• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Why is toxic fandom destroying everything?

So create some female characters to suit your requirements. That's what I did when I started adapting games to prose in some of my writing projects. The source material was thin on female characters, so rather than genderswapping any of the male characters, I created some female characters and found reasons why they were "off-camera" during the canon events and could be present in the rest of the story.


'Subjective from series to series' is still avoiding an answer. You're saying it's valid to not want any genderswapped characters in one series, but invalid to object to genderswapping in another. IOW, it's "illegitimate" if someone else's opinion disagrees with yours, is what this looks like.



So why not just refer to the characters by the new names and not even mention the names from the original series? That would make them new characters and therefore wouldn't be a genderswap.

NuBSG by the end *strongly* implies that it is repeating history. So the names (and some events) are just this particular iterations versions of those characters. In much the same way that the whole thing pulled from our myths. A lot of people didn’t like the ending (it had a big huge dose of theology in their SF, which offended some — but is absolutely hilarious when you consider half the stuff in there, including the names.)
By the end, those basically aren’t genderflipped characters, they are just another moment on the turning wheel of history, where things subtly change as it repeats (basically by the hand of god, almost like an engineering experiment being run over and over, tweaking things until the desired result occurs)
 
Because this version of Batman was a guy at the absolute end of his rope, with Superman's presence basically breaking his worldview.

One of BvS' major throughlines is Bruce Wayne rediscovering what it means to be a hero, instead of a vigilante cop.

Snyder and DC do *superheroes* with the emphasis on the big, the mythic, the classical overtones. It differentiates from Marvel, who do *superhumans* with the emphasis on the smaller, flawed and human moments. (It’s basically exactly how Stan Lee always described his own intent to differentiate from DC way back when)
If people think of it that way, instead of wishing the DC films were just like the MCU films with different branding, it would lead to less keyboard Kombat.

People could still like or dislike them, but between that and basic understanding of adaptation (and repeated ones at that) would drain a lot of the toxic behaviour people get caught up in. (Along with this weird way that Snyder and DC are almost seen as right-wing and the MCU as left wing that seems to bubble under the surface of a lot of the discourse.)

It’s exactly the thing Watchmen was touching on too, with its deconstruction elements and what the reality of Demigods in a normal world would actually mean. The film has a better ending than the comics in some ways, or at least, one better suited to screen than a giant squid thing.
 
So create some female characters to suit your requirements. That's what I did when I started adapting games to prose in some of my writing projects. The source material was thin on female characters, so rather than genderswapping any of the male characters, I created some female characters and found reasons why they were "off-camera" during the canon events and could be present in the rest of the story.

This is exactly what a number of long running franchises have done. Doctor Who has done this by just altering the Doctor's regenerations. Star Wars added a number of new characters in recent movies, including more female leads and non-white males (which still received backlash amongst fans), Star Trek has been very good at creating diverse casts in its new series, and even Peter Jackson included greater roles for women when making his Tolkien movies.
 
I was agreeing with you on Dune btw. (We chatted about it before.)
As to extreme, I do not mean in a negative sense. It’s just further along the fan curve than is commonplace.
What’s the Who episode?

I don't have a problem with you re: Dune, as long as you grant that my views are valid.

The Who episode is "City of Death". It's a Fourth Doctor/Romana II story that takes place on location in Paris. I love that story, but there's at least one person who loathes it for reasons that don't make sense to me, but they make sense to him. Since he has a right to his opinions and hasn't been nasty to me about mine, we coexist on this issue. After all, there's a lot more about Classic Who that we do agree on.

This is exactly what a number of long running franchises have done. Doctor Who has done this by just altering the Doctor's regenerations. Star Wars added a number of new characters in recent movies, including more female leads and non-white males (which still received backlash amongst fans), Star Trek has been very good at creating diverse casts in its new series, and even Peter Jackson included greater roles for women when making his Tolkien movies.

I wouldn't know about recent Star Wars movies. I haven't watched any since Han was killed off. He was my favorite character, so I never saw the point of watching any others that followed.

New characters don't work, audiences hate them. So to avoid Forced White Male Supremacy, the writers can't make new characters and update outdated ones instead.

So they choose to genderswap characters, and apparently don't mind when some other people who were fans of the original hate the genderswapped versions. In the case of BSG, are you really going to tell me that audiences hated Sheba because she was a new character brought in to replace Serena (as a female warrior and new love interest for Apollo)?
 
So why not just refer to the characters by the new names and not even mention the names from the original series? That would make them new characters and therefore wouldn't be a genderswap.
I'm sure they didn't consider them to be entirely new characters, it's just that when you change their appearance, personality, backstory, how they interact with other characters, and their role in the story, and then give them another name as well... that's pretty much a different person.

New characters don't work, audiences hate them. So to avoid Forced White Male Supremacy, the writers can't make new characters and update outdated ones instead.
And audiences don't hate that?

Certain people are always going to be terrible about new characters, but they can work. People whined about Rose in Last Jedi, but Ahsoka won people over despite being Anakin's secret apprentice. Kamala Khan has been considered a highlight of the projects she's appeared in. Lower Decks isn't exactly a long running series, but everyone immediately loved T'Lyn when she was added to the crew.

People don't like being told the new person is better and more important than the characters they're already attached to, so trying to introduce a new Justice League-tier character is hard (especially if it's really blatant they're there to tick a diversity box). But every now and again someone says "I'm going to create another Spider-Man with the same hero name and even more powers" and then Into the Spider-Verse happens.
 
What I mean is, there's less room for newer characters in 'best famous super team' groups, because by their nature they should be the old established heroes, at least at first. So when a push for diversity leads to an unusual line up, it can be unwelcome even to those people who would normally appreciate it.
 
It was just a poor choice of words, IMO. Whether you meant it this way or not, "ticking a box" is a common way to speak dismissively and disparagingly of efforts to promote and enhance diversity, and for that reason -- much like using "woke" as a negative, or "SJW" as a pejorative -- tends to set off the bigot alarm.
 
It was just a poor choice of words, IMO. Whether you meant it this way or not, "ticking a box" is a common way to speak dismissively and disparagingly of efforts to promote and enhance diversity, and for that reason -- much like using "woke" as a negative, or "SJW" as a pejorative -- tends to set off the bigot alarm.
Understood. In fact I'm glad you called attention to it and made me aware that I needed to communicate my point better.
 
The Tim Burton Batman films are an exception that some people have taken exception to, but Batman '89 was basically the second or third good superhero film ever made, so the majority were happy to get what they did.

Accepting Batman killing in the 1989 movie has never been measured or proven to be audiences giving the film a "pass" on that because of the then-limited number of good superhero productions. Those very familiar with Batman comic book history knew he killed early on, so that was not a problem, or something invented for the movie, and among the non-initiated--those who knew the character, but were not necessarily comic book readers, they did not care, nor was there any sort of protest by some large number of moviegoers at the time.


Snyder and DC do *superheroes* with the emphasis on the big, the mythic, the classical overtones

Mythic is the key, an approach that DC has used in various comics or series for decades. One of the more omnipresent examples of this is the way Alex Ross created many of his DC TPBs, tabloid issues and gallery pieces, particularly of the core heroes (or as the JLA), where they appeared to exude a legendary energy, as if they were a rare, experienced group doing what no one else could, instead of giving the impression that they're just some random thing on every corner that is as common as a traffic light.


If people think of it that way, instead of wishing the DC films were just like the MCU films with different branding, it would lead to less keyboard Kombat.

Indeed, and the MCU approach only works for the MCU, and no other film concept. The one time it was aggressively forced on a DCEU film--the theatrical version of the Justice League movie take-over by Whedon to make it play like his Avengers--it was a confused, loud disaster from someone who clearly did not know the movie series he was hired for and its characters..It was the equivalent of trying to make Star Trek just like Star Wars, when they are two very different set of concepts despite some surface similarities, whether its space and energy-based weapons, or in the superhero movie case, capes and bodysuits.

Obviously, when WB greenlit Snyder's JL, the characters and situation fit perfectly into the solo films and running subplots built up to that time, and I recall the fact Snyder succeeded with his JL (with his intended vision...what a surprise) when Whedon predictably crashed and burned gave those keyboard combatants who wanted to MCU-ize the DCEU another reason to scream, spit and claw in ridiculous outrage.


It’s exactly the thing Watchmen was touching on too, with its deconstruction elements and what the reality of Demigods in a normal world would actually mean. The film has a better ending than the comics in some ways, or at least, one better suited to screen than a giant squid thing.

Interesting.
 
I was going to post this rant somewhere else, but I feel like it's better suited here.

In the latest example of toxic fandom, I'm becoming very frustrated with the House of the Dragon subreddit, which seems to have become suddenly populated by people who are trying to rewrite facts by disassociating GRRM from the show or twisting completely unrelated comments he made about book-to-screen adaptations into an indictment of Ryan Condal simply because they think decisions that have been made in recent episodes are 'bad'.

I've also seen people comparing said decisions to those made in GoT Season 8, which betrays a complete lack of acfual understanding about why that season was the disaster that it was.
 
Toxic blah blah...and bad blah blah...
Stuff is just being diluted ad nauseum these days.

The worst offenders are Star Trek and Star Wars.....
Endless remakes and prequels.....rewriting of what once was, even Tolkien is getting the "treatment".
There is more money than sense these days.
 
I was going to post this rant somewhere else, but I feel like it's better suited here.

In the latest example of toxic fandom, I'm becoming very frustrated with the House of the Dragon subreddit, which seems to have become suddenly populated by people who are trying to rewrite facts by disassociating GRRM from the show or twisting completely unrelated comments he made about book-to-screen adaptations into an indictment of Ryan Condal simply because they think decisions that have been made in recent episodes are 'bad'.

I've also seen people comparing said decisions to those made in GoT Season 8, which betrays a complete lack of acfual understanding about why that season was the disaster that it was.

Having read the books, I think ASOIAF is always going to have toxicity. I find them toxic as works. But that’s just me xD
 
So they choose to genderswap characters, and apparently don't mind when some other people who were fans of the original hate the genderswapped versions. In the case of BSG, are you really going to tell me that audiences hated Sheba because she was a new character brought in to replace Serena (as a female warrior and new love interest for Apollo)?

Yes, they did hate Sheba for that. New characters rarely go over well.

And audiences don't hate that?

Less than new characters, yes.

Certain people are always going to be terrible about new characters, but they can work. People whined about Rose in Last Jedi, but Ahsoka won people over despite being Anakin's secret apprentice.

It took YEARS for them to start liking Ahsoka and even then it was only after they realized she'd never play any important roles and never threaten Anakin and Obi-Wan's dominance of the series.

Kamala Khan has been considered a highlight of the projects she's appeared in. Lower Decks isn't exactly a long running series, but everyone immediately loved T'Lyn when she was added to the crew.

Kamala is utterly despised for being "pandering" and the last 23 years of brainwashing telling people to hate folks like her.

People don't like being told the new person is better and more important than the characters they're already attached to, so trying to introduce a new Justice League-tier character is hard (especially if it's really blatant they're there to tick a diversity box). But every now and again someone says "I'm going to create another Spider-Man with the same hero name and even more powers" and then Into the Spider-Verse happens.

They only barely tolerate Miles because they have Peter B Parker still in the plot and (to a lesser extent) Gwen.

The worst offenders are Star Trek and Star Wars.....
Endless remakes and prequels.....rewriting of what once was, even Tolkien is getting the "treatment".
There is more money than sense these days.

As Inside Out 2 showed, audiences will always go for things like Sequels over original stuff.
 
Moreover, contrary to the conventional wisdom of some fans, I think the problem with The Last Jedi is NOT that it strays too far away from the fundamental elements of Star Wars. The problem with The Last Jedi is that it doesn't go far enough in challenging them. To me, for all of the talk about Ryan Johnson wanting to open the story up to new possibilities, I think he almost goes there, but pulls back in the ending and reverts back to Jedi = good and Sith = bad.

Star Wars exists because Lucas couldn’t get the rights to Flash Gordon, so he made his own adventure tale of good vs evil spanning several generations. No one was asking for Star Wars to be “challenged” or “subverted”. You want to do those things? Do them in your own film or trilogy like Rogue One or Andor. The 9 movie saga was to be Flash Gordon meets Kurosawa in an all ages tale of good vs evil. It was never meant to be anything else. If you don’t want to do that, you’re on the wrong film series. The PT managed to tell it’s own story that still felt like Star Wars despite its flaws.

Having said that, the ST was an absolute cluster fuck that wasted a fantastic cast while substituting memberberries with bloated spectacle overseen by two idiots who apparently didn’t understand how important it was to get these movies right. The lack of oversight and quality control by TPTB is astounding. The whole trilogy was like bad fanfic.
 
I'm just going to be blunt here, of course hating a gender swapped character just because they're gender swapped is bigoted. You're not liking a character solely because of their gender, so that is pretty much as bigoted as you can get.
Now if there is more to why you don't like that, like you don't like the way they were written as a person of that new gender, or if there is some element to the character that only works if they are their original gender, than no it's not.
 
Star Wars exists because Lucas couldn’t get the rights to Flash Gordon, so he made his own adventure tale of good vs evil spanning several generations. No one was asking for Star Wars to be “challenged” or “subverted”. You want to do those things? Do them in your own film or trilogy like Rogue One or Andor. The 9 movie saga was to be Flash Gordon meets Kurosawa in an all ages tale of good vs evil. It was never meant to be anything else. If you don’t want to do that, you’re on the wrong film series. The PT managed to tell it’s own story that still felt like Star Wars despite its flaws.

Having said that, the ST was an absolute cluster fuck that wasted a fantastic cast while substituting memberberries with bloated spectacle overseen by two idiots who apparently didn’t understand how important it was to get these movies right. The lack of oversight and quality control by TPTB is astounding. The whole trilogy was like bad fanfic.

Let me guess, you wanted a 1:1 of the EU?
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top