Discussion WebVideo / ToddInTheShadows

The page was soft split into 8 parts. Hence, 8 pages.

Yeah but 8 pages is too much to manage. If we condensed them down to 4 pages, each page would still have a lot of space that wouldnt' need to be dealt with for years to come.

Sorry, but why is it "too much to manage"? Especially since it wasn't too much to manage as a soft split and I've never seen that complaint with other wiki pages?

Actually, it's a fairly common splitting scheme.

(sigh) well, I can't really answer this without admitting to one of my own personal preferences on this site. I lose interest in posting new tropes when I have to add 8 new subpages to my watch list and check each one every time to see if a trope or entry I have in mind has already been added yet with each new episode.

Nevermind me.

Well, different people have different opinions. Anyhow, I always use any pre-existing scheme since by "pre-existing" one can say it has already pre-existing approval.

Yeah.. unfortunately, there's no middle ground. People used to use the Did Not Do The Research index page as a trope just for minor errors, but that misuse lead to that index being axed. Now, there's either no research failure, or Critical Research Failure. All or nothing with no middle ground.

I'm honestly not sure what to do with it either. Todd and other review shows are unique in that the purpose is to provide information in order to back up their opinions. When the information is wrong to the point that it invalidates an argument being made (I'm looking at you, Demons), then the incident does seem like it should be noteworthy, but it just doesn't hold up to the definition given for Critical Research Failure.

Looking at other Critical Research Failure examples on the trope page, some of them follow the "basic knowledge" idea while some don't... which isn't helpful at all. But a lot of the examples seem to follow the logic that a simple Google search would easily provide the answer. Maybe that's the standard that should be used here?

For example:

• He mentions Fall Out Boy seems to always be competing with Panic! at the Disco, despite the fact both bands are signed to the same record label, and members of Panic! are actually big Fall Out Boy fans (in fact it was thanks to FOB that Panic!'s music career got kick-started).
  • He also seems to take "I Don't Care" at face value, when it's actually meant to be satire.

The second bullet would definitely go (that's interpretation rather than actual fact). The first point... actually needs some context because the way it's phrased here sounds like Todd is implying that there's animosity between the band, but the context could be that they cover the same demographic. If he does mention negative feelings between the two bands though, then I feel like that could stay.

Actually, citing where these errors take place (by mentioning at least the video and also a quote if possible) would probably be a good idea.

So in that case, examples of critical research error should be required to 1. Mention the video the error took place in and possibly a quote, 2. Be something that could easily have been discovered with a google search.

So with this in mind, "During his diatribe against awful Britpop in his review of "Want U Back", he cited as examples the Romanian pop duo The Cheeky Girls, whose accents at least should have been a hint, and the Irish twin act Jedward - though the latter is more forgivable as they broke out on a UK talent show." Sounds legit.

"The "Worst of 2004" features him ripping Lloyd for a line about "bulldoggin' hoes like them Georgetown Hoyas." The fact that this line was bitten from Out Kast's hit "Rosa Parks" goes unmentioned." Sounds less like a critical research failure and more like an omission. Not an example.

"In his "Deuces" review, he says Ashlee Simpson was kicked out of the pop world for lip-syncing. Ashlee had three more hits from her next album after the incident." Could be found with google, but not an example either due to the fact that this was obviously meant to be a joke.

"In his "Black and Yellow" review, he does his Finish The Rhyme bit with Wiz Khalifa's line "And my car look unapproachable", which he ends by mocking him for not even trying to come up with a good rhyme in the next line. However, Wiz had actually rhymed it (though stretching it painfully) with the two previous lines, one of which Todd had even played beforehand: "Stay fly like I'm supposed to do"." Looking at the lyrics, I can't see unapproachable rhyming with supposed to do or close to do at all. Looks like nitpicking, should be cleaned.

"Cited the "Marvin Gaye sample" in his "Blurred Lines" review. There's no sample credited in the song. Pharrell was actually able to pull off a Suspiciously Similar Song to the Gaye song in question (he and Robin Thicke are now suing Gaye's estate over it) so it's understandable that Todd and a large part of the Web were fooled. He also stated that all three were happily married men when Pharrell was only engaged at the time."

Was the estate being sued when the review was released? If not, wipe. As to the second point, nitpicking.

"When talking about "Take Care", he mentions Jamie XX's version of "I'll Take Care of You" came out in 2011, but fails to mention that the song that he was talking about also came out in 2011, despite it being his #1 song of 2012, (although the single was released in 2012). He also fails to mention that XX produced the song." Seems legit.

"In his "Holy Grail" review he says Justin Timberlake had never had a flop before Runner Runner. Considering Justin was in The Love Guru, Bad Teacher and In Time, Todd seems to have dropped the ball." Sounds like nitpicking but I'm not sure if this should stay? It's something you can find easily enough with google but again. It's nitpicking.

"During his diatribe against Nu Metal, Todd lists Three Days Grace as one of the bands. Three Days Grace are a Post-Grunge and Alternative Metal band, not Nu Metal. He also lists Crossfade and Puddle of Mudd in there; they're both also Post-Grunge bands."

Genres are really confusing and there's a lot of overlap so I don't see this as a critical research failure. Google would probably give you conflicting answers on this one. Also, nitpicking.

"He mentions several times that Cee Lo Green's "Fuck You" chart success was attributed to Glee covering it. He fails to mention that the song's resurgence was around the time it was nominated for Record and Song of the Year at The Grammys which may have contributed more to its success."

Okay, new rule. Any examples of "fail to mention" are not allowed. That's not critical research failure! That's an omission!! Not the same thing!

"As mentioned below, he calls "Demons" a sell-out despite the song coming out long before the band's success. This is even Lampshaded in his worst of 2013 list where he hilariously claims it to be the result of time traveling. Todd: Goddamn it, quit time-traveling, Imagine Dragons! How am I supposed to like a band that breaks the laws of physics? Screw you, lawbreakers!"

If he lampshades that calling them a sell out makes no sense then I don't see why this example is there.

And the final example was covered already.

What do you guys think? Anything that should be kept or cleared?

It's a bit tricky figuring out what trope would apply, considering that it's his argument that changes. Not quite a story element, but rather specific to the character (if we treat Todd as a character here). The situation here is that Todd had an opinion, was presented with evidence that proved his opinion incorrect, and created an even more outlandish argument to justify that opinion. Perhaps Comically Missing the Point would fit best?

"However, the center of this trope is a person who, despite having all the time in the world and all the information, comes to a conclusion so wrong it's hard to be even further from correct."

He even lampshades it to an extent, pointing out the more logical conclusion in the form of a rhetorical question. And the Fridge Logic portion of this situation is already covered on the YMMV page, so that would cover both parts.

Hmm. It seems that it's more or less already covered under Critical Research Failure and Fridge Logic on that page. I can't think of any way to apply it to the main page in an objective manner though.

The trope mentions through use of phlebotinium, and Todd does bring up time travel as a possibility.

I think I fixed this twice now. I can get kinda neurotic about whether the page pic matches the current general appearance of the show.

Laconic: "Initial fan overreaction to sudden controversial developments."

Exactly as it is worded, it still applies in this case. Todd thought his own childhood was ruined forever because of the Peter, Paul, and Mary line in the Britney Spears song, leaving him to think that he'll never be able to listen to the trio's songs again without thinking there's some sexual undertone behind them.

As a fan, he initially overreacted to a very sudden controversial development.

I don't see how this is misuse, but if you can find a trope where this specific example does apply, then by all means, replace it.

I assumed that Ruined Forever could only apply to a work — as in, he could consider Britney Spears Ruined Forever because of that line, but not his childhood. I see how it can be said it isn't misuse, so I'm fine with leaving it.

Well in this case it's Peter, Paul, and Mary that has been Ruined Forever BECAUSE of Britney Spears.