Dear God no. Just like customers aren't.
Are fans actually usually right?
- Thread starter suarezguy
- Start date
Except those intellectuals who can't make up their minds about something before they've spent a wad of cash thinking they're better than those that can.
You know, at first glance, this looks like another one of those threads that seem like something but is really nothing, because the subject is purely subjective. But, I’ll play.
I’m of the opinion that genre fans have maybe never been more full of crap as they are these days. Website forums have created a juggernaut of hive mind thinking that seeps out to the public through sites like Rotten Tomatoes. And that hive mind thinking is applied in different, and mostly negative, negative ways.
Before Batman Begind primiered, fan had already decided the movie was going to be great, apparently, because they liked Chris Nolan so much, and because they hated Batman and Robin. BB was a colossal bore, relying on one of the most tepid villains, ever., and a shockingly bad lead performance by an otherwise great actor.. But the hive mind decided before many had even seen it, that BB was great. Similarly, fans decided that they didn’t like Captain Marvel before it was released, because the movie’s star said some things about white men they didn’t like. The hive mind decided that you should see Alita Battle Angel instead. These two movies were quite comparable, though I give a slight edge to Captain Marvel, but the hive mind would have had us believe Zaptain Marvel was objectively unwatchable.
I read and article today in Inverse about the Stae Wars prequel trilogy. The article took opinions from a Reddit forum. It was the usual complaints, midiclorians, Annikin’s love talk, etc, but some complained about the CGI. In AotC. It didn’t look “real” enough. It didn’t look like there was a real tiny green alien who was an expert swordsman.
Fans have never been as ridiculously nit picky and we’ve never had as undeservedly highof an opinion of ourselves. .
I’m of the opinion that genre fans have maybe never been more full of crap as they are these days. Website forums have created a juggernaut of hive mind thinking that seeps out to the public through sites like Rotten Tomatoes. And that hive mind thinking is applied in different, and mostly negative, negative ways.
Before Batman Begind primiered, fan had already decided the movie was going to be great, apparently, because they liked Chris Nolan so much, and because they hated Batman and Robin. BB was a colossal bore, relying on one of the most tepid villains, ever., and a shockingly bad lead performance by an otherwise great actor.. But the hive mind decided before many had even seen it, that BB was great. Similarly, fans decided that they didn’t like Captain Marvel before it was released, because the movie’s star said some things about white men they didn’t like. The hive mind decided that you should see Alita Battle Angel instead. These two movies were quite comparable, though I give a slight edge to Captain Marvel, but the hive mind would have had us believe Zaptain Marvel was objectively unwatchable.
I read and article today in Inverse about the Stae Wars prequel trilogy. The article took opinions from a Reddit forum. It was the usual complaints, midiclorians, Annikin’s love talk, etc, but some complained about the CGI. In AotC. It didn’t look “real” enough. It didn’t look like there was a real tiny green alien who was an expert swordsman.
Fans have never been as ridiculously nit picky and we’ve never had as undeservedly highof an opinion of ourselves. .
Fans are right—for themselves. As gatekeeping arbiters of what any particular iteration of something “ought to be”? Not so much.
Dismissing something artistic without experiencing it? Sure. One has that right. Expecting such a dismissal to be granted respect and serious consideration? Again, not so much.
Dismissing something artistic without experiencing it? Sure. One has that right. Expecting such a dismissal to be granted respect and serious consideration? Again, not so much.
Jesus what a broken record.
Literally no one said you have to pay to see anything. There is a big difference between choosing not to watch and deciding that something you haven't seen is 'obviously' terrible. I had no confidence in Justice League, so I didn't pay to see it. Eventually I saw it anyway and only then did I make up my mind about how bad it actually was (it was very bad). I didn't (and wouldn't) pay to see Troop Zero or Howl's Moving Castle or the Farewell or Hamilton, either, yet when I eventually did see those I highly enjoyed them. And I still haven't and probably never will see Bloodsport or the F&F series, so I don't go around lecturing people on what is or isn't terrible about them. Because I have no actually reliable information on which to actually judge them. All I have is my personal level of interest, which is not a real judgement no matter how valid it is for me to be uninterested.
Last edited:
Bloodsport. That's a good one, and reminds me of my bias. I will probably watch the movie on Netflix at some point but I haven't mustered the interest yet. If there is an actor I don't like then that is a near guarantee I won't pay to watch the film. I don't like Vin Diesel. I have rarely watched a movie that he's in. There are a group of those types of tough guy actors that I refuse to watch. Schwarzenegger and Dwayne Johnson fell in that category for me for a long time. I only saw the original Terminator because it was playing on television and some friends were watching. I became a fan a the series and Cameron films in general. After that I watched him in a handful of other films that I wanted to see--but I have never paid to see a film just because he was in it.
On the other hand I watched the 90s Blade movie because I really liked Wesley Snipes and was surprised by how much I enjoyed.
On the other hand I watched the 90s Blade movie because I really liked Wesley Snipes and was surprised by how much I enjoyed.
'The customer's always right' is one of the biggest fallacies there is.
No they aren't. But I am.
Just take a look at what we would have if The Fans were calling the shots in some of our major franchises.
We'd have a Star Trek series set in the 25th century with Captain Worf in the lead. A season of 26 episodes which consist largely of standalone navel-gazing heavy-handed analogies that showcase hyper-advanced technology and always end on a positive message.
Or Star Wars movies centering around elderly Luke, Han and Leia still being action heroes despite their age and reenacting various EU novels.
Both options sound very terrible, but it's what The Fans want, so it must be worth pursuing, right? Of course not.
We'd have a Star Trek series set in the 25th century with Captain Worf in the lead. A season of 26 episodes which consist largely of standalone navel-gazing heavy-handed analogies that showcase hyper-advanced technology and always end on a positive message.
Or Star Wars movies centering around elderly Luke, Han and Leia still being action heroes despite their age and reenacting various EU novels.
Both options sound very terrible, but it's what The Fans want, so it must be worth pursuing, right? Of course not.
Even why I do give something a chance I actually do enjoy the rare times when the original actor/writer isn't supportive of, is dismissive of the new version (Gene Wilder of the new Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Alan Moore of V and Watchmen films) when someone worked on the original and therefore loved it would particularly be against a new version and yet that is rare.
It's true the film benefited from coming after and being very different from Batman & Robin, fans were very open to and wanting something very different after it, but I don't think that means they would have liked anything.
You don't think that common reactions to complaints are You can't complain if you don't watch it and/or Why would you watch it if you think you wouldn't like it? so that discussion should be just, or mostly, appreciation threads?
If you watched other movies from the directors or actors and they were terrible that's not direct but that is pretty big indication rather than nothing. Let alone hating a sequel to a film you hated that comes from the same writers, director, actor doing the same characters.
Standalone episodes and/or unsubtle analogies are not terrible and I don't think the TNG fans want or expect constant positivity. Picard making some people think a show having mostly standalone episodes is terrible is a pretty direct example of a sequel hurting its predecessor.
Anyone who says "the fans think" or "the fans want" is lying to make their own opinion sound more important, or just delusional. There is no fannish consensus on anything, including who counts as a fan.
It's not meant to be logical or literal. It's meant to be guidance for providers of paid goods and services. "The Customer is Always Right" means "Do your best to satisfy people who give you money for stuff so that they'll keep giving you money for stuff." It's basic business sense.
Jesus what a broken record.
Literally no one said you have to pay to see anything. There is a big difference between choosing not to watch and deciding that something you haven't seen is 'obviously' terrible.
And what if I choose not to watch because I've decided it is obviously terrible? How does that hurt either you or the show?
Judgments based on your personal interest are quite real. What they're not are objective. News flash: They don't have to be. You have just as much right to voice an opinion of "obviously terrible" as any other. Voicing it and acting on it before seeing the full, finished project is neither illegal, immoral or fattening.
But this leads me to a question, and since you're smarter than me and not a broken record I think you're just the right person to enlighten me:
Tell me, what are trailers for?
See, silly me, I always thought the point of them was to entice you to watch a TV series or movie. Editors, directors and producers cut scenes out of the project and put them together in such a way as to give audiences an idea of what they'll be watching. After seeing the trailer, the potential viewer can say either "yay" or "nay," and in the olden days, "nay" sayers were perfectly free to walk away without being one of the audience, whether the show will eventually be available to view for free or not. However, if you and your allies are right, and your judgment is invalid until you're part of the audience, why are trailers necessary? You can't base any kind of decision on one because, again, invalid, and having a valid judgment requires patronizing every project announced just so you can discuss it with people later. Marvel Studios could announce a Willie Lumpkin series on Disney+ with just a blurb on a blog and, according to the valid judgment theory, you'd have to watch it before deciding if it's good or not. As I see it, adhering to that standard takes away a level of choice for fans and renders a vital marketing tool completely pointless.
But you go ahead, edumacate this old boomer how the standard makes sense for anybody besides film critics and film students. I humbly await your response.
Well said. If the individual don't like what is seen they have to right to express a dislike of it and also opt to not watch it ever again.
Similar threads
