Fandom and the Ideology of "Change Is Good"

Post Reply New Topic

From the dawn of internet fandom, two factions have been engaged in endless conflict: those that criticize every new thing in the franchise and those that defend every new thing in the franchise. Both have their points, both go too far sometimes.

The latter frequently uses the phrase "you just don't like change" to defend things. It typically goes something like this:

CRITICAL PERSON: *14-paragraph highly-detailed diatribe about why they don't like the latest installment of whatever franchise.*

DEFENSIVE PERSON: *replies* "Oh, you just don't like change."

In this ideology, change is presented as being inherently good (sometimes they will literally post "change is good") and disliking change as an inherently negative trait.

I'm just wondering what people think about this, since whenever I read anything online about Autism, they almost always mention disliking change and adherence to routine as being common traits. It's actually true that I don't like change, to some degree.

Why this is curious to me, is that nowadays, politics has been introduced into this pre-existing circular debate, with the "change is good" side typically swaying Left and the more critical of change side typically swaying Right. (I am politically unaffiliated.) So the people bashing anyone who dislikes changes to their favorite media are also typically the people who profess to be in favor of inclusion and neurodiversity. Specifically, I'm thinking of my theme park fandoms. Unlike movies and TV where "the original will always be there," the changes to locations and attractions are permanent. People have a strong emotional connection to these places and when they're upset about them changing, that's always met with the idea that they ought to like the new version better, because it's change and change is good. Also, they must like it better as soon as it's announced, before they ever even experience it.

Paradoxically, other people argue that you must like the new version because it isn't changing. This is happening right now in the ongoing Splash Mountain/Tiana's Bayou Adventure debate (and every prior attraction re-theme debate) arguing that because the track isn't changing, it's the same ride, "only the theme" is changing. They seem to be baffled and annoyed that anyone in a theme park fandom would care about theming.

One thing I do want to change about myself is...caring too much about what these random strangers think about these things. Yet here's this post. But some of this stuff is still rather curious to me and I just wondered what people on this forum think about it.

I’m too old to be into “fandom.”

Take Star wars for example.

In my opinion the first film that came out was the best and it seemed to only go downhill from there.

Andor is very good, it's story is from a new perspective but doesn't change anything.

I think changing star wars in a certain way is bad. Like introducing double bladed light sabres is kinda pointless
changing the rules of the universe to say that someone doesn't need training to fight with a lightsaber is annoying cos then you should start a new franchise with those rules.

Andor is different enough to be fresh, telling the story of unremarkable people instead of Jedi and politicians.

So bringing in new characters and locations is fine but changing the rules is what might annoy people.

Also blatantly repeating plots from the past has never seemed to work.

I think there is a difference between change in style vs change in essence. John can go out in a t-shirt and shorts one day, a sweater and jeans the next, but he's still John. He's not James, Hank, or Sally. People get very offended when they feel the essence of their fandom is altered to something it isn't. But since different people perceive that essence as different things, strife is forged in the community. Is Star Wars a religious franchise of good overcoming evil, or rebelling against an oppressive authority to give freedom for all? Star Wars has elements of both, but depending on what direction you focus on, you can get very different movies.

I think telling an ongoing story requires that some stuff change. A story is inherently a progression. If you want something that is always the same, re-experience the old material, or stick to paintings.

That said, it's perfectly understandable that you might dislike a change. This could be because you dislike change in itself, or it could be because you think the change is the wrong direction.

Theme parks are different. There might be business reasons why a park or a ride needs to freshen up, but there aren't narrative ones, as far as I can tell. Some people enjoy rides because of the adrenaline, but others value other parts of the experience. Neither is right or wrong - your view that the old theme was better, and it materially affects your enjoyment, is just as valid as the "it's still the same tracks" view. It's definitely easy to see why this would affect you, as an autistic person, more deeply than the average person.

I'm a casual “Star Wars” fan. (“Back to the Future” was my main trilogy when I was a kid.) I don't really mind certain changes that have upset hardcore fans. However, I feel like when "Star Wars" started out, it was a primarily a space fantasy adventure for the young and the young at heart. Sometimes I wonder if I imagined that, because apparently now it's considered a gritty war story/political allegory and people on social media say that's what it always was and that's the only reason they like it. And perhaps it was that, too – like, that was the subtext. But when I see that old news footage from 1977 with people lined up around the block at movie theaters, I can't imagine were thinking, “Oh boy, a very serious and important allegory for the Vietnam War! I'm so excited to see that!” Nowadays, I feel like people want to cut out the more child-like, escapist elements and the franchise is playing to that trend.

I haven't seen “Andor,” though I hear it's good. I tried to watch the first episode of “Obi-Wan” and it was more depressing than what I'm looking for from “Star Wars.”

What's funny to me is that shortly after “Star Wars,” they made “The Star Wars Holiday Special,” which pretty much everyone hated. If it came out today, you'd probably have people saying, “But it's change, so that means it's good!”



Yes, I agree.

I usually relate to other people through common interests, but we often like the same things for different reasons and that does cause a lot of the conflict in fan communities.

If James, Hank or Sally was wearing a nametag that said, "Hi, My Name Is John," you might be like "That's not John" and certain people online would say, "That's John now. If you don't like it, maybe you need to accept that John just isn't FOR YOU."



Yes, this is the big thing for me. I think change can be good and is frequently necessary, it depends on what it is. They think change is always good and it's good because it's change.

Going back to “Star Wars,” when I saw the sequel trilogy, I wanted to see what happened next in the story after "Return of the Jedi." "Force Awakens" opened with the idea of a new dynamic between the New Republic, the Resistance and the First Order. Then, halfway through the first movie, they just blew up the New Republic and went at light-speed back to the status quo of the OT with the First Order in charge just like the Empire. There's a case where I think they needed more change.



It's true that in theme park attractions, there isn't typically an ongoing narrative as there is a series like “Star Wars” or the MCU. However, Splash Mountain has a self-contained narrative with villains, a climax, a happy ending and a basic “There's no place like home” moral.

“Princess and the Frog” is a good choice for a recognizable IP to go in there as it fits the bayou setting. However, story-wise, the new attraction will be about Tiana opening a food co-op in an abandoned salt mine. No mention of any villain, conflict, suspense or any story element that sounds thrilling.



It would surprise me less if it came from the average person on the street and not someone who cares about Disney theme parks enough to join a fan group.

I recognize their enjoyment is just as valid as mine. I like the physically thrilling aspect of the rides, too. It would be one thing if they were like, “I only enjoy the drops, so I personally don't care if they change the scenery.” But they're more like, “Thinking theming is important in a theme park?! What madness!”

It would be like if I went on a Six Flags fan group and acted shocked that anyone on there liked thrills.

Then, there's the politicized aspect of this particular discussion. Because the ride is based on a controversial movie, people say things like, “There's no way you guys actually like Splash Mountain that much” and then accuse people who are upset that it's closing of having some sinister ulterior motive. But Splash Mountain is one of the most popular theme park attractions of all time. It shouldn't be surprising that yes, people actually do like it that much.

Sometimes, a theme park ride is just a ride. People just politicize things too much.

Star Wars can be interpreted on many levels….just like someone like Shakespeare. According to the age of the person, the mood of the person, etc. Your interpretation is probably just as valid as other, supposedly “deeper” interpretations.

I don’t like the idea of “change for the sake of change.”

I don't mind change as long as it doesn't turn continuity into a train wreck.

Am even more "out of it" than Krafty. Dont go to theme parks and use their rides much myself.

Saw the first Star Wars movie in a theater in the Seventies. Loved it. But never got around to seeing any sequel. A friend said he hated the latest one. But since I usually hate movies he likes that made me curious to see it. Caught some of it and...it did NOT grab me either.

Star Wars laser swords are so idiotic and so contrived to begin with that theyre laughable. A future civilization with space faring level technology would never use anything that dumb as a real weapon. Its just a contrived way for Hollywood to introduce Errol Flynn type swordplay into a space opera. So if you're loyal to a certain kind of laser sword over another you're being loyal to a joke. Also even if you buy into laser sabers... since it is a trilogy set over generations its to be expected that the technology of this future civilization would evolve and change over the time span of the story so the dumb sabers would be expected to change.

Doesn't surprise me. "Conservatism" is about preserving inequality, i.e. it's against (that kind of) change. "Progressivism" is about radically reducing inequality, which of course would be a big change. I don't know what fandom is.

Obviously change can do harm and good, and there's not a lot of sense in embracing or rejecting it for the sheer sake of it. The accusation "you just don't like change" probably wouldn't be very hard to unpick and refute unless the accused was an extreme case. But trying to speak out against rhetorical nonsense in political debates would usually be a futile and thankless task. They mostly don't want inquisitorial debate, they want adversarial debate, and they want to win.

Yes. Thank you .





Me neither and me neither. I understand that adaptations and sequels have to change things sometimes, but some of the changes they make just boggle my mind.



I am very out of it when it comes to movies. I used to read movie reviews religiously. Now I'm barely aware of new movies coming out. One of the reasons I'm so much more into theme parks now is that they are still mostly about escapism.



I used to kind of defend the first two Disney “Star Wars” films. Then I saw “Rise of Skywalker.” It was just a mess.



Personally, changes to the lightsabers don't bother me.

One of the big appeals to “Star Wars” was how it mashed up all these different genres. Space opera, fantasy, western, World War II movie, Errol Flynn swashbuckler and so on. I think that's something that was missing from the Disney sequel trilogy. The closest they came was having a James Bond-style casino planet in “Last Jedi,” and that scene wasn't received so well.



Fandom is just an internet slang word for fan community .

I can see where resistance to change could be associated with Conservatism, but people who aren't even Conservative are getting lumped in with it based on their media tastes.



Yes, exactly.



Yes, people online are always using short stock phrases against anyone they disagree with. For every "you just don't like change!" in an entertainment discussion there is someone from the other side posting "You go woke, you go broke!"

One of the things I wanted to look at in this thread is the irony that some self-declared Progressives who champion neurodiversity and acceptance are now the ones peddling the traditional bullying anti-geek sentiments. “They don't like change. They don't like the trendy new things you're supposed to like. They're basement-dwelling man-children and they need to grow up and conform.” They're posting this stuff in our own fan communities. And they don't seem to take into account that some of the people they're talking to might be ND and have difficulty adjusting to change. Or question it when they're told what they're supposed to think/feel.

Like, according to some of these people, the second J.K. Rowling made her anti-trans statements, I was morally obligated to flip a switch in my brain and instantly hate “Harry Potter.” I'm not going to do that. However, again ironically, they have somewhat changed my perception of “Harry Potter,” because when I originally read it, Hermione was one of my favorite characters, and now I think, “Hermione was kind of a progressive activist. If I lived in that universe, maybe she would hate me for not being an activist, too.” Since that seems to be the attitude these people take.

Then, the Conservatives swoop in and say, “See? They hate you! Join our side!” Which I also don't do. But it's very strange to me that they're the ones trying to appeal to me as a geek, when I associate them with appealing to traditionalist Christians, which I'm definitely not. Such as, for example, when they tried to convince people that “Harry Potter” was trying to make their children worship Satan and all that sort of thing.

And the current Conservative online entertainment critics do frequently make a lot of sense, saying the purpose of entertainment is to entertain and that media corporations are churning out assembly line products and using identity politics to deflect criticism...but then they try to slip in some Conservative ideology that I never agreed with, and I'm out.

Thanks - obvious when you think about it, but for some reason I didn't.


Yes I've noticed a disconnect between socialism and (many) socialists, which is part of the reason why I've never joined a political party.


Right, chucking zingy phrases around doesn't add anything to the argument, but it's surprising how many people behave as if it does. If I'm wrong about a thing, I want to know the detail of why I'm wrong, not whether or not anybody can issue a clever put-down.


Yes, essentially they're changing the subject.


It's very ad-hominem isn't it? I don't quite understand how the merit of a book can change when its author says something controversial about an entirely different matter after they've written the book. I liked "Everyone's Gone To The Moon" by Jonathan King. Then they found out he was a pedophile. If I point out that the record hasn't changed one iota and that I therefore still like it, does that make me a pedophile?


Yes it's just a cynical attempt to win converts. I hope it doesn't work, but I fear it might.


I've never known anybody yet whose every word I agree with. But it's as if many people are looking for some "great person" who speaks nothing but truth, and/or some "complete jerk" who talks complete rubbish all the time. I guess that's why there are all those memes that are falsely attributed to Einstein. It carries so much more weight if instead of saying "I think x" they say "Einsten/Gandhi said x" It seems to be a great way of leading people up the garden path, or at least a lot of people act as if it is. Hasn't worked on me since I was a child.

Hope it's okay to dig up this thread. I had mentioned the upcoming closure of Splash Mountain. The ride just closed at Disneyland a few days ago, bringing up the conversation again. Many people are sad that the popular ride closed, while others are, once again, angry at us for being sad. After reading dozens upon dozens of comments saying that the physical ride will be the same and therefore, nobody should be upset, I posted this in a Facebook discussion:

(Again, I acknowledge that people can enjoy a Disneyland ride any way they want. It's just that, getting angry at Disneyland fans for caring about theming is basically the equivalent of going to a baseball game just because you like the hot dogs and then being shocked and enraged that people actually like to watch the players play the game.)

Here's a response from a man after my own heart:


But then, I also got responses like this:





What do either of those have to do with my comment, which was a response the claim that there was no significant change happening at all?

I explained to person #2:



She replied:



The simplest explanation is that these people are just trolls. They'll say anything to get a rise out of anyone for their own amusement. The funny thing is, I can enjoy mean humor. If there was the tiniest shred of wit or insight to these comments, I might find them funny myself, but there is none.

Another possibility is that they actually believe in this pure good vs. pure evil worldview, in which people who are glad Splash Mountain has closed are good, and people who are sad that it closed are all evil racists who must also hate "Princess and the Frog." I certainly didn't say anything to that effect. They can't wrap their minds around the idea that somebody could be sad a ride is closing and like the movie the new version will be based on and hope that the new version of the ride will be good, too.

May I suggest studying advertising, propaganda, and capitalism, for some deeper insight into these "fandom" phenomena

I believe the real reason the change is happening because "Princess and the Frog" is more marketable and merchandisable than Splash Mountain. I also believe it is deliberately marketed to spark these kinds of internet arguments in order to generate buzz. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, other, similar changes to attractions which had nothing to do with politics also drew similar criticisms and similar defenses. The difference is that now, anyone with a critical opinion of the change can be painted not only as inherently wrong for disliking change, but a bad person in general.