Follow TV Tropes

Discussion Main / WriterRevolt

Go To

Apr 30th 2013 at 5:03:41 AM •••

I think the touhou entry is rather Your Mileage May Vary as while there's a few refuting remarks, many things could be incidental, such as the moe subversions seen barring exact sources for all this.

It doesn't help that ZUN tends to say things in a non-word of god state half the time.

The same goes for something unstated: the notion that some characters may be based on exaggerated fandom. Example? Meiling in fanon is a chronic sleeper, some time later comes Komachi who's actually a chronic sleeper. The recent Jing-shi character Yoshika has the ability to eat anything, similar to fanon Yuyuko and Rumia.

In short it's not a completely definitive taste.

Dec 30th 2010 at 7:19:59 AM •••

"Star Trek The Next Generation had another little bit of revolt. Much hay had been made about the fact that the 24th century didn't seem to have openly gay people, and Whoopi Goldberg protested the fact that one episode had her explain the birds and the bees to a new lifeform by saying, "When a man and a women are in love..." She managed to get it changed to "two people"; as it was part of a holographic presentation. Of course, this arguably ends up being a Wall Banger, as the talk Whoopi Goldberg's character was explaining was about sex to reproduce lifeforms, something gay people cannot do. Therefore, the "man and a woman" bit was actually justified. "

Which episode was this? I thought it was referring to Guinan's conversation with Lal in The Offspring, but in that case the justification above about "explaining reproduction" is nonsense: the scene has nothing to do with procreation (it consists of Lal watching two officers flirt and then leave together)

Jun 22nd 2010 at 3:23:07 PM •••

First off, I'm not sure we should be adding writers who are just trying to spite their fans, which leaves all webcomics (except a few larger services maybe) out by default. Since that's such a sweeping change, I didn't make it.

As to the change I did make, though, I don't understand why people say that about Mookie and Siggy. His Final Speech and other Pet the Dog moments seemed to me pretty clearly to be intended to foster sympathy; the bit with the murdered orcs just seemed to me to be an attempt at moral ambiguity. Siggy was a fundamentally good person... with the minor flaw of hubris, and the unforgivable one of seeing orcs as vermin to be slain, and doing so. It's similar to the notorious rape storyline: he wanted to examine the concept of the Moral Event Horizon by having a character cross it while still having redeeming features, although in this case, you're not expected to forgive him, but only to resent your condemnation of him. It's clumsy, but I don't think it's an attack on Sigfried's fans.

Edited by TwinBird
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: