Why is toxic fandom destroying everything?

[Commander Troi]

Vary still hasn't demonstrated that toxic fans have accomplished anything beyond some contemptible harassment.

To me, that "contemptible harassment" is enough. How many actors are going to turn down roles because they don't want to deal with the loud racism and misogyny of the few? How many studio execs are going to "dumb down" or never even greenlight things for fear of "the fans"? It doesn't matter if they've actually changed anything at this point - it's the chilling effect.

 

[Set Harth]

And, if it did, was the series irresponsibly over-budgeted

Nah.

What I don't want to see is them trying to do something like this on a shoestring budget. Star Wars should look and feel like Star Wars ( side-eye to Skeleton Crew ), and that's going to cost money.

And I feel like on some level they need to get past this notion that viewership figures are a sufficient proxy for box office.

 

[Dukhat]

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.

Funny; I don't feel embarrassed.

 

[Gaith]

To me, that "contemptible harassment" is enough. How many actors are going to turn down roles because they don't want to deal with the loud racism and misogyny of the few? How many studio execs are going to "dumb down" or never even greenlight things for fear of "the fans"? It doesn't matter if they've actually changed anything at this point - it's the chilling effect.

I respect your concern, but:

1) Franchise projects aren't going away. Period.
2) Studios aren't going to stop hiring non-male, non-white people, because white males are less than a third of this country's population alone, not to mention other markets. And, given the choice between never getting toxic attacks on social media, or taking lucrative, high-profile jobs and either not being on social media, or hiring a low-wage intern to filter out the crap, there will always be artists willing and even happy to take the second option. Always.
3) Saying "it doesn't matter if [toxic fans have] actually changed anything at this point - it's the chilling effect" also creates a chilling effect in which any criticism of diverse entertainment is basically inextricable with toxicity.

 

[Owain Taggart]

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.

Agreed, and good points. I just think studios need to take a step back sometimes and avoid pointing fingers. It's just not a good look. And as a casual viewer, what I see is hostility and I'm less likely to watch because the vibe I get turns me off.

 

[JD]

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.

As someone who regularly uses Metacritic, IMDB score, and Amazon reviews to decide on my entertainment choices, I'm honestly not sure how to take this. My money is limited, and I tend to be very picky about what I spend it on, so I when something comes out that I'm moderately interested in, the scores it has on the sites I mentioned will often be the deciding factor on whether or not I'm going to spend my money to watch, read or play it. If it's something but really want to see I don't care about reviews, but if I'm on the fence, they will decide which side of the fence I land on.

 

[theenglish]

Nobody complains about "the hive mind" when word of mouth is good, just saying.

I do. The lemmings.

 

[Tosk]

What I don't want to see is them trying to do something like this on a shoestring budget.

The funny things is Acolyte and Andor cost approximately the same per episode. One of them looks amazing, and the other looks fairly cheap by comparison.

 

[fireproof78]

As someone who regularly uses Metacritic, IMDB score, and Amazon reviews to decide on my entertainment choices, I'm honestly not sure how to take this. My money is limited, and I tend to be very picky about what I spend it on, so I when something comes out that I'm moderately interested in, the scores it has on the sites I mentioned will often be the deciding factor on whether or not I'm going to spend my money to watch, read or play it. If it's something but really want to see I don't care about reviews, but if I'm on the fence, they will decide which side of the fence I land on.

I think for people who are looking for recommendations then ratings can be helpful as part of the research process. I think some who consume media just need that when money is tight. I certainly don't mind using them occasionally if there is a film I'm uncertain about.

But, at least online, the ratings are usually used as ammo in the discussions, either for or against. And that's the more frustrating part in that the numbers are not actually to illustrate how a viewer feels on a project but just to build up their position.

That's the hive mind mentality I object to; I don't care about numbers in a discussion. Articulate why you like something or not and move on based on actual experience of watching the project. And that's why I have concerns over the fan focus groups: not everyone who comments knows the product. It's appealing to a check box mentality that I think is completely problematic for art creation.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

3) Saying "it doesn't matter if [toxic fans have] actually changed anything at this point - it's the chilling effect" also creates a chilling effect in which any criticism of diverse entertainment is basically inextricable with toxicity.

Indeed. A recent example of this attempt (from some) to label all criticism of a production as the work of toxic fandom centered on The Marvels; while there's no doubt the usual, agenda-driven propagandists made their opinion known about the film, there's no evidence they had influence over millions of moviegoers, or enough to lead to the box office failure of the film. Of course, that last point will always be ignored in favor of the desire to silence any opinion about apparently untouchable media.

 

[JD]

It's definitely not the only reason movies like The Marvels have bombed, but I do think there's a chance it could have a small impact. People who aren't really up on exactly what's going could just hear that there's a lot of negativity around the movie, and decide it must be bad and not go see it. And of course their attitude will influence the people who feel the same way they do, and our current political environment has shown there are obviously a lot more of those kind of people than a lot of us who don't feel that way would like to think.

I think for people who are looking for recommendations then ratings can be helpful as part of the research process. I think some who consume media just need that when money is tight. I certainly don't mind using them occasionally if there is a film I'm uncertain about.

But, at least online, the ratings are usually used as ammo in the discussions, either for or against. And that's the more frustrating part in that the numbers are not actually to illustrate how a viewer feels on a project but just to build up their position.

That's the hive mind mentality I object to; I don't care about numbers in a discussion. Articulate why you like something or not and move on based on actual experience of watching the project. And that's why I have concerns over the fan focus groups: not everyone who comments knows the product. It's appealing to a check box mentality that I think is completely problematic for art creation.

I get that.

 

[Owain Taggart]

Indeed. A recent example of this attempt (from some) to label all criticism of a production as the work of toxic fandom centered on The Marvels; while there's no doubt the usual, agenda-driven propagandists made their opinion known about the film, there's no evidence they had influence over millions of moviegoers, or enough to lead to the box office failure of the film. Of course, that last point will always be ignored in favor of the desire to silence any opinion about apparently untouchable media.

Yep, and honestly, from someone who's never been invested in all that, all I see from the sidelines is the fighting from both sides, and I feel like those in the production are just as bad as those they blame, because in the end, they're all knee-jerk reactions partaking in the toxicity. And because a production is then amped up from all this, they'll never open themselves to constructive criticism, and I feel that's a big problem in the industry right now. I get it, they get lots of frustration, but social media has also made them more visible and more vulnerable and I think it's something that needs to get looked at and be dealt with among companies.

 

[JD]

I think the biggest example of people behind a movie claiming everybody who didn't like a movie was sexist was the Paul Feig Ghostbusters. I know a lot of people had a lot of issues with the movie that had nothing to do with the cast, but I believe Feig and possibly a few of the other people involved, wrote off everybody who had problems sexists who shouldn't be taken seriously.
I will confess I've never actually seen that one, even though I'm a huge fan of the rest of the franchise, the trailers just really didn't do anything for me, and I have no problem with female team. I was actually looking forward to it when I first heard about it, until the trailers killed any interest I had in it.
I will confess though, I am a little confused by why The Marvels bombed so hard. The first one was a huge hit, and it had almost universally good word of mouth, and it seemed to be promoted pretty heavily.

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

I will confess though, I am a little confused by why The Marvels bombed so hard. The first one was a huge hit, and it had almost universally good word of mouth, and it seemed to be promoted pretty heavily.

I think it's a combination of things. A run of disappointing films after Endgame dampening people's enthusiasm, the Disney+ series breaking the 'You have to watch it all!' mindset of fans who were now more selective about what they watched, disappointing reviews, and so on. It seemed like a very skippable movie, starring two characters from TV series a lot of people had already skipped (and one from a series they were about to skip), and honestly it wasn't that good. It had some nice moments but there really wasn't enough to the story to get people coming back and telling their friends. I mean it was 30 minutes shorter than the average Marvel film, and it felt like the editors had attacked it with axes and hacksaws.

 

[USS Firefly]

I think the biggest example of people behind a movie claiming everybody who didn't like a movie was sexist was the Paul Feig Ghostbustets. I know a lot of people had a lot of issues with the movie that had nothing to do with the cast, but I believe Feig and possibly a few of the other people involved, wrote off everybody who had problems sexists who shouldn't be taken seriously.
I will confess I've never actually seen that one, even though I'm a huge fan of the rest of the franchise, the trailers just really didn't do anything for me, and I have no problem with female team. I was actually looking forward to it when I first heard about it, until the trailers killed any interest I had in it.
I will confess though, I am a little confused by why The Marvels bombed so hard. The first one was a huge hit, and it had almost universally good word of mouth, and it seemed to be promoted pretty heavily.

I am a Ghostbusters fan, but my wife and I found Paul Feig Ghostbusters just terrible, we quite watching it after about 45 minutes.

 

[Anwar]

I will confess though, I am a little confused by why The Marvels bombed so hard. The first one was a huge hit, and it had almost universally good word of mouth, and it seemed to be promoted pretty heavily.

1) Muslim Main Character
2) No marketing and no promotions due to the Strikes
3) People assumed you needed to see the D+ shows to get the movie, you didn't.

Off the top of my head

 

[Forbin]

1) Muslim Main Character

OMG I love that kid! She's an awesome, amiable, natural, wonderful young actress. I'm fairly conservative (if that's your metric), but I enjoyed the hell out of the Ms Marvel series. I enjoyed the movie too, tho I wouldn't put it in the top 10.

The lady Ghost Busters, on the other hand. Okay, I didn't see it because I'm not all that interested in the property, so lemme ask: was it a reboot or a sequel? 'Cause I'd have no philosophical objection to a sequel saying the GB organization just happens to be staffed by women at the moment. But I have HUGE problems with reboots that narratively wipe an original from existence and tell me this is the way it's always been, and hey, we're trying to prove some kind of point while we're at it.

 

[Owain Taggart]

I think the biggest example of people behind a movie claiming everybody who didn't like a movie was sexist was the Paul Feig Ghostbusters.

Yeah, that's been in the back of my mind all through this thread. It's the first example I can think of someone in the industry lashing out. It struck me as being very unprofessional. You know what it does when someone is on the fence? For me at least, it made me not want to see the movie.

 

[JD]

OMG I love that kid! She's an awesome, amiable, natural, wonderful young actress. I'm fairly conservative (if that's your metric), but I enjoyed the hell out of the Ms Marvel series. I enjoyed the movie too, tho I wouldn't put it in the top 10.

The lady Ghost Busters, on the other hand. Okay, I didn't see it because I'm not all that interested in the property, so lemme ask: was it a reboot or a sequel? 'Cause I'd have no philosophical objection to a sequel saying the GB organization just happens to be staffed by women at the moment. But I have HUGE problems with reboots that narratively wipe an original from existence and tell me this is the way it's always been, and hey, we're trying to prove some kind of point while we're at it.

I'm pretty sure it was reboot, the comics appeared to treat them being in a parallel universe, and I believe they had some of the original cast members in cameos as new characters.

I think it's a combination of things. A run of disappointing films after Endgame dampening people's enthusiasm, the Disney+ series breaking the 'You have to watch it all!' mindset of fans who were now more selective about what they watched, disappointing reviews, and so on. It seemed like a very skippable movie, starring two characters from TV series a lot of people had already skipped (and one from a series they were about to skip), and honestly it wasn't that good. It had some nice moments but there really wasn't enough to the story to get people coming back and telling their friends. I mean it was 30 minutes shorter than the average Marvel film, and it felt like the editors had attacked it with axes and hacksaws.

OK, I came into it as somebody who enjoyed the last few movies, and watched WandaVision and Ms. Marvel, so none of that occured to me.

1) Muslim Main Character

But she was one of 3 leads and I don't remember the marketing really emphasizing her being a Muslim enough for most people to even be aware of that.

2) No marketing and no promotions due to the Strikes

I know the cast couldn't promote it, but I still saw plenty of TV ads and trailers, and news site articles for it, so there was plenty of that stuff.
I know they

 

[Commander Troi]

I enjoyed The Marvels and the 2016 Ghostbusters. I can see why people didn't like the 2016 reboot, but The Marvels truly suffered from the strikes and inabilty to deploy the actors on talk shows.

However, don't fool yourselves that sexism and racism played no role. I saw too much ugliness online for both to think it had no effect.