Dose Our Generation Have a Nostalgia Gatekeeping Problem?

[Jinpachi]

I tried to go back and watch some of the original cartoons - Transformers, G.I. Joe, He-man, etc. They don't stand the test of time. They were fucking awful, but we were biased because there really wasn't anything else around like it at the time. THAT'S why the nostalgia fury. Much better stories in comics and books, but mUh tOyBoX. We're all guilty of it.

[Magical Mudcrab]

I think it largely depends on what you mean by "gatekeeping". There's (2) ways in which I've seen gatekeeping happen:
(1) Is from people who are more ideologically driven and are trying to expel beliefs contrary to their own from a hobby. This could include people who complain about injection of racial politics (or other "woke" issues) into comics, but when people do so this is largely ignorance on their part. Most hobbies that this happens to, ironically, have histories of being used as a medium to push for progress.

(2) Is more understandable, and it's pushing against unwanted change. This has been happening a bit in the Warhammer 40k community where Games Workshop is trying to appeal to broader audiences and has, in some ways, toned down the grimdark nature of the universe in order to do so. This has led to very negative reactions from most of the community, and is a reasonable problem to have: the hobby you enjoy should not change if there is no reason to change (i.e.: in Wh40k's instance, there is no reason to reduce the grim nature of the setting, and doing so leads to understandable negative reactions).

[dwightyo39]

I'm just waiting for a remake of the old GI Joe cartoons (one of my favorites in the 80s) where Destro has a three some with Scarlet and the Baroness, Flint eats Lady Jay's ass, and Duke and Gung Ho give each other the old dutch rudder.

[Rennadrel]

There is a severe problem with people not wanting to put the toys down. I'm slightly older than the OP, and this inability to leave the trappings of childhood behind (and then act like children either defending or criticising) is disturbing. It's [redacted] He-Man. The last time I picked up a He-Man (or any other action figure) was about 1992. I haven't watched the show, and won't because I'm not 11 anymore, but the vitriol coming from both directions is childish. Especially coming from adults.

- - - Updated - - -



Does positive review "brigading" happen?

Considering how many "critic reviews" are in complete lock-step with one another, especially in the gaming industry, it's pretty easy to understand why people have stopped taking them at face value. Especially when they all read pretty similarly too. So I'd say it happens in the sense that it's the same group who like to jerk off mediocre films constantly. See all the films and shows that have negative to mediocre RT audience reviews but are somehow over 90% from critics, while classics and generally beloved older films actually have much lower critic scores. Like Forest Gump is a universally loved movie and it's only got like a 70% RT critic score. So yes, there's definitely a rather large collective of "critics" who are significantly overplaying the quality of shows and movies just like there's too many reactionaries that try to dunk on shows just because without any valid criticism.

- - - Updated - - -

She specifically used the word "grossed" and you're trying to say she was talking about "net".

She goes on to talk about the costs:



And again the article isn't just about Box Office Perfomance:



Merchandise. Lots of money in Merchandise.



Yeah, you may have heard about this little thing called "COVID-19"...it kinda savaged the movie and theme park industries last year. Also, has nothing to do with Disney's aquisition of Star Wars.

There's lots of money in merchandise, assuming people want to buy your stuff. People don't want to buy toys of forgetful characters and uninteresting events. The OG trilogy had so many memorable things about it that were easily made into toys, not to mention all of the books that spawned in the years following, from expanded universe stories to books like those featuring focal points like ships and vehicles in the Star Wars universe (used to have that technical readout book on ships which was cool). Also, it's a significantly different attitude towards toys than it was for us in the 80's and 90's. Kids aren't nearly as interested these days in playing with figurines and toy sets as we were, but I blame that on parenting for allowing their kids to sit in front of the TV or tablet all day instead of create with an active imagination.

- - - Updated - - -

Those same people also often flock to other fandoms and push for the same childish tropes to be present in every story. A lot of good video games and TV shows are having lasting consequences stripped from their stories due to a growing amount of people being unable to handle anything bad happening.

Remember when kids shows used to have morality lessons like GI Joe and He-man? That's something a lot of kids cartoons are lacking is good messaging. I couldn't fathom being a kid watching the shows kids have to watch these days, inferior animation in cartoons and far too much cringe or unfunny moments.

[Endus]

Oh, so now you limit yourself to only the Star Wars movies as financially successful?
Shall i take it that even you don't consider BoP successful?
You already admitted that GB2016 is not, so only 1 franchise of the 3 you claimed 'were financially successful anyway' was.
How about you just admit that you were wrong, and only 1 was successful?

If we're talking about franchises, then all three are successful, since you have to include the rest of the Snyderverse in with Birds of Prey, and Ghostbusters 1+2 in with GB2016. And I already demonstrated that all but one Star Wars film made bank, and that one was Solo.

You're moving goalposts to change the debate and trying to blame me for not pre-emptively kicking at the newly moved goalposts. And weirdly enough, the new "franchise" success goalposts you're using are even worse for your case.

[Orange Joe]

What I find weirdest, speaking as a GenX-er who is absolutely in the demographic in question, is why the hell people think a lot of these older shows were good? He-Man and Transformers, in particular, were basically slapped-together, shittily animated commercials, when a change to TV regulations gave toy companies a new opportunity to exploit kids.

And let me be clear: I fucking loved He-Man and Transformers. I had high hopes for the new Transformers films, before they turned into my complete disillusionment with Michael Bay as a professional, since movies about big alien robots got turned into misogynistic framing, racist bullshit, and bathroom humor.

Those films are objectively bad. Not because they did one of my favorite cartoons dirty, but because there was so much opportunity to make a shitty toy-commercial-framed-as-entertainment into something actually interesting.

For He-Man, practically anything it's used for these days has been better than the original cartoon. Still haven't seen Revelations, but I really think people forget how seriously dumb the cartoon was, and how shitty the animation was.

That's the issue with the "gatekeeping"; they're holding up dreck as the ideal, and often whining that the new stuff actually has nuance and explores complexities the original couldn't or wouldn't ever touch.

We were like 8 years old, guys. We were idiots. Of course we liked that shit. But I'm willing to bet practically nobody who's bitching about these reboots has actually re-watched those shows since the original runs. Definitely not regularly. The "nostalgia" is that they can't accept that maybe they were a childish idiot for liking the original.

You can't watch the original He-Man cartoons and tell me they're great. They aren't. They're a cheaply made marketing stunt to push surplus Conan remodels as toys for kids. Hell, go watch the Netflix Toys That Made Us episodes for He-Man and Transformers. It's mostly about the actual toys, but they both talk about the TV shows and how they were important to market the toys.

Thundercats... I love the shit out of it as a kid. It's garbage..... The new remake was 100x better than the old version.

[segara82]

If we're talking about franchises, then all three are successful, since you have to include the rest of the Snyderverse in with Birds of Prey, and Ghostbusters 1+2 in with GB2016. And I already demonstrated that all but one Star Wars film made bank, and that one was Solo.

You're moving goalposts to change the debate and trying to blame me for not pre-emptively kicking at the newly moved goalposts. And weirdly enough, the new "franchise" success goalposts you're using are even worse for your case.

I am, and was, talking about the movies, i used the word franchise because in the thread we are talking about franchises being milked for nostalgia. And so many attempts to cash in on old franchises fail.
But, if it will make you feel better i'll change it in the post to movies.


Now ... were the movies (SW, GB2016, BOP) that the original post we two argue about 'financially successful anyway' or not?
Star Wars? Yes. Not as much as some claim but most turned a profit.
GB2016? No, not even you claim that.
BoP? Even the director was quoted as disappointed with the box office numbers.

[Endus]

I am, and was, talking about the movies, i used the word franchise because in the thread we are talking about franchises being milked for nostalgia. And so many attempts to cash in on old franchises fail.

And this base assumption is just incorrect, on its face.

You've got Star Wars, which has continued to be a wild success.
The Transformers films, as much as I hate them, made billions.
The MCU is a nostalgia trip for those of us who grew up with comic books, and it's literally the single most fiscally successful film franchise ever.

It's easier to pick out the failures. Like, yes, GB2016 and BoP. The latter of which is in a franchise which has, overall, been a financial success, even if critically reviewed. And hell, Birds of Prey barely even qualifies as "nostalgia"; they didn't form as a team in the comics until 1996, so we're not drawing from anything earlier, there.

I fundamentally disagree with your premise, and you have no backed it up with data.

But, if it will make you feel better i'll change it in the post to movies.

You're the one being inconsistent. I'm just asking you to stop moving goalposts when your prior goalposts become inconvenient to defend.

[Egomaniac]

There's lots of money in merchandise, assuming people want to buy your stuff. People don't want to buy toys of forgetful characters and uninteresting events. The OG trilogy had so many memorable things about it that were easily made into toys, not to mention all of the books that spawned in the years following, from expanded universe stories to books like those featuring focal points like ships and vehicles in the Star Wars universe (used to have that technical readout book on ships which was cool). Also, it's a significantly different attitude towards toys than it was for us in the 80's and 90's. Kids aren't nearly as interested these days in playing with figurines and toy sets as we were, but I blame that on parenting for allowing their kids to sit in front of the TV or tablet all day instead of create with an active imagination.

Let's say you're right and people only buy the toys and merch based off the old movies. Disney still gets the money anyway. They own Star Wars. Not just the new Star Wars. All Star Wars.

[Rennadrel]

Let's say you're right and people only buy the toys and merch based off the old movies. Disney still gets the money anyway. They own Star Wars. Not just the new Star Wars. All Star Wars.

Yes, I am aware of that fact. But they also have to pay George Lucas for anything relating to his works as well.

[Egomaniac]

Yes, I am aware of that fact. But they also have to pay George Lucas for anything relating to his works as well.

Not in the way you are thinking. They pay him because he's a shareholder. He doesn't get paid just for them using his old stuff. Disney owns all that stuff now. He probably still recieves residuals from his writing and director credits though.

[Endus]

Not in the way you are thinking. They pay him because he's a shareholder. He doesn't get paid just for them using his old stuff. Disney owns all that stuff now. He probably still recieves residuals from his writing and director credits though.

He may get some writing payouts for the "based on characters created by George Lucas" stuff. But those aren't royalties, and they're likely the same authors get when a work is adapted (a pittance, for someone like George Lucas). Definitely way less than he's making off his Disney shares.

[Egomaniac]

He may get some writing payouts for the "based on characters created by George Lucas" stuff. But those aren't royalties, and they're likely the same authors get when a work is adapted (a pittance, for someone like George Lucas). Definitely way less than he's making off his Disney shares.

Yeah, the shares is where he's making bank. Reportedly he's made more off the shares he received as part of the 4 billion deal than he got in "cash".

https://dorksideoftheforce.com/2021/...on-10-billion/

A new post from Disney blog InsideTheMagic.net suggests that George Lucas has actually earned approximately $10 billion from the sale of Lucasfilm to Disney. Obviously, the sale of the company to Disney has seen a reinvigoration of the Star Wars brand in the last six years. From the sequel trilogy to the massively popular Galaxy’s Edge theme parks, Disney has made a ton of money off of Star Wars, and Lucas has seen his fair share of the profits.

The details of the sale helped ensure that George Lucas would make money off of the transaction no matter what, as a report from Celebrity Net Worth notes:

George [Lucas] opted for a half-cash, half-stock deal. Technically, the deal was 55 percent cash, 45 percent stock.

The report states that this amounted to Lucas being paid approximately $2.21 billion in a cash transaction and 37,076,679 shares of the Walt Disney Company. With Disney stock trading at $50 per share at the time, this amounted to a monetary stock value of $1.85 billion.

[eschatological]

How George Lucas is a billionaire is beyond me. Like....what? An artist being a billionaire is so weird to me.

[Endus]

How George Lucas is a billionaire is beyond me. Like....what? An artist being a billionaire is so weird to me.

Same reason JK Rowling made more money off one series than Stephen King made off his entire collective career. They lucked into a hugely popular film series. Lucas at least has more justification, since he and his crew did instigate a special-effects revolution with the technological approaches they developed. It also meant he had way more involvement, and thus a much higher percentage cut.

Sometimes, a creative hits the zeitgeist in just the right way, and it's something that has absolutely nothing to do with talent. Because seriously; Harry Potter is kind of garbage and not nearly as imaginative as some fans pretend it to be.

[Dhrizzle]

and she got pissed about the secret, and not about the death of her best friends?

she can't realise the secret was necessary and instead, ignore the deaths and bitch about the secret, like a revolted teen? come on, pretty sure she isn't 18, so this angry teen characterization throw me off hard when i know she is mroe than that.

She was traumatised by the death of her best friends, she was pissed off about the secret. They did a really good job of explaining what got her screwed up so badly when they were in Preternia, she was mad at Adam/He-Man for lying about something so significant for so long and (from my experience) nothing does a number on your brain like being mad at someone you're supposed to be grieving. Add to that her closest companions were all in on the lie and you should be able to understand why she might want to get away from there for a while.

BTW feelings of grief and betrayal aren't just things that happen to children, though I congratulate you on your charmed life if you haven't had anything like this happen to you.

Dude, where i live, there was only that to watch, that and thundercats, we didn't get much variety like people in USA

Okay, then I guess you didn't pay much attention.

He didn't had that problem that much no, he was not "too powerful", but his powers obviously variety on the plot

He was literally the most powerful man in the universe. He-Man turning up wasn't an intriguing turning point where you wondered what was going to happen next, the vast majority of the time it was like the Power Rangers forming the Megazord or that weird thing where they stick all their weapons together, as soon as the animation sequence started you knew it was just going to be a cathartic, trouble-free romp to end the bad guys.

But no one rly just want that, but right away kill and shit his character, despite the hype and marketing? that was a low blow.

Of course it was good idea, i even said it was a good move, and didn't said the series was all bad.

But, they had three problems i, personally can't ignore. One, you can build something new without the need to be on top of the bones of the old. They didn't had to shit on the main guy to give focus to others, other series did that fine. Two, The characterization of some characters was bad and didn't reflect the original, Teela to me was especially bad acting like an angry teen when i know she is not. Three, the marketing problem, They heavy featured he-man, they hyped him, they said it was his series, but it was bait and switch, if they had said, from the beginning, what it was about, then everyone was going to be more open.

The excuse at the moment is because its just the first part, but if the second part does not focus on he-man/adam, then it will be a big flop for what it was supposed to be, imo.

What I don't get is why you're so insistent that He-Man got "shit on," he didn't. He sacrificed himself to save the world. In Preternia Adam was shown to be greatly respected by previous champions and to show brilliant self-confidence by choosing to stay as Adam, and let's face it no-one familiar with the original He-Man series (or most mainstream stories for that matter) would have seen a situation where Adam could no longer fight as He-Man and think "well, that's definitely a permanent situation and there's no way He-Man will turn up at some point to kick all the bottoms." Even as a child around 5 I knew that Adam losing the sword or having to attend a big dinner was just an annoying preamble to strong sword man punching bad bone man.

[Endus]

She was traumatised by the death of her best friends, she was pissed off about the secret. They did a really good job of explaining what got her screwed up so badly when they were in Preternia, she was mad at Adam/He-Man for lying about something so significant for so long and (from my experience) nothing does a number on your brain like being mad at someone you're supposed to be grieving. Add to that her closest companions were all in on the lie and you should be able to understand why she might want to get away from there for a while.

BTW feelings of grief and betrayal aren't just things that happen to children, though I congratulate you on your charmed life if you haven't had anything like this happen to you.

Also, it's frickin' weird as hell that people try and argue that "characters acting irrationally due to strong emotional responses is TOTALLY bad writing, characters should only ever do the most rational thing in the moment and never make mistakes or act rashly and impetuously!"

What I don't get is why you're so insistent that He-Man got "shit on," he didn't. He sacrificed himself to save the world. In Preternia Adam was shown to be greatly respected by previous champions and to show brilliant self-confidence by choosing to stay as Adam, and let's face it no-one familiar with the original He-Man series (or most mainstream stories for that matter) would have seen a situation where Adam could no longer fight as He-Man and think "well, that's definitely a permanent situation and there's no way He-Man will turn up at some point to kick all the bottoms." Even as a child around 5 I knew that Adam losing the sword or having to attend a big dinner was just an annoying preamble to strong sword man punching bad bone man.

They seem to be talking about how Adam's presented as not particularly buff. When the only reason he looked buff in the original was to save on toy molds. Adam was always presented as a kind of pathetic sad-sack, or at least that was the face he put on. Cringer and Adam were both weaklings who couldn't do much of anything right and had to be protected. That's literally the character. And then he'd sneak off, grab the Sword of Power, He-Man out, and wreck face. Ta-da, that's the show. The entire point of the character and why he was such a hit was precisely because kids saw themselves in Adam, because their parents were overprotective and controlling, and the idea of the Sword of Power turning you into He-Man was cool as shit.

But Adam was always the butt of every joke, even in the original show. Literally all they did in Revelation was adjust his body size. And that wasn't even Revelation's idea; they already made Adam a lot slimmer than He-Man way back in the 2002 reboot.

It's such a weird-ass complaint I have to wonder if it's being used to cover up people's real reasons for being upset, whatever they may be.

Also, as to the "saving the world"; it bears pointing out that he knew that it would kill him. He made a choice, and sacrificed his own life for everyone else. It's not like this was some "OOPS, He-Man died to some random crap, so random" schtick. It's pretty blatantly a Messiah story, which if anything, steps up the symbolism and meaning.

[Syegfryed]

She was traumatised by the death of her best friends, she was pissed off about the secret. They did a really good job of explaining what got her screwed up so badly when they were in Preternia, she was mad at Adam/He-Man for lying about something so significant for so long and (from my experience) nothing does a number on your brain like being mad at someone you're supposed to be grieving. Add to that her closest companions were all in on the lie and you should be able to understand why she might want to get away from there for a while.

I would totally agree with that if i was watching a shounen of unexperienced kids. Teens and kids get mad about such thing, she was a grow up woman and a soldier.

She don't get to be "mad" about a secret.

BTW feelings of grief and betrayal aren't just things that happen to children, though I congratulate you on your charmed life if you haven't had anything like this happen to you.

maybe when i was 14

Okay, then I guess you didn't pay much attention.

Ah yes, just the excuse Kevin smith "you just didn't get"

He was literally the most powerful man in the universe. He-Man turning up wasn't an intriguing turning point where you wondered what was going to happen next, the vast majority of the time it was like the Power Rangers forming the Megazord or that weird thing where they stick all their weapons together, as soon as the animation sequence started you knew it was just going to be a cathartic, trouble-free romp to end the bad guys.

Yes, because that was what was good at that time, regardless, im not saying they should do the same thing over and over(well power rangers do and still sells, go figure it) im saying they should not had to throw him under the truck.

You are bringin super man here but no one is selling a super man series, then kill him in the begining and the series is about Jimmy Olsen.

I would totally watch a jimmy Olsen series, but if they sold like it was a super man one, i would not like, so again, i understand the fans

What I don't get is why you're so insistent that He-Man got "shit on," he didn't.

Because that is what feels like, they made him dirt, he was the hero, the protagonist, everyone like him, they featured him, they hyped him, they said it was his series.

But no, get killed and fuck you, its Teela show now, Not only once, but twice

Then the whole Adamn characterization that i also felt it was shit.

If you can't see that or liked that, good job, not everyone will like the same thing, but i at least, can understand why it flop with the audience.

They seem to be talking about how Adam's presented as not particularly buff. .

you mean his look? no, no one care about that shit,in the show actually was pretty good his looking in both forms, but no one is complained about that, that is such a big strawman

[Low Hanging Fruit]

I think the problem is negativity sells. Sells might mean money or it might mean likes, cool guy points on a forum, or just making you feel good because someone else feels bad and you don't. If you give your honest opinion or are overtly positive you are just opening yourself up to attack. So most of the people that push their opinions are usually negative and derogatory so it comes off as gatekeeping. Then from what they don't like you can usually pull out what they do like. Then it just a pissing match of your sucks, mine better, you dumb, me smart, blah blah blah.

[Deadite]

It's such a weird-ass complaint I have to wonder if it's being used to cover up people's real reasons for being upset, whatever they may be.

Pretty sure the real reason people were upset about this show was that Kevin Smith said he was a He-Man super fan and that the show would be "literally all about He-Man". Both being a total lie. I guess if you went to watch it thinking you were going to get a slap in the face of nostalgia you would be feeling pretty honked off by what they got.