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.
Word on the street is that it does not have a "progressive message," btw.
Anyway, coutresty links: YMMV.Black Panther 2018, history page of YMMV/ page.
I asked here
almost a week ago about whether this was He Panned It Now He Sucks rather than 8.8 or something else like Sacred Cow (which I don't think it is).
From what I understand, the film blames European colonialism as being the Freudian Excuse for its Big Bad. That can be construed as pretty progressive, especially in relation to hard-right opinion.
I personally don't find any fault with your 8.8 write up btw. My objection is with the current writeup of Sacred Cow, which hides behind an argument akin to "if you're defending this movie, then you're just trying to protect Black people from criticism". Sacred Cow relies upon the idea that "fair criticism of this work is impossible because fans are too rabid", which is extremely hard to apply to Black Panther since groups have been outright CAUGHT trying to sabotage reviews and review scores for the movie simply because it stars minorities.
Edited by NubianSatyress... are we ignoring the fact that a troper named freaking "Kaizerreich" is repeatedly breaking several rules (edit-warring, Unfortunate Implications require citations, ROCEJ) in order to further a statement that at the most kindest is "regressive" if not outright racist? That... is not the handle of someone deserving the benefit of the doubt who's breaking several rules to be kinda racist.
Aside from the fact it's misuse of a trope (this is definitely 8.8, not Sacred Cow. It's waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay premature for Sacred Cow), I see no evidence that this is actually true.
Edited by Larkmarn Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.I've had several run-ins with Kaizerreich in the past, particularly on politically-divisive pages like the now-defunct Sargon Of Akkad page, Thunderf00t, and a few others that escape my memory.
Edited by NubianSatyressI haven't seen the film so I can only go off what I've heard, read, and seen, which is that there's a decent nationalist / isolationist message to the movie. I personally don't care either way and it isn't the most important part of this report, so we can drop it or take it to PM's if you'd like.
EDITED to make a correction:
There have been two mediocre reviews for the film on Rotten Tomatoes and people have over-reacted to them. Some journalists have gone so far as to say that those reviewers are closed-minded and that the reviews are "negative" (despite the 3/5 ratings). The mediocre reviews could be called "fair critiques."
I originally agreed with you that Sacred Cow doesn't apply here, but the description says this trope concerns anyone — fans, casual fans, and even "non-fans with passing knowledge of the work." Moreover, the page says that a fair critique "will be met with the same revulsion as Squick-inducing shipping or trolling," which is an accurate thing to say about the two middling reviews.
Edited by WaterBlap Look at all that shiny stuff ain't they prettyOh cool. A "Sexism is gone in America and Feminism is a "Female Supremacy Movement"
edit. Admittedly, they're saying it's "perceived" as such, but their intentions are clear.
Why would we need to take anything to P Ms? I'm not arguing with you or against you. I'm debating the relevance of the tropes.
We can't determine how "fair" a review is based solely on a number score. In a vacuum, 3/5 might sound like a decent rating to give a film, but that depends on what arguments the review makes to justify it.
To be clear, I'm NOT saying that 3/5 was automatically bad, either. Merely that we can't declare that A) a review is automatically reasonable just because it's written in articulate and neutral tone of voice and a mediocre rating, and B) that anyone who has grievance with a review, regardless of score, is automatically being unreasonable or giving a gut reaction akin to Squick.
Edited by NubianSatyressTo address your question, it's because that's the norm for off-topic discussions. That's literally the only reason I said that we could take it to PM's. There's literally no heat / anger coming your way from me about it.
I'm not basing that solely off of a number score. Look at the two reviews. They are more or less fair and the responses to those (especially the two I linked to in my suggested edit for 8.8) are not particularly reasonable. Complaining, for example, about a reviewer caring about the lack of action in a superhero action movie is pretty unreasonable, and calling a reviewer closed-minded because there's disagreement concerning what makes a good movie is also unreasonable.
Also, my above point was not about the equivalent revulsion as with squick but as with trolling. Around the Internet and in this very thread, people have equated less-than-positive reviews with trolling because there have been trolling campaigns caught red-handed.
Look at all that shiny stuff ain't they prettyAgain, I don't see how this is off-topic at all, given that the accuracy of the Sacred Cow entry is (along with the actions of the editor) what's being discussed.
On that last point, you mean me, because I'm the one who said that. But I think you're missing the point. It isn't equating any review with trolling, it's acknowledging the existence of a coordinated movement to disguise trolling as "reasonable reviews". In essence, it provides proof positive that a very thorough lens needs to be placed at any action surrounding the film, whether it be a positive one or a negative one. In short, it's not paranoia when people are actually out to get you.
As for the reviews in question, which ones in particular are you referring to and what arguments in specific are you referring to? There's a LOT of reviews on that page, and I counted a LOT that had a score of 3.5/5 or a 7/10 or less. I do not have time to read them all, nor should I have to. If you're making the claim that people are having an unreasonable response to reasonable reviews, then it would help to point us to what parties are doing both. Which reviews? Who are the people reacting? Again, complaining about "lack of action" or saying a reviewer is "closed-minded" doesn't mean anything without context.
Edited by NubianSatyressMy issue with Sacred Cow is that A: It was clearly added in bad faith, breaking at least three different rules (by someone who has been around long enough to know better) and would need a complete rewrite, B: There's limited proof it's nearly a widespread enough opinion to qualify, especially since the movie came out today, and C: There's an existing YMMV item that actually does fit this perfectly.
Water Blap, having checked out your proposed writeup for 8.8, I say go ahead and add that, and in the process remove He Panned It Now He Sucks since that should be going on the critic's page, not the work's.
Edited by Larkmarn Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.With this and their edit to So What Do We Do Now? in mind, this is looking a lot like a case of editing with an agenda.
So this is a long reply but we're having communication troubles so I'm using the quoteblock markup to hopefully make things a bit clearer as to what I'm responding to.
With the quoted sentence here you just equated the two reasonable reviews with trolling. You defeated your own point. By blindly claiming that any reasonable review is part of a vast conspiracy of trolling, you are equating the reasonable reviews with trolling. You are providing more proof that this film is some sort of Sacred Cow, actually. And I say that having agreed with you at first about it not being a Sacred Cow.
RE: Larkmarn:
- A: I agree that the specific write-up for Sacred Cow that was brought to ATT should be replaced. It was obviously added in bad faith, but I think my write-up for the 8.8 example would probably be more fitting as Sacred Cow, with some tweaking.
- B: The description of Sacred Cow says that there are no time restrictions. It literally says "any point in time."
- C: Which item and is that particular entry misuse or not.
- I want to make sure it's actually 8.8 and not Sacred Cow.
Also, I agree that this person is demonstrating agenda-based editing.
Look at all that shiny stuff ain't they prettyWith the quoted sentence here you just equated the two reasonable reviews with trolling. You defeated your own point. By blindly claiming that any reasonable review is part of a vast conspiracy of trolling, you are equating the reasonable reviews with trolling. You are providing more proof that this film is some sort of Sacred Cow, actually. And I say that having agreed with you at first about it not being a Sacred Cow.
I did no such thing. I said that, with the existence of an organized attempt at trolling the movie's reviews, every review should be given more scrutiny. That does NOT mean the reviews in question are trolling, nor that "any reasonable review" is itself part of the trolling. But, am I saying it could be? Absolutely. Arguing that any review could be a problem is not saying that every review is a problem.
Please don't make an insistence that my disagreement with your argument somehow proves your argument. That's just unbelievably rude.
On 10 February, there were only two such reviews. Those are the ones I'm talking about. The claim that you don't have time to read one or two reviews is a little bit much. If you want to make a claim about any of the reviews, you do actually need to look at them first, lol.
No, I legitimately didn't know which reviews you were referring to. I just didn't know you were specifically talking about the two in your 8.8 writeup. I didn't piece that together.
Now that I see it, though...meh. For one thing, it's no longer February 10th, these are no longer the only two "negative" reviews, and those articles were basically knee-jerk clickbait. With almost a week now having passed, my thought is that the immediate reactions that SOME fans had to the first-ever negative review of the movie definitely qualifies as a case of 8.8. However, I don't remain convinced that it's a case of Sacred Cow yet. Yet. Googling "Black Panther negative reviews" today
, it looks like there's been no new outrage on that front since Feb 10thnote , which again gives me the distinct impression that the first case was just knee-jerk "outrage news".
I'd like to see how people react to other critical reviews first.
Edited by NubianSatyressWhen you have people tweeting things like "If you give this a bad review, you're racist" and "white people shouldn't review this movie because they might give it bad reviews" makes this 100% an example of Sacred Cow. Just more of a racially charged version than say, Bob Chipman's review of Breath of the Wild.
Well I mean, we also currently have people making fake tweets about having been assaulted by black people during the premiere.
Everything about this movie right now, especially tweets and other social media posts, are currently suspect.
I also vouch for locking the page until it's stabilized.
"They played us like a DAMN FIDDLE!" — Kazuhira Miller, Metal Gear Solid V The Phantom PainPersonally, I have to ask if it's a bit of a mistake to focus too much on this specific issue as opposed to the apparent pattern of this behavior on the part of Kaizerreich. The name has definitely come up on ATT before, and like Larkmarn said, the handle is kind of suspicious in context.
Edited by nrjxllKaizerreich has, in fact, come up four times previously.
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/query.php?sparam=Kaizerreich&qtype=att&sort=activity&status=all
I think we could continue the discussion of the trope on the discussion page. The write up is report worthy but the trope may be applicable despite that.
For the sake of the report, I mean.
I think this kaizerreich guy will be getting a suspension for edit warring either way...
Look at all that shiny stuff ain't they prettyYMMV.Black Panther 2018 has been locke,d and Kaizerreich has been called in for a chat.

Yesterday, Tropers.The Kaizerreich added an Unfortunate Implications entry that stated:
I deleted the entry for being complaining, as well as misuse of Unfortunate Implications. Kaizerreich then added this:
Afterwards, Tropers.Triumphant Magician reworded it to:
So the whole affair strikes me as one of those attempts, not unlike what happened with Mad Max Fury Road and the recent Star Wars movies, to deflect the fact that there IS a semi-orgnaized hate campaign aimed at the movie just because of its progressive casting and message. It's one of those "Why do you think everyone who disagrees with you is racist/sexist/homophobic/a Nazi" things.
I kept the entry and removed the parts that unnecessarily brought Black people into the issue, but Kaizerreich undid my edit and readded the griping with no edit reason.
EDIT: Fixed my own copy/paste error.
Edited by NubianSatyress