The difference is you weren't branded a racist or misogynist for not liking Star Trek or Star Wars. Having labels hanged around your neck anytime you don't like something is in itself toxic. People just try to politicize/personalize everything.
Fandom is so toxic right now
- Thread starter Dave Scarpa
- Start date
The difference is you weren't branded a racist or misogynist for not liking Star Trek or Star Wars. Having labels hanged around your neck anytime you don't like something is in itself toxic. People just try to politicize/personalize everything.
Then how do you explain the backlash from TNG when it first started airing? To the tune of "It's not Shatner, it couldn't be Star Trek! A Bald Captain, no way, it won't fly, etc!" And there's more if we go back to the days of TOS with that multiracial kiss. And that was before the days of the Internet, before message boards like this one. Many articles sent to newspapers voicing displeasure. Just because we didn't immediately experience it doesn't mean it wasn't there. It was just represented in different forms. It's not a modern phenomenon at all.
SF fandom goes back to the Brass Tacks section of Astounding Magazine in the early 1930s. the first sciece fiction clubs like the Futurians formed from corresponding through it.
THere was negativity back then no doubt, but i doubt anything like now.
Or when Patrick Troughton replaced William Hartnell. Or Tom Baker replaced Jon Pertwee. Or Peter "He's too young!" Davison replaced Tom "irreplaceable" Baker. Or Colin Baker and Sylvester McCoy in general. Nothing new.
'Misery loves company', this saying exists for a reason
Well yeah. That's part of my point, that the internet has made it easier to get those minority voices out there. Now it's amplified.
Remember the inverse square law of reasonableness.
frequency(posts) = 1/reasonableness^2
The people who post the most are the least reasonable and thus takes up a disproportionately high share of the attention.
frequency(posts) = 1/reasonableness^2
The people who post the most are the least reasonable and thus takes up a disproportionately high share of the attention.
This.
I don't think that is how most define the word but maybe it should be. I think exageration is seen as toxic now because it comes off as someone taking something to serious. In fact I would argue the word "toxic fandom" is kind of toxic. In the past people called those type of people, stalkers or creeps or racist or sexist but you didn't sort of broaden the label. More about thinking of each creep as a individual and less of being part of some group think. What Billy the Creep is doing as opposed to Tommy the racist were kind of the same but now it's made to think like these people are coordinating their bad behavior together which makes the issue feel bigger and more of a problem when in reality their has always been assholes and their always will be.
They didn't represent anything really other than themselves. Just because people have similiar idea's doesn't mean they are the same. You can even have people who are decent for the most part but have this one negative aspect to them. You got to remind yourself these are human beings so they aren't really all that different from the so called good people for the most part. I mean I would argue we have all been part of the problem at various points in our life. Just insulting people even they deserve it is kind of part of the problem because it just keeps the cycle of hate going and it sends the message that you can never trust the other side because they are filled with hatred for you. Granted most don't see the double standard in themselves that they behave the same so it's kind of important IMO to try and rise above their natural instincts to tell someone to fuck off just because the other person does. Me I think it's better to simply take the more diplomatic way of telling someone you don't agree with them or you don't want anything to do with them. Might not feel as good but it does sort of calm a situation down IMO.
Jason
I feel like I might have the most unbiased view on that movie than maybe anyone. I have mentioned this before but I was away from the internet for about 4 to 6 years. I had no idea things had gotten so bad and I didn't even know their was a backlash to the movie so when I watched it I didn't have tons of internet bickering sort of making me think one way or the other. I was actually excited to see the movie because I really liked the cast. The cast is almost equal to the first and only reason it isn't fully equal is you just can't match Bill Murray. Then I watched it was bored. Really bored and I felt the cast was wasted. I went in not just wanting the movie to be good but expecting it to be good and it failed.
Jason
That's funny, I just got told that never happens just yesterday in another thread.
Is that why you post so much?
Fair enough. Bill Murray is a one of a kind. He is so good in Groundhog Day.
Not only that but this was Bill Murray in his prime at his most Bill Murrayness. He is still great today but he does seem to be a little more refined and not so outrageous anymore. Wes Anderson has changed the way we think of him.
Jason
That is so true. Great quote. Sometimes we just have to shrug our shoulders and say, "Hey you know what? It's just a franchise. No need to get so angry about it."
See, I guess they were already fighting an uphill battle right there. Gotta match curmudgeon with curmudgeon. He embodies it so well
That is so true. Great quote. Sometimes we just have to shrug our shoulders and say, "Hey you know what? It's just a franchise. No need to get so angry about it."
See, I guess they were already fighting an uphill battle right there. Gotta match curmudgeon with curmudgeon. He embodies it so well
Honest Trailers kind of made fun of this. They made a point were each character was trying to hard to be the Venkman of the group. The movie also uses to much of that modern comedy style which can be hit and miss were you don't really have a sound story or script so you can tell they are just letting the actors riff and then insert what they feel is the best jokes. For all we know their might be tons of funny jokes that simply didn't make the cut.
Jason
That fanedit was complete satire, removing over the top things that no one complained about and doing an across the board female cut to satirize the ridiculousness of the whole thing........... you know, mocking the people that accuse us of not liking something for one reason, while ignoring all of the entirely plausible reasons given. It was a giant troll job, not a serious attempt at a fanedit with a reason.
I didn't know that. Granted if it's satire then I don't know if that even counts as trolling. Was he making fun of the over-the-top reactions male fans had with seeing female characters in strong positions or the expected liberal backlash such a film would have or both? I never had any desire to see it when I thought it was sexism but now I am kind of curious. Sounds like it could be funny. Surprised we don't see more fan-edits like that. What if you edited every "Star Wars" by removing the John WIlliams score. Then add modern pop music in it's place.
Jason
Similar threads
