Discussion YMMV / CaptainAmericaCivilWar

... how's that hypocritical?

Yeah I agree...remove it...

...Okay, first, why on Earth does that redirect to Ray Gun?

You're technically correct, but the practice of using it to refer to adaptation changes that are widely embraced is widespread.

Whoops. Fixed typo.

I suppose without any specific page for adaptations, it will have to do, though the description probably needs some work, and the name could seem a bit misleading (since adaptations have their own canon). I'll have to bring that up elsewhere.

I don't see why the entry doesn't deserve to be on the page. MOST reviews are the opinions of one person. Yes, the opinion is a minority. So what? That's why this is YMMV.

You have it backwards. In YMMV, the opinion of the majority rules, not minority. And I know reviews are written by one person each. But that doesn't stop them from being one person.

"The opinion of the majority rules".

Citation needed.

It's an unspoken rule. But I've seen entries that reference Nostalgia critic in other YMMV pages removed because he's just one reviewer. So I'm not the only one with that mindset.

Besides, if you want me to cite my claim, why don't you cite yours?

Double post

I'm not making any claim. You're the one saying there's a rule. Thus, the burden of proof is on you.

Your mindset not being unique is not proof that there is, in fact, a rule.

The burden of proof is just a bullshit way to get out of an argument. If you want to be proven right, actually argue instead copping out and acting like you won.

Though I think it's best if we call in a mod and settle this. We might be at an impass.

I could put it back in, but edited so that it passes muster.

Besides, if it's complaining about changes that made a weak story successful, that's an excellent example of the trope in question.

^^ If I were trying to "get out of an argument", I would have said you were flat out wrong. I didn't. What I said is that you need to prove that the rule you claim to exist actually does exist.

That's what "burden of proof" means. Call it whatever you want, but it's a debate tool that's existed for hundreds, if not thousands of years.

^ I guess you can show everybody what changes you'd make, and then we can see if there's anything else to add or omit.

"Majority opinion only" is definitely wrong. We do allow opinions on YMMV that are not in sync with the mainstream view unless they have verifiable factual errors. We also allow conflicting opinions (IE: Listing a character as both The Scrappy and Ensemble Dark Horse.)

What we don't want is a Single-Issue Wonk trying to use YMMV as a tool for his agenda (IE: trying to portray his wacko Alternate Character Interpretation as widely accepted.)

This does not look like a legit removal to me.

• They Changed It, Now It Sucks!: Although the source material is not usually regarded as a particularly well-made story, some still had complaints about the changes. Two of the more tangible ones include:
  • The scale. Due to the reduced size of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, the number of heroes fighting is drastically smaller. While most consider this to be a good thing, by giving every character some focus and making Warmachine's crippling injury partway through the film a dramatic and impactful moment despite his being a supporting character, rather than C-List Fodder, it does make the conflict seem like less of a civil war than a civil disagreement.
  • The events that prompted the drive for regulating the Avengers. While the comics' head writer admitted their version was an Excuse Plot to set up the heroes fighting one another, it did result from something that could, conceivably, be seen as carelessness on the part of the superheroes involved.

For the record, I disagree on all counts, but there you go.

^^ Uh, no. I'm sure a character can't be both The Scrappy and an Ensemble Dark Horse — that's Base Breaker. Yes, YMMV is about opinions, but many YMMV tropes have objective criteria as well. (Ensemble Dark Horse = Most of the fanbase really likes a minor character. The Scrappy = The majority of the fanbase hates a character. How can they overlap?) Other than that, contradictory entries are fine.

^Er, you're right, I was trying to come up with an example on the fly and that was a bad one.

I have calmed down after my stressful school day.

After calming down I thinking about it, I kind of realize that what really irked me about the entry is the fact that the entry seems to be acting like that the view is completely right. The actual idea of the entry makes some amount of sense. But the wording makes it look like the site supports the view as fact and the newspaper reviewer is completely right.

I realize now that the real solution would be to rewrite the entry in a neutral tone. Trying to acknowledge that this view is not shared by everyone instead of as absolute fact.

But I still think "burden of proof" is bullshit. Thousands of years do not make less bullshit. XD (not arguing, just saying).

While I think the example is legit, it probably should be rewritten so it doesn't look like we're agreeing with it. This particular trope is pretty much about documenting people complaining about changes, and we generally shouldn't be agreeing or disagreeing with them. That may not be the troper's intent, but it could be misunderstood as such, especially with using things like scare quotes around "war".

This quote is on every subpage of the trope:

I stand by my proposed rewrite above. Just waiting for other opinions.

Actually, the text of the entry is merely explaining what is being said by the review, so you don't have to follow the link and read a two-pages long of a review filled as well with info that everybody already knows here. The majority and minority thing may make sense, but with a "qualified vote" of sorts: paid reviewers, those named professionals who write reviews for actual real publications, take priority over mere tropers and bloggers. So no, a lone troper and a professional reviewer are not the same just for being "only one". This argument reminds me of Gimli...

I oppose Spectral Time's proposed text, as he simply misrepresents the review to mix it with his own opinion.

The only change I'd make to the original edit is adding "They say that" just before the third sentence begins with "In the original".

Other than that, it looked good to me.

Done

I actually like Spectral Time's edits, though I would expand on the second part some more to talk about the actual changes.

Like Grigor II said, Spectral's edit inputs other opinions into the example that have nothing to do with the example in question. This isn't Base Breaker—we don't need a "balance" of opinion when the trope is specifically about one opinion.

...Isn't They Changed It, Now It Sucks! not supposed to be a "legitimate grievance" trope? I thought it was explicitly about mindlessly complaining about changes without the slightest concern for whether they affected the story's quality or how.

Indeed, I thought that, if anything, it was meant to highlight how the change in question was actually an improvement, and the complaints a knee-jerk response to any changes.

And besides, while I have not read it, if that summary is legitimate the review drastically misrepresents the events of the comic anyway, pretending that, for instance, the explosion that kicked off the SRA could legitimately be put at the feet of the superheroes.

The description itself says that the people making the complaint might be right. So no, it's not our task to mock them or provide counterpoints.

Also, I don't see anything that the summary misrepresented at all. They are absolutely right that the comics incident was a selfish attempt at TV ratings while the movie incident was a heroine making a split-second mistake. That is legitimately what happened.

In point of fact, the inciting incident in the comic was a bunch of heroes trying something that'd always worked before and getting screwed over by an unknown unknown, but... I must indeed agree the two aren't really comparable. But the film is focusing more on the other times collateral damage has killed people in the MCU, and that also results from the reduced scope thereoff compared to the original comics.

I could argue this point further, but I'm not seeing what that offers to the discussion or the description.

Eh, just that they're displaying clear ignorance of the source material while crying They Changed It, Now It Sucks!, as well as that this particular "changed and therefore inferior" relies on an almost willful blindness to the potential artistic reasons that might've prompted the change or how they might've resulted in a better story than the original.

And also that I'm not sure why we needed to keep the citation around.

Again, not seeing any of this supposed ignorance. From where I'm standing, you're being overly harsh and dismissing someone else's interpretation.

Your previous post gives me the impression that you feel a certain amount of cynicism about the comics incident—namely that what the New Warriors did was justified because "it always worked before"—but that doesn't at all change the point of the review. Nor does it invalidate their reasoning that the movie heroes, by comparison, just made an honest mistake with much less dire consequences.

Bluntly, the source material was garbage. The incident that kicked off the SRA was contrived nonsense, built on a mixture of character assassination and a clumsy misunderstanding of the actual supervillain responsible on the part of the writer.

Furthermore, the Sokovia Accords barely resembles the SRA anyway. It couldn't, because none of the heroes in question have secret identities, there are less than a dozen of them active on Earth, and they've been acting for years rather than decades. Which is my other point: comparing them is silly, both because they have so little in common and because the mainline Marvel Universe is so ridiculously different from the MCU. Complaining that the scale wasn't big enough is absurd, because the film introduced two new characters, could've returned all the characters from other movies that weren't on Earth, and still would've barely have enough superheroes to field a football team.

And, fine, I'll admit I hate the comic. Mark Millar has been very open and clear about this: he wanted an excuse for big superhero-on-superhero bloodbath; he didn't give a shit what plot was clumsily fabricated to produce it, how much sense it made, or whether the character writing fit the cast. And the result was a messy, broken event that didn't have a well-fabricated plot, didn't make sense, and didn't properly respect or represent almost any of the characters involved. Anyone who liked the original comic enough to complain about the movie making changes to it literally cares more about it than the guy who made it.

So, in short, we have a film based on source material with very little artistic merit, against a well-established backdrop where the original story would make even less sense, which is barely trying to adapt the comic anyway.

Sometimes, people are stupid and ignorant and knee-jerk assuming any change is the change for the worst. And their interpretations, that they cling to out of stubbornness, spite, and a need to feel superior to the unwashed masses, rather than for any kind of honest reason, deserve to be harshly and cruelly dismissed.

But, hey, I'm not reverting the edit. And it's not like I'll ever change the mind of the guy who put it there. Science shows that arguing with people just makes them believe harder out of spite. Just have to learn to live with it.

On the contrary. I just wanted to make it clear that personal biases had seeped into the discussion.

I mean... it's a trope about whether or not you liked a thing because it's not exactly like another thing. Personal bias is an inseparable component of the trope.

Except the example in question is about someone else's opinion. Not yours.

But we're arguing in circles now.

It's nice to say that "Everyone's entitled to their opinion." But is an uninformed opinion based on incorrect information still a legitimate opinion?

That the Stamford incident is a good or bad plot point to start a story is an opinion, and as such it is neither correct nor incorrect. Doesn't matter what the hatedoms say. Doesn't matter what internet communities say. Doesn't matter if the whole country decides that something awesome is something awful. When the hatedoms, the internet communities and the whole world tell a good press reviewer to move, his job is to plant himself like a tree beside the river of truth, and tell the whole world "No, you move".

Opinions may not be right or wrong, but they can be defensible or not. The opinion that the Stamford incident was good writing in the first place, let alone that it would've worked in the drastically-different setting of the MCU, is not.

Also, the reason that quote doesn't work here is that it comes across that you're trying to simultaneously tell me that I need to be more tolerant of other viewpoints and that I'm wrong and this random newspaper is some kind of romantic martyr. Instead, it sounds like you're being exactly the kind of person I described above: someone too obstinate to rethink anything in the face of new information, and trying desperately to make virtues out of the spite and stubbornness that drive them.

Which is, in point of fact, the opposite of the original quote, which was about sticking to your ideals no matter what the mob says, rather than never rethink anything ever because that'd make you a filthy flip-flopper.

Spectral, you're the one being obstinate here.

Your opinion on how well the Stamford incident was or wasn't written, whether or not it was "character assassination", and other subjective (yes, subjective) judgements about the original story are completely irrelevant.

You are pushing your views of the Stamford incident into a position of being "truth" against which any opposition is automatically "incorrect". What's worse, you aren't even comparing the incidents on equal terms. The article is stating that the Stamford incident was a more understandable reason for the backlash against superheroes; they are not saying that it wasn't otherwise contrived or out of character for the New Warriors. How well it fits in continuity, and how well-written the event was is not the point.

...There was a long angry post here. I deleted it. Someone with as many suspensions under his belt as I do should tread lightly.

I still hate the example. I hate the language used, that a near-universally-loved film somehow "didn't live up to the quality" of a near-universally-panned comic, hate the clumsy way it tries to pretend the author didn't scour the web for any source, no matter how obscure, to support his opinion so as to deflect any attempt at criticism or reform, hate the idea that anyone should be allowed to use the YMMV page as their private complain-a-corner.

But, I've got to recognize that this is not a fight I'm ever going to win and get on with my life. Sorry for all the fuss and the bother.

Don't worry Spectral, I've done a lot worse. Still ashamed of the Frozen Big Bad argument.

And I agree with you. The example is poorly written. It's written an in objective manner despite being on a subjective page. It is written as fact when it's not. Just because it is a professional reviewer doesn't justify the entry being there. Especially if it doesn't follow the definition.

But in the end, I just want a mod to see the example.

Satoshi, if that's so much of a problem to you, do you ALSO want us to delete every positive thing said on the page and rewrite it in a neutral tone?

Why? It's a much-beloved film with tremendous popular support. Burden of proof lies on the outlying opinion.

Thats not what "burden of proof" means.

This isn't a popularity contest or an echo chamber. YMMV pages are not to praise stuff that's popular or bash stuff that's unpopular.

It's becoming clear that a failure to understand that is the cause of the current bickering.

...Can I at least remove the "lived up to the quality of the original comics" line and the clumsy attempt to deflect modification by citing a source? Those're the biggest things that irk me, and without them it'd just be another YMMV entry I don't agree with.

I added quotes around it to demonstrate that it's not our opinion.

On that note, though, we need to similarly edit/modify the gushing in several examples as well.

Otherwise, we're just breaking the rules when we feel like it.

No, that's just a fair description of the point of the reviewer. In both cases he compares the film and the comic book, and both cases he considers that the original material is better. Which, when used as an argument in itself, is precisely what this audience reaction is about.

Just present it as the reviewer's opinion and leave it at that. Again, we shouldn't be agreeing or disagreeing with them, just stating that it happened. It doesn't have to be any more complicated than that.

Edit: ninja'd. I support the new changes, though I still think the "hardly a 'war' at all" part may come across as us agreeing with them, so I'm going to adjust it a little..

First: no. It's not there to actually progress the argument that this change resulted in a weaker story, it's just there to let him vent his opinion.

Second, no. This is a page about about audience reactions. If audience reactions are overwhelmingly positive, then that's fine.

Comparative reactions are not fine. That's, I'm given to understand, why tropes like Fan Favorite got the axe. If you want to remove or moderate those, that's good and fine work.

I'm not vandalizing the Civil War page with how much I hated it, after all. Frankly, for all that I despise that book, I think it could use a little fumigating.

Again, a YMMV page is NOT about providing a gush-fest or a hate-fest. It doesn't matter if every person on earth except one loved it or hated it.

The way I understand it, the only reason we hold isolated opinions in suspicion is to make sure there isn't some kind of political or bigoted agenda attached. That isnt a problem here.

And you're right, but it's mostly a page for variable opinions. There's usually a "some think" or a "most audiences agree that" in there before hates and gushes.

Much as I'd prefer to simply heavily rework the entry altogether, supergod's edit accomplishes this, and thus mostly fixes the issue.

Edit: no longer relevant.

...Oh.

Having not seen the film yet and only looking at the entry, there's no way in hell the phrase "the main problem with the film is that it does not live up to the quality of the original version from comic books" should be in there, even with "according to" snuck in there.

I like Spectral Time's proposed edit above.

Again, I don't. Because as I said, it's just one "snuck in" opinion traded for another.

Then call the source material contentious. Don't call it quality.

Again, its contentiousness is not the opinion of the person speaking.

But, to back up a second, the reason I'm questioning this is because it seems odd that we're singling out this one example for the bluntness of its opinion while not doing the same for several of the examples all over the page which gush just as bluntly.

To be frank, I don't care which standard we go with: either we state the opinions within the examples bluntly all around, or all of them should be worded to be more neutral.

I don't understand which is the great problem. The reviewer said two points that makes him think that the plot of the comic is more solid. And, even if you do not agree with them, you have to admit that all the four points are correct, so his opinion is legitimate, it is not built over false premises.

• Does the comic book feature loads and loads of characters? Yes
• Does the film feature a much shorter cast of characters? Yes
• Was the Stamford disaster caused by guys picking a brawl to film a reality show? Yes
• Were the Accords caused by an unfortunate mistake of a superhero that was legitimately trying to stop a terrorist? Yes

I am super fine with the points the reviewer is making... just less so about implicitly claiming the movie doesn't live up to the quality of the comics.

Keep in mind I haven't seen the movie. I haven't read the comics. I don't have a horse in that race. But including the phrase "the main problem with the film is that it does not live up to the quality of the original version from comic books" is ridiculously non-kosher.

But the trope is called "They Changed It Now It Sucks", not simple "They Changed It, Now It's Different". That portion of the example is specifically covering the "now it sucks" part, by stating HOW the reviewer feels it sucks. (Not sure if it's a literal translation, since my Spanish is really crappy.) They feel the movie is of "lower quality" than the comic because things were changed—that's literally what the trope is.

If we hadn't added the qualifier of "According to (blah blah blah)" AND added quotation marks to be clear that it isn't the opinion of this wiki, I would have agreed with your reservations. But, since we have, I'm sorry but I just don't see it. Just to be even more clear, though, I changed "the problem" to "their problem".

You guys just don't get it. Why should we focus on the opinion on one person? Why not post entries based on all individual reviews. Newspaper review or not, it's still one person. Read the description of the trope. It doesn't give a damn about individual reviewers. It only cares about what the fanbase thinks. Don't believe me? Here's from the laconic:

"Some changes are not always welcome by the fanbase."

Laconics are a second, or third authority on a trope's meaning.

We've already argued the "one person's opinion versus many" thing before AND brought it up to Ask The Tropers. No one agreed with your argument. Regressing the discussion back to that isn't moving anything forward.

And who is "the fanbase"? Who talks for it, who has the authority to talk about absolute consensus in it? And the fanbase is only a portion of the whole audience, a loud and noisy portion, but just a portion. All this whining is based on the premise that all the audience agrees that Civil War sucks, and that a reviewer who says otherwise must be just a lone crackpot. But is that premise real? It can also be seen as a conter-example: not everybody thinks ill of Civil War. Note that, if we go by the sales, Civil War was a success, and the underlying theme was still around for some time when Marvel moved to new big crisis crossovers (World War Hulk, Secret Invasion, Dark Reign). It was eventually undone, but that's just the way superheroes comics are: no change is ever permanent, and gets undone after some time (even Wally West being Flash, Peter Parker married with Mary Jane, or Jason Todd being dead). It has a novelization, it was referenced in animated series, it is used for video games; etc, there is a Civil War II; and of course this film. Crossovers that are truly despised by the audience never get this kind of promotion. Does any of you remember The Crossing, or found any references to it somewhere lately? No? Exactly.

Incidentaly, yes, referencing audience reactions with pages that provide examples of them sounds like a good idea. It won't get out of hand as feared: most reviews simply follow some general patterns, just like the tropes in works. Any random review would likely just provide examples of audience reactions already listed.

Honestly, this would be easier if the review were translated, but I'm hoping my experience with Wikipedia will help me with the latest changes.

The review is one person's opinion, but it's unlikely that there aren't people who feel the same way. I've seen people talk about the minimized cast, at least.

Edit: Also, the "majority" argument doesn't work on this trope. The whole point is to mention people who complain about changes that most people wouldn't have a problem (or at least not a huge problem) with.

I did not intend it to bring it back to the majority argument. I meant should we focus on the rabid parts of the fanbase or on a professional review, because the trope seems to point toward the former.

Can I just point out that, while YMMV isn't about only majority opinions, there is supposed to be a notable amount of people who believe a point for it to be registered. This is why one person can't just label a character they personally disliked as The Scrappy when no one else seems to feel this way, among other similar cases; allowing that allows the YMMV page to be abused by anyone who took the time to register an account here and cares enough to edit the page to push their opinion. I personally felt that Hawkeye was wasted in this film, but that got purged from They Wasted a Perfectly Good Character since it seems to be an opinion no one else shared enough to justify it being here.

In this situation, the only individuals who seem to honestly believe that the film is inferior to the comic based on those changes (and specifically because of the changes given) are Grigor II and the single reviewer (which, you know, seems to be an extremely obscure review that doesn't reflect any larger fandom; I can't even find information on the Argentine comic fandom). This isn't to say there isn't any who've complained about changes made from the original, since I've seen plenty on Tumblr who have, specifically the 'there's not enough characters' point (albeit, mostly in a 'my favourite character wasn't in it' point, sorta like the lack of Wasp and Ant-Man in the original Avengers film), so listing that I think is justifiable. The Stamford thing though? Honestly this is the first time I've seen anyone try to push this point, and there's really not enough who share this opinion to justify listing it.

I'd also like to point out that almost no other They Changed It, Now It Sucks! entry I've been able to find revolves around reviewers or feels the need to cite the source; they just state something a notable number, so regardless of validity, linking the article is *not* needed.

Not to mention, if you look at the example pages for TCINIS, you have this little message at the top of each page: "Note: This article lists examples which take place within fandoms; not TV Tropes' opinion as to whether a change is for the worse. TV Tropes doesn't have opinions. The focus is on over-reaction about minor changes." Personally, this really supports Satoshi's point; this isn't a point from the fandom, its a point from a single, very obscure review, that seems to have been dug up to justify a single Troper's view.

All in all, I'd propose scrapping the entry and replacing it with a more focused point about the lack of characters.

The suspicion against extreme minority opinions is to avoid giving a platform to crackpots, bigots and generally unpleasant persons. In this case, it's a relatively harmless opinion, and one that—although I can't prove it—is likely to be held by others.

Again with this? ablackraptor, you are working from the premise that Civil War is universally disliked. And, as I pointed on June 6 above, that premise is false. It had great sales, the effects lasted for some years, it has new versions and even a sequel, and new versions in other media (and not just the film itself). The review is simply used as an example.

There's also the book "Superheroes!: Capes and Crusaders in Comics and Films", by Roz Kaveney. He talks about the usual problems with crisis crossovers and then, let me quote, "There are exceptions to this rule, one of which, Marvel's Civil War has been, with all its faults and its slightly dissapointing ending, the most intelligent piece of political comment, protest and analysis that the comics industry has ever produced".

You're also acting like this is a discussion about whether or not the original Civil War event is being criticized. It *isn't*. This is about if the idea that the changes made received a backlash from the fandom, which it didn't. Overwhelmingly, fans have praised it for improving on the story.

If you'd like to argue about Civil War though, I'd be happy to indulge you, if just to shut down what you're pushing here. Firstly, sales mean nothing so long as we live in a world where the Transformers movies were able to make billions of dollars in revenue; people can pay tons for things and still hate it. Secondly, having after-effects means nothing since it was an event comic intended to have a lasting effect; the fact that its lasting effects were considered a Dork Age and that the resulting books following spent a lot of time attacking Tony Stark for what he did during the event, which should indicate that Marvel themselves didn't like it. Thirdly, ignoring how many of those adaptations and versions in other media are cash-grabs to tie-in with the movie, The Clone Saga, the event that nearly bankrupted Marvel, has also been adapted multiple times, as has other events both good and bad; Marvel deciding to adapt something doesn't mean it was well liked.

You can take individual quotes from random obscure reviews and books all you want (you try hard enough, you can find a source to prove anything), that doesn't change anything. If you go to forums, message boards, and other online areas where you can interact with fandom, you'll find that an overwhelming number of them consider it to be a really bad event. This is about fandom response, and the fandom by-and-large responded negatively.

There is people who like Civil War. I don't deny that. I don't agree with them but fairdues. But, to bring this back to my original point, they don't matter because it being popular or not isn't the point anyone is trying to argue here. This is about the response to the movie, not the comic itself. If you want to argue about that, please take it to the Civil War page instead.

ablackraptor, now you're just starting to sound offended because someone, somewhere, insulted your personal Sacred Cow.

Really? How so? I'm honestly curious as to how I come off sounding like that; for clarification, I *like* the film but I don't consider it the most amazing thing ever or even the best MCU movie (Guardians, Age of Ultron, or Winter Soldier kind of tie for that, personally). I just think that the point Grigor II is making is ridiculous; honestly Grigor is the one I think is acting like his personal Sacred Cow was insulted, given his attempts to spin this discussion into an argument about Civil War's success.

I honestly think you're both making bad arguments, but more importantly, you are arguing to remove what a previous group of tropers felt was good enough to remain on the page. Thus, everything else is moot.

If you have a good reason why it should be removed, let's hear it. Your previous arguments were addressed before and rejected. You're also misquoting a cherry-picked area of the description which has nothing to do with discounting one person's reasonably-made opinion. It also doesn't matter how many other examples of TCNIS you've seen. We saw no reason this example couldn't fit into the page.

So please revise and re-present your case. Otherwise, we have no purpose here.

Except they hadn't and I didn't. The entry was still being contested and there was still disagreement on the entry's wording (in fact, including myself, it looks like more people are unhappy with it than there was people who were OK with it), and looking back at my original post, I never said it needs to be removed, I said it should be scrapped and replaced with an entry that better explains the point.

But fine, for clarification purposes, I propose that the entry be replaced with something more along these lines:

• Thanks to the smaller scale of the MCU, the film featured far less characters on either side compared to the comic, where both sides had a larger number of secondary characters (many of whom were fan favourites). As a result, some have complained about the smaller teams leaving out well-liked characters while also reducing the scale of the conflict.

The points made still stand (well, the too many characters thing; again, the Stamford point I've not seen anyone bring up until this page), but its not basing itself entirely on one reviewer, and actually reflects a sentiment held by at least some fans. Not 'sneaking in' an opinion, not mocking or openly disagreeing, or pushing as fact, just stating what some people have said.

I'd also argue that the Baron Zemo entry Grigor just added needs to be similarly reworked, since its making the same mistakes of presenting opinions as facts and using a linked source to try and legitimise the point of view, but that's probably better settled separately.

So, it all comes down to this. I included an opinion and cited a review to back it up. You claim that you never saw it anywhere else, that it is a single reviewer's point, but which evidence do you have to support your claim? Your own personal perception of things? In another of the messages, I also pointed that the point is sound, it is not based on any mistake or misinterpretation. Nobody contested that.

ablackraptor, what opposition are you talking about? You can't be reading the discussion above, because the wording debate was simply a question of WHAT to say about it, because almost everyone agreed it was a fine entry, with like two dissenters. We also brought it up to Ask The Tropers, and almost everyone there thought it was fine.

And frankly, I don't see the point of your reworked entry. It's saying almost the exact same thing the current one does, except removing the link to the article. Like, what's the point?

And really, the leaving out fan-favorite characters issue sounds like another example on its own.

Grigor II It hasn't 'came down to' anything. Don't be so dramatic, its actually a little annoying.

Firstly, you cited a review that wasn't even in English. As has been said by myself and others, citing a review to 'back it up' isn't necessary, and all it does is come off as you trying to make your point look more legitimate. If you actually do translate the review, its not really that negative in its points either (at least not as negative as the post above makes it sound); it does make fun of the smaller scale by comparing it to a barfight, but the point about changing the incident isn't really criticised as being 'less legit' so much as states 'oh yeah, and they change this too'. Honestly, this whole mess wouldn't have happened if you didn't try to cite the source; if you just posted it as if it was a fan reaction then it likely would have been edited to be more neutral rather than dropped entirely.

Secondly, my 'claim' isn't exactly a point anyone could physically provide evidence for; how exactly would one 'prove' that they've never seen something? That's like trying to ask an Atheist to prove they've never seen God, or asking a witness to prove they didn't see a crime they claim to not have seen. Its just illogical.

Thirdly, no one contested it because it didn't matter. Regardless of if those changes happened, the point of the trope is that a significant number of fans believe the changes harmed the work. As I already noted myself, there was a significant number of people who have commented on the smaller scale, and proposed an edit myself that focused on that. The change of the inciting event however isn't one that there's been a backlash to; again, even your cited source doesn't sound that bothered by it.

King Zeal Firstly, I *was* reading the discussion above. Looking at it, the only people who were fine with it were yourself, Supergod, and Grigor II. Larkman, Satoshi, and Spectral were in favour of changing it, and I joined in on there side. Technically speaking, now more people have sided against it. And, I have looked at the Ask The Tropers discussion for it, and actually no, from the look of that there's more who agree that a single review isn't enough to justify it (albeit, after the discussion about the phrase 'lo and behold' derailed it for a bit).

Secondly...that was the point. The cause of conflict here is the source being cited since again, its unnecessary, looks like an attempt to legitimise an opinion by sourcing it, is incredibly obscure, and isn't as negative as the entry claims. I was trying to clear up the entry so its actually reflective of the fanbase rather than a single person's opinion. This was of course just a suggested alternative. If anyone has a better take on it feel free to make one.

I prefer yours, for all the reasons you cite.

First of all, Larkmarn had no problem with the entry except for specific wording that we've already changed. Second, there were MULTIPLE Ask The Tropers topics made. You are right, though, that I was misremembering opinions in those threads—and for that, I apologize.

Third, why do you care how "legitimate" the entry looks? If it bothers you that it looks more "official" as written, then we could say something like "some people, such as this Argentinian reviewer, felt that ____". Personally, I don't see that, and the entry as written (in my opinion) avoids Weasel Words. In fact, if I personally have a problem with most YMMV entries on this site, it's that too many examples use vague "some fans believe" or "a minority of fans feel" to make an opinion or reaction seem larger than it actually is. At least for THIS trope, we can point to an honest to goodness example of that opinion being expressed, without artificially inflating it or deflating it.

Also, unless I've missed something yet again, NOTHING on that Trope page says anything about it being what a "significant number of fans" think or believe. That's really my main point of contention here—who gives a damn how many fans hold the opinion? Unless it's pure quackery or nonsense, who says an entry needs mass support?

I didn't actually realise that Larkmarn's comments were made before the edit was made; his support for Spectral's version made me assume that that Supergod's version was already up before then. In retrospect I didn't realise how old the discussion was when I jumped in; it was the most recent thing so I didn't notice until now that it was nearly two month's ago before the last post. Even still though, while discussion stopped, it clearly appeared that this wasn't a matter that was universally agreed upon so I feel its fair to continue discussing if further edits are needed. When I jumped in, the last few points of discussion indicated that there wasn't a solid agreement.

Like I said though, the problem with citing the source (specifically in this case) is its rather manipulative; ignoring the fact the opinion given *is* being inflated (again, the review doesn't actually say anything about it being 'better justified' that it was the New Warriors' fault), it comes off as an attempt to give it protection from editors, since it gives them a 'defence' of sorts against revision or removal no matter what problems it has (which it seems to have done, given all the discussion over it). And personally, I DO feel its 'pure quackery or nonsense', given the claim that the work is weaker because its the Avengers' actions rather than the New Warriors' idiocy that instigates the Accords' creation, but that's a wall of text I feel is unneeded to make my point here.

It basically uses the source as a means to protect the POV of a single editor rather than actually present a view held by the fandom, and didn't even use a source that's readable (and thus refutable) for a good number of tropers and doesn't actually present the source's point accurately.

Lastly, again, it actually does. Like, in three different areas. Last time I pointed one out you accused me of 'misquoting a cherry-picked area', but if you look at the page it explicitly talks about this being when 'many, many, many fans' react this way, the Laconic explicitly says its a reaction 'of the fanbase', and the one I linked to from the example pages (and realise someone else also linked to; forgot about it when I posted it), the examples are when this 'takes place within fandoms'. Everything about the trope page indicates that this is when there's a backlash in the fandom, and at no point does it indicate that its good enough for one single reviewer to express this opinion. The single reviewer cited isn't from the fandom, and in fact doesn't appear to have even read the comic it was based on before talking about the changes.

So, in summary, the source chosen is bad, its unneeded and is only there for bad reasons, the representation of said source is inaccurate (and thus, bad), and I've explained how the trope page indicates that the trope is about fandom response, not single reviewers. Unless there's anything else you need, I don't see what else I can do to clear up my stance here. To be completely honest, I don't get why you feel it so important to protect the source's inclusion or why you feel any further modification is such a bad idea.

He's prickly about a "tyranny of the majority," which is why he's sticking up for GrigorII despite not sharing his opinions.

I pointed out about the same thing about the source, though I was meaner about it. I'd prefer your version as conveying the same ideas in less-manipulative language.

I went along with supergod's because it seemed like the best deal I was gonna get, and I do feel yours is the superior formulation.

Oh, I see. The problem with the reviewer is that he's No True Scotsman. And now you also say that the link does not say what is is reported it says, and that the reviewer has not even read the comic book. If you don't know Spanish, you could have avoided this misunderstanding with some online translator, but to make things easier I will provide one for you (only the portion that is being cited here).

"We are done with the positive aspects of the film, which make it a good film. Now, there's the negative stuff. First, the film of the Russo brothers is puzzling because, except the title, there is no civil war. Where the original comic proposed an ideological dispute between two factions of heroes and villains mixed by hundreds, the big screen shows a fight between friends which is not much unlike, in numbers of people, to a brawl of drunk people in a failed wedding party. Where the original proposal of writer Mark Millar was that superheroes were involved by greed in a reality show that caused the death of children and that leads to state control of superhero activities, in this Disney version all is caused by the undesired consequences of superheroes fighting villains. Or, as implied by the character played by William Hurt, because they take down too many buildings."

Let me point something else: the page is not currently showing my original wording. There was a discussion, and the current wording is simply one that we all accepted. Not my ideal wording, not the ideal wording of some others, but a compromise that we can all live with. Now you came from out of nowhere, started again a discussion that had ceased some months ago, and try to take the discussion back to square one. Why don't you simply let things as they are now, call it a day, and seek something else to write about?

"And personally, I DO feel its 'pure quackery or nonsense', given the claim that the work is weaker because its the Avengers' actions rather than the New Warriors' idiocy that instigates the Accords' creation, but that's a wall of text I feel is unneeded to make my point here."

I applaud your honesty, but this admission here is the exact reason why I have a problem. For the past several months, anything that even remotely criticized this film has been doggedly removed or edited by fans of the work or haters of the comic. You claim that you didn't like the film all that much—but i don't really see much difference in your actions and theirs. The end result is the same: anything critical of the movie has to go through ten miles of troping red tape and argument, but anything praising it is added and never second-guessed.

Again, though, that one line in the description (which isn't PART of the real description and instead violates Example As Thesis) is a cherry-picked single line in that entire description. Originally, it said "many, many A fan" before it was changed.

Even so, that is moot because your edit only has one goal in mind: removing the citation. The idea that a citation gives the entry "protection from editors" is ridiculous considering that that same entry has been edited more than a dozen times. What is it being protected from? Removal? But that can't be the case because you said your goal isn't to remove it. So, considering that the example has literally BEEN EDITED by several people, and you say that you don't want to remove it, what exactly is it protected from?

Related to that, if it's not protected by anything, how exactly does it inflate anything? Really, that complaint sounds like paranoia over an issue that doesn't exist.

And yet, lots of, say, critique of the way the Zemo character is different from the comics, or of how the "Cap vs. Tony" angle is handled, or of whether or not the government's actions make sense have all gone up with minimal fuss and muss.

The problem is not a "tyranny of the majority" removing all critical examples. The problem is that a single person is trying to post a trope that is supposed to be invoked in case of a particular a mass popular reaction that simply does not exist. And that he is baldly refusing even the slightest compromise with people who are trying to let him have his point without his attempts to state it as fact.

I'm just going to change it to the proposed wording now. Nothing of value (and I will, in the spirit of compromise, include GrigorII's original point, which I do not agree with) will be lost, and it will read better on the page.

Besides, if he's to be believed, the proposed "citation" doesn't even mention some of the points he claims it does, and people just couldn't tell because it was in a foreign language.

Just because SOME entries have gotten in with no issues doesn't mean there hasn't been any issues.

I still question the idea that TCINIS is supposed to reflect a mass of opinions. Why? If Roger Ebert criticized the remake of an older movie because it was different, why is that a less worthy entry than. "Some fans, somewhere, think this change sucks"?

However, earlier, I even offered a compromise: why not just "some people, such as this Argentinian newspaper, feel that ___". Thus we both get some of what we want.

The difference is that Roger Ebert is a well-recognized source for film criticism, and Perfil is a small local newspaper that's only circulated in one Argentine city.

Why do we want to mention the Argentinian newspaper at all? It adds little to the example, it isn't in the same language as the wiki so most readers won't necessarily understand it in the first place, and it apparently doesn't even mention the points as negatively as GrigorII implies.

This keeps everything from the meat of the example's argument: that the reduced scope of the film is a bad change in some people's eyes because it makes the conflict feel less like a "war." It does not, as my earlier example did, attempt to sneak in my own opinion. And it doesn't cite a foreign-language piece in a manipulative way.

Heck, I'll go one better and re-add the In Name Only bit to Zemo, once you're done, because it did fit.

I reported this to Ask The Tropers. It's really annoying to have you just up and make your preferred edit when we aren't even done editing here.

Also, you're proving my point here. We can add one opinion if it's a "respected" critic, but we can't keep a pretty reasonable and accurate opinion from a published source? And, if we didn't have ANY citation, that would somehow be fine, too?

There needs to be consistency here. Either reasonable or respectable examples are valid or they're not.

Taking the post there then.

I apologize. I didn't notice I'd deleted a section I meant to leave in when I made my edit. Restoring it.

King Zeal I personally *don't* think the Roger Eburt entry on the examples page is valid; that, too, comes off as a manipulative attempt to state an opinion as fact (particularly the inclusion of 'he has a point') and then back it up with a source to make it look like its more legit. I was going to actually bring that up as another, unrelated example of this trope being abused.

I don't get this 'protect criticism' argument since I'm not trying to protect it from criticism, and neither does anyone else seem to be. We've both suggested better wording for the entry without removing it, and my proposed version was still focused on the criticism. Hell, I admitted from the beginning I already tried adding a point of criticism that got removed because it was my personal reaction rather than a fandom reaction. This isn't about protecting the film from criticism, this is about contesting the claim that there's been a reaction befitting this trope, which there hasn't been.

Concerning the protection from editors, again, look how this all started: The entry was removed, then reposted because the poster felt that by having a source meant that this wasn't a case of one user posting their personal opinion. Without the source it would have just been removed without question for being one single troper's opinion that, again, was rather crackpot, but the source made it a point one could argue about, even though the source, again, wasn't in English (thus hard to read), wasn't worded the way it was implied by the entry (even Supergod's version put it more negatively than the article itself), and made it appear we agreed with said source because we felt it was important to include this.

'Some fans think' and similar entries might look suspect, but that's a good thing. If an entry is suspect and looks like its just one person's opinion being inflated, than its easy to prove as such by just looking at the fandom. If its not anything any of them are saying than its not an example. Simple as. A user sourcing their opinion outwards halts that process since, again, it gives them a way to defend their point.

Grigor II This isn't a No True Scotsman debate, and I'm actually rather insulted you tried to spin that this way. No True Scotsman would imply that I'm making some claim about what 'constitutes' a fan of the works, which I'm not. What I'm saying is that your source's statements aren't as negative as you seemed to have inferred them as, and that the way they talk about the original Civil War comic doesn't sound like they actually read it. What I'm saying is that it looks like you wanted to add an entry to push your personal opinion and used the source as 'proof' that you weren't alone in this view. That may not be your intention, but that's what it looked like.

For reference, I detest the fandom guardian attitude that No True Scotsman amounts to; its actually one of the biggest berserk buttons I have when dealing with comic book fandom. You like the Civil War book? Great, happy at least someone enjoys it. I personally don't, though to be honest, I don't hate it as much as other fans do either. I think its badly written but I don't think its the worst comic ever or anything, and really, any damage it did to the Marvel universe was just following on from what started with Disassembled and House of M. I personally think that Avengers Vs X-Men is a much worse story. Don't try to make me out to be some irrational badguy. Don't try to make this look like we're picking on you because you prefer the comic to the film. That's not what this debate was about.

You did well in bringing the issue here. And I too think it's not an example. Unless we get a sidestory movie fully dedicated to Bucky, I can't imagine how much of him the movie had to show to avoid "wasting" him.

While I think the "agency" part is debatable, I think saying Bucky was a "waste" is a stretch.

So do I have permission to remove it again?

It's been a couple dqys, the other party hasn't shown up to defend the entry, and consensus here is unanimous. I say remove it and leave a commented-out note inviting anyone who wants to restore the entry to bring the matter here first.

Seconded.

If someone were to do that, I certainly wouldn't object. It's gotten way too long to not break up in some way.

I completely agree. Some people may behave somewhat irrationally, but in a completely realistic human manner.

I've removed the passage and put it here:

• Idiot Plot: Both invoked in-univese and assessed by some members of the audience. No character acts in a rational, impersonal way to resolve this conflict — not Tony, not Cap, not T'Challa and not Secretary Ross. No compromises are ever made, with each party drawing lines in the sand and daring each other to cross them... which they always do. Even worse is the fact that much of the movie's third act is driven solely by personal egos. Cap and Bucky's reasons for going on the run (thinking that the fate of the world is at stake) turns out to be wrong. Tony attacking both of them over The Reveal is called out for being a pointless tantrum, and Tony just says he doesn't care. All Ross did was poke a match at a hydrogen bomb, especially after we learn he can't even HOLD the people he's supposed to be policing, making his ultimatums questionable. Even T'Challa, when he realizes how wrong he was, just walks away instead of doing anything to stop the situation from getting even worse. The characters actually point out how irrational these actions are, but they are still irrational.

If someone really thinks it should stay, it should be Broken Base, at worst.

Next time, leave a note saying it's been moved to discussion.

The problem here seems to be a misunderstanding of what Idiot Plot is. According to the trope description, it is a plot where characters behaving irrationally is the only reason that the story occurs. Pay attention to the final paragraph of the description, which states that this can be intentional and that it is a Tropes Are Tools situation.

The fact that characters are behaving irrationally, and often selfishly, is the entire point of the story. Their motivations being understandable is not the same as their actions being rational. For example, wanting to kill the person who killed your parents is understandable, but the story flat out states that the Cycle of Revenge is the major cause of the conflict. Black Panther's character arc specifically involves him coming to realize this, while Tony succumbs to it complately.

And my argument wasn't that their motivations were 'understandable', but that their actions were rational, and that characters within the movie with limited information on others call them irrational doesn't prove anything. Rational isn't a synonym for 'correct' or 'right'. Take T'Challa for example. He makes the mistake of thinking his avenging his father's death is worth any price. And when we say any, it just means going to extreme lengths will be worth it. The end of the movie shows he's wrong. What changes his mind is when he has actual, visual evidence of what extreme lengths actually mean. Now, if someone was going to try to convince him, how could they do so? How could they manufacture such a evidence? And moreover, who has an interest in doing so when everyone is out having their own issues? And how many people even think he's wrong to do so? Only Captain America really objects, and he does so because he knows Bucky is innocent.

Just because a theme of Cycle of Revenge is wrong is there doesn't mean that the characters are irrational for choosing it within their circumstances. I don't have anything against idiot plots, but this simply isn't it. This is people making different choices because they know different things, because they believe in different things, and because they have different goals. T'Challa wanting to murder his father's murderer isn't merely understandable, it's also rational. It's just also wrong.

I mean, lets apply the logic with your argument to basically any other movie. Your argument is because the movie has an aesop, and the characters who haven't learned it before the movie is through are acting 'irrationally'. Doesn't this make the vast majority of movie's idiot plots then? I mean, for there to be a character arc, there needs to be some kind of defiency at first, so the character can adjust and fix that deficiency. Is star wars an idiot plot because Luke doesn't know the way of the force for the first two movies? Is Batman Begins because Bruce didn't pre-emptively know that his vengeance on Joe Chill wasn't going to lead to anything good? How can you have a movie where a character makes a mistake that isn't an idiot plot if the you require that they know the movies Aesop ahead of time?

"Idiot plots can often be avoided with a simple wave of the hand. If the audience would have spent the entire story wondering why the hero didn't try some obvious tactic, a hand wave at the beginning of the story as to why that wouldn't work would prevent an idiot plot, regardless of how contrived the excuse was. However, if the hand wave is bad, it may actually create a new obvious solution just as bad as the original."

What's the handwave here? How could you have solved the Sokovian Accords issue when characters are 'impersonally' still disagreeing with it on it's basis due to their beliefs. What could you have done to convince a rational T'challa that his father's murderer doesn't deserve to die(which, btw, lets keep in mind is something that literally every other character has proven incapable of doing, so he has reason to believe he's the only one who can make it happen), and what character was in a position to convey that evidence? What could Steve have said that would make the UN believe his allegations of mind control, especially after he's become suspect of collusion with Bucky? What could have Iron Man have done to bring Steve in when we know that he is under the impression he only has so much time before Zemo unleashes a squad of Winter Soldiers on the world? If you can make an argument that answers all these questions using only the circumstances that the characters had available to them, then fair enough, they're idiots for not doing that instead. But as it is, I don't see what is irrational about their actions.

The movie places all the characters in positions opposing one another without any of them being unintelligent about it. The closest you can make an argument for is Iron Man at the end of the movie, where he is in full "fuck it" mode after personally witnessing video evidence of his parents being brutally murdered, feeling betrayed by his friend, and after all he's suffered throughout the movie up to that point. At that point, yes, he simply doesn't care about reasons and just wants Bucky dead, making him irrational. That said, keep in mind the handwave that explains why characters aren't acting rational has to be something that's not convincing for it to satisfy the definition of an idiot plot, and emotional anguish is pretty convincing to me. Maybe not to you, and if so, fine, fair enough, but everything else here? No, that's something I think goes against the definition of what an idiot plot is. They gave plenty of reasons why things couldn't just work out. That's rationality.

First, can you make more concise arguments that don't require a Wall of Text?

Rational, according to Dictionary.com, means "of sound mind", which does not apply to the decisions made in this story. Here, decisions were made out of fear, guilt, anger, sorrow, grief, or all of the above. But certainly not a "sound" mind.

I think you misread the part about a Hand Wave, though. It doesn't say that having one definitely forgives an the decisions the characters made.

I make my points with the best support I can muster. I'll try to keep it short as a courtesy, but unless you think the argument is redundant and artificially lengthened, I don't really think length is a relevant measure of legitimacy.

As far as sound mind goes, those things are certainly a factor, but that's not the same as being of an unsound mind. Unsound mind is when someone is incapable of managing themselves or their affairs, and that's obviously not the case for anyone. Also, you seem to be making the argument of seperation between reason and emotion. Either the heroes are impersonal or they're making unsound decisions based on emotion. That's a false dichotomy. How do you distinguish Tony having a rational argument for his decision to support the accords and his guilt over the mother of the kid he just met. Yeah, he feels guilty about it, but at the same time, "We should be in check because it's on us if someone gets murdered" is a really legitimate point regardless of his motivation for making it, and it's totally fair game to use the death of that kid to support it. That guilt helped him make that point is not an argument against it. Emotion can override reason in times of extreme anguish, but they are actually inseperable from each other. How you feel about something informs you of the logical course of attaining the correct state of being. The only time anyone is of unsound mind here is Tony at the very end, where emotional anguish finally breaks him, and that's only because he "doesn't care" about reason or circumstances. That's when things become irrational, not when you feel bad over having taken part in someone's death and decide to make a change in order to avoid that. I can't think of a more rational argument than "This decision lead to unpleasant consequences, therefore, I should change something about this decision."

And even if you don't buy that argument, again, characters who aren't carrying around baggage both make legitimate points in support and against the accords as well. Characters like Rhodey and Sam. You can't discount them if you're going to argue the irrationality angle is bringing down the titular heroes, because characters who are rational and impartial are still not seeing eye to eye. The simple fact is that there is no easy answer to the conflict here.

Lastly, the wording is "Idiot plots can often be avoided with a simple wave of the hand." I don't know what you meant by forgiven, as that implies someone did something wrong they need to be excused for. "Avoid" however, just means not employing the trope. Whether you like CW or whether you liked the decisions being made within it's plot is up to you. But CW, by the definition given by the entry, is not what constitutes an Idiot Plot. The characters are not irrational, and until you can point out an easy resolution that all the characters inexplicably refused to employ, an idiot plot has been 'avoided'.

Keeping your argument concise is not a "courtesy" to me. It's how good arguments are made and how you avoid Gish galloping.

"Sound mind" means that you are able to make sound decisions not clouds by extreme emotion or duress—which does not qualify for any character in this movie.

Rhodey and Sam are NOT rational and impartial. They are acting out of loyalty to their respective best friends.

Whether I liked the movie is not relevant to this. Yes, I liked it, but I can still notice characters that are not behaving rationally. Hell, this is a COMMON criticism of the movie. For example, Red Letter Media mentioned this in their review, but they all still liked the movie.

Even in THAT review, every person there said that the movie could have been solved if Cap or Tony had been more willing to compromise. Or done a number of things that didn't escalate the problem.

You avoid Gish galloping not making a bunch of random, irrelevant points. If there are several points that support an argument, making them is a legitimate debate tactic, even if it's tedious for you to address them. I'm not making strawmen or telling lies or half-truths. I'm debating you honestly here. And anyway, it's not that huge amount of text I'm making. I'm making a few paragraphs at most. It's that's too much for you, I don't know what to tell you. Besides, that tactic seems to refer to real life debates where people only have a certain time to respond. We're debating using text on a posting board. You have all the time in the world. Feel free to take a month if you like. Gish Galloping isn't simply 'a lengthy argument'. Also, for someone who is critical of someone providing a lengthy argument, don't you feel it's a bit hypocritical to link a 40 minute review for someone to inspect as your evidence for support of your point? It's not like you even linked to the relevant part of which you're talking about, just "Here's a long ass review that I say support me, have fun getting to the relevant part"

Anyway, look up the definition of a sound mind, because it's not what you describe it as. You have to be literally incapable of managing yourself to have an unsound mind. That's the legal definition. On the other hand, an unsound DECISION is something else, and also not something very present in the movie. Look up logical soundness and you'll see "Affected by emotion" is not part of the definition. What you mean is if the characters are objective, which they aren't and I never said otherwise, but that doesn't mean they are incapable of making sound, logical decisions. Also, Rhodey and Sam are not their respective best friends stooges. Keep in mind that your argument is now that Rhodey and Sam are making irresponsibly biased decisions based on a matter that will greatly affect their lives JUST because they're friends with those two heroes? That merely being friends removes their ability for sound, rational thought towards decision making? I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. There is no reason to think that Sam and Rhodey can't make and argue their own opinions just because they're friends with Cap and Iron Man. Especially Rhodey, who has been operating essentially from before the first NY incident independently from Tony. Maybe you have more of an argument with Sam, since he's pledged himself to following Cap's leadership, but even he'll question his decisions, like how he disagrees with whether Bucky is worth saving, so even there it's doubtful that Sam doesn't simply legitimately believe in what he's saying.

Lastly, you're right that if they had just been 'more willing to compromise', then yeah, they'd have worked something out. But the thing is, they made every effort to compromise. Steve was about to when he realized Tony was willing to put people under house arrest preemtively. Stark meanwhile was willing to make provisions and changes to the accords. It'd be one thing if they didn't try, but they did. And yes, if they had been willing more willing to compromise, that's true...

But your task wasn't merely to find a solution, but find a solution that everyone would be happy with (especially when "just compromise more" is a solution you can make to literally any interpersonal problem anywhere). They went down every avenue, wrestling with the issues and trying and failing to come to a solution that couldn't be made because *insert hundreds of examples for each side here*. For you to make your argument that one or the other should have just compromised more, you have to find a way to address their issues in some way, because these characters aren't just being stubborn jackasses for no reason. There has to be a reasons for them to compromise, because right now, they only have reasons not to. Because otherwise you're just saying that the characters who have a problem with it just shouldn't have a problem with it, regardless of the reasons for their objection. That's not logical or reasonable, that's just a "Why can't you just shut up and not fight" solution that wishes the problem wasn't actually a problem.

The reason that you are gish galloping is because we DO NOT have infinite time to argue an endless number of points, and many of your arguments AREN'T relevant. For example, i can't nitpick every single semantic argument about "rational" "unsound" or "impartial" you make. I can't explain to you how the two best friends of characters acting irrationally are not "impartial" members of the dispute. Even if i tried, at some point, thus debate will have stretched on to long and if we still disagree, then the argument either dies or goes to a mediator.

That being said, I'm not the only person who questions the idea that Tony and Steve " did everything they could" to compromise. Your argument in the last paragraph invokes a False Dichotomy, or a Perfect Solution Fallacy (ie, failing to make everyone happy means doing nothing at all). That's not what a compromise is; a compromise means that some things each person wants are given up. Its clear that neither you nor i will agree on what kind of compromise may have resolved the plot, but that really isn't the point. The point is that many viewers DID feel that more could have been done and wasn't.

The reason i linked to the video as i did is because I'm on a mobile device. Thus another reason why i can't debate 101 different points of contention. My point was simply to show that there ARE reviewers and fans who are saying this. To me, that at least qualifies it as YMMV.

Well, I can't say much else except that I disagree. The examples I give seem like relevant counter to me. Using your example, the literal core of your argument is that the characters here are being 'irrational' and making 'unsound' decisions. Having looked up the definitions of those terms, you seem to be using them inappropriately to mean something else, and bring up the actual definitions of those words and how they don't apply seems like a pretty relevant argument to make. Call me crazy.

As I understand it, you're general argument is that because the characters are affected by their emotional states and experiences, they are not making 'sound' decisions, making them irrational. To that, I say people don't have to be goddamn robots to make a rational decisions, and moreover, it'd be impossible for them to be so even if they tried. Under a blanket defintion that wide and vague, you literally can't make a rational decision as a human being. For example, I'm not saying that Rhodey and Sam being friends with Cap and Iron Man has no absolutely affect whatsoever on their decision making, but such an affect that they can't be trusted to form their own opinion on a legal document that would henceforth regulate their lives? Yeah, that's ridiculous.

As to compromise, there is a direct scene where Cap was about to sign (a compromise under his part) and Tony was about to agree to make exceptions and changes ( a compromise on his part), and what happened was that Tony torpedoes his argument by imprisoning Scarlet Witch. I'm not arguing everyone being happy in terms of the fallacy, I'm arguing that there are lines that the characters refuse to cross in terms of compromise because that does too much harm to what they are after, and you need to make a reason why these characters should be willing to compromise for that with that when they're not. So I don't feel I'm making a false dichonomy here, because there was effort manage the damage this document would do to each's ideals. It's just that there was always a point where it was too much for both characters.

In strictly speaking literal terms, you're correct that "maor comprise!" is always an option, and renders literally every possible interpersonal conflict idiotic if you think that's the only possible reason a resolution is out of the hands of people. But if you accept that rational people can still come to different conclusions and hold to different values strongly enough to not compromise past a certain extent (not out of stupidity, but simple belief that that ideal is one worth following), then reasons that Tony and Steve couldn't come to an agreement is laid out very clearly and supported by the characters: Because it goes against their core beliefs, and even when they made every possible compromise they could, they couldn't make it common ground. That's not irrationality, that's just individuality.

The problem with getting bogged down in semantics is that it's unlikely the person who wrote the trope definition actually meant for it to be restricted to the clinical definitions of "rational" or "sound". This wiki is not a psychiatric dictionary—just a layperson's site. As such, i'm taking "rational" to mean "making good decisions without emotion, delusion, bias or illogic clouding your judgment. Especially given the title, which uses the term "idiot" and is not the same as irrational, and the final paragraph which says that this can be used for dramatic effects and is not meant to be a bad thing. The definition is far too loose for me to actually believe that arguing semantics is going to solve anything. Very very few examples listed on the trope page itself are about legally-sound decision making.

The scene where Cap becomes angry about what happened with the Scarlet Witch is a perfect example of WHY a compromise was never really given due consideration. Cap becoming furious and then deciding to storm out is exactly an example of action on emotional impulse. He could have said, "Look Tony, if I sign this, get Wanda out of there and don't ever pull anything like that again. From now on, we discuss things like this before we do them." Having lines that they don't want to cross is exactly what I said in my example of the trope. Everybody in this story has too many lines that they draw in the sand for any sort of amicable solution to be possible.

To that last point: irrationality and individuality are not mutually exclusive. In fact, that is the basic idea of being self-serving.

I never made the point that they're mutually exclusive, but they are distinct concepts and I feel you are conflating them where they aren't.

I'm sorry, but layman or not, it's up to you to be as clear with your statements as possible. All I have right now from you is that "Emotions = bias = inability to make a rational decision" without any qualifications as to context, circumstances, or degree. It pits emotions and reason in opposition when they are instead intricately locked onto each other. It's an argument that I disagree with on multiple levels and I've spent this discussion detailing how. There are circumstances where I feel they are pitted against one another, but nothing that you've mentioned is an example of that as far as I feel. Rhodey and Sam being friends with IM and Cap is not sufficient example of bias to argue they are being partial, because it reduces their characters to Cap and IM's yes-men, and that's just not the situation, especially Rhodey.

The scene with Cap turning on the Accords because of Wanda was done because they had enacted the house arrest without the signing of the accords. Captain America's point was that agenda's change and by playing this underhanded trick, it proved Cap's point that the UN, even though Cap desperately wanted to, couldn't be trusted. There is no "Don't pull this again" because they shouldn't have pulled it in the first place, and if they're willing to circumvent on that, then why should he trust that it won't happen again. Can't it be equally argued that Cap signing on when they have already pre-emptively violated their rights as being irrational because he has actual evidence now of his fears manifesting and the basis of a pinky promise isn't sufficient deterrence from something like it happening again?

I said before, for this to seriously qualify as an idiot plot, you need to give a rationale that satisfies every party. You need to give a reason why Cap should let this slide, when he has every reason not to.

It seems the fundamental difference between us is the notion that having lines where you won't cross is inherently irrational, and that's not true for me. Your argument posits that all parties should ALWAYS compromise, no matter how much that compromise encroaches on their beliefs, and the only possible reason not to do so is idiocy/irrationality. If that's it, then I think we can only agree to disagree here. Cap compromised as much as he could. He couldn't compromise more than that and not feel like he betrayed his most fundamental beliefs. Therefore, he couldn't compromise more than that, not without going against his character. Hell, this argument is directly made in the movie. "Compromise where you can. But where you can't, don't." And that's pretty much what everyone did.

And one last thing. You mentioned the word "Amicably". That's odd to me, because at every point, they were very civil to one another, except in the middle of the movie and the end. But at the end, Captain America sends Tony a letter saying he wished they agreed, that they're still friends, and Tony, in response, put Ross on hold when he knew it was Cap breaking in his facility. When the whole group fought each other, no one but BP was going in for the kill, because they just wanted to end the fight, not kill each other. The ultimate reason thing that amazes me about this is how, despite all the differences and pain in their journeys, especially Tony, they're still friends who respect one another at the end. They're amicable.

Alright, we're not getting anywhere. I'm gonna take it to Ask The Tropers.

Agreed. At this rate, there's going to be an entry for every side-character/side-story that isn't related to the Captain America vs Iron Man debate.

Broken Base would be more appropriate. Angst? What Angst? is, according to its Playing With page: "A character has reasons to be depressed or upset, but ignores them." That doesn't seem like what happens here.

This would be the disagreement between two groups of viewers who either have a problem with the extra humor or don't mind it.

Thank you for your reply.

The reason I asked was because criticisms against Age of Ultron's amount of humor were listed under both Angst? What Angst? and Broken Base on that YMMV page, so I wasn't sure. Thanks for clearing that up.

I think you're correct. Most of that could be merged into alternate character interpretation.

As a matter of fact, a lot of cleanup is needed across the board. As pointed out in the other discussion, there are ymmv tropes in here that consist only of speculation and some that are actually about the movie.

Not sure why "bias" would constitute a removal reason. I think not.

Rule Of Cautious Editing Judgment I would hope.^note That very page says: "When something is posted that stands firmly on one side of a hot-button debate (political bickering being the huge one, followed closely by religion, with interpretations of Mind Screws running a close third), the editing machine will grind it back down or even kill it outright." For instance, the link provided is a (self-described) conservative blog describing what is a very politicized issue that has hardcore conservative/right views, hardcore liberal/left views, and everything in between.

And your point is what? That Unfortunate Implications occurs with biased individuals? The readd reason was directly responding to your removal edit "too biased", and responding with "it is not too biased", referencing the rest of the wiki in a generic manner.

Which is not a good argument, still. It's the "Pokemon Defense" all over again. Again, Rule Of Cautious Editing Judgment, I'll point to stating that a blatantly one-sided source on a hot political issue is grounds for removal. I removed it, as per what the page states. There are ways to talk about the issue without it coming from one side of an issue with multiple viewpoints.

The hostility isn't necessary.

I don't feel like commenting on the actual issue because it descends into flame wars and attracts extremists from both sides. But honestly even if the source wasn't biased, the entry still deserves to be deleted for sheer irrelevancy alone. Civil War isn't even about Spider-Man.

Besides the Unfortunate Implications trope is usually for works themselves, and at the very most stretched to cover comments from creators about the series, not the terrible things their fanbases might have done. Otherwise it would take up like half the page for popular series like Attack on Titan, Danganronpa, Homestuck and My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic would be chock full of such entries.

So this is the point we've reached, where a character being white is offensive and an unfortunate implication in and of itself.

This whole Spiderman race talk was a train wreck from the start.

^^ The problem being addressed is not just one character; it is the abundance of White Male Leads. Please do not misrepresent.

Also, I believe Fighteer has closed the matter in Ask The Tropers.

I think it should stay IMO simply because some of the reactions the blog finds are very ugly, especially as Asa was only rumoured to get the part.

First off this page is for Civil War, not general Spider-Man. As Fighteer said, Unfortunate Implications is meant for implications within the work itself. Unless it's brought up within the actual film, or is an issue unique to the film like the Exodus controversy, it doesn't belong. Doesn't matter how awful the things people say are. People and trolls will say awful things about anything.

A webcomic artist I love was sent awful hateful messages and death threats for "not acting black enough" and other Unfortunate Implications-loaded reasons, but since it doesn't have anything to do with the webcomic itself I'm not about to put an entry for it there because guess what, it's irrelevant to her actual work.

Probably the Broken Base entry discussing complaints about the excess of characters in Civil War. Anyway, I'm not quite sure Hypocritical Fandom really applies anyway, because the issue people are taking with Batman V Superman is that it's introducing too many characters at once rather than just having them, whereas most of the characters in Civil War are preexisting MCU characters. And a lot of the people complaining about BVS are already aware of this problem with Civil War and are just cynical.

I did note that AAOU introduced three superheroes in major roles, and most of the Bat-cast that are showing up in BVSDOJ are characters that have already been shown in TDK.

The films by Nolan are not part of the DC cinematic universe, their characters do not count.

I know that, I'm just saying that audiences will be familiar with the characters.