Fandoms VS. Creators (over content, and creative directions)

[jmc]

I actually have a question that I've been thinking about that's related somewhat to this discussion. Is the toxic fandom that exists a result of the lack of original content?

What do I mean? Well, a lot of these fandom have existed for decades, and as such many have expanded into different media that has resulted in a multitude of different stories and interpretations being created. It's only natural overtime that fans would develop an attachment to these works and have strong opinions about what is the right and wrong thing to do.

Original properties on the other hand have nothing for people to compare to other than what the creators put in front of them at the time. Let's look at something like the John Wick series. You're not going to find John Wick purists because they don't exist. There's no such thing as toxic fandom when there's nothing else to compare it to. Every sequel, prequel, reboot, reimagining, adaptation of every big name intellectual property is going to generate harsh debate and criticism towards this new group of creators if they don't 'get it', which means it's a breading ground for bad behaviours to develop.

IMO, the only way to minimise this type of fandom is if creative companies actually do what they use to and that's generate new ideas. That's not to say you can't still do these sequels and remakes, but I think you have to be more selective about it. If you generate new content the conversation changes from whether they got it right, to whether the film is actually good. There may be varying degrees of debate as to the quality obviously, but the petty arguing and insults that happen online with the current properties will be minimised.

I understand how much people love these things, and I'm not naive to the financial realities as why studios do it. But I think some of this drama is actually being caused by the lack of creative innovation and a lot of it would be solved if studios took more chances with something else. Look at something like A Quiet Place. It had such a unique concept, was cheap as chips to make, and was a box office smash. We need more of those ideas instead of another Star Wars, Ghostbusters, Terminator or Jurassic Park movie.

 

[Ozbridge]

I think that fandom should not be toxic, period (no harassment toward creators, actors and other fans, no trolling, etc.).

Saying that "If studios do more original movies then fandom won't be toxic" is like "If women don't walk alone at night then they won't be harassed." Sure, articles like "10 tips on how to avoid harassment" is probably somewhat useful, but that shouldn't be where we start to solve the problem.

I understand that fans might feel entitled to a book or a movie (we aren't always able to control our feelings), but it's like having dinner at a restaurant: you eat, then pay and leave. You don't come back next week and demand another meal because you already paid last time. Similarly fans are only entitled to the movie or the book that they actually pay for; like it or hate it, they have no right to demand the next movie should be this or that.

 

[Herofan]

^For both entertainment and restaurants, though, customers certainly have the right to and sensibly would tell others to avoid the product if they feel it was bad.

 

[jmc]

I think that fandom should not be toxic, period (no harassment toward creators, actors and other fans, no trolling, etc.).

Saying that "If studios do more original movies then fandom won't be toxic" is like "If women don't walk alone at night then they won't be harassed." Sure, articles like "10 tips on how to avoid harassment" is probably somewhat useful, but that shouldn't be where we start to solve the problem.

I understand that fans might feel entitled to a book or a movie (we aren't always able to control our feelings), but it's like having dinner at a restaurant: you eat, then pay and leave. You don't come back next week and demand another meal because you already paid last time. Similarly fans are only entitled to the movie or the book that they actually pay for; like it or hate it, they have no right to demand the next movie should be this or that.

And as I said, if you're dealing with original work you don't have any fandom to deal with.

 

[Sithborg]

And as I said, if you're dealing with original work you don't have any fandom to deal with.

Except, as the Hugo Awards and the Sad/Toxic Puppy campaigns show, this isn't exactly the case. Genres itself has fandoms. Gamergate wasn't about one specific game.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

I actually have a question that I've been thinking about that's related somewhat to this discussion. Is the toxic fandom that exists a result of the lack of original content?

No. Fanboys have always been toxic. It was this way back in the 70s with Star Wars too and it was new then. Stephen King starting writing Misery way back in 1985. The difference now has nothing to do with the type of content, but due almost entirely to how much easier it is to get their voices out there and gather with the advent of social media. The fans were always this bad, but Twitter makes it harder to escape.

 

[jmc]

Then make different films. It’s not rocket science. You can’t have a toxic fandom for a franchise that has no history. Will you still get trolls? Yes. You know the solution? Ignore them. Too many people think fighting back solves the problem. It doesn’t.

 

[Sithborg]

Every genre has it's own fandom, though.

 

[jmc]

Every genre has it's own fandom, though.

But not every film does. You’re conflating two very different types of people. If your suggestion is originality won’t change anything then you’re basically telling me there’s no point in even trying to shift the conversation or to evolve things. What’s your solution then?

 

[Spider-Fan]

My solution would be raise as many people as possible to not be morons.

 

[jmc]

Well sadly the world doesn’t work that way, so we have to do the next best thing.

 

[Ozbridge]

And as I said, if you're dealing with original work you don't have any fandom to deal with.

Saying "Studios can make original movies only to avoid harassment" is the same thing.

It isn't that fans can't make suggestions like that to studios, but I believe that a human being should think of their own actions and responsibilities first before suggesting what others should do. We as fans should encourage other fans to behave civilly first.

^For both entertainment and restaurants, though, customers certainly have the right to and sensibly would tell others to avoid the product if they feel it was bad.

I encourage people to read reviews of someone they trust before buying a movie ticket, whether that someone is a critic or a friend. If other people hate it, they can at least know that there's a risk that they might hate it too, even though they may still buy the ticket. And similarly spreading one's option on a book or a movie should be encouraged too.

There's no need to verbally abuse other people, because audience can influence the profit of a movie: a movie with bad word-of-mouth will have weak performance. That's fine, bad movies aren't entitled to have profit. Heck, no movies are entitled to have profit. But people always deserve to be treated humanely.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Then make different films. It’s not rocket science. You can’t have a toxic fandom for a franchise that has no history. Will you still get trolls? Yes. You know the solution? Ignore them. Too many people think fighting back solves the problem. It doesn’t.

That won't work. It will just go back to the way it used to be where instead of toxic fanbases being centered around franchises, it would be centered around creators. Which still happens to an extent (look at Christopher Nolan).

 

[Milk Tray Guy]

No. Fanboys have always been toxic. It was this way back in the 70s with Star Wars too and it was new then. Stephen King starting writing Misery way back in 1985. The difference now has nothing to do with the type of content, but due almost entirely to how much easier it is to get their voices out there and gather with the advent of social media. The fans were always this bad, but Twitter makes it harder to escape.

This, absolutely.

That won't work. It will just go back to the way it used to be where instead of toxic fanbases being centered around franchises, it would be centered around creators. Which still happens to an extent (look at Christopher Nolan).

The 'Nolan' threads on IMDb tended to descend into an absolute battlefield/cesspit.

 

[BestGirl]

I don't know man, i think TWD problem is that it's own mainstream popularity crippled it. If that makes any sense.

AMC's problem is that they're super cheap and hired - and now won't fire - Scott Gimple.

 

[Sithborg]

But not every film does. You’re conflating two very different types of people. If your suggestion is originality won’t change anything then you’re basically telling me there’s no point in even trying to shift the conversation or to evolve things. What’s your solution then?

You seem to be blaming the content, not the people. Changing content is not going to change the problem of the toxic people.

 

[Herofan]

I encourage people to read reviews of someone they trust before buying a movie ticket, whether that someone is a critic or a friend. If other people hate it, they can at least know that there's a risk that they might hate it too, even though they may still buy the ticket. And similarly spreading one's option on a book or a movie should be encouraged too.

There's no need to verbally abuse other people, because audience can influence the profit of a movie: a movie with bad word-of-mouth will have weak performance. That's fine, bad movies aren't entitled to have profit. Heck, no movies are entitled to have profit. But people always deserve to be treated humanely.

Agreed. It just seems that a lot of supportive fans are pretty outraged at the notion of fans being so disappointed that they drop out and suggest others do so too.

No. Fanboys have always been toxic. It was this way back in the 70s with Star Wars too and it was new then. Stephen King starting writing Misery way back in 1985.

Anyone think that was a pretty unfair, unnecessary slam on fanbases by him, especially with all the success he had had?

I think The Simpsons was also self-pityingly moaning, "Stop complaining," "We've got a lot of impossible-crazy fans" as early as '97 and it made the writers look pretty ridiculous when they had had so much successful and were getting a lot more praise than criticism.

 

[dark_b]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fan_(person)
''A fan, or fanatic''

 

[Madam-Shogun]

I actually have a question that I've been thinking about that's related somewhat to this discussion. Is the toxic fandom that exists a result of the lack of original content?

What do I mean? Well, a lot of these fandom have existed for decades, and as such many have expanded into different media that has resulted in a multitude of different stories and interpretations being created. It's only natural overtime that fans would develop an attachment to these works and have strong opinions about what is the right and wrong thing to do.

Original properties on the other hand have nothing for people to compare to other than what the creators put in front of them at the time. Let's look at something like the John Wick series. You're not going to find John Wick purists because they don't exist. There's no such thing as toxic fandom when there's nothing else to compare it to. Every sequel, prequel, reboot, reimagining, adaptation of every big name intellectual property is going to generate harsh debate and criticism towards this new group of creators if they don't 'get it', which means it's a breading ground for bad behaviours to develop.

IMO, the only way to minimise this type of fandom is if creative companies actually do what they use to and that's generate new ideas. That's not to say you can't still do these sequels and remakes, but I think you have to be more selective about it. If you generate new content the conversation changes from whether they got it right, to whether the film is actually good. There may be varying degrees of debate as to the quality obviously, but the petty arguing and insults that happen online with the current properties will be minimised.
.

Here's my dark cynical take, people won't support new ideas. They prefer familiarity due to nostalgia. That's a hard bitter truth no one won't accept.

 

[Madam-Shogun]

AMC's problem is that they're super cheap and hired - and now won't fire - Scott Gimple.

Scott Gimple actually wrote some good eps, i just don't think he's a good showrunner.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

Original content is created all the time. Things are adapted all the time from things with less than deep pop cultural penetration.

There are more ways original content can get exposure and support now in the current era than at any time before.

Also... What does one mean by "original content" in the first place? As pointed out genres themselves have built in fan bases. Supposedly original woks often have deep influences from previous works, thus bringing along a chunk of fans that are interested in a new work because it covers similar themes or subject matter from some other film, movie, book or television series.


I think there are people out there nostalgic for a time in entertainment that honestly was never so.

 

[Madam-Shogun]

Original content is created all the time. Things are adapted all the time from things with less than deep pop cultural penetration.

There are more ways original content can get exposure and support now in the current era than at any time before.

Also... What does one mean by "original content" in the first place? As pointed out genres themselves have built in fan bases. Supposedly original woks often have deep influences from previous works, thus bringing along a chunk of fans that are interested in a new work because it covers similar themes or subject matter from some other film, movie, book or television series.


I think there are people out there nostalgic for a time in entertainment that honestly was never so.

Genre's have built in fandoms yes, but not the same way specific franchises do. I think people in general care more about stories than genres.

 

[Sithborg]

Genre's have built in fandoms yes, but not the same way specific franchises do. I think people in general care more about stories than genres.

Based on things like the Sad/Toxic Puppies and Gamergate, no, it isn't different.

 

[jmc]

So, basically what I’m reading from some of you here is that there’s no point in trying anything. We can’t combat the existing toxic fan bases, and any attempt at creating original genre works is just going to attract those people anyway. If that’s the case then people need to stop complaining about toxic fandom, because you’re not offering any solutions.

 

[Sithborg]

No. But you don't seem to want to accept what the core problem is. I mean, the problem isn't new. The outlet, and the subsequent results, are due to social media. But fist fights about sports teams are about as old as sports teams.