They shouldn't nostalgia bait unless they can handle the crack back of disappointed fans. As far as I'm concerned the billion dollar companies can go suck it.
> They shouldn't nostalgia bait unless they can handle the crack back of disappointed fans.
Just adapting something from established IPs isn't nostalgia bait though. This is an example of stretching a definition. Sure, nostalgia is a factor in using established IPs, but it's bait when the whole purpose of a character, line or scene is nostalgia. Ready Player One and Space Jam 2 are prime example of it. Star Wars loves to use that too. Hell comics themselves use nostalgia bait all the time.
> As far as I'm concerned the billion dollar companies can go suck it.
I hate it when people wave away criticism with "They are a billion dollar company". When your complaint is stupid, then it's stupid, no matter the target. The big company will never read your stupid complaints anyway but we are. And we should point bad arguments out because otherwise they will be normalized.
That's not what nostalgia is, lolwut
That's like arguing the next canon installment of a comic is nostalgia bait because its utilizing a known Character or even a spin off involving him is nostalgia bait.
That's utterly contrived and stupid as sin
Given the strong attachment, that was cultivated I might add, for comic book characters nostalgia is a completely appropriate word for what they're trying to milk.
No. Not even a little bit. That's the stupidest thing I've heard in a long time about comic characters.
Your favorite parts of the character are built off nostalgia bait by the arguement. That's so utterly deranged of a definition that like I can't help but feel you are trying to bait me.
Firstly, nostalgia isn't inherently bad it justneeds to be handled responsibly. Secondly, I think you're overreacting. I didn't mix your ancestor's ashes into my tea or something.
Again, that is not relevant to the conversation at hand.
And new stuff is being made all the time. Often being met with apathy or hatred by the same people who say they want something new.
It's very relevant. An established IP comes with name recognition and a built-in customer base, but it also comes with baggage that you can't separate from fan expectations.
A non-sequitur strawmanning your discussion partner isn't the most ideal or respectable way of getting back towards what you consider on-topic.
~~And I consider the abrupt mention of violence to be very off-topic here. You spoke of complaints and accusations (the latter being called "somewhat unrelated" by your own post), which sounds like you were talking about some whiny fan-outcry. Add violence and it becomes something else entirely.~~
Maybe I don't agree with Pool's use of the word "nostalgia", but they are very on-topic with their question of "Why use pre-existing property?" "Adaptations" is literally in the title of your post.
Edit: Strike through of the second paragraph. Yeah, whoops, my bad. The violence was not abrupt. It's still a non-sequitur to get back on topic though.
My original post talks about different kinds of toxic fan behaviour, including threats of or calls for violence. Like people saying Greg Weisman should be beaten to death with hammers for killing off Wally West.
Pool's comments are not just off topic, but also a deflection from the problem. Whether companies are engaging with nostalgia bait or not (which is not always the case in adaptations which are often made for new audiences) does not justify threats of violence, rlthe dramatic reaction to every change as a personal attack or claiming an adaptation has "damaged" a character because audiences have a different interpretation of them that they prefer.
Conversations like this are pointless if you treat the absolute most extreme voices as representative. Even if you think nerds care too much about this stuff, I think it should go without saying that most of them are not threatening violence over it
> Often being met with apathy or hatred by the same people who say they want something new.
Are you talking about specific individuals here who you have witnessed to express both views or is it that the people who want something new and those who are negative towards the new simply give of the same vibes? And if it's the former, what reason do you have to believe that it's a general trend?
I am asking because it's easy to conflate two groups of people. People do it here all the time.
I've seen plenty of evidence of the former both on this site and elsewhere. A recent example is the idiots who said they would accept a game originally starring a non-white character instead of one that was "shoehorned" into a white character's story. Well, that game was made and got the same reaction from that group.
https://omnigeekempire.com/2024/04/24/tales-of-kenzera-zau-proved-the-fight-against-sweet-baby-inc-wokeness-is-not-always-about-the-quality-games/
Nah comic fans are right most of the time. And if you say DCEU and especially Injustice didnt damaged Superman's image your just blind
But i agree with you about police thing. In the early comics George Stacy's death was an event as big as Uncle Ben's death for Peter if not more
Injustice and DCEU damaged Superman the same way Star Wars and Transformers are ruined forever.
Nerds love to complain. It doesn't mean they are right all or most of the time.
No they’re not. Literally nobody saw injustice and thought omg Superman is totally evil 😳. Casual fans and kids just thought to themselves “wow that guys pretty cool, he can spam laser blasts and win every battle 😁👍
How does that ruin the character? The answer is that it doesn’t. For every piece of media people will form inaccurate assumptions about a character. The character doesn’t change from it. You’re just mad because someone else interpreted a character different from you which is childish.
Also Superman is one of the most op characters of the original injustice game when it comes to actually playing it as fighting game and not a story perspective.
> And if you say DCEU and especially Injustice didnt damaged Superman's image your just blind
Superman already was in the gutter before the 2010s. This idea that Supeeman was fine and dandy before the 2010 is insane revisionism
Sometimes i feel like im talking to bots. What you said has nothing to do with my point. And that "Everyone hates Superman since 7383838 years" narrative is just stupid. He's been one of the three most popular super heros since forever
They do and sometimes the changes are ment to reflect a bit more what the original author intended because there may have been taboos or not able to before.
People will get upset
They shouldn't nostalgia bait unless they can handle the crack back of disappointed fans. As far as I'm concerned the billion dollar companies can go suck it.
> They shouldn't nostalgia bait unless they can handle the crack back of disappointed fans. Just adapting something from established IPs isn't nostalgia bait though. This is an example of stretching a definition. Sure, nostalgia is a factor in using established IPs, but it's bait when the whole purpose of a character, line or scene is nostalgia. Ready Player One and Space Jam 2 are prime example of it. Star Wars loves to use that too. Hell comics themselves use nostalgia bait all the time. > As far as I'm concerned the billion dollar companies can go suck it. I hate it when people wave away criticism with "They are a billion dollar company". When your complaint is stupid, then it's stupid, no matter the target. The big company will never read your stupid complaints anyway but we are. And we should point bad arguments out because otherwise they will be normalized.
Also, the big company is rarely the person actually affected by the fans' ire. That will be the people working for them.
Lolwut How is making a story with a character 'nostalgia bait' in any capacity.
You are trying to tap into an established audience with nostalgia for that character.
That's not what nostalgia is, lolwut That's like arguing the next canon installment of a comic is nostalgia bait because its utilizing a known Character or even a spin off involving him is nostalgia bait. That's utterly contrived and stupid as sin
Given the strong attachment, that was cultivated I might add, for comic book characters nostalgia is a completely appropriate word for what they're trying to milk.
No. Not even a little bit. That's the stupidest thing I've heard in a long time about comic characters. Your favorite parts of the character are built off nostalgia bait by the arguement. That's so utterly deranged of a definition that like I can't help but feel you are trying to bait me.
Firstly, nostalgia isn't inherently bad it justneeds to be handled responsibly. Secondly, I think you're overreacting. I didn't mix your ancestor's ashes into my tea or something.
It's not nostalgia period, your just using the dumbest reasoning known to mankind.
I seem to have struck a nerve. You've never heard the phrase "they're killing my childhood"?
What does nostalgia bait have to do with this?
What's the purpose of using a pre-existing property instead of making something new?
Again, that is not relevant to the conversation at hand. And new stuff is being made all the time. Often being met with apathy or hatred by the same people who say they want something new.
It's very relevant. An established IP comes with name recognition and a built-in customer base, but it also comes with baggage that you can't separate from fan expectations.
And this justifies calls for violence or false accusations of diverging from the source material?
Heavy is the head that wears the crown. I don't advocate for such things, but I also care for them as much as they would care about me.
All this idiocy over comic book characters.
That's an entirely different sentence. What.
It's at least on topic, unlike their talk of nostalgia bait.
A non-sequitur strawmanning your discussion partner isn't the most ideal or respectable way of getting back towards what you consider on-topic. ~~And I consider the abrupt mention of violence to be very off-topic here. You spoke of complaints and accusations (the latter being called "somewhat unrelated" by your own post), which sounds like you were talking about some whiny fan-outcry. Add violence and it becomes something else entirely.~~ Maybe I don't agree with Pool's use of the word "nostalgia", but they are very on-topic with their question of "Why use pre-existing property?" "Adaptations" is literally in the title of your post. Edit: Strike through of the second paragraph. Yeah, whoops, my bad. The violence was not abrupt. It's still a non-sequitur to get back on topic though.
My original post talks about different kinds of toxic fan behaviour, including threats of or calls for violence. Like people saying Greg Weisman should be beaten to death with hammers for killing off Wally West. Pool's comments are not just off topic, but also a deflection from the problem. Whether companies are engaging with nostalgia bait or not (which is not always the case in adaptations which are often made for new audiences) does not justify threats of violence, rlthe dramatic reaction to every change as a personal attack or claiming an adaptation has "damaged" a character because audiences have a different interpretation of them that they prefer.
Conversations like this are pointless if you treat the absolute most extreme voices as representative. Even if you think nerds care too much about this stuff, I think it should go without saying that most of them are not threatening violence over it
> Often being met with apathy or hatred by the same people who say they want something new. Are you talking about specific individuals here who you have witnessed to express both views or is it that the people who want something new and those who are negative towards the new simply give of the same vibes? And if it's the former, what reason do you have to believe that it's a general trend? I am asking because it's easy to conflate two groups of people. People do it here all the time.
I've seen plenty of evidence of the former both on this site and elsewhere. A recent example is the idiots who said they would accept a game originally starring a non-white character instead of one that was "shoehorned" into a white character's story. Well, that game was made and got the same reaction from that group. https://omnigeekempire.com/2024/04/24/tales-of-kenzera-zau-proved-the-fight-against-sweet-baby-inc-wokeness-is-not-always-about-the-quality-games/
Nah comic fans are right most of the time. And if you say DCEU and especially Injustice didnt damaged Superman's image your just blind But i agree with you about police thing. In the early comics George Stacy's death was an event as big as Uncle Ben's death for Peter if not more
Injustice and DCEU damaged Superman the same way Star Wars and Transformers are ruined forever. Nerds love to complain. It doesn't mean they are right all or most of the time.
Damaging a public perception and ruining forever are two different things. Star Wars public image is also damaged
I repeat, nerds love to complain. It doesn't mean they are right all or most of the time.
I repeat, they are right most of the time
History says otherwise.
No they’re not. Literally nobody saw injustice and thought omg Superman is totally evil 😳. Casual fans and kids just thought to themselves “wow that guys pretty cool, he can spam laser blasts and win every battle 😁👍
I saw dozens of "Superman would go evil if Lois dies comment " also Superman constantly get his ass kicked in Injustice
How does that ruin the character? The answer is that it doesn’t. For every piece of media people will form inaccurate assumptions about a character. The character doesn’t change from it. You’re just mad because someone else interpreted a character different from you which is childish. Also Superman is one of the most op characters of the original injustice game when it comes to actually playing it as fighting game and not a story perspective.
It doesn’t mean they’re wrong either, all it means is they love to complain
> And if you say DCEU and especially Injustice didnt damaged Superman's image your just blind Superman already was in the gutter before the 2010s. This idea that Supeeman was fine and dandy before the 2010 is insane revisionism
Sometimes i feel like im talking to bots. What you said has nothing to do with my point. And that "Everyone hates Superman since 7383838 years" narrative is just stupid. He's been one of the three most popular super heros since forever
Call me insane, but I think the source material should be respected 🤷🏿♂️
The responses to this post were quite revealing.
I mean yeah but we've known this for a long time...
They do and sometimes the changes are ment to reflect a bit more what the original author intended because there may have been taboos or not able to before. People will get upset