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

[Fincher]

Well that's what I meant when I said "to the general audience". I'm quite geekier than a normal general audience and when I'd seen all 7 movies and watched Rebels (and read a few new novels), I still had no idea who he was. Only when I watched the Mon Cala arc in TCW I googled the name and realized he's the carp-man saying "It's the trap" if the gif I saw dozens of times on Tumblr.

When I was a kid growing up in the 80s, I knew who Admiral Ackbar was.

 

[Frodo]

The Star Wars Prequels toxic reception among some elements of the fanbase seemed to seriously negatively effect the lives of some of the films leading actors.

The guy who played Jar Jar Binks became suicidal, Jake Lloyd was badly bullied and Natalie Portman said the movies almost ruined her career.

Well, to be fair, it wasn't just elements of the fanbase. The media also tended to bash the prequels, and in the case of TPM there were claims that Jar Jar, The Trade Federation, and Watto were based on racial sterotypes which added to the stink towards that film.

Critics bashed Hayden's performance in the last two and Lucas was ridiculed for his dialog mostly by the mainstream critics and media not fanboys as much.

So this notion that's being floated out now that it was only SW fans who bashed the prequels really isn't accurate. They were totally on board with bashing Lucas and the prequels back then, so it wasn't just limited to sw fans.

Here's sketch from Mad TV back in 1999 poking fun at Lucas https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NwBaQTQOeM

Not saying this clip represents the news media and critics at the time, but just an example demonstrating that Lucas was taking it in the mainstream as opposed to just fanboys.

I understand people wanting to make the connection between the past and present to prove a larger point, but the prequels got it from fans, the media, and at times, critics which was a different dynamic than what's happened with SW fandom now.

 

[K-Max]

What creators think and like matter too (and someone like, say, a director, who probably works 80 hours a week for years on a movie, is way more invested in a movie than 99.99% of the audience out there).

Agreed with this, though I have to wonder how much time are they able to spend engaging the fandom or are they able to delegating that role to good effect for the satisfaction of the fans who invest in the franchise?

But I think directors in franchise have deadlines and schedule on their work, and they can only research on a certain level, while being "very, very intimate with it and their fans" takes lots of time.

That sounds like a very tough dilemma for a director or producer at times.

 

[wampa1]

It would have been SO much better to have Admiral Ackbar perform the Hyperspace Ramming maneuver!

I think you should write a movie and have character named Ackbar as a suicide bomber. Let me know how well that goes down.

 

[Frodo]

Agreed with this, though I have to wonder how much time are they able to spend engaging the fandom or are they able to delegating that role to good effect for the satisfaction of the fans who invest in the franchise?

Which is what I think is a big part of the problem right now. They really shouldn't be getting into back and fourths with fans because it only encourages fans and inspires them to attack more and go lower.

All it does is put those toxic fans on the same level as the filmmaker or producer. It gives the those fans even more power because now they know he to get in a filmmakers, creators, writers etc. head, and to rattle them enough to respond on twitter, facebook etc.

Maybe I'm old school, but I think the old way of putting out your product and saving the questions and interactions work better when they're limited in interviews and at fan events.

Responding to individual tweets, videos, comments means you're going to be constantly fighting and never winning.

 

[K-Max]

All it does is put those toxic fans on the same level as the filmmaker or producer. It gives the those fans even more power because now they know he to get in a filmmakers, creators, writers etc. head, and to rattle them enough to respond on twitter, facebook etc.

Which ultimately costs the other fans that intimacy right?

How do you think things do go? I'm almost thinking having fellow fans be "the chosen few" who are the eyes and ears of the brand who are vetted and can be trusted with that power. Yes, it can lead to elitism, but if done right, surely it could be minimized no?

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

...

...

...

Are we really entertaining the idea that there MUST be some kind of Council Of Qualified Fanboys to "vet" whatever directors, writers and actors do with various franchises?

 

[Roose Bolton]

I just hope Joel Schumacher gets given the keys to everything. All the next Star Wars films, all the new DC and Marvel pictures. Watch the fandom twist in the wind, like they deserve.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

 

[dark_b]

I will never defend the first two. But to be fair about the last one, Portman did give terrible performances in those films. It probably wasn't her fault, so I would have given her a chance, but having trouble finding work after being lousy at your last job is to be expected. The blame for that lies with Lucas and Portman herself, not the fans.

The Star Wars Prequels toxic reception among some elements of the fanbase seemed to seriously negatively effect the lives of some of the films leading actors.

The guy who played Jar Jar Binks became suicidal, Jake Lloyd was badly bullied and Natalie Portman said the movies almost ruined her career.

Portman said


I think in some ways creators are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Sherlock, Game Of Thrones and The Force Awakens listened to some of their fanbase and got accused of too much fan service.

when actors give a bad performance its the directors fault but when its a good one its was the actor who deserves the praise. So why is everyone saying that Mcgregor, SLJ and McDiarmid were good even with bad scripts? Noone but Aronofsky could get that kind of performance out of here in Black Swan. Her acting in the Thor movie was pathetic. Good actors can give decent performances even with bad scripts and bad directors.

 

[wampa1]

I'm almost thinking having fellow fans be "the chosen few" who are the eyes and ears of the brand who are vetted and can be trusted with that power. Yes, it can lead to elitism, but if done right, surely it could be minimized no?

This is the worst idea I have ever heard ever.

 

[K-Max]

This is the worst idea I have ever heard ever.

I'll admit, not really ideal. Just throwing it out there. I feel it's already difficult as is if creators have little time or can stay connected with their fans if they are busy meeting deadlines and appeasing their investors/employers. No-win scenario?

Do you have any ideas?

 

[Ozbridge]

Do you have any ideas?

Maybe they can have a small assistant team to gather opinions from audience and press, then this team will report these opinions to the creators. Then the creators can read them and decide which is worthless, which should be listened to and which they feel appropriate to influence (preferably minimally) their creative process. The team doesn't necessarily work for one director, they can work for the whole franchise and report to multiple directors, writers, marketing department and studio executives.

Idk this sounds very much like market research in literally any other industries and maybe the entertainment industry has already done that for decades.

 

[Mangle77]

I think you should write a movie and have character named Ackbar as a suicide bomber. Let me know how well that goes down.

As if it never happened before. I know most of the people in the Middle East aren't suicide bombers, but some of them are, and Hollywood shouldn't be afraid to acknowledge that fact. Also, this: https://youtu.be/rCB8DUGpYQQ

I think we have a bit of a misunderstanding. I've never harrased anyone online, or in person, and I don't support those who do. But criticism from the fans isn't harrasment; it's criticism. Brad Bird flipped out on some guy for saying that his kid fell asleep during some of the talking scenes in Incredibles 2. That's not a toxic fan, that's an overly sensitive creator. When I say "Get woke, go broke", I mean that these creators have been so busy trying to get a message across, they forget to make sure the movie/comic book/video game is GOOD, and will SELL. That's the job they were hired to do. You can do your "statement" project on your own time, and on your own dime. But if it's someone else's IP, you should be taking the best care of it that you can.

I'm passionate about these things because they provide me with a much needed escape from the drudgery and anxiety of my daily life. I'm not privileged. I'm broke. Technically, I'm homeless. I'm not white. Well, not entirely; I'm multi-ethnic. I'm mostly apolitical, but I voted for Hillary. I would have voted for Bernie, or maybe Jeb, because Jeb was a good governor here in Florida. I would NEVER vote for Trump. I'm overweight, wear glasses, and I have Asperger's. I also have bipolar disorder, with longer and more frequent depressed episodes than manic ones. None of the medications have helped, on the rare occasion I can get them. My only refuge has been nerd culture. Now it's being used to beat people over the head with a political statement. This has resulted in comic book stores going out of business, (50 of them last year) due to low sales. If Marvel Comics was being run like a company that sells comics, (hiring on merit, rather than identity; not insulting the fans on social media; and DEFINITELY not telling customers "don't buy it, it's not for you!") and not a social club, maybe the local stores would be hiring, instead of letting people go.

No one has ever proposed a law to give nerds special protection. We are, and have always been, a fringe group. Science fiction, fantasy, horror, and superheroes are like the air in my lungs, and now there are people polluting it with "real-world" politics. Someone help me. I can't breathe.

 

[K-Max]

The team doesn't necessarily work for one director, they can work for the whole franchise and report to multiple directors, writers, marketing department and studio executives.

I hope that happens today though I'd be curious how much studios spend on those teams. At the very least I can see that go under social media teams fwiw.

 

[Frodo]

Which ultimately costs the other fans that intimacy right?

How do you think things do go? I'm almost thinking having fellow fans be "the chosen few" who are the eyes and ears of the brand who are vetted and can be trusted with that power. Yes, it can lead to elitism, but if done right, surely it could be minimized no?

I think the solution is to do what directors and writers did pre-twitter, which is not to engage with the fans i on twitter period. Save those interactions for fan events, Conventions etc, .

I know that's counter to what alot of younger fandoms are used to, but ultimately that distance between the fans and filmmakers and actors prevents the truly toxic fans from being able to connect with someone they otherwise couldn't .

Most directors still seem still to follow that model, with exception of a few high profile ones who don't, who then end up in twitter fights with fans, who then delight at having their ire, and giving back ten fold.

At the same time, there are just as many obsessed fans who may "love" the director and be just as creepy as a troll, if not more so, if you look at the reality of which type of "fans" which actually do end up creeping out celebs.

 

[Ozbridge]

I hope that happens today though I'd be curious how much studios spend on those teams. At the very least I can see that go under social media teams fwiw.

Well I've seen right here in SHH some people (who I presume have jobs of their own) just claim that "a majority of fans hate The Last Jedi", or "Solo flops because of people hating TLJ" or "few people ask for a Solo prequel". If someone can just go to forums and online communities in their free time and draw conclusions like that I think studios certainly can afford to hire a few fandom-savvy people major in Marketing, Social Sciences, Film and Theater, etc. to do that full time.

 

[moviedoors]

I really can't stand the idea of studios hiring a bunch of fanboy gatekeepers. I can't think of something I less want influencing filmmaking and storytelling.

 

[Ozbridge]

Maybe they can have a small assistant team to gather opinions from audience and press, then this team will report these opinions to the creators. Then the creators can read them and decide which is worthless, which should be listened to and which they feel appropriate to influence (preferably minimally) their creative process. The team doesn't necessarily work for one director, they can work for the whole franchise and report to multiple directors, writers, marketing department and studio executives.

I really can't stand the idea of studios hiring a bunch of fanboy gatekeepers. I can't think of something I less want influencing filmmaking and storytelling.

As I said it is entirely up to the creators to ignore fans' opinions if they deem them worthless. But it never hurts to know what the target audience think (and see things from a different perspective).

The team that I suggest merely serves the market researching function (every other industries has a whole department for that purpose). Their responsibilities is to collect opinions and reports, not judging the opinions.

Studios need to find people qualified for those tasks. If they're unable to do so then even the directors they hire might be "fanboy gatekeepers" themselves.

 

[MaceB]

I really can't stand the idea of studios hiring a bunch of fanboy gatekeepers. I can't think of something I less want influencing filmmaking and storytelling.

Gatekeepers is a highly provocative term that I don't think applies here. No one needs to bar the gates. Hiring a cohort of market researchers who are polling and surveying the audience demographic is just smart business. I wouldn't aim to make a great lobster dinner in Maine without first researching the market and finding out what consumers to expect. I'm sure that Disney and WB are doing this already, honestly.

Now, how well are they listening to this team of fan-oriented marketers? It depends on the company and the movie and the direction team.

 

[Frodo]

Gatekeepers is a highly provocative term that I don't think applies here. No one needs to bar the gates. Hiring a cohort of market researchers who are polling and surveying the audience demographic is just smart business. I wouldn't aim to make a great lobster dinner in Maine without first researching the market and finding out what consumers to expect. I'm sure that Disney and WB are doing this already, honestly.

Oh yeah totally. Again, the thing fanboys and fandom have to remember is that , like it or not, this is" show business", not "giving creators, directors, and writers all the leeway they choose" business.

 

[wampa1]

Do you have any ideas?

Yes, let them hire whoever they want and let them make whatever they want and let them live or die by those decisions.

 

[moviedoors]

Yes, let them hire whoever they want and let them make whatever they want and let them live or die by those decisions.

/end

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

And here I thought the book Misery was a work of fiction.

And on a side note, Overwatch is showing the various entertainment industries how to combat toxicity.

Then again that is working due to how online videogames work socially.

 

[Herofan]

As I said it is entirely up to the creators to ignore fans' opinions if they deem them worthless. But it never hurts to know what the target audience think (and see things from a different perspective).

I think the magazine Cinescape, combining reporting and hyping to the fans with reviews & reactions that was pretty representative of most fans, was an interesting type of interaction and did/would give creators some understanding of what was liked and disliked although of course it ending suggests it didn't represent that many fans ...