Why is toxic fandom destroying everything?

[UssGlenn]

I also remember reading/hearing that George turned over all his ideas/notes for the third trilogy in the sale to Disney with him saying that Disney could do/take whatever they wanted with the notes or feel free to ignore them; and he was somewhat upset when Disney went a different direction.

Yep, the heroine was to be named Kira. I still can't understand why they didn't go with his outline. Even without knowing the details of the story, there is no way Disney couldn't have massaged it to their liking, but kept enough of the bones that "story by George Lucas" makes it on screen.

 

[JD]

Just the nature of the beast. Not really seeing the big deal, either way.

Creators of long running series have always changed their minds about things like how/when to end their series. Hell, all the way back in 1893 Arthur Conan Doyle killed Holmes as a way to end the series in The Final Problem, but he changed his mind and brought him back in The Hound of the Baskervilles in 1901.

 

[fireproof78]

Yep, the heroine was to be named Kira. I still can't understand why they didn't go with his outline. Even without knowing the details of the story, there is no way Disney couldn't have massaged it to their liking, but kept enough of the bones that "story by George Lucas" makes it on screen.

"No way?"

 

[UssGlenn]

"No way?"

We know they decided to not use Lucas's outline. We don't know why. I don't believe the reason is because they couldn't get a workable story after stripping it down to the bare bones basic plot points.

 

[fireproof78]

We know they decided to not use Lucas's outline. We don't know why. I don't believe the reason is because they couldn't get a workable story after stripping it down to the bare bones basic plot points.

So we don't know if there was a way.

 

[DigificWriter]

I still can't understand why they didn't go with his outline

JJ Abrams wanted to explicitly recapture the spirit of A New Hope and his own personal feelings upon first seeing it.

That desire aside, though, there was never going to be any chance of Mark, Carrie, and Harrison not being involved in the Sequel Trilogy because their involvement was secured before George sold Lucasfilm to Disney and Kathleen Kennedy was not going to fire them.

 

[UssGlenn]

That desire aside, though, there was never going to be any chance of Mark, Carrie, and Harrison not being involved in the Sequel Trilogy because their involvement was secured before George sold Lucasfilm to Disney and Kathleen Kennedy was not going to fire them.

Luke and Leia were both in Lucas' version. we know that much.

 

[Skipper]

Returning to the subject of the thread, the problem is also the incredible polarization and extremization of the fandom due to social media and the search for likes.

For example, I'm watching "The Acolyte". Is it the best TV series ever? No. But I enjoy watching it and that's enough for me.

Well, here are some random titles taken from Youtube (I don't even think about clicking to give them views).

• The Acolyte is AWFUL | This is How Star Wars DIES, With Thunderous CRINGE
• THE ACOLYTE DISASTER - How Episodes 1-3 Killed Star Wars
• Everyone Hates The Acolyte as Much as Disney Hates Star Wars
• The Acolyte: How Disney Destroyed Star Wars Forever

Now, these tones are frankly ridiculous and excessive. How do you have a conversation about a work of fiction with people who express their opinions like that? It's obvious that these clickbait headlines are designed to elicit extreme reactions. Many who enjoyed Acolyte may also resent being treated like imbecilic servants of Disney just because they enjoyed seeing it.

 

[fireproof78]

Now, these tones are frankly ridiculous and excessive. How do you have a conversation about a work of fiction with people who express their opinions like that? It's obvious that these clickbait headlines are designed to elicit extreme reactions. Many who enjoyed Acolyte may also resent being treated like imbecilic servants of Disney just because they enjoyed seeing it.

Indeed, yes. It immediately puts people on the defensive and feel the need to argue vs. engaging in any sort of dialog.

And I see it across fandoms, with the whole "This is true (fill in the blank)!" and I'm left wondering two things: one, who declares something true, and two why should I care?

Which is why I go back to the whole people just want to be angry anymore. They don't want to engage in any discussion, and claims of be rational are easily dismissed because of the rhetoric used. It's not rational to call something the "worst ever" or the "best ever." It's nonsensical argumentation that breaks conversation down.

 

[Skipper]

Indeed, yes. It immediately puts people on the defensive and feel the need to argue vs. engaging in any sort of dialog.

And I see it across fandoms, with the whole "This is true (fill in the blank)!" and I'm left wondering two things: one, who declares something true, and two why should I care?

Which is why I go back to the whole people just want to be angry anymore. They don't want to engage in any discussion, and claims of be rational are easily dismissed because of the rhetoric used. It's not rational to call something the "worst ever" or the "best ever." It's nonsensical argumentation that breaks conversation down.

These people have managed to make this person here seem moderate and balanced.

 

[fireproof78]

Or this guy:

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

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

It's not rational to call something the "worst ever" or the "best ever." It's nonsensical argumentation that breaks conversation down.

People tend to rely heavily on subjective beliefs, which rarely walk hand in hand with rationality, particularly where fandom is concerned. It is the reason over the past decade or so, individuals have forcefully claimed X "killed" their childhood, when the rational side of the mind knows the entirety of childhood experience and perceptions have little to do with something as ultimately disposable as a movie or TV series.

 

[fireproof78]

People tend to rely heavily on subjective beliefs, which rarely walk hand in hand with rationality, particularly where fandom is concerned. It is the reason over the past decade or so, individuals have forcefully claimed X "killed" their childhood, when the rational side of the mind knows the entirety of childhood experience and perceptions have little to do with something as ultimately disposable as a movie or TV series.

Well, there is an aspect of which that is true, that, as one Greek philosopher put it, mankind is the measure of all things. Rationally, we know such things, but the struggle is that we don't get many opportunities to engage in civil discourse. Online? We have zero personal investment because I cannot see the person.

There is the other side that is also very identity structured. The essence of "being a fan" is that it becomes a part of our identity. So, to have it challenged feels nearly existential if one does not form identity outside of one's fandom.

And finally, humans are impulsive, instant gratification creatures who did not always learn how to tolerate distress, and instead get that impulsivity rewarded sometimes through online posting.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

There is the other side that is also very identity structured. The essence of "being a fan" is that it becomes a part of our identity. So, to have it challenged feels nearly existential if one does not form identity outside of one's fandom.

Agreed; some fans have forsaken real interaction with a self not buoyed by their interests, effectively allowing media corporations to give them an identity through content they are to guard and defend as if said content is their identity, or in some extreme cases, their reason to be (as if nothing else matters in life). When anyone leans in that direction of fandom, extremist and/or toxic behavior usually follows.

And finally, humans are impulsive, instant gratification creatures who did not always learn how to tolerate distress, and instead get that impulsivity rewarded sometimes through online posting.

While that is true in some cases, I also see some of this thread's topic in the behavior of those not seeking instant gratification, but looking for comfort in what they hope are smothering, abusive mob opinions supporting their "side" of fandom.

 

[study2400]

I tend to enjoy what I enjoy and promote it, even if there are a few things I don't like about it. I like most of Star Trek. If I don't like something, I will let others know in the internet spaces I am allowed to say it. I try to be nice to people on all sides of the arguments for whether this or that Star Wars show is good or bad. I like everything in Star Wars except Grogu Zen and Dust Bunnies short. I listen to the arguments from both sides and formulate my own opinions based upon what I see. Other people cannot always make me see what I do not see. I like Rings of Power and am looking forward to Season 2 of it, though I do see the flaws in Season 1 (such as ease of travel (going too many places in too short a time for example) but like the fact that there are black harfoots, elves and dwarves. I say: Why not, surely skin pigmentation happens in Middle earth.
It is not so much race that I don't like about some things, I'm fine with Rose kissing Finn, in fact I applaud it. I don't think a little diversity is a bad thing. After all there was Lando in the OG SW Trilogy and some diversity in the Prequels.
I like the Acolyte for many reasons. Quimir is a villain who is clearly evil and the Jedi are depicted as flawed, but only one or two of them as bad. I don't believe as I think it was the intent of Headland that the lines between evil and good are blurred in The Acolyte. I believe Good is Good and Evil is evil. Osha and Mae were both very conflicted characters. A good person can be corrupted and a bad person can come to the Light. And Quimir was completely evil. Even in real life, bad men can seem like nice guys. And evil women can seem good. But be evil.
I also like the Sequel Trilogy. The Rise of Skywalker is my favorite Star Wars Film, followed by TLJ, the OG and the PT, with TFA mixed in with my OG and PT likes and preferences currently. What people like and prefer can shift and change over time. I agree that toxicity gets more clicks than positivity. I hope that we as Star Wars and Star Trek Fans can somehow become louder in our support of good content and shift the algorithm and drown out the negativity. If way more people who love pretty much all things Wars and Trek would speak up, it could conceivably happen. We have a voice. Just remember where you are, be careful what you say and how you say it, and tread carefully.

 

[IRW Bloodwing]

We went through a period in the 2010s where it seemed like studios almost went out of their way to do exactly the opposite of what the fan community wanted. I was reminded of the time Ted Turner basically told classic film fans they could frak off b/c "I have the ownership papers". (This was in regard to the controversy over "colorizing" old b/w movies.)

It became a question of dominance.

 

[Nerys Myk]

"we". "seemed". "fandom community"

 

[Anwar]

We went through a period in the 2010s where it seemed like studios almost went out of their way to do exactly the opposite of what the fan community wanted. I was reminded of the time Ted Turner basically told classic film fans they could frak off b/c "I have the ownership papers". (This was in regard to the controversy over "colorizing" old b/w movies.)

It became a question of dominance.

Well, fans never know what they want. Leave it to "fans" we wouldn't have 90% of what we have.

 

[IRW Bloodwing]

Well, fans never know what they want. Leave it to "fans" we wouldn't have 90% of what we have.

That is almost EXACTLY the sort of fan-dismissive attitude the fan community has had to contend with for years.

 

[The Wormhole]

Gene Roddenberry Himself said "Star Trek would be shit if we listened to the fans."