Come to Quark’s, Quark’s is Fun!
General off-topic chat for the crew of startrek.website. Trek-adjacent discussions, other sci-fi television, navigating the Fediverse, server meta (within reason), selling expired cases of Yamok sauce, it’s all fair game.
While true, Dr Who came out incredibly strong and there always had to be an eventually drop in quality.
Trying to mask it with special effects when the whole vibe was cheesy practical effects that would stay cheesy but watchable 20 years later.
Like, they really just lost the plot, trying to show in huge revelations constantly instead of just focusing on making great episodes that loosely over a couple years resolve a plot point.
This article really isn't about DW, though - which is why I shared it here, and not in the DW community - it's more about...gestures broadly at the entire internet
But, the title mentions Dr. Who, so... disgruntled fans can be dangerously assumed to appear.
I mean, I could have explicitly pointed out that any opinion from Twitter is worthless...
I thought:
While true
Covered that.
Okay, so why derail the conversation away from the actual topic?
Because someone shouldn't use the excuse that "Twitter is a shit hole" to disregard criticism from everywhere.
But again, all of this was implied. And I felt like it was perfectly understandable.
I honestly don't mind explaining things, but you're being super argumentative about not understanding this.
Asking for clarification isn't a big deal, trying to start arguments from a mod account tho
It's a bad look.
You already said "while true" - you don't need to be the embodiment of "it's all getting soured."
They're being argumentative? Dude, you came in with an "um, actually" that just proves the title's point.
...social media — along with what he called “the collapse of journalism” — has helped these voices find their way into the mainstream.
I think this really is the most important point. You can write any article you like because given the vastness of the Internet someone will have a dumb opinion. Controversy gets clicks.
I forget the show/article (I think Ironheart) but recently a show premiered and at the exact time the show premiered an article was published that gave it a review. The review was completely negative and quoted people online who disliked it. Mind you the people they were quoting were just reacting to what they thought the show would be. Then the show itself was surprisingly good. The buzz online for the next few days was surprise, most people were surprised that a low expectation show was actually pretty good.
The question has to be why entertainment conglomerates continue to engage in subrational behaviour (from a pure economic theory perspective).
While narratives created on X/twitter, IMdb, Rotten Tomatoes, YouTube and other social media do have real impact — witness the positive social media build up of K-Pop Demon Hunter — they do not represent the full picture of audience potential or actual viewership.
So, why give into it?
The conglomerates are more focused on the perceptions of advertisers (who determine revenues), shareholders (which impact share prices) and the stances of regulators that set and govern the ground rules of the industry.
This is nothing anyone can claim is a well functioning entertainment marketplace.
In such a situation, assertions about things failing due to ‘not finding an audience’ are naive or disingenuous.
Yeah Rusty, something's in the air.