Follow TV Tropes

Discussion Main / AudienceReactions

Go To

Jun 24th 2017 at 1:47:11 PM •••

Honestly am I the only one concerned that many people are using them to Complain About Shows They Don't Like. Sure it's inevitable given due to the very nature of the index, but it's a way too comforting loophole and can't help, but read a lot of these in the most pissed off tone you can think off. I don't know maybe I could just be taking the "neutral POV" a little bit too far as well, what do you guys think?

Edited by Sakubara
Jul 3rd 2013 at 2:43:32 AM •••

Where are the "change in reaction" types filed? E.g. especially earworms, which you find oh so great the first time, might drive you crazy when played the 100th time. Or the contrary, only after the 100th hearing you suddenly realize how good it is. Or the change has a specific reason (you are finally out of puberty, for instance).

May 12th 2012 at 8:48:37 AM •••

I guess Unfortunate Implications belongs here. "It is offensive" really sounds as an Audience Reaction.

Dec 23rd 2011 at 10:52:14 PM •••

Watch It Stoned, as currently defined, seems like an audience reaction. The trope page should be limited to In-Universe examples only (like Love It or Hate It), but it's definitely an audience reaction.

Edited by DynamiteXI
Aug 2nd 2011 at 9:46:44 PM •••

Love It or Hate It is restricted to In-Universe examples on its main page because otherwise we would have to list everything ever. It's still a reaction. The restriction is on the examples on that page, not on the definition of the trope. I mean, unless we're starting a cleanup project to delete all but a couple dozen of its 1k-ish currently-legitimate wicks, which seems bad. Most of those wicks are using it as a YMMV trope, and taking it off the index here means they won't get moved to the YMMV page where they belong.

(For reference, the thread where we originally agreed on this is here; the goal was to clean up the examples list because it was really stupid.)

Hide/Show Replies
Aug 2nd 2011 at 9:54:55 PM •••

1. What's wrong with zapping the wicks? Since listing "everything ever" isn't an option, it should get zapped everywhere else as well, just like Rule 34.

2. Where in that thread did we agree to let the examples stay on the rest of the wiki?

Aug 3rd 2011 at 12:31:52 AM •••

The thread in question was always talking about the main examples page for Love It or Hate It, not its wicks on YMMV pages.

See, cuz in-universe examples of audience reactions are allowed on the main page, but fan reaction examples are not. So we scrubbed the fan reaction examples off of the main page (i.e. the trope page itself), but they're still allowed to stay on the YMMV tabs of their respective works, cuz that's the YMMV section where it's okay, see? Right.

Edited by troacctid
Aug 3rd 2011 at 6:03:37 PM •••

What's your point? The examples on the page are subject to the same standards the rest of the site has, YMMV or main. Again, it doesn't really matter where it is, we shouldn't list examples anywhere as that would be trying to list "everything ever."

Aug 3rd 2011 at 7:42:47 PM •••

Yes, exactly: it's the same standard we apply on the rest of the site. In-universe examples go on the main page, reactions go on the YMMV page. So we take the non-in-universe examples off the main page. No reason why we should remove the banner—it's obviously still YMMV and even more obviously still an Audience Reaction.

Again, same standard we use for all the Audience Reactions. In-Universe examples are allowed on the main page, YMMV examples go on the YMMV tab, everyone's happy.

Aug 5th 2011 at 2:19:48 PM •••

Darn broken discussion page watchlist.

See squee for what I'm talking about here - it's been reworked to a completely objective character reaction trope, and doesn't allow YMMV examples.

See Adaptation Decay where we axed the Audience Reaction aspect as well.

Looks like we did the same with Love It or Hate It.

Edited by SpellBlade
Aug 5th 2011 at 8:17:46 PM •••

No, this one's more like Discredited Meme. Just for the examples on the main page.

We could start a new repair thread for it to try and change the definition to in-universe-only, if you think that's necessary?

Edited by troacctid
Aug 5th 2011 at 11:22:42 PM •••

Does that page have a warning against examples as it applies to everything ever? No, it doesn't.

Aug 6th 2011 at 1:17:10 AM •••

That bit was added later; it wasn't part of the original decision.

Aug 6th 2011 at 5:55:46 PM •••

Applying the same measures to a trope's example on the page and across the site is the precedent, as I've shown with the earlier pages I linked to.

Jun 23rd 2011 at 1:34:33 AM •••

Lest this turn into an edit war.

Canon Sue: This trope is on this page because the judgement of whether a character is a Mary Sue or not is inherently up to the audience. If the character is specifically written to be a Mary Sue, then it's Parody Sue.

Too Good to Last / Video-Game Movies Suck: Whether something is "good" or whether it "sucks" is, once again, up to the audience's judgment.

We're Still Relevant, Dammit!: This trope isn't about shows trying to stay "current", it's about attempts to stay current which come off looking forced. Whether it seems forced or not is up to— guess who? The audience.

Apr 26th 2011 at 9:03:55 PM •••

Why are we removing all the audience reactions from the main pages of the audience reaction tropes? It seems rather counter-intuitive.

Hide/Show Replies
Sep 21st 2011 at 6:55:40 PM •••

Read YMMV.

Main pages (and character pages, for that matter) are no place for personal opinions.

Jan 28th 2011 at 4:04:50 PM •••

Why Filler is listed here? "Episode without relevance to the plot" not sounds as one audience reaction. The same thing to Sequel Series, Plot Coupon, Plot Hole, Original Character(well, this is one fanfic trope, but not one audience reaction.), Retcon, Kudzu Plot, beetwen others.

Type the word in the image. This goes away if you get known.
If you can't read this one, hit reload for the page.
The next one might be easier to see.

How well does it match the trope?

Example of:


Media sources: