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.
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.