@Arkandel said in Fanbase entitlement:
See, that still doesn't satisfy me @Tinuviel. Let me be more clear on why.
Just because we know kickback is expected it doesn't make it justified. For instance George Martin delaying Winds of Winter for years was guaranteed to cause the fanbase to grumble but it's perfectly within his rights to not work (which is what it is) if he doesn't want to. Those are separate things.
Sure, and I hold that (at least roughly) one entity's rights end when another entity's rights begin. Thus if something doesn't meet expectations, then the expector has the right to complain. They do not have the right to react in a way that the average person would consider over the top. Your football team doesn't win? You can be angry, but you can't riot and raise hell, for example.
So does fiscal viability play a role (and what kind of role)? For example the Star Wars prequels were quite successful financial but the common consensus is that those movies were shit; does the number of tickets sold alter the premise? Was Lucas less stupid for doing them the way he did because it still made money?
It depends entirely on the goal of releasing the content in question. Making the prequels might well have been a passion project yadda yadda, but the ultimate goal of a film-maker of such a scale as Lucas is to make money. He made money, therefore he wasn't stupid in my view. His creative decisions may have been stupid (I didn't actually mind the prequals), but he wasn't. I was, however, more intending on making a flippant remark about money being more important than quality.
Making a MU*, on the other hand, is generally about creating an environment for others to do things with. Creating a toolset, as it were. If Bob Staffer, per your example above, gave a certain toolset to the sphere and people enjoyed using it they'd certainly be right to complain when Tim Staffer replaced their tools with something they didn't want to use. Therefore Tim has failed to create the environment that others wanted.
Movies are about one generally static group making a thing, with the rest of us absorbing it. That's it.
MUs are about one sometimes changing group making a thing, another variable group taking that thing and playing with it, and giving it back to be played with again, and again. There is a process of evolution and change that happens on a MU, and will eventually (ideally) work itself into a place where the majority like it. If someone then comes in to upset that equilibrium, then naturally the people that worked for the status quo, and those that came in with the intention of experiencing same, will be annoyed. And I'd say they'd be right to do so.
