Why is toxic fandom destroying everything?

[CorporalCaptain]

Eh, the way the Emperor exploded in the reactor shaft, with the VFX of energy rushing back up and out into space, with a hint of his death cry mixed in with whooshing noises, it always played like a backdoor to bring back the Emperor. This was my reaction in 1983.

And, speaking of. The original film had a happily-ever after ending as well. Sure, there was still the Emperor there, mentioned but otherwise unaddressed, and their larger struggle against the Empire was unresolved, but the immediate threat was eliminated.

The question of how the Rebellion transforms to take over a leaderless Empire is very much unanswered by ROTJ.

I completely agree with everything said here:

Sure you can. It's called creativity. In-universe, there must have been lots that has happened in between the two eras. In fact the amount of elapsed time gives it a great storytelling opportunity and massive potential. And I don't accept that they couldn't given people had waited 30 years for sequels. You find ways. You could even do something of a parallel between the time of WW1 and WW2, with the First Order rising up due to feelings within the remnants of the Empire fermenting resentment. But, fact is, they hardly established any kind of backstory that made much sense. They kind of just had it exist and we had to accept it.

IMO, the Disney+ series have done a much better job addressing the OT and ST interim, especially regarding the politics, than the ST ever did. I'll also add that one of my criticisms of the ST is that the setup very much looked like a clone of the OT, and the unestablished backstory seemed like it was not only unestablished on screen but moreover unestablished behind the scenes as well. It was as if the goal was to revisit the dynamics of the OT with the intention of working everything else in between out later, down the road.

 

[evilchumlee]

WHY are toxic fans ruining everything? At least it seems like everything. The Acolyte, Doctor Who, Rings of Power, The Marvels, you name it.

My counter would be why are companies producing absolute garbage like The Acolyte, Doctor Who, Rings of Power, etc. It's sad to me that we are living in what should be an absolute golden age of geek culture but... so much of what is being producing is just pandering garbage.

I find it to be incredibly offensive that seemingly any criticism directed towards things I think are poorly written are just generally not good is not judged on the merits of the criticism, but almost entirely based on my sexual orientation, gender and race.

 

[Anwar]

IMO, the Disney+ series have done a much better job addressing the OT and ST interim, especially regarding the politics, than the ST ever did. I'll also add that one of my criticisms of the ST is that the setup very much looked like a clone of the OT, and the unestablished backstory seemed like it was not only unestablished on screen but moreover unestablished behind the scenes as well. It was as if the goal was to revisit the dynamics of the OT with the intention of working everything else in between out later, down the road.

The ST didn't want to do anything political or explain any political stuff because of how poorly the political stuff in the Prequels went over.

My counter would be why are companies producing absolute garbage like The Acolyte, Doctor Who, Rings of Power, etc. It's sad to me that we are living in what should be an absolute golden age of geek culture but... so much of what is being producing is just pandering garbage.

I find it to be incredibly offensive that seemingly any criticism directed towards things I think are poorly written are just generally not good is not judged on the merits of the criticism, but almost entirely based on my sexual orientation, gender and race.

The Acolyte and Dr Who and ROP were getting ripped apart purely because they decided to stop being Forced White Male Supremacy, that's why.

Are you going to whine "PANDER" anytime you see a woman or nonwhite in anything?

 

[The Realist]

I find it to be incredibly offensive that seemingly any criticism directed towards things I think are poorly written are just generally not good is not judged on the merits of the criticism, but almost entirely based on my sexual orientation, gender and race.

You're not helping your cause by using words like "pandering," which is usually code for "diverse and I hate that."

 

[theenglish]

My counter would be why are companies producing absolute garbage like The Acolyte, Doctor Who, Rings of Power, etc. It's sad to me that we are living in what should be an absolute golden age of geek culture but... so much of what is being producing is just pandering garbage.

I find it to be incredibly offensive that seemingly any criticism directed towards things I think are poorly written are just generally not good is not judged on the merits of the criticism, but almost entirely based on my sexual orientation, gender and race.

The cool thing about a message board is that no one knows your orientation, gender, or race unless you choose to show it--so people are not going to criticize your opinions based on that. The series you mention though, are precisely those series that have been attacked for their diversity rather than their stories, acting, plot, etc so when someone uses the word "pandering", it is often a code word to say these are shows with diverse casts because they are "pandering" to non-white males. The next arguments usually have to do with source material and being too political in these cases.

If there are legitimate arguments that you want to put forward, such as Jodie Whitaker era Doctor Who was hurt by the "after school special" style of the writing, heavy handed moralizing, and plots that were often dull rather than the cast was too diverse, or why is the doctor a woman, or why do we have to watch an episode about partition?, and not use code words in your responses, then those are debates and discussions that are usually welcomed.

 

[Lord Garth]

Doesn't matter what toxic fandom trashes, I still have Blu-Rays of things I like that they trash, and content is still coming out that they'll trash. They have no power. They just make a lot of noise.

They're hurting themselves more than than they're helping. If they're not going to like what's made under any circumstances but will also still watch what's made under any circumstances, there's no reason to listen what toxic fans have to say. They can be ignored and taken for granted.

 

[evilchumlee]

You're not helping your cause by using words like "pandering," which is usually code for "diverse and I hate that."

The Acolyte and Dr Who and ROP were getting ripped apart purely because they decided to stop being Forced White Male Supremacy, that's why.

Are you going to whine "PANDER" anytime you see a woman or nonwhite in anything?

There is a difference between "pandering" and writing good, diverse characters.

Furiosa, House of the Dragon, and Fallout all have incredibly high audience scores... all of them have female leads and diverse casts. Personally, for the record, these three works are absolutely awesome.

The actual toxicity is on display right here, and essentially proved my point immediately. When these works are criticized, immediately i'm apparently sexist, racist, against diversity, etc. This is the actual real issue. It's impossible to have any sort of civil discussion about this because it tends to just immediately descend into personal attacks.

I know i'm a straight white man, and therefore evil, irrelevant, and should just keep my mouth shut because of that but... hey, that's racism and that's not cool.

I have a canned reply for this because it's all to common.

Yes, I hate female and non-white characters... except for Captain Janeway, Captain Sisko, Uhura, Leia, Ahsoka, Fennic Shand, Ellen Ripley, Sarah Connor, Black Widow, Scarlet Witch, Wonder Woman, Blade, Black Panther, Sam Wilson, Jessica Jones, Luke Cage, Buffy, Hermione Granger, Brienne of Tarth, Cersei Lannister, Daenrys Targarean, Xena, Dana Scully, etc.

Aside from all those characters, yes.

If there are legitimate arguments that you want to put forward, such as Jodie Whitaker era Doctor Who was hurt by the "after school special" style of the writing, heavy handed moralizing, and plots that were often dull rather than the cast was too diverse, or why is the doctor a woman, or why do we have to watch an episode about partition?, and not use code words in your responses, then those are debates and discussions that are usually welcomed.

I think using the term pandering is entirely correct and legitimate. I want to have a civil discussion about that, which is a large part of the reason why so many of these latest projects are terrible. It serves no purpose to beat around the bush and try to find ways to package that to not hurt peoples feelings. Some of it can even just be in how a work is presented. I'll admit right now, I watched one episode of The Acolyte. I wasn't into it. But I was put off immediately, before the show even aired by "This is the gayest Star Wars". Ok. That's fine. I'm not interested in that, so i'm not going to watch it. I watched the first episode, I found the plot to be boring, the acting wooden and the characters uninteresting. My dislike for the show didn't actually have anything to do with anyone being gay... the first episode didn't even have anything about that all. BUT... just by the presentation of it beforehand, it gave off a virtue signal that this was going to be a pandering show, so it started off with a negative perception.

The problem with the specifically mentioned ones (I'll back off on Doctor Who... I don't watch it so I can't comment) are all issues related to the pandering. As evidenced, discussions and debates are NOT welcomed...

To be completely serious though, I understand to a point. There are definitely some people out there who are just racist or whatever. Absolutely. And I can see the kneejerk to just be "everyone is racist", but that doesn't help. It's kind of the same in reverse... i'm so tired of trying to have an actual, civil discussion because it tends be worthless, as no matter what I say, it just comes back to me being some kind of -ist or -phobe.

My "favorite" example of an argument i've had was early in DSC's run, I was complaining about the look of the Klingons. That was it... not even the rest of the show, not the characters, just the appearance of the Klingons. This is a paraphrase of the conversation:

Me: I don't like the way the Klingons look now.
Other: Oh why is that?
Me: *describes issue with continuity, not looking like past Klingons
Other: That's why? That's the reason?
Me: Yes... they don't like Klingons.
Other: Sure. It has nothing to do with the show having a black female lead, right?
Me: What? No?
Other: Right, all of a sudden now the Klingons are a problem? Isn't it odd?
Me: But... this was the show where they don't like right.
Other: *proceeds to call me racist

I'm tired of it.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

She loses Ben

Oh, you mean that forced, out of nowhere "relationship".

You can say that fans had no entitlement to a more thoughtful, complex story, and that's true, but it's also true that to chastise them for hoping for one is settling for mediocrity.

Some have been conditioned (by external influences or themselves) to accept any fantasy TV or movie production (especially if hyped as some sort of "blockbuster event") as great across the board. Film history has never witnessed a moment where every year produces nothing short of numerous, "great" fantasy films, and certainly not in the cookie cutter age of this century. Any honest response (not born of sociopolitical extremism) is blanketed with accusations of "hate", or other slurs.

Sure you can. It's called creativity. In-universe, there must have been lots that has happened in between the two eras. In fact the amount of elapsed time gives it a great storytelling opportunity and massive potential.

Creativity is not to be found in the Disney era of Star Wars, which was no more apparent than TFA being a cartoonish, by-the-numbers, poor remake of ANH, and it was all downhill from there, with most of the "main" characters shoved into a development-free corner for the remainder of the ST.

 

[fireproof78]

, you mean that forced, out of nowhere "relationship".

No.

Any honest response (not born of sociopolitical extremism) is blanketed with accusations of "hate", or other slurs.

I honestly enjoy the ST. Save for parts of tToS.

 

[Anwar]

There is a difference between "pandering" and writing good, diverse characters.

Not really, these days "Pandering" is just used whenever certain folks are mad there are any women or nonwhites who aren't background extras.

Furiosa, House of the Dragon, and Fallout all have incredibly high audience scores... all of them have female leads and diverse casts. Personally, for the record, these three works are absolutely awesome.

Fallout worked because the usual crowd ignore Lucy and Maximus and focus on the Ghoul, House of the Dragon doesn't have a diverse cast and Furiousa bombed.

The actual toxicity is on display right here, and essentially proved my point immediately. When these works are criticized, immediately i'm apparently sexist, racist, against diversity, etc. This is the actual real issue. It's impossible to have any sort of civil discussion about this because it tends to just immediately descend into personal attacks.

Because of the White Male Supremacy Rhetoric we've seen spewed out for the last 10 years.

I know i'm a straight white man, and therefore evil, irrelevant, and should just keep my mouth shut because of that but... hey, that's racism and that's not cool.

It means you shouldn't indulge in the same old Reactionary Rhetoric we keep seeing.

Yes, I hate female and non-white characters... except for Captain Janeway, Captain Sisko, Uhura, Leia, Ahsoka, Fennic Shand, Ellen Ripley, Sarah Connor, Black Widow, Scarlet Witch, Wonder Woman, Blade, Black Panther, Sam Wilson, Jessica Jones, Luke Cage, Buffy, Hermione Granger, Brienne of Tarth, Cersei Lannister, Daenrys Targarean, Xena, Dana Scully, etc.

All of whom would be called SJW Propaganda (and some are) if they debuted today.

But I was put off immediately, before the show even aired by "This is the gayest Star Wars". Ok. That's fine. I'm not interested in that, so i'm not going to watch it.

You DO know that was tongue in cheek, right?

I watched the first episode, I found the plot to be boring, the acting wooden and the characters uninteresting. My dislike for the show didn't actually have anything to do with anyone being gay... the first episode didn't even have anything about that all. BUT... just by the presentation of it beforehand, it gave off a virtue signal that this was going to be a pandering show, so it started off with a negative perception.

You use Boogeyman words like "Virtue Signaling", you lose credibility.

 

[Anwar]

Oh, you mean that forced, out of nowhere "relationship".

No more out of nowhere than Luke caring more about Kenobi dying than his Uncle and Aunt, or giving a darn about Vader in ROTJ.

Creativity is not to be found in the Disney era of Star Wars, which was no more apparent than TFA being a cartoonish, by-the-numbers, poor remake of ANH, and it was all downhill from there

History showed that trying new things with SW just doesn't work. Because of the limited way Lucas created the series to begin with.

 

[evilchumlee]

Not really, these days "Pandering" is just used whenever certain folks are mad there are any women or nonwhites who aren't background extras.

And immediately dismissing it is used a deflection tactic because it's easier to just call somebody racist than actually have a meaningful conversation.

Fallout worked because the usual crowd ignore Lucy and Maximus and focus on the Ghoul, House of the Dragon doesn't have a diverse cast and Furiousa bombed.

They all have positive audience scores, even if Furiosa didn't do well. The problem I have here is the generalizing. I've been taught that broad generalizations and stereotypes are bad. We shouldn't be doing that.

But now... the usual crowd. That doesn't apply to me. Lucy and Maximus were awesome. Oh no! What about your narrative now?!

It means you shouldn't indulge in the same old Reactionary Rhetoric we keep seeing.

It is reactionary though. I'm being quite reactionary towards crap media being produced.

All of whom would be called SJW Propaganda (and some are) if they debuted today.

Given that there are still many works being produced that have female leads/diverse casts that are essentially universally liked shows that is a lie.

You DO know that was tongue in cheek, right?

Maybe, but it's the same kind of reactionary rhetoric we keep seeing.

You use Boogeyman words like "Virtue Signaling", you lose credibility.

And dismissing arguments because you don't want to address the words just proves my point.

Yes, virtue signaling is part of the problem. I'm sorry that makes you uncomfortable, but that doesn't change anything.

When you use Boogeyman words like "reactionary rhetoric", "the usual crowd", etc. you lost credibility...

But... i've learned a thing or two in my time on the internet. I have said my piece and I know well enough that this conversation will go nowhere and will change no ones opinion. I used to care quite a bit what people thought of me. Now? I don't. If you want to think i'm racist or a white supremacist or something... idk, you do you. I know what I am and am not and quite frankly don't care anymore what anyone else thinks.

So i've said my piece. I'll leave it there. It's ok if you disagree. We are all allowed to have opinions. I'm happy you find enjoyment in some things I don't. If you really want to discuss more, i'd be happy to take it to DM's and have a more personal conversation. Thanks.

 

[fireproof78]

But now... the usual crowd. That doesn't apply to me. Lucy and Maximus were awesome. Oh no! What about your narrative now?!

Lucy and Max are fantastic.

History showed that trying new things with SW just doesn't work. Because of the limited way Lucas created the series to begin with.

I think one of the reasons why The Phantom Menace got the backlash it did is that it went way outside the lines, and that was not well received. People say, "Oh, just be creative!" but the story always feels tacked on. The OT is structured in such a way that going past it feels really strange.

It's like the sequels that Disney has done with their animated films, like Cinderella 2, Mulan 2, Little Mermaid 2, it introduces a conflict that doesn't always work in light of the past story.

I think the ST does better than those listed examples, but taking the OT as a whole vs. the rest of the franchise the OT stands apart as its own thing.

 

[The Realist]

I think using the term pandering is entirely correct and legitimate. I want to have a civil discussion about that, which is a large part of the reason why so many of these latest projects are terrible. It serves no purpose to beat around the bush and try to find ways to package that to not hurt peoples feelings. Some of it can even just be in how a work is presented. I'll admit right now, I watched one episode of The Acolyte. I wasn't into it. But I was put off immediately, before the show even aired by "This is the gayest Star Wars". Ok. That's fine. I'm not interested in that, so i'm not going to watch it. I watched the first episode, I found the plot to be boring, the acting wooden and the characters uninteresting. My dislike for the show didn't actually have anything to do with anyone being gay... the first episode didn't even have anything about that all. BUT... just by the presentation of it beforehand, it gave off a virtue signal that this was going to be a pandering show, so it started off with a negative perception.

Once again, you certainly have ... interesting ideas about how to present your case.

You use Boogeyman words like "Virtue Signaling", you lose credibility.

Yeppers.

 

[Gaith]

Disney/Kennedy also greenlit Andor, and the very first scene of that show takes place in a brothel. Don't think that, just because they leave some things off screen for their family-friendly movies and shows that means they don't think these things happen in-universe.

1) Sex work and sexual assault aren't synonymous, but, even if they were,

2) Just because Disney/Kennedy might conceivably acknowledge that sexual assault sometimes happens in Wars doesn't at all mean they'd ever sign off on the idea that Rey had been assaulted off-screen prior to TFA.

3) For someone who spent most of her formative years without family, guardians, or even friends that we know of, Rey was already comically and unbelievably cheerful and open-hearted in TFA. The notion that she'd been sexually assaulted before the events of that movie would only make her characterization there, and her decidedly sexual interest in Kylo in TLJ, even more absurd.

 

[Owain Taggart]

ROTJ ends on a note of "And they all lived happily ever after, the end forever". Lucas kills all the villains, he leaves nowhere for new villains to come from, it all ends on the note that this is the end of history and Luke and Han and Leia will usher in a time of permanent peace.

Sure, and the Allies won WW1, and we still ended up having WW2. Just because you have one 'happily-ever-after' doesn't mean their lives, their galaxy can't continue. History has shown that there will always be adversity. Disney is the business of creating stories, it's their job, so I expect them to find a way to continue the saga. The galaxy doesn't just end there, it's always evolving, with new stories to tell.

As to that 'permanent peace', I would chock that to being naively optimistic after having been victors. They've won, their comfortable, they're not expecting resistance. But in 30 years, a lot can happen. For any sequel to happen, that 'peace' would have to be shattered. You already have the movie claiming the First Order having been born from remnants of the Empire, so a 'restart' doesn't make much sense. Instead, what happens is that the FIrst Order ends up feeling wholly disconnected from what came before. But you can still tell there are seeds there.

IMO, the Disney+ series have done a much better job addressing the OT and ST interim, especially regarding the politics, than the ST ever did.

I've never watched the Disney+ series, but this kind of thing should have been done there and then. But otherwise, agreed. It felt like it didn't do nearly enough to establish itself. Sure liked to borrow from the OT when it suited itself though. IMHO, it was the Skywalker Saga. Build upon what came before, but also tell your story.

Creativity is not to be found in the Disney era of Star Wars, which was no more apparent than TFA being a cartoonish, by-the-numbers, poor remake of ANH, and it was all downhill from there, with most of the "main" characters shoved into a development-free corner for the remainder of the ST.

That is completely besides the point, given the business they're in. In fact, it only enhances the point I've made, in that they hadn't done their job properly. Sure, we know creativity is not their strong suit at the moment, but we didn't at the time TFA was being promoted and released. I think it's safe to say we all had big hopes for a new trilogy set 30 years after the OT.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

I think it's safe to say we all had big hopes for a new trilogy set 30 years after the OT.

I was satisfied with some parts of the 1990s post-ROTJ stories taking place in novel form (Zahn) or comics (Dark Horse's Dark Empire), as more of a what if, and that was fine. I did not feel the SW story needed another go-around as movies set anytime after ROTJ. Certain movie IPs are better off not being sequel-ized to death, but $ and other issues will never let reason guide anyone behind that property.

 

[fireproof78]

I've never watched the Disney+ series, but this kind of thing should have been done there and then. But otherwise, agreed. It felt like it didn't do nearly enough to establish itself. Sure liked to borrow from the OT when it suited itself though. IMHO, it was the Skywalker Saga. Build upon what came before, but also tell your story.

They learned from the Clone Wars.

We all know how that turned out.

I think it's safe to say we all had big hopes for a new trilogy set 30 years after the OT.

I did not. I was let down by Clone Wars and the PT. I enjoyed TFA very well, and still find it to be my favorite. But high expectations? No. The PT let me know that Star Wars can be mediocre, and that's ok.

 

[The Realist]

I learned that Star Wars can be mediocre in 1983.

 

[evilchumlee]

Once again, you certainly have ... interesting ideas about how to present your case.

I'm way past trying to tip toe around the issues and prefer now to just state the issue.

Although in the interests of discussion, maybe let me try to rephrase my feelings somewhat. To begin with, for the record, I think that having more representation in media is a good thing and that's great. I do not think it should be the primary focus of a work... story, writing, acting, etc. should the primary focus, and after all of that if a more diverse cast makes sense then sure go for it. By and large, I honestly and truly don't care about the gender, race, or sexual orientation of a character. None of those things are of particular relevance to me.

Where I take issue with many more recent works is not only just an apparent, but an outright stated, intent to place diversity at the forefront of the decision making process. I disagree with that on a fundamental level, as I deem ensuring diversity as among the least important aspects of a work because I view race, gender, etc. as largely irrelevant in many contexts. Given that I would prefer to focus on a creator crafting a great story rather than building a story as a secondary goal over ensuring representation for x group, when I hear the creator say something like "this is the gayest Star Wars"... it does not fill me with confidence that said creator went into the project to create a great story. It makes me believe that the creator when into the project with the intent to create a gay story with Star Wars stuff in it. Some people might enjoy that, and if you do, that's ok! I personally am not interested in that, so if I think that is what the work is going to be about, i'm probably going to skip it. That is not the say I don't think there should not be LGBT representation in media. Quite the opposite, it's totally fine. I would just prefer that it is not the goal of the work.

Beyond that, I take issue with the notion that anyone who criticizes a work that features a female or minority either main seems to be automatically assumed to be some kind of a racist, generalized and stereotyped into "the usual crowd" or some other type of group suggesting they are only against that work to due prejudices against those people. They refer to these as "toxic fans", although I would argue the true toxic fans are those who engage in stereotyping and generalization against others... behaviors that really seem to betray what they apparently stand for. It is perfectly acceptable to not like a work, and simply because it has a diverse cast does not mean that it is the reason why some might not like it.

I find it to be far more problematic for people to have kneejerk reactions and start making accusations of racism, homophobia, or whatever they may be accusing simply because a person did not like a piece of media. There are many different reasons why one might like it. Sure, for some it might be that. But to simply assume that for everyone is quite literally the exact thing you seem to fighting against.