Fandom is so toxic right now

[Kor]

There were knock down drag out battles about ENT here back then. I know I was in more than a few. Might have even gotten a warning.

Ah, the rough and tumble days. I think I mostly avoided all that by starting a frivolous "WORSHIP thread *giggle*" for inconsequential guest characters or throwaway pieces of tech that were depicted in every new episode.

Kor

 

[fireproof78]

Me I don't mind talking politics I just refuse to ever make personal insults. Even if I was deeply offended by someone I would maybe at best use some sarcasm. I don't think in the end it matters enough online to be right or wrong on the issues. I think the hatred is a cycle and if you don't ever try to break it people will still be yelling about the same old stuff in 20 years and 20 years after that. I guess it can feel good on a emotional level to unlease those feelings but I wonder. Does anyone really,really think it makes things better instead of worse?

Jason

I agree that hatred is a cycle and some times sarcasm is my best defense. Unfortunately, doesn't always translate well in text, but that's how it goes.

I often work with individuals who struggle with anger management and I can attest to the idea that what feels good in the moment isn't always effective in getting the point across. That's why I hold back regarding politics or more personal matters as it does often delves in to insults. Largely, that's psychology at work because terms like "left" "right" "SJW" and the like all fit in to nice little boxes in our mind called heuristics. They are wonderful short cuts in some instances, but it is difficult when it comes to discussing people.

To me, where fan bases in general have been impacted is the advent of technology and the ability to instantly react. We have an entire platform at our fingers tips to immediately react, be it about our dinner, our commute or our film choices. Impulse control is not as prevalent or even expected any more.

 

[mos6507]

The internet has become an echo chamber that frames a perspective where you never see the other side represented by somebody face to face in a reasonable tone of voice. So what used to be people’s unspoken anxieties about race and gender issues get crystallized into dogma.

Great post.

I also think (beyond the radicalizing effect of the internet) that as people lose hope in our electoral process that we've escaped into entertainment, but in doing so we take our politics inward and then fight over the meaning/messaging. If we can't get what we want at the ballot box, the thinking goes, we can at least win the culture-war. I think this applies to both left and right-wing spin-control on modern entertainment.

I think toxic fandom is a label that attempts to sort of target and marginalize one subset of fandom when in actuality the entire fandom ecosystem is toxic. It's the hatfield and mccoys call and response that keeps the dumpster fires blazing. And there's little to no interest in either side in acknowldging their role in perpetuating it, because they view what they are doing as a form of activism.

It's as if enough people downvote The Last Jedi or James Gun isn't brought back that it represents some sort of Waterloo moment for the left. Or if Kathleen Kennedy doesn't exit the Star Wars franchise and Rian Johnson actually makes his trilogy then it's liberals destroyed the sanctity of Star Wars (after Lucas already dragged it into the gutter).

Meanwhile, the world's actual problems like mass shootings and the widening gap of rich and poor and the like just fester out of control.

 

[gblews]

If you're casting on the basis of gender, race or any other distinction then you're biased. People might want to introduce shades of "good-or-bad" bias, but that's the core truth.

Yeah, this is the position of many alt-righters I guess because it sounds really simple and cut and dried. Expanding the audition and consideration process for TV and movie roles to include other than white male actors is interpreted by some to mean there is a "political agenda". For the first 70 or so years of TV and for even longer in the movies, choosing actors based on race and gender for prominent race and gender neutral roles was the norm.

Were you also against that practice?

Those days appear to be over, though only time will tell for sure. It is not a matter of choosing actors by race or gender in race and gender neutral roles, it is simply a matter of considering racial minorities and women in roles that would have gone to white males before The alternative is nothing but white males in gender and race neutral roles.which is the same type of racial bias in casting we've had before. Now, unless you're also against that type of "bias", then you might just be...biased.

And that's one reason why the Ghostbusters remake wasso vilified. Deliberately casting only women "to prove a point" is just as bad as deliberately casting only men.

The original Ghostbusters had only men in the main cast. That was done on purpose. So why not have a reboot with an all female cast? The original cast consisted of some of the best comedic actors working, back then. The reboot also had some of the best comedic actors working today. The difference between the two movies is that the original had a better script and maybe better directing.

 

[Jayson1]

Yeah, this is the position of many alt-righters I guess because it sounds really simple and cut and dried. Expanding the audition and consideration process for TV and movie roles to include other than white male actors is interpreted by some to mean there is a "political agenda". For the first 70 or so years of TV and for even longer in the movies, choosing actors based on race and gender for prominent race and gender neutral roles was the norm.

Were you also against that practice?

Those days appear to be over, though only time will tell for sure. It is not a matter of choosing actors by race or gender in race and gender neutral roles, it is simply a matter of considering racial minorities and women in roles that would have gone to white males before The alternative is nothing but white males in gender and race neutral roles.which is the same type of racial bias in casting we've had before. Now, unless you're also against that type of "bias", then you might just be...biased.

The original Ghostbusters had only men in the main cast. That was done on purpose. So why not have a reboot with an all female cast? The original cast consisted of some of the best comedic actors working, back then. The reboot also had some of the best comedic actors working today. The difference between the two movies is that the original had a better script and maybe better directing.

That's exactly how I feel about the two Ghostbusters movies. Both have amazing talent, one just has a better script. The real debate is whether the new Ghostbusters movie was better than Ghostbusters 2. Me I would still go with the second movie because the cast just has great chemistry together. The old characters are just more fun IMO. It's not even the main 4 but you also have Dana and Louis Tulley and Janine. With that said I still think you can get a good movie with the new cast if they wanted to make another. I kind of like the idea of them going out of New York and busting ghosts in LA just to change things up but I doubt it would happen.

Jason

 

[Grendelsbayne]

That's exactly how I feel about the two Ghostbusters movies. Both have amazing talent, one just has a better script. The real debate is whether the new Ghostbusters movie was better than Ghostbusters 2. Me I would still go with the second movie because the cast just has great chemistry together. The old characters are just more fun IMO. It's not even the main 4 but you also have Dana and Louis Tulley and Janine. With that said I still think you can get a good movie with the new cast if they wanted to make another. I kind of like the idea of them going out of New York and busting ghosts in LA just to change things up but I doubt it would happen.

Jason

The original is not nearly as amazing as people claim. It was moderately funny, just like the remake, with the added bonus of being kind of rapey. And that's without even mentioning Rick Moranis playing the same bs revenge of the nerds character he always played. At least Melissa McCarthy and Chris Hemsworth actually surprised me a bit and did something I hadn't seen them do before.

 

[Jayson1]

The original is not nearly as amazing as people claim. It was moderately funny, just like the remake, with the added bonus of being kind of rapey. And that's without even mentioning Rick Moranis playing the same bs revenge of the nerds character he always played. At least Melissa McCarthy and Chris Hemsworth actually surprised me a bit and did something I hadn't seen them do before.

I disagree. Granted all of it is subjective. I don't see it as been rapey. Weaver and Moranis are basically controlled by demons and then turn into devil dogs. Sure Moranis is playing a nerd but those characters can be funny. He wasn't in the movie "Revenge of the Nerds" though. Were you getting him confused with Anthony Edwards or Carradine? Me I think McCarthy is fine though I personally like Wiig and Kte McKinnon much better and I would prefer to build a movie around them. I think McCarthy works better as a supporting character. Granted I know McKinnon isn't established enough yet to build a movie that might be a franchise around but I think she is going to be a star. Hemsworth did surprise me. I like him better than I felt I would. This was before Ragnorak so I didn't really know just how her could be funny and frankly hot sexy people I always have doubts when it comes to humor. He looks like a Greek God so you just don't expect it. I also think the movie missed out by not giving people like Zach Woods,Ed Begley Jr,Matt Wash and Cecily Strong more to do. Plus I just was disapointed it wasn't even set in the orginal universe so all the cameo's could have been them playing their old characters.

Jason

 

[Grendelsbayne]

I disagree. Granted all of it is subjective. I don't see it as been rapey. Weaver and Moranis are basically controlled by demons and then turn into devil dogs. Sure Moranis is playing a nerd but those characters can be funny. He wasn't in the movie "Revenge of the Nerds" though. Were you getting him confused with Anthony Edwards or Carradine? Me I think McCarthy is fine though I personally like Wiig and Kte McKinnon much better and I would prefer to build a movie around them. I think McCarthy works better as a supporting character. Granted I know McKinnon isn't established enough yet to build a movie that might be a franchise around but I think she is going to be a star. Hemsworth did surprise me. I like him better than I felt I would. This was before Ragnorak so I didn't really know just how her could be funny and frankly hot sexy people I always have doubts when it comes to humor. He looks like a Greek God so you just don't expect it. I also think the movie missed out by not giving people like Zach Woods,Ed Begley Jr,Matt Wash and Cecily Strong more to do. Plus I just was disapointed it wasn't even set in the orginal universe so all the cameo's could have been them playing their old characters.

Jason

I'm not saying Moranis was in Revenge of the Nerds, I'm saying he always played the same character over and over again and that character was a lame, revenge of the nerds style character.

Also, Weaver and Moranis weren't the rapey ones. It was Venkman who was totally down to bang Zuul even though he knew that Dana had no control over what was happening. Also a weird montage scene with a ghost forcing Aykroyd's character into bed.

I also agree that McKinnon and Wiig are better than McCarthy in general and better in this movie as well. I'm very much not a fan of McCarthy at all, which is why I say she pleasantly surprised me in this movie by not doing the same old shtick she usually does in her movies. For once, she played a character with real heart and it actually worked quite well. The storyline between Wiig and McCarthy's characters is actually very good overall and has more substance to it than anything in the original movie.

 

[Awesome Possum]

I think toxic fandom is a label that attempts to sort of target and marginalize one subset of fandom when in actuality the entire fandom ecosystem is toxic. It's the hatfield and mccoys call and response that keeps the dumpster fires blazing. And there's little to no interest in either side in acknowldging their role in perpetuating it, because they view what they are doing as a form of activism.

Actually one side is being toxic monsters who harass innocent people, the other is trying to stop them. It's far from a "both sides are bad" situation, If those have ever existed in the first place, which I highly doubt.

 

[JanewayRulz!]

Toxic fandom dates back to, at the very least, Paramount daring to put forehead ridges on the Klingons and to them daring to put a bald French man on the bridge of the Enterprise.

I recall a story about a child actress getting punched by another child in the 1940's or 50's who was an irate fan upset that her character threatened Lassie.

Talk about a toxic fandom that did not have the veil of anonymity to hide its face.

You clearly weren't a member of this board (or a lurker) in the early 2000s.

Hell, if you used this board as an example, things have gotten considerably nicer. That or Bonz chucked the worst parts into the nine circles of hell.

I joined the internet in season 5 of ST Voyager. I checked in here for a short period and quickly ran away for 10 years, for discussion boards with Voyager viewers who LIKED the show and weren't attacked for having the temerity to say it.

The difference is you weren't branded a racist or misogynist for not liking Star Trek or Star Wars. Having labels hanged around your neck anytime you don't like something is in itself toxic. People just try to politicize/personalize everything.

Hard to be branded a racist or misogynist in 1977 or 1979 since the shows were primarily about white men.

Watch this TED Talk and think about his question, "Where is all the female superhero stuff, where are all the costumes, where are all the toys?"

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

His comments on the lack of Princess Leia after Disney bought Lucas films or the absence of Gamora in Disney stores after the killing Guardians of the Galaxy made in the theater, or the T shirt where Luke was used to replace Leia or how Black Widow was replaced by Captain America in a motorcycle toy set are telling.

Then how do you explain the backlash from TNG when it first started airing? To the tune of "It's not Shatner, it couldn't be Star Trek! A Bald Captain, no way, it won't fly, etc!" And there's more if we go back to the days of TOS with that multiracial kiss. And that was before the days of the Internet, before message boards like this one. Many articles sent to newspapers voicing displeasure. Just because we didn't immediately experience it doesn't mean it wasn't there. It was just represented in different forms. It's not a modern phenomenon at all.

I seem to recall Shatner saying they did not get much fan letter backlash from that interracial kiss. As for TNG, I watched from the beginning and IMHO the first season of TNG was not impressive. Luckily it didn't have much competition at the time and lived to fight another day/season.

When I joined this BBS I posted all over it. Now, to the regret of no one, I'm rarely in any Trek forum other than the STD forum. I imagine that if they ever get another movie off the ground I'll probably hang out there. What's current at least has that novelty. Otherwise I post in this forum but mainly in TNZ.

I'm sorry, but when I first read this I thought, "The TrekBBS has a Sexually Transmitted Disease forum?" Kirk, Harry Kim and Trip must be its mascots.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

0:47

Three things struck me about this clip.

One has already been noted, "Do not use in Space dock" ????

Two...The room has no dividers between toilets. I guess there's no need for privacy in the future.

Three... WHAT? Spock has a BROTHER???? How come we never heard about this "brother" during the 3 years on TV, the years as an animated TV series, the four, count them FOUR movies that came before this movie?

Oh, he's just a HALF brother, okay, that makes a difference... I guess.

Just wait.

Next the PTB will magically pull a sister out of their hat for Spock.

 

[Armus]

I joined in TrekBBS in 2003, and back then, I remember more vocal distain for TNG from a few diehard DS9 fans, as if there was this great division between the two shows. Now with the passage of time, the success of JJ Abrams movies, the premiere of Discovery, and the long reign of Rick Berman produced Star Trek now part of history, TNG and DS9 look more like they were cut from the same cloth. I notice more posters on TrekBBS are fans of both shows, which is nice.

 

[Kor]

...
To me, where fan bases in general have been impacted is the advent of technology and the ability to instantly react. We have an entire platform at our fingers tips to immediately react, be it about our dinner, our commute or our film choices. Impulse control is not as prevalent or even expected any more.

Yeah, it's a far cry from having to wait for weeks or months to get a short article included in some type-written fanzine that would be mailed out to ten other people... something that I once envisioned participating in, just a couple years before this BBS became available.

Kor

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

I was around in '77 and I'm glad to say that wasn't my experience. My friends and I were big Trek fans and we looked forward to seeing Star Wars. Sitting in the theatre and watching as that Star Destroyer crossed the screen seemingly over my head is cherished movie experience. As was Mr. Scott's tour around the refit Enterprise a few years later. My friends and I devoured any info about the new productions in both franchises equally.

I was of the kind who enjoyed both, but there were many who instantly fell into camps. It was as if one side felt the other production was "threatening" to the other, so fans attacked the production and its fans. Thinking back, I do think Star Trek fans had the edge in nastiness, since they enjoyed long years of ST being held up as the Gold Standard of filmed sci-fi (even in a world where 2001: A Space Odyssey and the original Planet of the Apes existed) but Star Wars kicked the door in and flipped that notion on its head for a time.
Some SW fans did not help matters by lording it over ST fans by going on and on about the film's EFX, with some claiming two hours of SW was more exciting and "important" to sci-fi than all of the original ST combined. That sort of needling drew an occasionally hostile line in the sand that's never really gone away (even today, some of the Trek vs Wars YouTube videos take the comparisons beyond fan fun, and its more about sticking a chest out).

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

When everyone hates the same people and derogatory terms are thrown around abandonlessly, you treat anyone who isn’t exactly in your side on everything as being fully on the other in every way. And you are even pressured to de-moderate your own views to avoid this perception.

Great, timely observation.

 

[psCargile]

If I hear an opinion I don't agree with, I simply don't care. Why invest so must emotion into someone's opposing opinion? Who cares what I think about The Last Jedi? Or Solo? Or Into Darkness? Or B.J. and the Bear? (A man, his rig, and his chimp—what laughs!)

 

[mos6507]

one side is being toxic monsters who harass innocent people

Again, you're casting things in binary. Not everyone who hates a movie or TV show expresses their disappointment the same way. Framing any and all criticism as "harassment" is merely a rhetorical tactic to invalidate criticism. The net result is it shifts people from being polite critics over into dumpster fire mode, since they're being labeled and caricatured and attacked as a block anyway.

 

[Awesome Possum]

Again, you're casting things in binary. Not everyone who hates a movie or TV show expresses their disappointment the same way. Framing any and all criticism as "harassment" is merely a rhetorical tactic to invalidate criticism. The net result is it shifts people from being polite critics over into dumpster fire mode, since they're being labeled and caricatured and attacked as a block anyway.

That isn't what people mean when they talk about toxic fandom. It's talking about the people who are actually harassing people. You shouldn't conflate them with fans who just don't like something.

 

[mos6507]

That isn't what people mean when they talk about toxic fandom.

In my experience, the term 'toxic' is wildly overused. I you want to demonstrate that there are polite critics out there who are being allowed to voice their criticism without labels being hung around their necks, be my guest, but the burden of proof is most decidely on you. The response to Red Letter Media's dissection of The Last Jedi in another thread here wasn't exactly respectful as I recall.

 

[Awesome Possum]

That waste of a video that just repeats exactly what's been said for a year is hardly deserving of tolerance. I've been a fan of them for years and that was beneath them.

 

[JD]

Part that reaction was due to the poster who posted it, and how they approached the situation, so that wasn't entirely about the video.
Honestly, pretty much every reaction I've seen on here, and everything I've seen people called on here has been completely justified. I can't recall seeing anybody who actually had a reasonable negative opinion attacked just for that opinion.