Dose Our Generation Have a Nostalgia Gatekeeping Problem?

[uuuhname]

the god awfulness that is Beast Wars.

hey now, BeastWars is really good, animation quality not withstanding.

[Syegfryed]

Teela wouldn't act like that in the original series because they never dealt with complex emotions as it was primarily and almost purely an extended toy advert.

Also anyone who watched the original series would know Teela was a teenager then anyway...

Of, because, hear me out, she was not an angry teen, but an full grow up soldier.

I'm assuming you didn't because you're clueless about what it contains.

Again, projecting.

Sorry to break it to you but having someone you care about kill themselves can mess you up whatever age you are. Grief isn't something that stops being a big deal when you pass the age of majority. This idea you have that adults aren't allowed emotions is just messed up.

Yeah, if you are a kid, she is a trained soldier, imagine if soldiers inw ar would bitch like this when their comrades die.

Especially when this have little to nothing regarding her.

"Look at this picture I photoshopped with traditionally male characteristics, see how it make a cartoon character appear more masculine." That's the worst argument for anything I've ever seen.

the only thing the artist did was to remove the hair and change the lips color

So you hate it because you don't understand how He-Man stories work

the good old "it fails because the fans didn't get it", classic.

But is hard for me, to believe you understand, or even take you serious, when you talk bad about beastwars

And can we all just take a moment to appreciate the irony of you claiming this series "shit on He-Man" while showing a preference for a series that dressed him in blue jeans, another series that decided Teela should be a younger girl and the god awfulness that is Beast Wars.

the only irony i see is you defending the truck driver and shitting on beastwars that was awesome.

[s_bushido]

I know it's off-topic at this point but why Adam or He-Man is a hero and what he sacrificed exactly if death is irrelevant in this universe?

His death wasn't irrelevant. He earned what was essentially paradise because of his actions in life. Paradise that he chose to give up when he learned how bad things had gotten without him.

[Dhrizzle]

I know it's off-topic at this point but why Adam or He-Man is a hero and what he sacrificed exactly if death is irrelevant in this universe?

Don't think it's irrelevant. "Champions" get a special heaven as a reward and it seems they can return from there at the cost of never being able to return. Also when Adam made his sacrifice he didn't know that was the afterlife.

[uuuhname]

the only irony i see is you defending the truck driver and shitting on beastwars that was awesome.

still wondering why you care if she looks like a truck driver or not...

[eschatological]

Enough with the personal attacks. GamerGate is also way off-topic for this subforum. And as literally ALL OF YOU know, conspiracies about social agendas and stuff like that belong in the cesspool that is GenOT, not here.

This thread is about gatekeeping, and toxic fandoms, and while sexism and misogyny might play a part in that, it's not appropriate for this subforum. This thread will be closed if it continues in this fashion.

[segara82]

Teela wouldn't act like that in the original series because they never dealt with complex emotions as it was primarily and almost purely an extended toy advert.

Also anyone who watched the original series would know Teela was a teenager then anyway...

Teela always was a capable character in her own right. Yes sometimes she was in trouble needed saving, but so did all other characters on the show, including He-Man (well, Adam specifically). And Teela also had her moments of glory.
Just rewatch the old series: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCtr6mtB_4M
She keeps her cool, looks for opportunities to strike back ...
Teela was trained as a soldier and officer, more or less since she could walk. For her to suddenly forget all that and turn into such an emotion driven hack is just plain bad writing.

And this show is not helping to portray strong female characters or the LGBt+ community.
It portrays the main female character with typical traits of toxic masculinity:
- physically masculine/buff
- aggression
- showing no emotion or suppressing emotions
- hyper-competitiveness
- needing to dominate or control others
- isolation
- low empathy
- entitlement

And while it is obvious that her and Andra are together, they only dance around the topic, never going full in and saying it outright. Classic queer-baiting.

[DreamSlaveOne]

His death wasn't irrelevant. He earned what was essentially paradise because of his actions in life. Paradise that he chose to give up when he learned how bad things had gotten without him.

Don't think it's irrelevant. "Champions" get a special heaven as a reward and it seems they can return from there at the cost of never being able to return. Also when Adam made his sacrifice he didn't know that was the afterlife.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Maybe it's more relevant to OP discussion than I have realized because my main gripe with modern stories is the inevitable status-quo in most storylines. Oh, hero X is dead, but don't you worry we have some plot device to bring him back or some alternative universe where we can borrow the hero or some past/future timelines to do the same. Why I should care about someone dying when I'm almost 90% sure it's only temporary?

[s_bushido]

Why I should care about someone dying when I'm almost 90% sure it's only temporary?

I mean...it depends entirely on the story. Stories about magic and other supernatural stuff, you can never be sure how permanent any particular death is. But I don't really see Orko making a miraculous return after everything that led up to his sacrifice. Because that was the point of it, whereas He-Man's sacrifice was less about his death and more about what he left behind...if that makes any sense.

[Fluorescent Chicken]

You are loyal to the generation of games you were raised on, for me, it was Everquest (and sort of WoW).

[Syegfryed]

still wondering why you care if she looks like a truck driver or not...

Because is different, way too different, of her past portrays

- - - Updated - - -

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Maybe it's more relevant to OP discussion than I have realized because my main gripe with modern stories is the inevitable status-quo in most storylines. Oh, hero X is dead, but don't you worry we have some plot device to bring him back or some alternative universe where we can borrow the hero or some past/future timelines to do the same. Why I should care about someone dying when I'm almost 90% sure it's only temporary?

That was just shock value, shock the audience with a big plottwist, break expectations, nowadays if you do that you are seeing as a revolutionary writer. See burning of teldrassil in wow as example

But even they knew it would be bad to keep him death as he is the soul of the franchise, instead just "kill him" to keep him away i guess.

[uuuhname]

Because is different, way too different, of her past portrays

so what? look, I understand for most people pop culture is the only culture they know of or engage with, but that doesn't make it so sacred as to never be open to new interpretations. like really what does it do to you that she isn't the kind of attractive you find sexually appealing? because don't go and say that's not why or else you wouldn't care in the first place, much less make it clear your problem is purely her appearance and that appearance being "not obviously feminine".

[Tyris Flare]

The arguments against Revelations, and a lot of other modern properties, isn't about those properties; it's pushback against positive female roles and LGBT representation.

Same as it was with Gamergate. Which was never about "ethics in game journalism". It's all a con to push an agenda of mysogyny, homophobia, and transphobia.

And for anyone who doesn't get what I'm talking about, here's a recent breakdown of exactly what went down with Gamergate, and you can see the direct comparisons to this stuff we're talking about here pretty easily; it's a different cover story for the same underlying movement. It's nearly an hour long, and I'm sorry for that, but there's a lot it needs to cover and it can't really be much shorter. I won't embed because it's not directly on-topic; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLYWHpgIoIw
.

It's so unbelievably facile to dismiss every criticism you don't like as part of some culture war conspiracy. Sometimes people just don't like movies and TV shows because they are bad. Or because they don't like how something was handled. It is subjective and says literally nothing about them as a person.

So many folks have just perfectly sheltered themselves so that they can classify easily dismiss anyone who likes the Wrong Things as Bad and anyone who likes the Correct Things as Good. It's a hilariously childish view of the world.

I mean look, the Star Wars sequels were absolute trash. But I don't think that people who liked it all have some secret agenda. It's just, like, their (incorrect) opinion, man. And disagreement is fine! In fact, it's way more interesting than consensus!

But the biggest sin of a lot of these creators (Smith being the latest) is trying to make a mass market property for the audience they want instead of the audience they have. That's fundamentally why they fail and underperform.

[s_bushido]

But the biggest sin of a lot of these creators (Smith being the latest) is trying to make a mass market property for the audience they want instead of the audience they have. That's fundamentally why they fail and underperform.

Underperform by what metric? Can you point to anything other than Star Wars not making as many tens of billions as it should have? Because I hope you don't believe that something being vote-bombed by butt-hurt idiots who never actually watched it is evidence that it "failed."

[Tyris Flare]

If you think Disney is happy with the performance of Solo, ROS, and accessory sales I don't know what to tell you lmao. The Mandalorian is basically an apology tour, especially the last episode.

But that's also not really the major point.

[Endus]

It's so unbelievably facile to dismiss every criticism you don't like as part of some culture war conspiracy. Sometimes people just don't like movies and TV shows because they are bad.

Not nearly as "facile" as proclaiming that your subjective dislike for a product is somehow an argument that the product is "bad", rather than just "not for you".

I do not in any way agree that Masters of the Universe: Revelations is "bad". Claims that it is are wrong. And I can be definitive about that because, if all you have as your argument is your subjective enjoyment, my own enjoyment is as concrete a bit of evidence as I need to provide.

You want to make a case that the thing is actually "bad" in any objective sense? Then make your argument. On objective, qualifiable, analytical grounds. Not "I don't like the story it's telling" or "I don't like how characters developed". I don't care what you like. Tell me what's objectively poorly done, in a way that everyone can agree with that objective analysis, or at least see where you're coming from.

Or because they don't like how something was handled. It is subjective and says literally nothing about them as a person.

One's subjective preferences very much does tell you something about a person.

So many folks have just perfectly sheltered themselves so that they can classify easily dismiss anyone who likes the Wrong Things as Bad and anyone who likes the Correct Things as Good. It's a hilariously childish view of the world.

That's . . . what you're doing. You're declaring a thing (Revelations, here) to be "bad", and thus those who like it are "wrong". I'm the one who's been saying those arguments fall flat and if you don't like it, feel free to enjoy other programs. You not liking a thing does not mean it's "bad" or "wrong" or a betrayal of your nostalgia; it just means this version might not be something you enjoy. Which is not a bad thing in and of itself. You're not entitled to have everything cater to you.

But the biggest sin of a lot of these creators (Smith being the latest) is trying to make a mass market property for the audience they want instead of the audience they have. That's fundamentally why they fail and underperform.

Fundamentally and deeply disagree. Star Wars, which you mentioned, died in focus groups and such. I'll put that blame on a director (Abrams) with a history of "no vision or plan whatsoever". It wasn't because of any appeal to an "audience they want"; the entire point of TFA was to appeal to core Star Wars fans with what was basically a retread of A New Hope, as a way to say "we know the prequels sucked, here's the Star Wars you remember from before, we got you". Which, to be fair, it mostly accomplished. Just without any idea of where to take any of the concepts or mysteries they introduced in that film into any cohesive story moving forward, which is where the problems emerged.

Also, the "audience they want" is the widest audience they can get. These properties aren't noble pieces of art made in poverty out of nothing but a love for the medium. They are very much products intended for mass-market release to as many viewers as they can reach. If they can attract more viewers by making changes, they're going to make those changes. Older fans can either get on board and accept that times have changed, or they can stick to the older content they prefer. What they don't get any right to do is to tell fans of the new stuff that the new stuff is "bad" because some things are a bit different or it appeals to a broader audience. You want to make those arguments, you can make them on objective grounds.

Like, we can agree there was no good reason to bring back Palpatine for Rise of Skywalker; it's a lazy retread that introduced little that benefited the sequel trilogy's arc, and retroactively cheapens Anakin's redemption because he didn't even succeed. That's an objectively qualifiable criticism; it has to do with how the reveal functions, narratively, and what it means for events in prior films in the continuity. It isn't about whether I "liked" it; I'll admit I love McDermott in the role and it hit the nostalgia buttons because I thought they might do something really cool, closer to what happens with the Emperor in The Old Republic MMO. So I was primed to like it, but I didn't because of the objective failings to make use of it properly.

If you don't like a thing, go enjoy what you do like, and stop bothering people who do enjoy it. Maybe it's just not for you, and that's fine.

- - - Updated - - -

If you think Disney is happy with the performance of Solo, ROS, and accessory sales I don't know what to tell you lmao. The Mandalorian is basically an apology tour, especially the last episode.

But that's also not really the major point.

Like, sure, they paid $4 billion for Lucasfilm and its rights.

But Disney made that money back within 6 years. It was a highly successful investment for Disney, regardless of what you think about their films' box office performances.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/30/six-...nvestment.html

That was including Solo, but not including Rise of Skywalker, which itself made a ton of money, criticisms aside.

[Tyris Flare]

I literally never mentioned Revelations fwiw*. I haven't seen it nor do I care about He-man. You seem to be projecting.

This is a broader point. There is no such thing as objectively good or bad fiction, and individuals are neither good nor bad from liking or disliking any content. Yet there's this constant obsession in modern culture to link meaningless opinions to greater sweeping culture war arguments. It's insanity. Most people don't even know what gamergate is, nor do they care. They just want to be entertained.

Thinking Black Panther is a mediocre marvel movie does not make someone racist. Loving Black Panther does not make someone virtuous. It's just a movie.

As for the audience point...I mean, duh? But when your stuff makes less money and has worse ratings than you expected, you probably aren't succeeding at getting a wide audience either.

Like, sure, they paid $4 billion for Lucasfilm and its rights.

But Disney made that money back within 6 years. It was a highly successful investment for Disney, regardless of what you think about their films' box office performances.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/30/six-...nvestment.html

That was including Solo, but not including Rise of Skywalker, which itself made a ton of money, criticisms aside.

Never said SW was unprofitable. This is more projecting. It also doesn't change that those movies underperformed in the eyes of Disney.

(where we should care about the profits of one of the most ruthless corporations on the planet is a different question)

*edit: I did mention Smith, so I can see the confusion. But I haven't watched that show and wasn't talking about it in particular, to be clear

[Endus]

Never said SW was unprofitable. This is more projecting. It also doesn't change that those movies underperformed in the eyes of Disney.

(where we should care about the profits of one of the most ruthless corporations on the planet is a different question)

I have no idea what definition you're using for "underperform" if you're not talking about how much money their money-making ventures made them. That's what people are talking about when they talk about how well a film has performed; how much money it made.

The only current-era Star Wars films that could be argued to have "underperformed" were Solo and Rise of Skywalker, and the latter only if the expectation was "ALL THE MONIES" and it only made "ACCEPTABLE AMOUNTS OF MONIES".

[Dhrizzle]

Of, because, hear me out, she was not an angry teen, but an full grow up soldier.

I'm sorry this English is too mangled. Are you trying to say that Teela was a full grown adult in the original series because she was aged 18 to 19, just a bit older than Adam.

Yeah, if you are a kid, she is a trained soldier, imagine if soldiers inw ar would bitch like this when their comrades die.

Adults can have emotional issues. Trained soldiers can have emotional issues, PTSD is a very real thing.

Especially when this have little to nothing regarding her.

Teela's two closest friends were Adam and He-Man. The rest of her close circle was Orko, Man-At-Arms and Cringer, all of which knew.

the only thing the artist did was to remove the hair and change the lips color

Yes, and it's already been illustrated that you can do that with real life women and make them look like men. Turns out human faces mostly look human and you can decorate them how you want.

the good old "it fails because the fans didn't get it", classic.

I didn't call you a fan, if you were you'd know that to get any sort of dramatic tension in a He-Man story you have to keep He-Man out of it for as long as possible because he has a similar issue to Superman of being overly powerful. Once he's on the scene it's usually just a matter of throwing henchmen at each other and big rocks at whatever McGuffin Skeletor is using to turn the sky purple or whatever. When the writers were really trying (instead of just showcasing the latest pieces of plastic kids should pester their parents to buy) they'd have Adam stuck at lunch with his dad or the sword would fall down a convenient crack or Skeletor would kidnap him and demand He-Man show up.

But is hard for me, to believe you understand, or even take you serious, when you talk bad about beastwars

It's the worst of all Transformers franchises, and I include the Bay movies, the weird long-chin series and the pre-schoolers rescue robot thing.

the only irony i see is you defending the truck driver and shitting on beastwars that was awesome.

I've got to ask because you keep bringing it up, what does "looking like a truck driver" mean to you? I know the stereotypes of beer-bellied dudes with plaid shirts, caps and impressive facial hair. I also know the reality which is truck drivers look like people because it's a job and not a phenotype. So what do you mean when you say Teela looks like one?

- - - Updated - - -

Teela always was a capable character in her own right. Yes sometimes she was in trouble needed saving, but so did all other characters on the show, including He-Man (well, Adam specifically). And Teela also had her moments of glory.
Just rewatch the old series: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCtr6mtB_4M
She keeps her cool, looks for opportunities to strike back ...
Teela was trained as a soldier and officer, more or less since she could walk. For her to suddenly forget all that and turn into such an emotion driven hack is just plain bad writing.

And this show is not helping to portray strong female characters or the LGBt+ community.
It portrays the main female character with typical traits of toxic masculinity:
- physically masculine/buff

Teela doesn't look masculine though, her body shape is based on female MMA fighters. Also having a masculine form isn't really a trait of toxic masculinity.

- aggression

She's a warrior, aggression is going to come into it at some point. She isn't universally aggressive though, she's warm with some of her friends and cold with the people she's angry with but I wouldn't call her overly aggressive with her friends and allies.

- showing no emotion or suppressing emotions

Not really a thing here either, in fact the usual criticism is that she's too emotional, though watching the show will tell you what she is going through and also show her starting to mend that part of herself.

- hyper-competitiveness

I don't really see it in Revelations. Teela always had a strong competitive streak and in the 2000s' reboot you could argue she was hyper-competitive (although this was shown as a character flaw and something that lessened as her character developed) but I don't know what you are talking about in this series.

- needing to dominate or control others

No idea, examples?

- isolation

In what way? Yes she isolates herself from her friends but that isn't shown as a positive at all, and reconnecting with them is shown as a turning point in her life. Also she never totally isolates herself as she has backup in Andra and is shown to be doing good for the random villages Eternia seems to be covered in.

- low empathy

Really not getting this at all. I don't think she would have been going around doing the hero thing, manage to relate to Evil Lyn, go on the mission to save the world and make up with Adam if she was low on empathy.

- entitlement

In what way?

And while it is obvious that her and Andra are together, they only dance around the topic, never going full in and saying it outright. Classic queer-baiting.

I'm sure you're just imagining things there as well, Teela didn't seem to be anything more than a mentor or a leader to Andra. Besides it's not like the Mattel have been shy about putting queer themes very much front-and-centre in She-Ra so I don't see why they'd keep it on the DL for the more adult aimed series. Especially as they'd probably know they'd already riled up the easily offended by putting a woman front and centre.

[eschatological]

Well, y'all can't seem to stop discussing social agenda/culture war BS, so I'm closing this. Do better.