magnumtropus
Since: Aug, 2020
Apr 13th 2021 at 7:18:26 AM
•••
I noticed that you removed my example where I talked about how no AMC show has reached the same level of acclaim or success as Breaking Bad, Mad Men, and The Walking Dead, but you haven't given a reason for that
Chainsawing the following for inconsistency/not fitting the definition:
If the examples admit that more than half of the listed entries have either not experienced or done just as well as the original work, it's not really a "curse", is it?
And I'm loathe to call this trope "subverted", when literally any show that is just as popular/well-regarded as the original work (thereby avoiding a Sophomore Slump, which is a common thing) would fall into this.
Same goes for this. The entries suggest it's a "curse", then admit that it hasn't really affected any of the actresses, and the actors (while some had failures) either returned to form quickly or voluntarily left the industry. Nowhere near universal enough to consider it a "curse".
Not a subversion if someone creates a work that's just as popular as their previous show. That happens all the time.
Example can't decide if the work was better-received or not by its viewing audience, but it seems to be leaning towards the former. Should be reworked.
Needs additional clarification. Was the writer trying to compare the performance of a single show to that of an entire network? If that's the case, it's likely fairer to compare her show with the primetime specials she's created after the fact, which have largely been ratings juggernauts.
If the example admits that real-life circumstances may have influenced the creator's decision (particularly when it's speculative over whether the creator may have been mentally affected and thus didn't want to create further), it's not an example of this. TATF is when something is seen by the public as largely being inferior/not as good as the work that preceded it. Speculative rationalization over the creator's mental state and them choosing/not choosing to do something is not this.
Is this actually an example of this, or just stealth whining considering that Whedon moved to a very lucrative film career running stuff like The Avengers and its sequel? And even within that context, Dollhouse has its fans, and managed to run twice as long as its predecessor.
Between the complaining about Enterprise and the inconsistency about exactly when/if the franchise lost the luster from its glory days, this sounds more like Seasonal Rot than TATF (particularly when the example admits that TNG is just as well-regarded (if not moreso) than the original series. Likewise, the example doesn't give a reason for why Voyager is this besides saying it recycled scripts from the former series (which doesn't explain anything). May need to be reworked.
As Benioff and Weiss haven't actually produced anything since GOT ended, and the full impact of its final season not fully being known/understood yet, it's probably better to give this some and a later rewrite.
Besides being film-specific, Trumbo was designed as a limited-release film (had a budget of $10 million, was released for the festival circuit and limited-release afterwards and made about $14 million), and even if it were applicable to this page, I haven't found any information that suggests that the perception of the Walter White character and Cranston's performance is to blame for the film's performance.
Hide / Show Replies