Thread:CF12/@comment-25217983-20141206232510/@comment-27329394-20141220023847

Wall of text incoming.

On characters, you're right in that my rankings aren't too different. However, I think that some of the bias against characters such as Duncan, Dave, and Topher is overblown. It isn't that fun to discuss them as a result, a big problem when they are brought up a lot. But the real issue I have with discussing certain characters is two of the most brought up ones: Mike and Sugar.

I'm not a Mike fan, but I don't hate him either. However, if someone has anything good to say about him, for some reason they are labeled as an idiot unless they think he's offensive. As someone who doesn't find him offensive (would rather not go into it, but it comes down to the fact that he is a cartoon and that nobody would actually think a reset button could fix a disorder, which is the basis of most arguments), I hate how his haters treat his fans - I actually knew someone who didn't go on the wiki because of the hatred towards him and Zoey. Coupled with the fact that people think Leonard is offensive even though he is just stereotyping like most of the other contestants, and I feel like people are oversensitive with him. This is the biggest reason I don't talk about him. I understand why people feel this way about him, but to shove this opinion down someone's throats isn't right.

As for Sugar, her haters make it almost impossible to discuss her on the wiki. Not saying everyone should like her - I see why people would think she's annoying - but there seem to be a lot of contrasts because of how much hate there is. When many of her haters think she floated and she godplayed at the same time, didn't deserve to make it to the final three and recognize she was the antagonist, and didn't eliminate enough people but were pissed when he eliminated Ella. People want her gone and then people are upset because she didn't get any karma or whatever, despite complaints about karma in the past. It just can't get anywhere.

The attitude towards the writers is really starting to bother me. If anything (bad) happens, it's all that specific writer's fault. Nobody else's. And if it's something collective, it is still the collective group of writer's faults, despite all the revisions that have to be done and all the other involved people. For example, when some people talk about Terry McGurrin, one of the episodes they bring up is Greece's Pieces, but when the biggest reason for disliking the episode is the love triangle you can't really hate him specifically for it. There are a lot of other "events" that seem to be blamed on the writer that did it, but an important thing is the approach, because those are likely preplanned things, which I feel many people overlook. Not to mention the personal level it is taken to for writers like McGurrin and MacDonald.

Speaking of people that make the show, another thing that bothers me is that we act like they don't care about our opinion, even now. The fact that we have Julie Giles here proves it is false, but from what I've seen with that wall it isn't pretty. Too many weird or overspecific suggestions, lots of repeated questions, etc.. Not to mention that Zoey and Mike are often blamed for being hated by everyone, but they really aren't. Other than the fact that DeviantArt and certain (not as prominent) users on here like them, the target demographic really likes them. In the end, that's the goal of anyone, because that's where there are more people. It's similar to Family Guy - people who don't like the show act like Brian sucks, but whenever I heard anybody who liked Family Guy talk about the show they really, really like him. So if the people that really like the show are more plentiful and they like the people within it, it's the loss of the people who don't like them. Though you could say that about any other character. Some people try to say that it is because Total Drama is now for kids, but it has always been for kids. We just got older and no longer are said kids.

AndsSpeaking of "events," people always seem upset whenever anybody is put into a tense situation on the show. It's drama at work, and really, without conflict, nothing will progress. I understand if people are upset over it every now and then but it seems to always happen. And out of it, they always seem to think that the character comes out as "derailed," when oftentimes I really don't see it. In a lot of cases, it is development because there was a clear reason for what has happened. Dave's an example, and while it is partially because I don't see how he could be derailed in one season, he slowly progressed into a not-normal person and everybody calls it derailment, despite the progression. Or for Alejandro in TDAS, where the biggest cases are: walking on his hands (don't even see how that would qualify), eliminating Heather (despite talking about it for all six episodes and having a good reason for it), not having his full skillset (even though his key traits remained) and even not directly saying Mal was evil when he was eliminated (a very stingy requirement, especially when it was at the very end). I saw a list on TV Tropes of derailments and I'd say I disagree with almost all of them. Many of them could easily be looked at as development, especially if there was a clear transition into it, which I think is an issue.

Three of my least favorite words are becoming "overrated," "floater," and "potential." The word overrated has always been out of context for this wiki, but it is getting really bad lately. For a preface, I'm sure that, as an NFL fan, or even as a Pokemon fan, I have a different opinion of the word overrated, because it all comes down to this to determine what is overrated or not: stats and discussion. The only stats for a Total Drama character are their episode count and elimination number, neither of which seem to mean anything. Not to mention that if tons of people think a contestant is overrated, is it really? So when I say legions of people saying Duncan or even Zoey/Mike are overrated, I don't like it. Minor complaint, but it's still there. The floating argument is getting out of hand. Too many contestants are blamed for it, even if they are popular like Scott or worked for their position like Lightning or Sugar. But when I see someone like Topher or Sadie, neither of whom merged, blamed for it, or a large portion of the cast blamed for it, then it begs the question of "what did they and everyone else really deserve" or "was it really a big deal?" When people talk about a character's potential, it is always just an idea, but can this idea actually last an entire season?. Sometimes, it isn't even an idea - it's just that they want them back. Whenever I see a person talk about how someone is wasted potential, I find it hard to see how this would be the case if they enjoyed what the contestant did. An example includes Dawn, though I've seen people talk about Scarlett and how she is wasted potential, though I feel that it is clear that after what happened she couldn't stay any longer.

As for everything else... I've never understood why there are so many fans that only like half the seasons or less. That's a lot of content to not like if people are going to linger around and discuss the show. I also don't get why everyone acts in disbelief when someone disagrees with them. I hope I'm not trying to come across as someone who does that (if I do, I greatly apologize), but I just see a lot of people act like anybody who likes All-Stars, many of the episodes within them or some other episode, Mike, Zoke, or something else is wrong. I get that when people are trying to convince someone about their opinion they are going to only talk about their negatives, but if they are explicitly say "I don't get how people can like x" or "I'm sure that the fact that x still has as many like templates means that it isn't updated" or imply it that's just wrong. This even is starting to happen with crack couples, despite the point of a crack couple. I'm even starting to see people say that these people are idiots, but whether they are hostile or not they worst you can do is act hostile back at them. A lot of this correlates with the fact that everyone is so negative I guess, which I also don't like. Notice how the most talked about contestants from TDPI are the ones that people seem to like the least like Sugar, Amy, Topher, or Dave? I'm sure that even Leonard has gotten more discussion than Jasmine at this point. Just an example, but I'm sure the negativity has been noticed by now in a few different facets.

This isn't exactly exclusive the wiki either.

Sorry I just basically put a blog into a comment but I really just had to let it out somewhere and this seemed like a good place. It's hard to edit extensively when you aren't happy with the people who you are editing for, which is actually why my activity continues to be reduced. :/