first of the group of five levels all over again. And out of all available reviews, only Nintendo Power's Sept 2009 issue is most outright in pointing out that flawed change.

The bolded part seems unnecessary

That the example itself is pointing out the flaw kind of defeats the claim that only Nintendo Power has noted said flaw, since more people are likely to read up on the game here than a 14 year old issue of a defunct magazine.

Reposting this from the "Improving work and creator page descriptions" cleanup thread, as I did not get a response there:

If you care to, the best way to watch The Star Wars Holiday Special is with several Pan-Galactic Gargle Blasters or your local planetary equivalent. If you'd first like to have an idea of what you're getting into in relative comfort, I-Mockery has a three-page synopsis with accompanying animated GIFs of scenes here. Watching it with the RiffTrax commentary helps ease the pain as well. It was also reviewed by The Nostalgia Critic (as seen here) as well as Chris Stuckmann (here), and also discussed in length by RedLetterMedia (here), by The Cinema Snob (here), by JonTron (here) and Musical Hell did an MST track on the Ohio broadcast and its commercials as a 50k subscriber special here. If you're fluent in French, you can also watch the Joueur du Grenier's review here.