Character Perception Evolution cleanup and maintenance

Since Character Perception Evolution has had a few entries that were determined to need removal or modification, I thought I might as well start this thread so we don't have to keep going to Ask The Tropers. This thread's primary purpose is to edit or delete entries that do not fit, either because they're inaccurate or because they don't match the definition of the trope. However, it can also be used to float possible entries and gather feedback, among other things.

I'd like to start things off by discussing an entry that seems questionable:

I commented this out because it fails to explain how Janis was previously seen or the hows and whys of the change in her perception. Can those components be added, or should we just remove the entry entirely? Since I don't remember how she was initially received, I thought it would be a good idea to bring it up for discussion.

Agree that a proper requires an explaination about how the character was initialy considered. I have no idea whether or not Janis used to be popular. There's also this example I find questionable.

• Adventure Time:
  • Ice King, despite initially being the series' main villain, didn't have a great reception at first, being viewed as a somewhat annoying and incompetent crazy old monarch whose only goal was to find (or rather kidnap) a princess to be his wife, and to a lesser extent, become friends with Finn and Jake. However, after later episodes beginning with "Holly Jolly Secrets" fleshed out his backstory, revealing him to have once been a human named Simon Petrikov who slowly lost his mind due to his crown's influence and lost the love of his life because of it, Ice King quickly became acclaimed as a character, with many praising him for being a great example of a Tragic Villain, and as an added bonus, many of his previous antics started to be viewed in a much more depressing yet three-dimensional light. It also helps that the show introduced the Lich, a far more legitimately threatening villain, to take his spot as the Big Bad.

It sounds more like Rescued from the Scrappy Heap because it's about the show itself revealing Ice King's dephts and sad backstory, not fans retroactively revaluating the character.

Edited by Silverblade2 on Sep 23rd 2023 at 4:23:14 PM

If he's an Ineffectual Sympathetic Villain his perception should automatically depend on what that means to his character and whether it gives him Hidden Depths (which, needless to say, it does), so excluding maybe the first couple of episodes he appeared in where he was more of a Jar Jar Binks type of obnoxious, he shouldn't count.

Edited by Coachpill on Sep 23rd 2023 at 10:35:48 AM

Well, the description says that there can be overlap if the pre-Rescued portrayal is re-evaluated more favorably. Is that the case with the Ice King?

Wasn't the Ice King always liked? I don't remember anyone ever finding him the scrappy or really ever hating him to a great degree.

Edited by Bullman on Sep 23rd 2023 at 6:15:08 AM

+ Until the HJS two-parter Finn and Jake kinda acted as Audience Surrogates and they'd express some kind of annoyance with him at worst, but the fact that they were in a device-related role at all is probably a better invalidation for Ice King undergoing this trope.

It's honestly hard to find what people thought off him back than since his tragic back story after holly jolly became so central to the guy.

I wouldn't list this peronaly though since this wasn't a reevaluation of the character after a period of time so much as a change of opinion due to new material which doesn't fit the definition.

Yeah, I don't think the Ice King was ever really hated, but he wasn't really seen as anything special before The Reveal, just your typical lighthearted cartoon Ineffectual Sympathetic Villain. Seems to me like the question is: does the revelation of his backstory change the perception of how he was in episodes that came before? Does it add a new dimension to his characterization in those episodes?

Edited by ImperialMajestyXO on Sep 27th 2023 at 6:10:09 AM

I would say no. Knowing his backstory does make his madness sadder, but it doesn't reframe anything beyond his 'princess' obsession. My rule of thumb for Character Perception Evolution is that the evolution should ideally be dramatic- someone hated becoming loved or vice versa. Ice King doesn't really fit that description, he was liked before.

I've got timing questions about these entries on Character Perception Evolution.

• RWBY:
  • Cinder Fall was initially a very popular villain thanks to her cool appearance, her mysterious past, and her status as a genuine threat. By the start of Volume 5, however, she became very divisive and a common target for detractors who found her boring, one-dimensional and way past her welcome. The fact that it took 8 volumes to finally get a glimpse at her backstory didn't help.
  • In the first three volumes, Adam Taurus was widely considered an example of Evil Is Cool thanks to his appearance in the "Black" trailer, unique Iaijutsu fighting style, and cold, stoic personality. Volumes 1 and 2 built an image around the character as a Well-Intentioned Extremist who had become evil to fight evil, and though his appearance in Volume 3 as a Stalker with a Crush raised eyebrows and utterly crashed his Mentor Ship with Blake Belladonna, him applying The Worf Effect to Yang Xiao Long and taking off her arm was acclaimed as another example of his badass credentials. From Volume 4 onwards, he became one of the most divisive characters in the fanbase due to many viewing him as a cheap and childish Domestic Abuser who was only good for cool fight scenes, to the point that, even after his death in Volume 6, both the character himself and his handling by the writers are frequently debated.

The Cinder Fall entry: Volume 5 aired from late-2017 to early-2018, which means it began 6 years ago and ended 5 years ago, which is right at the acceptable minimum. However, the period mentioned for her negative qualities covers Volumes 5-8. Volume 8 aired from late-2020 to early-2021, which is too recent to count. Shall I just remove the final sentence? I think the rest will be okay.

The Adam Taurus entry: The Volumes 1-4 parts of the entry are fine (that covers 2013-17). However, Volume 6 aired from late-2018 to early-2019, and the fight in question happened late in the volume, so in 2019. That's only 4 years ago. Shall I knock off everything after "only good for cool fight scenes"?

Yeah cut those.

Thanks. I've trimmed them and linked back to this thread.

Back in May, a portion from the Tommy Oliver entry was removed for involving speculation and allegations regarding behind-the-scenes drama. More specifically, Austin St. John claims Tommy only became The Leader because Jason David Frank broke an actor's strike and brokered a deal with the producers. Which in turn led to Austin St. John, Walter Emanuel Jones, and Thuy Trang being let go from the show. (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Main.CharacterPerceptionEvolution#edit37011512)

However, since then we've had entries for The Nostalgia Critic and Lemongrab from Adventure Time mention allegations lobbied at their actors within their entries:

• To Boldly Flee: The more tragic and sympathetic portrayal of The Nostalgia Critic in the series was, around the time of its release, widely praised. Many praised his character arc, ending with him performing a Heroic Sacrifice by merging with the Plot Hole, as a fitting end to one of the most popular characters of his generation. However, after Doug Walker abruptly brought the Critic back after Demo Reel underperformed, especially as complaints about To Boldly Flee and its Troubled Production came to light, many began to turn on this portrayal. At best, it was criticized as a self-indulgent ego trip for Doug (with many singling out the scene where Film Brain praises the Critic as a rather blatant example of Character Shilling), at worst, many accused him of outright jeopardizing his co-workers' careers for the sake of his own story, as the conclusion of its most popular series meant a significant loss of revenue for That Guy with the Glasses.

• The Earl Of Lemongrab was originally very popular in his first appearance, "Too Young", for his memetic catchphrase, "UNACCEPTABLE!", and for coming off as Unintentionally Sympathetic in Finn and Princess Bubblegum's pranks. However, when he started appearing more often, many started to find his voice and constant shrieking annoying, and what few fans he had left jumped ship after he started abusing Lemongrab 2 and their children, which became very Harsher in Hindsight after his voice actor, Justin Roiland's abuse allegations in 2023. Another point of contention is how his behavior and mannerisms make him come off as an ableist caricature of autistic people to some.

So do we remove all actor mentions or add back the Jason David Frank allegations? I personally feel that while the Roiland thing can be removed the accusations towards Doug Walker and Jason David Frank should be kept as they had a direct impact on the story's direction.

Edited by Mariofan99 on Oct 2nd 2023 at 9:47:13 AM

I don't think the actors should be mentioned at all personally.

So I'm going to request this entire section be probably cut and/or heavily rewritten:

• World of Warcraft:
  • Garrosh Hellscream, upon his introduction in The Burning Crusade, subsequent rise to prominence in Wrath of the Lich King, and ascension to power as Horde Warchief in Cataclysm, was hated by players for his Jerkass attitude, warmongering stances, and extreme anti-human and anti-Alliance attitudes that escalated to outright racism. Many players cheered at the opportunity to take him down when it was revealed that he would become the Big Bad in Mists of Pandaria. Over time however, Garrosh would be much less hated. This is in part due to the perception that he tried his best to overcome the responsibilities Thrall left him when he was appointed as Warchief, which was something he himself claimed (not without reason) to be doing in his final moments, along with the fact perception that his actions in Cataclysm were a justifiable reaction to the moves of the Night Elves against the Horde. The reevaluation of Mists Double Standard with Garrosh where he was vilified for what other characters like High Marshall Twinbraid^note whom wiped out an entire tribe of native people before the Horde/Alliance war out of sheer Fantastic Racism, but was still depicted sympathetically in Mists quests and Gallywix^note whom sold his own race into mass slavery yet was shown as having the moral high-ground over Garrosh did and that Blizzard continued the Horde's villainy right after Garrosh's death, complete with another faction war storyline for Battle for Azeroth that is a word-for-word repeat of how the faction war went in 'MOP except seen this was even more negatively received by the playerbase, both ended up making many nostalgic for the time of Garrosh as Warchief. As a result, many players have expressed the idea that "Garrosh did nothing wrong", or even believed Blizzard should have developed on Garrosh's more sympathetic traits in Cataclysm alluded to in a few quest lines^note albeit quest lines was allegedly done by a developer "supposedly" unaware of the plan for Garrosh to develop into a villain, despite the developers promising on the forums, Garrosh would not be evil. rather than throwing them away.
  • The Big Bad of Cataclysm, Deathwing, was at the time criticized for being a one-dimensional villain who didn't accomplish much after his devastating emergence from Deepholm and had a somewhat disappointing final battle. However, some people have come to view him more favorably compared to N'Zoth, the Greater-Scope Villain from Cataclysm who served as the Final Boss of Battle For Azeroth, since despite being a major threat in the lore as the last remaining Old God (albeit supposedly the weakest), he's dealt with in a cutscene. Compare Deathwing, who'd defeated his fellow Aspect Alexstraza in Twilight Highlands, and who could only be vanquished by the rest of the Aspects combining and sacrificing their powers, thereby resulting in a Pyrrhic Victory.
  • Zul'jin becoming a raid boss was always divisive, with many upset that a character previously hyped as a hero of the modern Horde wound up being a raid boss. That said, there were also a large amount of vocal fans that felt Zul'jin always evil and that his warfare with the Highborne elves for settling in his people's ancestral land was inherently wrong. Over the years, the increased knowledge of the fandom with the harm of colonization and marginalization of native people by European superpowers, Zul'jin came to be almost universally viewed by the fandom as a Tragic Anti-Villain at worst. Thus when Shadowlands revealed Zul'jin was sent to Revendreth, the setting's equivalent to Hell, the move was harshly criticized, with many fans pointing out others whom weren't deemed evil enough for Revendreth, did far worse than Zul'jin. One such example of a character stooping far lower than Zul'jin striking back at the upper class people that stole his people's homes being Lady Vashj, whom invaded Zangermarsh, intentionally destroyed the eco-system of the area, robbed the natives and animals of their water supply, and led the mass slavery of the Draenei race in horribly abusive conditions, yet still didn't get sent to the Hell equivalent.
  • While Arthas Menethil/The Lich King was always regarded as the franchise's best villain, at the time of Wrath of the Lich King, many disliked how the entire plot of the expansion, in which Arthas lets the heroes live in hopes of killing them to make them his new champions, was a contrived Xanatos Gambit. However, in the years that followed, this storyline was viewed much more positively in comparison to plans of Zovaal, The Jailer, from Shadowlands. Unlike Zovaal, whose motivations were seen to be extremely contrived, Arthas received praise for a consistent portrayal as a a hero who gradually became evil and remained evil after his fall, but had a memorable and tragic death scene. Motivations wise, at the time of Wrath of the Lich King, the fanbase was divided between those that saw him as a Tragic Villain vs. those that viewed him as driven purely by pride and selfishness over a genuine desire to avenge his people. Since then, opinions have shifted towards the former due the plague remaining incurable, which in turn made his actions in Stratholme appear more understandable. This shift was also in part due to the shift in perception in the fanbase of Sylvanas from a tragic victim of Arthas to a even worse villain that the narrative fails to humanize in light of increasingly evil actions on her part. When Arthas' ultimate fate was revealed in the Shadowlands, many players, particularly those that hoped that he would receive a redemption arc or even reestablish himself as a major villain, were extremely outraged.
  • Throughout her time in Warcraft 3 and World of Warcraft up till Wrath of the Lich King, Sylvanas Windrunner was viewed as a badass and attractive female leader and a tragic Anti-Hero that suffered abuse at the hands of Arthas and wants to do all it takes to ensure the Foresaken are accepted in Azeroth. Since Cataclysm however, her increasingly villainous actions such as the Blighting of Gilenas and the supposed refusal of the narrative to hold her to account to these actions drew growing ire from the fanbase, especially among both Alliance players and Horde players wanting both factions to forge a permeant peace against greater threats. While she had a fair share of defenders that argued that her actions were driven less by honor and a desire for preserving her race at all costs, she would gradually lose them until Battle for Azeroth, where her genocide of a large chunk of the Night Elf population, followed up by her blighting of the Undercity, turned the vast majority of the playerbase-even former sympathizers-against her. Blizzard's efforts to expand on her motivations in BFA and Shadowlands were increasingly seen to have done little to humanize her in the minds of players and failing to make her sympathetic. Nowadays, while she does still have diehard fans, she is an extremely polarizing character whenever discussions about her emerge.

A lot of this CPE is tied to the downward spiral this game and other Blizzard products went through that Dragonflight, despite being a return to form in some regards and generally seen to have the best gameplay in a logn time, hasn't completly recovered from, in part because of many of the lore problems being very much structural and going back to TBC rather than tied to Sylvanas. Battle for Azeroth concluded around 2019. Shadowlands only concluded early this year. Both storylines concluded too early for the time range for this trope. I feel overall most of this can maybe stay, but need to be heavily rewritten as a result.

Proposed rewrite:

• World of Warcraft:
  • Garrosh Hellscream, upon his introduction in The Burning Crusade, subsequent rise to prominence in Wrath of the Lich King, and ascension to power as Horde Warchief in Cataclysm, was hated by players for his Jerkass attitude, warmongering stances, and extreme anti-human and anti-Alliance attitudes that escalated to outright racism. Many players cheered at the opportunity to take him down when it was revealed that he would become the Big Bad in Mists of Pandaria. Over time however, Garrosh would be much less hated. This is in part due to the perception that he tried his best to overcome the responsibilities Thrall left him when he was appointed as Warchief, which was something he himself claimed (not without reason) to be doing in his final moments, along with the fact perception that his actions in Cataclysm were a justifiable reaction to the moves of the Night Elves against the Horde. The reevaluation of Mists Double Standard with Garrosh where he was vilified for what other characters like High Marshall Twinbraid^note whom wiped out an entire tribe of native people before the Horde/Alliance war out of sheer Fantastic Racism, but was still depicted sympathetically in Mists quests and Gallywix^note whom sold his own race into mass slavery yet was shown as having the moral high-ground over Garrosh did. As a result, many players have expressed the idea that "Garrosh did nothing wrong", or even believed Blizzard should have developed on Garrosh's more sympathetic traits in Cataclysm alluded to in a few quest lines^note albeit quest lines was allegedly done by a developer "supposedly" unaware of the plan for Garrosh to develop into a villain, despite the developers promising on the forums, Garrosh would not be evil. rather than throwing them away.
  • Zul'jin becoming a raid boss was always divisive, with many upset that a character previously hyped as a hero of the modern Horde wound up being a raid boss. That said, there were also a large amount of vocal fans that felt Zul'jin always evil and that his warfare with the Highborne elves for settling in his people's ancestral land was inherently wrong. Over the years, the increased knowledge of the fandom with the harm of colonization and marginalization of native people by European superpowers, Zul'jin came to be almost universally viewed by the fandom as a Tragic Anti-Villain at worst.
  • While Arthas Menethil/The Lich King was always regarded as the franchise's best villain, at the time of Wrath of the Lich King, the motivations surrounding his fall from grace were originally heavily debated among fans. At the time of Wrath of the Lich King, the fanbase was divided between those that saw him as a Tragic Villain vs. those that viewed him as driven purely by pride and selfishness over a genuine desire to avenge his people. Since then, opinions have shifted towards the former due the plague remaining incurable, which in turn made his actions in Stratholme appear more understandable. This shift was also in part due to the shift in perception in the fanbase of Sylvanas(which often supported more negative interpretations of Arthas' character) from a tragic victim of Arthas to a even worse villain that the narrative fails to humanize in light of increasingly evil or at the very least excessively dispropotionate actions on her part.
  • Throughout her time in Warcraft 3 and World of Warcraft up till Wrath of the Lich King, Sylvanas Windrunner was viewed as a badass and attractive female leader and a tragic Anti-Hero that suffered abuse at the hands of Arthas and wants to do all it takes to ensure the Foresaken are accepted in Azeroth. Since Cataclysm however, her increasingly villainous actions such as the Blighting of Gilenas and the supposed refusal of the narrative to hold her to account to these actions drew growing ire from the fanbase, especially among both Alliance players and Horde players wanting both factions to forge a permeant peace against greater threats. While she had a fair share of defenders that argued that her actions were driven less by honor and a desire for preserving her race at all costs, she would gradually be seen as a extremely polarizing character whenever discussions about her emerge.

I had to cut Deathwing as that entry is fully tied to the backlash against how N'Zoth was handled in WoW.

I like your rewrites.

So what should the Nostalgia Critic entry be deleted? A big a part of the entry is how the way NC was written in To Boldly Flee feels a lot like Doug Walker bolstering his ego.

Similarly if comments about creators aren’t allowed should we remove the section on Tommy Oliver’s entry that says Jason David Frank had the weakest acting of the Season 1 cast? And what about the part that says Tommy Oliver regained popularity after JDF’s passing

Edited by Mariofan99 on Oct 2nd 2023 at 12:00:34 PM

Honestly, if one mentions it though I don't see why others shouldn't as long as it is at least part of the cause of the evolution in perception.

Edited by Bullman on Oct 2nd 2023 at 11:04:03 AM

I'm not sure if we can just decide to remove any example that mentions the actor; I think sometimes an actor's actions or acting skills can fundamentally change how people see that character later on. Right now, there's no real criteria for or against such a thing.

Though no the part about JDF's passing should not be mentioned because it hasn't been 5 years since that affected the perception of the character.

I mean, that is fair, but what was brought up originally wasn't the actor's passing but their acting ability in the show.

Edited by WarJay77 on Oct 2nd 2023 at 12:09:25 PM

Actually, it was brought up at the end. I am responding to this part:

Otherwise like I said while I personally wouldn't use actor's, there is no rules against mentioning them and I don't see a reason not to.

Edited by Bullman on Oct 2nd 2023 at 11:12:44 AM

That bit had been edited in. When I saw it it was only referring to the acting.

Oh ok I didn't realize that it had been edited in.

Edited by Bullman on Oct 2nd 2023 at 11:15:26 AM

Edited by miraculous on Oct 2nd 2023 at 9:15:22 AM