A great MCU show or episode would be one that parodies toxic fans.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
IGN changes reviewer for Marvel’s Loki after receiving backlash
- Thread starter Lifejumper
- Start date
- News
- Status
He didn't do that, he made a inferded point on how posters are prioritising insulting the review first then giving a half hearted "harassment is bad" statement afterwards.
The fact that you in particular are so upset over it is weird as you weren't called out.
or for the whole show even... it really is doing NOTHING for me, which is bumming me out. And I'm a huge Marvel fanboy :/
My point wasn't that 'I can't find the info, therefore it doesn't exist'. I'm asking that it be provided. The down voted video is good evidence that I was asking about, but the op makes no mention of it. This thread is light on facts, I don't think it's unfair to ask for some to be provided.
The thread in op doesn't seem to have any hate DMs. Not saying he didn't get them, but there's no mention of it.
This ain't it chief. "Review is good" does not imply victim blaming like "review is bad" does. It's not "just the literal same thing"; you should not be surprised at all to get side eyes when criticising the very things that made a victim a target of harassment, in the very thread about their harassment. Use some modicum of common sense.
His inferred point is ridiculous because the literal report of the situations frames things in that same order. "Review of show" -> "Reaction to review from fans" -> "Reaction by IGN"
Thats why half the first page responded with their view on the review followed by talking about fandoms and IGN. Did you just not notice that the reactions (even the ones who liked the review) started several posts?
Or did you only notice half of them... Yeah.
And I reacted particularly because its the truth, and because I didnt give a half assed statement afterwards. Makes me the perfect person to call out the nonsense.
What he said and insinuated is false. You can disagree with the review and still be on the right side of this period. You and anyone else trying to pretend otherwise is WRONG.
You first. Read my post and show me the part where I activated your amazing "side eye". Here I'll quote it for you, using the assumption that this modicum of common sense will urge you to finish reading the entire message before responding or assuming.
I was actually surprised the previous reviewer wasn't drowned in hype and was honest about the show, cause I think he was on point. All these MCU shows so far has been AT MOST a 7 at their highest points.
I didn't watch the latest episode yet, but I thought that 8 was by the same reviewer and that made me really want to watch the episode, now I know it's probably a 7 at most.
I didn't watch the latest episode yet, but I thought that 8 was by the same reviewer and that made me really want to watch the episode, now I know it's probably a 7 at most.
I didn't specify you as half assed. I said it was weird that you felt so upset because unlike the others your statement on harassment was pretty big and sincere. I was trying to be charitable to you and discouraging you from escalating it.
You are incredibly insulting.
But that's the reason I posted it. Because I felt strongly about it and figured I would be best to call it out seeing as I didn't just drop a one liner and leave. In any case Im gonna drop it. If protesting it ends up as big a vehicle for unnecessary stand offs as posting incendiary accusations to begin with, then what's the point..
I've been too afraid to express this here. I'm still watching, but the show is bad. Relative to the other contemporary MCU content.
I really enjoyed the episode, but the guy has every right to express his opinions and IGN shouldn't be changing the reviewer mid stream.
It would one hundred percent go over their heads.
Like, The Boys had a psychopatic murderer and his girlfriend from the original Nazi party running a blatantly populist and racist "Make America Safe Again" campaign, all the while Trump fans proudly cosplayed as him.
The very first sentence:
I felt the review was terrible and I disagree completely with it; but [...]
This is kind of the reverse "I'm not [awful human quality], but" sentence initiator, in that you really should have dispensed with the part before the but (instead of the part after it).
You do you but the aggressiveness you're displaying against everyone that calls you out on a clearly bad call, in a thread about harassment of all things, is visibly and steadily raising the possibility of getting yourself banned. I'd quit before that becomes 1.
Yeah that's what I thought. Telling me that you had to erase 90% of my post and use it out of context to get to that conclusion betrays the 'common sense' portion of the post you used before. By that same logic I could look at your post and trim it to this:
And side eye it; because who cares about context right? You are in a thread about someone being harassed and started a sentence with "To be fair". So as long as I ignore 90% of your post, the context and everything else, I can look at you sideways. And it wasn't me who was called out actually, it was a blanket statement made. But knowing that would require reading the whole thread and entire posts too instead of just bits of it.
But anyway, like I said Im dropping it. PM me if you really feel some kinda way. This is way ot now.
It's actually easily understood in the context of evolutionary psychology:
Politics is the Mind-Killer — LessWrong
People go funny in the head when talking about politics. The evolutionary reasons for this are so obvious as to be worth belaboring: In the ancestral…
www.lesswrong.com
what keeps you watching? Possibility of it impacting other shows etc? I usually tap out of a show in the first 10-15% of the show if it's not to my liking
If I wanted to imply that part doesn't exist, I would have simply erased the "but", too. I erased the part after the "but" because that's not the part people have been calling you out for. Your stubbornness in refusing to acknowledge just that, and in shielding yourself in "but I said harassment is wrong, OK?" is frankly exhausting.
This is so profoundly stupid I'm skeptical you thought it was a normal thing to type out. In either case I'm obviously not going to stoop down to address it.
You mean "like you said and then predictably proceeded not to"; or in other words, the old good "dropping it as long as I can publicly get in the last word."
No prizes for guessing exactly how thrilled I would be to continue this absolute nonsense of a conversation over PMs.
same. I didn't know what to expect with watching the show, but at this point after having completing the fifth episode I daresay it just feels...weird. Or, I don't feel anything from it. But I am only still watching to see what effect it'll have on the larger MCU canon.
At the start of Loki they recapped the end of Avengers man, to be honest this serialization thing is their bread and butter. I dont think you have to worry about not being able to follow future projects if the were willing to recap Avengers all these years later. Its honestly one of the things restricting the complexity of their writing. They have to design this stuff so that even if you miss something you can still follow along "good enough" if you watch a show or a movie down the line.
I sorta checked out at the last few eps of FATWS skipping through them at light speed through tons of dialogue. Im sure I didn't miss anything important they wont just 'bring me up to date on' in the future. Them having to not really go too far is the reason I expect the villain of the show to be less..... exciting than many people hope.
That won't stop toxic fans from harassing the reviewer they disagree with.
It would be pretty easy to see through that action for us... Let alone the reviewer who does this for a living.
That's not really a story at all though.
There are segments of toxicity in absolutely every large fandom. MCU, Star Wars, DCEU, etc.
The most popular gaming website on the internet, want to take a guess?
EDIT:
I like this idea
1) it's hilarious when people say "so and so gave this a bad review they also gave this a bad review" when it's different reviewers
2) also hilarious that people will only accept positive reviews so why even give a bad review to anything, make it positive and never upset anybody
2) also hilarious that people will only accept positive reviews so why even give a bad review to anything, make it positive and never upset anybody
WARNING: LEAVE THE POOR WIDDLE CORPORATION POST INCOMING.
OK we really suck at the times we need to have a tiny bit of self-reflection it would seem.
Last week wasn't there another negative online review people were hemming and hawing about in the Black Widow reviews thread, it was really early on but it was there. I was wondering aloud about something like this in the Dorff thread. There was no point to any of the sturm und drang in there.
A highly visible online presence and dare I say it, a celebrity profile, gets foisted on to you with a job like IGN movie reviewer, we should understand that most companies like IGN/similar big sites would train/manage a lot of their editorial and front-facing workforce to (sadly) expect online harassment.
This of course doesn't excuse the fact it is happening.
But companies like this should be commended for thinking of their employees welfare in this regard, if anything. No, the way they do it might not always be 'the right way' but I'm not about to say I'm equipped to know.
OK we really suck at the times we need to have a tiny bit of self-reflection it would seem.
Last week wasn't there another negative online review people were hemming and hawing about in the Black Widow reviews thread, it was really early on but it was there. I was wondering aloud about something like this in the Dorff thread. There was no point to any of the sturm und drang in there.
A highly visible online presence and dare I say it, a celebrity profile, gets foisted on to you with a job like IGN movie reviewer, we should understand that most companies like IGN/similar big sites would train/manage a lot of their editorial and front-facing workforce to (sadly) expect online harassment.
This of course doesn't excuse the fact it is happening.
But companies like this should be commended for thinking of their employees welfare in this regard, if anything. No, the way they do it might not always be 'the right way' but I'm not about to say I'm equipped to know.
Like a different reviewer per episode? That seems disjointed. If a season of a show is designed with a specific throughline, it makes more sense to have a reviewer stick with that step-by-step. Otherwise people can come in with wildly different takes on a singular train of thought, and questions or observations are left never followed up on.
If you mean multiple reviewers discussing a single show, that's rarely going to happen outside of a weekly staff podcast or something (and I know IGN used to have a TV/movies podcast, but I don't know if that's still a thing). You're unlikely to get multiple written reviews because it just doesn't make sense to dedicate 2 or 3 writers to cover a single show. Unless you did it like a correspondence article with back-and-forths or something, but again, that is still resources that can be spent having those writers covering other shows.
Last edited:
Please tell me this is satire and you don't actually believe IGN is doing this out of concern for the reviewer, rather than to preserve their brand in the eyes of disgruntled fans.
Excuse me - I don't know why we have a different reviewer on the show now - I'm not looped in on that at all - but I really am not OK with this insinuation and I don't think other folks should be either. Always open to criticism when we get something wrong but I think that criticism should be based in fact and not dark accusations.
D+ Monsters at Work: 5/10
Netflix's Dynasty Warriors: 2/10
The Tomorrow War: 3/10
Loki Ep 4 Review: 5/10
Black Widow Review: 7/10
Godzilla Singular Point: 5/10
Atari VCS Review: 5/10
Those are from the last few days - you don't have to go digging through the archives to find them. And for the record the same critic that gave Ep 4 a 5/10 gave Eps 1-3 all individually 7/10s.
In my 10 years at IGN and my 5+ years writing for other outlets big and small I have NEVER witnessed or experienced any pressure to score anything in any way other than the score I felt it should be given.
Again, I have no insight into why Loki now has a different reviewer - but I'm uncomfortable that so many immediately jump to an extremely serious accusation of... corruption? A lack of editorial independence? It just.... isn't true. And no one seems to care that it isn't true. Everyone seems very content to just slide by comments like this.
Since, weirdly, no one seems to be reacting to this post, I gotta honestly say thanks for this bit of insight.
On the actual topic of the show, reviews seems to be mixed across the board. I personally love the show and thought each episode has gotten better. Understandably a lot of people are underwhelmed/disappointed. People catching feelings on this? I just don't understand.
They should have just kept the review and told people to grow up. Alot of people who go on these harassment campaigns have the body of an adult but the mind of a child still stuck in early development.
I don't buy corporate caring about their employees one bit. It's always profit before people.
This seems like clickbait posts I mean they have been jumping around the score from the get go. I think it was episode 2 that also got a low score from them and the comments section was also like "you dont know what your talking about etc". Which as long as it doesn't lead to harassment I dont think its wrong for people to comment their displeasure with the review. Where it gets odd is when they start contradicting themselves in posts on the site and social media with stuff like "why we love Loki" "We are obsessed" and the like. So it doesn't line up with their reviews but its obvious since it drives traffic so they are milking the shit out of it. When you start reading stuff from IGN and other larger companies it becomes difficult to know who reviewed or wrote what mainly because people dont read the articles in general anymore let alone the author credits. Social media posts are worse since they just post a general summary of the article. This is why people like watching smaller streamers and influencers.
Last edited:
I did what I could to warn you in capitals, I actually don't have an actual opinion at least where IGN is concerned, I'm talking about this thread itself/the board here.
The reviews team of any major outlet is by its nature never going to please everyone.
The people who are in those roles deserve none of this back and forth, least of all the original author of the review in question.
Two issues when it comes to this kind of work are: how crucial social media and personal brand management are. And how undervalued they tend to be at most sites and publications.
It is what it is. Typically I don't read a lot of the threads here to know how bad it is, but if it's a problem, going by what others say, it's something that can be addressed. It's not gonna stop those same people from continuing offsite.
I missed the part where you commented on that, but yeah: toxic fans are toxic fans, and Era has a monstruous (and generally unchecked) amount of them. Circle jerking is encouraged and any dissenting voices are driven out through harassment not dissimilar to that here. Like, someone went to the effort to look up the game I was working on and shit on it for three paragraphs straight, all because I dared criticise JL's Snyder's Cut trailer.
My twitter got fucking hacked like a day after making a crack about the Snyder Cut. Locked me out for like a month. Those people are fucking lunatics in a league of their own.
Damn, now that's just creepy. Imagine sitting for hours trying to find anything on one person just to avenge a director and company who don't even know you exist.
- Status