Dose Our Generation Have a Nostalgia Gatekeeping Problem?

[Orby]

At this point I see gatekeeping them against new publishers and creators, not new fans, as the healthiest option our of many worse alternatives.

The Critical Drinker has made a video on why this is a natural reaction to what's happening to many IPs these days.

"People tend to be kind of protective of stuff they enjoy.."

That there from the video is exactly the problem with people today... why are you protective of something that was never yours to begin with. This is the sort of gate keeping I am talking about. Its like people have refused to grow up and want everything than how it was. I have no problem, disliking a thing and moving on, that's well and good, I do that with stuff I like all the time. But its the ability people have to dwell on it. and then let it eat at them to a point they wanna seek out validation for it.

then these people got to go on a crusade and feel the need to protect their memories. Its not like the original He-Man was there to care about how you feel, they just wanted to sell toys, a show back then lived and died on their toy sales. So what are they trying to protect?

I do feel a lot of the people angry about this never grew up around the time of the original He-Man cartoon, if they did they'd realise how camp the original was, and especially not not very good it was either. So maybe they are getting mad because they saw the 2000's animated show or something which kind of showed a more serious version. who knows...

Let it go people.



Want a bad version of He-Man then The New Adventures of He-Man from 1990 was still the worst version of the show in my opinion :P



Wonder if the internet was around then people would complain about this show as much as they do Revelations :P

[Syegfryed]

Wonder if the internet was around then people would complain about this show as much as they do Revelations :P

for the time it was released, def looks better than revelation since, apprently still is about he-man x Skeletor,

[Dhrizzle]

for the time it was released, def looks better than revelation since, apprently still is about he-man x Skeletor,

Revelations does all revolve around He-Man and Skeletor though, the characters may not be front and centre in the first five episodes but it's all about exploring the legacy they left behind and about halfway through it also starts to give insights into what it is to be a "champion" like He-Man.

New Adventures on the other hand was abominable even for an age appropriate child at the time it was released (source: was age appropriate child at the time it was released.) The new characters were boring, the old ones had barely a passing resemblance for the originals, the "comedy" support that replaced Orko were pure cringe and they ignored all the loose ends that were left hanging by the original series like what powers did Teela inherit from her mother, what is the secret of Grayskull and how will people respond to Adam being He-Man? Okay they hurriedly gloss over the latter by having Randor say "I'm proud of you son," but instantly fuck it up when they forget that Marlena already knew the secret. Also they coloured her hair blue for some reason. Still it's a toss-up whether New Adventures of He-Man or Transformers: Beast Wars was a bigger disappointment for fans of the originals.

[s_bushido]

Still it's a toss-up whether New Adventures of He-Man or Transformers: Beast Wars was a bigger disappointment for fans of the originals.

How dare you. Beast Wars was amazing. Shitty 90s CGI notwithstanding.

[El Gucaragua]

Mainly talking to late Gen X early millennial (maybe late millennial too).

I say this having been on the internet a lot and watching and hearing people behaviour over their beloved childhood.

I am 38 years old, I grew up on shows like He-Man, Thundercats, TMNT, Duck Tales, Ghostbusters and Count Duckula to name a few. I grew up with movies like Goonies, Ghostbusters, Land Before Time, Back to the Future, and ET, once again to name a few. But here's the thing, among my generation or those just after it, I have seemed to notice a certain behaviour when nostalgia is either milked, exploited or even done in good faith.

We get super gatekeepy. I recently saw the Master of the Universe cartoon, I thought it was okay but being a guy who left social media in 2016 I wasn't aware of the vitriol around this show until after I watched the first 5 episodes (guess it pays to not be on social media), People furious over it for whatever the reason I do not care there are multiple reasons I have heard and seen. Take a movie like the 2016 Ghostbustrers that came out (I still haven't seen it nor do I intend to), or maybe Thundercats got a recent cartoon series that people hate becuase of the animation style, and yes it is awful but I don't care because, first, the original still exists and second, this new one isnt for me. But people get super mad at shows that have long since left their used by date, we have grown up, children are watching these shows now and probably are enjoying them, meanwhile us 30+ year olds are here crying about our cartoons that are generally not aimed at us anymore.

Have we failed to move on from our childhood? Why do we connect so much with the media we grew up on and why can we not let it go? For whatever reasons we are upset about our nostalgia being 'ruined' or 'destroyed' why do we really care? I am really not that bothered personally, but it seems us 30+ year olds are really concerned about children's TV shows more than any other generation before us?

This may be because of Hollywood and culture in general is really cashing hard on things we loved and altering them to fit social norms of today, and I say whatever, go for it, if I don't like it I don't like it, if I like it then hey good for me. But some people get so aggressive about it. And I don't get it. I mean that's a lie, I really hated the Michael Bay Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles but I never went on a social media tirade about it like some people have done for their nostalgia.

Now this seems to be common thing in our generation. My dad who is a big conservative guy grew up with a lot of shows and never once complains if they have changed or been altered, he takes it at face value then just says if its shit or good. Its just really off that our generation is so attached to these things. I am not sure you fellow zoomers will be in the same boat as us... time will tell.

What are your opinions on this?

EDIT: Also mods can you fix spelling error in title 'Does' not 'Dose' thank you <3

Primary issue is that just because it was intended for a child audience, at the end of the day it's for everyone. And when new creators don't show respect to the original, that's where the vitriol comes from.

Look at Star Wars. Look at the disrespect the sequels have for what came before, how the people who liked it acted against those who rightfully criticized them, and how the makers attacked fans? Bottom line - people are sick of this shit.

[Thunderball]

Nah I dont think so. I'm 33 and I ended up growing up with pretty much soviet style of content. It's not like I couldnt get western stuff, I was just not exposed to it at the time and didnt even think about looking for something similar. I did end up discovering a lot and expanding my tastes when my life got a bit more stable in my 20s, and I did get a lot more free time to look for content I wanted to explore.

Imo a lot of modern stuff is just trash. Yes, there's definitely a lot of content (especially cartoons) that I did enjoy back then that I find extremely cringe these days aswell as a lot of highly regarded similar content, but that's just part of growing up.

[s_bushido]

Look at Star Wars. Look at the disrespect the sequels have for what came before, how the people who liked it acted against those who rightfully criticized them, and how the makers attacked fans? Bottom line - people are sick of this shit.

People say crap like that, but at the same time want to conveniently pretend that the prequels didn't exist (or that they weren't as terrible as they clearly were). There's a lot to criticize about the sequel trilogy, but criticisms are pretty meaningless when they come from this false premise that the franchise wasn't already riddled with godawful creative and narrative decisions long before Rey was a twinkle in anyone's eye.

"Respecting the original" means respecting Jar Jar...and midichlorians...and *shudder* this:



Right?

[Orby]

Primary issue is that just because it was intended for a child audience, at the end of the day it's for everyone. And when new creators don't show respect to the original, that's where the vitriol comes from.

Look at Star Wars. Look at the disrespect the sequels have for what came before, how the people who liked it acted against those who rightfully criticized them, and how the makers attacked fans? Bottom line - people are sick of this shit.

This is an important line... because who says they are not showing respect to the original? those that like it or those that disliked it and are crying about it?

[El Gucaragua]

People say crap like that, but at the same time want to conveniently pretend that the prequels didn't exist (or that they weren't as terrible as they clearly were). There's a lot to criticize about the sequel trilogy, but criticisms are pretty meaningless when they come from this false premise that the franchise wasn't already riddled with godawful creative and narrative decisions long before Rey was a twinkle in anyone's eye.

"Respecting the original" means respecting Jar Jar...and midichlorians...and *shudder* this:



Right?

I don't disagree, but even with the issues that the prequels created because we let Lucas off the leash solo there's something crucially different between them and the sequels. The prequels still stay true to the most part for what came before. They do fuck with some things, but not in an absolutely destructive way - like rewriting our MC.

The prequels you can see the pieces of greatness and have good discussion on them - the sequels have none of that whatsoever.

- - - Updated - - -

This is an important line... because who says they are not showing respect to the original? those that like it or those that disliked it and are crying about it?

Well when you character assassinate multiple people that you never created (not that you can't do that if you did create them), break the rules of the universe, and rewrite history for your own fan-fiction then yes, you didn't show respect.

I also like how the distinction between like and dislike always puts those that dislike, or even critique it objectively, are "crying about it".

[uuuhname]

the only sin the sequels are guilty of is being helmed by producers and executives who for some bizarre reason didn't think to plan out the arch of just three movies and instead let the directors and writers do whatever they wanted. regardless SW isn't some cultural artifact deserving of half the adulation it gets.

[Endus]

Well when you character assassinate multiple people that you never created (not that you can't do that if you did create them), break the rules of the universe, and rewrite history for your own fan-fiction then yes, you didn't show respect.

You can't "character assassinate" a fictional character.

Also, if you're writing a piece of fiction, even using characters originated by someone else, you're not affecting the original, you're the creator of your own versions of those characters.

"Breaking the rules of the universe" is a weird statement, and I'll combine it with "rewrite history" to make a pretty basic point; the in-universe understanding of in-universe history or mechanics is not unerring omniscience. Characters may not actually understand what they describe in full. There may be elements of history or the universe they did not grasp. Newtonian physics did not "break the rules of the universe" as established by Copernicus, for the motions of the planets; it clarified that Copernicus got a few things incorrect and here's a more-accurate system. To take just a real life example of what I'm talking about.

I also like how the distinction between like and dislike always puts those that dislike, or even critique it objectively, are "crying about it".

You don't see a lot of fans that like something telling anyone who dislikes it that they're wrong to dislike it.

You do see a lot of ex-fans who hate something telling all the fans that they're wrong for liking it, however.

That's why there's a difference in how they're responded to.

[s_bushido]

The prequels still stay true to the most part for what came before.

What came before? The theatrical releases? Or the dozens of pointless changes Lucas has made over the years because he could? He didn't even respect his own work, so why should I clutch my pearls over accusations of someone else not doing it either?

Well when you character assassinate multiple people that you never created (not that you can't do that if you did create them), break the rules of the universe, and rewrite history for your own fan-fiction then yes, you didn't show respect.

What you call "character assassination," most people without an axe to grind would just call "character development." Like...we literally got a fat, drunk, depressed Thor in Endgame, but did anyone complain about his character being assassinated? Or did they recognize that after most of his people being slaughtered, and making a mistake got half the universe snapped away, he might have had reason to lose himself. Almost like making a mistake with a student causing the deaths of a bunch of people you cared about, as well as the destruction of everything you'd tried to build, might make a person more than a little jaded and broken.

[El Gucaragua]

You can't "character assassinate" a fictional character.

Also, if you're writing a piece of fiction, even using characters originated by someone else, you're not affecting the original, you're the creator of your own versions of those characters.

"Breaking the rules of the universe" is a weird statement, and I'll combine it with "rewrite history" to make a pretty basic point; the in-universe understanding of in-universe history or mechanics is not unerring omniscience. Characters may not actually understand what they describe in full. There may be elements of history or the universe they did not grasp. Newtonian physics did not "break the rules of the universe" as established by Copernicus, for the motions of the planets; it clarified that Copernicus got a few things incorrect and here's a more-accurate system. To take just a real life example of what I'm talking about.



You don't see a lot of fans that like something telling anyone who dislikes it that they're wrong to dislike it.

You do see a lot of ex-fans who hate something telling all the fans that they're wrong for liking it, however.

That's why there's a difference in how they're responded to.

First, yes you can. Both Luke and Han were character assassinated. Han regressed with no explanation and Luke became someone he would never have become, with an explanation that makes the change worse since it made absolutely no sense whatsoever in regards to his own character.

Two, it's not weird. The universe was written to function in a certain way. To then do things that go against it with no suitable explanation, or do things with an explanation as to why said thing is impossible or not performable is breaking the universe.

Tree, these universe's are fictional. The creator chooses how it operates. If you need to do A to perform B to achieve C, but then there's a way to perform B to achieve C - you need a damn good explanation as to why you no longer need A. Take Fullmetal Alchemist. You need a transmutation circle to perform alchemy to say, reshape metal to a new shape using itself. But then we have a way to remove the circle from the equation and perform alchemy, to reshape metal to a new shape using itself.

If we do not explain how this process is achieved, then that's bad writing. Now the universe is broken because we didn't explain how B can achieve C without A. Advancements to physics have an explanation, the removal of the transmutation circle has an explanation - many works of fiction provide no explanation to many things. What's more is that most if not all fictional works use reality as a basis and then distort it.

Lastly, to assume that there's no one on the side of 'like' that attacks those that 'dislike', is an angelic generalization that is simply untrue.

- - - Updated - - -

What came before? The theatrical releases? Or the dozens of pointless changes Lucas has made over the years because he could? He didn't even respect his own work, so why should I clutch my pearls over accusations of someone else not doing it either?




What you call "character assassination," most people without an axe to grind would just call "character development." Like...we literally got a fat, drunk, depressed Thor in Endgame, but did anyone complain about his character being assassinated? Or did they recognize that after most of his people being slaughtered, and making a mistake got half the universe snapped away, he might have had reason to lose himself. Almost like making a mistake with a student causing the deaths of a bunch of people you cared about, as well as the destruction of everything you'd tried to build, might make a person more than a little jaded and broken.

I never said Lucas is a saint. He isn't faultless either. So yes, theatrical releases. Take that as a sign to be better than Lucas and respect the work he and others created that Lucas himself can't even respect - yet they did worse to the work than Lucas himself did, easily.

And no, it's not only 'character development'. Thor's depression and spiral into alcoholism is not a character assassination. If you call Luke attempting an assassination on his nephew knowing the character (now was) then that's an assassination of Luke's character.

[Ivanstone]

Want a bad version of He-Man then The New Adventures of He-Man from 1990 was still the worst version of the show in my opinion

Wonder if the internet was around then people would complain about this show as much as they do Revelations :P

There was USENET. Might be difficult to dig up some old posts about people complaining this show but I wouldn't be too shocked if was vitriol.

[Deathsenemy]

Unfortunately it seems the new generation can't have their own ideas, so they like to ruin old show/movies/comics with their wokeness. It's as simple as that. Everything in our time was racist, sexist or homophobic according to them. I don't watch any of the new stuff anymore. This new gen garbage doesn't get a dime of my money. I'll mind my own business with my old shows and new ones that don't push an agenda.

[uuuhname]

If you call Luke attempting an assassination on his nephew knowing the character (now was) then that's an assassination of Luke's character.

if you ignore the giant elephant in the room which is the whole POINT of that part was to show that Luke had lost touch with himself and at the last moment realized what he was going to do and was horrified by it then suuuuure call it an assassination of his character...

[Endus]

First, yes you can. Both Luke and Han were character assassinated.

Full disagree. You have no basis for this whatsoever.

Han regressed with no explanation and Luke became someone he would never have become, with an explanation that makes the change worse since it made absolutely no sense whatsoever in regards to his own character.

They did have an explanation. It's kind of a shitty explanation, but Han was kind of a shitty person, if you pay attention to the original trilogy. Remember when he fucked off and left the Rebels to die because he wasn't gonna take sides? Sure, he changed his mind and came back in a moment played triumphantly in the film, but it doesn't negate his original decision. Running away and avoiding responsibility was one of Han's core character traits.

And as for Luke; watch the original trilogy sometime. He wrestles with the Dark Side constantly. In Empire, he enters the Dark Side Cave on Dagobah, and fights what appears to be Darth Vader, but when he strikes it down, the face inside the mask is Luke. Because he has that potential. In the final battle with Palpatine and Vader in RotJ, Luke nearly falls to the Dark Side. Twice. And you can't miss it, because Palpatine cackles and taunts Luke about it both times, openly and clearly. It's the entire point of that scene. Luke's victory in that sequence is not over Vader or Palpatine. It's over his own Dark Side leanings. He beats Vader, but only by tapping into the Dark Side. And Palpatine kicks his ass. Luke's entire journey was rooted in overcoming his own inherent Darkness. Hell, this is even the reason behind the big reveal that Vader is his father; that Luke has that potential within him. If you thought that internal conflict would just magically be over forever the moment Vader chucked Palpatine down the reactor well, I don't see how that's in any way reasonable at all. What we saw from Luke in TLJ was entirely in character. And I fundamentally think no one who argues otherwise paid much attention to his character path through the original trilogy. Because it's entirely about overcoming himself.

[uuuhname]

Unfortunately it seems the new generation can't have their own ideas, so they like to ruin old show/movies/comics with their wokeness. It's as simple as that. Everything in our time was racist, sexist or homophobic according to them. I don't watch any of the new stuff anymore. This new gen garbage doesn't get a dime of my money. I'll mind my own business with my old shows and new ones that don't push an agenda.

dude, the people remaking this crap are people like Kevin Smith who are 50+ years old. these are the people who grew up with these IP's and have no new ideas. like, the new generation are making shows like Steven universe and Adventure time, they have their own stuff going on lol.

[s_bushido]

I never said Lucas is a saint. He isn't faultless either. So yes, theatrical releases.

You know it's funny. Typically the response to to the "ruined childhoods" complaint is to just go watch the originals. But it wasn't the evil SJWs who tried to ruin Star Wars that made it so hard to find the theatrical releases of the original trilogy.

And no, it's not only 'character development'. Thor's depression and spiral into alcoholism is not a character assassination. If you call Luke attempting an assassination on his nephew knowing the character (now was) then that's an assassination of Luke's character.

The Luke who was this close to succumbing to the Dark Side and killing his father in a fit of rage? Nah, you're right. That character would never do something so heinous.

[El Gucaragua]

Full disagree. You have no basis for this whatsoever.



They did have an explanation. It's kind of a shitty explanation, but Han was kind of a shitty person, if you pay attention to the original trilogy. Remember when he fucked off and left the Rebels to die because he wasn't gonna take sides? Sure, he changed his mind and came back in a moment played triumphantly in the film, but it doesn't negate his original decision. Running away and avoiding responsibility was one of Han's core character traits.

And as for Luke; watch the original trilogy sometime. He wrestles with the Dark Side constantly. In Empire, he enters the Dark Side Cave on Dagobah, and fights what appears to be Darth Vader, but when he strikes it down, the face inside the mask is Luke. Because he has that potential. In the final battle with Palpatine and Vader in RotJ, Luke nearly falls to the Dark Side. Twice. And you can't miss it, because Palpatine cackles and taunts Luke about it both times, openly and clearly. It's the entire point of that scene. Luke's victory in that sequence is not over Vader or Palpatine. It's over his own Dark Side leanings. He beats Vader, but only by tapping into the Dark Side. And Palpatine kicks his ass. Luke's entire journey was rooted in overcoming his own inherent Darkness. Hell, this is even the reason behind the big reveal that Vader is his father; that Luke has that potential within him. If you thought that internal conflict would just magically be over forever the moment Vader chucked Palpatine down the reactor well, I don't see how that's in any way reasonable at all. What we saw from Luke in TLJ was entirely in character. And I fundamentally think no one who argues otherwise paid much attention to his character path through the original trilogy. Because it's entirely about overcoming himself.

No full stop. Han returning is the character development, he abandons his selfish self to fight for a cause - he begins to believe in something and this is transparent. Especially since he becomes a top general. To abandon that for no reason is assassination.

And the entire point of Luke throwing away the saber in ROtJ is to say he rejects that potential - he's better than that since he's his own father's redemption. There is no falling anymore, he rose above that.

What we saw in TLJ was NOT in his character. Please.

- - - Updated - - -

You know it's funny. Typically the response to to the "ruined childhoods" complaint is to just go watch the originals. But it wasn't the evil SJWs who tried to ruin Star Wars that made it so hard to find the theatrical releases of the original trilogy.



The Luke who was this close to succumbing to the Dark Side and killing his father in a fit of rage? Nah, you're right. That character would never do something so heinous.

See above. And changes to the theatrical don't matter in this context. They still exist, they've been seen. They are the basis for the argument, to use the CGI filled versions is a strawman.