The Collapse of Star Wars, Star Trek & Doctor Who – And the Entitlement of the Media Complex

[AGXStarseed]

A video I came across from YouTube channel "Midnight's Edge" that I decided to share. The video covers how a lot of previous well established and profitable franchises, which are not only pop culture icons but are pretty much institutions in their own right, are currently losing money and imploding.
Furthermore, it covers and responds to an opinion article from BBC News - which itself was covering the redesign of Sonic the Hedgehog and asking if fans are "too entitled" - while going over the points made to ask if it is instead Hollywood and the Entertainment media who are the entitled ones.

Here's the video in question:

Description:
In the last few years, we have witnessed the implosion of some previously very popular entertainment franchises, franchises that go back decades, and have become institutions in their own right. Institutions like Star Trek. Star Wars. And Doctor Who, the most recent to implode.
On February 14th, the BBC, home of Doctor who, put out an article which pointed out the rising influence of fans, all while bemoaning what they call “fan entitlement”. But are fans really the entitled ones?
In the aftermath of the destruction of Doctor Who, @AndreEinherjar will go through this article, and give his response to the accusation that fans somehow are the entitled ones.

The BBC Article it covers: From Sonic the Hedgehog to Star Wars, are fans too entitled?

 

[Judge]

There is no "entitlement" to begin with. For film producers and those who pay to see them, there is only the relationship of supply and demand. In business, it's never been quite about "what the people want", but rather what the market thinks they should have. A relationship that is ultimately not all that symbiotic in nature.

Not that this dynamic is particularly equitable, or even ethical. However it is what it is.

The opportunity to see a media presentation where someone pays for it. Entitlements themselves amount to a right to possess something. In this instance, there is no right or privilege in play. It's just a commodity bought and sold. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[AGXStarseed]

There is no "entitlement" to begin with. For film producers and those who pay to see them, there is only the relationship of supply and demand. In business, it's never been quite about "what the people want", but rather what the market thinks they should have. A relationship that is ultimately not all that symbiotic in nature.

Not that this dynamic is particularly equitable, or even ethical. However it is what it is.

The opportunity to see a media presentation where someone pays for it. Entitlements themselves amount to a right to possess something. In this instance, there is no right or privilege in play. It's just a commodity bought and sold. Nothing more, nothing less.

Fair enough. What did you think of the Restaurant analogy in the video (10:42 onward)?

 

[Judge]

Fair enough. What did you think of the Restaurant analogy in the video (10:42 onward)?

Not much.

They mention the appetite people have for the "Big Mac". But my point reflects that product as well. That the public didn't lust for such a food until the market itself actually brought it to us. Amusing them using that "Big Mac" analogy. For as long as this product has existed, I don't recall McDonalds attempting to alter it just to accommodate their customers. It is what it is after all these years. Even then, I never did understand or like a third burger bun in the middle. I still don't.

Of course making a hamburger or preparing a meal remains a poor business analogy compared to creating a feature film. One is created "on the fly" while the other is most decidedly not.

There's a simple point here. It's their product, legally and intellectually. Not the public's. What they choose to do with it will always be their decision. Not that of their customers. It's why it's referred to as the "private sector".

 

[Misery]

From my point of view, some of this seems to be a rather warped idea of what's actually going on in the first place.

For instance, one part of the video mentiones this phrase: "product designed to service the consumer".

That, however, is incorrect. That isnt what these movies or shows are. These are not made for the consumer. Not at all. These are made for the corporation that is making them. To make money. There is a quote, from someone... I think it was someone that worked at Disney? I dont remember. But I do remember what the quote was: "We are under no obligation to create 'art'. To make money is our only objective". As it is, the ACTUAL customers of companies like these are the shareholders, NOT the "fans".

That's also why people keep complaining about the groups behind these properties being "out of touch". There's this expectation, from the consumer, that the groups that own these properties really understand said properties. But... again, that is incorrect. The people in charge of the corporation that owns Star Wars for instance. They dont need to know ANYTHING about Star Wars. That is not the job of a high-tier corporate executive. I wouldnt be even remotely surprised to find that some of them have never seen a single one of those movies. They dont CARE about the story or the characters or the lore. Of course those people are out of touch with what dedicated fans love... they never got close enough to touch to begin with. The market, and focus testing... that's what determines the actions these corporations take. It's the same in other media, too. The gaming industry in particular has become a horrible corroded mess, due to this.


All of this crap is the main reason why I dont watch movies or TV or any of that these days, and instead just use Youtube. Because these corporations are simply going to keep catering towards market trends, and things that "focus test" well. They WILL utterly wreck a given franchise if it gets them a few extra pennies, and if they need to, they'll just toss the whole thing out the window the moment it stops "performing", and they'll move on to the next thing that focus tests well. Because that's all they care about. And the directors behind these things? They cant act without approval. They either follow the trends that the owning corporation wants them to... or else. On Youtube though, anyone can make anything, simple as that. I can think of so many awesome things I've seen that would never, ever, EVER even be CONSIDERED for release by major media corporations. Various series that get bazillions of views, tons of videos analyzing each individual video in the series, entire wikis made to help keep track of characters and lore, and stuff like that. Things that people really get into, things that are super creative... but that only exist because the creators have total freedom to make what THEY, the creators, want to make. It's the same in the gaming industry. You want real creativity, quality, and developers that really CARE about what they're making? You wont get it from the major publishers, that's for sure. Not anymore.

There, I'm done ranting. I apologize if this is a bit more disjointed and confusing than usual, I'm currently in the middle of re-adjusting my sleep cycle so I'm a bit dazed.

 

[Nervous Rex]

That, however, is incorrect. That isn't what these movies or shows are. These are not made for the consumer. Not at all. These are made for the corporation that is making them. To make money.

A friend of mine loves to remind me that "If you aren't paying for it, you aren't the customer."

You don't pay for Facebook, you don't pay for TV shows, therefore you are not the customer for those products. The customer is the advertisers, and that means you are the product.

For me, the best example of that was the TV show Lost. It sucked me in with lots of mystery and made me hold my breath waiting for answers. And it never provided answers! When it ended, I was unsatisfied and disgruntled <insert scream of frustration here>. But that didn't matter - they accomplished their goal by successfully delivering viewers to the advertisers. Nothing said the viewers had to be happy.

 

[Major Tom]

A friend of mine loves to remind me that "If you aren't paying for it, you aren't the customer."

You don't pay for Facebook, you don't pay for TV shows, therefore you are not the customer for those products. The customer is the advertisers, and that means you are the product.

For me, the best example of that was the TV show Lost. It sucked me in with lots of mystery and made me hold my breath waiting for answers. And it never provided answers! When it ended, I was unsatisfied and disgruntled <insert scream of frustration here>. But that didn't matter - they accomplished their goal by successfully delivering viewers to the advertisers. Nothing said the viewers had to be happy.

Argh yea, Lost sucked me in as well, and the ending was crap. I understand now what happened in the series, but it still doesn't make the ending any less underwhelming.. I saw it on Netflix the other day and thought briefly about rewatching it, but then thought about the end of it and said "nah".. I haven't seen all the game of thrones episodes, but I also heard those ended up very underwhelming as well, which is a shame because all the seasons up until the last one were very entertaining.

 

[Nervous Rex]

Argh yea, Lost sucked me in as well, and the ending was crap. I understand now what happened in the series, but it still doesn't make the ending any less underwhelming.. I saw it on Netflix the other day and thought briefly about rewatching it, but then thought about the end of it and said "nah".

My favorite way to watch a TV show is to start once it's over. Then, before I start watching it, I check out comments and reviews online. If the TV show has a lousy ending, I don't start watching it.

 

[Ken S.]

Since I haven't watched TV or been to a movie for over fifteen years it's all irrelevant. Never been one to worship at the alter of celebrity and don't care what those out of touch "Insert colorful metaphor here" think or have to say.

 

[Yeshuasdaughter]

It's not entitlement. It's simply that each movie or show had a certain plot that was well developed over a course of decades.

This new Hollywood elite has changed all the plots in order to placate the delicate (Antifa) masses. But the fans who saw the previous movies or shows aren't buying into their hew political whinges masqueraded as movies.

 

[AGXStarseed]

It's not entitlement. It's simply that each movie or show had a certain plot that was well developed over a course of decades.

This new Hollywood elite has changed all the plots in order to placate the delicate (Antifa) masses. But the fans who saw the previous movies or shows aren't buying into their hew political whinges masqueraded as movies.

Very true, and then when said fans complain about the changes (especially if those changes mess with well established lore that has formed into the metaphorical pillars of the show/films) they're labelled with a variety of insults by those in charge and the media.
Meanwhile, the temporary custodians of said TV/film series claim they are altering the show to appeal to a new demographic (one reason given is so the films/show no longer "celebrates the white male gaze") and because they want the product to show what they want to show instead of what fans want to see.

This is all despite the fact that the shows/films always had a wide audience that would unite people despite their differences in age, sex, skin colour and political opinions. Furthermore, this new demographic they're appealing to at the expense of long-term fans will happily tweet about the show and how 'progressive' it is, but they will rarely - if ever - financially support it; especially as this demographic is itself a tiny minority.
For a lot of franchises that follow this pattern, the growing loss of the long-term fan bases they rejected and the lack of financial support from the new demographic they're catering to will eventually result in massive losses for the product that will either cause it to be put on hiatus for a while or will cause it to crash and burn (hence the phrases "Get woke, go broke" and "Without respect, we reject").
Honestly, I think the restaurant analogy in the video above was spot on in that regard.

 

[Raggamuffin]

About 10 years ago I was big on movies. I moved into foreign films as I found the ideas a lot fresher than their Hollywood counterparts.

Times have changed though, and now I find TV shows more appealing that films due to plot duration and character development. Films feel rushed compared to season after season of an enjoyable TV show.

For the most part, big franchises hold little appeal for me. I watched my first Star Wars film in my mid teens, so there was no real nostalgia for me. I enjoy Star Trek, but Discovery felt like the death of the franchise for me. I've yet to try Picard but I'm sure I'll make my way to it.

I guess, when a franchise gains size and popularity it's even harder to please the target audience, because their expectations and tastes vary so much. Also, with social media anyone can gain a following with whatever opinions they may have. These days the Internet has given people the potential for David vs Goliath scenarios.

I enjoy gaming but I dislike most games. The problem I find is that when a decent game or film comes along and it strikes a chord with people - you just know a sequal will be in the works and with it comes the fear that what stood out as something special will eventually be rehashed and become as mediocre as every other franchise ends up becoming.

The one thing I find is that I'm not a fan of popular culture per say. My opinions are extremely obtuse and particular at the best of times. Often a game, show or film comes out that everyone raves about and I find the whole experience lackluster at best.

Of course, tastes change - so much of what I used to find appealing I now find infuriating. My circle of concern is a lot smaller these days. And yet, what falls within my circle of disdain grows ever wider.

Ed

 

[Misery]

About 10 years ago I was big on movies. I moved into foreign films as I found the ideas a lot fresher than their Hollywood counterparts.

Times have changed though, and now I find TV shows more appealing that films due to plot duration and character development. Films feel rushed compared to season after season of an enjoyable TV show.

For the most part, big franchises hold little appeal for me. I watched my first Star Wars film in my mid teens, so there was no real nostalgia for me. I enjoy Star Trek, but Discovery felt like the death of the franchise for me. I've yet to try Picard but I'm sure I'll make my way to it.

I guess, when a franchise gains size and popularity it's even harder to please the target audience, because their expectations and tastes vary so much. Also, with social media anyone can gain a following with whatever opinions they may have. These days the Internet has given people the potential for David vs Goliath scenarios.

I enjoy gaming but I dislike most games. The problem I find is that when a decent game or film comes along and it strikes a chord with people - you just know a sequal will be in the works and with it comes the fear that what stood out as something special will eventually be rehashed and become as mediocre as every other franchise ends up becoming.

The one thing I find is that I'm not a fan of popular culture per say. My opinions are extremely obtuse and particular at the best of times. Often a game, show or film comes out that everyone raves about and I find the whole experience lackluster at best.

Of course, tastes change - so much of what I used to find appealing I now find infuriating. My circle of concern is a lot smaller these days. And yet, what falls within my circle of disdain grows ever wider.

Ed

I had the same thing happen with gaming. Generally when a big game came out, well... either I was going to dislike it, or it was going to genuinely suck. Usually both at once. Okay, almost always both at once.

Solution: Screw the big games and switch to indies. No more cookie-cutter releases that dont take risks, and no more exploitative, buggy releases. And when sequels to these come out, they dont become the rehashes that AAA games do. Not to mention that with the "Big Guys", ENTIRE GENRES are outright missing (because they dont focus test well, or some nonsense like that).

When I was just buying "major" games, I found that I'd buy VERY rarely, because decent games were so few and far between. This, despite that gaming has always been my main hobby. After making the switch, well... if I'm in the mood for a new game, I will always, ALWAYS be able to find something amazing to get. I cant remember the last time I bought one that disappointed me. I pick up new games rather frequently.

As a result of all of that, I havent bought a AAA game in years. And... I dont feel like I'm missing out. Instead, I feel like I dodged a bullet. That side of the industry is in a really sorry state right now. An outright industry crash, like in '84, would be quite entertaining to me at this point. I'd bring popcorn. And a blast shield.

 

[Adora]

I have seen so many franchises being ruined and it is sad to see, I am a Star Wars fan and I was disappointed how Disney has treated the franchise,It’s like they had no plan at all and was winging it all the way.

Also when people have genuine concerns about how a franchise is being treated they end up being abused and called nasty names.

It is now starting to affect the popularity of these franchises and now many life long fans are turning away. I heard recently about a lifelong fan of Dr Who who had a Guinness record for his collection and he recently announced online that he is abandoning the franchise and that is very telling.

 

[Raggamuffin]

I look to how every business I've worked in has run. The fans of a franchise are like the people working the day to day basic roles in a job. Their feedback, although presented to higher ups in companies is rarely ever listened to - even though its invaluable.

Decisions get made at the top of a company, it trickles down and often makes the day to day a lot harder and less effective, but do they listen? Rarely if at all.

Ed

 

[AGXStarseed]

I have seen so many franchises being ruined and it is sad to see. I am a Star Wars fan and I was disappointed how Disney has treated the franchise. It’s like they had no plan at all and was winging it all the way.

Also when people have genuine concerns about how a franchise is being treated,instead of being heard fans get insulted and called nasty names.

It is now starting to affect the popularity of these franchises and now many life long fans are turning away. I heard recently about a lifelong fan of Dr Who who had a Guinness record for his collection and he recently announced online that he is abandoning the franchise and that is very telling.

Agreed with you on Star Wars. I'll stick to the original trilogy and prequel trilogies; they may have flaws but at least with those there was a clear plan that was stuck to and the films (from my point of view at least) stay entertaining without pushing a narrative.

Well in regards to Doctor Who, the last episode (The Timeless Children) just opened a massive can of worms in the shows 50+ year canon (see here) that just has most fans not angry, but just apathetic to what the show is doing. The fan with the record-breaking collection who's now abandoning the franchise is one example.
Some people try to brush this off by insulting those who want a show to conform to the canon, but fans generally want things to make sense as if it doesn't and they notice, it ruins the immersion and thus the entertainment as you're left questioning what's going on. A good show establishes ground rules and should follow the rules it has set up unless there is good reason otherwise that doesn't break everything; metaphorically speaking, there's no point in modifying/updating a priceless work of art if your modification damages it beyond repair and brings its value down big time.
Even if the Timeless Children episode is retconned to say that the Master has tricked the Doctor to try and break her or the next showrunner pulls the 'nuclear' option and dismisses Jodie Whittaker's entire run as a dream/alternate universe, it will remain a stain on the show's legacy for a long time to come - similar to the "Doctor been half human" plot point in the 1996 movie that had to be retconned.

From what I understand, the next episode will be at Christmas (the first Christmas episode since Twice Upon A Time) and will be called "Revolution of the Daleks" - with both Bradley Walsh and Tosin Cole (who play Graham and Ryan) stating they will be leaving the show, which will leave the Doctor and Yasmin.
That said, I'm not excited for it or for Season 13, with the BBC making it clear that they don't care as they get our Taxpayer's money anyway, regardless of how good or bad the product is.
The only potential positive is that Jodie and showrunner Chris Chibnall may be leaving after the next season so hopefully they get in a good showrunner, writers and actors to try and win the fanbase back (although I doubt it).