Can a Fanbase Ever Be "Owed" Something?

[Hawki]

While this topic has come up before, I don't think it was given its own thread. But anyway, recent events have spurred me to type this up.

So, every so often, there's a claim I see come up that really bugs me. This can apply to any kind of franchise out there, the idea that fans are "owed" X. This comes from disgruntlement at something, or someone, but whatever the case, I feel the urge to roll my eyes. As in, we're "owed" a better movie, or we're "owed" better representation, or we're "owed" a better ending. Even if it isn't stated outright, petitions such as the one to remake Game of Thrones season 8 or retcon Last Jedi are examples of this, basically the premise of "I didn't like X, so give me X in a way that I like." Or, even vague suggestions like in the DCEU, where reaction has been mixed, there's the suggestion that "DC fans are owed better movies," even if not always put in those words.

To all these things, my take is this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNaEEj7gCqM

Now, while Frank Underwood is making things clear, I'm going to make something clear as well - this isn't the same as saying that pieces of media should never be criticized. Even if the creator poured their heart and soul into it, that doesn't incubate it from criticism. However, where I draw the line is the sense of entitlement in this, because the closest rationale I've ever seen is based on the idea that:

1) X is big.

2) X is big because people consumed X, thus giving the creator profits/favourable word of mouth to make more of X

3) If X doesn't deliver, the fans are owed better, becase fans are stakeholders in X

Like I said, this is the closest rationale I've ever seen and even then it falls short in my eyes. Thing is, far as I'm consumed, fans can never be stakeholders in a franchise, in any sense of the word. You become a stakeholder by creating, not by consuming. X existed before you consumed it. You enjoy the consumption, so it's an equitable trade. If you no longer like X, you're free to withdraw from the consumption of X, because the creator of X is under no obligation to cater to your tastes. Even in franchises that have more than one creator, I still don't buy into the idea of fans being stakeholders in the sense because they have no active part in the creation of the product.

But, that's just me. Thoughts?

 

[Neurotic Void Melody]

am firm and confident in the belief that no, any fan of any particular thing is not ever "owed" anything from it. it's fucking entertainment, totally disposable fiction that can be easily ignored. not life-saving healthcare or any of the basic tenants of survival, of which even those are routinely denied by bunglecunts with too much power, money and privilege inertia to understand. Georgie Martin can do whatever the hell he likes, he's already put the work in and inspired millions with something no one really asked for or needed, but willingly paid for and happily consumed (well maybe "happy" isn't the most accurate descriptor considering the tone of the world) once it was out there. I think it takes a special sort of spoilt, entitled state of mind to believe otherwise. there's no argument that could convince me they have a point

 

[PsychedelicDiamond]

No, not at all, and in fact, fuck the notion that they are. If I got to direct a franchise movie, you know, if someone came to me and told me I could write and direct a Star Wars movie, a Superman movie, whatever, just for a pair of examples I'd actually like to do, what the fanbase wants would be the last thing on my mind. I wouldn't give a shit about expectations, I wouldn't give a shit about fan service, I sure as hell wouldn't give a shit about keeping my personal morals and politics away from it, I'd try realize my vision to the best of my ability. That's a creators responsibility. Not to give people what they want. I'd consider it their responsibility towards their audience to make the movie they themselves would like to see and make it in the best way that they can.

I respect Rian Johnson and I also respect Zack Snyder. It's every fans and critics right to dislike their work, because, the other way around, fans don't owe creators anything either but if you demand that you get something else because you didn't like a work you should be told to fuck right off. You're always free to criticize and so so as scathingly as you want, hell, it's something I do, but you get what you get and the only thing you're entitled to is your opinion on it.

 

[Combustion Kevin]

I suppose that really depends on your perspective, it is the investment and enthusiasm of the fandom that makes any franchise a success, things like mod community and fan-projects can keep it in the public conscious and breathe new life into it, however, that does require them to be inspired by the original work in the first place.

I see it more as a symbiotic relationship, you create something cool, fans will come and show their appreciation, you treat you audience with respect and they will do so in turn, ideally.
The only place equal transaction can be expected to take place is in the financial transaction, beyond that, it becomes a relationship between a creator and their audience that can take any form that they mold it into, knowingly or otherwise.

That said, when you promise one thing, be that resolution, a dignified treatment of the source-material, consistently written plot and characters, basic story structure or, at the very least, no belittling of your audience, any of these things, and you don't deliver on that, it feels like a breach of trust, especially considering the consumer has to pay up before learning of the contents of their product.
(Unless they look up spoilered reviews, that is)

I think "owing" is the wrong choice of words here, since they do not have any sense of material ownership or due from the creator, to try and argue that way is bound to fail, which is why I sometimes suspect "to owe" and "entitlement" are terms deliberately chosen to dismiss fan backlash, as opposed to "disappointment" and "disillusioned".

A more extreme stance would perhaps be saying that it is the artist's job to create something their chosen audience finds appealing, thereby making their fans their boss, not that it works that way in large entertainment industries though, where you have an actual boss that can fire you, which must actually be very frustrating, since it is not by their approval that you find success, only employment.

 

[Fieldy409_v1legacy]

Considering this is a gaming site, I'd point out I think fans are owed a functional game and not a broken bug ridden disaster. Or a game that actually delivers the features promised in promotional material. Sadly we often don't get these things, but they can count on the fans to still buy it next time, which is silly of the fans and manipulative of the developers.

 

[Saelune]

Yes.

1. If you promise something, you well, promised something. Say, a certain number of books, or features that end up not being in the game.

2. If you're adapting something, you owe the fans to ya know, adapt it. Too many adaptations don't care about the source material, and usually are garbage. Also the further away from the creators you go, the more the new people owe it to the fan base I think. George Lucas 'owed' the Star Wars fandom less than Disney does.

Yes, fans can expect to be owed things they aren't, or perhaps misplace blame or whatever, but if you're going to boil it down to a simple 'yes or no', the answer is yes.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

When a creative work becomes commodified to the point merchandise, tie-in advertising, product placement and endorsements, and other nominally-secondary sources of revenue are of equal if not greater value than the original work, it's no longer justifiably called art. It's a consumer product.

And, indeed, when a consumer purchases a product they enter into a contract with the producer, and that carries with it an expectation of quality. If the producer fails to meet the expected level of quality, the consumer is well within their rights to voice grievances -- but most importantly, choose not to consume future content from that producer. The mere existence of a work does not entitle content producers to my money. I did not find TLJ satisfying, therefore I chose to not pay to see Solo, and my decision is to not see RotS when it comes out this November.

My wallet, my money, my choice. End of story. Sadly, "geek culture" at large remains astoundingly susceptible to gaslighting, bullying, harassment, shaming, peer pressure, and outright predatory practices, and has yet to actually learn how to vote with their wallet and stand up for themselves as consumers.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Generally not. In most cases, people acting like they are owed something are very incorrect.

OTOH, if they actually have been promised something, then they are owed something. If you were to buy a game and have been told that expansions for that game will come out later, say. In general advertising would fall under this.

Also, consumers are generally promised that the product is one the creators have put a good faith effort into. Not necessarily that it'll suit their tastes, though.

 

[Erttheking]

What the company directly promised seems to be a fair thing to be owed.

 

[Casual Shinji]

..Yes...-ish?

I mean, the reason someone is allowed to make a new entry to a franchise that has a fanbase is because the fanbase for it exists. So you sorta ""owe"" it to them to put in your best work. That's not the same as saying the creator should bend to the whims of the fanbase, either before or after the work has come out. I'm generally a firm believer that you should never placate your audience.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

Generally not. In most cases, people acting like they are owed something are very incorrect.

OTOH, if they actually have been promised something, then they are owed something. If you were to buy a game and have been told that expansions for that game will come out later, say. In general advertising would fall under this.

Also, consumers are generally promised that the product is one the creators have put a good faith effort into. Not necessarily that it'll suit their tastes, though.

Honestly, in gaming the Mass Effect 3 ending fiasco, on consumers', the media's, and BioWare's part, is pretty much the case example of the phenomena in action. Lots of good and bad faith behavior on all sides, and treating all sides charitably yields a situation where there's only one clear bad guy. I approved of the original ending's direction and intent if not its execution, but I understood how others might find it disappointing overall, and supported efforts to voice grievances constructively, up to and including pledges to vote with one's wallet in the future.

And frankly, that we're having this conversation at all in this context, speaks towards the "clear bad guy" I just mentioned: the gaming press. The press' behavior during the ME3 ending fiasco, and later controversies, was nothing short of deplorable: leaping immediately to triple-A publishers' defense, voiding even the pretense of impartiality, by cherry picking bad actors (and almost exclusively bad actors) to frame the "opposition" as an angry, entitled mob. Because poisoning the well, aggravating controversy, and deliberately polarizing debate are the solar power of ad revenue by way of hate clicks and nerd baiting.

Needless to say, this became the default strategy in basically every controversy to hit gaming since, whether it's over the color of a character's hair or obvious and otherwise inexcusable predatory monetization strategies. Personally, I think it's appropriate and necessary to say the conversation shouldn't be about whether controversies exist, but rather about how they're represented. Look back to Fallout 3, for example, which had a highly divisive and disappointing ending...but not even a fraction of the controversy surrounding ME3's.

Bethesda admitted the ending had its faults, and while standing behind the original product gave it a conclusion and epilogue in the form of Broken Steel, a paid DLC. Still not even a fraction of the controversy surrounding ME3. What was missing in FO3's case that was present in ME3's, what was that key X-factor that caused the controversy over ME3's ending to erupt into an industry-defining moment but not FO3's?

 

[Catfood220]

Yes, I am owed a 6th season of Angel that isn't comic book based. That season 5 ending still annoys me.

I'm only semi joking about this.

 

[Palindromemordnilap_v1legacy]

I mean, I feel they're owed some measure of respect but that extends about as far as not saying "Oh you didn't like this thing we made? Well fuck you buddy". Which really kind of applies to most people. Stuff like the GoT petition are just ridiculous

 

[Worgen]

No, a fanbase is never owed something, but at the same time, the owners of a property are not owed any kind of loyalty from fans either.

 

[Baffle]

No, a fanbase is never owed something, but at the same time, the owners of a property are not owed any kind of loyalty from fans either.

This is pretty much how I see it. And it's fine for fans to moan when something isn't the way they want it, but just keep it in perspective.

 

[CaitSeith]

If there is no contract, then only in their feels minds.

 

[Agema]

2. If you're adapting something, you owe the fans to ya know, adapt it. Too many adaptations don't care about the source material, and usually are garbage.

I would argue that the opposite is often true - many adaptations are better because they took liberties with the source material. Sometimes what works in one medium often doesn't work so well in another. Or that a skilled visionary (potentially more so than the creator of the original) can take the source and build on it.

 

[Saelune]

2. If you're adapting something, you owe the fans to ya know, adapt it. Too many adaptations don't care about the source material, and usually are garbage.

I would argue that the opposite is often true - many adaptations are better because they took liberties with the source material. Sometimes what works in one medium often doesn't work so well in another. Or that a skilled visionary (potentially more so than the creator of the original) can take the source and build on it.

There is a difference between the MCU and the recent (relatively speaking) Fantastic Four movie. The MCU, while not always successful, atleast is aware of and respects enough the source material. For the Fantastic Four movie, one of the people in charge made the actors stop reading the comics. Fuck that guy, fuck that movie.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

If there is no contract, then only in their feels minds.

If only there were some word to describe the exchange of currency or trade for goods or services rendered, at an agreed-upon rate of exchange...

 

[Marik2]

It depends on a lot of things.