|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on May 19, 2018 0:23:22 GMT
This builds from discussions had in the 'kids show - stigma', 'fandom goes too far' and 'won't someone think of the children' threads. Now let's get to the deeper issue: why is a given show's fanbase, Who or otherwise, so completely freaked at the idea of there being an audience for said show other then themeselves, or allowing new audiences in? No matter how many there are of us, we're simply not big enough to meaningfully sustain good ratings without other aid.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2018 12:58:41 GMT
Because people like feeling as if they own something, so when something is done to appeal to a casual audience, fans like to get angry about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by thethirddoctor on May 19, 2018 17:41:08 GMT
Nothing against the casual viewer. However, how many casual viewers did series 10 attract?
|
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on May 19, 2018 17:52:09 GMT
Nothing against the casual viewer. However, how many casual viewers did series 10 attract? That kinda reinforces why the show can't be tailored for fans only. In fact, that endorses the casual value, if not vitality.
|
|
|
|
Post by jasonward on May 19, 2018 18:34:24 GMT
This builds from discussions had in the 'kids show - stigma', 'fandom goes too far' and 'won't someone think of the children' threads. Now let's get to the deeper issue: why is a given show's fanbase, Who or otherwise, so completely freaked at the idea of there being an audience for said show other then themeselves, or allowing new audiences in? No matter how many there are of us, we're simply not big enough to meaningfully sustain good ratings without other aid.
I'm not familiar with this phenomena, does it really exist? It seems strange, I've never met a Doctor Who fan who wasn't excited to hear about anyone and everyone getting into Who at whatever level. |
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on May 19, 2018 19:28:35 GMT
This builds from discussions had in the 'kids show - stigma', 'fandom goes too far' and 'won't someone think of the children' threads. Now let's get to the deeper issue: why is a given show's fanbase, Who or otherwise, so completely freaked at the idea of there being an audience for said show other then themeselves, or allowing new audiences in? No matter how many there are of us, we're simply not big enough to meaningfully sustain good ratings without other aid.
I'm not familiar with this phenomena, does it really exist? It seems strange, I've never met a Doctor Who fan who wasn't excited to hear about anyone and everyone getting into Who at whatever level. Sadly, dig in enough holes... |
|
|
|
Post by jasonward on May 19, 2018 20:13:33 GMT
I'm not familiar with this phenomena, does it really exist? It seems strange, I've never met a Doctor Who fan who wasn't excited to hear about anyone and everyone getting into Who at whatever level. Sadly, dig in enough holes... If you need to go looking for something to find it, how does it fit with the description of "why is a given show's fanbase, Who or otherwise, so completely freaked"? From where I stand, they just are not, sure you may find some fans like that, but try hard enough and you'll find just about anything, but the contention that this attitude is mainstream or even widespread jars with my own experience of fandom where I've never, at least knowingly, encountered such views. |
|
|
|
Post by Audio Watchdog on May 19, 2018 22:26:02 GMT
This builds from discussions had in the 'kids show - stigma', 'fandom goes too far' and 'won't someone think of the children' threads. Now let's get to the deeper issue: why is a given show's fanbase, Who or otherwise, so completely freaked at the idea of there being an audience for said show other then themeselves, or allowing new audiences in? No matter how many there are of us, we're simply not big enough to meaningfully sustain good ratings without other aid.
I'm not familiar with this phenomena, does it really exist? It seems strange, I've never met a Doctor Who fan who wasn't excited to hear about anyone and everyone getting into Who at whatever level. I do think Jason is right on this. Doctor Who is a church that is bigger on the inside and always has room for the newly converted. One thing I do think hardcore fans sometime forget though is that any given episode of Doctor Who, or any TV series, comic book series, series of novels etc. is always going to be someone's first and as such if you want to make that installment somewhat user friendly so a first time viewer or reader knows what is going on, what the premise is and who the characters are. I think there is sometimes a tension with long term fans who don't want any time wasted getting to the story line or characters that fan is already heavily invested in and informed about. |
|
|
|
Post by barnabaslives on May 19, 2018 22:36:57 GMT
I don't think one needs to feel any monopolistic sense of ownership of a thing to feel that there is some vested interest in its well-being.
I think it's absolutely fantastic if the show attracts any casual audience members, I highly recommend the program - I just wouldn't want to see the show primarily or specifically aimed at any audience that may be less aware of, or less concerned about, any diminishing quality or consistency.
I feel like the show should speak equally to the less casual (or the more discerning) audience automatically, simply as part of fulfilling a commitment to those virtues of quality and consistency, which in general I think they've done an excellent (albeit not perfect) job of, which is probably why I still greatly enjoy watching it.
It would seem silly to wish the show a broader audience and then resent their arrival, I'm sure - I should be so lucky as to interest other family members in the series, even if they were blissfully unaware of any plotholes, continuity gaffes, or uncharacteristic behaviors on the part of the characters. :-)
|
|
shutupbanks
Castellan
There’s a horror movie called Alien? That’s really offensive. No wonder everyone keeps invading you.
Likes: 5,671 
|
Post by shutupbanks on May 20, 2018 0:36:22 GMT
Nothing against the casual viewer. However, how many casual viewers did series 10 attract? My wife and my two eldest are only casual fans but they sat and watched each episode with me for the first time since about series 2. They really enjoyed it. When I got the DVDs my eldest came and watched them with me - which never happens. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2018 1:15:47 GMT
Y'know, now that I think about it... With the series being as long as it is -- 50 years worth of fiction and all -- can't fans often make up for part of the casual audience as well, just for different Doctors? Someone familiar with and fond of the Fourth Doctor, watching an old Second Doctor serial because it just happens to be on, for example? Now, that's an interesting idea...  |
|
|
|
Post by Audio Watchdog on May 20, 2018 6:08:33 GMT
Nothing against the casual viewer. However, how many casual viewers did series 10 attract? My wife and my two eldest are only casual fans but they sat and watched each episode with me for the first time since about series 2. They really enjoyed it. When I got the DVDs my eldest came and watched them with me - which never happens. But but but but Moffat plot holes.......  |
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on May 20, 2018 9:13:25 GMT
Y'know, now that I think about it... With the series being as long as it is -- 50 years worth of fiction and all -- can't fans often make up for part of the casual audience as well, just for different Doctors? Someone familiar with and fond of the Fourth Doctor, watching an old Second Doctor serial because it just happens to be on, for example? Now, that's an interesting idea... Conversely, all fans start as casuals and then get more and more committed. |
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on May 20, 2018 9:14:08 GMT
My wife and my two eldest are only casual fans but they sat and watched each episode with me for the first time since about series 2. They really enjoyed it. When I got the DVDs my eldest came and watched them with me - which never happens. But but but but Moffat plot holes....... See, you got it wrong: you used dots instead of exclamation marks. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2018 10:02:47 GMT
Y'know, now that I think about it... With the series being as long as it is -- 50 years worth of fiction and all -- can't fans often make up for part of the casual audience as well, just for different Doctors? Someone familiar with and fond of the Fourth Doctor, watching an old Second Doctor serial because it just happens to be on, for example? Now, that's an interesting idea... Conversely, all fans start as casuals and then get more and more committed. What's the expression: "Strangers are just friends yet to be acquainted"? |
|
ljwilson
Chancellery Guard
It's tangerine....not orange
Likes: 5,062
|
Post by ljwilson on May 20, 2018 11:12:54 GMT
Speaking as a casual TV Doctor Who fan, I think people should really just get out a bit more.
I often read things like 'I'm really worried...' or 'but how can this fit between The Prison on Zoobos 5 and Night of the Normals, it doesn't make sense!' when referencing Dr Who.
I tend to worry about paying the mortgage and ensuring my kids are on the right path in life. Super-fans, for wont of a better expression, take things a bit too far, including looking down their nose a bit at people who arent as wrapped-up in it all as them.
Edit - I quite like 'The Prison on Zoobos 5' as title
|
|
lidar2
Castellan
You know, now that you mention it, I actually do rather like Attack of the Cybermen ...
Likes: 5,813
|
Post by lidar2 on May 21, 2018 10:41:02 GMT
This builds from discussions had in the 'kids show - stigma', 'fandom goes too far' and 'won't someone think of the children' threads. Now let's get to the deeper issue: why is a given show's fanbase, Who or otherwise, so completely freaked at the idea of there being an audience for said show other then themeselves, or allowing new audiences in? No matter how many there are of us, we're simply not big enough to meaningfully sustain good ratings without other aid.
I'm not familiar with this phenomena, does it really exist? It seems strange, I've never met a Doctor Who fan who wasn't excited to hear about anyone and everyone getting into Who at whatever level. I likewise am not aware of it existing.
When I think about it, the only way in which fans might possibly fear the casual audience is that the fans know they cannot sustain DW as a TV show by themselves, they need the casual audience to make up the viewer numbers. So we fans are, in that sense, dependent on the casual audience. The reason for fear is that the casual audience are fickle, they abandoned us in the mid/late 1980s and the show got cancelled. The fear they may abandon us again is always present.
Not sure I'm even convincing myself with that argument ....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2018 11:41:08 GMT
I think it's a mixture of things, to be honest. We've seen how beloved properties have been mishandled, often in the name (but defiently not respecting) a modern audience. And we've also seen what else is out there. While over here, when I was a kid and teenager, Doctor Who was more thought of as a fondly missed insitution, in the UK, it really was a joke for many years. Fans in general, but especially UK based fans, very much carried the franchise through DWM and the Virgin novels and there was a sense that even if Doctor Who returned, it's essence would be lost in an attempt to play to a modern audience. And the TV Movie very much re-enforced that for fans. A higher level of violence and not as stylisied adventure, The Doctor being half-human and being a romantic lead to be reletable, The Master an American and nay a proper monster in sight. And then came the DWM strip, Big Finish getting McGann and showing that Who could return, that the essence of Who, the madness, the brilliance, the pogiency of this show we all love, could be done for a modern audience and be approchable and brilliant. It's understandable after all that, particularly for UK fandom, fandom became protective and reflexive.
So, to an extent, I can understand where it comes from. Fans who supported and I can understand that feeling of alienation. It wasn't just for us anymore and I can understand feeling abandoned after supporting the show for so many years. The revival WAS different from what we had before. There were new rules, the story was told very differently. And many fans had seen the show they loved grow up with them, pushed into mature directions and regardless of the complexities of, understandably resented the series going back to the family format.
On the otherhand, Who never sought out to be a cult series. It was a family show, made for the mainstream, from day one. It what it's remembered for and if Who was going to have a substantial legacy again, it needed to go back to that. On a personal level, I don't mind adult Who, but given the nature of the show, I personally always consider it a family show and holds an important role in the pop culture landscape. That's where to me, it should always lie. For some fans - and this is a valid response - they'd moved past that. They wanted to see Who continue to move out into adult directions.
But, I also think with geekdom there's a feeling of possessiviness in general. We've seen what we've loved mocked. But, this stuff doesn't just belong to us. It might feel that way, but it's not neccessairly true. Not just geeks, but people love Star Wars, Spider-Man, Batman, etc. They might not be experts, but underneath it all, they do love these characters. And I think we see a much larger audience take to something we love, whether it be the MCU, Star Wars or the revival's popularity, there is understandable sense of resenment. Why didn't you like it when you were mocking me? Why weren't you out there and supporting Who before it was cancelled/during The Wilderness Years/etc? That's basic human nature.
As for super fans, while you can say it's the nature of the thing, it really encompasses any field of human intrest/hobbies. You can say about sports, hell, I've known bloody super fan bloody stampcollecollectors. It's in the nature for some of humanity and it's the internet, exemplifying those qualities.
|
|
|
|
Post by barnabaslives on May 21, 2018 18:05:16 GMT
I think it's a mixture of things, to be honest. We've seen how beloved properties have been mishandled, often in the name (but defiently not respecting) a modern audience. And we've also seen what else is out there. While over here, when I was a kid and teenager, Doctor Who was more thought of as a fondly missed insitution, in the UK, it really was a joke for many years. But, I also think with geekdom there's a feeling of possessiviness in general. We've seen what we've loved mocked. But, this stuff doesn't just belong to us. It might feel that way, but it's not neccessairly true. Not just geeks, but people love Star Wars, Spider-Man, Batman, etc. They might not be experts, but underneath it all, they do love these characters. And I think we see a much larger audience take to something we love, whether it be the MCU, Star Wars or the revival's popularity, there is understandable sense of resenment. Why didn't you like it when you were mocking me? Why weren't you out there and supporting Who before it was cancelled/during The Wilderness Years/etc? That's basic human nature. You've got me there somewhat, I do indeed derive some benign amusement at the realization that some of the same people who would have mocked what a comic nerd I used to be, are some of the same ones that are probably flocking to theaters to see the very same characters. These days my wife is more of a Marvel nerd than I am, I don't think she's missed a Marvel movie whereas I've passed on at least half of them. That too is pleasantly ironic considering how much I probably used to worry about finding a partner who would put up with my nerd-dom. It's probably also ironic that I do still feel protective about classic Marvel storylines or continuity - hmmm, I still seem to have a lot invested for someone who gave up on all of it ages ago, don't I? :-) - but again it's a basic expectation of quality, I just don't happen to think it's the least bit creative to pillage classic material, or respectful to take liberties with it when they do. I'd much rather see them just come up with new material. I think I'd take that up with Stan the Man, though, since he created most of the characters - along with bemusement, it does actually give me kind of a warm fuzzy and maybe even some small sense of vindication that the X-Men are being enjoyed by people who'd have probably never figured out in a million years what I saw in them back when they were new on the scene. :-) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2018 23:29:17 GMT
All really compelling points. I've always found "adult" to be one of those words that's rather difficult to define. It really is. Particularly when it comes to something like fiction. It relies quite a lot on two things: - What they used to watch as kids vs. now as adults, and;
- What they remember their childhood was like.
Emphasis on the word "remember". There's an inherent unreliability to it as the memory smooths out a lot of the fine detail and paints it over with larger brushstrokes. The funny thing about kids -- kids, in this case, being children from 7-12 years of age -- is that they really aren't interested in being catered to as kids. They resent it, perceive it as a form of belittlement and, as they grow, they tend to go for more "hardcore" or "edgy" stories that treat them like adults. Or, at the very least, appear to treat them like adults. When Doctor Who was popular again, one of the images that absolutely leapt and bound around the place was Sarah's desperate climb up the rocket gantry in Genesis of the Daleks. It was everything we were looking for as kids -- grim, violent, impactful. Lytton's hands in Attack of the Cybermen, the killer flowers in Terror of the Autons, the giant rat gnawing on Leela in The Talons of Weng-Chiang, the shootout aboard the TARDIS for Earthshock... The more of that kind of material, the better we thought it was. As an adult, though, I'd be very wary about pushing it any further than what we saw already. I surprised myself not too long ago by writing up a content advisory for a fanedit of Revelation of the Daleks. Five years ago, I don't think I would have thought to ever do that. So, I have to wonder if the more aggressive forms of protectiveness aren't also a facet of "(developing mind + nth number of years of development) x the internet" (to the power of 10 if you add the chemical cocktail of adolescence) where the brain at that age clings to all manner of things because it's trying to murder itself. It's a very different mentality to that shared by those above a certain age. Like, imagine yourself back when you were in that age bracket. I'm currently thinking "Oh, dear god," but moving past that I also remember in-group, out-group mentalities being a huge facet of life. In every aspect. Childhood really was defined by tribes and those tribes could be comprised of anything. Fandom was easiest because it didn't require you jump over some academic, physical or cultural barrier in order to be included. You watched the show, learnt the lines and you were in. And because you had no social currency of your own, you guarded that distinctive trait, whatever it may be, with everything you had. Consider this, how many of those voices out there could just be kids and teens growing up? I can't see many of them clinging to this mentality long into adulthood. A friend of mine in her sixties now is still an avid fan of The X-Files. She and her partner use the same kind of torches the show was famous for around the house. Happy to chat about it to a hardened X-phile or a total novice (so long you hold the ladder steady). After all, why guard so viciously against casual audience members when you can have someone else to talk to about something that makes you happy? |
|
