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.
Ask the Tropers is for:
- General questions about the wiki, how it works, and how to do things.
- Reports of problems with wiki articles, or requests for help with wiki articles.
- Reports of misbehavior or abuse by other tropers.
Ask the Tropers is not for:
- Help identifying a trope. See TropeFinder.
- Help identifying a work. See MediaFinder.
- Asking if a trope example is valid. See the Trope Talk forum.
- Proposing new tropes. See TropeLaunchPad.
- Making bug reports. See QueryBugs.
- Asking for new wiki features. See QueryWishlist.
- Chatting with other tropers. See our forums.
- Reporting problems with advertisements. See this forum topic.
- Reporting issues on the forums. Send a Holler instead.
Ask the Tropers:
openKaguya-sama Love Is War Franchise Original Sin. Just A Question? Anime
I like to know the reason why are the "fans" are so upset about something like this?
Franchise Original Sin: Kaguya and Shirogane having sex, played entirely for laughs was the last straw for many fans who were unhappy with the humor of the series gradually getting lewder, that the author had gone back on his word of the series not needing Fanservice to instead chase the lowest common denominator. Actually, the early series was hardly 100% clean and wholesome—for instance, a fan favorite gag from the first few chapters revolves around Kaguya struggling not to laugh whenever she hears a word she mistakes to mean "penis"—but in those early jokes the sexual content were framing devices for the actual jokes, based more on character personality: in that case, the actual punchline was seeing the normally stoic Kaguya degenerating into giggling fits about something that really shouldn't be so funny to anyone above elementary school-age. Later jokes dismiss with that and just have the sex itself be the joke—an early foreshadowing to the Kaguya/Shirogane joke that pissed the fanbase off can be found in the Running Gag concerning Tsubasa and Nagisa's relationshipnote specifically, that they're always barely able to avoid being caught having sex in public.
If anything, be feeling honest, there's absolutely nothing wrong about them having sex even if its played for humor. Please give me a proper explanation?
Edited by Droid098openIndexing Anthologies
Over on LGBT Representation in Media, I un-wikiworded Two Sentence Horror Stories as the series itself isn't an example of LGBT Representation (it's a horror anthology), but has several stories that do (and the recaps are indexed there correctly), and got a tap on the shoulder about that being a bad practice, so I just wanted to make sure!
openIs Gundam IBO too dark and gritty? Anime
Ok, I gotta ask: does Mobile Suit Gundam: Iron-Blooded Orphans truly qualify for Too Bleak, Stopped Caring? TBSC is normally defined as either "both sides are either equally unlikeable (pedophiliac serial killer vs genocidal slave trader" or "the heroes' efforts ultimately amount to nothing and the universe still sucks." A story only averts the trope when it features clearly defined heroes and villains and the ending delivers a positive outcome.
TBSC was orignally listed
in the show's YMMV page by its original name, "Darkness-Induced Audience Apathy", under the following argument: "By far the worst offender in the entire Gundam franchise, which was already fairly dark to begin with. Detractors point out that it's hard to sympathize with the protagonists, especially Mikazuki, as their actions push them further off the slipper slope. This isn't helped in season 2 where you're required to be ruthless in this society to get ahead. In the final episodes, major characters get killed left and right to the point it stops being dramatic and starts becoming tedious. Not helping matters is that people are comparing it to Zeta and the director's insistence that the entire show is basically a mafia story, NOT a war story.". It was deleted
because the trope required proof of audience apathy.
The YMMV page previously included:
- Eight Deadly Words: Detractors of the series frequently point this out as a problem. With a bleak setting, extremely morally shady characters (especially the main character), even worse villains, and an underdeveloped Big Bad who not only manages to succeed but ends on a high note, it's pretty easy to stop caring about what happens to the characters., but it was deleted
because Eight Deadly Words became a DefinitionOnlyPage.
- Ending Aversion: The outcome of the final episode is extremely divisive, with a pretty vocal segment of the fandom decrying it for feeling that Tekkadan didn't get the payoff they deserved while Rustal, Julietta, Nobliss, and Gjallarhorn in general successfully destroyed Tekkadan and ended on a high note, with only Iok and Nobliss receiving any form of comeuppance that ultimately rings hollow because of the other villains still winning- the way they won also gets accused of being a complete Shoot the Shaggy Dog for the sake of a Gray-and-Grey Morality message. Many who want a sequel for the series tend to request for Rustal and Julieta to get killed and for Gjallarhorn to be destroyed, assuming they don't write a Fix Fic to fulfill the same purpose by having Tekkadan win the Final Battle. The trope was deleted because, supposedly, "the trope is for people avoiding a work because they hear the ending is disappointing, not about people not liking the ending."
It still includes Esoteric Happy Ending with: "While the series portrays the finale as a bittersweet but overall happy ending with Rustal reforming Gjallarhorn and recognizing Martian independence, while Iok and Nobliss Gordon are killed, detractors of the series finale point out that as a member of the previous Gjallarhorn regime, Rustal is at best complicit in or at worst actively responsible for much of the corruption that plagued the organization. Onscreen, he doesn't bat an eye at starting proxy wars, formenting violent rebellions as false flags, and making use of outlawed weapons to achieve his ends. Even with the Seven Stars disbanded, he's managed to hold on to his power by making himself the best possible candidate to be elected to lead Gjallarhorn, and both he and Julietta were willing to side with Nobliss Gordon, of all people. As a result, the detractors see him as carrying on old Gjallarhorn's corrupt practices while propping up a public facade of being a reformer."
The show's anime page includes tropes like:
- The Bad Guy Wins: Although Gjallarhorn is heavily reformed by the end of the series, there is little doubt that throughout the series they are the villains, and were fighting to remain the authority in the world. Tekkaden was simply trying to find a place to belong in the world, which put them in direct opposition to Gjallarhorn by necessity rather than any actual enmity at first. It's made clear that there are still elements of resentment on both sides by the series end though, particularly in light of the look of anger and distrust that Eugene sends Julietta's way. This makes sense when you remember Julietta, a devoted, borderline fanatical follower of Rustal Elion, is the one who murdered Mikazuki on the battlefield. Julietta doesn't miss it, or its implications, either.
- Sliding Scale of Idealism Versus Cynicism: Very cynical. For starters, the protagonist is a Sociopathic Hero who kills without remorse. The main characters are a group of Child Soldiers who see nothing wrong with their profession, fighting an all-powerful army that oppresses the masses through bureaucracy and military intervention. Both sides kill each other in the most brutal and painful ways, with no hope for peace or reconcilation. The ending implies things will be much better, but by that point, so much blood has been shed.
So, what do you think?
BTW, I also asked this question in Is this an example?
to get a proper consensus.
openRed Zone Cuba entries Film
The YMMV page for Red Zone Cuba has the following entries for Designated Hero and Unintentionally Unsympathetic:
- Designated Hero: The main characters are entirely unsympathetic, particularly Griffin. He is supposed to be viewed as a put-upon everyman who just suffers from poor impulse control, but is instead portrayed as a selfish, violent, and hypocritical murderer and rapist. When the work page describes Griffin as "one of the most disturbingly realistic portrayals of a sociopath in film", something went wrong.
- Unintentionally Unsympathetic: Griffin was meant to be seen as a mostly decent person who was down on his luck and held back by a Hair-Trigger Temper, and what happens to him at the end of the movie was supposed to be tragic and thought-provoking. However, he does nothing even remotely heroic or altruistic at all throughout the entire story; anything he does that seems so (asking for water for a sick man in a POW camp, or treating the wife of said sick man nicely) is merely calculated to advance his own agenda. Griffin was supposed to have fallen beyond sympathy when he rapes a blind girl and murders her father, but he failed to establish any sympathy to lose by that point.
The entries don't cite any evidence that Griffin was meant to be sympathetic, and having seen the uncut film, it doesn't come off that way at all. He comes off simply as a Villain Protagonist who's driven by greed and gets his comeuppance at the end. No one in the film expresses sympathy for his death, and aside from grim music briefly playing when he's shot down, there's no hint of it being meant to be tragic. Also, his line that he wants to "go legit" is followed by him saying, "I don't want any bulls chasing me," so in context it's clearly Pragmatic Villainy rather than him wanting to redeem himself.
It's worth noting that Coleman Francis's films in general are dark and gritty, and tend to focus on unsympathetic characters, so this may simply be his Signature Style, and Griffin being the Villain Protagonist may have been mistaken for the film portraying him as the hero. Can these be cut?
Edited by Javertshark13openOdd edit war in Moral Myopia
Here's a weird situation: Back in March, stankykong added a Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness example (yeah, Strange again) to MoralMyopia.Live Action Films. Loekman3 rightfully deleted it, saying to wait for release in case of Trailers Always Lie. stanky did as asked, and waited until last weekend to restore it... except the trailer did lie, and stanky's entry is inaccurate (stanky and the marketing focused on Strange's actions in No Way Home, while the actual movie points to Infinity War instead).
Now obviously, the entry needs to be updated to accurately reflect the movie, and I can do that myself if nobody else gets to it first. But a blanket restore without bothering to correct bad information (did stanky even see the movie yet?) feels like something that needs to be addressed.
open Arthas456
Arthas456
has very poor grammar. Just pick any of their edits from their edit history to see for yourself (I would link some of their edits but most of their recent contributions are directed towards the Dr. Strange sequel, which I have yet to see). I sent them a grammar notifier but they haven't acknowledged it and are continuing with their current course of action.
openIf a bird fluffs itself up after being dried off, does that count as Fluffy Dry Cat? Web Original
In one Backyard Birds Of Australia video, Cheeky Boy, one of the Laughing Kookaburras, shook himself off to dry, and all his feathers puffed up. Due to having feathers rather than fur, does this count as Fluffy Dry Cat?
Edited by queenieAGopenNaruto Unintentionally Unsympathetic Anime
Copying this from the Unintentionally Unsympathetic cleanup thread to give more people a chance to look at this.
- I would like to bring up the following entries from the Anime & Manga subpage of Unintentionally Unsympathetic to see which of these examples are valid or not. I'm not exactly familiar with the material so anyone who knows about the entries can help, thanks.
- Naruto:
- Sasuke Uchiha rapidly becomes this as the series progresses, at first his Freudian Excuse is very strong i.e. his brother Itachi murdered his parents and his entire clan and he naturally wants Revenge. However that excuse for all Sasuke’s misdeeds stretches thin when he antagonises his allies and dismisses the tragedies of those who have also lost their loved ones compared to his own trauma, Kakashi in particular highlights how selfish Sasuke is as he reveals to him that his loved ones (Obito and Rin) are already dead when Sasuke threatens them. After Sasuke's Face–Heel Turn it becomes even harder to sympathise with him as he betrays the village, actively tries to murder his friends, attacks the Kages and generally acts like a terrorist. It comes to the point where the whole cast (except for Naruto, Sakura and Ino) being prepared to bring Sasuke to justice is entirely justified and Naruto’s determination to redeem Sasuke is almost nonsensical. Also Sasuke being as Easily Forgiven in the Distant Finale conflicts matters more as the worst punishment he gets is being “somewhat exiled” from Konoha which is barely a slap on the wrist in the weight of his crimes. If Kakashi calls him out on his actions, isn't that intentional? If it is, cut.
- The backstory of the legendary "Salamander" Hanzo, the ninja against whom the Sannin won their titles by surviving a battle with him sets Hanzo up as a Well-Intentioned Extremist who lost sight of his goals but is honored in defeat by his rival as a man who strove for peace. By starting a lot of wars and turning his homeland into an unlivable hellhole that produced the most psychologically broken, defeated human beings in the series, just because he was arrogant enough to think his strength could unite the world. Most fans still consider Hanzo an utterly unsympathetic character whose violent death at Pain's hands was richly deserved, as his claim of good intentions didn't make him any less of a paranoid warmongering dictator. How is he supposed to be sympathetic?
- Sakura Haruno's angst over her Single-Target Sexuality - the aforementioned Sasuke - really makes her unsympathetic in many viewer’s eyes. Kishimoto claimed in interviews he tried to make her feelings for Sasuke as “realistic” as possible but that falls flat as in the manga she hasn’t even had a proper conversation with him, and when she did talk to him he just called her annoying (even after she told him she loved him and was willingly to ditch her peaceful life just to be with him) and knocked her out. After the Time Skip she mellows out... until Sasuke comes back into the story and she Took a Level in Dumbass trying to take Sasuke down herself and of course fails, requiring Kakashi and Naruto to save her ass from the boy she loves. The Final Battle and Distant Finale makes it worse as Sakura easily forgives Sasuke for trying to kill her multiple times, and she settles down and marries him having learned no lesson whatsoever. Also Kishimoto’s insistence that Sakura would be a “terrible woman” if she moved on from Sasuke didn’t help matters. Unsure on this one, if it is a valid example, it could use a rewrite to cut on the complaining.
- Tobi AKA Obito Uchiha. He's supposed to be a world-weary counterpart to the protagonist who has given up hope on any chance of world peace, preferring to put everyone in a Lotus-Eater Machine where they can escape all the problems of reality. Instead, many saw him as a whiny Manchild who can't get over Rin's death. Seems valid, though maybe revise the second sentence
- The way Utakata's master Harusame tries to extract the Tailed Beast from his disciple in an anime-only Filler is supposed to be seen as good intentions to the point that upon realizing this, Utakata eventually rebuilt the pedestal with him after accidentally killing him. The problem is, extracting the Bijuu from a Jinchuuriki will also directly kill the host, and with no indication of Utakata having trouble with his Bijuu, nor even knowing why his master does it in the first place against his will, it comes off as Harusame crossing the Moral Event Horizon with Utakata having every right to defy his master and killing him sounds more like a Kick The Son Of A Bitch than what is supposed to be. Maybe?
- Madara Uchiha, the Big Bad of the story. He’s apparently meant to be seen as someone who was forced to grow up in a ninja world full of war, and is just trying to create a utopia so his dreams of peace can become reality. This is all well and good, if you forget that the story shows that he and his former friend, Hashirama, managed to accomplish peace with the creation of the Hidden Leaf Village. Hell, Hashirama even tries to make him leader of that new village, but Madara refuses. It’s even harder for viewers to see him as someone who wants peace at any cost due to his obvious glee before every battle. Add that to fact that a part of his Start of Darkness is caused by him wanting to remake the world in his image, even screwing over his best friend to do so, and this makes him come across not as a Well-Intentioned Extremist, but more of a hypocritical Jerkass. Unsure on this one
- Boruto Uzumaki, Naruto and Hinata's son. It's hard to sympathize with the boy who only wanted his father to come home when he is as bad (if not worse) than Naruto during his childhood. Unlike Naruto, Boruto doesn't have a crappy childhood but takes it all for granted and does the same antics his father used to do, all so his father can pay more attention to him. He keeps calling his father a bad parent, going as far as to wish he was dead and is unable to understand other people's feelings (such as complaining that his father is never around in front of Sarada, whose father was never with her for her whole life). And when Naruto finally spends some time with him, he ignores him and brushes away his affections. Maybe?
open 12-Episode Anime: still tropeworthy? Anime
I’ve been concerned about 12-Episode Anime for a while now. There are two major issues that caught my attention.
First, I’m wondering whether it’s still tropeworthy in the first place. I suspect this is a very old page, especially since the description mentions the Spring and Fall anime seasons being much more important than Summer and Winter, which was once true but hasn’t really been the case for ~15 years now. There was a time when most new TV anime that weren’t open-ended serials had a standard length of 24-26 episodes, and 12 episode anime in that era were something of a novelty. But things have changed especially over the last decade or so, to the point where almost all new TV anime are being made 12 episodes at a time now, even the ones that are renewed for multiple seasons. So a 12-episode anime in the 2020s is effectively PSOC, nothing notable at all because it’s evolved into the industry standard. If anyone cared enough to add every new 12 episode series that premiered every season we’d be adding over 100 new anime to the page every year.
Second, even if everyone decides the concept itself is still a valid trope, the vast majority of the examples on the page are ZCE, and most of the examples that do have a description are in the ”Given More Seasons” and “Unusual Cases” folders, which are essentially the aversions.
open Chico The Parakeet
DISCLAIMER: I do not have a vendetta/grudge against this user. I am simply concerned for him and the Hollers weren't enough for him to change his behavior even by a little bit, so I decided to make this ATT Report.
First off, they were the user I was talking about in this query
as I merely wanted to Holler him for his concerning behavior, mainly about his wonk about a South Park scene and showing it to other people even if it's determental.
He then brought it up again a couple of days later here
. Another user impiled that his obession might not be healthy. Prior to that post, I already sent him two Hollers. Assuming the mods read them and sent him a message about it in his PMs, he hasn't listened.
In general, as someone else puts its, he seems too erratic and cynical for his own good. For example, he has some sort of wonk towards Online Reviewers, particuraly those of the Caustic Critic kind, and holds their opinion as gospel even if he disagrees with them at the cost of his well being. I also recall that he stated he wanted to hurt himself over the opinions of these critics and asked why people wanted him to stop worrying about their opinions after that.
Here are
some of
his posts that show that.
Next, one about his paranoia over a work that seems to be excessive
and one that mentions a past trauma that he seems troubled by
(TW for animal cruelty/death for that one). They also seem quite self-conscious about their writting and fear that he'll get hated over it, as seen in the first of these Writer's Block posts.
Overall, a quite worrying troper and I made this ATT report to get other users' and mods' attention since the Hollers apparently weren't enough for him.
Edited by Cutegirl920fireopenDo Auto-Erotic Troping rules apply to video examples? Web Original
If, for instance, I were to upload a video example from a You Tube Poop that I made myself some years back, would that be banned? Would I link my Tropers page as one of the Sources like I'd link to WebAnimation.Da Things or Creator.cs188 for theirs (since I don't have enough tropable works to my name to justify a Creator subpage — I know There's No Such Thing as Notability, but I have to draw the line somewhere)?
Edited by LendriMujinaopenRemoval with hostile edit reason
On YMMV.Battlefield 1, Mr Combine removed
an instance of Franchise Original Sin with an edit reason calling it a "racist anf [sic] sexist dogwhistle". In fairness, I think the entry could have used some more explanation (since as written, it could easily be taken to imply that female and POC representation was an issue in itself), but I think their edit reason was a bit too hostile.
openWork page with no examples
There's a page added in 2021 called The Computer Chronicles. Thing is, there's no examples on the page itself, which seems counter to building work pages (i.e. you must have at least 3 examples). Is this sort of thing allowed, and is there anything I should do?
openMCU - Confirmed to be Earth-616 repercussions Film
Hoping that this doesn't constitute that big of a spoiler. But in Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness is officially revealed that - at least inside the MCU multiverse - the main MCU is designated as Earth-616. This only confirms the previous reveal by producer Nate Moore
that the MCU is Earth-616.
I know that maybe this contradicts the official designation by the Marvel databooks, but my stance on it is that: different multiverse, different rules, different designations. So, following from this, would it be ok for me to start to replace "the Sacred Timeline" mentions in entries with "Earth-616"??? I will confess that I have always felt a bit annoyed by how cult-ish the term sounds, and considering how comicbook-616 and MCU-616 have never interacted, it wouldn't lend itself to any problems. Besides, "the sacred timeline" is a mouthful when compared to "-616".
Also, strengthening the argument for the Earth-616 denomination - this is the third time so far it has officially been called that, two of them inside movies. While "sacred timeline" was only used in Loki.
Edited by Edgar81539openJohn Byrne's Superman = Audience-Alienating Era Print Comic
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?
open Should this be a page?
Should Creator.Embracer Group exist? They're not really a creator, they just own a bunch of creators. Also, the description is copied from a previous revision of Creator.THQ Nordic (some of the text is also in the current version), and the page itself mostly consists of red links.
openWhen troping a Summary/Gloss derivative, do we include tropes from the Original work?
Ran across Overly Sarcastic Productions, and in particular, this entry:
- Fainting:
- Dante does this a lot in The Divine Comedy. Red lampshades it, noting that for a protagonist — and a self-insert one, at that — Dante is kind of a wimp.
- Robert Olmstead passes out from seeing dozens of fish people in The Shadow Over Innsmouth.
The thing is... both these examples are equally true in the original work being discussed.
These aren't really adaptations, more illustrated Cliff Notes/Overviews. I don't doubt that OSP itself is tropeable, but I'm not sure if this should be treated more like a reviewer's commentary - only trope the stuff that the reviewer added.
openOn the Mario Party article
Greetings, fellow tropers. There's a question I'd like to ask.
The next thing I'd like to do in the wiki is to crosswick trope examples into the Mario Party article. However, when I checked the Related tab, I noticed that many of the redirects (namely those of the individual Mario Party games) have wicks, meaning that they pertain examples that are specific to individual installments in the series. For example, Mario Party 2 has 27 wicks, while Mario Party 3 has 29. Between this and the possibility that many of the 1197 direct wicks to the parent series page may be referring to only certain installments rather than the series as a whole, I was wondering if it would be okay to create work pages for the individual Mario Party pages, which would give home to the redirects' wicks and also limit the example section of the parent page to tropes that apply to most or all games.
Having myself played the second, fifth, seventh, ninth, and Super installments (and currently having Superstars on my wishlist), I could further contribute to the troping of their contents whenever possible: even though nearly all MP games have the same gameplay formula, they still have unique elements in the boards, minigames and (however minor) story premises.
For reference, all the Mario Kart articles have their own individual pages, same with all the New Super Mario Bros. pages.
If the answer to the question is no, I'll respect the decision and then proceed to simply crosswick examples into the parent page, in the hopes that it won't exceed the size limit. Thank you in advance.

Okay, I gotta ask: is Superman (Brian Michael Bendis) truly an Audience-Alienating Era? The entry reads
:
"While not universally hated, Superman (Brian Michael Bendis) is widely disliked by many Superman fans for a variety of reasons, with many seeing it as the biggest example of DC's poor creative direction around the end of The New '10s. The run was already met with immense scepticism before it debuted, owing to forcibly ending the beloved Peter J. Tomasi run on the book, and Bendis' extremely controversial reception, and this only compounded as the run progressed and Bendis' run became infamous for making widely divisive decisions which alienated long-time fans, most infamous among them being his decision to give Jon Kent a Plot-Relevant Age-Up (the backlash to Bendis would infamously mock fans for in both the book itself and on twitter) and have Clark publicly reveal himself as Superman, both of which were derided as spitting in the face of fans. Bendis' run also became known for its weak villains, with a large amount of time spent on Generic Doomsday Villain Rogal Zaar and the overlong, directionless "Leviathan" storyline which eventually petered out into an Aborted Arc despite continual promotion, as well as his well-known quirks such as meandering dialogue and scattershot approach to continuity and established mythology. All in all, despite the substantial push, Bendis' run would end unceremoniously after a little over two years and leaving Phillip Kennedy Johnson to pick up the pieces."
First of, the entry kinda shoots itself in the foot several times by stating that the Bendis era isn't as hated as much as it is divisive.
Secondly, websites and reviewers like Superman Homepage, Comic-Watch, Fortress of Solitude and DC Comics News have positive reviews for the issues directly written by Bendis so there's support for Bendis' comics.
Third, the general consensus for the Bendis era is that "good concepts with bad execution, Superman as a character has a pretty good portrayal but the villains are mediocre", so I sincerely don't know whether the people who hate this run are either a vocal minority or a very sizeable crowd.
Fourth, last time I checked, Audience-Alienating Era applies when
1. the run is a critical and financial disappointment
2. any changes caused by this run are reverted by later stories
3. any time this story is referenced to, it's done in a negative and mocking manner.
So, what do you say?
By the way, I already asked this at Is this an example?
to get a proper consensus?
Edited by MasterHero