Discussion YMMV / BlackPanther2018

We're discussing that in the Hindsight cleanup thread right now, and the general consensus is probably not, because that's one of many separate continuities.

MCU Wakanda was never stated to have the cure for cancer.

Sounds good. Won’t add it then.

Probably somewhat fair as long as you provide specific citations. Namely, that it was executives like Ike Perlmutter who doubted it could succeed, even though the public was raring for such a film for decades.

And sure, amid all the misuses of Hindsight tropes, I think that's an example that's actually valid because it brings a genuinely new context to existing information.

And I've seen some of the art for it, although it's true that the trope applies at least in the Western fandom it's a controversial ship due to that new angle spurring a lot of discourse templars to shut it down.

Maybe. It'll certainly make editing the page a lot easier.

But never underestimate the patience of trolls.

I'm okay with the idea, though I think it needs more context.

Killmonger's entire plan would have been dead in the water (or at least more difficult to pull off) if Wakanda had a legislature or high court to overturn their leader's more controversial decisions.

No, I know what you meant.

I'm saying that the write-up for the example needs more context.

Accidental Aesop: "An absolute monarchy is a terrible system of government for a technologically-advanced nation." Killmonger walks into a country he had never so much as visited before in his life, but because he was the nephew of the former king, he had a legit claim to the throne, and won it. The Wakandans are powerless to stop him from enacting his plan to wage war against the entire world because they had no legislature or high court to overturn his decisions.

Gets my approval.

Interesting addition.

Another Accidental Aesop, thanks to Killmongers last words:

It would have been better to not have ever been born at all rather then live in a world where the Atlantic Slave Trade existed, rather than attempt to address the tribalism that plagued Africa well before said trade existed.

...Huh? How do figure?

I really think this might break Rule Of Cautious Editing Judgment, buuuut....

...seems like a genuine example, maybe. The problem is that writing up an example would have to get into the politics of why white nationalists don't get it.

Perhaps something like this?

Misaimed Fandom: White nationalists have been using Black Panther to bolster their racist and anti-immigrant arguments, citing Wakanda as an example of a successful, isolationist racially homogenous "ethno-state". This ignores the fact that the movie explicitly rejects such ideals, first by pointing out that villain Erik Killmonger was a direct result of such ideals (T'Chaka abandoned him in Oakland for the sake of preserving Wakandan secrecy, leading him to grow up angry and resentful), then by having T'Challa tell T'Chaka to his face that such ideals are wrong, and ending the film by establishing outreach centers in the west and going before the UN to present plans on sharing Wakanda's technology with the rest of the world.^note As the article points out there's also a significant Troll factor involved, with white nationalists hoping to "definitely confuse, disorient, and discombobulate those on the far-left" by supporting a film with a predominantly black cast and crew and which celebrates black cultures. So the sincerity of said fandom is highly questionable at best.

That's better than I could have hoped for.

Gets a thumbs up from me.

Well, I think we can safely say that we've finally found a large enough group of people who uniformly agree with Killmonger. So the example seems valid.

But I'd reword your example. Reading through the comments, the tweets, and the responses from people, the ones who agree with Killmonger don't particularly CARE that his revolution would cause blood, pain and suffering. They think that's an acceptable price, and don't think it's needless.

Personally, I'm of the idea that those people are morons, because not only is this basically the same thing as a "race war" that right-wing extremists constantly talk about starting. And in the comments, I'm not alone in that. But that's what the debate in question is about.

Got a lot of spelling mistakes in that, first of all.

Second of all, I don't think anyone "forgot" his plan. In general, people who like Killmonger agree with his criticism, not his methods. They may even think he's physically attractive. But people who unironically agree with his plans are more of an exception than a rule.

Sorry, English isn't my greatest subject.

Colbert Bump is more for preexisting things right? If it leads to more sales of baju koko overall it may qualify for that.

It's not that Black Panther 2018 drives sales of baju koko, since it's a staple for clothing in Indonesia. The craze is more about the design itself, which is original and quite handily adaptable as embroidery pattern for baju koko.

In that case it might count as one of the Defictionalization tropes, like Life Imitates Art.

Thank you. That’s been bothering me, too, but I couldn’t quite put it into words.

Sounds like a case of Repair Dont Respond. If the point of contention is the makeup of the cast and relevance of their race in the plot and not simply the race of the lead then the original assumption - people thinking Black Panther is the first back superhero movie - is just wrong and Older Than They Think should be deleted because that's not the premise of their discussion.

So, here's the thing: I have never heard anyone say that Black Panther is the first superhero movie with a black lead. Not once. I have, however, seen dozens of people screeching about how people are calling it that and "correcting" this. Basically the crowd saying it's Older Than They Think are strawmanning people, which... I don't know, including it seems disingenuous.

Again, same.

Agreed 100%. Larkmarn is much better at putting my grievances into words than I am.

OK, then it looks like we all agree—the Older Than They Think entry should be removed entirely.

Got my vote.

Thirded.

I guess we'll need a mod for this, then, as I don't think there's any way non-mods can get through the edit lock.

I'm for its removal, but I wouldn't mind waiting another day in the interest of fairness.

It's been a week. I think we're past fairness and into sainthood.

Agreed.

I personally say no, it can't be trusted at all.

I move that both entries be deleted. A 20-point difference between critical and fan reviews is not out of the ordinary even if we assume all the fan reviews to be genuine; a cursory glance through the recently-released page on RT reveals that very few films' scores are much closer than that. Meanwhile, the So Okay, It's Average entry uses "downplayed example" as code for "shoehorned example."

I second what High Crate said that both entries should be deleted.

I feel they should be put back. Even if So Okay, It's Average is not the majority opinion, it's still one MANY people with Hype Backlash seem to have, and it really only takes a quick Youtube review search to see people who, without devolving into racism, seem to think of it as an outright terrible film. And yes, I do feel Critical Dissonance gets to be kept as well, because when your critics declare it one of the greatest movies ever made while audiences seem to receive it as "another decent flick" there is a strong dissonance.

Except So Okay, It's Average is not even close to the consensus about the film. Even if we assume that some people who hold this opinion have no racial or political motivations (something almost impossible to prove since we aren't psychics and you can't prove a negative), both box office returns and mainstream consensus seems to be that the film is one of the best in the MCU.

Saying that "audiences seem to receive it as another decent flick" is misleadingly inaccurate.

With due respect, but I disagree. I feel "people might have political motivations for having this opinion" is an argument that can easily work two ways, because I've seen more than a handful reviewers mainly go on and on about the positive effects of the mainly-black cast rather than the actual film. Given the fanbases honestly toxic reactions to criticisms of the film, it's honestly easy to see how some people may be afraid to be critical of the movie out of fear of being designated racist. And that's not something that should be held against the quality of this movie, because I also feel it is a good movie with strong performances that deserves praise, but by that same token people who feel lesser about it shouldn't be discounted because of why they might have that opinion. YMMV doesn't just stand for the majority opinion, as long as a less common opinion is noted to be just that, a minority. See Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2's Even Better Sequel entry, for instance. Secondly, Box Office succes is in NO measure whatsoever a definitive reflection of movie quality. There are plenty of trashy but flashy movies with five-figure earnings and plenty of masterpieces that never see the light of day, so to speak.

Lastly, I feel Critical Dissonance does deserve a mentoin, as when critics give it a higher rating than many masterpieces in-and-out of the genre but audiences give it an overall "averagely good" rating (97 percent vs 79), there is a dissonance. Sure it's "only" 18 percent, but there is a difference between "virtually universal praise" and " a solid score". Thats just my two cents, tbh.

Saying that a film is culturally significant for a number of reasons is not equitable to a mob of people who hate a film just because it has black people or women, or whatever.

As has been argued elsewhere on this page, the idea that this film is untouchable by criticism is a questionable one. A few people (literally a handful of tweets, according to articles on the subject) freaked out on social media because its 100% fresh rating got tainted, but afterwards, there's been no animosity for criticism. The problem with the "people who criticize the movie are being called racist" argument is that before the movie was in released, it was proven that people are, in fact, criticizing it purely for racially-motivated reasons.

YMMV isn't necessarily stand-in for majority opinions, but the mods and admins have made it clear multiple times that YMMV isn't a place for showcasing fringe, controversial or extreme positions, either. Box office sales aren't a measurement of quality, but user review aggregates are even LESS reliable because they are stupidly easy to game.

As for Critical Dissonance, Review Aggregates are indeed easy to game, no argument there, but they are literally all that pops up on this site when discussing critical reception. Go to Dueling Movies, go to the YMMV page of any Superhero movie, Rotten T Omatoes will be brought up, for better or worse, and I feel this movie shouldn't be an exception in that regard.

As for So Okay, It's Average, I guess I'll concede. I would like to say that many people have been critical of this film without devolving into racism. Here in Belgium, for instance, a popular review Magazine (Humo) gave it 2/5 stars for being slowly paced and generic. On my local imageboard I've talked with dozens of people who feel the same but don't dare express it in public. But I know that's more the exception than the rule, so I'll gladly drop it.

Again, review aggregates lose their meaning when the work is literally the target of hate groups, because said hate groups are, by definition, not a fair representative of the score. And there's no way to tell how much or how little their influence has affected it.

Most other films on this site don't have to deal with that problem. This one does.

My opinion is that the entries aren't feasible. Both examples not only fail Rule Of Cautious Editing Judgment but fall into the problem of Weasel Words. (Who, specifically, are saying these things other than "a number of" or "many" people?) We have a conversation below on Kilmonger; none of us have actually seen any cases of Kilmonger being any more sympathetic than other movie villains. Kilmonger is a well-written character, and many of his arguments fall into Villain Has a Point, but there doesn't seem to be anything more than that.

And really, I'd have to see this whole "right wingers embrace T'Challa" thing to believe it.

Seconded. This is just getting silly.

Its true, though. See Breibart's article, for starters.

Breitbart?

Oh HELL no.

Regardless, combined with countless other right-winger nuts, its clear there is a bizarre Misaimed Fandom.

This is the kind of thing that needs SERIOUS citations, for starters. I've seen the Breitbart article in question but that's been treated more as clickbait than a serious position held by many on the far-right. And I haven't seen anyone seriously claim that Killmonger was in the right.

Alright then:

- People who think Killmonger is the real hero:

http://junkee.com/black-panther-killmonger-hero/147096

http://afropunk.com/2018/02/killmonger-real-hero-refuse-assimilate-elitist-blackness-leaves-many-behind/

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/227-movies-at-the-theater/76339541

- Right-wingers claiming T'Challa is the black trump:

https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/964138592594362369

http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2018/02/16/black-panther-review-great-actors-make-failure-launch/

http://variety.com/2018/film/news/black-panther-wesley-snipes-donald-trump-marvel-chadwick-boseman-1202704026/

To start with, a bunch of randos on a Game FA Qs forum don’t strike me as a strong enough argument. As said elsewhere on this page, if you look hard enough, you’ll find ANYONE who sides with any villain.

The two articles in question don’t strike me as misaimed agreement with the villain on points the villain is supposed to be wrong about. They’re agreeing with points that the heroes, by the end of the film, also ALSO agree with him on.

To quote one of those articles:

And to quote the other:

Killmonger is the type of villain where agreeing with his motives or reasoning is not misaimed. The film doesn't argue that he's wrong in either. It argues that he's wrong in the means he uses to achieve his ends, as well as his personal pettiness.

Nah. Isolationism in it's purest form is depicted as having been detrimental in all cnsiderations, but even so purely opening borders is also not denoted as an ideal solution, and T'challa resolves to create remote help-and-educational centers rather than fla-out let outsiders into Wakanda.

Secondly, at no point have I seen many people look at Killmonger as the actual hero.

This is just massive Flame Bait.

There's an edit request thread for locked pages. https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=gsjp7dldjh2dwdelcha2hu17&page=669#16703

Alrighty then.

Chances are they'll just ignore you or blow you off

If you have concerns about valid requests being ignored, please feel free to bring it to a mod's attention.

Eh, no thanks, not really gonna go anywhere.

I did a quick search on twitter, and opinions on Killmonger seem to be rather mixed. I saw a few tweets that sided with Killmonger unironically, but for the most part the sympathy for him ended with Villain Has a Point, especially since he was a vile human being in ways that didn't directly involve his beliefs. A lot of people thought that he was a very tragic and complex villain, however.

As such, I'm sure there's no more Misaimed Fandom for him than, say, The Joker or Helmut Zemo.

I've seen plenty of people talk about how plenty of people agree with Killmonger. But as far as people actually agreeing with Killmonger's whole thing, I can't say I've seen any. At worst people talking about how they want to agree with him because he's a great villain even though he's definitely wrong. Like Toomes in Homecoming.

I mean, I sympathized with him. He's a sympathetic villain. He was very clearly written to be a sympathetic villain. That's not "misaimed" fandom, it's just good writing.

I'm the guy who wrote the entry. I didn't pull it from "the most poorly-lighted orifice on [my] body", I saw several people on Twitter say that they thought Killmonger had the right idea when he said he wanted to put black people in charge of everything and punish the "oppressors". That's what I was referring to with Misaimed Fandom as the film points how wrong the idea is. The mod thought changing the wording to some would be better and upon reflection I agree.

Okay, but your use of the word "activists" (which itself was toned down from "black activists") here looks very, very suspicious. You say that you saw "several people on Twitter" saying this, but what does that have to do with "activists"? Not everyone who backs a political belief is an "activist".

And given your history of making pro-Trump, and anti-minority edits in the past, I'm not convinced this edit was made in good faith.

If you have a better word to use I'm all for it.

....You just used one.

"Several people" would have sounded a lot less suspicious than "Black activists", if you had chosen that at first.

But sorry, I think that ship has already sailed. As I said, the fact that you chose the words you did makes me way too suspicious about the purpose of the entry.

I kinda feel like this needs some citations to back it up, because while I've seen many people agree he had a point about the treatment of black people, and that organized resistance to oppression is needed, I hadn't seen anyone go as far as say that his final plan of overthrowing and placing black rule in place was what should be done.

If we search deep enough, we can always find a fan somewhere that defends any given character or plot direction. Even Dick Dastardly must have some fan somewhere. But to qualify as an actual audience reaction, and not just a lone guy's opinion, I would prefer some actual uninvolved reference stating so. For example, this article would prove that Star Wars fans Rooting for the Empire do exist in decent numbers.

It's supposed to be it's own sub-page...

But I've seen other pages (like Thor Ragnarok) have entries for awesome music, so is that really a hard-and-fast rule?

It's inconsistently applied, also usually I see it left alone if it's a single entry because it's not worth making a whole page for just one bullet point.

Edit: Posted in the wrong place.

There's an edit request thread for locked pages. https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=gsjp7dldjh2dwdelcha2hu17&page=669#16703

Thanks for the directions.

8.8 can apply to film. Who told you that? But he panned it now he sucks could apply too yes.

8.8 can apply to film. Who told you that? But he panned it now he sucks could apply too yes.

The edit reason in the history says that is the reason it was cut, which is why I thought to ask. The page's description seems to support the claim, but you and others have said it can apply to more than just video games.

That said, I'm not sure if this is more applicable as Eight Point Eight or Sacred Cow.

I don’t see that being a berserk button with the fans.

In fact, anti-colonialist fans would probably applaud the statement.

You clearly didn't check the link then.

I did. It doesn’t fit the trope.

It’s one guy who made one political statement one time, not a common mistake or statement that fans are tired of hearing, as the description says.

Okay, if nobody else has anything to say, discussion settled.

Day later but yeah. I'd add that any kind of "if you didn't like this movie you're a racist colonizer" attitude is quickly becoming this for Marvel fans. The uproar over the movie getting anything less than a perfect review doesn't sit well with people who think that it's a good (but not perfect) movie.

We're discussing that over at Ask The Tropers now.

The issue is more complicated than that, since there actually IS a dedicated hate mob out to sabotage the movie.

If this is that RT thing, I've seen no real evidence of that and it only served to let RT shut down any kind of dissenting voices.

You've "seen no real evidence" of it? RT and FB themselves both acknowledged its existence.

And I can't see how RT is shutting down "dissenting voices" when there's plenty of reviews currently sitting at 3.5/5 or 7/10 or lower.

That comes down to the fact that I don't trust any movie with 99% positive reviews. And yeah, it's a fine movie but no better than like, Iron Man 2 or First Avenger.

That's a matter of opinion.

And that's why YMMV is for. Opinion. This kind of gatekeeping is really the biggest issue with the movie.

This isn't gatekeeping, and YMMV isn't the place for adding every single isolated claim. YMMV or not, it still has standards to maintain.

But it obvously isn't a single isolated claim if there are (as you said) a number of 70% scores up.

I was talking about YOUR opinion about the 98% score.

Something is obviously hinky since the critcal reception is at 97% and the audience score is closer to 75%.

Are you seriously going to pretend that aggregate review scores aren't easy to manipulate for a large group of people?

No. But if you think that the 75 is a conspiracy then why would the 97% not be? You can't eat your cake and have it too. IMDB has it sitting FAR lower so I think mid-seventies is a pretty fair statement.

ANYONE can write a user review. Any troll, any moron, anybody.

Again, it has been proven that there's a lot of people who are either hating on the movie or deliberately trying to sabotage it's publicity. Say "I haven't seen any proof" of it if you want, but I really don't care.

At this point, we've done nothing but go in circles and as far as I'm concerned, your arguments are unconvincing.

Your name is "Nubian Satyress" of course I wasn't going to change your mind. But I wasn't going to let people lie and say this movie was perfect and cound do no wrong.

My name has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of your arguments. Please leave that kind of cheapshot in KiA.

Again, the movie is at 97%, which is hardly in the "can do no wrong" department, and the fact that you, personally, do not feel it deserved to be rated that high is irrelevant.

What, exactly, is being debated here? This discussion seems to have taken a turn into the validity of Rotten Tomatoes, which is immaterial to the previous topic of "less than sterling reviews being treated as evidence of racism is a Fandom Berserk Button" (of which I can't say I've seen any at all, so examples, please).

On top of which, it seems to me and please correct me if I'm wrong, that Andy Yagami is basing his arguments on his own belief that an abundance of positive reviews is part on some elaborate conspiracy by Rotten Tomatoes to suppress negative ones.

The fuck do cars have to do with this?

No one mentioned any cars...

Kia. That's a car company.

In this context, Ki A would appear to be an acronym, though to what specifically I'm not sure. Some other forum, I suppose. Not really the thing you should take away from Satyress' post though.

KiA is an infamous sub-reddit. Yagami knows which one I mean.

Also, yes. Eagal summed up my reasons for disagreeing with Yagami pretty much exactly.

I have no idea what it is. Only time I used reddit was to fix a car problem. This name was already taken when I created one. And if you're stalking me I'm flattered but taken.

Sure. Anyway, with Eagal to mediate, I think we're done here.

Seeing as how the page is locked. Yeah. I look forward to seeing how the scores go.

I have seen A LOT of people lose a lot of interest due to the overblown hype, the politicization and the response by fans in regards to reviews that aren't 100% positive. I'd say it fits

My question wasn't about whether the trope itself fits, but the current description.

Unless that's what you meant.

I guess it does need a little bit of patching but yeah, I meant for the description.

Alright, cool, thanks.