Fandoms

This is Part 4 of 4 loosely related posts.

Part 1: RIP Star Wars

Part 2: My Thoughts on George Lucas

Part 3: Disney-era Star Wars and SJWs

While we’re on the subject, let’s talk about fans and fandom in particular. They can be a tricky bunch to please. Fans of a franchise can be sometimes too demanding and critical, and it can often be unwarranted. Taking a source material (like a book or comic) and translating it into another kind (TV show or movie) can be challenging, and it can turn off fans while bringing in newer, (and often) more casual fans. And there are legitimate mistakes made by the new producers. But I think fans need to realize that there are elements that work in one medium that might not work in another. Inner monologue and thoughts work well in a book, but are hard to show in a movie. Explosions and car chases make for great action in a movie, but are terrible in a book. Cliffhangers are better in TV shows, and spandex costumes work best in comic books.

I’m going to try to use X-Men and The Lord of the Rings for most of these examples to correlate with the Star Wars examples from past posts.

Type #1: Changes that most people don’t seem to mind

Changing the spider that bit Peter Parker to genetically altered instead of radioactive, or the scene of his first fight from a circus tent to a WWE style cage fight is just a more modern update, and not a big deal. Usually these kinds of things are the kinds of changes that are interesting tidbits for entertainment websites to use for a “Top 10” list of differences to get clicks. Other examples are Jarvis being an AI rather than a flesh-and-blood butler. These kinds of changes are usually fine because they don’t change characters, motivations, or plot. More examples include minor cosmetic changes to a character’s hair color/style or how tall someone is. Hugh Jackman is 6’2” and not 5’3” like Wolverine in the comics, and nobody complained because of how absolutely perfect he was in the role in literally every other aspect.

Type #2: “They changed it and now it sucks.”

Usually only the whiny fans are the ones complaining about these; for example, when the X-Men wearing black leather instead of yellow spandex. I really think that superhero movies wouldn’t be where they are today without this groundbreaking film, and the public in general would have written it off had they shown up in their traditional duds because it looked silly onscreen. But once the audience warmed up to the idea, traditional costumes have been more common (like Captain America’s getup – something I never thought would work in a movie).

Another example I remember is some of the outcry over The Two Towers when Aragorn and company hide behind a rock from the horsemen, while in the book their cloaks were so camouflaged that it made them almost invisible. It’s understandable that Peter Jackson didn’t want to have the Fellowship all wearing Harry Potter’s Cloak of Invisibility, and that it was more believable to have them hidden while working in a visual medium (cinema) when compared to its source material (books/imagination).

Another thing that I remember a lot of bellyaching about was that Jackson moved events that were supposed to happen in one book to a different film; in particular, The Two Towers kinda spilled over into both the end of Fellowship and the beginning of Return. Mostly this was done so that each movie ended on a high note – you know, the whole element of storytelling that has conflict/buildup/climax/resolution. It’s just good movie-making.

Other examples might include changing a character's name because it was too similar to another character which might confuse the audience (this happened on Remember the Titans to the coaches' daughters).

See TV Tropes: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheyChangedItNowItSucks for more.

Type #3: Producers/directors aren’t as autistic as a lot of the fans, or they are just greedy

This would be things like Legolas proclaiming, "The Uruks turn Northeast. They're taking the Hobbits to Isengard!" They should have been traveling west, if they were following the geography from the map Tolkien drew. This is the kind of thing you’ll find on moviemistakes.com. Eagle-eyed viewers will spot all kinds of things that producers miss, like a misspelled name in Elvish or the bump on C-3PO’s head switching sides. Some are just because of editing multiple takes together, some are because the producers didn’t quite do enough research, and some are because of a lack of attention to details. These kinds of things are not usually intentional or malicious, but can still drive fans mad once they notice or have it pointed out to them.

Another somewhat related example is when a series of events in a book are thrown together in a montage, or dropped entirely for timing/pacing reasons, instead of showing each and every event exactly as it happened in the book.

I understand that to make something that’s meant to have a wider appeal (like a movie) means that some changes/concessions will have to be made. Most movie producers are especially keen on doing anything it takes to ensure their investment is returned, and won't hesitate to include out-of-place product placement or insert new and unnecessary characters to warrant toy sales. One prominent older example of this is the use of the Ruby Slippers in the Wizard of Oz; in the original book they were silver shoes, but red showed up better against the Yellow Brick Road, and the producers wanted to show off the new Technicolor toys to the public.

But often those changes will lose the original charm of what made it good in the first place. Its uniqueness can be lost by making it more generic and thus more approachable by the general public. In order to make Wolverine happen on the X-Men Animated Series, he was only allowed to use his claws on robots or inanimate objects. He could only threaten people with the claws and usually just tackled his opponents. But it was a concession that had to be made to include the (arguably) most popular character. A similar thing had to be done to include Carnage on the Spider-Man animated series.

Type 4: Unforgivable changes (aka, incompetency)

However, there are changes that are egregious, and those are major changes to a character or the plot that happen for bad reasons. Using The Two Towers again, Faramir’s character was seriously messed with. I do somewhat understand Peter Jackson’s reasoning behind it, but it very much changed the tone of the movie from the book.

Another Lord of the Rings example is excising out the entire penultimate chapter of the book, where the hobbits return to the Shire and use their newfound courage and skills to free their homeland from oppression. It was sort of the whole point of the journey – they earned the esteem of their fellow hobbits. In the movie they weren’t recognized as heroes; all the other hobbits were ignorant of the great deeds they had done.

Hypothetical examples might include making Ender Wiggins a bully instead of reluctantly defending himself against future attacks, making Tony Stark a humble man akin to Mr. Rogers, or Uncle Ben not dying so Peter Parker becomes a hero just because he wants to instead of out of guilt.

Sometimes these changes are made because the director disagrees with the original author’s work, or has a drastically different interpretation of the original source; it could be just the result of bad/lazy writing, or that the director’s skills weren’t really suited for the task at hand. But in any case, it’s the kind of thing that drives fans mad because it changes characters, motivations, and major plot points. I would usually rather have a movie omit a character or favorite story arc rather than see it done badly, as it tends to leave a stain on the franchise in my mind. 

Kevin Smith has a great story for how uninformed producers can meddle in things they ought not be meddling, but thankfully this version of Superman was never made. 

Another version of this kind of change is inconsistency, especially throughout a series of films. Like, for example, in the Harry Potter series, the tone of the films shift radically every time they switch directors and composers. When someone new comes into an already existing series/franchise, I think the newcomers have a duty to maintain and continue what's already going well so far. This isn't to say that new directors aren't allowed to have their own take/vision, just that they should at least make it seem like the movies are in the same continuity/universe. 


Dealing with SJWs in Fandoms

As I mentioned in part 3, SJWs infected subsections of pop culture on the rise and then insist the world be restructured to suit their sensibilities. They did it with education, video games, atheism/philosophy, Hollywood, and it poisons everything.

Most infuriating of all is how the SJWs insist on making Type 4 changes along with changes of race/gender/sexual orientation at the same time, and when fans complain they are unfairly labeled with words like "toxic." These types of changes (which should be railed against) are conflated with the other 3 kinds (which shouldn't be a huge deal), and hardcore fans are maligned and disparaged. 

Instead of invading an already existing fanbase, SJWs should make a new intellectual property – not ruin one that was doing fine otherwise. But I think deep down they know that the general public will not buy their brand of bullshit, so they have to attach it to something else that they know will be bought. 

Dealing with Fans in Fandoms

At times, I admit there is a little gate-keeping from existing fans – like it’s really hard to get into something because of all the required reading/history to understand something. I certainly felt that way about delving into comics when I saw Action Comics #687 at Circle K one time. To wit, I felt that to get the entire story I had to go read the previous 600+ issues to understand what was going on, and it kinda discouraged me from trying to get into comics at first. This was before I found out that there were actually 3 monthly Superman titles running at the time that I would have also had to read to be fully informed.

But occasionally that gatekeeping can be good because it weeds out casuals and posers, so only the “real” fans are left who have done the required homework. It also creates a special feeling of being part of something that not a lot of people do, and they would like to keep it that way. On the one hand, getting more people to enjoy your hobby is a good thing because it means there will be more of it made. But it also means there will be more casuals involved. It's kind of a, "whatchagonnado?" type situation.

Ultimately, I wish to see all projects helmed by someone who is a real fan of the source material who treats it with care and realizes the importance they hold, and for all this SJW nonsense to disappear from pop culture. A great example of this is how well the producers of Cobra Kai did on reviving a movie franchise from 30 years ago. Are you listening, Lucasfilm? This is how you do it.