Trope Workshop talk:Memberberries

Jump to navigation Jump to search

About this board

Not editable

A couple of questions

Umbire the Phantom (talkcontribs)

Well, I have more than a couple, but I may as well start with the most "pressing" ones:

  • Complaining About Shows and Movies Made (Primarily Within The Last Decade) You Don't Like - how do we keep this candidate on track without flopping face first into just being textwalls full of this?
  • Remakequels are an established sub-type of Continuity Reboot - some of the aforementioned films were better than others, but in general there are various interactions between audience expectations (because let's be honest, that's clearly the core of this candidate) and whatever direction a series, work or franchise decides to go. In light of the above, would it be a better idea to focus the trope on the effect created by the dissonance between these sets of expectations and the reasoning behind it? For example, at what point of acknowledging previous works in a series do we enter "Memberberry" territory?
WDStudios (talkcontribs)

"Remakequels", according to the description posted in the article, are a separate phenomenon entirely. Remakequels merely copy the plots of their predecessors, and can do a fair job of hiding that fact. A sequel driven by Memberberries will often go out of its way to remind the audience that it's copying the plot of an earlier installment. A Remakequel CAN have Memberberries, though; for example, Star Wars episode 7 doesn't draw attention to the fact that its plot is a copy of the plot of Episode 4, and it instead tries to tug at audience nostalgia in other ways.

Umbire the Phantom (talkcontribs)

Another point of contention related to the second question is metacommentary and where it fits in the scheme of this - yes, this is pretty much about Resurrections in particular, but applies to more than just that. Is it really "Memberberrying" for a movie to try and grapple with its own influence in some manner, even if said manner is not particularly subtle?

Utini501 (talkcontribs)

This trope is a little outside my scope of expertise, but I honestly can't really think of a way to address either bullet point since, let's be honest, its very existence revolves around complaints about what's perceived to be nostalgia pandering. That's not to say that it doesn't deserve to exist though, because it's a kind of complaint that I've really seen become popularized enough to be tropeable.

What I propose is to make it a YMMV trope since one man's memberberry can easily become another man's loving tribute to the past, and make it clear for tropers not to let their personal feelings bleed into it, and instead focus on audience reception to the example they're posting.

WDStudios (talkcontribs)

It's definitely YMMV, but not really an audience reaction. Something can suffer a case of Memberberries and still be loved by audiences, with Ghostbusters Afterlife being the most extreme example of that happening. I personally love "Star Trek: into Darkness" and "Star Trek: Lower Decks". This is more about the intent of the writers and producers, which can sometimes be difficult to gauge, which is where the YMMV comes in.

Umbire the Phantom (talkcontribs)

That's what I'm getting at - Tropes Are Tools, and this to me is about what drives the usage of a very particular tool. I placed it in Audience Reactions because I feel like that's what was coloring the intent of the writers and producers in this case (though I don't object to the category being removed).

EDIT: Miraheze giving you fits too, huh?

Umbire the Phantom (talkcontribs)

Far from steering it away from complaints entirely or arguing it shouldn't exist, I'm more inclined to see if we can't invite critical thought about the complaints themselves and their origins, among other things.

  • What I propose is to make it a YMMV trope

Agree, which is why I gave it the Audience Reactions category.

Utini501 (talkcontribs)

Ah, I completely misread your comment. Sorry about that! I definitely agree with what you're saying, though I'll admit again that I'm not the best guy to really ask about this kind of thing since I don't think there's really much to analyze under a critical lens. Like, the most I can really say is that hatred for these types of references stems from hating the overall product doing the referencing because they often do so in a way that bastardizes the thing they reference at worst, or at best simply make the audience wish they were watching the thing being referenced instead.

There are no older topics