Who was right?

Who was right?

half and half.

I hate the argument that contend created through the monetization of ads is "free", watching an advertisment is only free if your time is worthless. On the other hand, a writer does not owe you a specific sort of catharsis or emotion in their work, as a viewer you can simply stop watching the program.

The audience is owed nothing. Absolutely nothing. The creators didn't invite themselves into your home and start putting on a show in your living room. You came to them.

A good creator receiving positive feedback tends to want to please his audience anyway, so it's not like the audience even needs that kind of bitter, entitled leverage anyway.

I feel bad because I don't know the argument, can you clip it and put it on youtube?

That's very problematic. A writer doesn't necessarily need to appease his or her audience, but if they alienate their audience from the story no one will stick around.

If there isn't an fan base for a story, then there is no story. Just someone putting out content that will never have any kind of impact.

As a creator myself, that actually negates the reason why a person publicly shares his or her work with the public.

A writer wants validation of their works from others. The economics also affect the story. It costs money and time to make creative content, and if Comic Publishers or TV Studios don't make a certain amount of revenue, then the comic or TV show gets cancelled.

The guy who pays for cable to watch "free" content.

compare the electricity bill to the cost of producing one episode/the series

Comic book guy is technically wrong but right in principle. As the consumer of a tertiary need entertainment product he holds ALL the economic power. If the creators fail to appease him they're out of a job, so they "owe" him in the sense that it's in their best interest to appease him.

This agreement falls apart if 1) the content creators find a new audience, and the new audience's desires are at odds with comic book guy's and the former removes the latter's consumer power or the need for creators to pander to him. Or 2) Comic book guy is a weak willed faggot who will continue consuming the content even if he's displeased with it. You see this a lot in Pay2Win video games like League of Legends where people can't quit because of sunk cost fallacy, or if you string your viewership along with cliffhangers and promise that what they want may be coming eventually.

Or you could just send psychotic death threats en masse to the creators if they don't comply provided you can amass a group large enough. I.E. Steven Universe fandom doxxing a girl for drawing not fat fan art.

Get an antenna.

Comic Book Guy, easily.

>problematic

Stopped reading there.

Homer, I want the divorce.

Reminder that not listening to criticism was one of the main reasons The Simpsons went to shit.

It depends.

Fans can't dictate how a story should go. Yet at the same time if a variety of people dislike something, chances are they may have sort of a point.

The key is figuring out which one is legit criticism and which isn't. What I've found is that most people that publically appear quick to dismiss (some people at Marvel, Ghostbusters 2016 defenders, etc) don't appear to have a good filter for criticism and lump every negative comment in the do-not-listen pile.

>Or you could just send psychotic death threats en masse to the creators if they don't comply provided you can amass a group large enough. I.E. Steven Universe fandom doxxing a girl for drawing not fat fan art.
I have a feeling I'm going to derail the thread if I ask about this but it's not like it's going anywhere so what the fuck??

>what the fuck??

Exactly that, not much to say, people on the internet are crazy

It's funny how you start reading old terms differently after a while and how they start jumping at your eye like a red marker.
An ass old word like "problematic" for "affected by problems coming with it" suddenly starts getting a completely different tone...

>audience is owed nothing. Absolutely nothing. The creators didn't invite themselves into your home and start putting on a show in your living room. You came to them.

What the fuck are you talking about

>getting triggered by a normal word
Have you really never seen the word "problematic" used in a context other than people on Sup Forums claiming it's an SJW buzzword?

>LoL
>Pay2Win

No it's not tard. You only have to pay for skins. You can unlock everything with the ingame currency.

However, you really shouldn't pay for skins cause than you get the sunk cost fallacy.

I've stopped playing, but I must've wasted about half a thousand on it. I don't regret it cause I truly enjoyed the game I was playing and wanted to support the developers.

Not him, but it is P2W. You can pay to have an advantage over players who simply haven't yet played enough to earn the currency for those advantages.

I've always found this odd they shoved this is here when the point of the episode was that adding Poochie was a genuinely horrible idea that ruined the show,

No, you don't get an advantage over other players. The only thing that lets you do that are Runes and you can't even buy them. You have to use ingame currency to buy runes. You can buy champs with real currency and ingame currency.

Rune pages, Champions and even EXP boosters are all advantages, user.

>wanting to support Riot
>ever

EXP boosters mean dick when you're lvl 30, and it's not a big deal anyway unless you want to level up a scrub account.

Champions is just ridiculous to throw the p2w argument at cause you can get any champ for free, you just have to work for it.

And you really don't need to buy extra rune pages unless you're too autistic to set them before a game. You get 11 or 15 of them for free which means you can just make well rounded builds that suit any situation.

back in '11 and their earlier years, sure

>have to buy characters, which aren't even close to balanced
>otherwise get stuck with whatever shit they throw in the weekly rotation
>somehow not pay2win
lol youre fucking retarded

You can get every single ones of those if you just play enough

>but mommy i want to win NOWWWW
literally the argument of every retard. Do you think those esports pros you keep donating to got good by throwing money at the game?

>Champions is just ridiculous to throw the p2w argument at cause you can get any champ for free, you just have to work for it.
p2w is a phrase reserved for free to play games, as a critique of exactly what you're describing here. I have never played league, but if this is your defense, then it's definitely pay to win.

They practically give you 20+ champs that are easily attainable with just one game worth of IP.

>lol, muh balance

You now what you do if you're having counter issues? Get good. Don't feed your counter and stay under tower. If your team can't help you than your team deserves to lose cause it's a team game. Even against a counter you can still win your lane if you adjust your strategy.

OK, but if some champions are better than others, and paying for them is the most efficient process to getting them, it's still pay to win

...

>EXP boosters mean dick when you're lvl 30
New players having a disadvantage isn't important? Idiot

>cause you can get any champ for free, you just have to work for it.
Or instead of working for it, you can just pay and get the upper hand. Since having specific champions and even having a variety of them are both benefits.

>you can just make well rounded builds that suit any situation
But having specific rune pages for certain champions or strategies is more potent

>You can get every single ones of those if you just play enough
You get the bonus that you normally wouldn't have then and there if you pay. It's not hard to understand.

>You now what you do if you're having counter issues? Get good.
Skill being a factor somehow eliminates everything else? You're fucking ridiculous

Go back to bed GRRM you old retarded fuck. You deserve to die alone and in squalor.

Its easy for a creator to forget that they create on the back of the quality of the story they tell and the audience reception to it.

Your stance is fine as long as you realize that your audience is the only tangible thing that separates you from those who are living in squalor working minimum wage while living in moms basement, trying to get your story told and out to a wider audience.

Most fail if you do not, you indeed owe your audience EVERYTHING.

Still shouldnt change even one thing for them though, its still your story.

The viewer chose to view the show by their own accord, ergo the performers/creators/whatever shouldn't have to make special concessions for them. It shouldn't matter how much time the viewer has given the creator; the viewer is not obligated to keep coming back, and the creator isn't obligated to pander to one (or more) viewer.

The argument kind of runs around in circles, because the creator obviously wants to make things that people will enjoy (on some level) and on the viewer obviously wants to be entertained. In a perfect world, they make a symbiosis and keep one another satisfied; the creator gets to create and the viewer gets to be entertained. But more often than not, it seems like the two are at odds, because the creator wants to express their ideas but the viewer has a specific idea of what entertains them. In the end, both sides are probably being petty on equal-parts, because they each just want do what satisfies them and them only.

But I'm rambling now, so I'll shut the fuck up before I say something even more retarded and scatter-brained than the guy before me.

>The audience is owed nothing.
starting a new show with that line is gonna get lots of fans

>your audience is the only tangible thing that separates you from those who are living in squalor
>you owe your audience everything
No. You made a thing they wanted. They aren't consuming your product- and that's exactly what it is, a goddamn product- out of charity, they're doing it because it's something they want. Your opinion is one purely from the perspective of the viewer. To them, the world is overflowing with content and any time they choose to give something even a passing second of their attention makes them feel like they're an emperor sparing the life of a gladiator in the Colosseum. In reality, a better metaphor would just be everyday people going to market and figuring out whatever bread happens to be to their taste, and the day a good baker starts "owing" his customers something for buying his bread, he's probably making really shitty bread.
The audience is owed nothing.

of course he was wrong

fans suck

Also, don't get me wrong- people who lose their audiences are usually making poor choices and creating bad stories. The fact remains, however, that a viewer is in principle owed nothing at all.

This.

Sup Forums made me hate fanbases so much, this place and tumblr actualy.

Creators Response

It's almost like you can make fun of both sides or something.

tumblr can be a lot of stupid things but is not Sup Forums and it's time we accept the fact that in this fucking board you cannot like anything, because if you like something that makes you a somekind of fag with no taste.

Some teenage girl on Tumblr drew a fatty character skinny. SU, determined to prove they're the most cancerous current fandom, dogpiled and dooxed her to the point of her attempting suicide. She went in patient at a mental health institute and later, after coming back out, told her side of the story. Those same dogpilers called her a liar and said she never went in patient.

It was so bad, actual show creators commented on it on Twitter.

In short, modern fandoms and social media was a mistake.

To the OP, he's kinda right, kinda wrong I think. Creators can create what they wish, and we as consumers have every right to consume or reject it. There are times though, where creators actively begin to shit on the people who consume and pay for their media. In cases like that, I do think people feel they are "owed" something. After all, they put money and time into consuming it.

>caring that other people called you a fag
I'd be more concerned about exploring your sexuality user.

This is stupid. Don't pander to fans who want it their way. Create something that is objectively good and that you enjoy.

This is from the Poochie episode right? then comic book guy was right, Poochi was a mistake

are you hitting on me user?

Dude, no, Dota is F2P since all heroes are free from the start , exp means shit and rune pages doesn't exist

The audience is owed nothing, but the show's creator is owed nothing in return. So don't bitch and moan when people stop watching because they don't put up with bullshit.

Can you name an I&S episode worse than "The Beagle Has Landed"?

You lazy, lazy fuck.

They had laid out some good points. Your loss.

The wonderful thing is that nobody owes anyone anything. People consume content and creators profit from it, one way or another. One can not happen without other, and forgetting the other side is a foolish act.

Either way, if I find something to be shit, I am within my rights to criticise it.

DOTA isn't free. You pay for DOTA with everything good inside you

Bart is completely in the wrong.
The viewer does not owe the television network anything. The network's whole purpose is to create content that will appeal to the viewer in the hopes that they will stick around for the commercials to gain ad revenue. If they fail to make something the audience will enjoy, that's on them.

I fucking hate the word "content" so much. It's not art, it's not entertainment, it's just "content", it's like a sandwich interior just labelled "filling" and full of industrial foam. It's simply there.

The only worse word is "Consumer", to reduce a human being down to an economic absorption unit. Now you might think "well user, they're just words! they're right in the specific context they're used in!", but that's exactly the problem: the words clue you in to underlying thought processes, and they spread those thought-processes as others (such as webcomic creators who want to entertain without monetary motivation) start to use the same language. It's not "my comic" but "my content", and while many will say "readers" instead of consumers (also dehumanizing, but not quite as bad) in general conversation it's not unusual for examples with wider scope to fall into using "consumers"

And the thing is, there's no hippie escape from this, we can't just join hands and realize our common humanity or some crap. We're stuck with it, we have been colonised.

The viewer is owed something good.
They aren't owed what they think they want, though. They're owed what's good for them.

Basically I take a paternalistic outlook to TV programming, like the BBC used to do before anyone on this board was born. (

>and while many will say "readers" instead of consumers
I agree with everything you said but what would you use instead of readers

this

Catholic here. I like to think of this in terms of God's grace. While I've been a part of the Church for a decade now, God doesn't owe me grace. If I sin, I lose His grace. I can't say "but I've been loyal to you for so long." And God has said I should rejoice in others' graces: "Your brother was once lost, but now is found; once dead, but now is alive." I should be thankful, not entitled, for as God says to the workers, "I can do with my money whatever I want."

>while many will say "readers" instead of consumers (also dehumanizing, but not quite as bad)
>can't call readers readers
What the fuck are we supposed to call them then? "People who read?" Get the fuck out of here with that kind of verbose PC nonsense.

I agree with the point that calling things content and product and consumers tends to portray the whole affair as if there was some objective measurement to tie to a monetary value. Gameplay time per dollar value gets bandied about a lot as well.

It's probably simply due to the vast, vast amount of things people can now read, watch, and listen to. It beggars imagination how much shit you have to wade through nowadays. Assigning dollar values to content and considering things from a consumer perspective just fits into the rational mode of thought the west likes and serves as a familiar basis to apply to the judgment of entertainment that doesn't require time consuming deep thought. It actually makes little objective sense because there's no real connection between most of what's measured, but it fits enough for most people. It's buyer beware taken to an extreme.

Be quiet George and FINISH THE FUCKING BOOK.

Disagree, the Audience is owed something. The audience is owed a quality product, they spent some money and time to see it so the stuff they see should at least be worth the time or money they spend to see the content.

I don't have an alternative word for "reader" and the point wasn't to argue for one, it was just to acknowledge that "readers" is a word of similar style (reducing people down to a function) even if it's far less offensive. I mean, there's not much wrong with "readers". It only becomes a problem when it's basically "consumers" but "consumers" would look context-inappropriate. (i.e. when the mindset of big business getting into the head of a small-time webcomic creator.)

Maybe there's a case in some contexts for "the audience" or something (for long-winded sentence-structure-y reasons.) but that's just thinking aloud.

I get what you mean but eh, maybe that's a bit too much. You're gonna have to use this sort of shorthand, and most people ARE, in fact, consumers at heart these days. They're fully OK with their only function in life being that of shopping and making kids to shop for. It can be offensive when someone says you are a consumer if you're aware of what it means but in the end the sweeping general term exists for a reason.