Where would "Retroactively caused previous ratings to be altered" fit on the scale? I'm specifically referring to Dungeon Dudes' Cleric Subclass Tier Ranking (part 3)
for D&D, which put the Twilight and Peace domains in S Tier, and retroactively downgraded some of the other domains. I've put it in "Still Within Bounds", but it could be moved if it's more appropriate elsewhere.
Ulkomaalainen
I think this page needs a major overhaul. Many examples are in multiple categories and it is easy to see why that happened - meaningless value and meaningless comparison have many examples which can apply to both.
At the same time it is shock full of examples which IMO aren't really examples. Neither a word rating scale (like Buy it/Rent it/Fuck it) applies, as long as the ratings are in a well defined order, nor the usage of different units instead of the usual one if the scale remains the same (e.g. a magazine usually using a 5 star scale but for one movie use 3/5 bats or whatever). That is more a gag but certainly for the reader within the usual scale.
I haven't yet figured out how to add pictures to T Vtropes, but I expect a "Calvinball" excerpt from Calvin and Hobbes is highly appropriate. "The score is still Q to 12!"
Hide / Show Replies
You'll need to first download the image to your computer, then use the Media Uploader to bring the image on the wiki. Then you can post it here.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
You Tube movie critic Jeremy Jahns has a rating scale that fits Type 3 perfectly. At the end of his reviews, he gives the movie one of the following ratings (listed from highest to lowest):
-"Awesometacular!" -"I'd buy it on Blu-Ray." -"It's a good time, no alcohol required." -"It's okay, but you won't remember it in T Minus 13 hours." -"You might like it if you knew your friends would never find out." -"It might be fun if you're drunk." -"Dog shit!"
He has also broken this scale in a Type 5 manner on one occasion in his review of The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 1. Since nothing really happens in the movie, he gives it a rating of "A black screen of nothing."
On the video game side of this trope, Jirard Khalil, a.k.a. "The Completionist," rates games based on 100% completion of the game in question. His rating scale goes like this (from highest to lowest):
-"Complete it!" -"Finish it!" -"Play it." -"Look at it." -"Burn it!"
He has also gone outside of this scale on a few occasions. For some games, he would give it a rating of "Finipete it," which is between "Finish it" and "Complete it," and in his Super Mario Sunshine review, he gave it a rating of "Finiplay it," between "Finish it" and "Play it."
Edited by MetalSmasher86
Removed:
- Reading her recent political writing, I'm not so sure that was a joke. (The first election she voted in was 2000, and she was so proud to be a part of voting Bill Clinton out of office...)
Because without far more context it makes no sense at all.
Dragon Writer
Not sure whether to edit this in, but:
- RinkWorks.com used to maintain a feature called It's A Bad, Bad, Bad, Bad Movie, where the reviewer scored bad movies on a scale of 1-5 turkeys (presumably from So Bad Its Horrible to So Bad, It's Good).
No. If "turkeys" are the standard unit, then it doesn't apply. This trope is when the reviewer deviates from their respective rating scales.
Um, do we need to go through some sorta process to add a page image and caption? Or can I just gung-ho and do it?