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

[stealinghome]

But isn't that taking what should be diverse stories/ characters/ points of view/ etc., and just homogenizing them in a different way?  Everything has to be presented one certain way or it's failing at being "representative"?

Oh, yeah, I totally admit my previous posts sweeps a lot of different experiences under one banner. I want multiple experiences--all experiences!--explored. There are an infinite number of experiences that could be put on TV. I know I'm not going to ever seen even a fraction of them. But I would love for them all to somehow be put up on TV. :)

 

I just don't necessarily see how every show can or should be mandated to be all things to all people all of the time.

I guess I just don't see how asking a show to take a look at itself and try to be even 5% more diverse is asking it to be "all things to all people all of the time."*

 

*Heck, I'll even grandfather in existing shows! I would be happy as a clam if all the series pitched that go to pilot this year make a commitment to being 5% more diverse.

Edited September 17, 2014 by stealinghome

[myril]

I don't think forcing the writers to include diversity is the way to go (otherwise we may get Rapunzel and Tamara and Lancelot and Mulan...), it must come on its own. And if it doesn't, well, there are shows that are actually diverse, and probably more of them every year.I 

 

I agree, it should come on it's own, but I hope we can agree, the problem of Rapunzel, Tamara or Lancelot was not, that they were made people of color, nor that they could have been forced on us as token of diversity, those characters wouldn't have worked regardless. If anything I could wonder, if they were made people of color, because the writers didn't really know how to make these characters work, and might have hoped, the bad writing would be more overlooked in that case (don't think that, but one could wonder). Then they wouldn't be token of diversity but alleged diversity would have been used as cover up for a lack of imagination and writing skills. At least in the case of queer characters I can tell, we have taken some crappy writing being glad that there was at least a queer character though mediocre to bad writing (we've been unfortunately easy to satisfy).

 

ABC is not some cable channel with niche program and more homogenous, smaller audience, it is mainstream broadcast network. They want to reach a bigger audience, and bigger audience means, it is more diverse. ABC even is the network leading in diversity, though even for ABC there is still space for plenty of improvement. Why doesn't a family fairy tale show on this network manage, as other shows on this network do, to be more inclusive? Fairy tales are not bound to Europe (I am sure there are interesting, great fairy tale like characters to be found in other cultures as well, if one would stop looking just at Disney) and even Europe has been more diverse than what fair tale tradition (namely Grimm Brothers) makes us believe. OUaT says they are proud they attract such a diverse fandom, and now diverse fans are vocal about that they want to see diversity on the show. There are not that many fairy tale or fantasy shows on TV which are not mostly reduced to fit a younger target group and not the umpteenth version of vampire lore.

 

If more and more shows offer, what I and others are looking for, more diversity, it's getting more likely that I fully will ignore shows not doing so. Take for example the upcoming show Constantine. The moment they said, they are not going to make the lead character bisexual as he is in the comics, that show was off my interest list. Why should I watch just another bad behaving white byronic hero guy as lead? Had enough of that. Maybe if they do the most brilliant writing and cinematography on TV since ages I might catch up sometime, or watch some episodes, but nothing more.

 

You can keep fans just with hopes and lipservice only for so long, and perhaps OUaT has now reached breaking point. Might not matter much in numbers though, the majority of fans and of audience will probably keep watching.

Edited September 17, 2014 by katusch

[Dani-Ellie]

The only thing I can think of in fandom that has ever seemed substantially worse than the culture of name calling, ostracization, accusations, threats, hissyfits, and the writers' room ugly deliberate online fandom sh!t stirring (hey, David Fury!  And Stephen DeKnight's pants earn at least a "kitten jihad" shout-out) that were constant and ongoing in the Buffyverse fandom has been the possessiveness over Supernatural actors' personal lives by a subset of that show's fandom (with Fandom_wank tracking a number of occasions where that went so far over the line as to be creepy and disturbing).

 

Oh, sweet Jesus, I had to back the hell out of Supernatural fandom very early on. I like actually discussing things that happen on a given show, not wading through "Dean is the best and Sam sucks"/"No, SAM is the best and DEAN sucks" and the Wincest and the fanon and omg. I thought I could intense about my fandom things, but hoo boy, were they intense. When my brother did a catch-up via Netflix last summer, I said to him, "I will gladly talk about anything Supernatural you want to talk about, just don't go on the internet. I don't know what it's like now, but back in the show's early days, they were too intense for me." He kinda blinked at me and said, "...wow."

 

(My sister and I did go to the Supernatural con they held in Cambridge a few summers back, though, because we'd always wanted to go to one and like, this one was within a 20-minute drive from us. We couldn't not go.. ;))

[FabulousTater]

I do, actually, believe that the media has a social responsibility to society at large

[...]

Yes, it is important to 100% of viewers. But not because they are conscious of this.

We'll have to agree to disagree because I don't think it's the social responsibility of the whole amorphous entertainment/media entity (who are almost exclusively private corporations whose primary purpose is to make money) to beat me over the head with a social agenda stick because they're operating on the assumption that because what some select group deems important to them is therefore required to be just as important to me. I simply don't approve of an amorphous mass telling me what to think or feel as if I were a mindless sheeple*.

 

I generally don't have a problem with entertainment shows that want to explore societal issues. If done well it creates conversation in places where perhaps it's needed (though it's frequently done poorly and just comes across as sensationalism). And media/TV shows/movies being open to diversity opens up a world of great creative paths that can be explored and turned into good fiction. I think we agree on that. But, ultimately, I consider TV shows and general media to exist for the purpose of entertaining. It's entertainment, fiction, and escapism, and I'm not looking to be hit over the head with someone's social agenda when I sit down to see a movie or show. I think it's highly problematic to designate the entirety of media as the directors of social education. We require teachers to get certified to teach and be well versed (with at least university degrees) in their chosen subject, but if it's television, all that is irrelevant because some unknown group has decided it's good for me and I must comply to their teaching or else?

 

I often find the attitude of being told what I should deem important by a select few because "I just don't know better" (as if I don't know my own mind) to be elitist, sanctimonious, and belittling (and that is not directed at anyone, I'm saying just in general). I think it makes the assumption that I live in some sort of vacuum that has failed to meet the requirements of the social agenda police and that I must be educated according to what a (quite possibly) small group is demanding. Thanks, but no thanks.

 

(* This is also why one of my biggest beefs with OUAT is how the writers have twisted the morality of the show and are constantly hitting me over the head that Regina is the biggest victim ever and just misunderstood, which is completely contrary to the endless horrors we've all witnessed on screen that she's committed and that she does not regret.  Misunderstood my left butt cheek. "Redemption story" my shiny hiney.)

Edited September 18, 2014 by FabulousTater

[Serena]

I think one or both of them were also producers, but regardless, they know how to do it, they just aren't. They know how an Iraqi soldier/torturer was taught the trade by the American military, how a Nigerian drug lord redeemed himself, how a Korean woman broke out of subservience to father and husband.  Likewise how an African-American father was just a struggling parent, a Hispanic guy from L.A. was loved by everybody, etc. etc.

I'm guessing being "producers" is just a glorified term for "writers that's been here more than a season". If you check the OUAT credits, basically ALL the "regular" writers are also producers, but I have no doubt it's only Adam and Eddy that make the final decisions in the writers' room.

[ShadowFacts]

I'm guessing being "producers" is just a glorified term for "writers that's been here more than a season". If you check the OUAT credits, basically ALL the "regular" writers are also producers, but I have no doubt it's only Adam and Eddy that make the final decisions in the writers' room.

 

I'm not very television production-savvy, maybe producer is mainly an honorific title.  I suppose my larger point is, they know how to write with diversity.  They know how it's done.  Heck, we know how it's done.  As writers with experience, and now showrunners with all the power, they could be doing it but are not. 

Edited September 18, 2014 by ShadowFacts

[Camera One]

Why do people post these polls...

http://www.spoilertv.com/2014/09/usd-poll-what-is-your-favorite-ship.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

[FurryFury]

It gets them hits. Although, your question was probably rhetorical.

[Serena]

I saw a link to that on my Twitter yesterday. Refused to even open it. Maybe other fandoms can handle it, but the OUAT fandom can't and the fact that people do things that are obviously gonna cause fighting just to get hits pissed me off.

[myril]

Why do people post these polls...

http://www.spoilertv.com/2014/09/usd-poll-what-is-your-favorite-ship.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

The commentaries on that site, under the poll, are as usual an interesting read for anyone interested in fan sociology and psychology. I find the reasoning for most ships as the ship by now kinda intriguing, an example of how different people can perceive something, of biased thinking and perception. And in the end we probably mostly ship whoever, because they are two attractive people looking good together (and eventually we wish we'd be one of them) - but admitting that would mean to admit, we might be rather superficial in our preferences.

Edited September 20, 2014 by katusch

[FurryFury]

 

And in the end we probably mostly ship whoever, because they are two attractive people looking good together (and eventually we wish we'd be one of them) -

You think so? I'm not so sure. From my own experience, and from watching other fans in different fandoms over the years, I'd rather conclude it often depends on which trope/dynamic you tend to prefer (or, in case of some fans, with which character you could identify in a possible romance with a character you really like). Chemistry and looks matter, but not that much.

For instance, I usually like the "Belligerent sexual tension" trope, so I like Captain Swan here (although I could have liked them so much more if I didn't feel like they were such a cliché... but at least it's a cliché I tend to find entertaining), and I like, say, Veronica/Logan on Veronica Mars and a few anime couples of this type and so on (and it's not the only type of dynamic I prefer). There are people who like "first love" type of romance, some who find "love redeems" attractive, and so on. It's not always clear, but there is often a correlation. And then there are specific factors like which pairing appeared earlier, which has more scenes, which characters are popular (I have encountered ships between two popular character who have had zero interaction simply because people like them the most)... hell, hundreds of factors!

I do find this stuff kinda fascinating from the psychological standpoint... too bad I'm not a psychologist!

[sharky]

I'm sure that site just needed a poll to get some extra hits and didn't put much thought into it. It's really only the fans -- and those of who familiar with the fandom -- who probably see the issue.

[Camera One]

I was just watching that TV Guide magazine photo shoot video and when asked what couple they're rooting for most, the actress playing Anna said Regina and Robin Hood and she really wants Regina to find love.  So those people do exist, LOL.  The actress who plays Elsa, who's had more experience on TV shows, said "all of them" and then said probably no one should get together until the end of a series since unresolved sexual tension is so important.  A+ for a diplomatic answer.  I wasn't excited about "Frozen", but now I'm a bit more interested to see them on the show.  Funny how marketing sometimes does get to you.  I wonder if we'll get more crazy ships involving the Frozen characters by the end of 4A.

Edited September 20, 2014 by Camera One

[Serena]

Well, Georgina has been working for a while, but for Elizabeth it's a first job, so it makes sense that she hasn't been "media trained". 

[Camera One]

Yeah, Elizabeth said in the interview it was her first job.  

 

It's always cool when actors join a show and they are actually fans of the show.

[Serena]

Ah, yes. In the TV Guide print interview (I think) she said she goes red every time she sees Josh and Colin. That would totally be me.

Edited September 20, 2014 by Serena

[Aliasscape]

I was just watching that TV Guide magazine photo shoot video and when asked what couple they're rooting for most, the actress playing Anna said Regina and Robin Hood and she really wants Regina to find love.  So those people do exist, LOL.  The actress who plays Elsa, who's had more experience on TV shows, said "all of them" and then said probably no one should get together until the end of a series since unresolved sexual tension is so important.  A+ for a diplomatic answer.  I wasn't excited about "Frozen", but now I'm a bit more interested to see them on the show.  Funny how marketing sometimes does get to you.  I wonder if we'll get more crazy ships involving the Frozen characters by the end of 4A.

Yeah they do. One of my friends who loved Frozen and watched 3 seasons of OUAT over the summer JUST to enjoy this Frozen arc, became a Regina fan. I was so disappointed.

[retrograde]

Honestly, before I started hanging out on these boards and watching far more closely, I didn't really notice all the issues with Regina (the Graham thing I did, but I must admit that it didn't stick with me), and I know others here have said the same thing. Regina wasn't my favourite character, but she wears great outfits and gets a lot of the best/snarkiest lines. And people generally like anti-heroes (especially when it offers a contrast to Snowing's relentlessly chipper "All you need is hope!" attitudes). I actually wouldn't be surprised if a lot of casual viewers would name her as their favourite character.

[Camera One]

One of my friends who loved Frozen and watched 3 seasons of OUAT over the summer JUST to enjoy this Frozen arc, became a Regina fan. I was so disappointed.

 

And people generally like anti-heroes (especially when it offers a contrast to Snowing's relentlessly chipper "All you need is hope!" attitudes). I actually wouldn't be surprised if a lot of casual viewers would name her as their favourite character.

 

A friend of mine does not keep up with the weekly episodes nor follow the show in the media, but she only watches when she visits me, when she "catches up" and I get the "treat" of rewatching each episode a second time.  

 

Anyway, when she came this summer and we watched 3B, in the final scene of "The Jolly Roger", she went "Awww... that's so nice Regina is being included and eating dinner with them like she's family."  I tried not to do a side-eye.  So I think you're right that a lot of casual viewers would do love Regina.  My friend also commented that Snow was stupid quite often during 3B.  They're really doing a number with her character.

[Rumsy4]

I was more of a casual viewer for the first two seasons (I was still immersed in fandom to a certain degree). But I always rooted for Emma and Snow/Charming over Regina. I almost quit the show after S2 because all the Regina flip-flopping made me so mad! However, when the narrative pushes Regina as a saint so freaking much while villanizing the good guys, I won't be surprised if many casual viewers prefer Regina. Even with the Marian stuff, many of the facebook-level watchers have posted comments supporting Regina while demonizing Emma. 

[KingOfHearts]

 

One of my friends who loved Frozen and watched 3 seasons of OUAT over the summer JUST to enjoy this Frozen arc, became a Regina fan. I was so disappointed.

 

I can speak for the Regina lovers. Before I started reading TWOP and really beginning to analyze the show to a pulp, I didn't see anything wrong with Regina's redemption arc. I was mad at people for not accepting her lasagna. Believe it or not, the showrunners do a pretty good job masking her flaws to casual watchers. Everything Regina does is swept under the rug quickly and quietly, and her tears are played to the balcony. It's a mind-control conspiracy, I tell you!

 

 

Even with the Marian stuff, many of the facebook-level watchers have posted comments supporting Regina while demonizing Emma.

I see a lot of people say, "Regina deserves a happy ending!", but I really don't know why from a logical standpoint. She doesn't deserve it more than anyone else. I think it's because people sympathize with her victimhood.

 

A lot of people believe Regina is redeemed simply because the show tells them she is.

Edited September 21, 2014 by KingOfHearts

[Camera One]

I think casual watchers tend to forget the details of what Regina has done.  My friend always asks questions about what has happened because she doesn't remember.  We talk about the village massacre as the stickler but most of the casual viewers have forgotten.

[Serena]

Ah, yeah. I will say even one of my best friends, who's a casual fan, after the finale was like "poor Regina, the Charmings always screw her over!". She also always wanted Emma to chose Hook but during the first half of the season thought she'd chose Neal because she's "all about family". It's funny how the people who don't spend that much time talking about the show see it. I thought it was obvious the show was going CS after 307, at the latest.

 

I definitely think 99% of casual fans completely forgot about Graham and the village massacre. Of those who DO remember Graham, how many of those even realize that men CAN be raped? Like, I wouldn't be surprised if a vast majority of people think that it's impossible to rape men.

Edited September 21, 2014 by Serena

[ShadowFacts]

 

I definitely think 99% of casual fans completely forgot about Graham and the village massacre.

 

Then they must have also forgotten how she killed her father.  But they can't have forgotten her burning Snow alive because that just happened.  I just don't get it, never will. 

[Camera One]

But they can't have forgotten her burning Snow alive because that just happened.

 

Unfortunately, I can see how all the times Regina has tried to kill Snow would meld together and that memory has already been lost.

[Jean]

I don't think looks matter at all mostly because 99% of Hollywood are good looking people. Even if someone wasn't your type you still wouldn't put them in the ugly category.

I think chemistry does matter but that one is tricky cause it's subjective.

As for "casual viewers" I think they do tend to like whatever the show is selling, the Mary Sues. I find hatred of Mary Sues to be an online phenomenon. Mostly if you were a casual viewer and didn't like the Mary Sue of the show, you would just turn it off. It's not serious and doesn't get to your emotions. You don't spend time thinking about it or anaylzing it. If the screen tells you its so sparkly and pretty then it's just sparkly and pretty.

The gravitation towrds anti-hero/villain types I believe are really 2 types: those gravitating towards the "underdog" or just people who find villains more fun. In general people love to root for the underdog. And what Once does is they've somehow managed to make it look like their Head Cheerleader, their Queen Bee is the biggest underdog. That's what I find most galling.

Everything Regina does is swept under the rug quickly and quietly, and her tears are played to the balcony. It's a mind-control conspiracy, I tell you!

And this is how they do it. If you were to click on the show randomly at any given time, 80% chance that what you'll see is Woegina crying and Snow getting blamed. Woegina's crimes are never ever brought up a second time but Snow's "ruining" Woegina's life is mentioned every other episode. Just like now Emma ruined Woegina's life will be repeated every single episode going forth. Edited September 21, 2014 by Jean

[Aliasscape]

Definitely when I brought up things like Graham's rape, I got a lot of "shock, when did that happen?" Because it was implied and didn't happen on screen back in the ep. Nor does the average viewer think of Graham's Storybrooke predicament as rape. The lack of concern over Henry's emotional abuse bugs me a LOT. And there doesn't seem to be any recognition of all the things he has witnessed or experienced being wrong. Abuse your kid all you want I guess as long as you apologize to them one time in the middle of it and save their life now and then.

 

My friend's just like, I'm forgiving and just think it's sad. And even rooting for Regina and Robin Hood. She's like she just hasn't been good long enough yet to handle not being with him. I'm like all the more reason to keep her away from anyone with a small child.

 

But I shouldn't be surprised. Rumpel and Belle get so much love too. "Aw they got married!" Yeah, he murdered his first wife so should anyone be happy he's married again?

 

But for every person not upset about all this, there are people who also hate Hook and I'm quite indifferent to him. So I do know there are people looking at me like, but how can you not hate Hook? He worked with Cora, he ripped out Aurora's heart, he left the princesses to all die locked up. Actually my greatest upset with Hook seems to be his compliance and completely not being bothered by the village massacre that killed children and I do think taking Aurora's heart while she was apparently unconscious is an extremely wrong and creepy violation of her person. I truly did get why people who dislike him feel there is an awful violence against women vibe from him. I can deal with him having made changes and moving forward without constant backsliding.

 

Plus I hate that Neal is actually guilty of statutory rape , took advantage of a vulnerable teenager, committed crimes with her, gave information on her to a strange man he'd JUST met, let her go to jail and abandoned her completely. He was  22 (or 222) mistreating a 17 year old. It's awful and wrong and I hate that it's also glossed right over. And that he barely acknowledged it is one of many reasons I was like "Ha, good!" when he died.

 

Part of me is like Robin Hood and Regina are made for each other. I mean Robin's using his kid as bait (and I do blame Neal for suggesting it), doesn't care at all about Regina's past, and thinks Rumpelstiltskin not murdering him in cold blood made him "owe Rumpel". The guy's an idiot and Roland is probably way better off with Marian WITHOUT him at this point.

 

I really don't act like Regina is the only creep in this show. I recognize that a lot of the characters are. I don't think I've ever watched another show where so many of the hailed as "good guys" characters are so extremely guilty of rape or shrug off the deaths of children. It sends some really wrong messages in nearly every single "true love" relationship.

[Camera One]

But for every person not upset about all this, there are people who also hate Hook

 

I really don't think there are many people who hate Hook, even though they may speak the loudest in shipper wars.  If anything, it's the opposite.  To the casual viewer, his boyish charms mixed with his roguish bad-boy demeanor win hearts and minds.  My friend doesn't even remember the Team Princess arc, much less what Hook actually did last season.  There is way more swooning over Captain Hook than people criticizing him for his actions in Season 2.

Edited September 21, 2014 by Camera One

[Rumsy4]

Even when I was not shipping Captain Swan, I really liked Hook. But Regina's flip flopping, and Rumple coming close to killing his grandson in S2 had bothered me so much, that I wasn't ready believe in Hook's change of heart at the end of S2. I felt that the writers could flip him (and Rumple and Regina) back to villain any time they wanted to. It's only in S3 seeing him remain steady on changing that I felt convinced he wasn't going to turn back to being a villain.

[KAOS Agent]

I wonder how much difference there is between fans who've watched this show from the beginning and those who binge watched in their perception of characters. I loved the Evil Queen and Mayor Mills in Season 1 and into the beginning of Season 2. However, once they continuously flip-flopped with her path to being a better person, I started to get tired of it all. That this occurred over months/years rather than just a stream of episodes glommed over a short period of time definitely increased my annoyance with her character (and others as well). By the time of the Season 3 finale where Regina is once again blaming someone else for something, I was just done with it. The prospect of Year 4 of Regina still reverting to bad tactics when something doesn't go her way is just not interesting. However, if I'd watched the whole of the show over the period of a few months, I could see where my enjoyment of Regina may not have waned because I wouldn't have slogged through years of the same old, same old.

 

I'll also be curious to see if this show does get new fans from the Frozen arc and what their reaction to Regina may be. Without all the endless narrative of poor little Regina and her sad or crying faces, how would the average person view her having a relationship with Robin Hood when she was the one who'd murdered Maid Marian? Is Emma a terrible person for saving a life?

[myril]

You think so? I'm not so sure. From my own experience, and from watching other fans in different fandoms over the years, I'd rather conclude it often depends on which trope/dynamic you tend to prefer (or, in case of some fans, with which character you could identify in a possible romance with a character you really like). Chemistry and looks matter, but not that much.

 

Yes I do. But attractive isn't defined for me just by looks. Character traits are as important. Which can create some fun with actors. Most extreme example for me so far: Bratt Pitt. In most roles I find him not attractive, neither when seeing him in interviews, but as Louis in A Vampire's Interview he made me swoon. Sometimes it can be even something as simple as voice to make a difference. While watching the German dubbed version of Star Trek Next Generation never quite got why Commander Riker could be seen as any attractive - but then I heard Jonathan Frakes' voice (still found Riker not so bearable, but his voice was attractive). And when I speak of looking good together, it means chemistry more than looks.

 

But you might be as well on to something with the type of relationship, or relationship dynamics. It though gives me a bit the creeps when looking at the popular ships in OUaT and elsewhere. Love as (a game of) conquest. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind games, being playful, even play with submission and domination, but that works only well when the partners are equal in power and respect, care for each other and take responsibilities. But that is a different matter to discuss in a different thread.

 

It's just interesting, how we feel we have to reason for our ships, why two people are okay as ship, maybe should even be the happy ending one day. As if emotions were reasonable. It's so easy to get people on the defensive when it comes to ships. No, not just ships, when it comes to any sort of favoring a character and/or ship. Although there is a huge difference for me to find a character intriguing , interesting to explore and think of, and/or liking a character in the sense that I might take them at least in parts as role model, someone I might aspire to be like.

 

I found Regina in the first season intriguing, but hardly role model worthy, or only as a negative one (showing how not to do it). Could even understand her in some way and sympathize with some of her feelings though not with her solutions. Could even understand some of the Regina - Cora stuff in season 2B, but it was awfully written. By now though the Mary Sue Woegina is just annoying me, and I think they did the character no good with their writing.

 

I can love, how a character is written or find a character interesting, but that doesn't stop me from dissecting their moral and naming bad what is bad in their behavior and traits IMO, or I can love a character as person (and eventually even despite crappy writing, though that is harder than loving good writing while evil character). Nevertheless I catch myself often enough reasoning for a character I like because I like the character, or reasoning for a character, because I feel similarities. Sometimes wonder, how much do people make that distinction between being intrigued by a character /writing and by a character as person (they wish they'd be, or be like at times or know as friend).

 

Agree with what some have said, there might be quite a difference in perception between casual viewers and fans, but there is  I think quite a difference in perception among fans as well. Regina can be entertaining, if one doesn't remember or think much about all the things she did or sees it pretty much just from her POV. Same for Rumple.

 

But when shippers of one ship accuse the shippers of another to be superficial, more or less like hormone driven teenagers drooling over a character or ship, it's mostly kinda funny, because could assume that about pretty much all (popular) ships on the show (exception maybe RumBelle). And honestly, what is so wrong about being superficial and liking a ship merely because it's attractive or the characters are attractive?

 

As I see it, we often start with finding something attractive and then find reasons for it, because there have to be reasons

 

Funny thing, this show brings me to think (and I normally love the darker and less clean good stuff, ambiguity): Enough with all the wannabe greyish, understanding and reforming evil stuff, it ends so easily in misplaced glorification, bring back the old good hero drama!

 

I wonder how much difference there is between fans who've watched this show from the beginning and those who binge watched in their perception of characters. 

 

 

Indeed, interesting question. How much does binge watching change perception of characters and story? Particular when looking at serials (in difference to procedurals), which had to work now for decades with the necessity of keeping things interesting in a way that viewers come back a week, or even weeks later. You could probably afford to be less cohesive in detail over the season, because people forget details over such a long time, but had to have the weekly exciting twist. on the other hand, when taking in so much story at once, how much attention do we still pay to details? When I do binge watch I might feel even more inclined to do other things while watching (I often do some housework, ironing is perfect, or training, after all, if I feel like I missed something important, can go back in most cases) It has become a bit more of a question since Netflix and Hulu, although binge watching is not that new, been doing it since early 90s (when I had a video rental store around the corner). And when doing it with others it's more of a fan party anyway. 

Edited September 21, 2014 by katusch

[Serena]

Definitely when I brought up things like Graham's rape, I got a lot of "shock, when did that happen?" Because it was implied and didn't happen on screen back in the ep. Nor does the average viewer think of Graham's Storybrooke predicament as rape. The lack of concern over Henry's emotional abuse bugs me a LOT. And there doesn't seem to be any recognition of all the things he has witnessed or experienced being wrong. Abuse your kid all you want I guess as long as you apologize to them one time in the middle of it and save their life now and then.

Considering the fact that people are still debating if hitting children is wrong, and some people are willing to give the benefit of the doubt to that football player who beat his son, I'm not surprised that people won't see anything wrong with a mother's treatment of her son when it's anything short of murder. Add to that with the fact that Regina fans will cry "anti-adoption!" to anyone who dares criticize her motherly skills, and this doesn't shock me at all. Most people don't consume media critically. 90% of the audience will buy what A&E tries to tell them hook, line and sinker.

Edited September 21, 2014 by Serena

[Camera One]

although binge watching is not that new, been doing it since early 90s (when I had a video rental store around the corner).

 

They didn't used to release season sets for TV shows, since only two episodes could fit on a VHS tape, so I'd say binge watching among the general populace is a pretty new phenomenon, within the last 5-10 years.  And now without the need to rent DVDs and just use streaming or netflix or downloading, it is just much much easier to binge watch.

 

I wonder how much difference there is between fans who've watched this show from the beginning and those who binge watched in their perception of characters.

 

I wonder as well.  I'm essentially marathoning with my friend, but we basically only have half a season to watch at a time, which is different from someone watching an entire season through from start to finish on DVD.  

 

In some ways, the show may be better suited to marathoning since the episodes actually occur one after another in time, so there was more of a flow (from my perspective of rewatching, it made 1B and even 2B slightly more palatable on rewatch, while strangely 3A and 3B became more boring and repetitive).

 

But I do think for binge watchers (first timers), it is easier to overlook details because when you watch 4 at a time, you don't notice and discuss every little detail and the episodes actually meld into one another.  Also, it is more likely to watch an episode of Regina being evil in one episode and then having her centric in another episode crying, so you can end up being more sympathetic to them overall in the 4-hour stretch of watching.  Since binge watchers might watch a season all at once and then wait a year before the next season comes out, again, details of past episodes are not fresh in their minds, since most people don't go on message boards and rehash and analyze events.  That's why I think most people don't remember the Regina/Graham bedchamber thing, or what Hook did in S2, or even Rumple flaying Robin Hood.  Just looking at that last example, in Season 3, all they kept repeating was that Robin Hood owes Rumple a great debt, so that's the impression that a casual watcher would get.

Edited September 21, 2014 by Camera One

[KingOfHearts]

 

I did find 1B and even 2B was a lot better on marathon, because the episodes actually occur one after another in time, so there was more of a flow

I binge-watched most of S2, especially 2B my first time. I didn't find as many flaws in it, but I didn't find them entertaining either. Like you said they were all closer together in the timeframe, so it was like one 5-episode long finale toward the end. It wasn't until I slowed down, rewatched and read the forums that I saw the major issues.

 

So that's why the writers go PLOT PLOT PLOT - so it goes by so fast you don't see the problems!

Edited September 25, 2014 by KingOfHearts

[Camera One]

Yeah, the cycle of watch a 40-minute episode, then discuss it for a week, really bring out some of the flaws in individual episodes and allows time to go back and pinpoint inconsistencies with previous seasons.  Binge-watching, you tend to be more focused on what's going to happen next, whether with the plot or a romantic conflict or whatever.  Though back-to-back, sometimes the finales can have less impact since you see the next one immediately afterwards.  The most blatant example is watching "Going Home" and "New York Serenade" back to back.  

 

I think with "Frozen" fans, what will ultimately get to stay or not after the Frozen characters are gone would be the relationship drama.  Since plot doesn't necessarily continue with each subsequent season, it would be them getting invested in Emma/Hook, Regina/Robin or Rumple/Belle.  Thus creating a whole new group of shippers.  You can't win them all, I guess.  

Edited September 21, 2014 by Camera One

[Serena]

Getting back to the "Fans" topic, another issue other than bingewatching that would alter a person's feelings would be Internet discussion. I think we'd all be a bit less annoyed by Woegina's constant victimhood if we didn't read post after post of people actually believing her to be a victim and blaming the Charmings for it. It heightens emotions.

[Mari]

Getting back to the "Fans" topic, another issue other than bingewatching that would alter a person's feelings would be Internet discussion. I think we'd all be a bit less annoyed by Woegina's constant victimhood if we didn't read post after post of people actually believing her to be a victim and blaming the Charmings for it. It heightens emotions.

I have to agree with this--I experienced the same thing in another fandom, where a character I mildly liked, but was pretty neutral on was consistently represented as the Best Person Ever online, while the other characters were horrible people for not appreciating the character properly.  Before too long, it was no longer mildly liked, but pretty neutral.  It was "Wow.  Annoying."

 

It's harder to like Regina, when I'm not only hearing on the show that she's the biggest victim ever, who is so very very super special, but when there's comment after comment by the show runners and fans that completely ignore most of the show's (and by extension Regina's history.)

 

Some of it's just an impulse to be contrary, I think, in the vein of "You think you're going to make me like her?  Yeah.  Right.  Let me poke you with this stick.  I might've poisoned it."

Edited September 21, 2014 by Mari

[shipperx]

I generally don't have a problem with entertainment shows that want to explore societal issues. If done well it creates conversation in places where perhaps it's needed (though it's frequently done poorly and just comes across as sensationalism). And media/TV shows/movies being open to diversity opens up a world of great creative paths that can be explored and turned into good fiction. I think we agree on that. But, ultimately, I consider TV shows and general media to exist for the purpose of entertaining. It's entertainment, fiction, and escapism, and I'm not looking to be hit over the head with someone's social agenda when I sit down to see a movie or show. I think it's highly problematic to designate the entirety of media as the directors of social education.

I will most likely regret weighing into this, but...

 

I don't think it's a matter of 'education'.  It's a matter of representation.

 

I think assigning concepts such as "agenda" or "social education" are a way of looking at it that may be missing what many people requesting diversity are talking about. 

 

We hear of concepts like 'privilege'  in things like John Scalzi's (humorous science fiction writer) quasi infamous blog post or some of the debates about female character depictions in (male dominated) comic books, and people go into high dudgeon mode.  People don't want to hear it.  But what I think may be the core of the point attempting to be made is that the default is not a neutral to begin with.   (It never is.  That's just life on earth -- in any time period or culture.  Not just here and now.  It's sort of the way that when I was a teen in the rural U.S. deep south, I never really picked up on there being a specific culture.  To me, it was just 'normal'.  Living outside the U.S. for a few months, I realized that's not the case. There's something unique about... everywhere, actually. There are specific things that are 'normal' because it is familiar. It's your cultural experience...but it's not everyone's.  You can begin to see a few of those things a bit easier when you take a step outside of your own culture.  That's not a value judgement.  It's neither a positive nor a negative.   It's just recognizing that just because something was nomal to me didn't mean that it was a universal default.) 

 

If the default feels agenda-less or bias-less, chances are that it's percieved as such because it's not running against one's own experience/situation.  If you're in sync with the POV being presented, you may not percieve it as point of view, but that doesn't mean that it isn't one.  Just that it's a shared one.  That's the privilege.  There may be no negative consequences associated with it... or maybe there are.  Maybe there aren't for one segment but there are consequences for another and we may not notice... or care.  Whether it's worth becoming bothered by, much less whether it's worth fighting against, may be a question of exactly whose ox is being gored. 

 

When they do psychological studies that show that female readers are more accepting of/disposed to being capable of placing themselves in male protagonists' point of view than male readers tend to be for female protagonists, it's legitimate to ask whether that's a product of presenting children with more male protagonists than female protagonists (example: how many male superhero movies are there as opposed to female superhero ones?)  Is it a matter of the degree of exposure rather than that women are just simply 'better at' placing themselves in a male POV than men are with women? (I'm not sure I would buy an argument that women are just biologically 'better at it'.)   If so, which gender might we be doing a disservice to?

 

When you read/hear Oscar winner Lupita Nyong'o's moving speech on beauty and recognize the number of studies showing the way Hollywood's depiction of beauty and race impact very young girls and the documented ways it can negatively impact young girls of color  (and often young girls in general. Period), it's worth pondering whether lack of representation is not, in fact, benign.  Even if unintentional, it still doesn't make it benign. 

 

There's a reason why Disney just spent a ton of money building a castle in their park so that little girls can meet the Disney Princesses. Those are popular, beloved characters.  Many, many little girls play dress-up and watch those movies on a loop.   And while it's great to claim that it's color blind, it would be privilege to say it really doesn't matter if all the princesses were white (which, thankfully, they no longer are.  But I do laugh at the old Wanda Sykes routine about having to wait around through x many princesses, an array of talking animals,  "and whatever the hell Stitch was" first.)  It very well MIGHT matter if it's one's own little girl feeling she couldn't be a 'princess' because no princess 'looked like her.'  And it should matter regardless of whether said little girl is our own, or the one down the street or in a classroom on the other side of town.

 

Which is sort of what I mean about it perhaps being a question of representation rather than 'agenda'. 

 

Maybe wishing to be seen is exactly that -- to not be irrelevant or absent or invisible.  To be included.  To be seen.   Maybe inclusion matters in its own right (though of course how inclusion works matters as well).   And to say that lack of representation is not a meaningful thing to criticize or to work against, that it 'doesn't matter'... 

 

Well, I think about the old Douglas Adam's quote in Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy about the invisibility field:  a 'cheap, easy, and staggeringly useful way of safely protecting something from unwanted eyes. It can run almost indefinitely on a 9 volt battery, and is able to do so because it utilizes a person's natural tendency to ignore things they don't easily accept or like {...}. Any object around which a S.E.P invisibility field is applied will cease to be noticed because of any problems one may have understanding it (and therefore accepting its existence)..  It becomes Somebody Else's Problem (SEP), where an object becomes not so much invisible... as unnoticed.

 

 

All of which to say -- diversity in casting?  I'm all for it.  There's good reason for it and little reason to fight against it.

Edited September 26, 2014 by shipperx

[FormerMod-a1]

Moved a couple of posts to the media thread.  Carry on.

[Amerilla]

Not really sure this is the right thread, but since this has been where we've been talking Swan Queen issues:

 

Both Jen and Lana posted on their Twitter this afternoon about a new "SwanQueen" sweater produced by REDValentino

 

https://twitter.com/jenmorrisonlive/status/515577554011709441

https://twitter.com/jenmorrisonlive/status/515606968996990977

 

https://twitter.com/LanaParrilla/status/515606645406044160

https://twitter.com/LanaParrilla/status/515613466326204416

[Serena]

I think they got sent a free one from the designer. It's not actually a SQ sweater, just a sweater with a swan wearing a crown (I think the designer has a fairy-tale inspired line). Must be nice being a celeb and getting free stuff, and you only have to tweet about it in exchange ;)

[Emma]

I think Lana saw it first and mentioned in an interview that she text it to Jen. When REDValentino saw it they tweeted both for there sizes and sent them each one. Looks like both are happy they arrived.

[Souris]

And, unsurprisingly, some of the same SQ fans who regularly send JMo hate on Twitter -- especially if she does anything pro-Captain Swan -- are now praising her. Ah, fandom hypocrisy!

[RadioGirl27]

This fandom is so ridiculous most of the time. Those sweaters are a present from the designer, so of course they are showing them in their twitters. The designer is not giving them those sweaters because he ships Swanqueen, but because it's free publicity, and that's way the name of the brand is clearly shown in both posts.

The funny thing is that the same people that is praising Morrison now, was attacking her just a few hour ago because she posted an amazing fan made poster for the new season with Hook and Emma.

Edited September 26, 2014 by RadioGirl27

[Dani-Ellie]

I still don't understand what's so hard to get about Captain Swan being Jen's actual job now. Like, of course she's going to be posting things having to do with Captain Swan. Because it's the storyline her character is involved in on the show. I was following the comments (don't ask me why because it only got me all worked up, heh) and one fan was justifying giving her shit because she posts CS stuff but not SQ or SF stuff. And it's like, seriously? Neal is dead and Regina and Emma are both in actual canon relationships with other characters. Why is this so hard to grasp??

 

And you wouldn't mind, but it's like this every time she posts anything having to do with Captain Swan, so it's not like it's some fans on CS overload. It's just CS, period that they can't stand. Sorry, peeps, but this is the actual storyline on the actual show. Giving an actress shit because she's posting things having to do with her upcoming storyline is mind-boggling to me. If they don't like it, I think they should do the mature thing and stop following her, not continue to harass her.

 

(I of course got over my anger by tweeting something nice to both her and Colin in reply to the picture. Just doing what I could to drown out the hate. :))

Edited September 26, 2014 by Dani-Ellie

[Serena]

I made a point of tweeting her something nice about both the CS picture and the "SQ" sweater.

[retrograde]

Must be nice being a celeb and getting free stuff, and you only have to tweet about it in exchange ;)

Hah, I always have the opposite reaction to celebs tweeting about stuff they get free. If I made that much money, there's no way I'd be shilling for brands just because they sent me something that I could buy for what would essentially be pocket change to me. As they say: if you're not paying for it, you're the product being sold. 

[Serena]

So Yvette Nicole Brown (from Community) is a huge Once fan. She moderated the OUAT Comic Con panel (she was great), she was the voice of Ursula and played Goldilocks in the "Good Morning Storybrooke" segments. Last night, she livetweeted the premiere, and during the CS scene, she tweeted that they were hot. It was a pretty innocuous comment, right? Except not! Obviously, it was supporting rape culture, men pestering women for sex, and whatever else your mind can conjure up. Now, if this were Adam, the reply would have been #iloveeveryone #isupporteveryone #pleasebenice - Yvette, however, very gently told them to GTFO. JMO retweeted it. I love how JMO literally has no fucks to give anymore. Thank God for the Once fandom keeping me entertained in my days off.

Question: what's the logic behind tweeting to a celebrity that, basically, they're supporting rape, and then claiming to be a victim, and of being "targeted", when they reply? You can dish it out, but you can't take it?

[Rumsy4]

I saw that! The bully cries bully when someone stands up to them.

[Dani-Ellie]

Good for both of them.

 

Question: what's the logic behind tweeting to a celebrity that, basically, they're supporting rape, and then claiming to be a victim, and of being "targeted", when they reply? You can dish it out, but you can't take it?

 

I wanted so badly to ask that same question to the fan who tweeted Jen about CS poster, "Why would you do this when you'd just redeemed yourself?" She had a couple fans giving her shit back and she was getting annoyed with them and told them to leave her alone. Now, I fully agree that the fans who were badgering her shouldn't have been (say your piece and move on, if you feel the need to say something), but the irony that she was getting a taste of her own medicine and didn't like it was not lost on me.