Gatekeeping

[AeneasBK]

The prequels are nowadays only valued more due to two reasons: The Clone Wars cartoon basically overshadows the memory of most about the sequels and all the kids who loved them are now grown up adults. Not to forget that due to social media, online discource nowadays is less gatekept, so that people who like the sequels have can actually express that without being bashed by tide nit group of toxic hardcore nerds, which wasn't the case on the internet back when the prequels came out.

It's what I found so funny about people bashing the sequels. And made me modify my expectations of them before I went to the cinema to see them.

Oh, and I'd venture a slim "Obi-Wan Kenobi memes" as one of the reasons the prequels are still valued.

[Diaphin]

It's what I found so funny about people bashing the sequels. And made me modify my expectations of them before I went to the cinema to see them.

Oh, and I'd venture a slim "Obi-Wan Kenobi memes" as one of the reasons the prequels are still valued.

Once we get a new trilogy in ten years or so we will see all the guys who grew up on the sequels bitching about those and holding up the Sequels as this undervalued master piece and how the new trilogy is be total shit and ruining Star Wars.

[Theodarzna]

Because, per usual, you framed your opinion as fact,

This is a forum for stating ones opinion, its called context. I'd hope that would be obvious.

- - - Updated - - -

Going by just your experience is fine but is also why I said your assertions were inaccurate. As many seem to be calling you out on in form or another.

I specifically linked to the Good Reads page so you don't necessarily have to take my word for it but can see the views of others positively and negatively.

Are they? According to people whom are my full time reply guys who would be insulting me if I said the sky is blue.

I have no idea what the contents of the book are or what its even about. So, sorry but I'm not giving you brownie points for linking a random book saying "Trust me" without even a quote or anything from said book.

- - - Updated - - -

"The Theo" makes it easy. Like when "The Theo" refers to herself in the third person.

I'm starting to think the "People just want to play an immortal fursona with endless superhero levels of powers" struck a nerve with a lot of people here which kinda suggests that was an apt description of what some people on this forum would do or do do.

[Egomaniac]

I'm starting to think the "People just want to play an immortal fursona with endless superhero levels of powers" struck a nerve with a lot of people here which kinda suggests that was an apt description of what some people on this forum would do or do do.

And you got that from me mocking you for referring to yourself in the third person?

[Lothal]

Dude, the bit in bold. That's toxicity, right there. That's gatekeeping. Rather than considering all those audiences "Star Wars fans", you're trying to restrict the "true fans" to your own subgroup, and dismiss the interests of the rest.

This post was seriously like a guy saying "I don't beat my wife, I just smack her around a bit so she knows who's boss."

Your comparisons with racism and physical abuse are absolutely absurd, I refuse to discuss with you anymore. I tolerated it once, no more.

- - - Updated - - -

Also there’s nothing remotely suss in the fact “real fans” tend to be almost exclusively white dudes while everyone else being a “new fan”, right. /s

Same as above. What the hell?

- - - Updated - - -

It's this weird reaction some people have with fandom; they feel that because they are fans of an IP, they are entitled to something, the creators are expected to serve their interests, and any failure to do so is thus a failure by those creators.

The reality is that you're owed nothing, as a fan. If you don't like newer content, just stop watching newer content. Curate your fandom. The new stuff doesn't appeal to you? Oh well. If it appeals to others, then it's just not aimed at you. And you get to accept that and move on with your life. Find new things to be a fan of.

This is particularly true of big-budget blockbusters. Sometimes, a TV show or other IP can survive with a niche cadre of devoted fans; Supernatural managed to eke out 15 seasons from those of us who loved the show and our support. But big blockbuster movies can't do that. Their budgets are large enough that they need to bring more butts into more seats, to make back the investment. If that means broadening to a new audience, then that's the only reasonable tactic.

If we control for inflation (and we should), here's box office figures for all Star Wars films; https://ew.com/movies/star-wars-movi...632964#5632964

A New Hope was a phenomenon, at $1.3 billion, but Eps 5 and 6 were only about $700 million each.

The Force Awakens made the second-most of any Star Wars film, controlling for inflation. By a lot. TLJ and TRoS both made more than Eps 1 and 2. By any fiscal measure, the sequel trilogy was more successful than the prequel trilogy. The only real dud in there was Solo.

Sure, maybe the new films made you angry. Don't care. They made money. Which was their purpose. The creators do not owe the "old fans" anything. They owe their investors. Which means they need to make money. And Star Wars has always been about making money, even from A New Hope; Lucas was leaning into merchandising SUPER early, seeing dollar signs in toy sales.

Don't like 'em? Maybe you're just not that into Star Wars any more. Stop flagellating yourself and blaming the creators for it. The only one hurting you here is you, and it's the combination of that self-harm and the desire to gatekeep and keep new fans away from the IP that lead to people calling this "toxic fandom".

Your logic makes sense, but you're misinterpreting the data. The article you posted yourself proves TLJ and RoS was a terrible failure. TFA had a stellar commercial success, much better than the prequels, but obviously left a sour taste in many peoples mouths because it fell to 60% on TLJ. RoS is the only finale of the trilogies to make less than its predecessor.

You're being blind if you wanna claim I'm only speaking for myself. I know I'm not speaking for everyone. I know I'm not speaking for you. That's all completely fine. As a matter of fact, I'm speaking for like half the viewers of the movies - you can't dismiss this.

I know I'm not owed anything. Damn I don't even care that much. As you said I just ignore the sequels and my life is absolutely fulfilling, thanks for asking. I just believe it was done in a nonsensical way and the numbers and the division among the viewers proves that.

Anyway the entire reason we're having this conversation is the term "gatekeeping" so I'll go back to it. Once again - I'm fine if people enjoy those movies. I can still think they stick and wish they weren't made the way they were. A very significant part of the viewers agree. How is that gatekeeping? I could very well say the people who enjoy the sequels are keeping me or of the gate, they don't want people in who didn't like the movies. The whole term makes no sense. It just creates division. As you said, both sides are right.

[BeepBoo]

I see nothing wrong with hating it when things aren't catered to you. There's nothing wrong with feeling let down or disappointed with anything for any reason, and there's nothing really wrong with having a different opinion on a topic than someone and expressing disagreement, either. The whole "no true scottsman" thing needs to die and people need to learn to stop thinking of things as "only TRUE fans!" and start rephrasing things in non-fallacious ways that accurately reflect the situation (whereby people who like something different from themselves aren't "lesser" in any way, shape, or form; different doesn't inherently apply lesser).

OTOH, gatekeeping is very applicable in a lot of situations (mostly competitive ones). When I watch basketball, I want to see the best of the best, whatever that looks like. I don't want to see a bunch of "equitable" crap shoehorned into teams. I don't want to see "inclusion" etc. Similarly with awards and recognition, gatekeeping is important for something retaining it's specialness.

Sommelier, Chess Grandmaster, Olympic gold medalist, etc. All of those are necessarily gatekept. More artificial inclusion in that stuff just lessens the specialness and thus the meaningfulness of the distinctions.

[AeneasBK]

Once we get a new trilogy in ten years or so we will see all the guys who grew up on the sequels bitching about those and holding up the Sequels as this undervalued master piece and how the new trilogy is be total shit and ruining Star Wars.

I don't know how old you are but I think we can enjoy that cycle repeating several times still

[Rennadrel]

It's funny how those who accuse others of gatekeeping are usually the biggest gatekeepers. And honestly, fandoms have failed to gatekeep their interests from people who are hell bent on destroying and radically changing the things they love.

[Endus]

Your comparisons with racism and physical abuse are absolutely absurd, I refuse to discuss with you anymore. I tolerated it once, no more.

Analogies aren't that complicated a concept. Stop clutching at pearls.

Your logic makes sense, but you're misinterpreting the data. The article you posted yourself proves TLJ and RoS was a terrible failure. TFA had a stellar commercial success, much better than the prequels, but obviously left a sour taste in many peoples mouths because it fell to 60% on TLJ. RoS is the only finale of the trilogies to make less than its predecessor.

TLJ pulled in 55% of what TFA did.
Attack of the Clones made 61% of what Phantom Menace did.
And Empire pulled in 54% of what A New Hope made.

The distinction you're trying to draw basically does not exist. I'm not the one "misinterpreting the data", here.

You're being blind if you wanna claim I'm only speaking for myself. I know I'm not speaking for everyone. I know I'm not speaking for you. That's all completely fine. As a matter of fact, I'm speaking for like half the viewers of the movies - you can't dismiss this.

You claimed to speak for all the "old fans". That was not true. That's my point, there. I am an "old fan", and roundly disagree with you.

I know I'm not owed anything. Damn I don't even care that much. As you said I just ignore the sequels and my life is absolutely fulfilling, thanks for asking. I just believe it was done in a nonsensical way and the numbers and the division among the viewers proves that.

You claimed the new films were bad because they aimed at new audiences, rather than old fans.

That's a claim that the old fans were owed something, inherently. You just don't like it when I present your same arguments in a slightly different light.

Anyway the entire reason we're having this conversation is the term "gatekeeping" so I'll go back to it. Once again - I'm fine if people enjoy those movies. I can still think they stick and wish they weren't made the way they were. A very significant part of the viewers agree. How is that gatekeeping? I could very well say the people who enjoy the sequels are keeping me or of the gate, they don't want people in who didn't like the movies. The whole term makes no sense. It just creates division. As you said, both sides are right.

You keep saying things like "a very significant part of the viewers agree". There's a vocal subgroup, yes. But The Force Awakens did bananas good, in terms of ticket sales. TLJ didn't do that badly at all, right on par with every 2nd film's followup in a Star Wars trilogy. TRoS suffered slightly, but not by the margin you're claiming.

How about reviews? Let's check reviews; https://www.metacritic.com/search/al...20wars/results

The highest-rated is A New Hope, at 90.
Second-highest? The Last Jedi. At 84.
Third? Empire Strikes Back, at 82.
Fourth is The Force Awakens, at 80.
The rest are all below 70, and most below 60. Including Return of the Jedi, at 58.

So, two of the sequel trilogy are deemed, by critics, as among the top 4 Star Wars films ever made.

You're a vocal subgroup. The squeaky wheels. There's basically no indication that your dislike of these films has had any real effect, not in terms of ticket sales, and not in terms of critical acclaim.

[Lothal]

Analogies aren't that complicated a concept. Stop clutching at pearls.

OK great, I was happy at least one poster in this thread is willing to have a civilized conversation. Guess I was wrong. If you can't see how illustrating an opinion on movie fandom with beating your wife or racism is absurd, there is not discussion to be had.

TLJ pulled in 55% of what TFA did.
Attack of the Clones made 61% of what Phantom Menace did.
And Empire pulled in 54% of what A New Hope made.

The distinction you're trying to draw basically does not exist. I'm not the one "misinterpreting the data", here.

You're smart so I know this is not an error but another of your attempts at manipulation, but I will try and repeat it anyway: I know all the first movies were the most succesful of the three trilogies. What is different with the sequels is that the population kept dropping throughout the trilogy - in the originals and prequels trilogies, the second movie was the weakest. In the sequels, the final was the weakest. That clearly shows that many people were disillusioned with the movies and refused to even finish watching them.

You claimed to speak for all the "old fans". That was not true. That's my point, there. I am an "old fan", and roundly disagree with you.

That was a shorthand - since it obviously wasn't a good one, we are having this conversation where you can clearly deduce the nuance I originally missed with that statement. So instead of nitpicking something I said pages ago, please reply to all the stuff I explained on top of that claim.

You claimed the new films were bad because they aimed at new audiences, rather than old fans.

That's a claim that the old fans were owed something, inherently. You just don't like it when I present your same arguments in a slightly different light.

It's not, you are framing it in a way I never claimed. I don't think the fans are owed anything. It's a god damn movie. I just think it's absolutely understandable that they have expectations for a sequel of a movie they like and that they are disappointed if it doesn't meet them.

You keep saying things like "a very significant part of the viewers agree". There's a vocal subgroup, yes. But The Force Awakens did bananas good, in terms of ticket sales. TLJ didn't do that badly at all, right on par with every 2nd film's followup in a Star Wars trilogy. TRoS suffered slightly, but not by the margin you're claiming.

How about reviews? Let's check reviews; https://www.metacritic.com/search/al...20wars/results

The highest-rated is A New Hope, at 90.
Second-highest? The Last Jedi. At 84.
Third? Empire Strikes Back, at 82.
Fourth is The Force Awakens, at 80.
The rest are all below 70, and most below 60. Including Return of the Jedi, at 58.

So, two of the sequel trilogy are deemed, by critics, as among the top 4 Star Wars films ever made.

You're a vocal subgroup. The squeaky wheels. There's basically no indication that your dislike of these films has had any real effect, not in terms of ticket sales, and not in terms of critical acclaim.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jvchama...movie-reviews/

I'll reply with this - once again and for the last time, I'm absolutely happy that many people enjoy the movies. That doesn't change the fact that the movies are extremely dividing.

You keep framing as if I feel butthurt about the movies being liked by others. No, that's not the case. I just wish they made universally good movies likable by the majority of people. Which they objectively didn't. The whole gatekeeping issue stems from this - if the creators didn't create such divisive movies, nobody would need to argue about it on the internet.

[Endus]

OK great, I was happy at least one poster in this thread is willing to have a civilized conversation. Guess I was wrong. If you can't see how illustrating an opinion on movie fandom with beating your wife or racism is absurd, there is not discussion to be had.

Trying to feign offense over a simple analogy comes off as pretty dishonest when you immediately follow it with this;

You're smart so I know this is not an error but another of your attempts at manipulation

Yeah, screw that. You were wrong about some pretty basic facts. I'm not "manipulating" anything, here.

but I will try and repeat it anyway: I know all the first movies were the most succesful of the three trilogies. What is different with the sequels is that the population kept dropping throughout the trilogy - in the originals and prequels trilogies, the second movie was the weakest. In the sequels, the final was the weakest. That clearly shows that many people were disillusioned with the movies and refused to even finish watching them.

It doesn't show that at all. That's a story you've made up in your own mind.

In fact, I would argue that the more obvious answer is right in front of you, in the critical reviews of the prequel trilogy; Rise of Skywalker was reviewed much less positively than The Force Awakens or The Last Jedi. It was a worse film. And thus, earned less. That's it.

There's no evidence of any supposed backlash by diehard fans.

It's not, you are framing it in a way I never claimed. I don't think the fans are owed anything. It's a god damn movie. I just think it's absolutely understandable that they have expectations for a sequel of a movie they like and that they are disappointed if it doesn't meet them.

. . . Seriously?

If you had "expectations", you had things you felt you were owed.

Literally the point, here.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jvchama...movie-reviews/

Given how common brigading and the like has become, I don't consider audience reviews to be worth anything at all.

I'm also not particularly sure you read your own source, since it makes the points that A> critics understand what makes a movie "good" and normal viewers generally don't, and B> audience reviews are wildly inconsistent and unreliable to boot, whereas critic reviews are generally pretty consistent.

I'll reply with this - once again and for the last time, I'm absolutely happy that many people enjoy the movies. That doesn't change the fact that the movies are extremely dividing.

I'm disputing that the division is anywhere as big or significant as you seem to think. It didn't show up in the critic reviews. It didn't show up in ticket sales. Sure, there's a vocal subgroup of fans who are SUPER bent out of shape and make a lot of noise online, but so what? That doesn't mean anything. It's like when Qanon types talked about the "hidden majority" and how Trump was gonna declare martial law and take back the entire country because the only way Democrats could've won was by stealing the election. Turned out that was just garbage horseshit and Q followers are not particularly politically relevant. Their perspective of their own importance was out of step with reality.

You keep framing as if I feel butthurt about the movies being liked by others. No, that's not the case. I just wish they made universally good movies likable by the majority of people. Which they objectively didn't.

That's just false. You literally don't have any basis for this. Other than maybe audience reviews on review sites, which even your own source said couldn't be used as a reliable estimation of anything.

Edit: heck, your own source claimed that IMDB's audience scores were seemingly the most accurate, and IMDB, for TLJ, gives an audience rating of 7/10. With less than 25% giving it under a 5/10. So much for the majority dislike theory. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2527336/

[Diaphin]

I don't know how old you are but I think we can enjoy that cycle repeating several times still

In my 20s. I'm among the kids who grew up on the Prequel theory, though I still kinda like the Sequels. They are flawed in many ways and don't really fit together as a trilogy in many ways, but they are fun movies individually.

- - - Updated - - -

It's funny how those who accuse others of gatekeeping are usually the biggest gatekeepers. And honestly, fandoms have failed to gatekeep their interests from people who are hell bent on destroying and radically changing the things they love.

By destroying and radically changing the things you love you mean private companies acknowledging that women, blacks and gays exist through their privately owned property with which they are entitled to do what they deem fit and banning people for insulting people or expressing fascist rhetoric on their privately own forums or servers?

- - - Updated - - -

You keep framing as if I feel butthurt about the movies being liked by others. No, that's not the case. I just wish they made universally good movies likable by the majority of people. Which they objectively didn't. The whole gatekeeping issue stems from this - if the creators didn't create such divisive movies, nobody would need to argue about it on the internet.

You are butthourt because the movies had a female protagonist, a plus sized asian and a black man.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm disputing that the division is anywhere as big or significant as you seem to think. It didn't show up in the critic reviews. It didn't show up in ticket sales. Sure, there's a vocal subgroup of fans who are SUPER bent out of shape and make a lot of noise online, but so what? That doesn't mean anything. It's like when Qanon types talked about the "hidden majority" and how Trump was gonna declare martial law and take back the entire country because the only way Democrats could've won was by stealing the election. Turned out that was just garbage horseshit and Q followers are not particularly politically relevant. Their perspective of their own importance was out of step with reality.

You mean a fascist subgroup of fans who are butthurt because the movies have a female lead and a black man in it and somebody somewhere online told them Kathleen Kennedy has an unspecified nefarious feminist agenda which is bad because feminism bad according to Soygon and that basement dweller who literally gets left alone in the basement when his wife goes out to eat pizza who also got banned from Magic the Gathering for creeping on a female cosplayer.

I mean, can we just call it by its name? Most of the vocal backlash about the new movies was done by people who are alt-light at best and outright fascists who can't even form a coherent criticism. And we know this simply by looking at what all the most infamous and most watched Sequel critics on the internet talk about in the rest of their videos.

And its the same with tons of Gatekeeping in modern nerd culture. Yeah, there are also the elitist nerds there, but most of the time its just fascist who are butthurt about women and gays and the blacks invading their fandom. Look at that guy who constantly bitches about fursonas here on the thread. Do you believe that he doesn't at the very least watches tons of fascist youtube commentators on his freedom?

[Orby]

I think the term of gatekeeping is so more regularly used today because more people are openly gatekeeping. Especially on socila media where you see so much self entitlement of how things should apply to them and not to a broader audience.

I see a lot of this in the comic and art industry, its bonkers. Iits stressful because you see good artists get harassed because they dare draw how they like because others wanna gatekeep how certain things look and feel. Need I even go into the whole ongoing comicsgate shit thats going on with some female co workers going to get a milkshake and getting harassed because someone knew that they were all female daring to work in a comics industry. Also on the flip side people harassing male artists like J. Scott Campbell because he likes to draw in a certain way. There is gatekeeping on both sides, although more on the other side. But its really sad to see good artists just be bullied because if their style. Its all very unhealthy.

[Rennadrel]

By destroying and radically changing the things you love you mean private companies acknowledging that women, blacks and gays exist through their privately owned property with which they are entitled to do what they deem fit and banning people for insulting people or expressing fascist rhetoric on their privately own forums or servers?


- - - Updated - - -

You mean a fascist subgroup of fans who are butthurt because the movies have a female lead and a black man in it and somebody somewhere online told them Kathleen Kennedy has an unspecified nefarious feminist agenda which is bad because feminism bad according to Soygon and that basement dweller who literally gets left alone in the basement when his wife goes out to eat pizza who also got banned from Magic the Gathering for creeping on a female cosplayer.

No. Take D&D for example. A game that is entirely based on your own IMAGINATION when it comes to character creation. You get idiots like the creators of Candlekeep Mysteries who think that D&D, being a game entirely fictional and based entirely upon the imaginations of the players participating, is ableist because there's nothing in D&D rules about people who are handicapped in wheelchairs. Or the racists who think that orcs are representative of black people and demand that be changed in the rules too. Like, it's god damn fantasy, people don't have to roleplay as themselves. That's the sort of nonsense I am talking about. Frankly I don't mind if POC, LGBT and female characters existing in any space that I enjoy, they are more than welcome. But Christ on a cracker people NEED to learn to write because that's why a lot of woke media is bombing left, right and centre.

That's exactly why my generation tends to loath the sequel trilogy. Rey is such a massive Mary Sue it's embarrassing. Like, name me a scenario from the get go where she has to face anywhere near the level of adversity or pain that Luke and Anakin had to face. Not to mention they literally shit on all of the original characters to the point where Mark Hamill, ya know, the official face of the Star Wars franchise, is dunking on Disney's sequel trilogy for the way they treated his character and Han by killing them off like they did. That's also ignoring the absolutely awful story arc of Rey because they couldn't find a director and writer who both understands the Star Wars universe and how to write within it. I also find it ironic that after the acquisition they rejected any notions of using the existing Expanded Universe content, only to go back on it because a lot of it actually makes far more sense and is well written from a story standpoint.

Do you know why the Mandalorian is wildly popular with my group? Because while it still has some aspects of the woke culture that Disney has tried to shove down Star Wars fans throats, it's still a really well written show and not a bunch of disjointed nonsense that employs nuance. Because nuance and story structure matter, as does writing good characters and dialogue. And guess what? If you want a franchise to be successful and popular, you need to appeal to everyone, and that includes the old school Star Wars fans, both of my parents generation since they were teens when the films came out originally, mine who grew up on the remastered original trilogy in the early 90's, as well as this next generation. And guess what? My generation and my parents generation, are still the majority of Star Wars fans, not your generation. So maybe having something for everyone, is the best way to do things, rather than being stubborn and ignoring the feelings of long term fans who want good story writing and believable characters. Not to mention not killing off our favourite characters in such an awful and disrespectful way.

The more people like Kathleen Kennedy try to shove their woke agenda down the throats of people who have been fans for most of their lives and then ignoring our honest criticisms about why the product is garbage, maybe she ought to compromise, not to mention stop hiring racists and ideologues to write shows and films. Also, promoting racists like Kryistina Arielle for the High Republic is peak irony while they try to pretend to be inclusive, yet she's got a laundry list a mile long of racist Tweets to her name.

[draynay]

I'm starting to think the "People just want to play an immortal fursona with endless superhero levels of powers" struck a nerve with a lot of people here which kinda suggests that was an apt description of what some people on this forum would do or do do.

"Everyone hates my opinion so it must be true" just sounds like a coping mechanism for being unpopular, yet you're in favor of gatekeeping, go figure.

[Elegiac]

No. Take D&D for example. A game that is entirely based on your own IMAGINATION when it comes to character creation. You get idiots like the creators of Candlekeep Mysteries who think that D&D, being a game entirely fictional and based entirely upon the imaginations of the players participating, is ableist because there's nothing in D&D rules about people who are handicapped in wheelchairs.

Actually, no; the accusations of ableism are in fact a response to people like you complaining about people introducing optional rules for character handicaps somehow breaking your suspension of belief in a meta-canon where major lore characters have literally been to 21st century, real world Earth.

Or the racists who think that orcs are representative of black people and demand that be changed in the rules too.

"Here's how drawing attention to the racial coding in fantasy tropes is the actual racism, not the racial coding itself..."

Like, it's god damn fantasy, people don't have to roleplay as themselves. That's the sort of nonsense I am talking about. Frankly I don't mind if POC, LGBT and female characters existing in any space that I enjoy

Clearly you do or you wouldn't be insisting that their inclusion is responsible for a decline in quality while having a double standard when the complaints are also present or even the norm for characters fitting the "default" demographic in media.

That's exactly why my generation tends to loath the sequel trilogy. Rey is such a massive Mary Sue it's embarrassing. Like, name me a scenario from the get go where she has to face anywhere near the level of adversity or pain that Luke and Anakin had to face.

That's not what defines a Mary Sue, sweetheart, but it is telling as to the quality of the criticism "your generation" is choosing to throw our, rofl.

Not to mention they literally shit on all of the original characters to the point where Mark Hamill, ya know, the official face of the Star Wars franchise, is dunking on Disney's sequel trilogy for the way they treated his character and Han by killing them off like they did. That's also ignoring the absolutely awful story arc of Rey because they couldn't find a director and writer who both understands the Star Wars universe and how to write within it. I also find it ironic that after the acquisition they rejected any notions of using the existing Expanded Universe content, only to go back on it because a lot of it actually makes far more sense and is well written from a story standpoint.

Rose Tico's wikipedia profile is literally the longest of any of the sequel characters purely from documenting all the harassment Kelly Marie Tran received and you really think that Mark Hamill getting his knickers in a twist because Rian actually did something novel with the Star Wars universe for a change is the important takeaway, huh? Lol.

Do you know why the Mandalorian is wildly popular with my group? Because while it still has some aspects of the woke culture that Disney has tried to shove down Star Wars fans throats

Thus disproving your bullshit that inclusion of "woke culture" is in fact a quality drop, you just tend to focus more on the poor quality stuff that is inclusive because poor quality stuff that isn't inclusive is the norm.

it's still a really well written show and not a bunch of disjointed nonsense that employs nuance. Because nuance and story structure matter, as does writing good characters and dialogue. And guess what? If you want a franchise to be successful and popular, you need to appeal to everyone

Conflating good writing with popularity is a fallacious argument, hun.

and that includes the old school Star Wars fans, both of my parents generation since they were teens when the films came out originally, mine who grew up on the remastered original trilogy in the early 90's, as well as this next generation. And guess what? My generation and my parents generation, are still the majority of Star Wars fans, not your generation. So maybe having something for everyone, is the best way to do things, rather than being stubborn and ignoring the feelings of long term fans who want good story writing and believable characters. Not to mention not killing off our favourite characters in such an awful and disrespectful way.

> Have something for everyone
> "Forced diversity is bad"

Just a reminder, hun; all the shit you're posting about Luke's death being disrespectful is subjective and saying that it isn't because you happen to have a horde of neckbeards agreeing with you is a fallacious argument.

The more people like Kathleen Kennedy try to shove their woke agenda down the throats of people who have been fans for most of their lives and then ignoring our honest criticisms about why the product is garbage, maybe she ought to compromise, not to mention stop hiring racists and ideologues to write shows and films. Also, promoting racists like Kryistina Arielle for the High Republic is peak irony while they try to pretend to be inclusive, yet she's got a laundry list a mile long of racist Tweets to her name.

This is so on script I can already predict that your next post is going to contain some flavor of trying to paint Gina Carano as a victim. She's not going to fuck you, dude. Rofl.

"Everyone hates my opinion so it must be true" just sounds like a coping mechanism for being unpopular, yet you're in favor of gatekeeping, go figure.

Like I said: fandom has a lot of psychological analogues with more traditional cults and fandoms that gatekeep tend to do so because their belief systems do not stand up to external scrutiny (in this case, because their belief systems are actually kinda bigoted), so they construct arbitrary thresholds in order to weed out dissent.

And strangely enough this primarily tends to happen when a fandom is mostly composed of or subsequently gets taken over by men. See: Star Trek and MLP.

EDIT: Also did I hallucinate or was someone actually saying that Return of the Jedi was an objectively better movie than Empire solely because of its box office performance, like...???

[Fencers]

I have no idea what the contents of the book are or what its even about. So, sorry but I'm not giving you brownie points for linking a random book saying "Trust me" without even a quote or anything from said book.

You can't click the link and see the book description, user reviews, book quotes, excerpts and decipher from the text and context in which I linked and replied to you what the book is about?

Okay, well, have a nice day anyhow.

[Theodarzna]

You can't click the link and see the book description, user reviews, book quotes, excerpts and decipher from the text and context in which I linked and replied to you what the book is about?

Okay, well, have a nice day anyhow.

Cool, thanks for the assignment, I get to read through a bunch of quotes until one of them strikes me and I become a dutiful person in full agreement. Neat!

[Elegiac]

Cool, thanks for the assignment, I get to read through a bunch of quotes until one of them strikes me and I become a dutiful person in full agreement. Neat!

"I won't read your evidence because I'm afraid it might show me my position is full of shit" isn't the sort of thing I'd want to be shouting from the rooftops, but you do you.

[Krastyn]

The thing is, she mentioned role playing as a thing that got harder with 5e.

I'm going to need you to quote that. Theo's post stated that the changes blurred the lines between classes and abilities. This makes it easier from an RP perspective as you can do wahtever you want with any class. Mechanically though, it also squishes the difference between an "specialist" and a generalist.

- - - Updated - - -

Both sides might be right but it's it a good design decision though? What's the point in making something more accessible if you alienate a large part of the original audience, why not just make an alternative instead?.

In the case of D&D, I don't think that D&D is alienating a large portion of its original audience. I think some people are upset, but those who are can either a) play the older versions they prefer, b) create house rules for 5e, which a lot of people do already, or c) find a different system (there are plenty of D20 systems out there).

WotC is doing it for the same reasons Blizzard doesn't 100% focus WoW on hardcore raiders. They want to make as much money as possible..

- - - Updated - - -

I feel 5e is better for roleplay because there are less feats and such. It's less about how the mechanics play, and more about how you play.

Again, this partly comes down to personal preference. Any system lets you roleplay whoever the hell you want. The mechanics of each system determine how successful your character is.

In 3.5, the gap between someone who has dedicated their entire life to being good at X, is going to be significantly better at it, than your typical adventurer.

In 5e, that gap is way, way narrower. It makes most characters pretty good at almost everything.