[005]
ShadowDog
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Does it really count as a one hit point wonder [[AvertedTrope if you can take 2 hits]]? Come on, guys. [[SuperMario Mario is cool and all]], but the Mushroom and Fire Flower aren\'t anywhere rare enough to be \
to:
Does it really count as a one hit point wonder [[AvertedTrope if you can take 2 hits]]? Come on, guys. [[SuperMario Mario is cool and all]], but the Mushroom and Fire Flower aren\\\'t anywhere rare enough to be \\\"Oh, wow! I FINALLY have another hit!\\\". It\\\'s going to be anywhere from [[CriticalResearchFailure the first to the third thing you find when you start up the game]]. Not only that, but calling SMB the original example is just all kinds of stupid. One of the earliest games, Spacewar!, had it in \\\'\\\'1962\\\'\\\'. SMB came out in 1985. It had been done for 2 decades before. And keep in mind that the [[OlderThanTheNES NES is a 3rd generation console]], and that there are earlier examples listed [[RTFM on this very page]]. Just because a trope applies to something popular when doesn\\\'t make that trope the most triumphant example, the trope codifier, et. all. Unless you guys have been playing [[KaizoMarioWorld Kaizo]] so much you [[StopHavingFunGuys forgot that the normal games]] give you [[PowerUp lots of them]], I really [[IdiotBall can\\\'t think of any reason for that]]. Besides the page image, caption, and first indent on the Mario part, though (the rest of the under under that actually applies), you guys did a good job. Sorry if I sounded like a jerk, but this is one of the few glaring errors I\\\'ve seen [[OnThisVeryWiki here]] (besides [[InternetMeme the cake]] being [[EasterEgg a lie]], but that\\\'s really more of [[AlternateCharacterInterpretation an intentional misinformation campaign designed to comfort the]] [[TechnoBabble psychological scars of]] being unable to [[GuideDangIt find said cake]]). Seeing an (uncorrected) error on this wiki is about like if you were to boot up Super Mario Bros. and [[WhatTheHellProgrammer on 1-2 you fell in a pit and died because there wasn\\\'t any ground]] [[CutScene in the part before you go into the pipe]]. Besides, I\\\'ve spent too long fact checking and editing this to not post it. Sorry for being annoying.
P.S. The discussion page needs a preview function (or I need to RTFM and find said function; probably the later).
P.S. The discussion page needs a preview function (or I need to RTFM and find said function; probably the later).
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Yep, I totally agree about YourMileageMayVary (we all have opinions about everything, and they vary :)). The best thing might be to chop that paragraph and let the main text just talk about the movie in production and story terms. The only downside would be that, without some kind of concession to the reader\'s feelings, its absence might spark an even bigger \
to:
Yep, I totally agree about YourMileageMayVary (we all have opinions about everything, and they vary :)). The best thing might be to chop that paragraph and let the main text just talk about the movie in production and story terms. The only downside would be that, without some kind of concession to the reader\\\'s feelings, its absence might spark an even bigger \\\"do critical reactions belong in the main page\\\" debate.
And once the dust has settled, a comment about its reception wouldn\\\'t be too out of tone with the wiki. It\\\'s just adding it in right now, and the sense of urgency behind it, that I disagree with. Time will tell if the movie ends up rising from the critical ashes, or becoming a critically lambasted but nonetheless popular movie, or a just plain bad movie (it\\\'s Shyamalan, so I\\\'m not optimistic - but you never know).
And once the dust has settled, a comment about its reception wouldn\\\'t be too out of tone with the wiki. It\\\'s just adding it in right now, and the sense of urgency behind it, that I disagree with. Time will tell if the movie ends up rising from the critical ashes, or becoming a critically lambasted but nonetheless popular movie, or a just plain bad movie (it\\\'s Shyamalan, so I\\\'m not optimistic - but you never know).
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Yep, I totally agree about YourMileageMayVary (we all have opinions about everything, and they vary :)). The best thing might be to chop that paragraph and let the main text just talk about the movie in production and story terms. The only downside would be that, without some kind of concession to the reader\'s feelings, its absence might spark an even bigger \
to:
Yep, I totally agree about YourMileageMayVary (we all have opinions about everything, and they vary :)). The best thing might be to chop that paragraph and let the main text just talk about the movie in production and story terms. The only downside would be that, without some kind of concession to the reader\\\'s feelings, its absence might spark an even bigger \\\"do critical reactions belong in the main page\\\" debate.
And once the dust has settled, a comment about its reception wouldn\\\'t be too out of tone with the wiki. It\\\'s just adding it in right now, and the sense of urgency behind it, that I don\\\'t like. Time will tell if the movie ends up rising from the critical ashes, or becoming a critically lambasted but nonetheless popular movie, or a just plain bad movie (it\\\'s Shyamalan, so I\\\'m not optimistic - but you never know).
And once the dust has settled, a comment about its reception wouldn\\\'t be too out of tone with the wiki. It\\\'s just adding it in right now, and the sense of urgency behind it, that I don\\\'t like. Time will tell if the movie ends up rising from the critical ashes, or becoming a critically lambasted but nonetheless popular movie, or a just plain bad movie (it\\\'s Shyamalan, so I\\\'m not optimistic - but you never know).
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Yep, I totally agree about YourMileageMayVary (we all have opinions about everything, and they vary :)). The best thing might be to chop that paragraph and let the main text just talk about the movie in production and story terms. The only downside would be that, without some kind of concession to the reader\'s feelings, its absence might spark an even bigger \
to:
Yep, I totally agree about YourMileageMayVary (we all have opinions about everything, and they vary :)). The best thing might be to chop that paragraph and let the main text just talk about the movie in production and story terms. The only downside would be that, without some kind of concession to the reader\\\'s feelings, its absence might spark an even bigger \\\"do critical reactions belong in the main page\\\" debate.
And once the dust has settled, a comment about its reception wouldn\\\'t be too out of tone with the wiki. It\\\'s just adding it in right now, and the sense of urgency behind it, that I don\\\'t like. Time will tell if the movie ends up rising from the ashes, or becoming a critically lambasted but popular movie, or just plain bad (it\\\'s Shyamalan, so I\\\'m not optimistic - but you never know!).
And once the dust has settled, a comment about its reception wouldn\\\'t be too out of tone with the wiki. It\\\'s just adding it in right now, and the sense of urgency behind it, that I don\\\'t like. Time will tell if the movie ends up rising from the ashes, or becoming a critically lambasted but popular movie, or just plain bad (it\\\'s Shyamalan, so I\\\'m not optimistic - but you never know!).
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Yep, I totally agree about YourMileageMayVary (we all have opinions, they vary :)). The best thing might be to chop that paragraph and let the main text just talk about the movie in production and story terms. The only downside would be that, without some kind of concession to the reader\'s feelings, its absence would just spark an even bigger \
to:
Yep, I totally agree about YourMileageMayVary (we all have opinions about everything, and they vary :)). The best thing might be to chop that paragraph and let the main text just talk about the movie in production and story terms. The only downside would be that, without some kind of concession to the reader\\\'s feelings, its absence might spark an even bigger \\\"do critical reactions belong in the main page\\\" debate.
