Fandom is so toxic right now

[Owain Taggart]

Let's face it. It wasn't just people being unwilling to accept a new show. Objectively speaking, TNG simply wasn't that great when it first came out.

That's true, but it did eventually find its feet. But at first, many were outright rejecting it, and I think I remember reading about some of the actors receiving hate mail (one of the ways toxicity was spread around). Eventually and much later, I think it was starting with the 3rd season, the show started to become more embraced and that toxicity started to fade away. Point is, people were vocal even then.

 

[fireproof78]

Oh really? And making her wholly unsympathetic in the pilot aired on CBS had nothing to do with it?

What an odd thing to say. I certainly have seen people posting here that they like Michael and I completely sympathize with her.

 

[Kemaiku]

Yeah, but this place leans so far to the left it's a wonder it hasn't fallen over and broke its own neck by now.

Better than leaning even slightly right and trying to break everyone elses.

 

[Scout101]

Don't see it as a fandom problem, SOCIETY is pretty toxic right now in general...

 

[JD]

Oh really? And making her wholly unsympathetic in the pilot aired on CBS had nothing to do with it?

I didn't find her unsympathetic at all.

The problem is that, and I've said this before, but people now view casting as tantamount to appointing a political official. There is a sort of quota or score-card mentality being applied. Since so many existing IP characters are white males, this is seen as a "problem" that needs to be "solved", hence Idris Elba was at the top of the list of actors people in the UK wanted for James Bond and there was a rumor Michael B Jordon would become the next Superman. It's like, once you start the gender and race flip bandwagon (like female Starbuck in BSG) then it becomes a trend, and eventually that trend starts to feel like little more than a cheap marketing gimmick.

I don't know if I'd say it's a problem, but it's definitely something that I can understand wanting to change. I recognize that a lot of the older shows were made in a different time, with a different approach to which types of characters were focused on, but times have changed and that focus is being spread around a bit more now.
There is absoultely nothing wrong with deciding to recognize the second (or third or whatever) time around that there are a lot more than white men out in the world doing stuff.
I think it's nice to see that the people who make Star Trek, Star War, Lost in Space, Doctor Who, ect. are willing to acknowledge how things have changed since the franchises first started.

But no, since now women are the stars, and the casting decision alone is seen as a positive sign of cultural progress, some people MUST throw their arms around dreck like this and protect it tooth and claw.

Maybe that's because they're happy to be seeing people like them onscreen and they don't want to lose that.

There was far less controversy surrounding Wonder Woman because...it was a pretty good movie. * Gal Gadot being thin and flat-chested caused some initial uproar from the "manbabies" which then died down when they saw the actual movie and how she made the role her own. The main controversy over that wasn't the movie (aside from her shaven armpits) but the all-female screenings at the Alamo Drafthouse, which keeps fostering this us vs. them mentality of identity politics.

The fact that it is Wonder Woman makes it pretty clear what it was going to be, and I have a feeling most who the don't like that probably just avoided it.

 

[Anwar]

WW got less hate because WW is an Iconic character from the 40s and has had a fanbase long enough that the toxicity can be negated. Newer female heroines like Michael and Rey are wholly original characters created recently and thus don't have an old fanbase to protect them. That both are seen as "Usurpers" doesn't help.

 

[LJones41]

The problem is that, and I've said this before, but people now view casting as tantamount to appointing a political official. There is a sort of quota or score-card mentality being applied. Since so many existing IP characters are white males, this is seen as a "problem" that needs to be "solved", hence Idris Elba was at the top of the list of actors people in the UK wanted for James Bond and there was a rumor Michael B Jordon would become the next Superman. It's like, once you start the gender and race flip bandwagon (like female Starbuck in BSG) then it becomes a trend, and eventually that trend starts to feel like little more than a cheap marketing gimmick.

So what is Hollywood expected to do? Stick with white men? Why?

Newer female heroines like Michael and Rey are wholly original characters created recently and thus don't have an old fanbase to protect them. That both are seen as "Usurpers" doesn't help.

It's not their fault, nor the fault of their creators. If certain fans lack the tolerance to give characters like Michael and Rey a chance, it's on them.

 

[Jayson1]

Something else I was thinking about. Has their been any toxic reaction to any show or movie that was great? I've sort of noticed a great deal of complaints come from things were the end product is bad or on the fringes of being good. That's not to say sexism and racism doesn't get involved with some people because like I said bad to medicore female characters can get more critized than male characters who don't quite work. Which sort of plays into that idea of how a women has to work twice as hard to just be accepted. But this is why you don't hear a peep about "Wonder Women" or "Black Panther." I know the critics started to die down with Starbuck once that show established it's greatness. You could say the the complaints people make are often valid but not o the level people take it.
Also one thing I miss is how bitching and moaning about stuff was often the pass seen as funny because people didn't take themselves so serious. People had some perspective. Now though I think because of the internet people take what they now call virtual singling though in the pass it was called, playing to the crowd, people feel the need to somehow not just rant to get something out of their system or just have fun but now they feel a excessive need to win arguments. I also know that term was invented by those on the right but I also know the biggest joke is they are often just as guilty if not more so of doing that exact same thing. I noticed both sides kind of take terms the other side and use them. That's why you see those on the right sort of sounding like they on the left by using things like toxic,problematic,in the bubble in how they talk. Liberals then stole snowflake from them and also the reason we seem to change our name ever 5 years is because those on the right make it a slur. First we were radicals then liberals and then proggressives and now SJW's until someone gets scarred of it and creates something else.

Jason

 

[Jayson1]

So what is Hollywood expected to do? Stick with white men? Why?




It's not their fault, nor the fault of their creators. If certain fans lack the tolerance to give characters like Michael and Rey a chance, it's on them.

I think in the end it will all come down to creating not just new characters but new franchises. That goes though with most of the problems with movies and tv you see right now. You can't just recyle old stuff forever if you want to progress. Some of these things have basically been explored to death were you have nothing left to do with them like "Terminator" or in the case of Ocean's Eleven" that was never really good enough or interesting that we really need more of those movies. The first one was fine back in the 60's and that is where it should have ended. By the time you get to the 5th one you are at that point just polishing a old turd. They would have done way more better by taking that cast and put them in a new movie about stealing a alien spaceship or whatever that has no connection to the old movies.

Jason

 

[Steve Roby]

I’m 55 years old. I saw the original Ghostbusters during its theatrical run. I saw it on TV once or twice years ago, then recently watched it on DVD. It’s not the timeless classic everyone says it is. It’s good, but it’s got a lot of problems. The female reboot? I enjoyed it. It didn’t feel like something from 30+ years ago that I had to make a lot of allowances for. In a few years, I think any reasonably objective viewer will find the reboot a pretty good follow-up to a pretty good original.

And Burnham’s a great character, Discovery is pretty good, fandom has always been toxic (dig up a copy of Harlan Ellison’s article Xenogenesis or just mention Ellison’s name and watch the fireworks), and sometimes bigoted assholes really are bigoted assholes.

 

[XCV330]

What an odd thing to say. I certainly have seen people posting here that they like Michael and I completely sympathize with her.

I can't help but think that if Michael Burnham's actress had looked different in several key ways and thus had several behavioral expectations replaced with others on her characters by some viewers, she would have been suddenly far more sympathetic.

I don't expect everyone will agree with it, but thats what I think. In short, if she'd been white or asian, she'd been pulling the heart strings. But she wasn't, so she already had people apprehensive of her and drawing out her character in their minds before SMG had had a chance. My only problem with Burnham's character was the sermonizing at the final episode (which compounded the monologuing they'd already given her) , but i thought it was the weakest of the season, period. I like flawed characters. I like redemption arcs.

 

[Nerys Myk]

My only problem with Burnham's character was the sermonizing at the final episode (which compounded the monologuing they'd already given her) , but i thought it was the weakest of the season, period. I like flawed characters. I like redemption arcs.

All the best characters sermonize! Where would we be without Kirk and Picard sermonizing!!!! She's in good company.

 

[Jayson1]

I can't help but think that if Michael Burnham's actress had looked different in several key ways and thus had several behavioral expectations replaced with others on her characters by some viewers, she would have been suddenly far more sympathetic.

I don't expect everyone will agree with it, but thats what I think. In short, if she'd been white or asian, she'd been pulling the heart strings. But she wasn't, so she already had people apprehensive of her and drawing out her character in their minds before SMG had had a chance. My only problem with Burnham's character was the sermonizing at the final episode (which compounded the monologuing they'd already given her) , but i thought it was the weakest of the season, period. I like flawed characters. I like redemption arcs.

I think she has several problems. One she wasn't Rosario Dawson or even a big name. I don't think anyone who watched her on "Walking Dead" ever felt like she was so great that it was just a matter of time before she gets a bigger role. The writing for her was uneven. The speeches never feel as deep as they think they are. She has no sense of humor. I mean in the end she is just kind of bland. A cookie cutter action lead that it feels like we have seen a million times without that one twist or quirk that makes her standout from that cliche.Kirk had the bigger than life persona,Buffy had the teenage angst,Crighton could be kind of crazy,Arrow is basically Batman,The Flash has the kindness,Black Lighting is a middle aged adult and so forth and so forth. What really seperates her from the great's? What is the one thing you see in Burnham that you feel you can't get out of any other character or actor? To me this why Stammets,Lorca and Tilly are great. While you feel like you have seen these type of characters before it also feels like the actors bring something to the table that feels unique.

Jason

 

[JirinPanthosa]

You know what, if there are women being given roles just because they are women, maybe it counters 1% of the last 100 years of men getting that privilege.

Most of the time if a woman is cast it’s just because that’s what the writer envisioned.

I don’t think most of the Michael backlash is because she’s a woman though. Some of it maybe. But I genuinely think fans would be equally hostile to any character who isn’t precisely what they wanted.

I like Michael, I think the problems with the show have more to do with questionable story direction.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

I just dismiss ‘SJW’ as a poor, obviously transparent ad hominem debate topic.

‘I know I am on the weak side of this argument so instead of arguing the point I will mock your motives for disagreeing with me’.

In other words, an open declaration of weakness.

 

[Jayson1]

You know what, if there are women being given roles just because they are women, maybe it counters 1% of the last 100 years of men getting that privilege.

Most of the time if a woman is cast it’s just because that’s what the writer envisioned.

I don’t think most of the Michael backlash is because she’s a woman though. Some of it maybe. But I genuinely think fans would be equally hostile to any character who isn’t precisely what they wanted.

I like Michael, I think the problems with the show have more to do with questionable story direction.

Well when you have diversity it means both men and women gets jobs for being men and women. I mean you can't have diversity if you don't go into something with the idea that you want at least a certain number of people to be one gender. It usually works out. Diversity is working. Still like always your going to have crappy shows and movies and great ones. Diversity doesn't change that.

Jason

 

[Anwar]

Like I said, Michael gets more s*** for being an original character as opposed to one that's been around a long time. And she gets s*** for being inserted into Spock's family history as the adopted sister he never said he had before and for all the other stuff she's involved in (having part of Sarek's soul and all that stuff) and abilities that other humans don't have.

Spock fulfills a lot of the Gary Stu requirements too, but since he was there from the start and he's a guy no one minded.

 

[CorporalClegg]

All the best characters sermonize! Where would we be without Kirk and Picard sermonizing!!!! She's in good company.

But they're white men. It doesn't count.

 

[Turtletrekker]

Speechifying is what Starfleet does best.

 

[XCV330]

I think she has several problems. One she wasn't Rosario Dawson or even a big name. I don't think anyone who watched her on "Walking Dead" ever felt like she was so great that it was just a matter of time before she gets a bigger role. The writing for her was uneven. The speeches never feel as deep as they think they are. She has no sense of humor. I mean in the end she is just kind of bland. A cookie cutter action lead that it feels like we have seen a million times without that one twist or quirk that makes her standout from that cliche.Kirk had the bigger than life persona,Buffy had the teenage angst,Crighton could be kind of crazy,Arrow is basically Batman,The Flash has the kindness,Black Lighting is a middle aged adult and so forth and so forth. What really seperates her from the great's? What is the one thing you see in Burnham that you feel you can't get out of any other character or actor? To me this why Stammets,Lorca and Tilly are great. While you feel like you have seen these type of characters before it also feels like the actors bring something to the table that feels unique.

Jason

I actually really liked the Sasha character on Walking Dead. They continually loose characters but I was about done with the show when the wroute out her brother, and then later her.

I agree that more humor would help the series out, but I have a feeling we're about to get that.