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.
Our general rule about hot-off-the-press controversy is... don't mention it. At all. It is not relevant to our mission, which is to collect examples of tropes in media. If it ends up affecting a creator's work, such as by forcing them to stop working on a project, getting a project cancelled, or getting them kicked off of a project, there are specific tropes that can be employed, but in the vast majority of cases the net fallout from a controversy is not known for many months at least.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Since the controversy has directly resulted in the RLM videos getting unlisted and a movie Landis was writing getting cancelled, it has affected the creator’s work. Somebody else already added the relevant Missing Episode example relating to the RLM videos to the trivia subpages, so this is kinda a moot point now. However, the YMMV.Best Of The Worst page has a Base-Breaking Character example for Max Landis that was clearly written before the allegations became widely-known. It reads: “Some viewers find the guest member Max Landis hilarious and want him to return for an another bad movie discussion, and others find him plain obnoxious.”
Since the scandal has more or less turned public opinion unanimously against Landis, I’m considering either commenting it out until the dust settles or cutting the example altogether.
Edited by Pemulis_128
Landis is not a fictional character in a fictional work. Base-Breaking Character cannot apply to him, regardless of any other considerations.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
In that case, I’ll go cut that example if it hasn’t been cut already.
I just checked the pages on Movie Fights since Max Landis was also a guest on that show and there’s a similar issue there. Max Landis, as well as other guests and hosts, are listed under Base-Breaking Character when they are real life people and not characters. The same goes for The Scrappy, which lists Andy Signore, another creator disgraced by a sex scandal, among its examples. However, I’m not as familar with Movie Fights as I am with RedLetterMedia so I’m not sure if I should go ahead and cut those or leave that job to someone more knowledgeable on the subject.
I would go ahead and cut them, citing this ATT topic in the edit reason.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
I’ve gone ahead and cut both sections.
I have an important question about editing the pages on RedLetterMedia and its shows.
Just recently, The Daily Beast
published an article of first-hand testimonies accusing the screenwriter/filmmaker Max Landis of emotional and sexual abuse. While rumors of his sexual misconduct had long circulated, this was the first time that first-hand testimonies were actually made public. In the aftermath, RedLetterMedia has unlisted two video collaborations with Landis, an interview with him and a Best of the Worst review of Neil Breen’s Double Down, from YouTube. The latter is particularly noteworthy, as it was the most viewed Best Of The Worst episode on the channel at the time it was unlisted and gave a significant Colbert Bump to Neil Breen’s filmography.
While I think this should be addressed on the trivia subpages, I’m concerned of running afoul of the Rule of Cautious Editing Judgment (especially given how recent the controversy is). What should I do? How should this controversy be handled?
Edited by Pemulis_128