Cleaning Up Needless References To Reviewers

• Post — If the video itself can be found, then a link could be added. Irregardless, it should be rewritten, keeping the text after the comment tags (%%) only if a link can be found:
  It never occurs to Captain N and our heroes that he could teleport to Mother Brain's lair and shoot her with his Zapper, thus resolving the plot and allowing him to go home. %% WebVideo/TheNostalgiaCritic points out this problem in [[ their video]].
• Post — No, it isn't ZCE because it still provides the context that the character is doing immoral things (brainwashing) but they're "good" (for God).
• Post — Cut the Atrocious Alias and Alternative Character Interpretation, because the context isn't enough to say that these interpretations are commonly believed (one person's opinion is not enough for YMMV). Sinister Minister can be rewritten;
  Edward Laygass is a very American-style fundamentalist televangelist that barely even exists in the UK, and one that would probably not even get a TV show like the one he appears in. Oddly enough Society Marches On, and if the series was made even a few years later he would seem like a blatant parody of a mainstream UKIP politician.

Ah, OK. Just wanted to check.

Found this on Drive:

• Viewers Are Goldfish: The Soup put together a montage of how many times characters used the phrase "secret illegal underground road race" to describe what they were doing when asked. It lasted a minute and a half.

That seems more like a case of Insistent Terminology than Viewers Are Goldfish, but I also haven't seen the series in question so I can't comment further than that.

Edited by lee4hmz on May 15th 2021 at 7:20:36 AM

I found this on Hannah Montana:

• Designated Villain: Mr. Bradley in the movie is treated as a villain just because he wants to build a mall. He doesn't even do anything villainous. The only passibly mean thing he does is taunt the town people they won't be able to stop him building that mall. Which is Stupid Evil, because those people are his potential customers. Miley actually thinks the mall development is a good idea at first before being told down by her grandmother. ^note  However, as Todd in the Shadows pointed out, Malls turned out to be a bad long-term business plan with the advent of Online Shopping and especially with the 2020 pandemic forcing malls to close down.

Is the note about Todd in the Shadows really necessary to the entry? I think the entry does a good enough job already getting, and don't think the note adds anything of note. Any thoughts?

Edited by Bullman on May 19th 2021 at 7:43:29 AM

Nuke the note, it provides little value.

or more accurately, no value at all. It's not like anyone would've predicted a goddamn pandemic would happen back when the show was still airing. And I'm pretty sure online shopping was a thing back then, too.

On top of that, we don't even know if brick-and-mortar retail is completely dead. Some things like groceries are never going to go completely online, and some of the malls where I live had a ton of people in them when I went.

The malls near my house are still pretty active, and the store I work at is still getting consistent customers in-line with what we typically get.

Okay. The note is gone.

Bringing up this example from The Punisher: Purgatory:

• They Wasted a Perfectly Good Plot: The Punisher with supernatural abilities is actually an interesting concept in theory...for a one-off storyline where it was temporary. At least one critic has even argued that it's not automatically a bad idea for a Retool in a vacuum, but the method of doing it was a betrayal of the character and his history.

And this from Superman Unbound:

• Fridge Horror: As Reaction & Review pointed out, Superman had escaped and entirely disabled Brainiac's ship, taking Kandor with him...and as far as the viewer knows, he could have also cut any and all life support for all the other hundreds, perhaps thousands of bottled cities on Brainiac's ship, with untold thousands of people in each one. Which ultimately means that Superman indirectly put millions of lives in danger while Brainiac is finding himself the one to actually save the cities. Talk about a major role reversal!

Don't know about either. More input requested.

Drop the "At least one critic has even argued that" and "As Reaction & Review pointed out"; if we're not providing a link to their argument, then citing them is pointless.

Dropping "at least one critic has argued that" would leave "the method... was a betrayal" on the page but now stated as fact rather than opinion. Better to drop the whole sentence.

It's a YMMV-trope, so it's the opinion being stated as fact. That's why I didn't have a problem with the rest of the sentence.

Found this on YMMV.Spice World:

• Uncertain Audience: The Nostalgia Chick comments on how she has no idea who it was being marketed towards, given that some of the jokes were clearly meant for adults (such as men in thongs and Victoria suggesting that Geri take her top off for a young boy in the hospital), but other jokes seemed more geared for kids, or at least would be unfunny to adults. Of course, you could make much the same point about the band themselves, so maybe the target audience was just "Spice Girls fans".

Is The Nostalgia Chick mention necessary or should I remove it?

Edited by Bullman on May 23rd 2021 at 10:00:46 AM

I don't think it really applies, especially based on [maybe the target audience was just "Spice Girls fans"]. The example could go on the reviewer's page as a Discussed Trope, but I don't think it applies to the movie.

From Trivia.The Xs:

• Colbert Bump: Has received two, recently. First, from the Nick Animation YouTube channel uploading its intro, which helped to reintroduce the series to old fans, and new fans, alike, and then from The Mysterious Mr. Enter's... rather divisive Nick-O-Rama episode on the series, which lead to fans of the show from back in the day defending it.

From what I understand, most of his backlash was regarding his reviews of other shows like Rise of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.

Edited by costanton11 on May 24th 2021 at 6:56:06 AM

Where would a Discussed Trope go the reviewer's main page or YMMV page? I am afraid I have never done an entry for a Discussed Trope before and am unsure where to put it.

Edited by Bullman on May 24th 2021 at 5:09:07 AM

A reviewer discussing a YMMV trope will go on their main page, just do the [[invoked]] mark-up when you do so. A reviewer's YMMV page should be reserved to audience reactions to the critic at hand.

Okay. I moved it.

Edited by Bullman on May 24th 2021 at 5:26:13 AM

I'm pretty sure quite a few of Mr. Enter's Nick-O-Rama reviews got some backlash, and The X's was one of them (IIRC, he based the whole review on how he felt after watching one episode.) The Rise of the TMNT review is definitely one of the more infamous ones, though, but I'm sure this was up there as well.

Also, Examples Are Not Recent, and I'm not sure if it's really valid since the show is still pretty obscure.

Most of the backlash I heard about was regarding other shows, though those may have just been the more noticeable examples. Though the question is less whether there was significant backlash and more whether it should be mentioned on the work's page.

Would you say it should be kept or removed, in regards to both the reference and the entry itself?

Edited by costanton11 on May 24th 2021 at 7:07:29 AM

In my opinion, for a work to qualify for a Colbert Bump, the show doing the shoutout has to be much more popular than the one getting referenced, or a very large portion of the fanbase between two similarly-sized works. A (picking numbers from nowhere) 50k subscriber base checking out a show with 500k nightly viewers wouldn't count.

That said, I don't know the relative sizes of their fanbases. I just strongly doubt the claim that a youtube channel can "bump" a cable show.

I wonder if there are other examples on Colbert Bump that are misused in that way. If there are cleanup or TRS may be needed.