“The fans had the wrong expectations!” - How legitimate is the argument?

[AndrewCrossett]

With Dany, you just have to kind of assume the family madness caught up with her and her actions were not based on her convictions but on mental illness. Still a pretty crappy way to end a story, even if that's how GRRM plans to end it. Like a reverse deus-ex-machina. In a heroic story characters' fates shouldn't be based on factors entirely outside of their control. (In real life yes, but we have fiction for a reason.)

There WAS foreshadowing that Dany might be going in that direction, and the murder of Missandei may have pushed her over the edge. So it might have been bad storytelling, or it may have been a bad story told well.

[9th.]

It's a very legitimate argument fans can be very picky, petty, and straight up delusional ESPECIALLY if its a genre show/movie. I don't know what it is about Sci-fi and fantasy that makes people crazy but it does. The internet is a breeding ground for fanfics, fan theories and shipping wars which can greatly alter ones perception of the story and or characters. Now with that said fans can't take sole responsibility, sometimes the writers give you complete nonsense that came out of nowhere. I've been a fan of many shows that jumped the shark and fell off a cliff, it happens and it's very frustrating.

[godisawesome]

I get that, but my takeaway was a bit different. I felt like the fleshing out of Barney and Robin's relationship worked in the finale's favor. To my mind, the relationship was a very meaningful step in both character's development, even though it didn't work out.

For Barney, it put him on the path toward wanting a committed relationship and a family, which was apparently a setup for the spinoff that never happened.

For Robin, it showed that Ted was the only viable relationship for her, but only after they'd gotten older.

That's why seeing Barney and Robin's relationship end in a time lapse fashion worked for me, personally.

I can understand that, but I do think it still effectively comes off as a red herring with substance versus a creator’s decision that’s almost entirely concept instead; HIMYM feels to me like it has an ending where the “you had the wrong expectations” defense simply fails because there was far more meat in the red herring deliberately setting up expectations to be subverted than in the ending that was mostly just a thesis with a “gotcha” element to it.

HIMYM thus comes off as the perfect example of a show where it succumbs to the parallel argument to the “wrong expectations” defense - the “this is a better, more cohesive, and more resonant story if you stop watching before the true ending.”

I know it's beating the proverbial dead horse but "The Last Jedi" has become the poster child for the "Subverting expectations" defense as joke. Or, as a friend of mine put it, after TLJ, whenever anyone starts to defend a movie with "It subverted...", he will snap, "Oh, shut the f*** up and get a real argument". It's the symbol now of subverting expectations for the sheer three-ring circus shock value of it with no narrative sense.

Sounds like your friend is the one who needs a real argument.

I kind of want to add a bit of nuance to this argument: there are some ways where the subversion-of-expectations debate has material substance when deployed, but other instances where it actually lacks substance and is a waste of time.

Subversion, in and of itself, is not a substance argument, it’s a process argument. You can’t use subversion, then, in an argument about substance, but you can use it in an argument about process.

With the Last Jedi, I’d say it breaks down like this:

-For a defender of the film, if they perceive a criticism as lacking material dealing with the substance of the story and hinging entirely on what-ifs and could-have-beens, the subversion argument *can* work int he sense of “you are ignoring the creative process that justifies these decisions. And argument that, say, Supergirl should fall in love with Lena that doesn’t talk about their adversarial relationship on the show, or that doesn’t address their other major canonical relationships that would impede that, is easily defeated by the “subversion of expectations” because the expectations have no substance behind them in the show beyond “pretty people with good chemistry.”

-However, if a criticism deals with the substance of the story, the subversion argument becomes less functional and needs supplemental arguments in order to be legitimate, but still has an important function to play. For instance, if I’m arguing that Rey should have been revealed as a Skywalker in TLJ, that remains an easily defeat-able argument *unless* I begin to deconstruct and take apart the substance - or lack-there-of - behind Rey being Random, highlight how the other trilogies all have a Skywalker as their man protagonist, and how Kylo seems to be treated as a protagonist *only* because of his Skywalker heritage, in a way wherein Rey’s story and role is de-emphasized or even damaged in a way that Rey Skywalker wouldn’t be. The counterargument to my complaint will still need subversion, but to argue that the substance in the answers given was greater than the substance expected.

-Subversion of expectations alone actually makes a bad argument, and the more an answer relies on the surprise and unexpected nature of the reveal, the weaker and frankly more hypocritical the argument gets. If someone is defending TLJ!Luke’s story and emphasizes the surprise and shock as it’s greatest appeal, they are forfeiting the best arguments they could use - Hamill’s acting and (maybe ) the writing behind it - and ceding a lot of ground to the criticism in exchange for very little substance in defense of the portrayal.

-There are also times where a subversion-of-expectations argument may run into unfortunate implications or double standards that make the point arguably more dangerous to the defense than to the criticism. For instance, you don’t really want to try using subversion-of-expectation in defense of Rey and Kylo’s story in TLJ: the “expectations” that are being subverted all have to do with Kylo murdering and maiming her friends or violating her mind, and how illogical and repugnant that is to the foundation of a relationship. It also opens up the story to potential allegations of racism, because brining in “expectations” allows a critic to point out that the film seems to expect the audience to buy into Rey crushing on Kylo instead of, say, Finn... with the expectation of that working being mildly racist.

[Will Evans]

This is how you subvert the fans expectations:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=x01l_jMhjVM&t=210s

[kjn]

It's an interesting topic of discussion, but the general answer will likely be: A little from column A, a little from column B. The rest boils down to the specifics for each project and each viewer's personal reactions:

Agreed.

But I think creators and publishers in long-established franchises need to be aware that expectation management is a real thing. Genres are really about saying what you can expect of a work. I think most of the time "the fans had the wrong expectations" is a cop-out, but sometimes it's because of the marketing that the publisher provided (the Birds of Prey movie is a in my mind a really great, or if you want bad, example of this).

[Kieran_Frost]

Sometimes fans have their very own unrealistic expectations, like when they insist some character should turn gay and fall in love with the other person of the same sex. This happens in the Supergirl show with Kara and Lena. Some fans insist they are in love.. However, in the story, Kara has never expressed any romantic feeling for Lena. Kara, however, fell in love and slept with Mon-El. And has had more romances with other males. This has become an obsession for this fans, and the show will be ruined if it never happens.

I have to say, stating someone can't be gay because they've never shown attraction to anyone by the opposite sex is... not a good arguement. Plenty of men have come out after having a wife and kids. One doesn't exclude the possibility of another.

There are other kind of expectations fans have based on the story and how the characters act and develop. It's why many can't accept Dany tuned evil and killed so many innocents the way it happened in the final season of GOT. It wasn't earned or honest development because she was shown to be a more compassionate person. The show had to turn Jon so cold with her so that Dany had no other option but give up to her worse impulses. That's a terrible story. What happened to those baby comments she had with Jon in Season 7? It felt like real foreshadowing, but the writers completely ignored it to subvert expectations. They did, but in a really bad way with most of the characters, IMO. I can totally understand the hate.

Some expectations make a lot of sense, and others are just illogical based on the story we are being told and characters and their history.

For me the Dany thing was sold by Tyrion's speech, it all made sense. She killed SO MANY PEOPLE and we praised her for it. She crucified people, and we cheered. I think it really hit home the foreshadowing. This WASN'T out of the realm of what Dany can do. It actually was in keeping with everything we knew of her. YES she can be merciful and kind, but she also can be cruel and merciless. She chained the witch to the bonfire and had her burnt alive. Where was her mercy then?

And Jon was cold because the actor has no variety. He did one thing well: Jon Snow being moody. All other variations never worked. Kitt is pretty af, but he is not a good actor. Emilie Clarke isn't that brilliant either, to be honest. And I do think this is where the show had problems, these very complex character developments needed a FANTASTIC actor to sell them, to take us on that journey. And they didn't have that. They would go from one emotions to the next with seemingly nothing connecting A to B.

[Kaitou D. Kid]

I think the argument is like plot twists. It only works when there was evidence all along, but was subtle enough that the fans ignored it.

Gurren Lagann is an example of when the argument is legitimate. The creators of the show tricked people into thinking Kamina was the main character, then they killed him off in episode 8. However, it's obvious when you go back and watch the first 8 episodes that Simon was always the main character.

The argument is 100% illegitimate with Snoke. There is literally nothing in TFA to suggest Snoke wasn't the main bad guy.

[WebLurker]

Why? Because he had the audacity to point out that a movie subverts expectations simply to subvert expectations in a way that makes no sense because the director just likes subverting expectations?

The original point, as it came off, is that the movie was bad because it subverted and desconstructed Star Wars. That's not a bad thing in and of itself (heck, it was long overdue and the movie reconstructed it by the end). The only thing that matters in terms of appraising the film once it's been established to be a deconstruction is whether it did that well or not. That's something very different (something I think the movie did exceptionally well, something you appear to disagree with).

[Steel Inquisitor]

The argument is 100% illegitimate with Snoke. There is literally nothing in TFA to suggest Snoke wasn't the main bad guy.

Snoke wasn't that big of a loss, and given how Kylo Ren was rising through the movies I'd say it would have been simple to transition him to be the main villain for ROTS. He's the tie who binds the villains together in the trilogy.

[Starter Set]

Star Wars has become quite used to blame the fans for everything amusingly enough.

You had the wrong expectations, you hate women, you're racist...I would have expected that from fanboys but from officials and directors? That's new lol.

Or maybe it just could be that the writing in those movies is really shitty.

Ah, mysteries...

[Kieran_Frost]

The original point, as it came off, is that the movie was bad because it subverted and desconstructed Star Wars.

Agreed. Unforgiven (1992) deconstructed the Western genre and cliches brilliantly. Nothing wrong with deconstruction.

[A Small Talent For War]

Agreed. Unforgiven (1992) deconstructed the Western genre and cliches brilliantly. Nothing wrong with deconstruction.

It sorta did, but how much did it really deconstruct? Clint Eastwood's career had been playing anti-heroes in contrast to the John Wayne, Gary Cooper and Henry Fonda Western heroes or good cops of the 40's and 50's. The only big surprise is that any of those characters he played would have lived to old age. The Western and the history of the old west had already changed considerably and Unforgiven, a script that had been around for a long time, wasn't very different from many Westerns, including John Wayne's The Shootist and Eastwood's own Josey Wales, that had already delivered a much more downbeat view of violence in the Old West even though none of these films could be considered any more realistic than either of the True Grit movies. In the end, the movie builds up to a triumphant deadly shoot-out where the hero takes out a saloon full of characters we've come to hate like Shane did 40 years earlier. Deadwood was more of a deconstruction of the Old West mythology, but honestly there still hasn't been a Western that has really undercut the myths of the old west or even realistically depicted the era.

A good film to use as an example in this topic is CAPONE. There are several plot points set up in the trailer for the film that really deceive the audience when it comes to what the actual movie is about or even what sort of film it actually is.

[Username taken]

Star Wars has become quite used to blame the fans for everything amusingly enough.

You had the wrong expectations, you hate women, you're racist...I would have expected that from fanboys but from officials and directors? That's new lol.

Or maybe it just could be that the writing in those movies is really shitty.

Ah, mysteries...

Who involved in the production of the movie said these things?

It’s definitely not Kathleen Kennedy because her silence had been deafening. Johnson made a few comments but most of them were in defense of the movie, Abrams on the other hand pretty much accepted the criticism of TROS and had pretty much moved on.

[Kieran_Frost]

It sorta did, but how much did it really deconstruct? Clint Eastwood's career had been playing anti-heroes in contrast to the John Wayne, Gary Cooper and Henry Fonda Western heroes or good cops of the 40's and 50's. The only big surprise is that any of those characters he played would have lived to old age. The Western and the history of the old west had already changed considerably and Unforgiven, a script that had been around for a long time, wasn't very different from many Westerns, including John Wayne's The Shootist and Eastwood's own Josey Wales, that had already delivered a much more downbeat view of violence in the Old West even though none of these films could be considered any more realistic than either of the True Grit movies.

It totally deconstructed the western genre. Taking apart the absurdity of myth, calling the idea of "quick draw" just a fallacy, removing this nothing of heroes and villains. They are human, flawed humans, and none of them "won" in the end. For all the 'victory' of not dying, Will Munny still ended up a penniless pig farmer. Legends aren't remembered, fame is fickle, the Schofield Kid hasn't killed anyone before, nor can he see. Hell, English Bob isn't even English. It's all about removing the glamour, heroism and "nobility" of the Wild West. They were psychopaths, and they got lucky.

In the end, the movie builds up to a triumphant deadly shoot-out where the hero takes out a saloon full of characters we've come to hate like Shane did 40 years earlier.

I... hmmmm... in the politest possible way if you think the ending was 'the hero' taking out the trash, I think you missed the point of the movie. Will Munny is NOT a hero. The film made that very clear. Nor is Little Bill 'evil'.

Who involved in the production of the movie said these things?
It’s definitely not Kathleen Kennedy because her silence had been deafening. Johnson made a few comments but most of them were in defense of the movie, Abrams on the other hand pretty much accepted the criticism of TROS and had pretty much moved on.

I assume Starter Set was referencing the actors; some have definitely said this, partly because they are directly asked to comment on it in interviews Maybe the director said it also?

[Steel Inquisitor]

I assume Starter Set was referencing the actors; some have definitely said this, partly because they are directly asked to comment on it in interviews Maybe the director said it also?

Various stars in SW have had troubling interactions with the fandom online, especially the women and minorities. It's impacted other movies like Captain Marvel and Black Panther, as well. It's a industry onto itself on sites like You Tube.