Talk:Overshadowed by Controversy

This is a thing that I have been thinking for a while, but in my personal opinion many of the examples in the page are too recent or relatively minor for artists that can still rebound, or the controversial part aren't that overshadowing for their careers or the works reception. Most of the page seems to be a compilation of "Artists that has fallen out of grace recently" rather that "The controversies have tinted, for better of for worse, the reception of this work/this artist's output".

I'm not saying that we should limit this page to people who has gotten to The Tyson Zone levels, but some of the "controversies" listed aren't that overshadowing, or that controversial for that matter.

That's a v. good point. It's probably worth giving this a thorough scanning to see what legitimately got "overshadowed" and what just encountered a momentary bump in the road - ideally without it getting too opinionated.

Basically, you can do it this way.

Take the name of an author, series, work or film that has some sort of controversy behind it. If you can list more about the controversy than you can about the actual work (from memory), it probably fits the trope.

For example, The Satanic Verses. How much do you know about the plot, setting, and themes of the novel? Not much, right? Now how much do you know about the blowback from Iran over it? This likely fits the Trope.

Then consider Alfred Hitchcock. What do you know about his movies? Likely a lot. How much do you know about the scandal regarding him mistreating and possibly abusing actress Tippi Hedren? Most folks are going to have to look that one up, so clearly, Hitchcock does not fit the Trope.

(Btw, I am not, in any way, excusing what Hitchcock did to her, but the sad fact is, LOTS of renowned and respected celebrities have a few skeletons in their closets.)

Well yeah, there you go - speaking solely in terms of this trope, whether or not an example qualifies is largely a matter of whether or not those skeletons manage to cast a big enough shadow over a creator's entire/future career.

I agree with Henery on reviewing and pruning the examples on the rule of "What came to you when first learn of this: the wank and the scandal, or the actual qualities of the work/artist?". Active creators that has a big scandal in the 12 months before the last page edit should be exempt of being included here, unless their career is so spectacularly murdered it will become impossible for them to ever rebounce or being taken seriously by their target audience.

I think that before any pruning we should call @Blakegripling ph to the discussion, as they are the most prolific contributor to the page and their opinion may differ from ours.

Paging @Blakegripling ph accordingly, as well as @Looney Toons and @Robkelk.

Would also like to add that this article not fall victim to the spectre of cancel culture - more specifically, the manufactured idea thereof where asking a creator to apologize for doing something shitty is falsely equivocated with "cancelling" (which was AAVE anyway and originally intend to indicate that black people would no longer support a given person) and trying to end said creator's career, especially when their career turns out not to be impacted at all by their apology or lack thereof anyway.

I trust you all are already well-aware of that, but I figured it prudent to establish before we proceed.

I'm speaking with my moderator hat off here.

I think that the three of you have come to an agreement about what has to be done here, and you're discussing how to do it. And I trust all three of you to have the wiki's best interests at heart. I have no objections to what you want to do with the example list here.

Unfortunately, I can't help with the work. When it comes to this sort of thing, I practice Death of the Author and let a work stand on its own merits - I don't know who is or isn't overshadowed by controversy other than two very famous cases. (Bill Cosby, who was convicted, and Fatty Arbuckle, who was acquitted but the controversy wouldn't go away.) All I can do here is stay out of your way and let you work.

I see. FWIW, the ping wasn't in terms of a moderation capacity - I just wanted to see what opinions and other information you and LT had to add to the pile, if any. I'm still waiting to see where Blake is before I make any moves, personally - as Lequinni said, they're the most frequent editor of this specific page.

Fair enough. I'll leave the comment there, though, since there are a few people who think mods always post with their mot hats on.

Good point, I guess some of them may not deserve to be listed on the article as they're either too recent or aren't as impactful, so I don't mind having those edited or deleted. There were indeed some examples such as those from Shirley Temple, whose career was overshadowed in later years by the various abuses she experienced on and off-set, as well as works such as The Guy Game, Grand Theft Auto. or Cuties.

As an example, the Samsung Galaxy Note 7 fits the trope as many now associate the device as an unintentional incendiary device rather than as a mobile phone. I'm not sure about Mr. Nae-Nae aka Silento but from what I can tell he has been dogged by that murder charge of his where he shot and killed his cousin. That may be removed as the circumstances are vague tho.

In Silento's case, there's a LOT more dogging him than just that case (though it's the second thing that came to mind out of all that), so I'd vote for keeping it.