Case (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
case) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
fandomsecrets2023-05-08 05:59 pm
case) wrote in fandomsecrets2023-05-08 05:59 pm
[ SECRET POST #5967 ]
⌈ Secret Post #5967 ⌋
Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.
01.
__________________________________________________
02.
__________________________________________________
03.
__________________________________________________
04.
__________________________________________________
05.
__________________________________________________
06.
__________________________________________________
07.
Notes:
Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 28 secrets from Secret Submission Post #853.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.
Re: Inspired by 6 - drama bombs
(Anonymous) 2023-05-09 07:37 pm (UTC)(link)Re: Inspired by 6 - drama bombs
(Anonymous) 2023-05-10 01:30 am (UTC)(link)Re: Inspired by 6 - drama bombs
(Anonymous) 2023-05-10 01:03 pm (UTC)(link)Re: Inspired by 6 - drama bombs
(Anonymous) 2023-05-10 02:07 pm (UTC)(link)This is the first thing you said. You’re being blatantly dishonest that it was just about it being a failure with sexism being incidental. Whether the response was sexist or not was the main part of all of this, because that’s the only thing Phil said about the DW fandom, which is the post you responded to first. Don’t lie about what the discussion was actually about as if it wasn’t plainly obvious and right there where anyone can see you’re lying.
Me mentioning it’s subjective that the material of 13’s run was a failure was one sentence, whereas me mentioning that there was provable evidence that some of the reception to 13 was sexist was the main bulk of my reply. You’re again being dishonest trying to tell me what the main part of my response was, when I would know better than you that it wasn’t whether the run was a failure. So you continuing to not address information that proves you wrong about the sexist reactions to 13, and moving the goalposts while lying that “it was actually only really about it being a failure, so I don’t have to address that I was wrong about the sexism” is transparent.
And it still very much is subjective whether 13’s run was a failure, considering works that don’t do well at the initial stages get reappraised all the time. So you using these numbers to argue against something I never said, that it was a critical and merchandise failure, is disingenuous and irrelevant. It was a critical disappointment, not failure, and again, art gets reappraised all the time. And it still has many positive reviews from critics. Plus, your language about people who think differently than you speaks volumes, especially because you have no evidence to back you up.
You have nothing to back you up that the group of people that like 13’s run is a “very-very small (albeit vocal) minority of fans”, because that’s the kind of numbers that you can’t actually accurately measure outside of viewership ratings. Instead, you’re making assumptions based upon your own biases and generalizations. The numbers might not be stellar critically and commercially, but the viewership numbers are about the same as most other runs. Even though they did fluctuate, which is what you’re referring to when you said it didn’t “keep the numbers”. But it’s not actually the ratings tragedy you’re trying to make it out to be. Compared to some of the other runs, it wasn’t a hit. But with views in the millions pretty much all the way through, it wasn’t a failure. You should know that if you looked up the other numbers, but you conveniently left it out because it goes against your narrative. So much for very-very small minority of fans, unless you think the viewership of the 12th Doctor’s run was very-very small too.
It’s obvious you’re acting in bad faith, cherry-picking, and being dishonest, intellectually and literally. As well as picking and choosing what to respond to and what to ignore based on you having no actual counter-arguments to some points, and leaving out important details when they go against what you wants the facts to be. Pretty much lying by omitting crucial details, on top of the actual lies you’ve told. So I’m done trying to have an earnest discussion with someone who’s not willing to act in good faith or stop being willfully obtuse.
Re: Inspired by 6 - drama bombs
(Anonymous) 2023-05-10 08:11 pm (UTC)(link)I don't know anything about the show, or the characters, but I'm tired of fans being super-willing to accuse other people, just like them, of being morally deficient when they don't like certain media, simply because that media had some minority in a leading role. Yes, when you're dealing with a million people on the internet, some of them are going to misrepresent their motivations when they say "I liked this" or "I didn't like this." But none of the stuff we actually enjoy talking about in depth gets discussed, when the knee-jerk reaction is to assume bad faith, based on something that could mean any number of things other than "I'm talking to a bigot!" And it seems to me that the media companies are exploiting this conversation-ending-cliché to the hilt. Because we used to discuss the quality of work a lot more than we currently are.
Also, it doesn't seem like any coincidence to me that, when a lot of people realized they don't have to rely on some American making a show or a movie with the things they wish they had more of,* the media suddenly discovered representation as a moral good. After DECADES of turning a deaf ear to academia's calls for less dehumanizing and othering of women, gays, non-whites, etc. But the fact that they're making a very half-hearted attempt compared to what already exists or we can do for ourselves would be very plain, if people weren't so defensive on their behalf.
*Competing media from non-western countries has become a lot more readily available, and writing stories and sharing them online with everyone has become much easier!
Because I don't see the media's current attempts at engaging people that they'd previously alienated and insulted as a self-sacrificing gesture, I also don't see it as something we have to be uncritically grateful for. The quality will not improve while half the audience is paying handsomely for mediocre storytelling, and loudly praising it, and everyone who says "this is not very good" will keep having a lot to poke fun at. When someone who is not invested in the principle of watching media for altruistic reasons tries something and then decides the only reason people were fawning over it was because they like the idea of the protagonist being a woman, or whatever, they have a perfectly rational reason, in the future, to wonder if the self-described lefties are lying to them. That's a problem.
When I got into fanfiction, no one had to tell me I should read books written by women, ever again. I was convinced, and there is no going back from what a revelation that was. And I didn't have to convince any of my peers that this writing was electrifying, they found it without me and went "holy FUCK, have you seen this? Wow," and read a hundred more stories in the same vein before they came up for air or sleep again. That's the quality I want in media. And it would settle whether "it's possible to tell a good story" about people who aren't straight, white, men so definitively that no one who brought that up would want anyone to remember they had. Whereas, the quality of the commercial stuff we've got just makes that stupid argument drag and drag. And not because you haven't had the right argument about why it's actually good, yet. Or enough of them. That's not the problem, here.