#Fandom Musings
Explore tagged Tumblr posts
theweeklydiscourse · 1 year ago
Note
Why is nuance dieing?
The younger generation seems to be so much more obsessed with moral puritanism in fiction and irdk why. Could it be because kids these days don't interact with real people and are just chronically online so they repeat what they see on the internet?
Actually saw someone saying people who like fictional bad boys are the reason why men get away with sa & rape irl and countries are criminalizing abortion...
It's just so depressing to see that. This line of thinking is scary actually.
I don't remember people going this mad over morals when shows and movies like Vampire Diaries and Twilight saga were huge. It's like people have regressed.
The media we consume is becoming more and more didactic as we enter an age where it seems like every piece of popular media is obsessed with delivering their messages and themes like an after school PSAs. Media is becoming increasingly more sanitized and “family friendly” to appeal to the broadest possible audience to create more and more profits for corporations. This obsession with sanitized fiction has become commonplace with many younger people who parrot what they see online and on the media they consume and proceed to deliver underdeveloped takes on subjects they don’t fully understand yet.
It becomes even more interesting when people point to fictional narratives as the cause for societal problems when there are already larger institutions that have historically been responsible for what they claim fiction causes. They displace the blame for societal ills like SA, abuse, patriarchal violence and misogynistic legislation onto fiction, fan fiction and media that explores taboo subject matter. While I don’t deny that fiction has power, 90% of the time these people have no idea of the ways literary works influence our culture and default to a 1:1 “monkey see, monkey do” explanation for why people must consume the “correct media”.
Another factor is the way that people have become accustomed to moralizing their content consumption. They have convinced themselves that they need a concrete and righteous justification for their likes and dislikes and this has ruined the way fandom interacts with literature, film and other art forms. With this in mind, they can no longer dislike or even hate something without creating some moral justifications for why “hating this thing is actually progressive and righteous!” and in the process, conflate consumerism with activism.
The comparison to Puritanism is quite fitting in this case. After all, the principles of that religion were based in purity, obedience and censorious beliefs for self-indulgences and we can draw comparisons with the way people online discuss certain subjects. There’s a phenomenon where people will say something along the lines of: “It’s alright to like (insert problematic character here)! But you need to acknowledge that they are a bad person.” To them, it seems like a gesture at fairness and magnanimity when in reality, it is an attempt at exerting unearned moral authority over the tastes of others. It is a demand that a person proves their moral innocence to them in a performative manner that validates their need to feel superior. But it’s all performative purity because even if a person did explain/justify their fictional tastes, these people wouldn’t care and would continue to demand purity from others.
People can’t even discuss certain characters anymore without running into people accusing them of being terrible people who would approve of real-life violence and abuse. And I can’t shake the feeling that it wasn’t always like this, when did it change?
224 notes · View notes
ariel-seagull-wings · 11 days ago
Note
Hey Ariel.
As an X-Men fan, I wanted to know.
Why do so many X-Men fans and even writers have, let's be a real, a massive superiority complex?
As I'm sure you know by now, for about a decade, the X-Men comics have had a bad track record when it came to writing characters outside of their bubble of the Marvel Universe.
Being that they were painfully written out of character and in rather non-flattering lights.
ESPECIALLY Captain America.
Usually portraying them as being against mutants (when they've been shown before not to be).
And the worst part about all this is that they try to say that the X-Men are the only REAL heroes in the Marvel Universe and that the other heroes ain't shit!
The ONLY one who doesn't get this is Spider-Man.
But as we all know by now, Spidey gets written with more respect in literally every other title than his own.
It's pretty clearly done to make the X-Men look good, but ironically enough, it doesn't.
If anything, it makes them look like a bunch of narcissistic, self-serving assholes who love to make their problems everyone else's and shame people for their issues even when they have nothing to do with it.
And I find that incredibly disingenuous.
Like, these motherfuckers have saved the entire world multiple times and tend suddenly, they're being shamed and told that they're not real heroes?!
Blow me.
I think the most egregious is in the case of the Fantastic Four.
Like, among all the heroes of Marvel, they're arguably the most respected.
Like, these guys literally save all reality on a weekly basis.
But then you'll have Cyclops causally shaming them and even threatening to take their son against their (and maybe even his) will.
But I guess that's to be expect since most other comic fandoms don't respect the Fantastic Four (largely thanks to their horrible track record with movies).
I'm glad we're FINALLY moving past this era since in the recent comics, we've seen Cyclops and Captain Marvel are committed to having their respective teams being allies who have each other's back.
But still, why did so many fans and writers just love to trash the other heroes?
Side Note: You remember those pieces of fan art that had the X-Men dogging on The Avengers? Like that one with Cyclops having a class that basically taught that The Avengers are losers and had pictures of several members up on a board with the word "Bitch" written over them. Yeah, I'm so glad that phase finally died out.
Eh ... it's a bit more complicated then "superiority complex", and I will need to give you a brief history and geography lesson along with writing office analysis for context...
So I'm brazilian, and my country has a very complicated love and hate relationship with US American Pop Culture since it started being exported to us during the Cold War (And by complicated I mean that intelectual circles even were split about the Electric Guitar being used in our music, with some youths embracing it in the 1960s while other youths went to the streets to protest against it as a Imperialist Symbol). This complicated relationship affects as well the perception of superheroes, arguably the quintessential American Genre of comic books: some people go to the Golden and Silver Ages and see the characters as simbols of progressive figures of cultural exchange instead of domination, while others who lived enough to see the conservartive forces of Capital dominate the industry of superhero comics and films, can't separate the influence that military powers exerced in the narrative, specially post 9/11.
Without mentioning that even color of clothes can be triggering: so you see the clothes of Captain America in the Red and White And Blue spangles, if you are in the US, you are more likely to see first the hero who punched Hitler in the face as stand against fascist opression, but if you are Latin American like us, you see the modern Uncle Sam, the figure that simbolizes American Invasion. With the MCU encarnations being now the primary way that people know the Avengers, with Military Influence over blockbusters being secret to nobody, is inevitable that they become defenders to the status quo and revolutionaries who question American Intervention become villanized, so while the figures might not be literal cops to an american audience, to us they are simbolically the World Cops.
The X Men adaptations become more engaging for us because they work outside the American Goverment: they live in their own house their leader purchased, most members are born in other countries, they have to constantly fight not to be exterminated by the authorities of the american goverment, ocasionally try to trust said authorities only to be betrayed again and again, deal with issues of assimilation vs embracing their difference and creating their own culture and society, changing within the system vs changing the whole system, pacificism vs guerrilla, which are themes very rooted in the history of Latin America, so is expected they will be embraced by us as symbols of rebellion
Fandom action and reaction also hasto be considered: in one country it may appear that a fan of Avengers might be the comics "underdog" in the sense of not selling much the way the X books sold, while in other country it was considered acceptable to be an Avengers fan because they were considered "the masculine team" while the X Men fans, identifying with the queer coding and social commentary of the mutant metaphor, would be target of homophobia from people in the Avengers fandom, and in the proccess while the homophobia was not the fault of their characters and writers per se, it still left a trauma that tarnished them in the eye of some bullied X-Men fans.
As from a writing office standpoint, there is also the aspect of the Shared Universe, that has been a Double-Edged Sword for Marvel when it comes to their worldbuing: the way the Shared Universe was conceived in the 60s was mainly a publicit stunt, a way to make readers buy other titles, not necessarily a slowly well planed project. There is no way every reader will have time or engagement to collect and read every other title besides the main series they follow of their favorite character or team, AND the writing offices were still as much separated from each other as DC Offices were.
When the company expects each series to be independent from one another, yet still hold to the concept of Shared Universe as a selling tool, there will be, and has been, problems: writers each are put in the bubble of their own series rather than be constantly updating on reading other titles and collaborating with one another to make the Universe feel coherent and cohese, so characters will also be put in their bubbles, and readers will ask "Why aren't the heroes and teams helping one another and discussing this issue that concerns everyone together when they all live in the same world and mostly in the same cities (New York and San Francisco)?"
So one may say that X-Men writers don't know how to write the Avengers... but people forget the reverse can also be true, with Avengers and solo hero writers having trouble writing X-Men books and characters.
There is no understanding between writers of each others characters and no team work behind the scenes, then how can you expect that readers will get invested in aquiring different titles/team books instead of becoming tribalist for one particular hero or team? How can they really share the Same Universe?
Civil War might not have been the event it was if Avengers and X-Men characters were put in the same book to discuss the situation, because mutants have the experience with the violence of Registration Acts and would talk Tony Stark out of supporting, which would make impossible the Team Iron Man x Team Captain America fight that the company wanted to sell.
The Fantastic Four might save the planet Earth from Cosmic Beings like Galactus, but the Sentinels would still come for the son of Reed and Sue, Franklin, so is understandable that mutants will ask the question of "What use is saving the Planet if those who are born on Earth like us still will try to kill us for existing?". That Reed tried experiments to supress Franklin's X gene (before the retcon) while saying condescendingly "You are a child, you don't what you want" reminding people of cisstraight parents in denial of their children being queer didn't help.
One Incredible Hulk comic had Bruce Banner say to an alternate older Scott Summers that "Mutant Fear was never prejudice, just a correct fear that people born with superpowers would run out of control and harm humans, just like people feared the Hulk would do and did".
Which if you only read Hulk, might sound true ...
But if you follow the X-Men for decades, you will bring this argument into question because there were mutants that never didn't harm anyone and were experimented upon, enslaved and were targets of genocide, God Love Man Kills, the graphic novel that extablished the danger faced by mutants along with the Days of Future Past storyline, even showing us the Reverend Stryker killing his mutant newborn son just because "he looked different" and soon killing his wife as well for giving birth to a mutant child, which is a context a casual reader has no obligation to have, but a professional writer working at MARVEL should have, then obviously fans will get frustrated, specially when a lot of X-Men fans are from marginalized comunities and see in this speech by Bruce Banner the same speech some people give to them when they bring their own opression:
"You are exagerating, you see prejudice where there is none, this is just victimization!"
And of course, there is the Elephant in the Room called House of M: with Joe Quesada erroneously thinking that minority meant "small quantity of people" and not the actual meaning of "sociopolitically underrepresented and opressed population that often is the majority in quantity", the editorial mandate to reduce mutant characters trough a Decimation happened at Marvel, but instead of choosing an X-book adjacent character to be responsible for said Decimation, an Avengers character was choosen, and Wanda Maximoff suffered with a poorly written mental breakdown to be used as an easy Mcguffin to put mutantkind in the brink of extinction.
It probably also didn't help that since there was the whole "Movie rights battle where Fox held the movie rights to the X Men characters" Marvel itself was spitefully trying to reduce the proeminence of the X Men in comics to push other characters like the Inhumans... who are a royal family with a history of practicing slavery and eugenics.
This caused an important concern for fans: if a company already tries to erase and silence the METAPHORICAL marginalized characters even though they have been their best selling series since the 80s, what chance does NON METAPHORICAL marginalized characters have?
Basically: different writing teams not understanding each other's characters is a simpton of an editorial problem in the comics industry, and fans reacting with mistrust over other teams and fandoms like the Avengers and Fantastic Four is a coping and defense response.
@thealmightyemprex @professorlehnsherr-almashy @themousefromfantasyland @the-blue-fairie
30 notes · View notes
graendoll · 4 months ago
Text
Saw a post about how Buddie is giving Bellarke vibes and honestly yes because I have trust issues, but also no it's not because Minear isn't a bitter piece of hot garbage like Jroth.
Unless the spin-off for 911 is 911 El Paso and Ryan is the lead for the tie-in, in which case may the curse of 1000 Billy Boils be cast upon thee, Tim.
30 notes · View notes
batbeato · 10 months ago
Text
Phenomenon not unique to Umineko but starkly showcased because of it: the difficulty with separating discomfort of a character from analysis, and from judgement of others.
There are so many characters in Umineko that make people uncomfortable - Rosa is one of the first that comes to mind, but Kinzo does as well. They are such well-written, human characters - and also terrible abusers. They are uncomfortable to watch, they are uncomfortable to analyze, because it feels uncomfortable to remember and acknowledge that, yes, the abusers are human too even though they are terrible.
And there are people who will love characters like Rosa because of how well-written she is, just as there are people who will dislike or even hate her because she is uncomfortable, she is abusive. Some people will then go on, as they hate Rosa, to also hate people who enjoy her character, equating their enjoyment of her character to condoning or ignoring her actions.
I've also seen the opposite, wherein people who love a character will be upset that there are people who heavily dislike or hate a character who, while well-written, is abusive and uncomfortable. They may even equate this dislike to a lack of understanding of Umineko (a common way people are attacked for their opinions, and one I'm trying to move away from using).
People should respect that people may enjoy a character they do not, and that does not always reflect on their views regarding real-life treatment of others. They should also respect that people may not enjoy a character they do, and that does not reflect on their understanding of the text. Again, not a problem unique to Umineko fans, but I've noticed it amongst us.
56 notes · View notes
ectoentity · 3 months ago
Text
An idea I vaguely have been thinking of but don't really know how to flesh out into a DP concept:
The concept of ectoplasm comes from the spiritualist movement. It was described as an ephemeral material that would manifest during a seance as an indicator that the medium was using psychic entergy. Typically what was really happening was mediums hiding a thin fabric or paper (sometimes coated in paste) and using sleight of hand techniques to make it "appear" during a seance. The rooms were dark, only lit by a few candles, so the material was hard to see clearly. It was basically practical effects for a small in-person performance.
But the point is, it wasn't originally considered "ghost matter". It was psychic matter created by psychics, and ghosts just kind of took advantage of it to manifest.
16 notes · View notes
kareenvorbarra · 9 months ago
Text
i'm forever caught between scylla (agamemnon stans who think he's a better-than-average mythology guy who only has fully consensual sex with the women he's enslaved) and charybdis (agamemnon haters who think he's the worst person ever and that achilles is much better)
51 notes · View notes
viktheviking1 · 1 year ago
Text
What's a fandom that you think needs more attention?
If you even mildly like Hamilton, You will love SIX the Musical. It's a history musical but it's British, plus feminine rage.
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
We stan the queens
59 notes · View notes
fangirlingindefinitely · 1 month ago
Text
it’s so fun to be Really Invested in a bit of fandom after being a passive media absorber for years?!? I genuinely kinda forgot the joys of loving two characters so much that I relentlessly draw them kissing on the mouth lol
18 notes · View notes
gofancyninjaworld · 6 months ago
Text
See this as the self-indulgent ramblings of a greedy fan. In my greedy mind, I'd love the OPM manga to come out in 'seasons', like 10 weeks of 4-6 longer chapters (50-60 pages a piece) with a six-week break* between them to submit the next volume, take a break, and sketch the next set.
To really make it work, I'd love it if ONE would take a page from his webcomic and make sure that each set of storyboards has some point to be made. It's what's made the long gaps between wc releases bearable -- you have a good, meaty chunk of content to digest and ponder about in the interim. In a perfect, perfect world, the release of a new volume would anchor each set of chapter releases.
It'd work out to three volumes' worth of pages. Which is about 570 pages a year (Murata draws way more than that most years), just more concentrated. I'm thinking that with the multiple projects each man has, shorter but focused bouts of attention for OPM would work to the better.
Here I am writing in a semi-forgotten corner of the internet in a language neither man speaks. That should tell you all you need to know about how likely this is to end up a suggestion! :D
Ah well, who knows? They've been changing up how they do things since the beginning and they may hit on just such a way.
*wait, I hear you say, 'wouldn't that only add up to 48 weeks? What about the other 4 weeks?' It's called 'vacation.' Or whatever else they want to do.
20 notes · View notes
chaoortu · 15 days ago
Text
if i may have a random fandom gripe: i'm still not over the way a lot of people villainized charlie in season 3. like it hit a certain point where i blocked the heartstopper tag on tiktok bc it just got to be a little too much? and i think what really got me was the whole: "who's there for nick???" question that kept cropping up because like-- listen, I don't expect people to read the whole webcomic between seasons. i'm just insane so i did!
but in the show we see OVER AND OVER again that Charlie is Nick's safe person. the person who is there for nick is charlie and the issue with that is it highlights nick's codependent tendencies that tara and elle BOTH call out in the later episodes of season 3. time passes between charlie being in treatment and coming home but at the very least we as the audience can infer that tara (at the bare minimum) was there for nick. we also see on screen during the halloween episode that tao is also there for nick. nick is not in some isolated bubble of suffering bc his boyfriend is mentally ill. he is literally the one who pushed him to get help in the first place so it's just weird to see the fandom harboring resentment for charlie for what feels like the idea of him getting the help he needs in the first place bc it somehow got twisted into being something at nick's expense???
but like even zoning back from all that. it's so rare for teenagers to get genuinely good help for their mental illnesses, ESPECIALLY eating disorders and i feel like that got totally lost when season 3 first came out. and idk something that doesn't sit right is the fact that it seems like a lot of people were characterizing charlie as selfish when everything in his canon says otherwise. like hold my hand for a second. trying to claim the mentally ill, bullied teenager is selfish for going to treatment is one hell of a thing to say. charlie does everything for other people it's why he crash and burns so hard. and i'd argue his relationship with nick actually pushes him to be a LITTLE bit more selfish, which is healthy. did the fandom collectively forget how charlie kept saying it was fine (and meant it!) in season 1-2 when Nick wasn't ready to come out but we could see how it was still hurting him? did we forget how nick acknowledges that charlie is very quick to do things even at the expense of his own feelings? how slamming the door in harry greene's face on the paris trip is a sign of growth?
8 notes · View notes
inevitablemoment · 1 month ago
Text
"I Will Be There" from The Count of Monte Cristo 🤝 "Only A Matter of Time (Reprise" from Back to the Future: The Musical
Distant romance duets about getting back to the one you love
8 notes · View notes
theweeklydiscourse · 1 year ago
Text
Zuko really is the most complex redemption arc tumblr can handle before they start getting scared.
218 notes · View notes
ariel-seagull-wings · 1 month ago
Text
@rei-ismyname @mikeellee @professorlehnsherr-almashy @the-blue-fairie @meadow-mellow @maedelin @soviet-supersoldier @positivelybeastly
"Martin Lund responds to claims that X-Men stories are built around a single, dominant experience of oppression by highlighting the danger of conflating distinct depictions of the X-Men across time. As Lund observes, the X-Men’s comic book stories have been written and drawn by many different people across what is now a nearly sixty-year history; to suppose that these comics all address the same real-world sociopolitical context is untenable.
Racial, queer, Jewish, and other issues were not equally important to all creative teams, so one should expect differing emphases and analogies in different stories.
Lund argues that scholars should attend to the distinctive social-historical contexts in which X-Men stories are produced to avoid grand generalizations based on cherry-picking texts across a substantial period of time.
As a case in point, it is telling that X-Men stories came to depict their human opponents in the vein of Christian “hate groups” during the time of the Moral Majority, and that mutant heroes became celebrities during the early years of reality television.
Lund argues that both fan-based and scholarly analyses tend to link the X-Men with whatever political project the commentators in question are most sympathetic to.
As such, producing a more accurate sociopolitical history of the X-Men franchise must include a more self-conscious method of analysis, one that is capable of guarding against commentators projecting their own preferences onto the stories."
(Zeichman, Christopher B: X-Men Films and the Domestication of Dissent, in: Supersex; Sexuality, Fantasy and the Superhero - 2020)
10 notes · View notes
graendoll · 7 months ago
Text
Unpopular opinion but if 911 doesn't go Buddie canon I will stop watching.
I don't think there is anything wrong with wanting something from fiction and DNF-ing it when it no longer gives me what I want *shrug*. Like legit if I had watched 911 in real time I would have DNF-d about half way through s5 because the S4 payoff was minimal and wasted.
Anyway, don't feel loyal to bad stories that don't fulfill you. That's what fanfiction is for.
36 notes · View notes
deadtwinksdetectiveagency · 8 months ago
Note
hey i just wanted to say! thanks for your addition to the cat king post. the original honestly made me kinda uncomfortable, and i think you added a lot of nuance to that conversation
Hi! Thanks so much for this message. I really appreciate it. I spent quite a bit of time thinking through my comments there, and I'm actually a bit sad not to have gotten any response from OP or the person I reblogged from :< Ç'est la vie!
I do feel very lucky that I've been in many fandoms here with some truly excellent and thoughtful people (some of whom I almost always agree with, others of whom have absolutely insane takes)—and I'm very glad to have found so many similar folks here in the DBDA fandom too :-) Here's to us!
(Here's the post/my response in question.)
21 notes · View notes
imascar · 9 months ago
Text
Is Lasagna to Season 7 what Couch Theory was to Season 6?
45 notes · View notes