Jay

DominicCobb said:

Creox said:

Jay said:

Creox said:

I think it’s interesting there is a thread on SW jumping the shark or/and over-saturation in the same reality that has Marvel just releasing its what?..umpteenth flick about superheroes.

IMO it seems SW fans want their films to be rare events and in reality their wish for more comes with a lot of caveats.

Consumers eat up multiple comic book movies and 10-hour+ series every year. Marvel’s success suggests frequency and over-saturation aren’t the problem.

Not a problem with the MCU for sure but I think that is starting to erode a bit. How SW is different with respects to how fans respond to more content is a bit of a confusing topic for me. I love that there is more content and movies but many do not. I think it’s due to what I already posted. There is a very vocal percentage of SW super fans who look at the OT as sacred texts that should not be messed with in any way. The release of more and more movies (which appears to me to be the only medium that effects these fans) seems to anger them as it dilutes the religion so to speak? Not sure.

That sounds about right. It’s probably no surprise that a certain segment of fans find RO to be the best film they’ve done - a film that does little to expand the narrative beyond unnecessarily plugging a perceived “plot hole” in the original, and fulfilling the ultimate fan service of seeing Darth Vader commit a massacre (something that had simply been implied before). It’s very much a supplement to the OT.

Marvel’s success seems to be the exception rather than the rule. No one else has replicated it. Honestly the reason is painfully obvious - Marvel is a collection of franchises plural, rather than just one singular franchise. If there was a Guardians of the Galaxy movie out every year, it’s no guarantee whatsoever that they would all be a success.

Nobody is suggesting annual Star Wars films with the same characters and story lines. The universe is rife with possibilities. No reason they couldn’t take a page from Marvel’s playbook and have multiple stories going simultaneously with different characters in the same universe. Each set of characters could have a film every few years with staggered releases so we end up with one film a year, but alternating casts and stories. Every five or six years, have a big event film (“saga”) that ties the different stories together. It doesn’t need to be at the same scale as Marvel.

Creox said:

Jay said:

Creox said:

I think it’s interesting there is a thread on SW jumping the shark or/and over-saturation in the same reality that has Marvel just releasing its what?..umpteenth flick about superheroes.

IMO it seems SW fans want their films to be rare events and in reality their wish for more comes with a lot of caveats.

Consumers eat up multiple comic book movies and 10-hour+ series every year. Marvel’s success suggests frequency and over-saturation aren’t the problem.

Not a problem with the MCU for sure but I think that is starting to erode a bit. How SW is different with respects to how fans respond to more content is a bit of a confusing topic for me. I love that there is more content and movies but many do not. I think it’s due to what I already posted. There is a very vocal percentage of SW super fans who look at the OT as sacred texts that should not be messed with in any way. The release of more and more movies (which appears to me to be the only medium that effects these fans) seems to anger them as it dilutes the religion so to speak? Not sure.

RO made a billion dollars.

Solo probably would’ve been better served by a holiday release, but it also would’ve been better served had it been preceded by a better movie.

They could have a successful Star Wars movie every year if they were consistent — and consistently good.

Mocata said:

The problem is that certain audience members just expected to have their fan service brain centres massaged again, since that’s what a lot of what TFA and Rogue One offered. SW was back, and it was important. They were important as fans. But since TLJ didn’t end with Luke killing 400 dudes with a green lightsaber nobody cheered.

I haven’t seen a lot of criticisms suggesting Luke should’ve been a one-Jedi army; he wasn’t in the OT (although he came close in the escape from Jabba’s barge).

TFA and TLJ are both mediocre Star Wars movies (in my opinion) for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with fan service (whether it’s too much in the former or a complete lack of in the latter).

NeverarGreat said:

Jay said:

Edit: I just watched the scene again and I’m so annoyed at how Luke completely forgets everything he learned about internal conflict by saving his father and Rey spoon-feeds this wisdom to him like she’s the Jedi master. Ugh.

I’ve found it helpful to look at Kylo and Rey as being written to represent Star Wars fans. Rey represents those who are avid and hopeful fans of the franchise, who know everything about the Jedi and what the ‘real’ Luke would do. This is why she’s so disappointed in what he’s become.

Kylo represents the fan who is tired of the whole dichotomy between good and evil, rebels and Empire, and wants to make the franchise about something else.

This is a big reason why it’s so hard to take these movies seriously - the stories aren’t written as a natural progression of events but more as a meta commentary on Star Wars itself.

I’d just like some good stories and well-developed characters, please. And maybe don’t sacrifice the arc of characters we love in order to make some arthouse meta commentary.

NeverarGreat said:

snooker said:

Yeah, but people say ‘Luke would never do that, the scene betrays his character!’ and I don’t agree with them.

I don’t disagree with the direction they took, but it could have been better handled.

What if Luke had looked into Kylo’s future and explicitly seen him kill Han? Then you have the man who couldn’t kill his evil father facing the man who will kill his heroic father (and led to the destruction of the Republic). If they had focused on that drama I think it would have improved both Han’s and Luke’s stories in this trilogy.

It’s a shame that they muddled that message by making Luke surprised that Han was gone.

I’m trying to imagine Yoda standing over a sleeping Luke in ESB, knowing full well in Luke’s rush to face Vader he could be turned and become a powerful enemy, and being so disturbed at the thought of his pupil joining his father on the Dark Side, he brandishes his lightsaber with the intention—no matter how fleeting—of murdering him.

Luke proved to himself and Vader in ROTJ that there is always hope. The idea that he’d even contemplate murdering a sleeping student who wasn’t yet guilty of any crime—knowing that the future is “always in motion”—doesn’t jibe. Even Luke reading Kylo’s thoughts while he sleeps is creepy.

What happened to Luke in the intervening years to turn him into someone who’d contemplate that? We don’t know, because the sequels don’t do a great job of showing us.

Edit: I just watched the scene again and I’m so annoyed at how Luke completely forgets everything he learned about internal conflict by saving his father and Rey spoon-feeds this wisdom to him like she’s the Jedi master. Ugh.

Creox said:

I think it’s interesting there is a thread on SW jumping the shark or/and over-saturation in the same reality that has Marvel just releasing its what?..umpteenth flick about superheroes.

IMO it seems SW fans want their films to be rare events and in reality their wish for more comes with a lot of caveats.

Consumers eat up multiple comic book movies and 10-hour+ series every year. Marvel’s success suggests frequency and over-saturation aren’t the problem.

Mielr said:

Jay said:

DominicCobb said:

Jay said:

DominicCobb said:

Also, since anecdotal evidence is important here I guess, everyone I’ve talked to has really enjoyed the new films (in fact I still haven’t met anyone who disliked TLJ, only people who know people who disliked TLJ). So, checkmate I guess? Is that how anecdotal-based debates work?

I called it anecdotal when I posted it. I never said I was right or that anyone else was wrong.

No, I realize you did, that wasn’t the issue. It just generally seems like a weird thing to bring up in a debate. Like, where do you go from there?

It’s an attempt to present feedback that doesn’t make it into most hardcore fan discussions because we’re in a bit of a bubble. The extreme negative feedback is part of that bubble; there are plenty of hardcore Star Wars fans who really don’t like TLJ, but I’ve never heard an overwhelmingly negative opinion from a casual fan. Worst I’ve heard is “meh”.

All I’m saying is that I’m getting lots of “meh”, which I heard during the prequel years so it’s not new, but “flying Leia was weird” is new. I’ve never had people tell me Star Wars is weird in a bad way.

That’s the thing—I mean if there was any time for SW to jump the shark it should have been in the prequel years. I think the films were awful and they haven’t aged very well, either, but there was still enough good will for the OT to sort of “forgive” the PT for what is was.

Now, I’m also in the position of not having seen SOLO and I don’t have any plans on doing so anytime soon. This is the first SW film that I won’t see theatrically, and I have no interest in seeing the next film theatrically either.

Same. If IX doesn’t get great reviews all around, I won’t bother with it until it hits Netflix.

DominicCobb said:

Jay said:

DominicCobb said:

Also, since anecdotal evidence is important here I guess, everyone I’ve talked to has really enjoyed the new films (in fact I still haven’t met anyone who disliked TLJ, only people who know people who disliked TLJ). So, checkmate I guess? Is that how anecdotal-based debates work?

I called it anecdotal when I posted it. I never said I was right or that anyone else was wrong.

No, I realize you did, that wasn’t the issue. It just generally seems like a weird thing to bring up in a debate. Like, where do you go from there?

It’s an attempt to present feedback that doesn’t make it into most hardcore fan discussions because we’re in a bit of a bubble. The extreme negative feedback is part of that bubble; there are plenty of hardcore Star Wars fans who really don’t like TLJ, but I’ve never heard an overwhelmingly negative opinion from a casual fan. Worst I’ve heard is “meh”.

All I’m saying is that I’m getting lots of “meh”, which I heard during the prequel years so it’s not new, but “flying Leia was weird” is new. I’ve never had people tell me Star Wars is weird in a bad way.

DominicCobb said:

Also, since anecdotal evidence is important here I guess, everyone I’ve talked to has really enjoyed the new films (in fact I still haven’t met anyone who disliked TLJ, only people who know people who disliked TLJ). So, checkmate I guess? Is that how anecdotal-based debates work?

I called it anecdotal when I posted it. I never said I was right or that anyone else was wrong.

SilverWook said:

I was speaking more towards the people who think the human body blows up like a water balloon in space.

In a movie universe where spaceships and explosions can be heard in a vacuum, and often defy physics, giant slugs live inside an apparently airless asteroid, people with magical powers formally fight with improbable laser swords when a blaster would end things quicker, (see Obi-Wan vs. Grevious) and overgrown teddy bears kicked Imperial ass, Leia in space was the one bridge too far? I give up.

That’s what happens when you establish rules and then break them. “Reality” in the context of fiction has more to do with the guidelines you create that actual reality.

I think the main problem with the scene is that it’s the audience’s introduction to Leia’s first external use of her latent Force powers. Of course, we don’t know what happened in the decades between Episode VI and Episode VII, so maybe she did some training, who knows. But on screen, it seems to come out of nowhere. We didn’t even get a hint of external Force powers in TFA to set it up.

Secondly, nowhere in any Star Wars movie is it made clear that humans can survive in open space. Sure, the films obviously dispense with most real-world physics as they pertain to technology (laser swords, space dogfights, etc.), but for the most part, humans in Star Wars are still subject to the same physical laws they are in the real world. They’re subject to gravity, they can’t breathe underwater, they can freeze to death, they can’t venture outside a ship without a breathing apparatus, etc. Point taken about the giant space worm, but it’s not human.

When Leia uses Force powers we’ve never seen before to defy certain death, that sets something off in the viewer’s mind because it doesn’t align with what they’ve been taught previously. Suspension of disbelief goes up in a puff of smoke and the viewer is left thinking what they just saw was silly.

Regardless, my hypothesis was only based on my personal conversations with casual fans and entirely anecdotal. I think DominicCobb is partially right when he suggests Star Wars lost its way a long time ago, but the box office numbers for TFA suggest that everyone was totally willing to give it another shot. Unfortunately, I think TLJ squandered some of that goodwill.

SilverWook said:

Guess they didn’t see Guardians Of The Galaxy which did essentially the same thing, or 2001 for that matter. 😉

I only saw GotG once in the theater, so I don’t remember the scene you’re referencing. The scene in 2001 actually got Neil deGrasse Tyson’s seal of approval in terms of scientific accuracy. Dave spent a few frantic seconds trying to save his own life and it’s a plausible set of events. Not quite what Leia pulled off, which was clearly cheating death and out of bounds even for the loose set of laws guiding physical reality in Star Wars. I’ve seen a lot of mental gymnastics from fans trying to explain it 😉

I’m not saying it’s the most absurd scene ever, but it takes quite a bit of bad writing to break a casual Star Wars fan’s suspension of disbelief and cause them to call “bullshit”.

Mielr said:

SilverWook said:

There are no sharks in Star Wars! And nobody under 30 even knows the origin of that phrase anyway.

Also, only tv shows can jump the shark. Movies nuke the fridge.

Maybe they don’t know the origin, but they know what it means. 😉 (and, under 40 is more like it).

I didn’t know there was a separate term for films. That just reinforces my belief that it’s a good thing Spielberg didn’t direct ROTJ. 😄

Indy fans get that reference, but I’ve never heard it in casual conversation. Many know “jumped the shark” and I don’t think it’s strictly for TV, but for anything that occurs in a series (including film series).

Leia cheating death and flying through space might be the saga’s shark-jumping moment. Every casual fan friend I’ve spoken with has referenced that scene as “weird” or “stupid” without prompting.

Handman said:

The masses spend a lot of their time picking their nose. They don’t put any critical thought into entertainment, so whether or not these movies are good or not, is almost irrelevant when evaluating how they feel about them. Solo underperformed, but we don’t really know if that’s due to Star Wars fatigue, or because it wasn’t a saga film. We’ll have a clearer picture when Ep. IX comes out.

I’ve been to a few family gatherings in the last couple months and they all know I’m into Star Wars. In reference to Solo, people have been asking me, “Did you see the new Star Wars movie yet?” This is the same phrasing they use in regards to the numbered films.

It’s anecdotal, of course, but I don’t think casual fans are drawing the distinction between “saga” and “story” films that we are.

Going to a Star Wars movie used to be an event, but Disney’s more rapid release schedule along with the addition of non-saga films acting as filler has cheapened the brand a bit.

I saw TFA a couple weeks after it came out, but not because I didn’t have time to go sooner. Waited until RO hit Netflix to watch that. Skipped TLJ in the theater and waited for the digital release. Haven’t seen Solo and will wait for Netflix.

Of course, TFA was a smash hit and raked in huge sums of cash worldwide. It was an event film and everyone wanted to be part of that phenomenon. A few years later, however, it’s not remembered as fondly as many thought it would be. Then we got TLJ, which clearly split the fanbase and had no honeymoon period to speak of. Then Solo didn’t do well.

Setting my own feelings aside, it’s premature to say Star Wars is on a downward slope from which it can’t recover. The children of hardcore Star Wars fans have been raised on this stuff and they’ll probably continue to support it. But for children of casual fans, it’s just another franchise consisting of fun movies they’ll see once and forget about soon after. At this point we’re probably a decade into what is considered another golden age of film and TV, not to mention more amazing video games with real stories and great characters than we’ve ever had access to before; if you’re younger and didn’t grow up on Star Wars, why spend your money on entertainment that’s largely getting by on nostalgia you don’t identify with when you can choose something original from literally tens of thousands of hours of content?

When I think of my top 10 favorite movies to come out over the last 10 years (or top 20 over 20 years), there isn’t a single Star Wars movie on the list. For me, the Star Wars label by itself is no longer strong enough on its own to get my time and money.

DominicCobb said:

Handman said:

DominicCobb said:

He’s right in the sense that you can’t really say anything about it without someone having to respond “too bad it sucks!” This is true of the PT too honestly, and I am as guilty as anyone. It can become quite tiresome.

Or just a “too bad you’re wrong”.

Well in general I’d say the constant negativity is far more exhausting and annoying. On this site (and really the internet in general) we don’t let people enjoy things. Not just talking about SW.

Somebody did try to start an appreciation thread for TLJ, but the thread devolved into a discussion about whether the thread was necessary or not.

I’d welcome new threads focused on positive discussion and interesting deconstruction, and the mods would certainly enforce the preferences of the OP in terms of squashing the negative derailments that often occur.

I’d like to see fewer replies in old, several-thousand-post threads and more new topics.

DominicCobb said:

DrDre said:

Men and women are equal, but not the same. To me continually forcing women into the role of a female Rambo, and calling it feminism or female empowerment is wrong. Men and women are different, and we should celebrate this gender diversity. To me Leia is a much better representation of female strength, and empowerment than most of what the current batch of movies have given us. It should not just be about beating up people, and being in places of power. It should be about having a moral compass, showing resilience, and being an inspirational leader. That’s what Leia was to me, more so than any of the other classic characters, or the new ones. Leia stood up to Darth Vader, despite the fact that he could break her in half. That is true strength.

Ehhhhhh men and women have biological differences that set them apart, sure… but I think these are often overstated, as the majority of the differences between the two genders are caused simply by cultural norms and mindsets.

That’s not what the data says. As societies become more egalitarian and women are free to make choices about the direction of their lives, they increasingly make the sorts of choices that we’re being told today (by politicians and activists – not social scientists) are simply social constructs enforced by cultural norms. The likelihood is that the cultural norms now being labeled as enforcement actually arose from biological gender differences in the first place.

That’s not to say there isn’t cultural reinforcement of these norms, creating a positive feedback loop of sorts, that pushes more harshly defined lines between male and female, causing some people to think they can’t or shouldn’t do certain things because of their gender. There has traditionally been a lot of pressure for girls to be girls and boys to be boys. It’s just interesting that when those pressures are reduced, our life choices (career, child rearing, etc.) tend to bear out our gender differences rather than do away with them.

TV’s Frink said:

I’m kinda done being grateful for all of Jay’s sacrifices. Life would go on without this place.

And this place would go on quite comfortably without you, so feel free to gtfo with all due haste if your ego can handle not being the center of attention for more than 5 minutes.

You threaten to leave threads when you don’t like the way they’re going, then come back just to complain more. You talk about how you’d probably be better off if you didn’t post here anymore, and yet here you are.

Your whining is old and tired. Quit bitching or leave.

NeverarGreat said:

Finally, I’m somewhat amused at how much faith you put in a man who is famed for his inability to stick the landing of his stories, when he has to do it now not just for this trilogy, but for the entire Star Wars saga.

This is why I looked forward to TFA with guarded optimism, but was surprised and disappointed to experience an OT rehash in a universe rife with possibilities. I expect nostalgia and sentimentality will take the place of storytelling in Episode IX, so people will leave the theater feeling good, but ultimately the conclusion will feel empty upon subsequent viewings.

I don’t believe that this is the end of the saga, though. Disney isn’t going to close the door on future numbered films. Too much money there. Kylo and Rey could have a Force-sensitive superbaby to keep the bloodline going (assuming we don’t get a Rey retcon in IX that makes her a Skywalker).

ZkinandBonez said:

dahmage said:

LexX said:

When I saw TLJ the second time it was all too clear when half of the resistance seemed to be women to the point it just didn’t feel believable, just transparent. The contrast is so stark compared to the OT it’s ridicilous. If you’re really at war and showed people inside battleships there wouldn’t be 50% women. It’s not wrong, it’s not right, that’s just the way it is.

you are comparing this movie to your own past here on earth, and it is a fact that in the past there was a concept of ‘a woman’s place’.

I for one like the fact that Star Wars isn’t reflecting that past anymore.

I don’t think LexX was trying to refer outdated gender roles. The strange thing is that even in the modern world, even in the most progressive countries, there are rarely, if ever, any occupation or field of interest that is 50% men and 50% women. Even in liberal countries like Norway, where both men and women are “drafted”, more men choose the military as a career afterwards than women. Similarly there are certain occupations that are over-represented by women, just like some jobs have an abundance of men. I think that’s what he meant by; “It’s not wrong, it’s not right, that’s just the way it is.”

Of course I agree that this still doesn’t have to apply to a fictional universe. Also a Galactic Civil War (or two of them) I’d imagine would make people do more things out of necessity than preference.

Exactly. Gender differences in countries at the top of the equal rights list are more stark rather than less. When people are free to make their own choice of profession based on personal interests with minimal conditioning by societal pressures, gender differences caused by biology are amplified. It’s not all some sinister plot by the patriarchy.

Men and women are different and make different choices when given the opportunity. The idea that a 100% voluntary military force would be half female is definitely the realm of a fantasy film.

However, the First Order would be more likely to have equal representation in their military because I’d assume service is compulsory. If half the FO troopers were female, it wouldn’t strike me as odd at all.

Mrebo said:

It’s mainly Frink who complains. Two or three others pipe up after he’s challenged.

There’s no “problem” in having new threads. The backseat modding is extraordinarily tiresome.

Yes.

oojason said:

dahmage said:

In response to oojason: (https://originaltrilogy.com/topic/action/reply/id/61688/quote/1225338)

respectfully, having 8 different people start PMs would be even worse. These things are always best discussed in the open, but you are right in that in can derail threads and make them ugly. That is what this thread (https://originaltrilogy.com/topic/The-New-The-New-Thread-Thread-Thread/id/60401) tries to solve: an open place to discuss the merits of a thread, without cluttering up the real threads.

and guess who has been trying to solve this problem for ages? TV’s Frink.

when you have a forum that has no search, we have to resort to insane organization in order to keep things functional. that is part of why this forum is unique in how much we complain about new threads, and pointless threads.

The thread creator can always edit his OP to let people know he’s addressed any issues, or adapted their thread to give a clearer insight as to what it is about - if they so wish/think it’s warranted. A bit like Handman did in his thread.

It’s not like there’ll be much call for this anyway - the vast majority of threads are fairly self-explaining by nature. I don’t think there will be situation where 8 (or 12 - which the number Frink used to voice the same concerns shortly before your post) members are going to PM the mods and thread creator with issues as to the make-up of a thread before it is already addressed after the first couple of PMs. For many there may not even be an issue with the make-up of a thread - and just want to participate.

Or we can just carry on… with people giving their opinion as to whether a thread is valid or not, redundant or not etc - and taking it off course, or derailing it, and resulting in another promising thread going by the wayside. It also has an effect of deterring others from creating new threads - or just not participating in the certain sections of the site at all.

This my attempt to try and remedy this - if Jay, Wook or Anchor don’t agree - or come up with a better way/plan (which is more than likely) there well may be a change to it. At present I think we’re all of a mind we’d like to see more quality debate, more threads on specific issues or subjects of interest, and more members participating in them (especially outside The Cantina).

If someone wants to post in a thread something along the lines of - ‘I think we already have a thread on this very subject mate, here - (insert link)’ then great, do so - politely or courteously etc - and leave it at that, or PM the OP & the mods to discuss it further. We’re not going to have debates in-thread as to whether something is redundant or not. If a thread doesn’t interest someone - let it be, if it does interest them - great, nice one.
 

Re the organisation of the forum… yes, there’s no functioning search - yet there are pointers on how to search for threads on here. There are now also About and Help sections, new Feedback & Assistance forums, and also Index Threads for pretty much every section of the site to help members find certain threads too. Some forum categories have been created so topics are more in tune with each other and threads should be easier to locate as well; ie Media, Culture and Cantina. There are also numerous members on here who lend a hand to help their fellow members out in many differing ways - including Frink.

That there is a ‘new thread new thread thread new new’, or whatever the later incarnation is called, is cool - for those that know what it does. It doesn’t really help new members as they likely wouldn’t know what it is or does - or may not have clicked on it. To be honest I didn’t until late last year - and mistakenly thought it was another thread re Frink, and never clicked on it.

For those that do know it’s purpose (and also not)… there is also an issue in Frink stating his opinions whether a thread is redundant or not - it is not for Frink to pick which threads are or not. Nor is it then getting into why - or why not not - a thread is redundant etc, in that very thread which has the action of derailing it / taking it off further topic.
 

As stated in Handman’s thread, Frink has been asked not to derail threads, which eventually lead to a warning(s) for continuing to do so - though for obvious reasons I’m not discussing this matter further in here.

 

If you have any further concerns or questions dahmage, please feel free to PM me - as is anyone is welcome to do and I’ll do my best to provide them with an adequate answer.

Thank you.

 

Also yes.

If a thread doesn’t interest you, don’t post in it. A polite question asking for clarification is fine.

This is not:

TV’s Frink said:

This thread has no reason to exist.

Anyone who doesn’t understand why this post was a problem and triggered official warnings should consult what happened here for clarification.

TM2YC said:

Jay said:

I do think they dumbed down the men rather than lifted up the women

I thought the issue was that they’d “lifted up the women” too much? (see all the idiotic mary-sue nonsense)

Rey is a Mary Sue. That’s my take. She fits the definition. I’m not rehashing the reasons why, or why the term “Mary Sue” isn’t sexist (see the Culture, politics, and diversity in Star Wars thread if you want to wade into that pool).

I haven’t seen too many TLJ critics complain about the women being lifted up, which is obviously sexist. The problem is that they’re not great characters and their representation as powerful women having agency is mostly at the expense of the men, who are written as dumb, selfish, or impulsive. Writing better female characters would’ve been preferable.

moviefreakedmind said:

I find the question kind of strange. Star Wars has, does, and will continue to cater to as broad an audience as possible.

As I’ve said elsewhere, I don’t think it was ever intentionally “for boys” regardless of what Lucas said, but the OP is right that the OT is pretty much a male power fantasy (although flipping the damsel in distress trope on its head was different and gave the original trio much of their charm).

DominicCobb said:

Jay said:

DominicCobb said:

The amount of people painting critics with a broad “sexist” brush is at least as overstated as the amount of critics who are sexist.

You could well be right. The problem is that once the sentiment is out there, others start to believe it. And the media is running with the notion because it gets clicks.

Which notion? That all critics are sexist or that all people criticizing sexists are calling all critics sexist?

That critics are “toxic”, with the true origin of their negative feelings being sexism or racism.

DominicCobb said:

Jay said:

screams in the void said:

true , from a certain point of view …https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Ao_3jjj_FM

Rumors spread by YouTubers watched only by hardcore fans aren’t the same as Vox/Polygon/etc. articles about the toxic fanbase that get picked up by mainstream media outlets.

Are those articles actually calling the whole fanbase toxic though? Haven’t read.

To their credit, some have used language to draw a line between harassment and genuine critique, but not all.

I’m not concerned only about TLJ critics being misrepresented. No average human will read topics like these and derive any sort of subtlety from the arguments presented. Everyone who calls themselves a Star Wars fan could end up having to defend themselves against this “toxic” label.

https://www.themarysue.com/star-wars-fandom-toxicity/

(Before anyone freaks out over the name, that’s a feminist web site. Take it up with them.)

screams in the void said:

true , from a certain point of view …https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Ao_3jjj_FM

Rumors spread by YouTubers watched only by hardcore fans aren’t the same as Vox/Polygon/etc. articles about the toxic fanbase that get picked up by mainstream media outlets.

DominicCobb said:

The amount of people painting critics with a broad “sexist” brush is at least as overstated as the amount of critics who are sexist.

You could well be right. The problem is that once the sentiment is out there, others start to believe it. And the media is running with the notion because it gets clicks.