Can a Fanbase Ever Be "Owed" Something?

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

While this topic has come up before, I don't think it was given its own thread. But anyway, recent events have spurred me to type this up.

So, every so often, there's a claim I see come up that really bugs me. This can apply to any kind of franchise out there, the idea that fans are "owed" X. This comes from disgruntlement at something, or someone, but whatever the case, I feel the urge to roll my eyes. As in, we're "owed" a better movie, or we're "owed" better representation, or we're "owed" a better ending. Even if it isn't stated outright, petitions such as the one to remake Game of Thrones season 8 or retcon Last Jedi are examples of this, basically the premise of "I didn't like X, so give me X in a way that I like." Or, even vague suggestions like in the DCEU, where reaction has been mixed, there's the suggestion that "DC fans are owed better movies," even if not always put in those words.

To all these things, my take is this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNaEEj7gCqM

Now, while Frank Underwood is making things clear, I'm going to make something clear as well - this isn't the same as saying that pieces of media should never be criticized. Even if the creator poured their heart and soul into it, that doesn't incubate it from criticism. However, where I draw the line is the sense of entitlement in this, because the closest rationale I've ever seen is based on the idea that:

1) X is big.

2) X is big because people consumed X, thus giving the creator profits/favourable word of mouth to make more of X

3) If X doesn't deliver, the fans are owed better, becase fans are stakeholders in X

Like I said, this is the closest rationale I've ever seen and even then it falls short in my eyes. Thing is, far as I'm consumed, fans can never be stakeholders in a franchise, in any sense of the word. You become a stakeholder by creating, not by consuming. X existed before you consumed it. You enjoy the consumption, so it's an equitable trade. If you no longer like X, you're free to withdraw from the consumption of X, because the creator of X is under no obligation to cater to your tastes. Even in franchises that have more than one creator, I still don't buy into the idea of fans being stakeholders in the sense because they have no active part in the creation of the product.

But, that's just me. Thoughts?

am firm and confident in the belief that no, any fan of any particular thing is not ever "owed" anything from it. it's fucking entertainment, totally disposable fiction that can be easily ignored. not life-saving healthcare or any of the basic tenants of survival, of which even those are routinely denied by bunglecunts with too much power, money and privilege inertia to understand. Georgie Martin can do whatever the hell he likes, he's already put the work in and inspired millions with something no one really asked for or needed, but willingly paid for and happily consumed (well maybe "happy" isn't the most accurate descriptor considering the tone of the world) once it was out there. I think it takes a special sort of spoilt, entitled state of mind to believe otherwise. there's no argument that could convince me they have a point

No, not at all, and in fact, fuck the notion that they are. If I got to direct a franchise movie, you know, if someone came to me and told me I could write and direct a Star Wars movie, a Superman movie, whatever, just for a pair of examples I'd actually like to do, what the fanbase wants would be the last thing on my mind. I wouldn't give a shit about expectations, I wouldn't give a shit about fan service, I sure as hell wouldn't give a shit about keeping my personal morals and politics away from it, I'd try realize my vision to the best of my ability. That's a creators responsibility. Not to give people what they want. I'd consider it their responsibility towards their audience to make the movie they themselves would like to see and make it in the best way that they can.

I respect Rian Johnson and I also respect Zack Snyder. It's every fans and critics right to dislike their work, because, the other way around, fans don't owe creators anything either but if you demand that you get something else because you didn't like a work you should be told to fuck right off. You're always free to criticize and so so as scathingly as you want, hell, it's something I do, but you get what you get and the only thing you're entitled to is your opinion on it.

I suppose that really depends on your perspective, it is the investment and enthusiasm of the fandom that makes any franchise a success, things like mod community and fan-projects can keep it in the public conscious and breathe new life into it, however, that does require them to be inspired by the original work in the first place.

I see it more as a symbiotic relationship, you create something cool, fans will come and show their appreciation, you treat you audience with respect and they will do so in turn, ideally.
The only place equal transaction can be expected to take place is in the financial transaction, beyond that, it becomes a relationship between a creator and their audience that can take any form that they mold it into, knowingly or otherwise.

That said, when you promise one thing, be that resolution, a dignified treatment of the source-material, consistently written plot and characters, basic story structure or, at the very least, no belittling of your audience, any of these things, and you don't deliver on that, it feels like a breach of trust, especially considering the consumer has to pay up before learning of the contents of their product.
(Unless they look up spoilered reviews, that is)

I think "owing" is the wrong choice of words here, since they do not have any sense of material ownership or due from the creator, to try and argue that way is bound to fail, which is why I sometimes suspect "to owe" and "entitlement" are terms deliberately chosen to dismiss fan backlash, as opposed to "disappointment" and "disillusioned".

A more extreme stance would perhaps be saying that it is the artist's job to create something their chosen audience finds appealing, thereby making their fans their boss, not that it works that way in large entertainment industries though, where you have an actual boss that can fire you, which must actually be very frustrating, since it is not by their approval that you find success, only employment.

Considering this is a gaming site, I'd point out I think fans are owed a functional game and not a broken bug ridden disaster. Or a game that actually delivers the features promised in promotional material. Sadly we often don't get these things, but they can count on the fans to still buy it next time, which is silly of the fans and manipulative of the developers.

Yes.

1. If you promise something, you well, promised something. Say, a certain number of books, or features that end up not being in the game.

2. If you're adapting something, you owe the fans to ya know, adapt it. Too many adaptations don't care about the source material, and usually are garbage. Also the further away from the creators you go, the more the new people owe it to the fan base I think. George Lucas 'owed' the Star Wars fandom less than Disney does.

Yes, fans can expect to be owed things they aren't, or perhaps misplace blame or whatever, but if you're going to boil it down to a simple 'yes or no', the answer is yes.

When a creative work becomes commodified to the point merchandise, tie-in advertising, product placement and endorsements, and other nominally-secondary sources of revenue are of equal if not greater value than the original work, it's no longer justifiably called art. It's a consumer product.

And, indeed, when a consumer purchases a product they enter into a contract with the producer, and that carries with it an expectation of quality. If the producer fails to meet the expected level of quality, the consumer is well within their rights to voice grievances -- but most importantly, choose not to consume future content from that producer. The mere existence of a work does not entitle content producers to my money. I did not find TLJ satisfying, therefore I chose to not pay to see Solo, and my decision is to not see RotS when it comes out this November.

My wallet, my money, my choice. End of story. Sadly, "geek culture" at large remains astoundingly susceptible to gaslighting, bullying, harassment, shaming, peer pressure, and outright predatory practices, and has yet to actually learn how to vote with their wallet and stand up for themselves as consumers.

Generally not. In most cases, people acting like they are owed something are very incorrect.

OTOH, if they actually have been promised something, then they are owed something. If you were to buy a game and have been told that expansions for that game will come out later, say. In general advertising would fall under this.

Also, consumers are generally promised that the product is one the creators have put a good faith effort into. Not necessarily that it'll suit their tastes, though.

What the company directly promised seems to be a fair thing to be owed.

..Yes...-ish?

I mean, the reason someone is allowed to make a new entry to a franchise that has a fanbase is because the fanbase for it exists. So you sorta ""owe"" it to them to put in your best work. That's not the same as saying the creator should bend to the whims of the fanbase, either before or after the work has come out. I'm generally a firm believer that you should never placate your audience.

Thaluikhain:
Generally not. In most cases, people acting like they are owed something are very incorrect.

OTOH, if they actually have been promised something, then they are owed something. If you were to buy a game and have been told that expansions for that game will come out later, say. In general advertising would fall under this.

Also, consumers are generally promised that the product is one the creators have put a good faith effort into. Not necessarily that it'll suit their tastes, though.

Honestly, in gaming the Mass Effect 3 ending fiasco, on consumers', the media's, and BioWare's part, is pretty much the case example of the phenomena in action. Lots of good and bad faith behavior on all sides, and treating all sides charitably yields a situation where there's only one clear bad guy. I approved of the original ending's direction and intent if not its execution, but I understood how others might find it disappointing overall, and supported efforts to voice grievances constructively, up to and including pledges to vote with one's wallet in the future.

And frankly, that we're having this conversation at all in this context, speaks towards the "clear bad guy" I just mentioned: the gaming press. The press' behavior during the ME3 ending fiasco, and later controversies, was nothing short of deplorable: leaping immediately to triple-A publishers' defense, voiding even the pretense of impartiality, by cherry picking bad actors (and almost exclusively bad actors) to frame the "opposition" as an angry, entitled mob. Because poisoning the well, aggravating controversy, and deliberately polarizing debate are the solar power of ad revenue by way of hate clicks and nerd baiting.

Needless to say, this became the default strategy in basically every controversy to hit gaming since, whether it's over the color of a character's hair or obvious and otherwise inexcusable predatory monetization strategies. Personally, I think it's appropriate and necessary to say the conversation shouldn't be about whether controversies exist, but rather about how they're represented. Look back to Fallout 3, for example, which had a highly divisive and disappointing ending...but not even a fraction of the controversy surrounding ME3's.

Bethesda admitted the ending had its faults, and while standing behind the original product gave it a conclusion and epilogue in the form of Broken Steel, a paid DLC. Still not even a fraction of the controversy surrounding ME3. What was missing in FO3's case that was present in ME3's, what was that key X-factor that caused the controversy over ME3's ending to erupt into an industry-defining moment but not FO3's?

Yes, I am owed a 6th season of Angel that isn't comic book based. That season 5 ending still annoys me.

I'm only semi joking about this.

I mean, I feel they're owed some measure of respect but that extends about as far as not saying "Oh you didn't like this thing we made? Well fuck you buddy". Which really kind of applies to most people. Stuff like the GoT petition are just ridiculous

No, a fanbase is never owed something, but at the same time, the owners of a property are not owed any kind of loyalty from fans either.

Worgen:
No, a fanbase is never owed something, but at the same time, the owners of a property are not owed any kind of loyalty from fans either.

This is pretty much how I see it. And it's fine for fans to moan when something isn't the way they want it, but just keep it in perspective.

If there is no contract, then only in their feels minds.

image

Saelune:

2. If you're adapting something, you owe the fans to ya know, adapt it. Too many adaptations don't care about the source material, and usually are garbage.

I would argue that the opposite is often true - many adaptations are better because they took liberties with the source material. Sometimes what works in one medium often doesn't work so well in another. Or that a skilled visionary (potentially more so than the creator of the original) can take the source and build on it.

Agema:

Saelune:

2. If you're adapting something, you owe the fans to ya know, adapt it. Too many adaptations don't care about the source material, and usually are garbage.

I would argue that the opposite is often true - many adaptations are better because they took liberties with the source material. Sometimes what works in one medium often doesn't work so well in another. Or that a skilled visionary (potentially more so than the creator of the original) can take the source and build on it.

There is a difference between the MCU and the recent (relatively speaking) Fantastic Four movie. The MCU, while not always successful, atleast is aware of and respects enough the source material. For the Fantastic Four movie, one of the people in charge made the actors stop reading the comics. Fuck that guy, fuck that movie.

CaitSeith:
If there is no contract, then only in their feels minds.

If only there were some word to describe the exchange of currency or trade for goods or services rendered, at an agreed-upon rate of exchange...

It depends on a lot of things.

Well, in once sense I feel "owed" a quality entertainment product EVERY time I sit down to watch something.

If I don't get it though, the creator isn't obligated to try again until he meets my criteria.

I cringe when the marketing of the new Ghostbusters movie says its giving the movie 'back to the fans.'

Also, being a Star Trek fan (and sort of Wars) somehow means I dont want anything to change. There are good parts of Discovery and bad with the average being good. There are good parts of Orville and bad, with the average being good. Both drastically change the Star Trek formula but in totally different ways.

The Force Awakens killed my interest in Star Wars. But Rogue One and parts of Last Jedi have given me some hope for Star Wars. Rogue One is how I see Star Wars, especially reading the Thawn books and Rogue Squadron series. Force Awakens is not.

But, clearly I'm not a real fan anyway. All these fandoms are pretended to be monoliths that dont have any variation in interpretation. I clearly dont think like 'real fans.'

trunkage:
I cringe when the marketing of the new Ghostbusters movie says its giving the movie 'back to the fans.

I most certainly don't, and not for the gender of any of the lead actors. Amy Pascal pulled some seriously unforgivable ish to shoehorn that movie into production, and pre-production was an even bigger shitshow than the two decades' worth of development hell for Ghostbusters 3. More attention needs to be put on what came to light thanks to the SMP e-mail hack.

I'm sorry, but when you weaponize the death of a brilliant and well-regarded creative who was probably the greatest comedy writer of his time who was by all accounts a genuinely good person, and one of the two men responsible for the entire franchise, to throw a grieving friend under the bus and muscle him out of the production before the body is even cold, you can fuck yourself with a Bad Dragon made of molten tungsten all the way straight to Hell.

Legally, no. Morally, of course.

If a fanbase made a thing out of something that without them would never have been made successful, for example, how the tournament scene kept the super smash brothers series culturally relevant for a good decade or so until nintendo woke up to the goldmine in their backyard, you owe a debt of gratitude to the fans who facilitated your profitability, comfort and success.

Now, a balance has to be struck where continued profitability is balanced out with fandom preferences, and sometimes changes need to occur that make some fans less than pleased. There is, however, a common sense line where reasonable fans can agree that a franchise has "stopped being itself" in a fundamental way for reasons not related to its continued existence, changed because of some new vision or new ideology or new talent brought in. That is a form of betrayal of trust and of loyalty.

What ought happen there is that those critically-differing visions for a franchise should be made into an original work, one of a separate identity to that of the original. There is never a reason to change something so much. You can always just make more new things instead.

I think this is a very american thing, since for example you have the american comic books where you have the same character written by a dozen (or even a hundred in some cases) different people throughout their existence, and at one point the character loses any semblance of identity and becomes a chunk of playdough for whoever is forming him at the present time. I think the world would have been much more interesting if each of those people came up with their own original character and had them go through the events they had in mind instead. Manga is a lot like that which is a big reason for why I prefer (and actually purchase) it.

Saelune:
Yes.

1. If you promise something, you well, promised something. Say, a certain number of books, or features that end up not being in the game.

Both of those are debatable - in my mind, it depends on the circumstances.

Since we've brought up books, we'll use A Song of Ice and Fire. Got five books, and there's meant to be at least two more. It's been years since book 5, and there's no hard date on book 6, let alone book 7, and in the intervening period, Martin's found time to work on various other projects. So if one poses the question as to whether George "owes" the world books 6 and 7...I'd still have to say no. Unless there was a person that paid upfront for seven books, then there isn't an obligation for him to provide it. I wouldn't fault anyone being angry with it, but as Martin owns the product, he's under no obligation to continue providing it.

If we shift to TV, if a show ends on a cliffhanger, are we owed a resolution? I'd argue that the answer is still no.

2. If you're adapting something, you owe the fans to ya know, adapt it. Too many adaptations don't care about the source material, and usually are garbage.

That's more of a different argument. It's easily possible to have a product that's a solid film but a poor adaptation (e.g. Starship Troopers), or a solid adaptation but a mediocre film (e.g. Chamber of Secrets). If we're talking about what's being "owed," I'd rather be owed the former more than the latter, even though it's not a choice of either/or. But even in principle, I don't think people are "owed" anything.

Also the further away from the creators you go, the more the new people owe it to the fan base I think. George Lucas 'owed' the Star Wars fandom less than Disney does.

Okay, but what does Disney actually "owe" fans? It spent over a billion dollars obtaining the rights to the IP. It might be correct to say that Disney "owes" people like George, or various other people that worked on Star Wars before then, but I don't see a convincing argument that Disney owes fans anything. Even if you argue that fans kept the IP alive or something, that still says more about the worth of the IP than the people consuming it - consumption isn't creation. Even if we're talking about fan works, unless Disney adapts them into its own portfolio, it still doesn't owe them stuff for that.

Eacaraxe:

Bethesda admitted the ending had its faults, and while standing behind the original product gave it a conclusion and epilogue in the form of Broken Steel, a paid DLC. Still not even a fraction of the controversy surrounding ME3. What was missing in FO3's case that was present in ME3's, what was that key X-factor that caused the controversy over ME3's ending to erupt into an industry-defining moment but not FO3's?

My guess?

1) Mass Effect 3 was the culmination of a trilogy. Fallout 3 wasn't. By extension, if you were a fan of ME1/2, chances are you'd be of 3. In contrast, there's a notable divide between those who were introduced to Fallout via 1/2, and those who were introduced in 3 (see No Mutants Allowed)

2) BioWare explicitly promised that ME3 wouldn't have the type of ending it did.

3) I can't comment too much, but from where I'm sitting, ME3's ending is really discordant with the setting, and themes of said setting. We have to accept that organics and synthetics are doomed to conflict (if you had the geth and quarians make peace, too bad). So, either you can say "nah, screw the geth" and kill them with the Reapers, or force synthesis on everyone. If I was to sum up the themes of Mass Effect, it would be "choice" and "unity, not uniformity." The ending, like Terminator 3 for instance, is thematically discordant with everything that's led up to this point.

In contrast, I can't comment much on Fallout 3, but I wasn't aware of any such thematic discordance with its ending. People have argued that FO3 (and indeed, every post F2 game bar New Vegas) is discordant with the themes of the first two games, but I've already explained that there was a swathe of individuals for whom Fallout 3 was their first Fallout game (I'm one of them, though granted, it's my only, and I wasn't fond of it). ME3? Same fanbase overall.

trunkage:

Also, being a Star Trek fan (and sort of Wars) somehow means I dont want anything to change. There are good parts of Discovery and bad with the average being good. There are good parts of Orville and bad, with the average being good. Both drastically change the Star Trek formula but in totally different ways.

Um, is the Orville really a "drastic change?" Like, if I was to sum up the Orville (least the first season), it would be "TNG, but with far more (attempts at) comedy."

Discovery is certainly a drastic departure though.

Dreiko:
Legally, no. Morally, of course.

If a fanbase made a thing out of something that without them would never have been made successful, for example, how the tournament scene kept the super smash brothers series culturally relevant for a good decade or so until nintendo woke up to the goldmine in their backyard, you owe a debt of gratitude to the fans who facilitated your profitability, comfort and success.

Really?

Smash is using characters from well known IPs. Nintendo could have put out a third Smash at any times and it would have still sold like hotcakes. I doubt the Melee tournament scene made much of a difference. If anything, from what I can tell, Brawl tried to distance itself from the e-sports crowd.

There is, however, a common sense line where reasonable fans can agree that a franchise has "stopped being itself" in a fundamental way for reasons not related to its continued existence, changed because of some new vision or new ideology or new talent brought in. That is a form of betrayal of trust and of loyalty.

Except the whole "X is not X anymore" thing is going to differ from person to person.

I think this is a very american thing, since for example you have the american comic books where you have the same character written by a dozen (or even a hundred in some cases) different people throughout their existence, and at one point the character loses any semblance of identity and becomes a chunk of playdough for whoever is forming him at the present time. I think the world would have been much more interesting if each of those people came up with their own original character and had them go through the events they had in mind instead. Manga is a lot like that which is a big reason for why I prefer (and actually purchase) it.

I'm kind of on the same page here. I don't bother with superhero comics because, among other things, the continuity is either too dense, or too flexible - if what I'm reading is going to be rebooted a few years down the line, why even bother? Manga isn't without its own barriers for me, but at the very least, the installments are numbered clearly, and it's usually coming from the same creator. It's far less intimidating to purchase "Manga Vol. 5" rather than "Superman #999, post-Crisis, pre-New 52."

Hawki:

Saelune:
Yes.

1. If you promise something, you well, promised something. Say, a certain number of books, or features that end up not being in the game.

Both of those are debatable - in my mind, it depends on the circumstances.

I mean, everything is circumstantial, but the question was a yes/no one. And the black and white answer is yes. That said, I think what one 'owes' is also circumstantial. Promising something means you should try to keep the promise, but the least you can do is be honest and upfront when you find out you cant. Transparency can do a lot to alleviate such entitlements. Too many promises are broken and the response from them is pure silence.

Eacaraxe:

trunkage:
I cringe when the marketing of the new Ghostbusters movie says its giving the movie 'back to the fans.

I most certainly don't, and not for the gender of any of the lead actors. Amy Pascal pulled some seriously unforgivable ish to shoehorn that movie into production, and pre-production was an even bigger shitshow than the two decades' worth of development hell for Ghostbusters 3. More attention needs to be put on what came to light thanks to the SMP e-mail hack.

I'm sorry, but when you weaponize the death of a brilliant and well-regarded creative who was probably the greatest comedy writer of his time who was by all accounts a genuinely good person, and one of the two men responsible for the entire franchise, to throw a grieving friend under the bus and muscle him out of the production before the body is even cold, you can fuck yourself with a Bad Dragon made of molten tungsten all the way straight to Hell.

Are you talking about Reitman? Who Fieg asked Pascal to cut out of being a producer? Otherwise they'd have to find another director?

trunkage:
Are you talking about Reitman? Who Fieg asked Pascal to cut out of being a producer? Otherwise they'd have to find another director?

Yeah. The SMP hacked e-mails show Pascal and Doug Belgrad were scheming to boot Reitman from the director's seat at least as early as January, 2014. Before Ramis' death. Then, there was the e-mail from 17 March -- the day before Reitman's announcement -- listing the talking points Reitman was to use, from Charles Sipkins to Pascal and Belgrad (but not Reitman).

The whole "dinner party" fiasco was in October of that year, but again the SMP e-mail hack shows Feig and Pascal were negotiating to get Reitman removed from the film altogether as early as August.

There are plenty of resources online to read up on it, not limited to Wikileaks, but Midnight's Edge did a video about the SMP hack relevant to Ghostbusters, outlining the timeline on Reitman's ouster and how it came to be.

https://youtu.be/RPAklIlov-A

EDIT: Actually found this blog post that has the complete timeline, with direct links to Wikileaks' database of the emails.

http://www.gbfans.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=39324

Bonus points for the e-mails from February days before Ramis' death, where Pascal was openly talking about forcing Reitman out and seeking advice for how to do it.

But honestly, the ELI5 on it is Pascal is a massive piece of shit. Don't get me wrong, Feig was acting like a giant, braying donkey, but the situation would never have devolved to what it became had Pascal not set the stage by screwing over Reitman, and proceeding to defend Feig well past the point of reason.

Eacaraxe:

CaitSeith:
If there is no contract, then only in their feels minds.

If only there were some word to describe the exchange of currency or trade for goods or services rendered, at an agreed-upon rate of exchange...

Still nothing certain about liking it.

trunkage:

But, clearly I'm not a real fan anyway. All these fandoms are pretended to be monoliths that dont have any variation in interpretation. I clearly dont think like 'real fans.'

Most "real fans", left to themselves, would suffocate what they love to death and pickle it in formaldehyde.

Hawki:

Dreiko:
Legally, no. Morally, of course.

If a fanbase made a thing out of something that without them would never have been made successful, for example, how the tournament scene kept the super smash brothers series culturally relevant for a good decade or so until nintendo woke up to the goldmine in their backyard, you owe a debt of gratitude to the fans who facilitated your profitability, comfort and success.

Really?

Smash is using characters from well known IPs. Nintendo could have put out a third Smash at any times and it would have still sold like hotcakes. I doubt the Melee tournament scene made much of a difference. If anything, from what I can tell, Brawl tried to distance itself from the e-sports crowd.

There is, however, a common sense line where reasonable fans can agree that a franchise has "stopped being itself" in a fundamental way for reasons not related to its continued existence, changed because of some new vision or new ideology or new talent brought in. That is a form of betrayal of trust and of loyalty.

Except the whole "X is not X anymore" thing is going to differ from person to person.

I think this is a very american thing, since for example you have the american comic books where you have the same character written by a dozen (or even a hundred in some cases) different people throughout their existence, and at one point the character loses any semblance of identity and becomes a chunk of playdough for whoever is forming him at the present time. I think the world would have been much more interesting if each of those people came up with their own original character and had them go through the events they had in mind instead. Manga is a lot like that which is a big reason for why I prefer (and actually purchase) it.

I'm kind of on the same page here. I don't bother with superhero comics because, among other things, the continuity is either too dense, or too flexible - if what I'm reading is going to be rebooted a few years down the line, why even bother? Manga isn't without its own barriers for me, but at the very least, the installments are numbered clearly, and it's usually coming from the same creator. It's far less intimidating to purchase "Manga Vol. 5" rather than "Superman #999, post-Crisis, pre-New 52."

The era regarding Smash I reference continued for well after Brawl's release, which is consistent with your accurate description of it. Back in like 2012 or whenever it was the first year that smash was accepted into the EVO tournament's main stage, Nintendo initially tried to prevent it from happening. They had no idea the amount of publicity and the fanbase they were spurning, which is indicative of their attitude. They thought of smash as "just another crossover" and gauged its popularity as an amalgamation of the various IPs, ignorant to the fact that it was the combination of them in itself that was truly what made the series successful.

And I agree that there will be some basic difference of opinion here and there about if a change makes a game stop being itself but there also is a line where if you go past it the vast majority of the fandom WILL be upset at what you did. Kinda like with ME3's ending where a game was all about consequences based on choices so the ending making it into something it is not caused an uproar. Or how about the rebooted DMC. It wasn't a bad game by all means but it had no need to be in any way related to that franchise and all the hate it deservedly got would have likely been replaced by modest praise if it had been its own original IP.

My answer is no. People should consume entertainment the fans have no ownership of the content.

If you start a series, you kind of promise that it will have some kind of ending. The first ASOIAF book actually recieved some bad reviews when it came out because of its length compared to how much was actually resolved. I'm fine with an author taking a long time to finish something, but i feel like the "If I can't end the story, no one can!" mentality is very petty. An author who isn't able to finish an ongoing series should at the very least not ban the use of their notes so that the readership can at the very least a conclusion. Beyond this, no i would not say a fanbase is 'owed' anything. Interpereting a story in a certain way does not give you ownership over it or the right to dictate how it should play out. Just because people feel subjectively that Luke Skywalker shouldn't have become a bitter hermit doesn't mean they are right in demanding that he shouldn't be. Allow that kind of audience control and authorship will cease to have any meaning. I don't think anyone wants outraged soccer moms or corrupt evangelicals to be allowed to edit the content of video games, and so i think it can also be agreed that the "Hardcore fans" shouldn't either. Complaining is their right, and critique can be a force for making creators improve their work, but demanding redactions and rewrites is just plain stupid

Eacaraxe:
snippers

Just wanted to check before... well, you beautifully illustrated my point.

Pascal clearly did not see Reitman's version as being very good. Ramis had been peddling his Ghostbusters 3 since 2 and no one took him up on his offer. So perhaps Pascal had reason to think that script was bad. I don't know, we'll probably never see it.

But anyway, my point is, you didnt like GB2016. Therefore, you (and a whole bunch of other people) think Pascal cannot be a fanboy. That she couldnt possibly be trying to continue the legacy that GB 1 & 2 had. Just becuase it didnt meet what you thought it should. She was out to ruin Ghostbusters... Which is utter trash. When she saw Ghostbuster, clearly it had an impact on. But clearly it was a different version from you. It's like how people are now coming out of the woodwork saying the Star Wars prequels were good. They got something out of those prequels that I didnt. That doesnt stop them from being fanboys. Rian Johnson clearly adores Star Wars, otherwise he wouldnt have ripped of Empire Strikes back so much. It's just that when he saw Empire, his interpretation was very differnt from those yelling on the internet.

I do fault Pascal for picking Fieg over Reitman. Feig seems like a bad choice. I dont fault her for getting rid of Reitman, that script with those guys had been in development hell for a while. Just as I dont blame her with timing with Ramis' death. Using his death to market your product... that's so Hollywood. Reminds me of Paul Walker and Heath Ledger. 'We'll keep him in the movie. We'll do it respectfully.' That makes me cringe. Just like 'giving it back to the fans'. No, what you actually mean is, give it back to the fans that agree with you. Fuck everyone else who might have got a different interpretation out of Ghostbusters. They're not real fans anyway, because they don't think like real fans

trunkage:
Ramis had been peddling his Ghostbusters 3 since 2 and no one took him up on his offer. So perhaps Pascal had reason to think that script was bad.

The movie spending twenty years in development hell does not necessarily mean the script was bad, especially when it comes to producers and studio execs' fickleness and near-absolute control over the production process by being the person who signs the checks. The entire reason 2016 Ghostbusters was so critical to SPE, was because Pascal's stewardship to that point led to a series of financial and critical flops, and Amazing Spider-Man's failure left the company without a tentpole franchise or negotiating power against Marvel.

Now, the movie spent twenty years in development hell because the original movie pushed Akroyd and Murray to A-list status (Ramis and Reitman were, honestly, already at the peak of their careers). None of them actually wanted to do the second movie, it took some cajoling from Columbia to make it happen, and the production didn't go very smoothly which turned them off from a third movie initially. By the time some initial support for a third movie started, Murray and Ramis had their falling out, and Murray would go on to be the holdout for fifteen years; by the time Murray started coming around, Ramis fell ill and that was that.

Now, that was for Akroyd's script, by the way. The one that was later revised by Akroyd and Ramis together, and adapted into Ghostbusters: the Video Game. So we already know pretty well where a prospective Ghostbusters 3 might have gone, had Murray changed his mind. Pretty sure Reitman's project never got past the treatment phase, before he was muscled out.

That she couldnt possibly be trying to continue the legacy that GB 1 & 2 had.

Again, refer to the SMP hack. We know exactly where Pascal wanted to go, and what her intent was. She wanted a Ghostbusters cinematic universe to cover for SPE's lack of a tentpole franchise, and to follow the "cinematic universe" fad of the 2010's. Case in point, see the accompanying Russo brothers project with Channing Tatum, that was also a pre-production clusterfuck but ultimately killed to mollify Feig. The key point being, as evidenced in the e-mails, Pascal wanted a break from the original films in order to build a foundation for that.

Here's the difference between the original Ghostbusters' production and release, and Pascal's intended direction. The original movie was lightning in a bottle, in every conceivable way, and everyone involved with the project knew it. Writers who cut their teeth on National Lampoon got together with actors from SNL, whose talents were actually complimentary to each others' and whose egos didn't interfere with the creative process, managed to get a studio to give them a great big pile of money and stay out of the creative process, and everything that could have gone miraculously right during the production did.

In other words, everything you don't do if you want to establish a cinematic universe. Which is what Pascal did do, to protect and mollify Feig even past the point he was clearly in over his head and had lost creative control. Feig demanded auteur status for a project that had to be studio-driven to succeed in its intended goal...when Feig was a poor fit to begin with, and so was the IP for a "cinematic universe".

That's on Pascal's head, not Feig's.

...what you thought it should...out to ruin Ghostbusters...saying the Star Wars prequels were good...give it back to the fans that agree with you. Fuck everyone else...like real fans

Are you done putting words in my mouth and building straw men?

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here