Why is toxic fandom destroying everything?
- Thread starter Sgt. Sacrament
- Start date
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
The thing is... this is a very bad article by Adam B. Vary. Let's analyze.
It opens with this:
On Aug. 28, Amandla Stenberg, the lead of the “Star Wars” series “The Acolyte,” posted an eight-and-a-half-minute video to her Instagram Stories about Lucasfilm’s abrupt decision not to pick up the show for a second season just a month after the Season 1 finale streamed on Disney+.
[...] In other words, “The Acolyte” was the latest high-profile target of “toxic fandom”...
By giving zero other factors that may have led to The Acolyte's cancellation, Vary seems to be implying that there's a direct causation between toxic criticism of the show and that result. Obviously, that's a fallacy: correlation is not the same as causation. But, in starting the article in this way, Vary sets a tone of toxic fans having real influence and power, even if only for destructive ends.
Sometimes, toxic fandoms behave reactively. A “House of the Dragon” episode featuring two female characters kissing and an episode of “The Last of Us” focusing on a gay couple were both review bombed — the practice of mobbing sites like Rotten Tomatoes and IMDb with negative user reviews, which gained mainstream attention following the premiere of 2017’s “Star Wars: The Last Jedi.”
Eff toxic people, but, frankly, how big a deal is this? Does anyone really pay attention to RT or IMDb episode user scores?
Perhaps the greatest irony of this phenomenon is the disproportionate impact these toxic fandoms have relative to their actual number.
We're now in the seventh paragraph, and Vary still hasn't demonstrated that toxic fans have accomplished anything beyond some contemptible harassment. (And that link? It goes to a Current Opinion in Psychology article, which, while not entirely irrelevant, is about social media generally, and doesn't feature the word "fan" once.)
For some, combating that bullhorn amounts to acting as if they can’t hear it. “Particularly when it’s a negative, toxic conversation, we don’t even engage,” says a TV marketing executive. “Like with toxic people, you try to not give it too much oxygen.” One principal concern is that reacting to these kinds of attacks risks alienating fans who are unhappy with creative choices about a franchise but haven’t tipped over into abusive behavior. So a studio may attempt to amplify friendlier voices instead. “We’ll reply to comments that are positive and elevate those things,” says the TV exec.
Studios are elevating positive reactions to their products?? How awful! What is the world coming to??
Still, toxic fandoms have grown so pernicious that they’ve become a fact of life for many — and so powerful that while talent, executives and publicists will privately bemoan the issue, fear of inadvertently triggering another backlash kept several studios from speaking for this story even on background. (As one rep put it, “It’s just a lose-lose.”)
Antagonizing your audience is generally not a promising business strategy, no. We're now in the 10th paragraph, and Vary still hasn't demonstrated that toxic fans have accomplished anything beyond some contemptible harassment.
Those who did talk with Variety all agreed that the best defense is to avoid provoking fandoms in the first place. 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.
This is either remarkably sloppy or dishonest writing. Note that Vary doesn't claim that studios are consulting with toxic fans; he instead introduces a new (for his article) term: "superfans." Is he saying that superfans are toxic by definition? Or is he trying to make it seem as though studios are giving toxic fans influence, and deliberately using misleading language to create that impression? Is he a bad writer, or a lying one? (And if studios are indeed consulting with non-toxic "superfans" about marketing... is that supposed to be a bad thing?)
“They’re very vocal,” says the studio exec. “They will just tell us, ‘If you do that, fans are going to retaliate.’”
What are consultants supposed to do, if not consult?
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.”
This is a meaningless statement: any unfinished movie, by definition, can be changed. As Owain Taggart noted, the Sonic movie redesigned the character after a public backlash, the movie ended up becoming a big hit, and virtually nobody said the change was for the worse. Again, observe how Vary is implying that toxic fans have led studios to change movies for the worse, but he doesn't actually say that, much less cite a single example of it. Here's the very next paragraph:
Several studio insiders say they often put their talent through a social media boot camp; in some cases, when a character is intentionally challenging a franchise’s status quo, studios will, with the actor’s permission, take over their social media accounts entirely. When things get really bad — especially involving threats of violence — security firms will scrub talent information from the internet to protect them from doxxing.
Again: zero evidence that studios are changing the art itself due to toxic fans.
Later that year, the cast of “The Rings of Power” condemned “the relentless racism, threats, harassment, and abuse some of our castmates of color are being subjected to on a daily basis,” and actors from the “Lord of the Rings” film trilogy posted photos of themselves wearing clothing featuring the ears of Middle-earth creatures in multiple skin tones underneath the message “you are all welcome here” written in Elvish. Those efforts may have had an effect. In an August interview with Amazon MGM Studios TV chief Vernon Sanders about “The Rings of Power,” the executive said the show hadn’t experienced the same racist hostility in advance of Season 2 that had greeted its 2022 debut.
The verb "may" is doing heavy lifting here. Sure, maybe the toxic a-holes in question were effectively shamed by the actors' solidarity. Or it "may" be that they just got bored, or moved on to new targets, or something else. But offering one single explanation for a result, without any direct evidence, isn't quality journalism; it's mere guesswork.
There is one other way to handle toxic fans on the internet: Stay off it. “I’m not online, so I’m protected,” says frequent Marvel star Elizabeth Olsen (“WandaVision”). “Generally, it’s a lot of positive experiences of making kids happy. I ignore the other stuff.”
That's the closing paragraph. Everyone sing along this time: Vary still hasn't demonstrated that toxic fans have accomplished anything beyond some contemptible harassment.
Conclusion: a badly written article with a juicy headline, featuring anecdotes that jump all over the place, and filled with seemingly deliberately misleading insinuations. In other words: clickbait.
Last edited:
Wow, that's such a negative assessment I can't even tell if you're being ironic!
The rest of the article just describes the steps Hollywood is taking to try to cope with the problem. I couldn't spot any sign that the author thought hiring superfans to give feedback on marketing material is a bad thing, or that these fans are toxic.
This line establishes the problem. Movies and TV shows rely a lot on word of mouth. People know that Joker: Folie a Deux is bad because people told them it was, as most haven't gone to see it themselves. My friend and I both skipped The Acolyte because of the negative hype and bad IMDb scores, even though we'd seen every other live action Star Wars series.
The rest of the article just describes the steps Hollywood is taking to try to cope with the problem. I couldn't spot any sign that the author thought hiring superfans to give feedback on marketing material is a bad thing, or that these fans are toxic.
I didn't say Vary failed to show that toxic fans could be a problem, and yes, driving away potential viewers could hypothetically accomplish just that. But it would take significant research and evidence to demonstrate that toxic fans have ever had such an effect, and, even if people were to tell a researcher or journalist that watching a toxic fan video or reading a toxic tweet dissuaded them from seeing something, one could never really know if they would indeed have done so. For example, maybe a toxic fan's argument would include a non-toxic element of criticism that the potential viewer would have heard from a more even-handed source elsewhere.
It's a truism of Hollywood that most movies and TV shows lose money. Without specific and credible evidence, of which Vary offers zero, blaming toxic fans generally for any given project's failure is wild guesswork at best and madness at worst.
Few who exercise (what one would assume is) the natural power of forming their own opinions, needing no validation, support or following a particular group view bases their entertainment choices on RT , IMDB, or similar services.
It appears Vary knew there is no way to prove the power of toxic fandom to the level constantly alleged in the article, and I do not believe that was Vary's intent. The article engages in the current era of media fearmongering as a way of silencing anyone remotely not on the cheerleading side of their products and messages.
Instead of looking into the many motives for criticism, and separate honest audience rejection from those with negative sociopolitical agendas (e.g., some of the YouTube channels i've pointed out in this thread), you get sweeping, suggestive articles attempting to shut down all criticism as toxic. The Varys of the world (rather, the media companies they're mouthpiece-ing for) will not take the first step of any business: look within--the "why" some audiences were pointing out issues, instead of assuming the customer is wrong, or fueled by a subversive agenda.
Last edited:
The hive mind has spoken.
Nobody complains about "the hive mind" when word of mouth is good, just saying.
Well, if the majority agrees then why think for yourself?
Last edited:
If everyone in my household says the milk is sour I don't insist on taking a sip myself. I guess I'm a slave to the hive mind that way.
False equivalency unless you and your family have the exact same tastes in media.
I certainly remember when the hive mind blasted RETURN TO OZ left and right and only Harlan Ellison seemed to sense the truth at the time.
It's not an equivalency, it's an analogy. And the main point, obviously, is that fans don't owe corporations the time and money to watch every TV show and movie they release.
Analogy is flawed.
And no company is owed anything by audiences and vice versa, other than an entertaining product. Which will vary from person to person to define both entertainment and value
It was a hyperbolic analogy, obviously made to counter Set Harth's priggish and unpleasant remark.
Agreed. So, do you have anything of substance to contribute to the discussion, or are you just typing sentences for the sake of it?
Last edited:
The way I see it, the issue has so many variables. In the age of streaming, studios expect instant results, and I feel they give up on them way too quickly these days, for example Netflix's recent move to cancel Kaos. At the same time, when shows are not worth the time, it almost never fails that a studio will blame toxic fans for its failure. In that sense, it feels like Vary is part of the problem. A show can't seem to simply be bad anymore, it has to be the fault of some group, which from a viewer's standpoint is just so frustrating to hear.
It reminds me of all the finger pointing by the producers that was going on with The Witcher after Henry Cavill's fandom had apparently gotten in the way of their own agenda. What should have been seen as a positive with Cavill's alliegance to the source material as a potential ally, the producers instead saw it as an obstacle, and we'll always have the he said/she said aspect of it, but it's pretty clear he was forced out, and that to me has it looking like the producers were the toxic ones. And nobody wins. I was watching a recent interview with Liam Helmsworth promoting him in his takeover of the role, and I was feeling bad for him for what he stepped into.
It reminds me of all the finger pointing by the producers that was going on with The Witcher after Henry Cavill's fandom had apparently gotten in the way of their own agenda. What should have been seen as a positive with Cavill's alliegance to the source material as a potential ally, the producers instead saw it as an obstacle, and we'll always have the he said/she said aspect of it, but it's pretty clear he was forced out, and that to me has it looking like the producers were the toxic ones. And nobody wins. I was watching a recent interview with Liam Helmsworth promoting him in his takeover of the role, and I was feeling bad for him for what he stepped into.
Exactly. In large part, it's an update of the stereotype of geeks being obese, unemployed losers. Given that geeks have been dominant in tech fields for several decades, the stereotype isn't very effective anymore, so it gets updated to "geeks are toxic, misogynist racists." Such people do exist, but stereotypes, by definition, punch down.
Variety is the entertainment industry's chief newspaper; it should be challenging the powerful as well as the toxic powerless. Does anyone remember this pre-premiere reporting on The Acolyte?
"Leslye said it was Frozen meets Kill Bill in Star Wars," producer Rayne Roberts tells SFX magazine in the new issue, which features Doctor Who on the cover. "It immediately communicated a kind of emotional entanglement and also high-octane action. It was like, 'I think I understand what that is,' and it started a conversation that led to me elevating her pitch, ultimately up to Kathy [Kennedy, Lucasfilm president]. Leslye is an amazing storyteller and when she finally pitched Kathy, everyone was crying. It was that kind of meeting."
Then there's this NYT quote:
The Lucasfilm boss made one important note after reading initial drafts of The Acolyte in 2019. “You’ve written a great Star Wars show,” Kennedy said to Headland. “Now go write a Leslye Headland show.”
So, now that the first season is fully released, a good reporter would ask Lucasfilm leadership exactly what about the season's scripts they considered "great," and what parts of the pitch made them cry. They would then contact non-toxic fans, or even just quote reactions/reviews from non-toxic fans about the frustrations they had with the show, and how the general fandom didn't seem too interested in yet another story about how the Jedi fundamentally suck.
They would then ask the Lucasfilm officials follow-up questions, such as: did the series reflect the quality of the scripts? If not, what went wrong? And, if it did, was the series irresponsibly over-budgeted, or are they out of touch with the fandom, or both?
But, a story like that might piss insiders off, and they might even accuse the writer of promoting a toxic agenda. Much safer to overhype toxic YouTube personalities into powerful players that successfully wreck any shows or movies featuring anything other than white men (and some of the ones that do, too), and to use misleading/manipulative writing as evidence of their power. Great job, Vary.
And I really wish it would stop, as all they're doing in the end, is driving away their fans, which seems to be even more important in light of the streaming model. And it appears to be cyclical. Blame your audience, the audience leaves and you have nothing left. It's not the audience's fault for your shortcomings and only creates hostility. And I feel audiences will remember who to trust with their entertainment and take it elsewhere.
Honestly, it's starting to remind me a bit of patrons in art history, who had to be satisfied for a particular project to go forward. Instead, now it's companies deciding they need to appeal to a select number of groups who will be considered the "bad guy" in case of a failure.
Which, honestly, is usually how art goes. I think it was the Eargon (sp?) adaptation and the author flipped out on the audience members over the low box office.
You have so many different interest groups now, and so much money on the line that I feel like the blame game is inevitable. Which is why I don't agree with "the majority is right" type thinking because it assumes that all audience members will respond the same, and I think that's a dangerous assumption for studios because that leads to less innovation and more repetitive storytelling.
I feel like a lot of you are embarrassing yourselves even debating the topic. People like or don't like something, passionately even. Who cares about getting worked up over someone's opinion on a Tv show lol. There's nothing wrong with having personal standards or not liking something.
Similar threads
