D&D General Why grognards still matter

[Sacrosanct]

All y'all talking about how expensive D&D is and the Warhammer fans are all like

 

[AnotherGuy]

Not the person who made the initial claim, but when I see "appeased casual minority audiences" I read it as pandering to small-but-vocal groups within a fandom, maybe or maybe not do the detriment of the overall experience.

Thank you, someone actually got it.
Women are not minorities!

But hey it is much easier for some posters to bring up Hitler, -ists and talk about Cavill being woke or anti-woke than actually acknowledge what many of these shows suffered from....

@Ruin Explorer, why is it you feel the need to go there when describing the theories surrounding Cavill, why would you not say that Cavill preferred the canon rather than talk about something being woke or not woke? That is like equating canon to anti-woke and non-canon as woke. Can you really not see that what you're doing is actual dog-whistling?

 

[FrozenNorth]

Generally, I agree. However, when you look at Star Wars in particular, the fan base really raised Hell after Rian Johnson made changes to things. I clearly remember the uproar because of a random stablehand used the Force to grab a broom. And so we went back and had to have Palps return, and under Abrams, SW became all about playing the greatest hit.

Was the problem that Rian Johnson made changes to things, or that he was a piss-poor storyteller? Because I heard a lot more complaints about inconsistencies between movies (and within movies) than the actions of a random stablehand.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

@Ruin Explorer, why is it you feel the need to go there when describing the theories surrounding Cavill, why would you not say that Cavill preferred the canon rather than talk about something being woke or not woke? That is like equating canon to anti-woke and non-canon as woke. Can you really not see that what you're doing is actual dog-whistling?

Because I'm talking about what actually happened according to the actual people involved, and you're promoting conspiracy theories that originate with alt-right grifters?

You also appear to not understand what the phrase "dog-whistle" means, you're just using to mean anything you don't like, or that makes you uncomfortable, the way some people have ruined the phrase "gaslighting" to now mean "someone disagreed with me" rather than "tricky lies designed to disorientate, confuse and control". Or "gatekeeping" to mean "someone disagreed with me" rather than "people making active efforts to block others from engaging in communities/discussions about certain subjects".

And I pointed out that this was initially an anti-Cavill hit job that then turned into an anti-woke thing, using Cavill as a vehicle. What you appear to be saying is you believed the lies and want to keep believing the lies. The made-up nonsense about "canon" and Cavill having some kind of serious disagreement. Which again, curious that he kept going for two seasons after this supposedly happened, and that the showrunner really likes him after made-up stories that they hated each other, which you're relying on and apparently believe to be true. Like the idea that this woman would come out years later to say what a good guy he was and how he was cool to work with after he supposedly threatened to quit (and then by your logic, did quit two years later) and shouted at her and stuff is just beyond belief. It's absolutely silly.

Especially when we know what went down with him and Superman, a role he'd publicly stated he'd jump at the chance to return to. We know he was promised the role, that Dwyane Johnson claimed it was a done deal, and we know that fell through. We know both Cavill and the Witcher showrunner say scheduling conflicts were why he left (which, truthfully, really are why a lot of people leave a lot of things), and that lines up well with him being told he was going to be in a Superman movie (and that that movie would be shooting at the same time as S4 of Witcher). So why believe a dodgy conspiracy theory instead? One that makes no sense because the supposed conflict happened all the way back in S1 of The Witcher and that everyone involved has debunked?

Was the problem that Rian Johnson made changes to things, or that he was a piss-poor storyteller? Because I heard a lot more complaints about inconsistencies between movies (and within movies) than the actions of a random stablehand.

It was that he made changes to things.

Claiming he's a piss-poor storyteller is refuted trivially by looking at the other movies he's done, even if you hate TLJ. Abrams specifically got mad about the changes, but has complimented Johnson's skill before and since.

Because I heard a lot more complaints about inconsistencies between movies (and within movies) than the actions of a random stablehand.

Trying to pretend that scene wasn't and in fact isn't still moaned about continuously and loudly by TLJ-haters is just shenanigans.

It's a crap pretense and nothing more. And "complaints about inconsistencies" are frankly most backfill, with people looking for reasons to excuse the fact that they are mad because where TFA didn't ruin their old-EU-based headcanon, indeed it kind of teased it (though was already undermining it by making Luke a weird hermit), TLJ absolutely steamrollered that headcanon.

That's what we saw - a lot of Gen-X people who think that they "own" Star Wars (which we'd seen come up before with the prequel trilogy and their overwrought reactions to that) who absolutely had significant headcanon about Luke/Han/Leia, and definitely thought that they basically lived "happily ever after", getting extremely upset because Luke, particularly, was shown to have basically flopped, rather than become this skinny, black-wearing badass he'd been in the old EU.

 

[Morrus]

Because I'm talking about what actually happened according to the actual people involved, and you're promoting conspiracy theories that originate with alt-right grifters?

You also appear to not understand what the phrase "dog-whistle" means, you're just using to mean anything you don't like, or that makes you uncomfortable, the way some people have ruined the phrase "gaslighting" to now mean "someone disagreed with me" rather than "tricky lies designed to disorientate, confuse and control". Or "gatekeeping" to mean "someone disagreed with me" rather than "people making active efforts to block others from engaging in communities/discussions about certain subjects".

And I pointed out that this was initially an anti-Cavill hit job that then turned into an anti-woke thing, using Cavill as a vehicle. What you appear to be saying is you believed the lies and want to keep believing the lies. The made-up nonsense about "canon" and Cavill having some kind of serious disagreement. Which again, curious that he kept going for two seasons after this supposedly happened, and that the showrunner really likes him after made-up stories that they hated each other, which you're relying on and apparently believe to be true. Like the idea that this woman would come out years later to say what a good guy he was and how he was cool to work with after he supposedly threatened to quit (and then by your logic, did quit two years later) and shouted at her and stuff is just beyond belief. It's absolutely silly.

Especially when we know what went down with him and Superman, a role he'd publicly stated he'd jump at the chance to return to. We know he was promised the role, that Dwyane Johnson claimed it was a done deal, and we know that fell through. We know both Cavill and the Witcher showrunner say scheduling conflicts were why he left (which, truthfully, really are why a lot of people leave a lot of things), and that lines up well with him being told he was going to be in a Superman movie (and that that movie would be shooting at the same time as S4 of Witcher). So why believe a dodgy conspiracy theory instead? One that makes no sense because the supposed conflict happened all the way back in S1 of The Witcher and that everyone involved has debunked?


It was that he made changes to things.

Claiming he's a piss-poor storyteller is refuted trivially by looking at the other movies he's done, even if you hate TLJ. Abrams specifically got mad about the changes, but has complimented Johnson's skill before and since.


Trying to pretend that scene wasn't and in fact isn't still moaned about continuously and loudly by TLJ-haters is just shenanigans.

It's a crap pretense and nothing more. And "complaints about inconsistencies" are frankly most backfill, with people looking for reasons to excuse the fact that they are mad because where TFA didn't ruin their old-EU-based headcanon, TLJ absolutely steamrollered that headcanon.

That's what we saw - a lot of Gen-X people who think that they "own" Star Wars (which we'd seen come up before with the prequel trilogy and their overwrought reactions to that) who absolutely had significant headcanon about Luke/Han/Leia, and definitely thought that they basically lived "happily ever after", getting extremely upset because Luke, particularly, was shown to have basically flopped, rather than become this skinny, black-wearing badass he'd been in the old EU.

When somebody has been warned for going down a track--and worse, told that that was their last warning--baiting them into talking further about that subject seems really churlish. Drop the subject, please. That goes for everybody.

 

[Parmandur]

Was the problem that Rian Johnson made changes to things, or that he was a piss-poor storyteller? Because I heard a lot more complaints about inconsistencies between movies (and within movies) than the actions of a random stablehand.

Rian Johnson is a very good storyteller: see also, Knives Out and Glass Onion. The Last Jedi is, in fact, a good story told well, that did well with critics and at the box office.

The toxic discourse that chased cast members off of social media and caused Disney to toss the story developments out and make a straight up terrible movie that undermined Last Jedi is the problem.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Rian Johnson is a very good storyteller: see also, Knives Out and Glass Onion. The Last Jedi is, in fact, a good story told well, thwt did well with critics and at the box office.

The toxic discourse that chased cast members off of wocial media and caused Disney to toss the story developments out and make a straight up terrible movie thst undermined Last Jedi is the problem.

I disagree, it had some interesting bits but the whole is less than the sum of its parts.

 

[Parmandur]

I disagree, it had some interesting bits but the whole is less than the sum of its parts.

Definitely above par for Star Wars movies, sorry. And I say that as someone who watched the original trilogy a couple times a week as a child and read all the books in the 90s.

 

[KYRON45]

I am a grognard and I am indifferent about this message.*

*paid for by my employer as i am at work and posting on company time.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Yes, of course there is. We may not be the focus, but neither should we be completely disregarded.

Citation needed for WotC completely disregarding grognards, particularly given detailed sections in the new DMG concerning Greyhawk.