Follow TV Tropes
I\'m Guessing the YMMV page is officially locked for good huh?
Harry Potter vs Luke Skywalker CRF:
I know that Critical Research Failure was banned from the DB YMMV page, but I found something that actually fits. In their Harry Potter vs Luke Skywalker video, they have Luke detect a weakness in Harry's scar using Shatterpoint. The thing is, anyone who has ever had a scar will tell you that they are not any weaker than other areas of the body. Even the average person should know that scars won't handicap you in a battle. Anyone should know that scars that have already healed are not weaker than other layers of skin. This isn't like all of the previous examples put up, which were clearly misuse. If CRF really can't be put on the ymmv page, I need to know what trope I CAN list this under, and their NEEDS to be one.
Is it possible for an Ass Pull section to be listed here? Or would it end up being like the Critical Research Failure section that was axed off?
Respectively, in my opinion, no and it absolutely would. Frankly, many of your edits have verged quite dangerously into Complaining About Results You Disagree With already.
So, I'm seeing talk of a disparity between the consensus of the Death Battle research team and the results Ben and Chad put up on the show. I'd actually like to know where the research team's blogs or forums are, if they are public. I want to see their reasoning for myself.
Here's ScrewAttack's official Death Battle forum: http://forums.screwattack.com/viewforum.php?f=37
Here's where the prediction blogs are posted: http://www.screwattack.com/user/TheOfficialDEATHBATTLEFanBlog
Hmm... They do seem to make their cases much better than the hosts do.
That said, these guys don't seem to be Screwattack employees. Do we really know that Ben and Chad are actually taking their findings into consideration? The methods used by the predictions blog and the methods seemingly used by Ben and Chad seem to be very different.
The fan blog's contributors are not on Screwattack's payroll as far as I can tell, so I don't think it's accurate to call them the "Death Battle research team" in any official capacity. The only real "Death Battle research team" that seems to exist appears to be Ben and Chad... though I heard they got someone else to help out after Dante VS Bayonetta, at least according to the DB forums. Presumably because Ben has his hands full these days.
You'd think from this page that the only fights were the Superman vs. Goku, Gaara vs. Toph, and Tifa vs. Yang fight.
There were entries for pretty much every fight, but they were deleted to make more room.
umm can we remove parvum opis? Gaara vs Toph is not the most hated death battle, it appears that peach vs zelda is. Also i found that battle mostly fair. It just seems a vocal minority of anime/naruto fans hate it, most reactors seem fine with the results, as do most fans i talk to. (I have nothing against Peach vs Zelda, it is just it has the lowest like dislike ratio on youtube and gets the most flak from non zelda fans.) so can we remove parvum opis?
Eh, this is kind of the thing with YMMV pages. I've complained about this before, but the fact is that there's a certain level at which if the trope can be argued to fit we have to allow it, since this IS "Your Mileage May Vary". Gaara/Toph definitely attracts more butthurt than most of the series, so leaving it seems okay to me.
i find peach vs zelda to attract more butthurt the toph vs gaara, outside its fandom, just naruto has the most vocal fandom, really do we take silent anger, or vocal minority?
Out of all deathbattles, excluding the obvious two, both of those battles have the highest amount of dislikes, which makes them both candidates. But while Gaara vs Toph is hated both on You Tube and the Deathbattle forums, Peach vs Zelda is only hated on youtube, so I believe Gv T deserves the spot more.
Isn't this a moot discussion? We removed the Parvum Opus trope about a month ago.
Yes, it is moot. End of discussion.
YMMV or not, I think we should consider axing the Critical Research Failure example. It's getting ridiculous with every single fight having an example from fanboys on the other side. I'm not sure it's worth the edit wars and fan wanking.
Or the trope misuse - CRF is only for things where everybody would know that it's wrong, not just fans of the work.
I went ahead and axed the examples for now. It should say enough that I was going to copy them here to illustrate the misuse, but the list is just too long to merit that. The list will be hiding the page history if we decide to revert this later.
While I don't agree that every single CRF comes from Fanboys, I will admit that you have a point with having to edit the page every episode because of one trope having to be edited over and over again. However, I say we compromise and have the trope have its own page for DB.
If there's a genuine research error, then it should indeed be acknowledge instead of hidden like what is currently going on here. Some examples on the page are very much CRF whereas some are not. Instead of axing the whole dang thing, I suggest we go over what examples truly were CRF and what was not.
If worst comes to worst... as much as it pains me to say it, what if we gave DB its own CRF page?
Also, if a troper provides proof of what they're saying is CRF, it's not wanking and it's not fanboyism, Db prides itself on "settling this debate once and for all" so when they make an error, it really sticks out. just throwing it out there.
I agree with Star on this one. I love DEATH BATTLE but their research as been spotty and sometimes outright wrong in the past. It wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't so conclusive with the settling this debate once and for all.
Indeed, it appear the general consensus here is that axing the entirely of SRF is not the right thing to do...
The issue seems to be that generally speaking most people seem to think with such vast and rich histories, its inevitable that the researchers will gets something wrong with just about every single match-up. I mean a lot of these characters have huge comic book histories and/or long TV shows or multiple movies or something that only shows up in a spin-off. Ultimately, it seems either we need to just axe it if you don't want to risk it flooding up the page, or make a separate page just for research failures so every episode can have one or two if needed.
I vote for another page, something about axing the whole thing seems more like an unintentional silencing tactic.
Plus, this shows demographic is mainly those interested in VS debating, Death Battle is far from the only thing that does this, if the Outskirts Battledome, VS Battle Wiki, Power Crunch, and Fatal Fiction can tell you. When they make a flub up in VS debating, the demographic will know; while casual fans may not be aware of the flub up, those who know how to VS debate will.
I agree with making a Critical Research Failure subpage for Death Battle. For one, it would be easier to keep track of than keeping it on the main YMMV subpage.
The number of legitimate examples(ie- that anyone with cursory knowledge about the subject can note) is sufficiently big to justify a page?
Some of them are legitimate complaints, some are indeed pointless nitpicking by fussy people.
I guess I'd argue that, while it might better be described as Cowboy BeBop at His Computer or Dan Browned, there should be room made for grievances aired against poor research in a show that purports to do its homework. Every fight doesn't draw this controversy, after all: nobody's mentioned, say, Hawkeye vs. Green Arrow or Darth Vader vs. Doctor Doom.
Unless there is a specific trope for "People who usually do the research make a critical screw-up that taints the rest of the work."
So does it end up a CRF page, a Cowboy Bebop page, or split them into both seperating the genuine examples with the obscure examples.
In my opinion, definitely a Cowboy Bebop page, a lot of the gripes I remember from CRF, mine included, were more from the viewpoint of a fan who knows something major from the lore that was wrong, like Thor's Hammer, Princess Peach's Vibe Powers, etc., but that wouldn't be a CRF.
Honestly, a CRF would be like, they used bad science or something that everyone knows is false. Which really, they're science at often at least seems sound and not a CRF.
Again, I vote for a Bebop page, which would be a lot more useful for fan gripes about Gaara's sand and Ryu's Vajra telportation device.
Changing my vote for a bepop page.
Again, I vote we take a look at the examples (as well as future ones) and see which examples fall under what.
Claiming Mjolnir weighs a million tons as opposed to 42.3 pound? CRF
Kunoichi being a name for a female ninja distractio tactic as opposed to just a female ninja? Bebop for the most part.
The opposite of what you posted, actually, but close enough.
Why can't we just have a dual page then, instead of deciding one or the other? Just a 'things that the show got wrong, both super obvious to everyone and only obvious to hardcore fans'? Seems like both CRF and Bebop are similar enough to justify sharing a Death Battle sub-page.
We can't have that because the "only obvious to hardcore fans" trope was cut years ago.
As Septimus has said, the issue here above all else is that these things are not Critical Research Failure. All else aside, the trope was not being properly used in even a single one of the examples posted.
So... in other words, there's no section or trope where Death Battle can be called out on the flaws in its research, obvious to everyone or not?
Again, the flaws that were listed there were not in any way obvious to everyone. They were obvious to fans of the series, perhaps, but not to everyone.
There WAS a trope for what you want. It was Did Not Do The Research. It is gone now. If you have a problem with the situation, the problem should be with TV Tropes for removing that trope, but that is a separate discussion from this.
I remember when that existed. Wasn't it revamped into Critical Research Failure?
No, the two existed concomitantly. Did Not Do The Research was purged for being nothing but hate wank. Around the same time the "You Fail Troping Forever" group was reworked.
Actually, the DNDTR purge happened a year after the "You Fail" rework.
So, in summery there's nothing that can be done to catalogue Death Battle's research errors - even non-subjective ones like giving the incorrect definition of kunoichi - since the only trope that would have fit was purged?
Pretty much. Again, if you have a problem with this, it's a problem with the wiki policy on the matter.
To be honest, DNDTR was killed for a reason, and nothing that serves the exact same purpose is going to lead to anything better.
So the matter looks settled.
So why do people keep removing the bit about Hiryu's "vajra" anyway?
Did you ask them?
Just messaged the last troper about it
Community Showcase More
How well does it match the trope?