Why is toxic fandom destroying everything?

[Nerys Myk]

Well like the rest of the supermen, he seized power. And he ruled over a territory that stretched from Asia to the Middle East. I have to assume this wasn't bloodless. Once he consolidated his territories he might have been "nicer". No massacres, no further expansion or attacking neighbors. Kirk also says he was the most dangerous of the tyrants.

 

[fireproof78]

Well like the rest of the supermen, he seized power. And he ruled over a territory that stretched from Asia to the Middle East. I have to assume this wasn't bloodless. Once he consolidated his territories he might have been "nicer". No massacres, no further expansion or attacking neighbors. Kirk also says he was the most dangerous of the tyrants.

 

[UssGlenn]

Well like the rest of the supermen, he seized power. And he ruled over a territory that stretched from Asia to the Middle East. I have to assume this wasn't bloodless. Once he consolidated his territories he might have been "nicer". No massacres, no further expansion or attacking neighbors. Kirk also says he was the most dangerous of the tyrants.

we have very little information on the specifics, so you could write it however you wanted. looking at the transcript I realized that they say the seizing of 40 nations happened in 1993, but Khan's rule was said to start in 1992. So was his rise different somehow? Was the 40 nation overthrow in response to Khans actions?

 

[Nerys Myk]

we have very little information on the specifics, so you could write it however you wanted. looking at the transcript I realized that they say the seizing of 40 nations happened in 1993, but Khan's rule was said to start in 1992. So was his rise different somehow? Was the 40 nation overthrow in response to Khans actions?

Sounds like a script error that slipped through the editing process

 

[JD]

And the people they were looking at before Cumberbatch were Hispanic, not Indian.

So...like Montalban?

I can see where they thought that was a good idea since it followed Montalban's casting, but that would not have been any better.

I've trained myself to not watch trailers these days especially for highly anticipated ones, as they tend to give far too much away. The movies then usually speak for themselves once I'm watching them. Seeing the twists happen on the screen without knowing a thing before hand can be a rewarding experience. The downside is that high-profile movies are almost impossible not to hear anything beforehand due to general way the internet works these days. But if you can do it, I can highly recommend it. It changes the experience.

I usually watch at least a few trailers, I like to have some idea of what the movie is going to be. I don't like going into things totally blind, mainly because I just want to make sure it's not an obvious disaster, and I just like to have at little idea of what the expect.

 

[Owain Taggart]

I usually watch at least a few trailers, I like to have some idea of what the movie is going to be. I don't like going into things totally blind, mainly because I just want to make sure it's not an obvious disaster, and I just like to have at little idea of what the expect.

If I do, I end up keeping it only to teasers just to get the general idea. Though I'll say that's also led to some interesting experiences, not knowing at all what to expect. For instance friends and I went to see the World's Greatest Showman. We actually had no idea until we got there and the movie started that it was going to be a musical. But it was still a positive experience as we ended up loving it.

 

[Commander Troi]

Toxic Fandom: How Hollywood Is Battling Fans Who Are ‘Just Out for Blood’ — From Social Media Boot Camps to Superfan Focus Groups

The threat of toxic fandoms — from Star Wars and Lord of the Rings to Bridgerton and Game of Thrones — has become an intractable headache for almost every studio.

variety.com

This bothered me:

In addition to standard focus group testing, studios will assemble a specialized cluster of superfans to assess possible marketing materials for a major franchise project.

“They’re very vocal,” says the studio exec. “They will just tell us, ‘If you do that, fans are going to retaliate.’” These groups have even led studios to alter the projects: “If it’s early enough and the movie isn’t finished yet, we can make those kinds of changes.”

Are we going to end up with productions aimed purely at the lowest levels of fandom? I would hate to see that.

 

[fireproof78]

Toxic Fandom: How Hollywood Is Battling Fans Who Are ‘Just Out for Blood’ — From Social Media Boot Camps to Superfan Focus Groups

The threat of toxic fandoms — from Star Wars and Lord of the Rings to Bridgerton and Game of Thrones — has become an intractable headache for almost every studio.

variety.com

This bothered me:


Are we going to end up with productions aimed purely at the lowest levels of fandom? I would hate to see that.

That seems to be the way. I feel like there is such a need to polish the life out of a production so that certain boxes are checked for fandom to be satisfied. It's placating at the lowest level but garners the most attention.

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

In addition to standard focus group testing, studios will assemble a specialized cluster of superfans to assess possible marketing materials for a major franchise project.

“They’re very vocal,” says the studio exec. “They will just tell us, ‘If you do that, fans are going to retaliate.’” These groups have even led studios to alter the projects: “If it’s early enough and the movie isn’t finished yet, we can make those kinds of changes.”

I'm torn on this, because a: it's impossible to please the folks on YouTube who make a living off hating everything they do, it's literally their job to be displeased, and b: they should be doing this anyway. They mention they already have focus group testing, but it's bizarre to me that they don't hire experts who are aware of how fans will react to things.

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised though, as good comic book movies are a fairly recent invention and good video game movies are basically a brand new concept. These people have been proving how out of touch they are over and over for years. It's only when an IP gets old enough for studio heads and movie directors to have been a fan of it themselves growing up that we actually get films that are faithful to both the core of the source material and its art design. I guess Sonic the Hedgehog was just a little too new, as they had to spend millions fixing his design after hiring a fan.

I'm not saying that companies should delegate all decision making to their committee of obsessive fans, but they need to understand their IP and its fanbase in order to make informed decisions. Making brand new IP is also an option, but I don't need a committee of experts to tell me what movie studios think about that idea.

 

[JD]

Toxic Fandom: How Hollywood Is Battling Fans Who Are ‘Just Out for Blood’ — From Social Media Boot Camps to Superfan Focus Groups

The threat of toxic fandoms — from Star Wars and Lord of the Rings to Bridgerton and Game of Thrones — has become an intractable headache for almost every studio.

variety.com

This bothered me:


Are we going to end up with productions aimed purely at the lowest levels of fandom? I would hate to see that.

I could see doing something like this to get an idea of what to expect and possibly come up with ways to respond, but I hope this doesn't mean they're going to start removing all of the diversity from the shows and movies just so they don't upset the bigots.

 

[Tosk]

I feel like the more you try to mollify the outrage machine, the more generic and forgettable your "art" will become. There's nothing wrong with research to understand what "fans" want, but superfans (in terms of social media notoriety) are by and large egotistical assholes who speak only for themselves.

 

[JD]

The problem is one group or another is going to be pissed no matter what you do. If continue to promote diversity, you're going to piss off the bigots, but if you try to make them happy and start removing diverse characters, then you're going to piss off the more liberal people. So it comes down to which group you feel is more important, and I have to question if siding with the bigots is really the best way to go.

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

I imagine this isn't going to be about diversity, because you don't have to hire fans to know that bigots get pissed off when the hero is anyone but a straight white guy.

 

[JD]

In that case, I could see listening to what they have to say, but I don't know if I'd want them to let those kind of groups have to much power of the direction of the franchise. Some of the best things these franchises have done are the kind of things that piss off the hardcore superfans.

 

[theenglish]

I'm torn on this, because a: it's impossible to please the folks on YouTube who make a living off hating everything they do, it's literally their job to be displeased, and b: they should be doing this anyway. They mention they already have focus group testing, but it's bizarre to me that they don't hire experts who are aware of how fans will react to things.

My issue is that bigoted and misogynistic fans, and those who can't stand the slightest change to the property are the loudest voice in the room when it comes the making the headlines. There is legitimate criticism of a premise that there is that lowest of the low. I'm talking about the type of fans that were literally the villains in the She-Hulk series.

 

[Owain Taggart]

I can think of one positive ending derived from fan-pressure to change things; the Sonic movie. The first design of the Sonic character wasn't at all well-received by fans ( and it was frankly quite ugly) who pressured the company to change it into something more resembling the actual character. It was a situation where you just had to wonder what they were originally thinking when they revealed the first design, which looked like a very rough draft via someone who didn't understand the character. That's where using fans for feedback comes in handy.

 

[Alexander Corrino]

I'm torn on this one. On one hand, I think of PIC and how it would have benefitted from a group of fan advisors simply saying "a lot of this isn't what the fans will want, you're not going to go down a road they'll follow, they'll tear your show apart" when they suggested the plots for the first two seasons. On the other hand, thinking of how season 3 is exactly the kind of fan nostalgia nonsense a lot of those fan advisors would have proposed for season 1, I'm like "no thanks". I guess it depends on whether I'm in agreement with the fan advisors, haha.

Nah, seriously. I can see how asking fans can be beneficial, but then, shouldn't they already have marketing experts who do that? And then it depends on what kind of fans they invite. The Youtube grifters who make money with their hatred of pretty much everything or the ones who value diversity etc? Which group? Because if they invite both they'll get a taste of what it's like on social media these days - the advisors are going to tear each other apart. (Doesn't matter which fandom/franchise we're talking about. It's pretty much the same in all of them nowadays.)

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

They're going to need fan advisor advisors to advise them on which fan advisors to hire.

 

[the G-man]

I can think of one positive ending derived from fan-pressure to change things; the Sonic movie.

Add (possibly) Burton's original (and very campy) Batman script treatment to the list.

 

[Owain Taggart]

Add (possibly) Burton's original (and very campy) Batman script treatment to the list.

Oh, I wasn't aware that one had any fan pressure.

shouldn't they already have marketing experts who do that?

In certain cases, like the Sonic movie, sometimes the marketing experts themselves have no familiarity with the source materials. If the fans hadn't intervened, they would have possibly had a headache on their hands with a failed franchise if they had gone ahead with the original design, but fans helped them salvage it and I think we're going on 3 movies now?