Follow TV Tropes
Removed this unsigned entry.
hydrix: How to recognize a Great/Bad anime in just one episode (by digitbro) is something I watch in general to give myself an idea how you can animate a great opening for something that will last very long and a decent chunk of it is well-made/well-explained... until part 2 when he talks about Lucky Star. Now, the beginning of part 2 already was more of "defending openings I like other people don't" instead of "how a great opening to an anime is structured", but it at least did talk about how these openings still manage to still make a good impression upon first-time viewing, which makes it disappointing for me when he talks more about how the opening of Lucky Star was controversial and how he can relate to this opening, outright ignoring that not everyone feels the same way he does. The next episode is indeed much better, but that part gives you about the same degree of satisfaction as hearing someone that says that he is going to talk about great paintings only to stop in front of one masturbating while watching it. If the anime community is so toxic that users actively and permanently engage in such behavior it goddamn sucks.
Even though Hydrix kinda has a point on this, I'd like to share my opinion on the last sentence, the one in bold. I think it needs to be removed as it has no point except for a hasty Take That! to the anime community. You just can't generalize a fanbase based on how members of it act like: it's called Hate Dumb. And this is why I think anime fans get a lot less respect than Bronies and other infamous fandoms.
Cutting this entry.
While the problems he lists that lead up to his main problem are valid enough, the main reason the troper gives makes no sense. Somebody can dislike a person's content while not disliking them as a person, and him giving examples of Youtubers who he dislikes the content of doesn't mean he has anything against them as people. Said user he insulted was, again, insulting the content. Not them as a person.
Why on Earth are there DMOS entries for Go Animate? Go Animate videos are universally atrocious due to the software's poor quality and major limitations and the ineptitude of virtually every individual who attempts to construct them. How any sane individual can react in a negative fashion to any Go Animate video is simply baffling, since you should know that, before watching one, it's going to be artless, plotless nonsense - that's why they can be hilarious at times. Thus, these DMOS entries just seem ridiculous and unnecessary. "Good" Go Animate videos simply cannot exist.
You kind of have a point, but I think the particular videos are bad even for GoAnimate standards to the eyes of these people. Also, it's not completely plotless.
I want to contest this entry.
This entry explicitly criticizes an entire trend of video as opposed to a particular video belonging to said trend. That'll be like if I wrote an entry for reaction channels as a whole without specifying that only one particular reaction ticked me off.
Also, one could argue that the videos fall under "satire" by Fair Use. So no, it's not stealing content.
Should I cut it?
I think "I hate everything" edited Parachomp's review. Towards they end, the person calls themself an idiot, and it sound a lot like the author editing it. Here's the text incase it gets edited:
Para Chomp: "Search for the Worst: Suicide Squad". I will not argue against negative criticism against Suicide Squad (2016), it's justified. What I will argue against is the constant questioning of the existence of various characters. One can see them as IHE pointing out them being unnecessary for the film but when he compared Killer Croc to Gorilla Grodd, you could tell that either wasn't the case or he's being too vague with the intentions of his words. There is nothing wrong with either of them as characters in terms of premise, same can be said about Captain Boomerang and Katana. All four of these characters have proven their worth in other pieces of media. There are so many characters who use trick weapons for combat and Katana was as relevant as ever due to Beware the Batman. One of the film's problems is its hacing many unnecessary characters, but these characters have been well written in other media and have relevance to the source material which is something IHE doesn't acknowledge. I do realize that I am an IDIOT trying to win such an argument. This is someone who doesn't care about the history of comics nor their characters, only wants a good movie, and uses Aquaman and Kite Man as their Butt-Monkey. Once again, the wound that the The Comics Code has left shows its ugly face proving that even the Darker and Edgier adaptations can't hide it.
I seriously think the entry for RWBY (the third one about Volume 4) needs to go. Don't get me wrong, the other two about RWBY are total shit themselves (whining, complaining, and accusing the writers of no integrity because they didn't bend for someone else's desires) but this one takes it to Blatantly Untrue levels or just plain nonsensical.
Like saying that Ruby laughing at the jacket is knowingly laughing at Pyrrha - even though she wasn't even present for the conversation tying Pyrrha to that. Or that by laughing at a brown bunny, Ruby is laughing at Velvet Scarlatina? So, what next, Ruby wishes death upon Coco and Velvet by eating chocolate bunnies Easter morning?
And Ruby laughing at the jacket apparently being a regression of character development? Ruby has always been amused by things that she sees as silly, and seeing as there's no reason she would know that the jacket is connected to Pyrrha, she'd see it as silly. Jaune wearing the jacket has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Then there's the claim that the writers of RWBY don't care to respect their characters, audience intelligence or their own writing integrity - we have seen time and time again that RT loves their characters, the audience, and their writing integrity - now and in Monty's day. The entry in question sums up to false accusations because the writers didn't break their integrity and bend to the will of what someone else wanted.
Cutting this section of a DMOS
PBG encountered wild Pokemon in the cave of origin before he fought Kyogre. So catching it would violate the rule of only catching the first pokemon you encounter in an area.
Unless there was an episode where Jon goes on a tirade on the recent politics in the middle on a review, I removed this one because it's more about Jon himself rather than a video he did.
Seconding that it winds up being too broad and definitely more about Jon himself, but a livestream (even if it's not a review) is still a work.
I wasn't sure myself if livestreams can be considered a work, because you don't necessarily have to be a character as such.
This is my entry for Phantom Strider.
Phantom Strider (real name: John Strider) is a Caustic Critic from the UK who is often described as a less angry, more forgiving Mysterious Mr. Enter with better editing. Unlike most Caustic Critics however, he does almost all of his reviews in the form of Top 10s. He's also pretty humble, admitting to being biased at times and making it clear in all of the intros to his videos that he's not a Fan Hater ("If you don't think these [[insert topic of the list here]] are bad, that's great! It's just my silly personal opinion. And I'm glad you can enjoy these [[topic of the list]] while I can't.") But the former didn't become more blatantly obvious than in his Top 10 Worst Cartoon Remakes list. It was pretty good for the most part. There's just three things I didn't like and/or understand. 1) I'm confused as to how the Powerpuff Girls reboot wasn't at #10 considering he was the least critical of it compared to the others on the list. 2) I didn't really understand the Take That! against the trailer for the new Ghostbusters movie. I know that the all-female cast didn't get a very warm welcome, but if there's one thing I know, it's that trailers can't be trusted. You don't know if the movie gonna be good regardless of the cast or not. But the D Mo S for me is his #1 pick: every Scooby-Doo remake in existence! Look, I don't care if he doesn't like Scooby-Doo; that's his opinion. But his reason behind his #1 pick shows just how biased he can be. Strider's criticisms about Scooby-Doo are legitimate, if debatable (he found the show formulaic, boring and "nothing special"), but his only criticism about all of the remakes that followed was basically "the series won't just die already!" In his defense, if I remember correctly, I think he did mention at some point that he doesn't feel like any of the remakes added anything new or interesting to the series. But even if he did, it was completely overshadowed by his rant about how annoyed he is that the franchise is still going after 40 years. I totally understand where he's coming from; I get pretty surprised myself when I find out something that came out when I was a kid is still going on to this day, but I wouldn't be so annoyed as to place it at #1 on a "Worst Remakes" list and bash it simply because of that one fact. Someone in the comments section called him out on this and even accused him of only including all of the remakes simply he didn't like the original (he never replied). I don't believe in Unsubscribing, so I'll continue to watch his videos. But you'd think somebody who claims to enjoy engaging in intelligent conversation would have a better reason for his #1 pick than "there's too many remakes".
Anyone know how to reword this so it isn't basically a Wall of Text?
Cut for being the main reason being that Phantom criticized characters that the poster liked. Also one example for a show doesn't warrant their own folder.
Cutting the last sentence from this entry.
That example's not anywhere close to similar. They listed games that were on playstation that happened to also be on other consoles. His/her example was of something that was never on a Nintendo console in the first place.
Yeah, that's pretty much nonsense.
Putting this one up for contention. I think this one is reeking of They Panned It, Now They Suck. More notably the second section.
The part about Watch Mojo bending their own rules and editing polls, if true, sounds like an acceptable example. But everything else is "My favourite character didn't win and that's unacceptable", and should be cut.
GF 93: Don't get me wrong, I think One Minute Melee is a very good series for the most part, but my personal DMOS has to go to "Zero vs. Meta Knight". It was a great idea for a fight for various reasons (The two not only both being sword-wielding mentors and friendly rivals to the main heroes of their respective franchises, but also being very popular and Badass characters in their own right), so it'd be a great episode for either this series or a Death Battle, right? Sadly not. It was a massive disappointment in several respects, and just overall reeked of wasted potential. The fight itself was very pedestrian for the series' usual fast-paced and exciting standards, with neither character (Especially Meta Knight, who is limited to only his basic swordplay and not even allowed to use his Super Smash Bros. moves or abilities despite using the same voice and appearance from there) really being able to do anything much considering their usual amount of powers and abilities that could have come into play, and the animation was nothing spectacular. Dishonorable mention however, has to go to the ending, for the sheer amount of Critical Research Failure and Out of Character-ness abound from both characters. Zero uses the Rekkoha to summon lightning, Meta Knight Screams Like a Little Girl (Despite him normally being The Stoic and never reacting to anything in such a way in his own series) and lets his guard down, allowing Zero to inflict a No-Holds-Barred Beatdown which ends with him stabbing Meta Knight through the face with his superheated Z-Saber, before slashing upward to bisect him vertically, with blood splattering across the ground from each of the two halves. Not only is it needlessly graphic and brutal for a series whose fights don't normally end in death, but it goes completely against Zero's established character, who outright refuses to kill sentient living beings. With that in mind, he could have easily knocked Meta Knight's sword out of his hand and then sliced his mask off from there, which would have been a nice Call Back to how he's defeated in the Kirby series.
I'm going to have to object to this one. One Minute Melees are decided without any research. So you can't criticize lack of research when that's the whole point of the melee.
Cutting an entry:
The rules explicitly forbid entries based solely on differing opinions. Also, it's not Critical Research Failure because you can't gauge the quality of a TV show.
I find this to be a poor entry. "Cinematic force" means Naugthy Dog is a powerhouse at making their games cinematic. Games don't have to be PlayStation-exclusive to be called PlayStation games. And the final sentence is meaningless because Halo games have never been released on Nintendo systems at all.
The folder:other code seems to be broken of some sort. The folder function is not working. Is there a way to fix it?
Too long, I think. Folders have a maximum size.
It's kind of getting out of hand. What should we do?
Split up a few folders, I'd say.
Removing this and putting it here:
Really? A list didn't mention something you liked so now it's Ruined Forever? This comes off as being petty and bitter because someone disagreed with you.
Aren't real-life examples not allowed on this page? Also what did Mr. Enter do?
Removed it. Examples should be about creators doing something wrong, not creators not doing something right.
(On Potato Potato's Feminist Frequency moment) How is Anita a Sacred Cow? If she was, people wouldn't criticize her and her videos as much as they do
She isn't. She is reviled by anyone outside of Tumblr. Not even true feminists (the ones who actually want men and women to be treated equally and don't complain about the "objectification" and violence against women in media") agree with her. Will fix.
I deleted this:
"* L Dragon 2: I completely understand that Cinema Sins' videos are meant to be humorous, and not to be taken seriously. Heck, I didn't even mind when Jeremy did sins on some of my favorite films (The Dark Knight, The Matrix, Inception, The Avengers, Pacific Rim, etc.), due to their tongue and cheek tone. However, the video he made for Captain America: The Winter Soldier is one of the worst parodies I've seen of the film, as it mainly consists of little more than nitpicks and perceived plot-holes that the film not only explains, but also sometimes come across like he didn't bother to pay attention to the story. This wouldn't be so bad, if it wasn't for the fact that he specifically stated that he disliked the film due to Hype Backlash and perceived "lack of common sense". Basically, this video wasn't him cracking jokes in the name of humor; instead, it was a 20 minute long diatribe of why he views the film as poor without one sense of irony. Add on to the fact that he said that those who like the film are enjoying a Terry Gilliam fever dream, and you have one of the most petty and shallow critiques I've ever seen."
Reason: This is the whole video, and only specific moments are allowed.
N8an11 has deleted some entries and used the edit reason "1 Moment per Troper". Isn't the rule "One moment per work to a troper"? N8an11 deleted several of fluffything's entries, even though they were for works fluffything didn't have any other entries for. Later, N8an11 did the same thing to some of Bengson26's entries.
The description on the main page is pretty vague about that. One moment per troper for each work sounds fine to me. Narrowing it down to one moment per troper PERIOD would be way too restrictive IMO.
I agree. The main page does say "A Moment may be removed if it is blatantly untrue or otherwise breaks the rules. However, if you do remove an entry, move it to discussion and explain what is wrong (blatantly untrue, multiple entries for the same work, unsigned, etc).", though.
I've just added an entry based on Sonic Shorts. Originally, my entry was going to be about the ending to Sonic Shorts Volume 8. Where all the animators die by the hands of the Sonic Cast. There wasn't much I can say about it other than, "Really? This is how you end the series? And if you're going to make Sega Shorts, how the hell are you going to come back after that bloodbath?" Also I want to mention the fan character skit. I actually found it a little funny, and it's not bashing EVERY Sonic OC. It's humor is more like Jello Apocalypse's Welcome to videos.
Removing this one, as the moment itself is a playful jab at Slim rather than a direct insult, and the bits about people thinking it was funny and Slims fanbase not going crazy came off as the writer complaining about the two. If they want to add it back, they must be much more clear on the problem, as for the most part, they missed the joke.
It's Game Theory, just rewrite the example so it mentions the show.
Removed this one because it doesn't speak of any moments that annoyed this person. He/She should change it a little:
Lincoln123: Honestly, why does this fuckhead still write articles for Cartoon Brew. Amid Amidi is everything wrong with the blog, and I just want him to stop going anywhere near a blog like this if he is going to act like a Jerkass! I LOATHE this fucking idiot almost as much as Armond White. I don't think I'm going to browse through this blog until Amid gets some well-deserved karma!!!(He's basically one of my MANY anger switches on the internet.)
Removed an entry for being unsigned. I have it right here in case the owner wants to repost it with a proper signature.
I apologize for my constant misuage of "Not Making This Up" Disclaimer.
Is this wiki guilty of a dethroning moment?
What do you have in mind?
See if any examples in the Fuck No Tv Tropes tumblr have any insight
Best to not bring in any outside things like that tumblr. It's why This Troper doesn't have a page anymore.
Removing this and putting it here where it should have been in the first place. Is a blatant violation of "No contesting entries."
I'm deleting this:
Because it's just flat-out wrong. While I think it's obvious that they intended Lennon to win, not a single one of the insults levelled against O'Reilly had to do with his being a conservative. This example is just He Panned It, Now He Sucks!.
I put it back up. The reason it was up there was that the mishandled political element was one of many flaws, and I mentioned it specifically because was the only prominent flaw that couldn't be pinned squarely on Early Installment Weirdness. The episode picked a known conservative figurhead and tried to make them seem as unsympathetic as possible after bombarding them with insults (among other claims, that they were whoring themselves out to George Bush). This culminates in said figurehead openly and unrepentantly admitting to being malevolent and void of merit after being ordered to "shut the fuck up." It may not seem like it to you, and that is perfectly fine but it came off as a pretty severe Bias Steamroller to me, mercifully one not present in later episodes.. That's sort of the point of the site (at least for me) to see how different people view the same thing. I for one enjoyed the season 2 finale, though I admit it could have ended with Gorbachev's stanza to no ill effect.
Firstly, this is not (for the most part) a site to "see how different people interpret the same thing". It's a site for cataloging patterns in fiction. Secondly, to add it back on without discussion like that is edit warring, which is a very serious offense. Thirdly, since it was stated that the other flaws were forgivable, they aren't relevant here. Fourthly, the whole point of a rap battle is to insult your opponent, so that's not a valid argument. Fifthly, the example states that it is "anti conservative". It is not. It is anti-Bill O'Reilly. You want to complain about that, fine, but as it is written the example is simply untrue.
All right, here's the revised version:
Alright, that's more reasonable.
Regarding ShiningArmor87's entry under Platypus Comix: I find it very hard to believe that Peter hates Friendship is Magic. If he legitimately disliked the series, he probably would have slapped up one of those stock vectors of Pinkie on his "Pony-free since 2001" banner, instead of finding an actual makes-sense-in-context screencap...
...and he compared a ditzy lady to a human Derpy Hooves in one of his Island of Misfit Christmas Specials pages...
...and he clarified on the CD! forums that no offense was intended by the last line of his Cricket article and that he was only comparing himself to bronies, in that both get all geeky over what "normal" people would consider to be kids' stuff.
His attitude is more along the lines of indifferent, from what I've seen.
AFTER-THE-FACT EDIT: Yeah, his bit on them here isn't hateful in the least. Modestly complimentary if anything. Only confirming my hypothesis, really.
...because "kensu" is misremembering. As explained here starting at "Last Friday", not only was this rant neither vitriolic nor creationist (just skeptical of evolution), it was also tongue-in-cheek.
Before a fight breaks out, I thought I could put this in discussion:
Okay, NCS is in fact at least okay with the show. He name-dropped Fluttershy in his Diddy's Kong Quest LP and is on record referring to "The Best Night Ever" as "pretty good."
Chuggaaconroy is definitely strongly against homophobia, and I recall at least two separate times he's spoken out against it. And apparently he is a Brony, if this video is anything to go by.
Proton Jon and Chuggaaconroy do not hate each other, and the Vitriolic Best Buds thing they have going on in their TRG videos is obviously being Played for Laughs. If you need any evidence that Jon and Chuggaa are on good terms, this Formspring post should do it.
And in regards to Jon being a brony-hater or a homophobe? Eh, no. I don't think he is. He just doesn't give off that hater vibe like DeceasedCrab does. Jon never went out of his way to tell a Brony to go kill himself like DeceasedCrap did, and I read somewhere (it was either Jon's Twitter or his Formspring) that he has a Rainbow Dash 20% Cooler shirt.
But what does that have to do with anything? Is the exchange as fluffything posted it markedly different from the exchange as it actually played out? If that's the case, then you have a valid defense. (sorry it took me so long. had to get a part on my computer replaced. I'll extend the deadline a week.)
In all likelihood, Proton Jon was just gently mocking Chugga and the MLP fandom. "You're finally coming out of the closet, or should that be stable?" is not only far from the worst thing to ever be said about the fandom, there's no malice behind it that I can see (Jon didn't get upset, didn't tell Chugga to go kill himself, didn't dwell on the subject, didn't say that bronies should go hang themselves...). Any way you cut it, PJ is a pretty swell guy, not the kind of person who'd deliberately and openly bash an entire culture just for existing. I personally don't think it's worth getting upset over, but ehh, maybe fluffything feels differently.
Apparently fluffything changed Runaway Guys DMOS to something similar from the New Super Mario Bros. U longplay. I stand by my previous statement: they weren't seriously advocating jailing people for having an opinion (which would be a violation of basic human rights), it was a joke. But I guess some people are easily offended.
Midna, are you familiar with the word "opinion"? What about the word "unfunny"?
You don't need to talk down to me, I understand perfectly. I understand that people are allowed to have opinions. I was giving my point of view on things, is all.
Does anyone reckon that Oddly's comment on that whole Kony thing is just him contesting an entry even though there's a big fat rule against it? should we take it to discussion?
Yes, and gone it is:
Given some comments in Wiki Talk, I am pretty sure that Complaining about site policies in DMOS is not OK, but for the benefit of doubt I'll leave them here:
You are correct. We do not allow complaining about the wiki on the wiki.
Yeah, that's what the discussion pages are for.
Wait a second, there are good arguments against gay marriage? I haven't heard any.
"There are people who oppose gay marriage for more important things like the way children are brought up or for the preservation of traditional marriage". What negative effects would gay parents have on their children? How would allowing gay marriages affect heterosexual marriages at all? I'm hoping the troper in question will drop by, as I'm curious to hear their answers to these questions. No, really, I'm genuinely curious...
In either case, the page is about personal opinion, and the submission is signed. If the troper feels that the article was the DMOS for that site, then that'll be their contribution to the page.
Well, yes, it's their opinion, but I think they could have used a better justification. I mean, uh, how can you seriously claim that you can oppose gay marriage without "exhibit[ing] intolerance and animosity toward members of a group.", which is The Other Wiki's definition of bigotry?
Don't get me wrong, we're definitely on the same side of the issue...I'm just worried that disputing the entry could start an edit war and get the whole page scrapped, if not the entire namespace. DMOS is a fragile institution.
Which is why I knew I'm supposed to STFU and only bring this up in discussion, haha. I'd really like to hear that explanation too, it's bound to be something I couldn't think of.
I would take it Tvtropes itself is exempt from being added to this list? I was thinking of adding a recursive example, citing the DMOS section as being a DMOS for tvtropes (not very funny or original, I know, but....).
EDIT: I need to start checking the dates on posts before replying.
Can anyone tell me why my example about Dragonball The Abridged series was cut? They made a misogynistic joke, I took offense to it, and signed it. Their was no reason why it should have been cut.
nuclearneo577 on a school computer.
Super Saiya Man loves to remove moments because he disagrees with it. Here is what he left.
The funny part about that joke is she was having the dream in the FIRST PLACE when Vegeta and Krillin showed up to take the Dragon Ball. Not that Rape is Funny. Completely Missing the Point it seems.
Thanks for telling me, after I added it I actually did talk to several members of Team 4 star, and the joke was supposed to be Rape Is Comedy, my problem is that instead of actual trying to tell a joke, the joke appears to be Rape Is Funny. If someone doesn't have any objections I am going to add it back in a few days.
Why are Spoony's examples not at the That Guy With The Glasses page?
Old entries that were cut
So... what if I made a reply? Do I put the unsigned original post and then my signed addition? Or what?
Examples are supposed to look like they were all written by the same purpose. Integrate your new information into the existing example or, if you're disputing the veracity of an example, just delete it instead. Repair Dont Respond.
^ Under normal circumstances, yes. However, for this particular trope, we are supposed to make sure everyone knows who wrote what, and to not delete examples unless they are actually against the rules.
Can we just delete this?
That's how the whole show works, not just that episode.
Agreed. This is like calling something "the worst night of your life" because the sun didn't even rise on that night.
You know, I'm REALLY beginning to think that some of the entries here are going beyond simple He Panned It, Now He Sucks! mentality, as apparently now its an outlet to say "WAAAAH HE MADE AN OPINION I DON'T AGREE WITH THEREFORE DMOS!!", in regards to that kid who complained about Yahtzee liking the Werehog bits of Sonic Unleashed on the Zero Punctuation page. We've really got to stamp out on this sort of fanboy crying and restore this page to what it is meant to be: Specific moments that were downright stupid, offensive or absolute crap.
Green Goblinoid here. I want to know why my post replying to Spoony FFX DMOS was erased. The person complaining seemed to have a He Panned It, Now He Sucks! mentality and I want as little of these as possible. I guess I could've came across that way too but still.
Never mind. I realize what I did. Still, I'd like to delete that entry, simply because, well, it's kinda like He Panned It, Now He Sucks!. Seriously. Am I allowed to do that?
Never mind again, I won't delete it, but still, there should just be less He Panned It, Now He Sucks! moments in this page.
I'm sort of getting that vibe myself. Granted there are moments that disappointed me, but some people are just getting up in arms over someone criticising their favourite works. I won't even get started on what I think of the "Yahtzee vs Smash Bros Brawl" fiasco.
Agreed. Tropers who are reading this, it shouldn't be "its not a bad movie but he bashed it anyway" or "waaaah! He bashed my favorite movie!" There needs to be something like for instance the Big Lipped Starving Children with the Nostalgia Critic, or Spoony's FF 9 review where he makes it clear and admits he did no research on it.
I'd say nuke the edits that basically baw about one reviewer giving their fave show a bashing and keep in the real DMO Ses. granted people will complain and the ones that perform the actionw ill be under troper scrutiny, but if DMOS was about nothing but He Panned It, Now He Sucks! then it would be a fine sight indeed
May I delete the Angry Video Game Nerd entry from this page? I can't speak for anyone else, but personally I find the reasons for the Crazy Castle review being on here incredibly weak and insufficient, especially the original entry.
No idea whether or not it warrants deleting, but most of the rationale for the original post was that "Bugs Bunny should get what he had comin'" which he did two years earlier in the Birthday Blowout review!
I just hate that original post. It's just a thinly-veiled excuse to proclaim his/her hatred of Bugs Bunny. The other two posts at least give plausible reasons, even if I don't agree with them.
If I can't delete the whole entry, can I at least edit the three posts together, and take out the unnecessary hatred?
I dunno, can you?
I could do it, but I don't know if I'm allowed to. I would be combining two opinions and deleting a third, and I have a feeling that it's against this page's rules.
Should we move all the Nostalgia Critic examples to a separate page?
I think that's a definite no. Plus, most of the TGWTG entries are really weak He Panned It, Now He Sucks!.
Cleaned up most of it.
Added a warning about He Panned It, Now He Sucks!.
So, how come we can complain about an awful NC review, but not about an awful Cracked article? The last time I checked, thatguywiththeglasses.com was just as real as cracked.com. And they both talk about real things (well, mostly). This is like saying that you can criticize a gaming magazine because their game reviews are bad, but not because their articles on gaming history are horrible.
I wasn't sure whether or not to remove The Nostlagia Critic because he is a character being played by a guy called Doug and I wasn't sure whether that pushed him into the realms of fiction or not. The trouble was, TNC's opinions are real, so I didn't know what to do.
Well now I do. I cut every Caustic Critic entry. Your help is very much appreciated.
I suppose that means we should cut the Zero Punctuation page as well. All those in favour say "I".
What is the trope for when you achieve the exact opposite of what you wanted? Anyway, I strongly disagree with not being allowed to add these examples, but going by your logic, that page should be cut as well.
Also, there is one other thing: You specifically said that the opinions are real. The way I see it, the Review part of Video Review Show is classified as Real Life example, but the Show part is still fiction. Therefore, we should be allowed to add examples that are part of the Show and not of the Review. Yes, I'm saying this specifically to save my Santa Christ example.
<nitpick> Also, that should be "aye", not "I". </nitpick>
Nay. Keep away the ones which are merely He Panned It, Now He Sucks!, but I can't see any valid reason to delete the shows (which, at least in the Nerd and the That Guy With The Glasses cases, are characters through and through, and Works rather than Real Life. Not sure about Zero Punctuation though.). You don't see Author Filibusters and Tracts on other pages deleted because "You Just Don't Get It".
OK, I have restored everything I deleted.
Your help is much appreciated.
What I was trying to say with the opinions are real is that, the Critic for instance can say he dislikes Superman IV. However, what the critic speaks are also Doug's opinions, hence my confusion, because if you're complaining about something Critic said, you'd be complaining about something Doug said. Well that was my line of thinking.
That's not really true, though. Doug has said many a time that the Critic is nothing but a character (check out the commentary for the "Cartoon Allstars" review, "pathetic" seemed to be the word of the day) and that he does actually like films such as The Wizard and crazy shows like Adventures of Sonic the Hedgehog.
That still doesn't mean that this page should be filled with nitpicking He Panned It, Now He Sucks!, however.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Doug Walker is still the one who is writing the series. If the Critic makes a highly inappropriate and insensative joke or outright lies about a film (Last Action Hero, anyone), then, yes it is a dethroning moment.
I really don't understand the "the Nerd is too cinematic nowadays". He seems to alternate between shorter, more informative and educational and the cinematic shit-n-swear fest (i.e. Crazy Castle) ones, with a little more emphasis on the short ones, at least after about 2008.
The Homestar Runner example (about the Compé), to this 18-year-old Windows Vista user is completely impenetrable. Can someone elaborate?
Did Not Do The Research. THAT IS ALL.
NO IT ISN'T. GOOD GRIEF!
I'm just going to remove that until the poster explains what they were talking about.
emeriin: Now correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm not going to edit yet, don't worry) but aren't these pages actually meant for proper Dethroning Moment Of Suck(s) instead of He Panned It, Now He Sucks!?
Absolutely. We've been trying to filter out those that are plain bashing and Complaining as well.
(Sorry about this incorrect post.)
Community Showcase More