Star Trek (Dis): Context Is for Kings

[MixedDrops]

So, if people declare themselves SJWs and then people call them SJWs that's bad? Is it only the context of whether or not they support or oppose the politics that matters because by your own statement just now says that Linkara's isn't worth listening to.

Notice that I qualified it pointing specifically to people using the term without any hint of irony (and I didn't say "all" either). The fact that Linkara put quotes around it himself indicates to me that he's not really big on the term either, and a big reason is because "SJW" has now become a term used by internet trolls to refer to anything they don't like (usually involving a minority of some kind), which is why I don't take most people using it seriously. Even self-identified SJWs like Linkara are clearly using it with a hint of sarcasm (leading to jokes like "I'm more of a Social Justice Rogue, thanks very much" etc).

If you know the early uses of the term "SJW", much like the terms "fake news" or "cultural appropriation" (amongst many others), it was used to refer to a specific thing. Said terms were later co-opted (almost always by right wingers) so they could use the term disingenuously. For example, the term "fake news" was formerly very specifically used in left wing circles to refer to literal fake news- articles that would show up on your Facebook feed or whatever that were obvious forgeries coming from completely unreliable sources which weren't even news organizations (but were formatted in a way to make them appear as such, thus "fake" news). It was then slowly co-opted to mean "poor journalism that results from the effects of a 24-hour news cycle", and now it often just means "news that tell me thing I don't like to hear". I'm likely not going to take anyone using the term "fake news" that seriously anymore either, because the original intent of the term has been stretched so far as to render it meaningless. Again, it's not that I won't take anyone using said terms seriously, but they'll have an uphill battle.

Your example is the Ghostbusters movie. Look at what happened, James Rolfe AVGN, made one video saying he thought the movie looked awful from the trailer. Instead of doing what his fans expected, he said that he wasn't going to watch it and then make a video talking about how bad it was. He was just not going to see it and explained why. After that he said hey it could even be good. In response he was labeled a sexist, misogynist woman hater that was just hiding his sexism.
https://www.dailydot.com/unclick/ghostb ... to-review/

First, the Daily Dot is, as far as I know, a crappy editorial site, so my first reaction to that would be to assume that it's just a shitty clickbait article. Supported somewhat by the fact that whoever wrote the article is clearly misinterpreting a lot of what James said. Not quite what I would take as some kind of wider condemnation of the guy (especially considering how his video seemed to do just fine).

Second, even ignoring all that, I don't see anything in that article accusing him on being some crazy woman hater, although it does say (rather obnoxiously) there are some implicit biases at work here by pointing out how petty are lot of the reasons he gave actually are. I'm a big fan of James and the AVGN, but don't lose sight of the fact that the article isn't wrong to point out that a lot of his reasoning for not reviewing this specific movie were still rather insubstantial, at least in light of the fact of...well, everything Hollywood typically does. That's ignoring the fact that James has reviewed numerous other bad, cynically-driven reboots himself. Hell even recently in his review of The Mummy he essentially said that he was going to be a sucker for any Universal Monster movie no matter how bad it ended up being because he was just loves the property too much.

I don't know why you're ignoring the context of the fact that the Ghostbusters trailer became quite possibly the most disliked movie trailer ever just hours after its release. It was an awful trailer yes, but again, there's been mountains of other crappy remakes and reboots out of Hollywood which also get dunked on, but not to the degree Ghostbusters did. We all know trolls were getting ready to pounce on the project the minute it was announced, especially after that "grr girl power" photo involving the staff started making the rounds on the internet.

The Ghostbusters backlash was increased exponentially by a feedback loop of an overly hyperbolic defense which attacked the original movie's fanbase. To the point that you had to declare your support for a pretty awful looking movie or be declared a heretic by the end. To which a lot of people who would have been ambivilent for the movie were now actively wishing for it to fail.

Being that I didn't follow this aspect very closely at all, can you tell me any point where the studio or people actually involved with the film criticized fans in any capacity other than "well, misogynists exist and they suck", which shouldn't really be something disagreeable regardless of how you felt about the film itself.

I don't have any trouble declaring that I think the movie's a piece of shit myself. I just also recognize that there was a very sexist bent to the sheer volume of criticism it received.

[unknownsample]

As a self-proclaimed "SJW," I didn't see a lot of people taking issue with Discovery's focus on a black woman as the lead aside from the racists and the sexists (the kind who think Star Trek is just pzew pzew Kirk beds alien women and not anything of substance) and they were easy enough to drown out considering Star Trek is a show ALL ABOUT equality, social justice, and bringing people of different backgrounds together.

I really hate the term "SJW" (as a general rule I think anybody who uses it without any hint of irony is likely not worth taking seriously), but I'd probably be considered one myself with some of the things I believe. Really, if you go by how trolls use it at this point the term basically just means any form of media that has a female or minority character in a major role.

So, if people declare themselves SJWs and then people call them SJWs that's bad? Is it only the context of whether or not they support or oppose the politics that matters because by your own statement just now says that Linkara's isn't worth listening to.

This is probably going to derail the conversation further into the identity politics angle here but this increasing tribalism is part of the problem that makes discussing modern sci-fi and fantasy online for the last 5 years so nasty.

Like it or not people are going to aggressively defend against every criticism made against a character or media solely because of identity politics as much as others rail against them for the same.

Your example is the Ghostbusters movie. Look at what happened, James Rolfe AVGN, made one video saying he thought the movie looked awful from the trailer. Instead of doing what his fans expected, he said that he wasn't going to watch it and then make a video talking about how bad it was. He was just not going to see it and explained why. After that he said hey it could even be good. In response he was labeled a sexist, misogynist woman hater that was just hiding his sexism.
https://www.dailydot.com/unclick/ghostb ... to-review/

The Ghostbusters backlash was increased exponentially by a feedback loop of an overly hyperbolic defense which attacked the original movie's fanbase. To the point that you had to declare your support for a pretty awful looking movie or be declared a heretic by the end. To which a lot of people who would have been ambivilent for the movie were now actively wishing for it to fail.

If anything should have been learned by that whole ordeal, it should have been how not to make a trailer and how not to attack a fanbase or critics.

Oh right so all those fans who sent death threats to Leslie Jones to the point where she had to leave twitter were acting in defence of their franchise were they? I'll think you'll find the appalling behaviour came from those who launched such vitriolic criticism of the film.

https://www.vox.com/2016/6/30/12027882/ ... exism-sony

Here’s just one egregious and stomach-turning example: Comedian Patton Oswalt recently tweeted some snark about a video "review" of the new Ghostbusters, a six-minute rant in which Cinemassacre’s James Rolfe explains why he’ll never see the movie to his 2 million subscribers. In response, Oswalt received an immediate flood of hate from furious Twitter users, who lashed out by reminding him of his wife’s recent death for no apparent reason other than to make him hurt.

[Fixer]

Here is exactly is the point. The feedback loop in full swing.

My side isn't bad. it's the other side. The inevitable bandwagoning on everything.

By immediately disregarding the actions of your tribe and justifying any action as just by the bad actions of the other. Whether these actions are true, exaggerated or not.

Eventually this provokes even worse reactions until finally, a year later we can finally admit that Ghostbusters isn't a good movie.

Just don't sign up to a tribe. Be an individual with an opinions that can change. Don't declare your immediately dismissal of people's opinions based on their tribal membership either.

First, the Daily Dot is, as far as I know, a crappy editorial site, so my first reaction to that would be to assume that it's just a shitty clickbait article. Supported somewhat by the fact that whoever wrote the article is clearly misinterpreting a lot of what James said. Not quite what I would take as some kind of wider condemnation of the guy (especially considering how his video seemed to do just fine).

Second, even ignoring all that, I don't see anything in that article accusing him on being some crazy woman hater

The entire point of that DailyDot article was that James Rolfe's arguments against ghostbusters were so weak that the only real reason that he could dislike it was because he was sixist.
There were over a dozen articles written in places from The Atlantic and Vice calling him sexist. He did manage the affair well by not giving them any credence and acting calm in response.

Being that I didn't follow this aspect very closely at all, can you tell me any point where the studio or people actually involved with the film criticized fans in any capacity other than "well, misogynists exist and they suck", which shouldn't really be something disagreeable regardless of how you felt about the film itself.

Paul Feig had an article in the Salon where he called geek culture assholes and Salon went ahead and called detractors man-children. Also you had the cast calling people that disliked the trailer losers who lived in their mothers basement. This went on for quite a while. I remember seeing one interview in the Guardian which included that sentiment from the film's cast.

So, all the normal nerd bullying you had to suffer in school. Unsurprisingly this created even more vitriol in response.

For people that want to fight dragons on the internet they end up creating the very monsters they wish to fight. Reasoned debate and nuanced opinions are trampled in the crossfire.

[GandALF]

Oh boy we really are going off the rails.

In the original way the term was used the key word was "warrior". To the warriors the equality and social justice are simple, straightforward things and therefore even the slightest disagreement with them must be a sign of being anti-equality and thus dissenters are the Enemy and must be shunned. The ensuing polarisation then lead to the anti-SJWs seeing SJWs as the Enemy and being just as militantly awful.

One issue that arises is that some companies may have been using the warriors to their advantage. Like with lady Thor, which was a clear sign of creative impotence on the part of Marvel by preferring to do that rather than create a genuinely new female character, but instead they took the easy way out and could count on the warriors to defend them.

Likewise with Ghostbusters as RLM explains (one of the few RLM videos I agree with):

youtu.be/UWROBiX1eSc

As I said before I don't think Discovery and Star Wars count as SJW stuff, I think that's more of the anti-SJW extremism in those fights

AND SARU IS A COW

[Ghilz]

It'll be interesting to see Chuck's thoughts when he eventually gets to Universe in the reviews. BSG was SUCH a gamechanger in sci-fi that it's still affecting how we see shows and movies this many years later - more grit, even spaceship fight scenes are filmed in a very different manner.

Which is kind of funny considering how little people bring up BSG anymore. At least compared to a lot of other landmark scifi. I guess those two final seasons kinda sucking, as did the two attempted prequels kinda soured the show's legacy in the popular mind.

[unknownsample]

Here is exactly is the point. The feedback loop in full swing.

My side isn't bad. it's the other side. The inevitable bandwagoning on everything.

By immediately disregarding the actions of your tribe and justifying any action as just by the bad actions of the other. Whether these actions are true, exaggerated or not.

Eventually this provokes even worse reactions until finally, a year later we can finally admit that Ghostbusters isn't a good movie.

Just don't sign up to a tribe. Be an individual with an opinions that can change. Don't declare your immediately dismissal of people's opinions based on their tribal membership either.

First, the Daily Dot is, as far as I know, a crappy editorial site, so my first reaction to that would be to assume that it's just a shitty clickbait article. Supported somewhat by the fact that whoever wrote the article is clearly misinterpreting a lot of what James said. Not quite what I would take as some kind of wider condemnation of the guy (especially considering how his video seemed to do just fine).

Second, even ignoring all that, I don't see anything in that article accusing him on being some crazy woman hater

The entire point of that DailyDot article was that James Rolfe's arguments against ghostbusters were so weak that the only real reason that he could dislike it was because he was sixist.
There were over a dozen articles written in places from The Atlantic and Vice calling him sexist. He did manage the affair well by not giving them any credence and acting calm in response.

Being that I didn't follow this aspect very closely at all, can you tell me any point where the studio or people actually involved with the film criticized fans in any capacity other than "well, misogynists exist and they suck", which shouldn't really be something disagreeable regardless of how you felt about the film itself.

Paul Feig had an article in the Salon where he called geek culture assholes and Salon went ahead and called detractors man-children. Also you had the cast calling people that disliked the trailer losers who lived in their mothers basement. This went on for quite a while. I remember seeing one interview in the Guardian which included that sentiment from the film's cast.

So, all the normal nerd bullying you had to suffer in school. Unsurprisingly this created even more vitriol in response.

For people that want to fight dragons on the internet they end up creating the very monsters they wish to fight. Reasoned debate and nuanced opinions are trampled in the crossfire.

Again no mention of the appalling behaviour from those fans who drove one of the stars off twitter or the abuse other cast members received.

[MixedDrops]

Alright I do feel kinda bad for continuing to derail the thread with this stuff, but I feel like responses are owed since everyone's being relatively civil and I'll try my best to not write xboxheug textboxes on it at least.

My side isn't bad. it's the other side. The inevitable bandwagoning on everything.

By immediately disregarding the actions of your tribe and justifying any action as just by the bad actions of the other. Whether these actions are true, exaggerated or not.

Eventually this provokes even worse reactions until finally, a year later we can finally admit that Ghostbusters isn't a good movie.

Just don't sign up to a tribe. Be an individual with an opinions that can change. Don't declare your immediately dismissal of people's opinions based on their tribal membership either.

There seems to be a bit of confusion on one point- Ghostbusters actually had a pretty good reception despite what a lot of the people who hated it keep insisting. Box office bomb for sure, but critically? It did just fine.

Also there's a bit of irony in the dogmatic belief in this "both sides are dumb" philosophy. I could immediately dismiss the health advice of a faith healer and I guess you can call that "tribalism" if you want, but I find that a bit facile. After all, he might just be right- he'll just be right for the wrong reasons.

I know that's a bit of an unfair comparison to make when compared to opinions about some dumb pulp scifi comedy movie, but I hope I can at least illustrate why I don't see any problem with immediately dismissing the opinions of people who clearly demonstrate through their words or actions they make judgments based on whether something has minorities in it or not (and make no mistake, people who use the term "SJW" pejoratively on a regular basis tend to have a huge overlap with said group). After all, he might just be right and the movie really is a piece of shit- he'll just be right for the wrong reasons.

The entire point of that DailyDot article was that James Rolfe's arguments against ghostbusters were so weak that the only real reason that he could dislike it was because he was sixist.

I pretty much responded to this already, but I'll reiterate- Rolfe's arguments were weak when you put them in greater context, because even though they are not actually invalid criticisms, they're also generic "Hollywood is cynical" complaints that could be applied to oh-so-many movies, including movies he himself has reviewed (while knowing they're cynical cash-ins).

Maybe Ghostbusters was just that important to him? But even in that context, how was it worse than the Michael Bay Transformers movies, of which he watched at least 4 of, or those newer TMNT movies, or again, that stupid Dark Cinematic Universe screwing around with the Universal monsters which are so near and dear to him, as a horror movie buff?

Paul Feig had an article in the Salon where he called geek culture assholes and Salon went ahead and called detractors man-children. Also you had the cast calling people that disliked the trailer losers who lived in their mothers basement. This went on for quite a while. I remember seeing one interview in the Guardian which included that sentiment from the film's cast.

I'd probably need more context before I respond to something like this (Though I understand if you don't want to bother spending time looking them up given how...well, unimportant this conversation is really, it's just one forgettable movie from one year), because I can certainly see a context where someone might say geek culture is conducive to assholish behavior, or how someone might call detractors man-children. I do think I've seen glimpses of those interviews myself and they're usually in the context of some interviewer talking about the controversy before leading into those questions.

Which brings me to my next point- if the studio, cast and crew addressed the media circus because it's all anyone talked about, how is that the fault of the studio, cast and crew? As a PR tactic I can believe the studio would try to divert attention from the reception of their bad trailer, but there's this weird underlying implication I'm getting here where the entire backlash was manufactured by the movie studio to paint innocent fans as misogynistic neckbeards to make big bucks. Just seems a bit simplistic and conspiratorial.

Plus that bit in the RLM video about Sony removing youtube comments...is there even any proof of that, or this another one of those "those SJWs are simultaneously too weak to enact any change in the world but are also capable of controlling Hollywood studios, the media and various government offices" theories I seem to hear a lot of?

One issue that arises is that some companies may have been using the warriors to their advantage. Like with lady Thor, which was a clear sign of creative impotence on the part of Marvel by preferring to do that rather than create a genuinely new female character, but instead they took the easy way out and could count on the warriors to defend them.

I'm not a huge comic book reader, but as I understand it, female-ifying characters isn't really that rare of a thing, and it's really not that far of a stretch from having female spinoffs of the hero (ie Supergirl et al) which has been a thing for a damn long time. I've heard it's been hit-or-miss but I have heard good things about a few of these branch-offs like Miles Morales or Kamala Khan.

Was there something especially bad about female Thor?

[PlasmaHam]

One issue that arises is that some companies may have been using the warriors to their advantage. Like with lady Thor, which was a clear sign of creative impotence on the part of Marvel by preferring to do that rather than create a genuinely new female character, but instead they took the easy way out and could count on the warriors to defend them.

I'm not a huge comic book reader, but as I understand it, female-ifying characters isn't really that rare of a thing, and it's really not that far of a stretch from having female spinoffs of the hero (ie Supergirl et al) which has been a thing for a damn long time. I've heard it's been hit-or-miss but I have heard good things about a few of these branch-offs like Miles Morales or Kamala Khan.

Was there something especially bad about female Thor?

Female spin-offs of superheros are common, like Supergirl. However, the successful ones are often those who distance themselves from the original, make them a unique individual rather than a gender-flopped copy of an existing superhero. She-Hulk, X-23, and Spider-Woman are good examples of that. They are all unique individuals who don't constantly dwell in the shadow of the male original. People have a problem when these spinoffs when they fail to be compelling in their own right, are given Mary Sue attributes, and/or are forced upon the audience, at the detriment of the original. In my opinion, the last two are clearly present here, and for some people the first as well.

Of course, some people would simply say that any and all dislike of Lady Thor is due to sexism, and dismiss any of the other concerns people bring up. But that is what you get when criticizing female characters, like Chuck has repeatedly said regarding his Janeway criticism. That sort of reaction just makes things worse.

[thisithis]

Your example is the Ghostbusters movie. Look at what happened, James Rolfe AVGN, made one video saying he thought the movie looked awful from the trailer. Instead of doing what his fans expected, he said that he wasn't going to watch it and then make a video talking about how bad it was. He was just not going to see it and explained why. After that he said hey it could even be good. In response he was labeled a sexist, misogynist woman hater that was just hiding his sexism.
https://www.dailydot.com/unclick/ghostb ... to-review/.

And things got worst, mainly thanks to Amy Pascal and her leaked emails. Some this info was before the AVGN mess. but in her emails, she used Harold Ramis death to take over the Ghostbuster's franchise and suggested to take the original cast member to crout if they don't guess star in her film. And there was the shit she said about Angelina Jolie and President Barack Obama, the odd war she had with Ivan Reitman. And boy did she not like Reitman at all. And then there were her twitter arguments with fans and Reitman's kids, she called everybody a sexist pig including Reitman's two daughters and one son.

But like I was told a long time ago, no matter what side you're on, there will always be an extremist on that side, and that holds true for SJW, and Male rights activists. There will always be someone that takes it way to far.

[MithrandirOlorin]

Honestly, I think it was a mistake to focus on that for the intro. As a self-proclaimed "SJW," I didn't see a lot of people taking issue with Discovery's focus on a black woman as the lead aside from the racists and the sexists (the kind who think Star Trek is just pzew pzew Kirk beds alien women and not anything of substance) and they were easy enough to drown out considering Star Trek is a show ALL ABOUT equality, social justice, and bringing people of different backgrounds together.

No, the complaints people have had across the board are the perfectly legitimate ones - the continuity issues both in tech and look, the unnecessary amounts of "edginess" (swearing, nudity, pop culture references that Star Trek has tended to shy away from because we're several hundred years removed from it), or indeed - how everyone kinda starts as a jackass.

Now I'm still waaaay behind on Discovery (still haven't watched past the time loop episode, which I loved) but I've been enjoying the character development we've had so far and have been willing to MOSTLY overlook the continuity stuff, but I'd be lying if I said some of that didn't bug me.

Wait, are the same Linkara who does those youtube videos about Power Rangers?