Genre Fans, Dissatisfaction, and Negativity

marshce

New member
I've been posting in the thread for the upcoming game Indiana Jones and the Staff of Kings. I was initially really excited about the prospect of a new Indy game, and I wanted to share this excitement. However, I was taken aback by the negativity I found in the thread. The game has not been released yet meaning no one has played it. Honestly, there is no way we can evaluate anything, good or bad, until actually being released. People were responding to two things: the next gen version was cancelled and the initial screenshots looked to be less than next gen. There was so much negativity and cynicism present there. I kept posting positive things, but I realized I was up against a tidal wave.

This coincided with another experience. This past Easter weekend in England (where I am not living), a brand new Red Dwarf special was aired. I couldn't see it and have to, unfortunately, wait for it to be released on DVD in the States. However, I checked up on some initial fan reviews (something I should learn not to do), and man, oh man, were they negative! "This is horrible!" "This is a travesty!" "They should never have brought it back!" And so on.

What I'm trying to get at is a question I'd like to pose here for discussion. Why are genre fans so intensely cynical and completely unforgiving about the things they supposedly love? Why are they so quick to rip to shreds new diversions into the things they supposedly love?

The most clear examples are the Star Wars Prequels. I'm terrified to even mention them in this post for fear of a bunch of people telling me how terrible they are. (Please don't . . . that is not the purpose of this thread.) But to add to my argument, for many "fans" of Star Wars, these movies were a total destruction of all they seemed to believe in.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull had a very similar reaction from many "diehard" fans. All over the web, you can find passionate attacks on how this film ruined the memory of Indiana Jones. (Or in the case of South Park, how George Lucas and Steven Spielberg raped Indiana Jones.)

What I'd like to work through in this thread is why genre fans are so picky about what they are fans about. Why do they have such unattainable expectations? Why are they so intensely negative and cynical?

Some questions to think about:

1. Are we only hearing from the most vocal fans? Are there thousands and thousands of positive genre fans out there who just don't post on web forums?

2. Are we living in a more cynical age? Have people seen all the wonders that can be seen and now just take them for granted? When Star Wars was first released in 1977 there just had never, ever been anything like it. It blew us away! But now a million Star Wars-like movies have come and gone. The same can be said of Indiana Jones.

3. Do fans "own" the things they are fans of? Why is it that fans feel they can make and remake a creation better than the creators?

4. Why are fans so willing to accept the first creation but not the subsequent ones. What I mean is something like this: Before the original Matrix came out, no one had any idea what it was. It blew people away and created many fans. However, by the time the second movie was released, these fans had already decided what they wanted based on the first film. The second and third films must not have matched what they wanted because they seemed to hate them and to this day people say how horrible those films are. But if the second film had been the first, that would have been people's benchmark and perhaps they would have loved that film and then hated the first film if it had been released second.

5. Is the Internet to blame? Before the Internet the only way fans could share their interest in something was through fanzines and conventions. In this environment there was a very long time between experience and response. Time passed and fans had the time to think about and digest their experience. Now we have instant response. Take Red Dwarf, for example. With the new special, people posted their reactions instantly after watching it. There was no time to digest the experience and think about it for a few days or weeks and then respond. In the age of Twitter we have instant access to people's instant thoughts. Unfortunately, instant thought seems to be a pretty negative little beast.

6. This is related to my second point above: Are there just too many things out there? In 1977 there was pretty much this: Star Wars and Star Trek. But now I could name a hundred different similar things from Battlestar Galactica to Firefly to Matrix and on and on. For Indy fans there are things like Tomb Raider and National Treasure and The Librarian. Has fan enthusiasm for a genre created so many off shoots that the genre becomes diluted?


So, what do you think? I'm curious how other people feel about this. Like I said before, please don't post confirmations that everything I've mentioned (Star Wars prequels, Matrix sequels, and so on) are bad. You can post those comments in other threads. I'd like to just examine why "fans" are like they are.
 

Violet

Moderator Emeritus
Firstly, this kind of behaviour you're describing has been discussed previously.

http://raven.theraider.net/showthread.php?t=18164&highlight=fanboys

Now I'll state my opinion answering your questions:

1. We are probably hearing from the most vocal fans and perhaps the obsessive ones. I am a fan of SW, but not crazy enough about SW to be on a SW forum but I am in love enough with Indiana Jones for me to be here. My point is perhaps more "casual" fans (the term is being used rather loosely) don't bother going on a forum voicing their opinion because it doesn't matter enough to themselves.

2. I don't think we're necessarily cynical. I do think that seeing the same things being repeated and copied over and over can annoy people. I also think that in these times, filmmakers should be experimenting a little more but then you have some fanboys who will rant till the cows come home from diverting from the formula. So I guess that's the Catch 22: needing to find a balance between generic (by that I mean genre) formula and experimentation.

3. I think fans feel that they "own" the franchise more than the average viewer and not necessarily more than the creator. That just depends on the person really. Fans feel that they should be the target audience the creators should be thinking of instead of certain demographics that are least likely to turn up. Fans might think they know better, but that's because they have passion and sometimes, I think that their version of things are better than the creators, but ultimately it's the creator's choice, and whether I like KOTCS or not, I just have to accept that that film was Lucas and Spielberg's choice in the direction of the franchise.

4. I think you answered your own question here and I agree with you on this point.

5. Yes and no. If there was no internet, I would be feeling pretty lonely in my love for Indy. Any discussions that one has with fans and non-fans internet or otherwise, would push your opinion in one direction or the other.

6. Actually I think you're forgetting the other films that were out there in the 80s particularly. Use IJ as an example: The Goonies, Romancing the Stone ( plus the sequel) and King Solomons Mines (and the sequel). You could even relate Congo and Jurassic Park to Indiana Jones if you wanted to.

I think it's great to have off-shoots in the adventure genre because honestly there isn't that much. Sci-fi has got way too much but you know, the creators of the modern stuff are just trying to emulate SW and Star Trek and even Flash Gordon. There's nothing wrong with that, a lot of creators out there these days are fans of the same things as what they're making quite often. And again, being completely honest, I absolutely love The Librarian, The Mummy movies and National Treasure. Tomb Raider movies didn't really work for me, but you know, I'm not going to go on about it.

In any case, it should be taken into account that perhaps the films you mention (SW prequels and KOTCS) are possibly not that great in the first place however the fanboy attitude isn't right.
 

Agent Crab

New member
Some fans take their fandom a bit too far; which is the problem. I like the Indy movies, but I wouldn't snatch up a game like Staff of the Kings, until I see some reviews or maybe rent the game itself and see if it's good or not. I been disapointed with certain games in the past. I been disapointed with movies and other things. Anyone can be a fan of Indiana Jones, hard core fan or casual, isn't that what makes all equal and differnt?

Die Hard fans will buy it of course; casual fans will think about it. If someone isn't a "Die hard" fan of Indiana Jones, does that make them bad? Should they be hunted down like an animal?

Why are most Die hard fans hellbent towards causal fans?

Then we have Twilight fangirl who pretty much harm someone if they have an opinion over a damn book!

Not all fans need to own a shread of merchendise to be a "real fan". I have a ton of Megaman stuff, imported and such. I like Rockman/Megaman. I like Transformers as well, but I don't have a ton of Transformer stuff.

Casual fans and Die hard fans?

I dunno what is the point. What is wrong with jus' bein' a fan?
 

marshce

New member
Thanks for the intelligent response, Violet Indy. Also, thanks for leading me to that other posting. I didn't know about that one and it has some very good questions in it.


I was thinking more about what I wrote before: In order for fans to satiate their fandom, more things have to be produced. If Raiders of the Lost Ark had been the only film ever made, there would probably be no Raven web boards to post on right now. Fan enthusiasm generates the market where new creations are made to meet the demand. But the initial love of something is never the same the second time around (and definitely not the third time). In a sense fandom dooms itself from the start.


By the way, you don't have to answer my questions point by point. I was just using those as a springboard for any ideas people might have.

Agent Crab said:
Why are most Die hard fans hellbent towards causal fans?

I'd like to point out that I'm not attacking any "casual" fans nor am I attacking any "diehard" fans. I'm more trying to analyze why it is that so much negativity and cynicism have crept into society here in the late 20th century and early 21st century. Why is it that fans (all kinds of fans) are so dissatisfied?

Please forget about merchandise like the Indy video game. That was just my particular springboard into this discussion.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

The Drifter

New member
I read this whole post, and I am afraid that my reply will not be as long nor as detailed.
I can say that I have been a fan of Indiana Jones since I first seen Temple of Doom with my dad way back when I was around 10 (I am now 27). I have the novels, and a few toys. I also have played video games since the days of Atari 2600. I have bought many games based on hype and from word-of-mouth, and I have been let down many times because of it.

I am in no way, shape or form putting anyone down who wishes to buy Staff of Kings the day it is released. But, to have others say that "die-hard Indy fans" will buy it day one, is idiotic in my opinion.
Because, I wish to wait and read reviews from gamers (read, that I did <b>NOT</b> say professional game-reviewers), and to maybe rent the game or wait for a demo, does not meant I am not a Indy fan. I waited reviews for ET, and I liked what I read so I bought the game and enjoyed it alot. I will do the same for SoK.
 

Agent Crab

New member
marshce said:
Thanks for the intelligent response. Also, thanks for leading me to that other posting. I didn't know about that one and it has some very good questions in it.


I was thinking more about what I wrote before: In order for fans to satiate their fandom, more things have to be produced. If Raiders of the Lost Ark had been the only film ever made, there would probably be no Raven web boards to post on right now. Fan enthusiasm generates the market where new creations are made to meet the demand. But the initial love of something is never the same the second time around (and definitely not the third time). In a sense fandom dooms itself from the start.


By the way, you don't have to answer my questions point by point. I was just using those as a springboard for any ideas people might have.


The thing is...

You don't need to get certain items to show off you're a fan. Same with loving something.

Like I said. Some fans can take their fandoms seriously and would throw a ***** fest if you have an opinion.

God forbid, I joined this forum; because I like Indiana Jones. I am not a die hard fan. I don't have a huge Indy collection at all.

I have a ton of Megaman items in my collection, though.
 

marshce

New member
Lonsome_Drifter said:
I am in no way, shape or form putting anyone down who wishes to buy Staff of Kings the day it is released.

Thank you for the civil reply, but . . .

Poopie! . . . I don't really care about the video game. There's another thread for that.

Again, I'd love to hear people's opinions about general fans of genres and how expectation and dissatisfaction seem to rule when it comes to entertainment franchises.


Someone in that Fanboys post that Violet Indy mentioned said that they belong to a motorcycle forum and that no one responds with the kind of negativity that people in this and other fan forums respond with.

I have noticed this as well: Hobbyists don't have the intense cyncism that genre fans seem to have. If some people love making plastic models or riding motorcycles or cross stitching or whatever, they seem to have a more generally positive outlook on their hobbies. But what is it about fictional genres that create such intense love/hate responses?
 

The Drifter

New member
So you tell me there is another thread for SoK, and say you don't care about the game, and then brush my post off without really replying; yet you said this in this very thread.

I've been posting in the thread for the upcoming game Indiana Jones and the Staff of Kings. I was initially really excited about the prospect of a new Indy game, and I wanted to share this excitement. However, I was taken aback by the negativity I found in the thread. The game has not been released yet meaning no one has played it. Honestly, there is no way we can evaluate anything, good or bad, until actually being released. People were responding to two things: the next gen version was cancelled and the initial screenshots looked to be less than next gen. There was so much negativity and cynicism present there. I kept posting positive things, but I realized I was up against a tidal wave.
 

marshce

New member
Lonsome_Drifter said:
So you tell me there is another thread for SoK, and say you don't care about the game, and then brush my post off without really replying; yet you said this in this very thread.

Why are you getting upset? I'm not brushing off your post.

Like I said a few times, that opening paragraph is just my springboard into a discussion about genre dissatisfaction. There's already an open forum to talk about the video game and that is why I started a new one for this particular topic which is unrelated to the video game.
 

The Drifter

New member
marshce said:
Why are you getting upset? I'm not brushing off your post.

Like I said a few times, that opening paragraph is just my springboard into a discussion about genre dissatisfaction. There's already an open forum to talk about the video game and that is why I started a new one for this particular topic which is unrelated to the video game.

I'm not getting upset, and I apologize for taking your thread off-topic.
 

marshce

New member
I was thinking more to add to my questioning:

When we experience something for the first time which captures our hearts, we have an overwhelming happiness and enthusiasm for whatever it is. After that initial experience we so want to capture those pure and innocent feelings again. But deep down we all have to know that is impossible. We can only lose our virginity once, so to speak.

That initial enthusiasm as it pertains to fictional genres leads to a desire for sequels. Film companies are businesses and naturally they want to make more money just as every individual in the world wants to. (I can't really fault the movie companies here.) As a consequence, these companies produce more films in a series until there is no more viable market.

This is what I was mentioning before: Fandom dooms itself. Fans demand sequels. Fans demand that the sequels capture the initial enthusiasm. The sequels inevitably do not capture that enthusiasm. We now have cynical fans.

It seems like the capitalist market coupled with human nature could be to blame partially for what I am questioning here.
 
I feel that the tech revolution and evolution since the 80's has transformed the nature of media and how we perceive. The pace has quickened. New markets have opened the door to a deluge of new material.

For people who saw The theatrical release of Raiders they had three long years to watch and rewatch Raiders. It was in theaters for a year...a big deal even now and "Re-released" the next year, (We didn't get Raiders on DVD six months later). We bought books, records, collector albums.

For every new generation the film becomes more bubblegum...to be chewed up and spit out. I had an argument with a friend about the "artistic merit" of Tim Burton's first Batman. I thought the choice of vehicles was a stark contrast to the rest of the films' set design/direction and argued it was a budgetary decision that brought the WHOLE production DOWN...VERY distracting to me. He initially contended it was artistic but couldn't provide a reasonable defense and changed.

I say this because, after all the interviews, to the contrary, supporting and themselves contradictory I believe ToD was "slapped together". In the editing room you have to work with what you get...I'm paraphrasing Michael Kahn, which is why the movie is so bipolar. It's the best they could do with what they had. I've mentioned it elsewhere...if they had devoted the same time to development it would have been different. The subsequent interviews are a best case/best take on the material and meant to promote the film. The apologies for the film is simply one supporting fact.

Speilberg recalls Lucas saying that he had three stories in mind, but in reality he did not. Raiders was made just like the first filmed Star Wars movie...a stand alone adventure. Once he had confirmation that he had a hit work began on additional stories. With each new project they moved away from "movie making" as a central focus, to it being a vehicle for other persuits...generating cash. The movies received less and less attention as new revenue streams materialized. Toys/books/board games/Lp's Cassettes to Video Tapes/ DVD's/ Video Games/costumes/models...all these tentacles wrapped their way around the subsequent cinematic offerings, and in some cases influenced the direction of the films.

For all the talk of Lucas securing merchandising rights, the toys didn't materialize for over a year after the film...and haven't stopped since.

It's probably why Raiders fans are so militant. To be a Fan(atic) back then took more devotion then searching the internet.
Raiders raising/setting the bar is one reason, the changing market, another. Age/sensibilities and compromising of the writers/directors/producers another...the list goes on.

Movies were not the disposable media they are today...Ernest got a movie, and sequels, movies have moved into television territory...commonplace.
Bigger, faster, jammed packed in a movie isn't always better. Technology is pretty powerful, using proper judgment upon when, where and how much to employ it, either augments the experience or detracts from it.

When filming Raiders Spielberg looked out on the sunset and dreamed of David Lean and the beauty of landscape. As he pined away at the sunset and sand storms he thought of his idols and how he couldn't let the opportunity get away so they altered their schedule to catch it the next day.

To me the CG and lighting of Hangar 51 exterior was dull and listless...distracting, but I'm sure it cost less and was easier.

Impatience to capitalize on success brings inferrior product to market.

You hear it all the time with bands...the first album was toiled over and now that it's a success the record company wants lightning to strike twice, they want the follow up. But few artists can conjure the same magic that made them so popular initially. See Pink Floyd: Have a Cigar.

So the short answer is people are spoiled, spoiled rotten.

Is that Big Mac in the commercial the same as the one you've been served? Of course not...you've been served.

That’s my theory…
 
Last edited:

marshce

New member
Rocket Surgeon said:
I feel that the tech revolution and evolution since the 80's has transformed the nature of media and how we perceive. The pace has quickened. New markets have opened the door to a deluge of new material.

Yes, definitely. Film and television today is so disposable. When Raiders of the Lost Ark was released, that was it. There was nothing else at all. You could only see it in the theater upon release (or re-release) and then you had to wait until someday when it would be on television. The home video market wasn't off the ground at that point. But now there are hundreds of similar things and hundreds of ways to experience them. If you don't like one thing, you can throw it away and get another almost instantly.

I think Star Trek is a great example. When I was a kid there was only the original series and the cartoon (which was hard to see when I was young). That was all we had. The original series was a precious collection of 79 episodes which fans dreamed about again and again. You could only see the shows through reruns if you were lucky enough to have a local station that showed them. This added to their being such a precious, delicate thing.

Now add to that 178 episodes of Star Trek: The Next Generation, 176 episodes of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, 172 episodes of Star Trek: Voyager, 98 episodes of Star Trek: Enterprise, 10 feature length movies, a new movie reboot on the way, hundreds and hundreds (perhaps thousands) of novels based on every series, computer games from text-based adventures to 3D action titles, innumerable comic books, fan magazines and web pages, and on and on. With DVDs and downloading, everyone can experience these things anywhere at anytime on any electronic device conceivable.

Back when I was young and the original series was all we had, there was a very different feeling to being a Star Trek fan. It wasn't so disposable. It wasn't a franchise in the modern sense. It was a group of people dreaming about the future and sharing that dream through a wonderful television series. People were much more forgiving of a "bad" episode because, like I said, that was all we had.

Fans ultimately want (most of the time, demand) more and more. Yet there's a point when there might be too much of something and innocence is lost forever more. Companies are always gladly going to release more and more of a product if the consumers are willing to buy.

A good example of the alternative is Bill Watterson and his wonderful Calvin and Hobbes strip. He refused to merchandise. He refused to make animated versions of his characters. He refused to continue making the comic strip after he lost passion for it. What we have is a wonderful, pure creation that never tired us out, but there is no franchise. It's dead and gone. It's a museum piece. We will never have new Calvin and Hobbes and as a result the fan base is extremely limited.
 
marshce said:
Back when I was young and the original series was all we had, there was a very different feeling to being a Star Trek fan. It wasn't so disposable. It wasn't a franchise in the modern sense. It was a group of people dreaming about the future and sharing that dream through a wonderful television series. People were much more forgiving of a "bad" episode because, like I said, that was all we had.

AGREED! Although I first became a Star Trek fan through re-runs, those few GREAT episodes sparked imagination. To find the phaser/communicator/tricorder model set was UNBELIEVEABLE! I had a few!


marshce said:
Fans ultimately want (most of the time, demand) more and more. Yet there's a point when there might be too much of something and innocence is lost forever more. Companies are always gladly going to release more and more of a product if the consumers are willing to buy.

Consider the correlation between want and need.

My point, the prequels and sequels suffered because the greater attention marketing incidentals took from the focusof film making. They became vehicles..."FRANCHISES"...and the movies suffered.

marshce said:
A good example of the alternative is Bill Watterson and his wonderful Calvin and Hobbes strip. He refused to merchandise. He refused to make animated versions of his characters. He refused to continue making the comic strip after he lost passion for it. What we have is a wonderful, pure creation that never tired us out, but there is no franchise. It's dead and gone. It's a museum piece. We will never have new Calvin and Hobbes and as a result the fan base is extremely limited.

Love Calvin and Hobbes too and I'm glad he didn't pimp it out.

Don't be such a Calvinist! He's not dead yet and we may see Calvin and Hobbes sooner than you think!
 

torao

Moderator Emeritus
What we have is a wonderful, pure creation that never tired us out, but there is no franchise. It's dead and gone. It's a museum piece.
It's a piece of art or entertainment, that will continue to entertain and inspire people as long as it's printed or handed down in whatever way. And it definitely already has inspired dozens of storytellers whose work would be different without Calvin and Hobbes. We are in the midst of an infinite space of connected ideas ...stories or art cannot be a museum piece. Even if it (like art in a museum) actually is.

Io9 linked to an interesting blog entry by one Chris Abraham, who was part of the online marketing team of the reimagined Battlestar Galactica series. It's an interesting and partly sad read.
 
Last edited:

marshce

New member
torao said:
It's a piece of art or entertainment, that will continue to entertain and inspire people as long as it's printed or handed down in whatever way. . . . We are in the midst of an infinite space of connected ideas ...stories or art cannot be a museum piece. Even if it is.

I love Calvin and Hobbes, but my point is that no franchise exists because its creator chose not to pursue what fans wanted and demanded: more Calvin and Hobbes, merchandise, and animated television specials.

If you say the name Bill Watterson to people, they'll probably smile and say fondly, "Didn't he do that wonderful Calvin and Hobbes? I love that!" If you say the name George Lucas to people, many will say, "He ruined Star Wars!" or "He ruined Indiana Jones!"

(By the way, "museum piece" is not meant to be derogatory. It just means that because the comic strip was never continued nor merchandised, it has become something immutable like Citizen Kane or To Kill a Mockingbird or a Van Gogh painting: Fans don't rip it to shreds but merely appreciate it and remember it well.)

Rocket Surgeon said:
Don't be such a Calvinist! He's not dead yet and we may see Calvin and Hobbes sooner than you think!

As much as I adore that comic strip, I really, really hope there's no new Calvin and Hobbes.
 
marshce said:
As much as I adore that comic strip, I really, really hope there's no new Calvin and Hobbes.

Are you affraid the teenage Calvin won't be as funny? I'm sure (don't ask my why), Bill Watterson could put out more of the same quality...

In the mean time:

<div><embed src="http://www.livevideo.com/flvplayer/embed/2224F7CE7CB34505A1DEAEC23CE3B963&autoStart=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" quality="high" WIDTH="445" HEIGHT="369" wmode="transparent"></embed><br/><a href="http://www.livevideo.com/video/embedLink/2224F7CE7CB34505A1DEAEC23CE3B963/46978/robot-chicken-calvin-n-hobbes.aspx">robot chicken calvin n hobbes</a></div>
 

StoneTriple

New member
marshce said:
Someone in that Fanboys post that Violet Indy mentioned said that they belong to a motorcycle forum and that no one responds with the kind of negativity that people in this and other fan forums respond with.

That was me. There is certainly some trolling, baiting & negativity, but not nearly as often as movie forums - some people are just jackasses and need to bully others to feel better about themselves.

My guess is that it (movie fanboy hate) has something to do with the fictional\escapism\alter ego connection to genre films. The film characters & premise may help some people cope with things that may be missing in their life. Maybe it lets them pretend to be someone they wish they were or have a character trait they wish they had, etc.

If the story & films start to venture too far from what they need the story to be, they turn on it and the people who follow it, like it, and\or created it. Usually it's all of those groups because all of those groups threaten the make-believe world they've started to live in.

Something I've been pondering lately is how most of the fanboy hate seems to almost always have one thing in common - the "good\real\acceptable\true\etc" parts of a film franchise always seem to be many years in the past.

The hate always seems to be for a new addition to their make-believe world. It's as though they've gone so far into it that anything new will spoil the fantasy - ala the penny that Christopher Reeve finds in the film Somewhere In Time.

That German fella that was here for a while was like that with Kingdom. One part of the story seemed particularly threatening to his altered reality - the fact the Indiana Jones got married and had a child. He was hateful - almost to the point of fearful - when that part of the story was still just a rumor. When it became reality, he wouldn't accept it.

He kept saying Crusade's sunset shot was the true end, the real end, etc. He needed his make believe world closed to any more of the story. The sunset scene allowed him to interpret Indy's future to fit his altered reality. When the actual creators continued it and it didn't fit with what he needed, he lashed out at them, the story, and anyone who accepted it.
 
Top