Fandom and Viewer Issues: "Fan" Is Short for "Fanatic"

[Rumsy4]

YNB is getting a true taste of the crazies. After being harassed by a barrage of tweets, she responded to a few of them before blocking them and moving on.

It's disgusting really. But I wish that the people responding to the crazies on twitter would use words like stop "harassing" "disrespecting" "piling on" JMo, instead of the generic term "hate". It both intensifies and reduces the bullying that is taking place..

Edited September 30, 2014 by Rumsy4

[Featherhat]

Why would you do this when you'd just redeemed yourself?"

 

Geez there should be no need what so ever for anyone to need to be "redeemed" for tweeting about one character pairing over the others. Especially as its part of her job to promote her current storyline, and that would be true even if she personally preferred Emma to date Grumpy. 

 

And I really can't see the Hook/Emma scene as rape culture or presumptuous pestering. He is trying to persuade her to give their relationship a shot but he wasn't either physically or emotionally intimidating her and Emma of all people can tell anyone to get lost. It's good to be aware of the ways in which TV/movies portray the more problematic thoughts of society on the relationships between men and women, but that's reading a lot into a tense but not abusive relationship negotiating.   

[Mari]

And I really can't see the Hook/Emma scene as rape culture or presumptuous pestering. He is trying to persuade her to give their relationship a shot but he wasn't either physically or emotionally intimidating her and Emma of all people can tell anyone to get lost. It's good to be aware of the ways in which TV/movies portray the more problematic thoughts of society on the relationships between men and women, but that's reading a lot into a tense but not abusive relationship negotiating.   

Yes.  I think occasionally some people lose sight of the fact that if a man and a woman are in a relationship, they are both in the relationship.  Like you said, he wasn't intimidating her at all, and he deserves clarification on where they stand in the relationship they are both in--or not in.

 

If it continued on and on, yes, inappropriate and possibly stalkery or abusive.  But in a new relationship especially, where you're still defining boundaries and expectations?  Why should he not be allowed to ask some questions about where they stand? 

[myril]

Yes.  I think occasionally some people lose sight of the fact that if a man and a woman are in a relationship, they are both in the relationship.  Like you said, he wasn't intimidating her at all, and he deserves clarification on where they stand in the relationship they are both in--or not in.

 

If it continued on and on, yes, inappropriate and possibly stalkery or abusive.  But in a new relationship especially, where you're still defining boundaries and expectations?  Why should he not be allowed to ask some questions about where they stand? 

 

Agree, there are two people in a relationship (whatever gender), but that says nothing about if it's abusive or not. Defining boundaries can be at any time an issue in a relationship.

 

I don't find Emma and Hook that problematic on their own, and agree the scenes in 4x01 were benign, but wouldn't have called some of it hot either. I do see though the pirate side of Hook and how it came across particular in season 2 as the charming bad guy as problematic, when reflecting on how attraction, romance, sexuality, masculinity and femininity is constructed and seen in society. I don't find all criticism brought up concerning Hook and CaptainSwan completely unfounded.  As I think a lot of reactions are not just about what is shown on screen but how it is read by people, and there are different views, different opinions, and sometimes those are controversial.

 

If we  like it or not, and many probably would prefer to keep it all just on the fun and it's all just entertainment level, OUaT is not just that. It especially touches questions of relationships, of defining love and of defining good and evil ,some core questions of any time. But we already had this discussion about unintentional impact and reflection on issues we have and discuss in society, so not going to repeat that all now.

 

The tweet Yvette Nicole Brown got was adopting the wrong tone, but her reaction to it, her wording was not great either. Why not say something along, "I see it different, what you bring up is a serious issue though, but here is not the place to discuss it." She had no interest in discussing it, or let her timeline be used for it, okay, her prerogative, but she could have been less dismissive, avoiding assumptions.

Edited September 30, 2014 by katusch

[angelwoody]

 

The tweet Yvette Nicole Brown got was adopting the wrong tone, but her reaction to it, her wording was not great either. Why not say something along, "I see it different, what you bring up is a serious issue though, but here is not the place to discuss it." She had no interest in discussing it, or let her timeline be used for it, okay, her prerogative, but she could have been less dismissive, avoiding assumptions.

I see no reason why anyone (celebrity or not) is obligated to turn a rude tweet into a "teaching moment."  I think that social media can make people forget their manners.  I highly doubt that whoever tweeted her would have been as likely to storm up to her on the street or at a party and say the same thing.  Why is it wrong to be dismissive of someone who barges into your twitter feed being snotty?  I thought her response was great, personally.  

[Dani-Ellie]

The tweet Yvette Nicole Brown got was adopting the wrong tone, but her reaction to it, her wording was not great either. Why not say something along, "I see it different, what you bring up is a serious issue though, but here is not the place to discuss it." She had no interest in discussing it, or let her timeline be used for it, okay, her prerogative, but she could have been less dismissive, avoiding assumptions.

 

At this point, though, I wish someone would tell these fans to direct these comments to the people who can do something about it. (And to learn how to address a problem respectfully.) That means hitting up Adam, Eddy, the network, and the advertisers. It doesn't mean sending out "you're supporting domestic violence/rape culture" comments to the actors on the show, who are paid to do what the scripts tell them, or to Yvette Nicole Brown, who has absolutely nothing to do with the show beyond voicing a character and was simply tweeting along as a fan. The fans absolutely have a right to their opinions, but that right goes both ways. The celebrities have a right to theirs as well.

Edited September 30, 2014 by Dani-Ellie

[Jean]

 

It especially touches questions of relationships, of defining love and of defining good and evil ,some core questions of any time.

I think that's silly because some of those loudest rabid people waving the social issues flag of righteousness will defend a mass murderer, child abuser and RAPIST to death. How can anyone take their fake ass outrage seriously at that? And no it's not assumptions because the ones attacking YNB and Jmo and the writers are 99% Woegina stans. You just have to look at their twitter names or icons to glean that. Can anyone find a tweet that calmly states their worries about Once on JMo's twitter, or YNB's twitter or A&E's twitter that isn't from a Woegina fan or Rumple, or Belle, or Peter Pan etc.

 

It's doubly silly to make so much of this silly show when A&E and the show defines good and evil like this.

Woegina: kill entire villages? sent plenty of children to death? abused her own kid? oh she's pure hearted heroine and the biggest victim of all

Snow: 12 year old kid who got tricked? LIFE RUINER, EVIL

 

If anyone thought to take this show seriously well then we better watch out for the huge generation of Ted Bundys soon to be walking around then. Lock your doors people! Oh and build a Noah's Ark to protect yourself too! Boy, Home Depot is about to hit the jackpot.

[myril]

I see no reason why anyone (celebrity or not) is obligated to turn a rude tweet into a "teaching moment."  I think that social media can make people forget their manners.  I highly doubt that whoever tweeted her would have been as likely to storm up to her on the street or at a party and say the same thing.  Why is it wrong to be dismissive of someone who barges into your twitter feed being snotty?  I thought her response was great, personally.  

 

I disagree, because what would be "teaching" about approaching it with less assumptions? There is nothing educative in it, and I don't see an obligation, it is a matter of better communication. When we say fans shouldn't be surprised to get reactions, then the same goes for celebrities as well, and manner is something they should have too. This is not walking along the street or being on a private party, Twitter is a public and interactive medium, where people give statements, information, opinions, and others might react to that. Besides, being a regular user of public transport I can tell: people forget their manners not just on social media.

Edited September 30, 2014 by katusch

[Dani-Ellie]

This is not walking along the street or being on a private party, Twitter is a public and interactive medium, where people give statements, information, opinions, and others might react to that.

And others might react to the reaction. These fans have no problem calling the celebrities out on the carpet, but the second the celebrity directs a comment back at them, the celebrity all of a sudden becomes the bad guy. When they tweet something charged to a celebrity, they should be prepared for the celebrity (and any number of fans following the conversation) to see it and react to it, whether that means countering their opinion or telling them to go away.

 

Twitter is absolutely a public forum, but again, that goes both ways. I disagree with the notion that the celebrities should be endlessly understanding and allow these fans to tweet them comments that they support domestic violence or rape culture simply because they like a fictional televised relationship.

Edited September 30, 2014 by Dani-Ellie

[Crimson Belle]

 

This is not walking along the street or being on a private party, Twitter is a public and interactive medium, where people give statements, information, opinions, and others might react to that.

 

 

And the problem here is people get reactions in kind to how they react.  It seems that the expectation is for celebrities to automatically have to be 1000 times better than the people attacking.  And that tweet to YNB was an attack.  It was snotty, a quick search of the user shows in my opinion that it was highly hypocritical, and it snottily attacked YNB's opinion.  It wasn't designed to provoke discussion.  It was designed to be dismissive of YNB for having a different opinion.  The only thing YNB did wrong was not using the word faux in front of crusade.  Because it's not about "rape culture" to 99.999% of the people attacking.  If it were, They would be consistent in pointing out much more troubling sexual issues on this show, loudly and vocally, and Once would already by canceled because of public outcry over how it treated Regina's rape of Graham, Neal and an underage Emma, etc.

[maryle]

I strongly disagree when a celebrity friend of the cast chooses to support the show in a public manner. She takes her time and energy to speak about something that speak to her on a personnal level.  She is just like every fan  and can choose to like or not like anything on the show. And at this point this person because she can ( Not an actress or actor on the show) choose to answer to some one of whom she felt was trying to bullying her or push her personal agenda. The simple fact that she chooses to speak about it and that's JMO choose to retweet it for me show that something is definitely  rotten in some area of the fandom.

[Serena]

Yvette's replies are on fire, y'all. And look at what Jen is tweeting. 

[KingOfHearts]

 

Yvette's replies are on fire, y'all. And look at what Jen is tweeting.

Jennifer is so classy with her replies. I feel sorry for her, because I know how mean and personally argumentative people can be on the internet. She's such a strong lady. I admit YNB did fuel the fire a bit, but I can understand being sick of people looking to pick a fight. Arguing and attacking don't solve anything, which is why I really like Jennifer's tweet about spreading love on social media.

Edited September 30, 2014 by KingOfHearts

[myril]

Not expecting celebrities to be "1000 times better". Not defending the person who send this inept tweet, and even less the convo that followed by a few others, just saying that the reaction wasn't great, maybe understandable, but no great communication. Seeing it more as public relation matter, think it could have been handled differently and IMO better. Yvette Nicole Brown pretty much fed the trolls, so to speak. I am not concerned for the critics, fans, or whatever to call them in this case. I am unfortunately not the least bit surprised that things are heating up now.

 

edit: Have been a person of a certain public interest for a while, though on a much smaller level, and learned the hard way, how aware one has to be of what we do and say in public, and that public can be for some people wherever you are, you are never private.

Edited September 30, 2014 by katusch

[Stuffy]

I did laugh this morning because someone tweeted YNB that they were going to block her.  Her response was something along the line of you can't block me because I don't follow you, but I'll block you so you don't have to see my tweets.  I'm clearly paraphrasing because I don't remember but it cracked me up.  

Edited September 30, 2014 by Stuffy

[angelwoody]

I disagree, because what would be "teaching" about approaching it with less assumptions? There is nothing educative in it, and I don't see an obligation, it is a matter of better communication. When we say fans shouldn't be surprised to get reactions, then the same goes for celebrities as well, and manner is something they should have too. This is not walking along the street or being on a private party, Twitter is a public and interactive medium, where people give statements, information, opinions, and others might react to that. Besides, being a regular user of public transport I can tell: people forget their manners not just on social media.

I'm not sure what assumptions you refer to, but I think that people should be free to communicate in the manner they see fit.  I think that if someone lashes out rudely the recipient is under no obligation to be understanding or friendly or to try to draw the person out to further communication.  If they want to, fine, but if they don't want to engage with someone like that, sometimes it's best to shut that stuff down right away.  And in my opinion, even celebrities have a right to draw that line - and I don't think they have to be nice about it.  Why would you want to humor someone who begins a conversation in such a manner?  But I think that's the point, the person who tweeted wasn't interested in opening a dialog, they wanted to be rude to someone who dared to express an opinion they didn't like.  

Edited September 30, 2014 by angelwoody

[Emma]

Go Jen. Respond with class, kindness, and smiles.

[Rumsy4]

Yvette Nicole Brown pretty much fed the trolls, so to speak. 

 

This idea of "don't provoke the bully" is not the right way to go about things, IMHO. This is similar to Regina's annoyance when no one would eat her lasagne. YNB did not feed the trolls. She stood up to a passive-aggressive personal attack. JMo, YNB, Colin, are all actors by profession. YNB was tweeting appreciation of her fellow actors, which some people in the ONCE fandom used as a point to push their own agenda (right or wrong does not matter). I'm sure it is draining for actors when they are attacked about the roles they play. They have every right to stand up to harassment.  

 

 

It's doubly silly to make so much of this silly show when A&E and the show defines good and evil like this.

Woegina: kill entire villages? sent plenty of children to death? abused her own kid? oh she's pure hearted heroine and the biggest victim of all

Snow: 12 year old kid who got tricked? LIFE RUINER, EVIL

 

Word, Jean. 

Edited September 30, 2014 by Rumsy4

[Serena]

Yes, I feel like defending herself after being accused of being a rape supporter is pretty expected. After that, she started blocking.

[sharky]

I just don't get it. This isn't a serious show. This isn't Breaking Bad or Mad Men or something. This is a fun campy cheesy show about fairy tale characters. For crap's sake, Captain Hook is a fool in love with a princess! If you think the show is supporting rape culture or whatever, WHY ARE YOU WATCHING IT? And really, why are you then attacking the actors who play the characters with all the camp and cheese that this show requires? I feel like these must be 15-year-old mean girls who think JMo and YNB are from the nerdy cliche that sits at a different table in the lunch room.

[myril]

Yes, I feel like defending herself after being accused of being a rape supporter is pretty expected. After that, she started blocking.

 

 

One can read that tweet addressed to Yvette Nicole Brown, which started the whole mess, as accusation of being a rape supporter, but that was not what the tweet literally was saying. Maybe it was meant that way, but that is what I mean with assumptions. We don't know how it was actually meant, we assume, and so did Brown. Even if it might have been meant that way, there still might be people reading it much differently, there are people reading it differently. As Yvette Nicole Brown's reaction tweet could and was read in different ways. To some people crusade has a negative connotation, while Brown claimed she has a positive understanding of it. And then add a number of people joining into the convo, all with different reading, understanding, making assumption and implications... Hello Twitter Hell -  communication of the unproductive sort. Getting no one anywhere.

 

I am not suggesting to sit back or even turn the other cheek also when being attacked, or tiptoe around things. But let's say, it can help to not open up another spot for attack when hitting back, or you might gain nothing and even lose the fight. 

[Dani-Ellie]

What would you have suggested she do? At what point does enough become enough? We don't know how much she'd ignored before finally responding to that one tweet. It may have been none. It may have been a thousand. At some point, I do think it behooves the celebrity (or anyone using social media) to make a point of saying, "All right, enough's enough, I'm not going to engage in this discussion so stop it."

 

Frankly, I think it's beyond time someone put these fans in their place. This is just absolutely ridiculous. They're not treating anyone with respect but they expect the utmost respect back. I don't think that just because someone is a public figure means they should have to take what these fans are dishing out. "Do unto others ..." Celebrities are human beings, first and foremost. Words, when used improperly, can be weapons, and these fans are weaponizing their words and then getting upset when the weapons are turned on them in self-defense.

 

They're starting it. They're knocking the ball out of the kid's hands and then getting pissed when the kid chases them for the ball back. I don't think it's uncalled for for the celebrity to say, "Look, go take your nonsense elsewhere" in response to harassment.

 

 

 

And then add a number of people joining into the convo, all with different reading, understanding, making assumption and implications... Hello Twitter Hell -  communication of the unproductive sort. Getting no one anywhere.

 

The entire conversation is going to go nowhere, though. These fans don't want a conversation. They want everyone to see things their way. People who want to enter into a discussion don't accuse someone of supporting rape culture right off the bat. In light of that, I do think Yvette Nicole Brown was right to shut it down, because the line between discussion and harassment was crossed right from the jump.

Edited September 30, 2014 by Dani-Ellie

[angelwoody]

One can read that tweet addressed to Yvette Nicole Brown, which started the whole mess, as accusation of being a rape supporter, but that was not what the tweet literally was saying. Maybe it was meant that way, but that is what I mean with assumptions. We don't know how it was actually meant, we assume, and so did Brown. Even if it might have been meant that way, there still might be people reading it much differently, there are people reading it differently. As Yvette Nicole Brown's reaction tweet could and was read in different ways. To some people crusade has a negative connotation, while Brown claimed she has a positive understanding of it. And then add a number of people joining into the convo, all with different reading, understanding, making assumption and implications... Hello Twitter Hell -  communication of the unproductive sort. Getting no one anywhere.

 

I am not suggesting to sit back or even turn the other cheek also when being attacked, or tiptoe around things. But let's say, it can help to not open up another spot for attack when hitting back, or you might gain nothing and even lose the fight. 

I get what you're saying about the conversation becoming unproductive once people began piling on and from what I can see from the screen grabs linked here it did devolve rather quickly.  But it was the initial (unnecessary) tweet in response to a bit of fangirling by Brown that kicked off the firestorm.  

 

I guess I just feel like people should be able to like a TV show/ story line/ ship/ whatever and talk about it in social media without having a bunch of people judge them negatively because they don't share the same view of the societal implications/ commentary/ influence of XYZ that they do - or because they might just not even bring any of those things to their viewing experience at all.  Some people do watch for strictly for fun and that's valid.  Not everyone shares the same baggage/ triggers/ viewpoint/ history/ etc., and that's completely valid as well.

 

What isn't valid, in my opinion?  Someone getting called out on Twitter as supporting...  "men badgering women" or whatever, because they happen to like Hook/ Emma.  Because that is also making assumptions, one of which is liking Hook & Emma = support or at least tolerance of  [insert very negative social issue].  And that is not necessarily the case. 

Edited September 30, 2014 by angelwoody

[Amerilla]

I just don't get it. This isn't a serious show. This isn't Breaking Bad or Mad Men or something. This is a fun campy cheesy show about fairy tale characters. For crap's sake, Captain Hook is a fool in love with a princess! If you think the show is supporting rape culture or whatever, WHY ARE YOU WATCHING IT?

 

I think there are different ways to look at it, sharky. OK, yeah, it's silly and campy - but that doesn't mean that you should just open up your eyeballs and take it in uncritially. If it was just silly and campy and nothing-to-see-here, this would be a very quiet forum, right? :-) The fact is, even seemingly un-serious entertainment reflects aspects of the culture, and sometimes those reflections are problematic.

 

Got to say it, because it bears repeating in caps: RAPE CULTURE IS NOT JUST ABOUT RAPE. It's a ham-fisted term used to describe the pervasivenss within our culture (and other cultures) of portrayals of women as sexual objects that can be 'won' (primarily by men) through 'persistance,' OR as creatures that give or withold of their sexuality as a way to control, confuse or confound men. This does not mean that all men are or will be rapists, any more than it means all women fall into the categories of either "frigid ball-buster" or "slut." (Or a "prick tease.") If you stopped watching shows or reading books or magazines that tend to show male-female relationships as something between a dance and power-struggle, your entertainment options would dwindle down to a stack of back-issue of Ms. Magazine, circa 1978. Not-watching doesn't mean it isn't there, and it doesn't do much to encourage people who create our entertainment to maybe, perhaps, start to think about what they're putting out there into the world.

 

OUAT is often a highly entertaining piece of eye candy...but it's also rife with questionable portrayals of sex and gender, not just in one "ship" or one character, but across the board. Enjoying the enjoyable part doesn't mean you have to ignore or keep quiet about the less enjoyable part.  I'd argue the opposite: it's because parts of this show are so entertaining and the cast is so likable, I want the whole thing to live up that. 

 

Where it doesn't live up is - despite the inordinate amount of time that often seems to be devoted to romance - there's really very little attention paid to making the characters or the relationships on the show seem at all real or believable. That's really what sits at the heart of the shipper wars: the show has basically become a huge "choose your own adventure" game, where we're given so little that we can interpret the seemingly most straightforward things in multiple ways.

 

I can look at Hook and see a violent and whiny piece of crap and other people can look at him and think he's the most romantic, giving, remorseful bundle of wonderful to ever grace our TV screens. Both sides could come up with exhibits of both points of view.

 

I can look at Rumpel freezing Belle to give the dagger back and see it is a manifestiation of cowardice, of fearing conflict and loss; other people can term it "domestic abuse." Both sides have merit and the show, by simply presenting it with no narrative emphasis, gives each side equal cover.

 

Given what Regina has done to Emma and her family, I find the very concept of SwanQueen offensive - but reading a pro-SQ review of this week's ep, I get why people who do ship them see it there on-screen, and why they get mad when other people tell them they're crazy or stupid.

 

Nobody is "right" and nobody is "wrong," everyone is just seeing what they see, usually informed by head-canon and fanfic to fill in the things that the show leaves blank. There's really no "conversation" to be had, because nobody is starting from the same starting point.

Edited September 30, 2014 by Amerilla

[Jean]

 

it's silly and campy - but that doesn't mean that you should just open up your eyeballs and take it in uncritially. If it was just silly and campy and nothing-to-see-here, this would be a very quiet forum, right?

 

There's a difference between A&E are crappy writers and portray characters horribly vs you're homophobic or support rape culture. The latter is an ad hominem fallacy. We discuss characters on this forum when it comes to morality or personal values. The discussion over the fight taking place is discussing actors, real life people! I've yet to see anyone on this forum accuse A&E of being supporters of genocide and secretly fund terrorists and actually sound like they truly believe it. That's the difference. There's been some negative things said about Rumple but that is never attributed to Robert Carlyle here. Belle is a stupid twit but is that said about EdR? But what do I know. Maybe there were some people that tweeted at Robert going "Hey Robert, you douchebag, I bet you lied to your wife when you proposed to her too. Where are your kids? Did you abandon them in a dumpster?" Because that is what is going on with JMo and YNB and whomever that gets caught up.

Edited September 30, 2014 by Jean

[myril]

What would you have suggested she do? At what point does enough become enough? We don't know how much she'd ignored before finally responding to that one tweet. It may have been none. It may have been a thousand. At some point, I do think it behooves the celebrity (or anyone using social media) to make a point of saying, "All right, enough's enough, I'm not going to engage in this discussion so stop it."

 

I made a suggestion in my first post about it: Different phrasing of her tweet. Some people jumped at her for using the word "crusade". It is possible Brown truly was not the least bit considering, that crusade is by some associated at once with butcherly warfare to conquer a place, region under the smoke screen of religious salvation, and so take it as a derogative statement, possible that she just meant it has being a vigorous, passionate action or movement for a cause, an idea, thinking of it even positive, just not wanting it on her Twitter timeline.

 

There have been a lot of intentional or unintentional misunderstandings in this. I don't think that any side in this wants a dialogue, not some of those criticizing Brown nor Brown herself. 

[Featherhat]

OUAT is often a highly entertaining piece of eye candy...but it's also rife with questionable portrayals of sex and gender, not just in one "ship" or one character, but across the board. Enjoying the enjoyable part doesn't mean you have to ignore or keep quiet about the less enjoyable part.  I'd argue the opposite: it's because parts of this show are so entertaining and the cast is so likable, I want the whole thing to live up that.

 

I agree with that, and I wrote upthread that its good to be aware of how TV portrays and encourages societal expectations about men and women, and I have issues with CS as a whole but I don't think the specific moment being discussed here was particularly problematic, certainly nothing on the scale of my Rumbelle and Regina/Robin/Marion issues in this episode. But internet road rage directed at actors (or rage directed at producers isn't going to help anything. And I think there probably was less to do with been annoyed over rape culture on the show and more to do with ship wars.

 

Fandom and social issues are a really thorny bunny for me I once had the following conversation with someone in another fandom a while ago:

 

Person: Anyone who doesn't like John/Sherlock is homophobic!

ME: Really I'm LGBT I can't stand them faux!together and think the show tap dancing back and forward on nothing for so long is kinda getting homophobic!

 

And the conversation deteriorated from there. Shipping wars get passionate and real life issues get used as weapons. People come in wanting to talk about real life issues and how the show handles them and get unsuspectingly dragged into shipping wars and you end up with the toxic atmosphere in certain parts of the OUAT fandom.

 

 

 

everyone is just seeing what they see, usually informed by head-canon and fanfic to fill in the things that the show leaves blank. There's really no "conversation" to be had, because nobody is starting from the same starting point.

 

That's true, especially in longterm fandoms and shows where as you say a lot is drawn fairly broadly and there are blanks. This is usually where a large fanfic community gathers creating its own fic for the pairing which gets mixed with what they're actually seeing on screen. Not necessarily in a crazy way but in a way where they take it for granted. And then you get awkward situations where canon massively diverges and the writers get accused of malice against real life groups, the fans and characters themselves.

 

A Song of Ice and Fire (book) fandom is going to explode in the fire of a hundred Snape and Dumbledore theories, SQ/SC/SF shippers and Wincest fanfic writers if a theory that large swaths of that fandom take 100% for granted is proven false and whilst it takes its cue from canon, the last time I checked in on it, it was about 80% Head Canon taken as fact.

 

ETA

 

Maybe there were some people that tweeted at Robert going "Hey Robert, you douchebag, I bet you lied to your wife when you proposed to her too. Where are your kids? Did you abandon them in a dumpster?" Because that is what is going on with JMo and YNB and whomever that gets caught up.

 

I think a lot of that is because Rumpel's arc has been about power and violence, not sex and violence. They did get a lot of flack for the Mila storyline IIRC. And Rumbelle is perceived as being off in their own little shipping corner, not related to any other couple. I was going to bring gender into it but Michael Coleman got the full brunt of shipping rage when he got involved (I think he was hardly blameless but essentially not lying in what he said)and if RC poked his nose in the inferno he'd get burnt too.

Edited September 30, 2014 by Featherhat

[Serena]

I don't think anyone (especially Yvette) is claiming you can't see the same character/ship/storyline differently. It's a matter of basic manners. Yvette tweeted that a kiss was "hot". She didn't say anything else about it - and people started tweeting her en masse about rape culture (I actually know what it means and that it's not just about rape). Why? Because they were butthurt that she finds hot a ship they find distasteful. They are free to dislike CS all they like, but if I tweeted "actually they're gross" to some SQ fan who was tweeting simply about loving the SQ scenes from last night, I'd be an asshole. Doesn't matter that there are problems with SQ, according to my opinion - "badgering" (ah!) a fan who was just appreciating the ship would be wrong. If they told me off, they'd be right to do so.

People flinging hate at Yvette and Jen claim to be "pro-woman". But they flung enough vitriol at one on a daily basis to have her claiming to be deeply hurt. Maybe they should consider Jen's real feelings instead of the ones they project on Emma.

Also, just because you have an interpretation of a character, doesn't mean it's your right to be heard. I think I've made my distaste of Regina clear. I have never tweeted Lana about it, once. I believe Yvette was feeling compassion for Regina in her livetweet. Did I reply to her with the many things I believe to be wrong about Regina? Nope.

[Amerilla]

Belle is a stupid twit but is that said about EdR?

EdR is *constantly* run down on this forum as untalented, annoying, unwatchable, etc. But, in fairness, I can't recall anyone calling her a twit.

Edited September 30, 2014 by Amerilla

[sharky]

Amerilla -- All valid points. I guess my concern isn't so much about what is being discussed as much as it's how it's being discussed. Why are fans attacking actors like this? I know I'm generalizing here, but it seems like the fans who do this attacking are immature teenage girl types, particularly when it comes to romantic relationships on this show. Would fans of Breaking Bad be treating actors this way?

 

It just seems that we can have a serious discussion about these issues, but someone who is attacking actors on Twitter like this is doing it to be a Mean Girl and not really to address the issues. What I meant was if you want to be all serious and melodramatic about a campy show on Twitter, then you shouldn't be trying to convey a complex issue in 140 nasty characters. If you want to have a serious discussion about it, then maybe do that in a better setting like this place. I guess what I'm saying is there's a time and place. Attacking actors on Twitter shows you don't really know the time and place to have that complex discussion so maybe you should forget the time and place to watch the show.

 

If you can't even understand the difference between an actor or a character, how are you going to have an in-depth debate about the content itself?

 

 

People flinging hate at Yvette and Jen claim to be "pro-woman". But they flung enough vitriol at one on a daily basis to have her claiming to be deeply hurt. Maybe they should consider Jen's real feelings instead of the ones they project on Emma.

And maybe they should be considering just how "pro-woman" they are. Feminism isn't just about believing in yourself as a woman, it's also about believing in your fellow women. Yvette and Jen are talented actors who have been able to find success in Hollywood. That's not easy for anyone and especially not for women. So why is it what women are attacking other women under the guise of "feminism"?

Edited September 30, 2014 by sharky

[Jean]

 

I think a lot of that is because Rumpel's arc has been about power and violence, not sex and violence. They did get a lot of flack for the Mila storyline IIRC. And Rumbelle is perceived as being off in their own little shipping corner, not related to any other couple.

Yes but was the type of flack, "Someone needs to alert the authorities, haven't seen Robert's wife in awhile. He probably killed her. Has anyone checked Adam's house? He probably let Robert bury her body there."

 

Or was it more along the lines of yo A&E, "Rumple is a rat bastard that killed his wife and Rumbelle sucks like a damn hoover and your writing does too."

 

And your point about Rumbelle is my entire point, that this is all about shipping wars, not any genuine concern for social issues.

 

 

EdR is *constantly* run down on this forum as untalented, annoying, unwatchable, etc. But, in fairness, I can't recall anyone calling her a twit.

That's acting ability. That has nothing to do with what Belle is being attributed to EdR. Come on you see the difference. Ok, then has anyone accused EdR of writing love letters to Ted Bundy and that she thinks Hitler has a good heart?

Edited September 30, 2014 by Jean

[kili]

Would fans of Breaking Bad be treating actors this way?

 

Actually, they did. The actress who played the wife received a great deal of abuse. She wrote an article about it. There were a lot of people who could not see the difference between her character and her.

 

They were upset because she opposed her husband's descent into hard core criminal. (New York Times)

 

At some point on the message boards, the character of Skyler seemed to drop out of the conversation, and people transferred their negative feelings directly to me. The already harsh online comments became outright personal attacks. One such post read: “Could somebody tell me where I can find Anna Gunn so I can kill her?”

Edited September 30, 2014 by kili

[Dani-Ellie]

I made a suggestion in my first post about it: Different phrasing of her tweet. Some people jumped at her for using the word "crusade".

 

The problem is, though, that this is not an isolated incident. If it were, then okay, but this is coming off the heels of months of similar incidents. The squeaky wheel might get the grease, but squeaking too much could lead people to think you're crying wolf.

 

Perhaps different phrasing of the tweet itself would have made a difference, but I'm betting it wouldn't have in the grand scheme of things. Jen's killing them with kindness certainly hasn't helped. In fact, it's even made it worse in some cases, because people are throwing her "I love all ships" stance back in her face every time she tweets something Captain Swan and is seen as "ignoring" Swanfire and Swan Queen.

 

In essence, what I'm seeing is Yvette Nicole Brown told someone to knock it off, and people didn't like it because, in my opinion, this particular subset of fans can't stand being told no. Everyone has a right to their opinion, from the fan out in the middle of East Podunk, Mississippi to High Level ABC Executive in Los Angeles, California. Fans have a right to respond to that opinion with their own, but having a right to an opinion does not give anyone the right to be an asshole. And when they respond to someone as an asshole, I believe the respondee has the right to shut down the "discussion" because the responder was an asshole.

 

I have no problem with respectful differences of opinion, but I do think this group of fans, for whatever reason, be it lack of maturity or what, lacks basic decorum and manners. They don't want conversation, they don't want discussion, they just want what they want, who gives a shit about anyone else's opinions or feelings. Ignoring them hasn't helped and honestly, as a girl who dealt with bullies much of her childhood, I think there's only so much anyone as a person can ignore. At some point, the foot needs to come down and say, "You know what? This is enough."

 

 

 

But internet road rage directed at actors (or rage directed at producers isn't going to help anything. And I think there probably was less to do with been annoyed over rape culture on the show and more to do with ship wars.

 

I'm seeing this, too. I'm sure some of the fans do see issues and do see the Hook/Emma dynamic as problematic. But I feel like the vast majority of them don't really care all that much about Problematic Social Issue and are just using the rhetoric to try to kill the ship because they personally don't like it.

 

I just feel, if you don't like what the show is doing, stop watching. If it's upsetting you to the point that you're hurling out insults at people involved with the show on Twitter, maybe take a step back, delete the show from your DVR, and write a letter or email to the network explaining why you'll no longer be watching. Other than that, suck it the hell up and stop harassing everyone on social media.

 

 

 

Also, just because you have an interpretation of a character, doesn't mean it's your right to be heard. I think I've made my distaste of Regina clear. I have never tweeted Lana about it, once. I believe Yvette was feeling compassion for Regina in her livetweet. Did I reply to her with the many things I believe to be wrong about Regina? Nope.

 

Word.

Edited September 30, 2014 by Dani-Ellie

[sharky]

Actually, they did. The actress who played the wife received a great deal of abuse. She wrote an article about it. There were a lot of people who could not see the difference between her character and her.

 

They were upset because she opposed her husband's descent into hard core criminal.

Oh, I remember this now. Thank you so much for the reminder. I'm off to go dig that up and reread it.

 

Seriously, what is wrong with fans?

[FurryFury]

Why are fans attacking actors like this? I know I'm generalizing here, but it seems like the fans who do this attacking are immature teenage girl types, particularly when it comes to romantic relationships on this show.

 

I think it has to do with social media making the fan/creators dialogue so simple and accessible and with creators constantly participating in it. In some fans, this creates an illusion of trust and closeness and being on the same level, and sometimes even worse, that they can *demand* something because they watch the show. And thing is, if it happens enough times, and the storyline requested is within certain limits, it often *does* happen, because TV is very much a popularity-driven media. Thus the circle continues.

[Rumsy4]

A subset of fans simply want the whole world to perceive things the way they see it. I see it all the time on tumblr, even among the so-called good-apples (even in the CS fandom). People are constantly telling others how to fandom, or that they are "haters" of a certain character if they don't interpret it a certain way, and the "bad apples" obviously take it to a whole new level. 

 

I may think EdR doesn't do a good acting job, but I'm not going to go on twitter and tell her or her fellow actor who just praised her scene, that EdR's acting sucked. That's just not acceptable. I also hold strong views about the Neal/Emma relationship, but I don't tweet MRJ that he condones statutory rape just because he played the role of Neal. 

 

What that fan did was unacceptable, because YNB is in no way related to ONCE. Quibbling over the wording of her response is putting the blame where it doesn't belong. Micheal Coleman got into a "brawl" with SQ fans a while back. They baited him, and he crossed the line by drawing Jen and Lana into the conversation. That was thoughtless and unacceptable. What YNB did was stand up to bullies in an acceptable way. 

Edited September 30, 2014 by Rumsy4

[Featherhat]

And your point about Rumbelle is my entire point, that this is all about shipping wars, not any genuine concern for social issues.

 

Yes, my post was also trying to make the point that a lot of the nastiest attacks involving many fandoms had little to do with perceived racism/sexism/homophobia (although fandom in general does discuss and sometimes struggles to discuss these issues in relation to something they love in or in some cases love to hate) but about using these issues as ways to "win" the argument. 

 

I think it has to do with social media making the fan/creators dialogue so simple and accessible and with creators constantly participating in it. In some fans, this creates an illusion of trust and closeness and being on the same level, and sometimes even worse, that they can *demand* something because they watch the show. And thing is, if it happens enough times, and the storyline requested is within certain limits, it often *does* happen, because TV is very much a popularity-driven media. Thus the circle continues.

 

Yeah even a few years ago when livejournal and fan created sites and message boards were in full swing and you could instantly discuss the episode, there wasn't the perception that the writers and actors were a click away. Some people involved with shows came on to message boards dedicated to their job and it often became contentious (see Aaron Sorkin vs his own writer  on TWOP which became Aaron Sorkin vs TWOP) or love ins (Joss Whedon on Whedonesque) but those were the exceptions. Now any witty tweet can get retweeted by someone involved with the show and hey, that barrier crossed and soon, why shouldn't others bombard an actor for a positive response?

 

It really doesn't help that the perception (not necessarily the truth) is that twitter and fan campaigns helped get various "crack" ships together on their shows. If I was still in the worst of my immature young teen crack phase (very tame only Buffy/Faith which Whedon acknowledged was deliberate) I might have more than a few tweets I regret now.

[shipperx]

I suppose it's the nature of fandom that people who are invested participate in it and eventually it can grow to hyperinvestment such that people become obsessed by certain details, or insistent on the way that they imagine the story is the way the story should go, or becoming upset over things that are relatively minor when all is said and done.  It seems to happen with every fandom (eventually).  But, it's terribly frustrating when things become blown out of all proportion.  People go from 0 to 60 in no time flat and behave as though something that is relatively small in scale is something gargantuan in scale... which is to say I think it's a bit of an exaggeration to take a character asking for clarification of a situation as supporting rape culture.  It's pressing an issue a bit too far.  If Hook were harrassing Emma to 'put out' that would be harrassment, but it isn't coming off that way.  It's that he apparently wants relationship clarification (which, yes, could become an issue, but that's a question of magnitude.  At a relatively small scale it's a rather human foible -- for either gender.) 

 

Really, stories need to have friction.  Because stories are on TV, friction will be visible and verbal, ergo characters will disagree and badger. If it were frictionless there would be nothing to talk about and no story for the characters, so every time characters disagree or want clarification or snark it is not zipping from the slow lane into hitting the turbo jets.  There's an awful lot of room between badgering someone for clarification and entitled objectifying of women as sex objects and yet further to egging on rape.  It's a matter of scale. I don't know that it's helpful to turn things up to eleven about everything.  Some things can be problematic without it having to be cliff jumping terrible for the entirity of humanity OMG!  I think something can be termed problematic and it not having to be the worst thing in the world.  And I think some things can actually be shrugged off occasionally.

Edited October 1, 2014 by shipperx

[Shanna Marie]

I think there's a big difference between discussing characters, writing (and how that reflects social issues) and acting in a forum like this one and directly Tweeting actors. Here, for all we know the cast and writers are lurking, but they should know going in what they're in for because this is a discussion among ourselves. It would be tacky to ascribe character traits or opinions to actors, unless those actors have said things in interviews that suggest they share their characters' opinions. So while it would be bad form to, say, call Colin sleazy because Hook speaks innuendo like a second language (at least as far as I can tell, Colin is a total gentleman in all interactions with the public), it's much more fair game to question someone like Parilla, who has given interviews suggesting that she thinks the stuff between Regina and Graham was fun and flirty, though I would draw the line at calling her (and not her character) a supporter of rape.

 

It becomes a whole other ball game if you direct a Tweet to someone or hash tag them in a way that makes your post likely to show up on their feed. If someone directly contacts someone, a reply shouldn't be a huge surprise. If you don't want the person to reply, don't direct it to them or tag them.

 

I guess it's the difference between overhearing someone talking about you and someone shouting directly at you, using your name.

[FurryFury]

If I was still in the worst of my immature young teen crack phase (very tame only Buffy/Faith which Whedon acknowledged was deliberate) I might have more than a few tweets I regret now.

 

Actually, no, it wasn't deliberate. IIRC, Joss said that the subtext wasn't put there specifically, but everyone's free to interpret it this way if they're inclined (a wise answer). I do have strong feelings about Buffy/Faith (I think their dynamic is way too complex and interesting to be reduced to simple sexual tension), so I apologize for offtopic :)

 

Re: Emilie deRavin, actually, the only bad thing I've seen written about her around here is that she's a bad actress. Which is a perfectly legitimate criticism, because that's her job. I've seen no personal attacks. Now, her character, that's different, but that's discussing the writing, not the actor. Of course, I may have missed something.

Edited September 30, 2014 by FurryFury

[Rumsy4]

Somethings can be problematic without it having to be cliff jumping terrible for the entirity of humanity OMG!  I think something can be termed problematic and it not having to be the worst thing in the world.  And I think some things can actually be shrugged off occasionally.

 

I so agree. Otherwise shows like Breaking Bad, Dexter and Hannibal wouldn't exist. There's no need to make a song and dance about everything.

[Mari]

Re: Emilie deRavin, actually, the only bad thing I've seen written about her around here is that she's a bad actress. Which is a perfectly legitimate criticism, because that's her job. I've seen no personal attacks. Now, her character, that's different, but that's discussing the writing, not the actor. Of course, I may have missed something.

I'll admit to having mentioned finding her voice grating as part of the reason I couldn't be completely impartial when it comes to discussing and analyzing the character.  I have the same problem with another performer, who I never watch, because the voice is distracting and unpleasant to me and keeps me from being drawn into the performance.

 

However, I wouldn't dream of attacking EdR's personality, character, beliefs . . ., or tracking her or her friends/family down so that I can point out to them that I find her voice annoying, and as for attacking her or for or approaching her about being sadistic enabler who enjoys feeling like a good girl because she "controls" her sadistic husband?  Um . . . no.  That would be Belle, not EdR.  EdR just happens to look like Belle and share her voice.  They aren't the same person.  It's a little unsettling that people aren't able to separate the actors from their characters.

[myril]

I don't think anyone (especially Yvette) is claiming you can't see the same character/ship/storyline differently. It's a matter of basic manners. Yvette tweeted that a kiss was "hot". She didn't say anything else about it - and people started tweeting her en masse about rape culture (I actually know what it means and that it's not just about rape). Why? Because they were butthurt that she finds hot a ship they find distasteful. They are free to dislike CS all they like, but if I tweeted "actually they're gross" to some SQ fan who was tweeting simply about loving the SQ scenes from last night, I'd be an asshole. Doesn't matter that there are problems with SQ, according to my opinion - "badgering" (ah!) a fan who was just appreciating the ship would be wrong. If they told me off, they'd be right to do so.

 

I have a different view on things. Didn't see people tweeting in great number about rape culture to Brown, I saw and see a handful of people getting into a convo with Brown and among each other about Brown not questioning what the show might tell as story in the case of CaptainSwan (that his her prerogative not to do so), and about Brown's reaction to that one particular tweet, questioning if the kiss was hot or something different. Was the questioning tweet appropriate? Wouldn't say so, but the response by Brown was not great and to cheer about either. And some of Brown's following tweets were quite unnecessary IMO. But so were tweets of other people in this convo.

 

 

The problem is, though, that this is not an isolated incident. If it were, then okay, but this is coming off the heels of months of similar incidents. The squeaky wheel might get the grease, but squeaking too much could lead people to think you're crying wolf.

 

No, it's not an isolated incident. But neither are experiences with dismissive reactions when questioning shows for lack of diversity and bringing up disputed issues like rape culture. People are attacked, not just for having different opinions but for being different or supporting difference. It has happened in this fandom, it happens all around. Yup, a few might use issues just to bolsters that one ship they're into, and they don't seriously care, but as well there are people who do and happen to like that one ship. Does that a few people might be using it as smoke screen devalue the points and arguments made in general? I don't think not. The problem is from my point of view more, that many have cried rightfully wolf but not many have listened.

 

I think there's a big difference between discussing characters, writing (and how that reflects social issues) and acting in a forum like this one and directly Tweeting actors. Here, for all we know the cast and writers are lurking, but they should know going in what they're in for because this is a discussion among ourselves. It would be tacky to ascribe character traits or opinions to actors, unless those actors have said things in interviews that suggest they share their characters' opinions. So while it would be bad form to, say, call Colin sleazy because Hook speaks innuendo like a second language (at least as far as I can tell, Colin is a total gentleman in all interactions with the public), it's much more fair game to question someone like Parilla, who has given interviews suggesting that she thinks the stuff between Regina and Graham was fun and flirty, though I would draw the line at calling her (and not her character) a supporter of rape.

 

It becomes a whole other ball game if you direct a Tweet to someone or hash tag them in a way that makes your post likely to show up on their feed. If someone directly contacts someone, a reply shouldn't be a huge surprise. If you don't want the person to reply, don't direct it to them or tag them.

 

I guess it's the difference between overhearing someone talking about you and someone shouting directly at you, using your name.

 

But is it really better to talk in some forum about it or couldn't it be fairer to directly address it? Is it easier to just overhear someone talking about you critically and maybe even contemptuously than to be directly shouted at? Or is it maybe just convenient to talk critical in a forum, where we think that it is less likely, that the person we're talking about,or whose work we're talking about, might answer us directly? No harm done when they don't read it, is there?

 

I agree some people blur the lines between actor and character in their minds, that can be find in stalker worship as much as in attacking an actor for something the character did or said. But is it so wrong to wonder and ask, what their view is on societal issues compared to what they have to portray on the show, their take on a character and the character's behavior and issue people have with it? I know, they have a job to risk eventually, so they might hold back or prefer to stay diplomatically evasive, but is it so wrong to question? Of course in a decent manner, but what is decent is not always agreed on either.

 

edited for grammar, clearity

Edited October 1, 2014 by katusch

[Amerilla]

It's a little unsettling that people aren't able to separate the actors from their characters.

 

While I don't think anyone on this forum would go out and tweet negativity towards actors, I think we all engage in that to a degree.

 

People who don't like Henry as a character tend to be very negative towards Jared  - they find both the character and the actor annoying. While we may differentiate between Emilie and Belle, the dismissive language we use towards both the actress and character  is essentially the same. There were not a lot of people here or back on TWOP who would say "Neal sucked, but MRJ was really good!" If you hated one, you pretty much hated the other (and vice versa). Regina is not a popular character here, so we often transfer that to how we perceive Lana.  We tend to see Ginny and Josh as mirrors of Snow and Charming - basically boring and generally ignored. 

 

The same works in reverse - obviously a lot of people here like Colin, who seems to be a very nice guy, and they transfer that to Hook, who is often not a very nice guy. Many people here feel very protective of Emma, and that transfers to a protectiveness of Jen, even though I think both Jen and Emma can probably fend for themselves.

 

The only one who gets out of here clean in Robert, where we general praise his performance even though there's not a lot of love for the character.

[Dani-Ellie]

No, it's not an isolated incident. But neither are dismissive reactions to people questioning shows for lack of diversity and bringing up disputed issues like rape culture. People are attacked, not just for having different opinions but for being different or supporting difference. It has happened in this fandom, it happens all around.

 

And I personally think that continuing to attack others is not the best way to get your opinion truly heard. I think people should be allowed to express opinions without being forcibly dragged into a debate about social consciousness. I don't think that proclaiming a television kiss "hot" at all warrants this in return:

 

"was it hot or was it shocking that a strong female lead used her sexuality to stop male badgering?"

 

Not everything has to be about social responsibility, and not everyone sees Emma kissing Hook in that moment as "a strong female lead using her sexuality to stop male badgering." Not everyone sees Hook as badgering. Some people did, in fact, find it kind of sweet and maybe even hot, and that's their prerogative, just as it's the prerogative of anyone else to hold an opposing viewpoint.

 

I'm not saying watch everything as it is and accept everything you're given. I'm just saying that there should be a recognition that there's a time, place, and chain of command for these kinds of complaints. A celebrity live-tweeting the episode as a fan is not the person to whom to direct those complaints. The actors and actresses on the show are also not the people to whom to direct those complaints. These people can't change anything any better or faster than you or I can because they're not the decision makers in this whole process.

 

These fans like to claim right to express an opinion as if it gives them carte blanche to just say and do whatever the hell they want, and that's where I have the problem. If they're going to dish it out, they damn well better be sure they can take it, because the people they're tweeting have just as much right to respond as they do.

[Camera One]

"was it hot or was it shocking that a strong female lead used her sexuality to stop male badgering?"

 

That comment was weird and made no sense, but I checked out that fan's twitter profile, and she actually doesn't usually tweet about "Once".  She basically said it's no big deal and she usually tweets about food, and she did not further engage on the issue.  Her profile says she is a "clinical psychology grad student", so maybe she just went overboard with the psychoanalyzing?

[Dani-Ellie]

Maybe. I hope so because I still think the comment was uncalled for. Or ooh, maybe this part of a grad school experiment on the psychology of fandom? That'd be neat! ;)

[FabulousTater]

While I don't think anyone on this forum would go out and tweet negativity towards actors, I think we all engage in that to a degree.

 

People who don't like Henry as a character tend to be very negative towards Jared  - they find both the character and the actor annoying. While we may differentiate between Emilie and Belle, the dismissive language we use towards both the actress and character  is essentially the same. There were not a lot of people here or back on TWOP who would say "Neal sucked, but MRJ was really good!" If you hated one, you pretty much hated the other (and vice versa). Regina is not a popular character here, so we often transfer that to how we perceive Lana.  We tend to see Ginny and Josh as mirrors of Snow and Charming - basically boring and generally ignored. 

 

The same works in reverse - obviously a lot of people here like Colin, who seems to be a very nice guy, and they transfer that to Hook, who is often not a very nice guy. Many people here feel very protective of Emma, and that transfers to a protectiveness of Jen, even though I think both Jen and Emma can probably fend for themselves.

 

The only one who gets out of here clean in Robert, where we general praise his performance even though there's not a lot of love for the character.

I think this is making a disturbingly sweeping generalization. Just because I may love a character or hate another that automatically translates into my loving or hating the actor? I know not everyone is the same, but I have zero problem disassociating actors from their fictional characters, and I've found that generally back on TWoP much was the same. Very few posters that I ever noted were confusing the actors with the characters.

 

Just because I don't go around saying Lana is the bestest actress that ever acted, even though I utterly loathe Woegina, does not in any way shape or form mean I hate Lana. That's a seriously flawed assumption and I think to assume anything of the sort is to put words into people's mouths. And I don't think anyone should go around assuming that because we discuss hating or loving the character that it automatically extends to the actors. There's a difference between not liking someone's work or how they do their job and actually hating the person. So unless somebody explicitly states some outright love or hate for the actor themselves,  I don't think we should assume their love or hate of the character extends to the real life human that is portraying these characters. 

Edited October 1, 2014 by FabulousTater

[SilverShadow]

There were not a lot of people here or back on TWOP who would say "Neal sucked, but MRJ was really good!" If you hated one, you pretty much hated the other (and vice versa).

 

I would actually totally disagree. I know my own stance has always been "MRJ is a perfectly fine actor but he was horribly miscast and the writing sure as hell didn't help." And I've seen plenty of people express similar sentiment. And I think Lana is excellent, however much the writing for Regina bothers me. On the other hand, Jennifer's character in How I Met Your Mother was awful (again, writing issue), but I was able to watch her as Emma with fresh eyes. YMMV.

[Rumsy4]

I think this is making a disturbingly sweeping generalization. Just because I may love a character or hate another that automatically translates into my loving and hating the actor? I know not everyone is the same, but I have zero problem disassociating actors from their fictional characters, and I've found that generally back on TWoP much was the same. Very few posters that I ever noted were confusing the actors with the characters.

 

Just because I don't go around saying Lana is the bestest actress that ever acted, even though I utterly loathe Woegina, does not in any way shape or form mean I hate Lana. That's a seriously flawed assumption and I think to assume anything of the sort is to put words into people's mouths. And I don't think anyone should go around assuming that because we discuss hating or loving the character that it automatically extends to the actors. There's a difference between not liking someone's work or how they do their job and actually hating the person. So unless somebody explicitly states some outright love or hate for the actor themselves,  I don't think we should assume their love or hate of the character extends to the real life human that is portraying these characters. 

 

I agree. It is an unfair generalization. I Love the character of Hook, but I'm neutral over Colin. I think he's nice, but I don't go about gushing over him, or send him gushing tweets. This is similar to posts that says people wouldn't like Hook or Regina if it were not for the actors. That may or may not be true, but generalizations never help, and often hurt. 

 

 

While we may differentiate between Emilie and Belle, the dismissive language we use towards both the actress and character  is essentially the same.

 

I don't get this. Why, or how is this the same? Many times, a bad actor can make you dislike the character as well. That's just natural. We can't all watch everything uncritically, nor like everything the same. If I went and tweeted Emily saying her acting was bad, or that she was encouraging domestic abuse, then it would be a different matter.

 

ETA: I also want to add that sometimes the perception of a character can color perception of the actor, but usually people acknowledge that. For example, someone might say, "he'll always be so-and-so to me". And that's okay. What's not okay is harassing the actor over a perception. 

Edited October 1, 2014 by Rumsy4