Why is toxic fandom destroying everything?

[Owain Taggart]

I was wondering maybe there was some kind of racial thing behind erasing her eyes that I was not aware of, and that was what freaked her out so bad.

I dunno, but anyone could easily check and see that the poster or one similar to it was used for a long time.

I shouldn't say its a new thing: I still laugh at the IMDB review of Lord of the Rings that accused Tolkien of ripping of J.K. Rowling. There's a certain lack of awareness to media history that I think gets put on display when people go "this is the worst thing to be done in media history!" (fill in whatever example you want here).

Wow, that's the first time I've heard that one. If anything, Rowling was likely inspired by Tolkien. And didn't Tolkien write them in the 50's? Weird thing is, this being a generation that grew up via cell phones, all it takes is a quick check via Google.

 

[fireproof78]

Wow, that's the first time I've heard that one. If anything, Rowling was likely inspired by Tolkien. And didn't Tolkien write them in the 50's? Weird thing is, this being a generation that grew up via cell phones, all it takes is a quick check via Google.

People don't check; they assume.

 

[Owain Taggart]

and that co-incided with the Internet exploding out of its basal niche state

Well, I mean, it doesn't take a genius to realize that the internet made everyone more visible as a whole. Social Media, and Twitter in particular, gave people a direct line to say anything they want to accounts they follow. That combined with anonymity and nerdrage made many fans feel like they were on top of the world.

 

[Gaith]

I dunno, but anyone could easily check and see that the poster or one similar to it was used for a long time.

Her post acknowledged the similarity to the prior image.

I was wondering maybe there was some kind of racial thing behind erasing her eyes that I was not aware of, and that was what freaked her out so bad.

I certainly got that impression ("It degrades me/It degrades us" is heavily freighted language), but, in fairness to Erivo, her post doesn't appear to make it an explicitly racial issue. So, she could be having a simple bugnuts narcissistic freakout, and and not a bugnuts narcissistic freakout that contains an absurd allegation of racism.

Still, lashing out against fans for making an innocuous image before your movie even opens... Not a great plan.

 

[Owain Taggart]

Her post acknowledged the similarity to the prior image.

Did it? Then that's even less of an excuse.

People don't check; they assume.

Too true! And the person that made the poster was probably all proud of having made it and wanted to share it with those they thought would appreciate it. Imagine what that does to self-esteem when instead of praise, they got blowback from the actress. I think it's great work, personally, and it's the kind of thing that could get them into doing professional work if they don't already.

 

[theenglish]

Criticism of art is sometimes difficult to nail down. People don't see things the same way, don't connect with characters, don't agree with writing. And criticism is tough because we as people tend to take it very personally, and respond like we've been personally insulted.

And the ultimate purpose of a critic's job is not merely to give a thumbs up or down to a work; it is to place that work in cultural context and to provide an analysis of the movie by looking at writing, directing, acting, character development, and cinematography among other aspects of the work. The critic discusses where they feel the film got it right and where it misstepped. Even Gene and Roger knew that. And they also knew that disagreeing about a movie was not worth getting emotional about.

It used to be that I had a selection of critics or sources that I knew came to movies (books, or music) from different perspectives and tastes. I grew to know their viewpoints and found that I could pretty accurately judge whether I would like a movie from their views. I knew if they did not like aspects of a movie, whether or not I would--not based on whether I agreed with them, but based on what the reasons for their opinions were. Reviews can be insightful and meaningful even if the reader does not agree with their ultimate opinion.

I remember Roger Ebert writing negatively about certain aspects of The Fellowship of the Ring and knowing upon reading his review that I would not be bothered by what he didn't like.

 

[Owain Taggart]

And art by its very nature cannot exist in a vacuum. There will always be detractors to certain pieces of art, because it's human nature, and everyone has different ideas of what they consider to be 'good' pieces of art, or has their favourites. Nevertheless, people will talk about it, whether good or bad. I mean, look, anyone can put splotches of paint onto a canvas and call it art; doesn't mean we all understand it, and nobody is going to view it the same way. Some will love it, some will hate it. It could be the greatest painting in the world, and there will still be those who dislike it with a fiery passion. And course, sometimes artists are troubled souls.

 

[Set Harth]

I still laugh at the IMDB review of Lord of the Rings that accused Tolkien of ripping of J.K. Rowling.

When the title of the third Hobbit film was released, people implied they were ripping off Game of Thrones. ye gods...

And didn't Tolkien write them in the 50's?

Written starting in the late 30s and through the 40s, published in the 50s.

 

[Owain Taggart]

Written starting in the late 30s and through the 40s, published in the 50s.

Ok, interesting, so there might even be subtleties via the eras they were written in.

 

[Anwar]

He wrote the Hobbit in the 30s and then may have gotten the idea to write a "Proper Epic" afterwards or during the writing phase.

 

[Turtletrekker]

His greatest passion was the Silmarillion and he wanted to get that published more than any other project. The publisher wanted a sequel to The Hobbit. Even then, he tried to get the Silmarillion published as a companion piece.

 

[fireproof78]

He wrote the Hobbit in the 30s and then may have gotten the idea to write a "Proper Epic" afterwards or during the writing phase.

He did. He wanted to expand on the lore while weaving in his love of folk tales.

 

[The Lensman]

He did. He wanted to expand on the lore while weaving in his love of folk tales.

His passion was The Silmarillion, he used it as background in The Hobbit because it was easier than creating a new world. After The Hobbit’s success he pushed to get The Silmarillion published again but The Hobbit’s success put the kibosh on that as the publisher wanted more Hobbit’s. So he wrote LotR and officially set The Great Tales in the same world as “The First Age”, but initially they (The Hobbit and The Silmarillion) were not meant to be in the same world. Asimov did the same thing with his Foundation universe where the three books set before The Empire used some planet names (Trantor for one) with Asimov describing his usage of those names along the lines of a play re-using props for a different, unrelated play. Of course he would later change his mind when he later put a bunch of series in the same universe.

 

[Anwar]

So he wrote LotR and officially set The Great Tales in the same world as “The First Age”, but initially they (The Hobbit and The Silmarillion) were not meant to be in the same world.

That explains why the Hobbit mentions things like Electric Lamps, Policemen, the Giants not seen anywhere else and (I think?) Train Stations...and yet LOTR goes full on Medieval World.

 

[Turtletrekker]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Owain Taggart]

That explains why the Hobbit mentions things like Electric Lamps, Policemen, the Giants not seen anywhere else and (I think?) Train Stations...and yet LOTR goes full on Medieval World.

Fascinating. I wonder if they've visited platforms 9 and 3/4's Haha, I kid. But now the cycle is complete...

 

[Set Harth]

That explains why the Hobbit mentions things like Electric Lamps, Policemen, the Giants not seen anywhere else and (I think?) Train Stations...and yet LOTR goes full on Medieval World.

Were these things in the original text only? I'm pretty sure the only version I have is the one that was revised to bring it into accordance with LOTR.

 

[theenglish]

That explains why the Hobbit mentions things like Electric Lamps, Policemen, the Giants not seen anywhere else and (I think?) Train Stations...and yet LOTR goes full on Medieval World.

I've never seen that version of the text.

 

[Set Harth]

Excluding the giants of course.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Remember when it was revealed that Russian trolls were behind The Last Jedi's poor reception?