• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Is Toxic "Star Wars" Fandom Imploding?

Is Toxic "Star Wars" Fandom Imploding?

  • Total voters
    64
fireproof78 said:
Why can't it be right? People enjoy lots of things that are not meant for them, or age-inappropriate. I'm not saying this isn't necessary for Star Wars, but more that I am curious as to why millions of Star Wars fans can't be wrong?
Click to expand...
Because, for one reason, that would imply that Lucasfilm had no interest in making money from them, and that the money made was just a long series of happy accidents. After the very first film, it was crystal clear that more people were interested in the franchise besides children. There wouldn't be any excuse by then not to know that tens of millions of grown-ups were interested in Star Wars too, and no reason to suppose that there would be no consideration for that part of the audience going forward.

Plus, you don't make and release a PG-13 film (ROTS) intending it to be just for children. By the time the PT came out, people who were children when the OT was out and fans then were all grown up. The idea that it was not intended for adults to be among the consumers of the PT is ludicrous.
 
CorporalCaptain said:
Because, for one reason, that would imply that Lucasfilm had no interest in making money from them, and that the money made was just a long series of happy accidents. After the very first film, it was crystal clear that more people were interested in the franchise besides children. There wouldn't be any excuse by then not to know that tens of millions of grown-ups were interested in Star Wars too, and no reason to suppose that there would be no consideration for that part of the audience going forward.

Plus, you don't make and release a PG-13 film (ROTS) intending it to be just for children.
Click to expand...
That is a fair point, and I had not considered the PG-13 films. But, I think there is a delicate balancing act to be struck among fans in order for their to be an appreciation that Star Wars started out as largely a kid's film.

And, I'm not saying the studio doesn't recognize this fact or isn't interested in making money from them. I just see it as something to recognize where the origin of the franchise started, and the fact that it has appeal outside the original demographic doesn't automatically change the origins of the product.
 
First, I want to say thank you for the discussion. It has been, for me anyway, an interesting one.

grendelsbayne said:
I never said the individual voice does not count. I said that companies care about sales, not message boards.
Click to expand...

Well, someone was making that point. In any case, I disagree. I'm sure many here watch and read various interviews with above-the-line folk involved in these things and they all admit to checking out what's being said on message boards. It's an ego driven business they can't help themselves.

No one from Paramount is ever going to read your posts on this message board to help them decide what they should or shouldn't do in the next Star Trek movie. Your voice can affect word of mouth - yes! This will have some (small) effect on the company, because it will change their bottom line. But they're still not listening to what you say. They're just looking at numbers. When they want to interpret those numbers, they have their own methods (which have nothing to do with internet forums) for determining what people do or don't like or want.
Click to expand...

Me, specifically, maybe not but they should! :lol:

In terms of individual posts it is probably lottery-like though my position has always been individuals have the right (iow, are entitled) to voice their opinion without being insulted, demeaned or brow-beaten that what they say is worthless or futile. Many times in life one may not be able to quantify what effects their words may have only to find out it did have an affect and influence.

You say the effect is small. Maybe. Maybe not. Look at the box-office for ST: Nemesis or ST: Beyond or SW: Solo. If I pay $15 for a ticket and then cause one person, who otherwise would, not to then I've cancelled my contribution. If that friend was a family person (spouse and a child) then that's roughly -$25 I've cost them ($15-$15-$15-10 (child's ticket)). If my opinion is reflective of a sizable portion of the box-office then my displeasure is felt at the highest level. It's a grass-roots sort of thing.

Trek had a reasonably high budget for the time, but it was a budget that was woefully inadequate for the stories being told. Unlike all the other contemporary shows with similar budgets, Trek moved around from episode to episode, constantly needing new sets, costumes, props often in wildly different styles. It was as cheap as it could possibly get away with.
Click to expand...

That is a bit disingenuous in my opinion as that is a complaint that every show (past, present and future) could reasonably make - especially one-hour dramatic. Again, as I've previously made the case for, Hollywood is a business of minimums. Anyway, glad you're seeing it my way now.
:beer:
 
Kibbin said:
Like female lead super hero movies. Catwoman flopped despite a big name, big budget and a known property thus the problem must be the fact that its a female lead. Hence why we didn't get another go until Wonder Woman.
Click to expand...

No. That's sexism. Racism. Lots of -ism's in Hollywood unfortunately. When a film with a traditional WASPy lead fails it rarely commands the same kind of scrutiny or punitive post-mortem that a minority lead movie gets. Black Panther was a hit and they are still talking about the potential of replacing the lead. Hopefully there will be a toxic fan backlash if they do.

Getting back on topic, fan toxicity can be a diagnostic tool or a tool for social justice. A barometer for measuring the disconnect between a production and it's audience.
 
Kibbin said:
Like female lead super hero movies. Catwoman flopped despite a big name, big budget and a known property thus the problem must be the fact that its a female lead. Hence why we didn't get another go until Wonder Woman.
Click to expand...
I saw that as a repeat a little while ago. It wasn't too bad but I much prefer Michelle Pfeiffer's Catwoman.

Watched Tomb Raider in the weekend - flop. Yet didn't mind Angelina's version. Both those examples (Catwoman and Lara Croft/Tomb Raider) I see as female lead and female originated heroes. I make a distinction between characters whose origins have been altered to accommodate an improved agenda. One would think it would be a natural strength and 'fit' for Catwoman for example to be good. You don't think she's a woman, it's implicit.

Bottom line? The production, the writing and the acting. If that's not good no man or woman can save it.
 
G. Curto said:
No. That's sexism. Racism. Lots of -ism's in Hollywood unfortunately. When a film with a traditional WASPy lead fails it rarely commands the same kind of scrutiny or punitive post-mortem that a minority lead movie gets. Black Panther was a hit and they are still talking about the potential of replacing the lead. Hopefully there will be a toxic fan backlash if they do.

Getting back on topic, fan toxicity can be a diagnostic tool or a tool for social justice. A barometer for measuring the disconnect between a production and it's audience.
Click to expand...
I'm going to disagree. Executives know that male superheroes make money so if yours doesn't it must be a problem with your movie. Batman has been selling well since the 1940's. Unfortunately female superheroes haven't with a track record of Supergirl, Elektra and Catwoman. I don't think Hollywood is sexist just lazy and greedy. If they thought they could make money on female superheroes then we'd be swamped with them. Hence why when Wonder Woman did well we're getting Birds of Prey, Captain Marvel and Gotham Sirens along with others being rushed into production.
(Please note that I'm not saying these few constitute being swamped; that's probably a poor turn of phrase)
 
Kibbin said:
I'm going to disagree. Executives know that male superheroes make money so if yours doesn't it must be a problem with your movie. Batman has been selling well since the 1940's. Unfortunately female superheroes haven't with a track record of Supergirl, Elektra and Catwoman. I don't think Hollywood is sexist just lazy and greedy. If they thought they could make money on female superheroes then we'd be swamped with them. Hence why when Wonder Woman did well we're getting Birds of Prey, Captain Marvel and Gotham Sirens along with others being rushed into production.
(Please note that I'm not saying these few constitute being swamped; that's probably a poor turn of phrase)
Click to expand...
No, white men are just considered the default in America. So superhero movies are about white men, anyone else is considered niche. So if a bunch of movies about white men fail, those movies just failed. If a niche movie failed, then it must be because of the niche. So it is sexism and racism, they just don't call it that. Catwoman wasn't bad because it was about a female character, it was a bad movie. But we don't get another female led superhero film for years and even then DC didn't really seem focused on it. You can call it anything you want, but it's sexism.
 
Awesome Possum said:
No, white men are just considered the default in America. So superhero movies are about white men, anyone else is considered niche. So if a bunch of movies about white men fail, those movies just failed. If a niche movie failed, then it must be because of the niche. So it is sexism and racism, they just don't call it that. Catwoman wasn't bad because it was about a female character, it was a bad movie. But we don't get another female led superhero film for years and even then DC didn't really seem focused on it. You can call it anything you want, but it's sexism.
Click to expand...

I just feel the desire for money would over whelm sexism in this case and while early hollywood would have been ruled by basic sexism denoting that males get lead roles while women play the damsel that just created a solid case work for proof that male leads work, on paper and in executives minds here mind. If I make a male led super hero movie that bombs the fault is with me because you can hold up like a million male led super hero movies that did well. The same can't be said for female ones; though that is looking to change.
Considering most executives don't even see these movies it makes a weird sort of sense. I'm not saying it's right or should carry on here just that you can understand their basic logic. As soon as one movie breaks that trend Hollywood will change to try and cash in on it (not massivly but you do notice some change) look at say Bridesmaids leading to Ghostbusters which you could argue lead to the recent Oceans movie. Hollywood thinks women are in they will rush an all female cast action movie into production. Granted they will slap a well known title on it because its hollywood where original ideas are scary and frowned upon for the same above reason.
The above goes double for DC movies as they were quite happy to sit on Superman and Batman and just mine them for money (Jonah Hex excluded) until Marvel came along and said "hey you can make like a million times that amount from a shared universe". We only got Catwoman because the brand is tied into a working title like Batman. Granted it wasn't in the movie, possibly because they didn't want to "confuse the audience" or risk damaging their successful brand if it went wrong. But that's like only one of the things wrong with the movie.

Just in case its not clear I'm not a Hollywood exec and don't know one, I'm just putting forward what I think and could and most likely am completely wrong.
 
If it's any consolation I had Supergirl on tape as a kid (recorded off the telly) and liked Daredevil and her in it (never saw Elektra).
 
Kibbin said:
I just feel the desire for money would over whelm sexism in this case and while early hollywood would have been ruled by basic sexism denoting that males get lead roles while women play the damsel that just created a solid case work for proof that male leads work, on paper and in executives minds here mind. If I make a male led super hero movie that bombs the fault is with me because you can hold up like a million male led super hero movies that did well. The same can't be said for female ones; though that is looking to change.
Considering most executives don't even see these movies it makes a weird sort of sense. I'm not saying it's right or should carry on here just that you can understand their basic logic. As soon as one movie breaks that trend Hollywood will change to try and cash in on it (not massivly but you do notice some change) look at say Bridesmaids leading to Ghostbusters which you could argue lead to the recent Oceans movie. Hollywood thinks women are in they will rush an all female cast action movie into production. Granted they will slap a well known title on it because its hollywood where original ideas are scary and frowned upon for the same above reason.
The above goes double for DC movies as they were quite happy to sit on Superman and Batman and just mine them for money (Jonah Hex excluded) until Marvel came along and said "hey you can make like a million times that amount from a shared universe". We only got Catwoman because the brand is tied into a working title like Batman. Granted it wasn't in the movie, possibly because they didn't want to "confuse the audience" or risk damaging their successful brand if it went wrong. But that's like only one of the things wrong with the movie.

Just in case its not clear I'm not a Hollywood exec and don't know one, I'm just putting forward what I think and could and most likely am completely wrong.
Click to expand...
The fact that they see women as a trend is sexism. Women are half the population of the species, yet you don't see that represented in film.
 
Awesome Possum said:
The fact that they see women as a trend is sexism. Women are half the population of the species, yet you don't see that represented in film.
Click to expand...
The way I see them, is they see everything and everyone as a trend. They don't care about what they are making so long as it makes money. Men, women, black, white, gay, straight it's all a box. The more boxes you have ticked the more likely you are to make the big bucks. Especially nowadays where most major movies have the budget of a small nation meaning they are even less likely to take risks as they seek even greater profit.
They pump out male lead action movies in the eighties as a trend because it sold, I think they would kick men to the curb if it stopped bringing in the bucks and women were doing so. The problem however goes back to what I was saying. They know dumb, male lead, action movies work because they have seen it do so. Thus they are unlikely to ever kick that trend to the curb and are more quick to pin the blame on something other than the trend and or genre.
 
Kibbin said:
They know dumb, male lead, action movies work because they have seen it do so. Thus they are unlikely to ever kick that trend to the curb and are more quick to pin the blame on something other than the trend and or genre.
Click to expand...
Sad but true.
 
It's been established for decades that movies about female heroes can be enormously successful, from movies like Alien and The Terminator. Those examples are both seminal entries in cinematic sci-fi and are still of interest to present-day audiences. There really isn't any reason not to know this today.
 
CorporalCaptain said:
It's been established for decades that movies about female heroes can be enormously successful, from movies like Alien and The Terminator. Those examples are both seminal entries in cinematic sci-fi and are still of interest to present-day audiences. There really isn't any reason not to know this today.
Click to expand...
I would count Alien as an example of that - definitely. The Terminator was pretty cool the way Sarah Connor became a warrior but you'd be hard pressed not to think of Arnie with Terminator.
 
Refuge said:
I would count Alien as an example of that - definitely. The Terminator was pretty cool the way Sarah Connor became a warrior but you'd be hard pressed not to think of Arnie with Terminator.
Click to expand...
I agree. Without Arnold it's not a smash, and Hamilton didn't have top billing. But Arnold wasn't the hero. The film didn't end when Arnold's skin got burned off, and Hamilton's character was the one who had to fight it out. She got to deliver the punch line ("You're terminated, fucker!"). This was Sarah Connor's story.
 
CorporalCaptain said:
I agree. Without Arnold it's not a smash, and Hamilton didn't have top billing. But Arnold wasn't the hero. The film didn't end when Arnold's skin got burned off, and Hamilton's character was the one who had to fight it out. She got to deliver the punch line ("You're terminated, fucker!"). This was Sarah Connor's story.
Click to expand...
I love it when we see Sarah in the Psychiatric Hospital and it's like... whoa! You have changed girl :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top