Star Trek Picard SPOILERS thread

[S'mon]

I overall enjoyed Star Trek Picard, though it didn't feel very much like Star Trek to me (heck I enjoyed 4e D&D, likewise!)

It does seem to have attracted a lot of flak online, a lot of it unmerited - I also liked The Rise of Skywalker, and felt the same way. My impression is that once a fan base is alienated (by The Last Jedi and Star Trek: Discovery), some develop a rather perverse joy in seeking out reasons to hate stuff. Most people I know absolutely loathed Rise of Skywalker (my son called it 'Worse than The Last Jedi'!) :-O - like Picard, maybe neither is the greatest thing since sliced bread, but AFAICS both had a lot of good stuff, neither showed the contempt for their (majority) audience that would merit such vitriol.

 

[Zardnaar]

Morris definition is correct IMHO but it's been used in the way GL has described.

If you take over a pre existing franchise and make drastic changes your going to get backlash.

It like Coke vs New Coke people like the old recipe thats what they want so sell them coke.

You can make some minor changes but if you pull a 180 it's not to surprising things tend to fall over.

 

[Ryujin]

Morris definition is correct IMHO but it's been used in the way GL has described.

If you take over a pre existing franchise and make drastic changes your going to get backlash.

It like Coke vs New Coke people like the old recipe thats what they want so sell them coke.

You can make some minor changes but if you pull a 180 it's not to surprising things tend to fall over.

And when your "New Coke" tastes like "flat, generic cola", you get pretty big backlash.

 

[Zardnaar]

And when your "New Coke" tastes like "flat, generic cola", you get pretty big backlash.

We've had two companies screw up here.

One made chocolate (Cadbury) and they changed the recipe to add in more palm oil. Had a mate who worked in the factory and he said they lost 2/3rds of their sales in a few months. Took a few more years but they closed the factory last year, the other brand struggled to keep up with demand.

There was a hot malted drink called Milo. They changed the recipe to make it better and more healthy. They took alot of the suger out. Sales collapsed it tasted disgusting. And you've had 3 generations raised on the stuff. Last I heard the original recipe is back.

So yeah change can be bad.

 

[Hussar]

Dislike of a piece of art, say "The Rise of Skywalker" or "Star Trek: Picard" is fine. Offering your reasons, simply to share or to offer criticism, is fine . . . and you're right, can be helpful to the creatives working on various franchises. I don't think anybody in this thread is saying, "if you are vocal about your dislike and/or criticism of a show/movie, then you are a toxic fan." As Morrus, I think, has made very clear, it's the fans who cross the line from expressing their dislike/criticism to personal attacks and harassment that are toxic. And there are a lot more of these folks out there than I'm personally comfortable with, and it makes me sad. They often defend their toxicity by claiming they are just expressing their opinion, but they are doing much more than just that.

I'd add another element here. People who dislike a product who presume when "toxic fandom" is mentioned, that it immediately applies to them. That if we start talking about the folks who are going way over the line in their spewing of vitriol and make jokey videos about them being trolls and getting covered in poop that this applies to ANYONE who criticizes the product. Which, of course, couldn't be further from the truth. But, people, for some reason, seem to come to the conclusion that the reason that a segment of fandom is being called toxic is because they don't like something. That's not why fans are being called toxic. They are being called toxic because they do nothing but spew hate and vitriol at every single opportunity, making any sort of conversation impossible, and turn every single opportunity into a self-absorbed screed against whatever is being hated on.

And, for some truly bizarre reason, people who simply dislike a product actually seem to self-identify with these other "fans". It absolutely boggles my mind.

I didn't attack Kelly Marie Team, Kathleen Kennedy or Ryan Johnson online but still got lumped in with the toxic ones. If I blame anyone it's usually the writers, the director bus just doing what the studio via the producer has told them to do.

Hell after Knives Out Ryan's better than JJ who isn't the best at doing anything original.

After RoS TLJ is starting to look better.

Back to Picard I've fallen behind on it but it's easier to watch so far than season one of TNG. I value consistency over peaks and valleys. I like Star Gate Atlantis over SGI even if the best if SGI was better than Atlantis. I can live with the odd dud episode but things get rough when you get dud seasons.

Thus we get Exhibit A here. Someone who came into every single Star Wars thread for YEARS and flung poo about how he HATED all things Star Wars. Over and over and over again. Without end. Without a single time stopping and listening to those who actually liked Star Wars. @Zardnaar, that's why you got labeled as toxic. I'm sorry, but, it's true. You spewed vitriol in every single Star Wars thread for years. You went beyond simply disliking the property and off into the land of proselytizing how bad it was and how everyone should agree with you that it's bad without ever making any attempt at anything remotely like a balanced view.

That's the definition of vitriolic fan. Someone who didn't like 4e? Cool. Yup we should listen to them. Someone who came on En World to fling poo in every single 4e thread, who took joy in selectively quoting dev's to "prove" how WotC hated fans? On and on. Repeatedly for YEARS? Naw, you don't listen to that person. You boot that person from fandom.

 

[Ryujin]

I'd add another element here. People who dislike a product who presume when "toxic fandom" is mentioned, that it immediately applies to them.

Kind of hard not to assume that when someone directly quotes you and makes a statement about how what you've said is what a toxic fan says.

 

[Zardnaar]

I'd add another element here. People who dislike a product who presume when "toxic fandom" is mentioned, that it immediately applies to them. That if we start talking about the folks who are going way over the line in their spewing of vitriol and make jokey videos about them being trolls and getting covered in poop that this applies to ANYONE who criticizes the product. Which, of course, couldn't be further from the truth. But, people, for some reason, seem to come to the conclusion that the reason that a segment of fandom is being called toxic is because they don't like something. That's not why fans are being called toxic. They are being called toxic because they do nothing but spew hate and vitriol at every single opportunity, making any sort of conversation impossible, and turn every single opportunity into a self-absorbed screed against whatever is being hated on.

And, for some truly bizarre reason, people who simply dislike a product actually seem to self-identify with these other "fans". It absolutely boggles my mind.



Thus we get Exhibit A here. Someone who came into every single Star Wars thread for YEARS and flung poo about how he HATED all things Star Wars. Over and over and over again. Without end. Without a single time stopping and listening to those who actually liked Star Wars. @Zardnaar, that's why you got labeled as toxic. I'm sorry, but, it's true. You spewed vitriol in every single Star Wars thread for years. You went beyond simply disliking the property and off into the land of proselytizing how bad it was and how everyone should agree with you that it's bad without ever making any attempt at anything remotely like a balanced view.

That's the definition of vitriolic fan. Someone who didn't like 4e? Cool. Yup we should listen to them. Someone who came on En World to fling poo in every single 4e thread, who took joy in selectively quoting dev's to "prove" how WotC hated fans? On and on. Repeatedly for YEARS? Naw, you don't listen to that person. You boot that person from fandom.

I admit I'm passionate about Star Wars, I never made it personal though. I thought they messed up badly.

Mandalorian was good, new clone wars apparently is good.

So yeah in not happy with what they've done, and yeah I'ma gonna complain about it. It's not the fault of the actors involved or even the directors.

I thought Jar Jar was crap along with Jakes Anakin but never took it on in either actor. That's on George he messed up.

Sequel Trilogy is on the powers that be in Disney and the writers.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

People talk about toxic cultures in relation to Star Wars, but a LOT of that was driven by this one particular Last Jedi maker's treatment towards women and minorities online. He is a White Male. What he called some women who were minorities doesn't even make sense (why would he a white male even be calling them racist misogynists?

Presumably by mistake? I don't mean to defend whoever you're talking about (I don't even know who it is) but I would think that if someone called a woman of colour a "racist misogynist" then it seems likely that one of three things happened: 1) They were talking to someone else, or at least thought they were;. 2) They'd dealt recently with so many racist misogynists that they were trigger-happy on the subject; or 3) the person they were talking to said something that sounded racist and misogynist to them, and they called them on it.

It might be a flaw of mine, but I usually assume when something doesn't make sense (like your scenario) that a mistake has been made. Of course, if the mistake was pointed out, and the speaker doubled-down, then he was, in the very least, being overly defensive, possibly even toxic, maybe a total jerk. Again, I'm not trying to defend whoever it was (or at least, I only mean it theoretically), but when you consider how much racist misogyny that was flying around the Last Jedi, I can imagine how someone could have made the mistake of seeing it where it wasn't intended, in particular if he was dealing with multiple attackers at the same time.

(Again, I don't know your scenario, but if it was Twitter, or something like that, it would have been easy to respond to the wrong person. I don't know.)

 

[S'mon]

Kind of hard not to assume that when someone directly quotes you and makes a statement about how what you've said is what a toxic fan says.

I've never seen anyone say:

"Most people hate Star Trek: Discovery/Star Wars: The Last Jedi in a perfectly legitimate manner. When we call people Toxic Fans, we're only talking about a tiny minority of the many (ex) fans who hate that series/film."

(Disclaimer: I have never watched ST: D)

 

[S'mon]

It might be a flaw of mine, but I usually assume when something doesn't make sense (like your scenario) that a mistake has been made.

I'm sure a mistake was made. I guess it's a mistake illustrative of the mindset of the mistake maker - that he imputes racist & sexist motivations into criticism of his product.