Have a question about how the TVTropes wiki works? No one knows this community better than the people in it, so ask away! Ask the Tropers is the page you come to when you have a question burning in your brain and the support pages didn't help.
It's not for everything, though. For a list of all the resources for your questions, click here. You can also go to this Directory thread
for ongoing cleanup projects.
So many long winded examples today ...
You are correct, you can't have an Audience-Alienating Era without showing that the audience was in fact alienated. These examples don't seem to mention that part of it at all, instead being a laundry list of complaints against the work in question. I would say cut.
I didn't choose the troping life, the troping life chose me
Are you sure?
I don't see audience alienation, especially when that is the first sentence.
I didn't choose the troping life, the troping life chose me
FWIW, the Condemned by History example came up recently in the removing complaining forum thread. I argued for cutting it on the grounds that it was very selective (ignoring things that have consistently stuck like the revamp of Lex Luthor) and the thread seemed to agree.
Who is adding these? It feels like someone with a Single-Issue Wonk against the era.
^ Checking both page histories, they seem to have been added by troper Ariachus
.
Speaking as a Superman fan, Byrne's run is absolutely influential and enduring enough to not count as Condemned by History or being an Audience-Alienating Era. As much as I abhor the man as a person, it is successful enough to say it doesn't count.
Ok, I'll take care of it. Also, not to derail the topic or something but what did Byrne do for you to hate him?
^ He's just said a lot of controversial, dubious things elsewhere. Here's his WikiQuote article if you're curious.
I will say there is a growing reexamination of Byrne's run that has lead to it being examined far more critically, namely the big changes it made to Superman's status quo that neutered his expanded mythos in a way that wouldn't really be fully mended until the mid-2000s. At the same time however it really isn't enough to declare it an Audience-Alienating Era, as it was critically and commercially successful at the time and the changes it introduced did stick and in some cases continue to stick into the modern era.
The fact that a bunch of changes it introduced were reverted or retconned in later stuff is technically true, but given that retcons are part and parcel for comics and changes made by even the most popular writers will often be undone by future works, I still wouldn't add it under that criteria.
Edited by Mightymoose101
I mean, Byrne's versions of Clark, Lois, and Luthor have all stuck as what we see those characters as. I hardly see that as "alienating".
Ok, I gotta ask, can John Byrne's Superman, especially The Man of Steel be considered an Audience-Alienating Era?
First of, The Man of Steel was initially listed in the YMMV section as Condemned by History by the following argument: "Back in 1986, Man of Steel sold extremely well and was hailed as the story which modernized and made Superman good and fresh again thanks to scraping off the Silver Age "silliness". Over time, though, Byrne's vision was gradually rejected and ultimately retconned out of continuity. Most of his contributions (the birthing matrix, the unfeeling Krypton...) and interpretations (Superman being the only son of Krypton who rejects his immigrant heritage and declares to be fully American...) were eventually deemed mistakes and expunged from the mythos, whereas most of Silver Age lore and characters (Supergirl, Krypto, the Phantom Zone and its inmates, the Fortress of Solitude...), which he attempted to write off because of their alleged childishness and irrelevance, have been brought back. Nowadays, Man of Steel is considered a dated origin which has aged badly (especially compared to the Batman and Wonder Woman's reboots), and not even Post-Crisis Superman fans seem to want it back., but was later removed
.
Secondly, John Byrne's run itself is listed in the The DCU's section
for Audience-Alienating Era under the following argument: "Although John Byrne's 80's Superman's run got praise and good sales back in the day, it also gained many vocal detractors who decried the erasure of many classic characters and concepts, the loss of the whimsical tone and the colorful high sci-fi/fantasy concepts, the diminishing of Superman's complex dual identity, the messing-up of the Legion of Super-Heroes, the unfortunate message that "immigrants should forget their origins", the shoehorning and mishandling of the New Gods, the blatant misogyny of some stories (Big Barda being mind-controlled, raped and hypnotized into being a porno actress comes to mind), and the long-term damage done to the mythos caused by Byrne eliminating anything not protected by his Golden Age nostalgia. History -and DC, who would go to undo most of what Byrne did- ended up siding with them, and nowadays that period is disliked and disregarded by everybody but Byrne diehards."
An era can only be considered as Audience-Alienating if... 1. the era is a critical and financial disappointment even during the time of release 2. any changes the era brings to the franchise are removed by later stories 3. any time the era is referenced to by later stories, it's almost always in a negative manner.
I bring this up because a lot of examples in AAE come off as blatant editorializing. What do you think?