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.
It doesn't seem like an example, but we have a Hindsight Cleanup
thread for matters like these. I would suggest taking it there.
Yeah, I don't see it as Harsher in Hindsight as an event that happened after the film didn't make it feel more uneasy, an event before the film made things more uneasy.
Maybe like a Harsher in Foresight sort of deal.
Edited by JustaUsername Some people say I'm lazy. It's hard to disagree.Just realised, this fits Unfortunate Implications, considering the Laconic for that page is...
Unintentionally offensive content.
Anyone would object to me linking this to that?
Some people say I'm lazy. It's hard to disagree.Is Clownfish TV a reputable enough source?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCyoJCnN6zI
EDIT: These reviews also expresses discomfort.
https://www.laughingplace.com/w/articles/2022/05/17/movie-review-chip-n-dale-rescue-rangers-disney-plus/
https://thedisinsider.com/2022/05/18/chip-n-dale-rescue-rangers-review-this-is-my-multiverse-of-madness/
Possibly, but just to be sure, I would advise you taking it over to here.
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=15454914480A97304800&page=33
Indeed, that seems to be what they're discussing at the moment.
Well, I added an Unfortunate Implications entry, which should be serviceable if Harsher in Hindsight, Funny Annerism Moment or other ambiguous tropes aren't.
Yes, Clownfish Tv are indeed clowns, but the outrage against this frankly monstruous creative decision is real and you can pull a wide variety of sources on the matter.
Edited by monotrematumUnfortunate Implications mentions this:
I think it might be a good idea to replace some of the Twitter links in that entry with a more reputable citation, if any can be found.
Edited by dragonfire5000 "I squirm, I struggle, ergo I am. Faced with death, I am finally, truly alive."There's this for example: https://thedisinsider.com/2022/05/18/chip-n-dale-rescue-rangers-review-this-is-my-multiverse-of-madness/
I think some of the threads are extremely poignant however, especially the last one. I'd advise adding more sources rather than removing the eisting ones.
^^^^ Thank you, now I know what You Tube channel I shouldn't watch when it's comes to meta news.
Speaking of Unfortunate Implications, I have to say I think we should wait until what've enough source of how people say it's unintentionally offensive.
Edited by Bubblepig "Now it's starting to feel like a game!"I believe the sheer amounts of links I and Justausername provided argue otherwise. Besides, lately articles tend to shill Disney, we did not wait for the Mulan controversy and I don't believe we should set that as our modus operandi.
Its clear there's an extremely dominant negative opinion in regards to this frankly incomprehensible creative decision. It is worth troping.
^^You linked three places, one of which is a clickbait YT channel, and I would also argue the validity of the other two. That is not "a sheer amount", nor is it an "extremely dominant" opinion.
Why don't you go to the thread that Holo Mew linked and make the case there.
Excuse me? I didn't link to clownfish, also please check the sources I posted. They include two veritable articles and a forum thread in addition to twitter posts.
I think it's abundantly clear that this opinion is in fact dominant. Frankly what amounts to desecrating a dead actor's image is not that ambiguous a situation. Plenty of people have voice their opinion + situation pretty clear.
If you're going to dismiss hundreds of people and tolerate immoral actions for no justifiable reason at least bother to see what I've actually written instead of making accusations.
Edited by monotrematumYou linked a bunch of twitter links. Even after I already put a disclaimer on top of the page that quotes the requirements for Unfortunate Implications, which is "Reputable sources". It's not about us being a bunch of academic assholes that want entries to be as verifiable as a scientific treaty, but the fact that before the entry had these requirements, Unfortunate Implications was just a pothole for "This extremely small and stupid thing offended me".
Everyone is offended by something. That's why we put the requirements, so that the entries would document a genuine phenonemon rather than every little thing that offended someone over the internet. And I say that as someone that found the use of Ugly Sonic to be a bit tasteless, considering that Paramount and Sega was never credited. You guys could simply be a little bit patient and then get an entry that reflects this opinion without trying to force an entry that multiple tropers have already told you can't be used like this.
Edited by Edgar81539Again, two actual articles and a forum thread, not just the tweets (which again, I find well argumentated and poignant). What is exactly the issue here? A bare minimum of three of the sources fit the baseline requirement, further supported by all else. This is stalling for stalling's sake.
And no offense, but youra analogy is not the best. We're talking about defaming an actual person that Disney ruined, not rights over a fictional character. Empathy, people.
Edited by monotrematumIt's not about tweets being well argumentated and poignant, it's about the fact that despite Unfortunate Implications specifying that you need to use reputable sources, the fact that I put a disclaimer to prevent this kind of thing from popping up you still choose to just do whatever you pleased. Twitter users are not reputable sources, no matter how well they argument. Worst of all, one of your citations is from Clownfish TV, which is an outrage youtuber that consistently spouts outright lies (Such as insisting that Teela was always intended to be in a lesbian relationship with Evelynn in Masters of the Universe: Revelations) which disqualifies him from being a reputable source.
Edited by Edgar81539And again with not reading. I did not put Clownfish Tv; again, read the sources.
This is getting nowhere. As I have stated I put three sources that fall within the baseline, with tweets SUPPORTING these valid sources.
So far A) you have consistently refused to actually read my contributions, B) are refusing to acknowledge that there are three valid sources. Please do not derail this converstation.
Related is this discussion on UI citations
and exactly what should and shouldn't qualify.
Put simply there's a lot of controversy, but most people seem to agree that Twitter, YT videos, and the like don't qualify.
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper WallEDIT: I realize I'm coming off as a bit abrasive, but if you're saying stuff that isn't true, there's nothing wrong with calling a spade a spade.
Edited by MichaelKatsuroThe Disinsider article seems like it's a valid citation. They don't need to be NYT levels of credible, just prove that the troper didn't make this up or that it's not just people venting on social media.
v Yes and yes.
Edited by mightymewtron I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.Lolwhat even happened here. I agree, don't cite tweets and don't be snippy. Debate the legitimacy of the other citations in the Unfortunate Implications Citation Discussion
thread, not in multiple ATT threads.
I'm going to go ahead and lock this, since the original query (is it Harsher in Hindsight) has been definitively answered with 'no'.
Also, the other two threads just so I only have to link to this one in the future: 1
2

There's some controversy online about Peter Pan in Chip 'n Dale: Rescue Rangers (2022) not only having an uncomfortable amount of parallels to Bobby Driscoll who is already on the Harsher in Hindsight example of Peter Pan's YMMV...
...and the fact Peter Pan (or Sweet Pete) is a villain that chooses Redemption Rejection. I feel this is something to note but not sure how it could be included on the page or if it should be included on the page.
(Example of Controversy) https://twitter.com/2nd_quick/status/1527697060467773442?cxt=HHwWhMC42byYvLMqAAAA