Video není dostupné.
Omlouváme se.
When creators lie and how fans react to it
Vložit
- čas přidán 12. 07. 2024
- ✔ SUPPORT ✔
Patreon: / councilofgeeks
CZcams Membership: / @councilofgeeks
Paypal tip jar: PayPal.me/coun...
Ko-fi: ko-fi.com/vera...
Amazon Wishlist: www.amazon.com...
✔ OTHER CHANNELS ✔
Break Room of Geeks / @breakroomofgeeks
Vera Wylde: / verawylde
✔ SHOP ✔
Merch: www.teepublic....
My Book on Gender Fluidity: a.co/d/atfibBA (Amazon Associate link, commissions earned)
My Fantasy Novel: amzn.to/2SCxB8j (Amason Associate link, commissions earned)
✔ SOCIAL MEDIA ✔
Twitter: / councilofgeeks
Facebook: / councilofgeeks
TikTok: / verawylde1
Instagram: www.instagram....
Twitch: / councilofgeeks
✔ OTHER PROJECTS ✔
Council of Geeks Podcast (home of What the Frell & Jumpgate): councilofgeeks...
✔ CONTACT ✔
E-mail: councilofgeeks@gmail.com
Mail:
Council of Geeks
PO Box 4429
St. Johnsbury, VT 05819
*NOTE ABOUT RTD'S COMMENTARY ON SUSAN TWIST*
So originally this video had a segment commenting on RTD saying during the commentary for Boom (only available on iPlayer) that there was no secret behind Susan Twist showing up repeatedly. I trimmed it out after it was noted that the full clip is longer than the bit I found, and after that he said something that seemed to bring that into doubt. Having now gone through the hassle to find the thing myself, I'm going to call it "interpretable." He does absolutely say there's no mystery about it and has a concocted story about running out of actors, and that's where most versions of this I've seen passed around the net end. But what he says after that is way more open ended where he goes "Yes! She keeps cropping up. Yes, you've noticed. Yes, we've noticed" which is said in a tone that *can* be read as him dropping the mask and implying it's obviously a thing, but then the subject shifts and it really leaves it all kind of up in the air.
Also, hey BBC (and maybe Disney too, I don't know whose call this is), maybe make stuff like the commentary or Tales of the Tardis officially available in the territories where you're pushing the damned show?
or at least give a dvd release! I need to have a complete set!
There's also the little detail that he and Steven were clearly having a little joke. One played very straight faced but still a joke. If anyone took anything seriously from that they should book a lobotomy right now (which is also a joke). I mean, in the same bit RTD says the reason they kept using Susan was because they ran out of actors. 🙂
Yes please extras in the US and elsewhere! Amazing that they are not shared anywhere we can see them, even paid for. It’s weird. We’re already paying for the show! (At least not via endless ads, giving them that, tho just my view)
Thats on how BBC funding works, disney didn't fund the commentary or tales of the tardis that was entirely BBC which means license fee which means its going on BBC alone without extra being paid by disney
@@hasrock36 Good point I hadn't thought of. It's on Disney to pay for all that extra stuff if they want to stream it.
I think the biggest lie in recent film history was that Andrew Garfield wasn't the werewolf when we all knew he was.
What movie was that?
@bjam89 Spiderman No Way Home. There are several interviews from him where everyone asks him if he is in it. In one famous clip he says, "I'm not the werewolf!" That is a reference to the game werewolf.
See, I think this is one of the examples where I think it was basically fine. Sure, people expected him to appear in the movie, and he continuously lies about it, but no one really got mad at him.
This is mostly because people were happy with the movie and his role in, whereas in something like Star Trek: Into Darkness, people didn't want Benedict Cumberbatch to play Kahn and were disappointed when he did. In that case, the lie would have more interesting than what we got, but with Spiderman: No Way Home, people wanted Andrew Garfield to return and were happy when he did. The lie was more of a fun game he was playing, a way to market the movie without breaking any NDAs or completely spoiling it for people who genuinely didn't want to know.
What?
You're allowed to say flat out you're not the werewolf, it's assumed you could be lying. That makes this a very clever way to deny it without lying!
Ok the best “the creator lied” story is when the Gravity Falls team created a fake leak of Old Man McGucket being the author of the journals. It had a time code, they leaked a real screenshot with the same visuals to make the fake look more real and Alex Hirsch tweeted about being annoyed about leaks.
The one that I never understood was Rocksteady claiming the Arkham Knight was a new character... And we all guessed it was Jason Todd immediately. They denied it, but we were right all along.
That was especially weird, becuase one of my favorite subversions of this was from the same game. Mark Hamil insisted that the Joker wasn't being brought back to life when he was asked if he'd be returning to play him. He wasn't actually answering the question, but it sounded like he was.
I also forgot fans speculated Avengers 4 would be called Endgame and the Russo’s denied it till the trailer dropped in 2018
Yeah! Exactly!
One of those things where it does kinda make sense, movie names may not have been finalized for a while, given they don't need to have the final name during production or even most of post-production, and the official title of a project is probably under NDA anyway.
@@cfsfilms5091 i agree they could have announced the movie way ahead of time (which i think they did) but didnt have a script or a idea for what film that could be and when it turns out to be what people speculated thats not a lie at all. I think people cant distinguish the schematics and fly off the handle when there was no need to
There's also moments where creators promise something but due to unforeseen circumstances things get changed, so they come across as liars.
Some fans can be insufferable too. There's some creators who really avoid talking about any future events because they don't want to lie, and in interview say things to clarify behind the scenes choices... and some fans call everything lies anyway..
Yes, while some of this can be put on the creators, it can also be laid at the feet of those fans too. The ones that push and ask the same questions over and over, get disappointed and call out a creator when they won't spoil the bit they want to know.
One that I felt especially bad for was Tessa Thompson having to back out of Valkyrie looking for a queen.
@@Rmlohner Not the only one about Marvel's queer rep.
On insufferable fans, I remember a Fandom I was in, the biggest controversy was over the age of some characters. A fan shoved a camera in some writers face, asked a leading question and the very distracted person said "yeah."
Some very annoying teenagers made their ship battle the bulk of the Fandom and the whole thing was extremely dumb and ruined the show for me.
On that day I left fandom
the Obi-Wan problem...... "It wasnt a lie..... from a certain point of view"
From my point of view, the Jedi are evil
@@sparshjohri1109 Then you ARE LOST!!!!
@@thespidercrafter8547 I HATE YOU!!!
That’s what I love about the scene between Obi-Wan and Ezra in Rebels. Obi is basically tells Ezra like 4 lies in a row.
@@thebitterfig9903But that obi wan is established as trickster and covering for luke too?
I defer to the Venture Brothers Doc Hammer in regards to asking creators about the thing they're making before they've made and released it;
"Watch the show!"
Is Hank going to become a Villain? "Watch the Show!"
Will Rusty and the Monarch ever find out what started their rivalry? "There's a TV show that covers that, it's called The Venture Brothers, watch that and your questions may be answered!"
Is Kim coming back? "You know what? No, Kim is never coming back."
A lot of these lies are due to people demanding to know everything about a project BEFORE it's released. Speculation is fun, but leave the creator out of it or you'll either ruin the surprise early, or they'll lie to you to shut you up. Pick one.
I don't care about this stuff for the most part. I dislike these lies when they say "We're avoiding an overused trope," or "not repeating the popular thing we did before." Then they repeat tired tropes and do the popular thing they did before. Khan in _Into Darkness,_ for example. Had Abrams followed through and used a different member of the Botany Bay crew, he could've created a unique narrative.
Or Jason Todd in Arkham Knight
One of the things that makes it even more frustrating when studios and filmmakers lie to hide what is supposed to be a big reveal is how often on the other end, they spoil half their cool reveals in trailers.
While lying about stuff is often dumb, I feel like people get overly upset about lies given during press junkets to preserve twists.
Like…you asked them a question that would reveal a twist. What are they supposed to say? The answer of “watch and find out” will be seen as a dodge and most people will take it as a confirmation the guess was correct. Unless they take the position of answering all questions related to the production that way; which gets boring real fast.
And as a recent example, I find it endearing seeing Manny Jacinto lamenting not being able to do any lightsaber training for Acolyte or going back and watching Andrew Garfield try to tie himself into knots not revealing he was in NWH during press junkets for other projects.
I will never forget watching Into Darkness in theaters because it's honestly one of the funniest moments of my life. After the word "Khan" growls out of Bandersnatch Cabbagepatch's mouth, we are treated to two lingering, gravitas-laden reaction shots from Spock and Kirk; clearly deliberately placed there to give the audience just enough time to ooh and ahh and savor the memberberries that have just hit them in the face. Whoooooooa y'all, it's Khan. THE Khan. And he's back! (Not in pog form, sadly)
In my screening, a good amount of people groaned. The rest were silent. Then that one guy in the back- and there's ALWAYS that one guy in the back- yelled "Oh FUCK you" and we all collectively lost our shit over it. That then set the tone for the rest of the viewing. The vibe of "done with this" emanating off everyone present was positively tangible. I hate that stupid movie .
Said this very late in the vid (lol I'm silly), so think I'll pop my comment here:
The Susan Twist lie didn't actually bother me, because it felt so OBVIOUSLY a lie to me, personally. But the hype around Ruby's mum almost felt like more of a lie to me, even though it wasn't really.
I felt like I'd been lied to, even though RTD never specified she was a character we already knew. It felt like the deliberate setting of expectations he knew he was never going to meet.
Yup I can just see him in his office rubbing his hands together as all the videos, theories, and general content are getting produced, thinking "I didn't even have to work for all this publicity, just manipulate the fan base... I can't wait for everyone to feel betrayed and disappointed at the end and make even more content about that, and I even get to claim plausible deniability." I honestly don't think he has any respect for the fans anymore.
Okay, a little bit paranoid treating RTD like a supervillain. Yes, he obviously planned for the mystery to be theory fodder because several lines in the finale episodes make it very clear he intended it to be a commentary on that phenomenon. But I don't think he actually wanted people to be disappointed, I genuinely believe he thought it was a cool twist and wanted to try it.
Are there people who will genuinely take an "any press is good press" approach? Sure, but I don't think the people in charge of popular series have *ever* taken that kind of risk. Someone can make something that disappoints you without it being due to malice.
@cfsfilms5091 I was going for hyperbole rather than paranoia, but it was still a disrespectful decision. Having the Doctor delivering the line that basically made so many of us feel like fools when it could have remained a mystery to be explored in the next season, or even left unexplained like with 73 yards, would have had the same effect without it being a "haha, fooled you" attitude. He didn't even have explanations for all the inconsistent plot points it created.
@@TheCagedCorvid Fair enough, though personally I didn't take the Doctor's lines as being mocking at all. He also thought the mother was important, and the delivery seemed more like he was in awe of the power of investing in a narrative than finding that stupid. Everything about how earnestly it was played makes it feel to me like he was trying to say it's a beautiful thing, but the fact that it was a disappointing misdirection for a lot of people kinda soured the reading.
It's not like say, the Sherlock episode where instead of answering the mystery the showrunners said fans could solve, they wrote in a mean parody of their fanbase trying and failing to solve the mystery and had one of them comedically lose their mind at the end, for instance. That framed the in-story investment of the people trying to solve the mystery as laughable and stupid in a way you can't really interpret as anything else.
This comment got away from me, but basically, I think this was meant more as a tribute to the power of speculation than intentionally telling people they were stupid to care. But I can't really fault anyone for deciding they can't get invested in big mysteries going forwards. I'm just hoping he got this idea out of his system and if he does another mystery it will have a more satisfying answer for everyone.
@@cfsfilms5091 Agree with your take. Definitely wasn't malicious, and was something he probably REALLY thought would work. Sadly, subverting expectations is context-dependent, and it's risky in such a lore-heavy show, ESPECIALLY when he put so much emphasis on 'solving it' and making us REALLY want to know who was under the hood.
I think Gravity Falls’ twist about the author’s identity was probably the best form of lying because it’s a show about mystery.
Even if people knew the twist coming, it still worked. I think the staff on the show handled the spoiler territory with online interactions with finesse
I want to comment on the fact that the show's staff realized people were figuring out the answer to the mystery way more quickly than expected, and so they made an incredibly convincing fake leak with their real production resources and slipped it into the online discussions as a red herring because that is honestly one of the greatest misdirection plays I've ever seen a media property make.
We didn't even know for sure who faked the leak or why until basically the "we've made it to the finish line" celebration stuff, so it didn't feel like a betrayal, more like "oh that Alex is an evil genius who knows how to play this game."
@@cfsfilms5091 Though that reputation also came back to bite him when no one would believe him that he only brought in Cecil from Welcome to Night Vale for a quick joke, and then got pissed that he didn't have some secret importance even though Alex literally had always been saying he didn't.
I remember them even poking fun of the inevitable fan discourse before and after the reveal, with Soos going "This BETTER line up EXACTLY to my fanfic or else" and the Duck-Tective bit😂😂
@@cfsfilms5091 I'm fine when they do this on purpose, for fun reasons. When Remnant 2 came out they knew fans were going to datamine the crap out of it, so they came up with a hidden class type that no person would find on their own without datamining and a wiki, then the devs snuck into the discord where they were searching for secrets and datamining and gave them false leads and shot down legit ones. It drew out the search a week or two longer than it should have and everyone thought it was really fun.
its a game about secrets and they played into it.
@@akaneh1989 omg so funny, I love that bit xD
Khan in Star Trek into Darkness should have been Joachim, Khan's 2nd (and possible lover) from Wrath of Khan. Khan died while being revived by Admiral Robocop and so Joachim want revenge, simple.
I love this so much
Narratively would have worked. Though you just know half the fanbase would cry over Khan being dead.
Always thought it was weird that Judson Scott wasn’t credited for that role. As a kid i dug him in _The Phoenix_
@@CouncilofGeekseasy fix; rather than having died Khan is still frozen and Joachim us trying to liberate him along with the rest of the superpeople. That way the threat of Khan can still loom over the film without the character needing to be present.
@doctorvanya - that was literally the fix I suggested when I left the movie. Just have Khan still be frozen.
That interview where RTD says he had social media engagement in mind with his mystery box decisions come to mind because you’ll quickly get caught lying or misleading your audience but you sure will get engagement before that gets revealed
And after, when people complain about it, that's still engagement. He's turned my favourite show into an engagement farm and it feels so disrespectful.
@@TheCagedCorvid To play a little devil's (chord) advocate here, isn't that just as much your fault for engaging as it is for him trying to get that engagement. It's a two way thing. Personally, I don't pay attention to what RTD says in these cases. He's always liked to massively overhype episodes and seasons, it's his way and he's better off ignored.
@Elwaves2925 how are you meant to watch and enjoy a show without engaging in it? Yes he's overhyped a lot in the past, but actively misleading people? That's new, and pretty crappy honestly.
@@TheCagedCorvid I'm not talking about engaging with the show, of course you need to do that. I'm talking about engaging with social media etc around the show. The thing the OP brings up and you replied to.
It's new? It definitely isn't. Don't you remember the fuss around what became his Dalek episode back in 2005. He stated there were no Daleks in Eccleston's season. Yet certain fans got all uppity at this, causing him to retract that and spoil the reveal in his Dalek episode. I seem to recall a similar fuss around the Daleks and Cybermen being in the same episode later on, but I can't recall exactly what it was about that.
I feel like this is a very disingenuous criticism because this is how media works in general, and was even the same back during his first era. Yeah, you want to get people talking!
13:18 in the commentary he immediately follows his comment up with "oh im joking we know you've noticed, wait and see" which everyone keeps cutting out because its inconvenient to their belief that rtd is constantly lying about everything
Huh... that's frustrating to find out, because not having iPlayer (since I'm not in the UK) I couldn't get the original and only had access to the clips that went out. Hey, BBC, maybe make some of that stuff available on other platforms, huh?
@CouncilofGeeks in case you to use iPlayer, it's works with most uk vpns, not really protected in any significant way
I understand that, but I still don't like doing it because I find it a hassle and I'd thought I didn't have to in this case.
@@CouncilofGeeks But even without that extra bit of context, it's clear (to me at least) that what RTD said about Susan Twist in the commentary was a joke rather than a lie as one of his reasons was that they were running out of actors, which clearly isn't the case.
@@CouncilofGeeks yea commentaries and unleashed should absolutely be on disney plus too. but id imagine its something to do with the deal with disney itself rather than the bbc just choosing not to
the RTD Susan Twist thing couldn't be more obviously a joke, he was deliberately drawing attention to her to provoke speculation
Yeah, it sort of blows my mind that people can’t see that it’s a joke. He’s joking.
Said the same thing myself. I mean, in that same bit he says the reason they kept using Susan was because they ran out of actors. He played it straight faced but that line clearly indicated he wasn't being serious about any of it.
Genuinely, I think it was delivered straight enough that not reading it as a joke is entirely understandable, especially if you're not British or you're neurodivergent. There's a lot of British humor that goes right over my head because neither the words nor the delivery sound like a joke. This was one of those times (though to be clear, I only saw the edited clips that removed the comment he made right after clarifying he was joking).
@@BlueSparxLPs I could understand that if it was just the straight delivery. However, those edited clips also show him saying they ran out of actors, which clearly isn't true and shows it to be a joke. The bit that gets cut does clarify it but shouldn't be needed. 🙂
@@Elwaves2925 Considering the Disney funding rumors were also wildly overstated, it didn't seem unlikely to me that they would want to reuse an actor for that reason.
I’m not as pissed off about sutek as I am about ruby’s mom. First of all why put her in a dark hooded cloak if she was simply a human single mother? Why not a hoodie with the hood up! Why emphasize that sutek needed her mom’s name! I don’t buy the explanation that ruby’s human mother was ominously pointing at a simple street sign! Or the fact that the music creature seemed to sense something in ruby (don’t remember the exact quote)! Now granted we haven’t found out about ruby’s father. But after being led down the primrose path I’m not that excited anymore. Oh & btw yes I am & remain salty but I’ll still watch season 2.
Not only a big reset button to undo the 'damage' generated by the season finale's "Big Bad" - but they also had content that was a complete red-herring which was presented in such a way that it makes absolutely no sense for it to be a red herring...
Why a hooded cloak? Were you around in 2003?
@@shimonnyman1138 I was around in 2003. People did not walk around in hooded cloaks on the regular.
About the Batman/Catwoman thing, no source, just conjecture, but it would not be the first time that a writer got the greenlight to do a particular story, and then at the eleventh hour got a not from editorial to scrap it, sometimes even after the art has already been done and the next couple of issues have already been written.
Rtd did lie about Ruby’s mom though. He leaned into the whole “oh it’s someone so special”, but nah.
Ruby can summon snow for no reason. She has Carol of the bells inside her for no reason. The maestro is afraid of her for no reason.
I really hate it when there's a guy in a movie who says what their name is during the movie, and then you look in the credits and it turns out their name is A DIFFERENT NAME ENTIRELY! THAT MOVIE LIED TO ME! I WAS CHEATED!
Omg it's stubagful
cheater cheater pumpkin eater!
I've got you queued next.
It's the number one steven moffats brain fan
This is similar to what happened with BBC’s Sherlock. In a interview with Moffat and Gattis about the series, before it aired, they said very clearly that they know many interpret Sherlock and Watson as a couple but that their new show would not be doing that, that they would only ever be friends, and then everyone kept getting more and more pissed and called the show queerbaiting after that. It honestly drove me nuts.
The Johnlock ship made a lasting scar on hiw fandom and online queer culture exists.
It fueled the gays vs asexuals discourse.
@@hiimcrazyfordrwho gay vs ace and ace erasure existed before Johnlock. My point is the fandom insisted the creators either always intended them to get together and the BBC said no or that they intentionally misled the fandom by implying they would get together, even as the creators, writers, and actors all kept saying, from start to finish, that it would never happen. Fandom ignoring all of that isn’t new, but any and all BS that came from Johnlock will always remain discourse of their own making, like the old man yelling at clouds meme.
I'm glad you brought up Into Darkness, because I'm a hardcore Star Trek fan, and that's what was on my mind when you mentioned this. I hated that reveal precisely because we were lied to beforehand, and liked the film up to that point. I was so livid that it killed whatever enjoyment I would have gotten from the rest of the movie, and I would have walked out if I hadn't been with a friend.
Not the direction I expected with this vid honestly. I'd not seen anyone upset at least in my branch of the fandom over Sutehk's return. We were all raging at all the blatant BS surrounding Ruby's mother and how the resolution was an absolute lie, up to and including putting things in that were not in the original broadcast to try and justify it. That's more where I thought you were heading. That said, I completely agree with your points.
When RTD said "Old Villains" I assumed he meant the same 7 core villains from the past 30 years.
Rose in Army of Ghosts : "This is the story of how I died." Pssssttt - she's(RTD's) lying!!
I kinda found that cheap, but more in a poor writing kinda way
To be fair to Tom King (which is not something you should never feel the need to be), his plan was to have them get married, but AT&T (who owned WB at the time) stepped in and told him he couldn’t do that
I had interpreted RTD saying there's no purpose behind Susan Twist (based on the way he says it, and Moffat reacts) as him going "Nope! Susan Twist is definitely not important! There's 100% no meaning behind it! ;) ;) ;)"
Same. Obvious joke.
He literally says it's a joke right after. People just keep cutting that part out when they share clips of him saying he's a liar (which he kinda is but not about Susan twist)
Through as red herring, or, she was just a random person suthek used would be better
When Buffy first aired, there was a message board called 'The Bronze' where fans of the show gathered to talk to each other about the show. People who worked on the show regularly dropped in to talk with fans as well. Early on in season 6 many fans became worried that Whedon was planning on deleting Tara's life account due to the unsubtlest foreshadowing in the history of hinting. ("Willow, don't you see, there'll be nothing left of me..."🙄🙄🙄)
When asked, Amber Benson said something like "you'll have to wait and see", but at some point one of the writers, Steven DeKnight, dropped in to swear *ON HIS LIFE* that they would never do that. Guess who wrote 'Seeing Red'? I didn't want him to kick the bucket of course (because I'm a well-enough-adjusted humanoid), but I do still hope he has stepped, and will continue to step, on many a Lego.
"I promise that you will NOT see the usual intro"
Well thanks now I have trust issues
One of the many things I love about Neil Gaiman, is how he very much leaned into the "Wait and see" response (enough for it to be a meme) to avoiding revealing information about Good Omens S2. It's a great response to see, and something I wish more creators would adopt
The Star Trek and Spectre examples remind me of Bob's Burgers when Linda hosts are musical show at the resteraunt.
"But you specifically told us you WEREN'T the killer"
"Right! It was a twist!"
"No. It was a lie."
First of all; great video, I always learn a ton from your channel!
Second; I haven't watched Doctor Who and I haven't read up on any of this, but in the first excerpt you provide RTD said:
"It's a balance. [...] you can expect to see one or two old faces come back, maybe in a different form and guise, but there's that fanbase to satisfy as well. It makes it seem like a consistent, coherent universe. The Doctor would have enemies who regularly seek him out to kill him."
And then RTD specifically excludes the Daleks' return, as they had appearances with the previous Doctor.
Now, it's not my fandom so I don't have strong feelings either way, but it seems to me like RTD actually hinted at new enemies as well as old enemies being brought back and only excluding the Daleks (and maybe the Master?) in particular.
Sorry if there is more concrete denial of old enemies in the interviews, I didn't read them...
Third; On TK and the Batman thing, I was also very sour on the whole thing until I saw him explaining the situation on ComicPop Returns' podcast last month (czcams.com/video/Pge5o80U-YU/video.html) (around the 14 minute mark).
It basically boils down to wrong marketing and it could just be TK lying to mitigate a blunder, but it definitely soften my opinion a lot (though I still feel a sting of betrayal)!
I convinced myself the intro had changed, darn it!
Oh my god, the Tom King thing. I had that exact same feeling/memory. I think part of the issue is when people lie during marketing, it starts to feel like or can be false advertising.
I definitely would rather people be cagey and not answer questions than to lie about anything.
Quick question, was there a similar outcry about 'no classic villains' at the return of The Toymaker in the second special? I don't remember. A lot of this might just be people dissapointed their theories were wrong and clasping onto whatever reasoning they can for why they technically were'nt wrong. Or wouldn't have been wrong if Davis had stuck to a promise he didn't actually make.
I think the creators lying about a character’s identity, when the character is *also* lying about there identity, doesn’t bother me at all. A doctor who example might be only ever referring to Sacha Dhawan’s character in Spyfall as “O”, or to Derek Jacobi’s character in Utopia only as “Professor Yana” and not mentioning the fact that in both cases they were really the Master. That reveal was meant to come as a surprise, and spoiling it in the marketing would ruin that surprise, even if “hey, the Master’s in this one” might bring in fans who like that character.
I think though this only works when the revealed identity is more significant to fans that the assumed one. Doctor Who fans don’t care about a random spy or professor any more than any other guest character, but they *definitely* care about the Master. The other way doesn’t work. Imagine if an actor was billed in an upcoming episode as playing “the Master” only for it to be revealed that they were actually talking about the famous 1920s era cricketer with that nickname (referenced in Black Orchid) and *not* the actual Master. Seeing that reveal would just cause disappointment, and anger that a famous character’s name was misleadingly used to get people to watch an episode they might not have watched otherwise. I think that’s a big part about the reveal of Ruby’s birth mother as being an ordinary person. Most companions’ parents have been ordinary, even ones that would later go on to become godlike beings or split into numerous echoes across the timelines, etc. It doesn’t really *matter* that Ruby’s mom is ordinary, except to emphasize that regular folks can become companions and who your parents are isn’t what makes you special. But the buildup towards that reveal made it *really* seem like it would go the other way, so IMHO this is a case of a time-lord-to-cricketer reveal, rather than a cricketer-to-time-lord reveal.
I feel like there's an adjacent topic here that, I think, matters a bit more -- when it's the media itself that "lies." By which I mean stories that are written to clear set up one thing, but then swerve elsewhere, for no plausible in-narrative justification: the goal is *solely* to "surprise" the audience.
I'm a strong believer that every individual piece of media has to stand on its own. So I don't think it really matters much what the creators say about something, or what kind of impression they try to create, or how the marketing frames thing... because that's all outside of the media itself. A year after release, few people are going to remember or care; ten years later, no one will.
It's just... incredibly disrespectful to the audience. RTD barely gave us any Doctor Who episodes this season, for example, and wasted a great deal of time teasing us with this supernatural mystery around Ruby that he never had any intention of doing *anything* with -- it was all just empty misdirection that wasted our time and attention when both were severely limited. And because there's no in-narrative justification for that choice, it's not a very engaging or fulfilling story -- and that's all that matters. Conversely, the biggest problem with Star Trek Into Darkness isn't (at all) that Abrams *lied* about Khan being in the film, it's *that Khan was in the film in the first place*, and that it wasn't a very good story, making the whole endeavor feel like a cheap imitation of TWOK. If Into Darkness had been a *good* story, reusing Khan wouldn't've mattered.
This is why i don't like reading press about things i am excited about. I hate spoilers and they are stuck between lying or somewhat spoiling their own work. Even when they just choose their words carefully to avoid lying they lose, but it also catches my attention how specifically they speak.
I'll never forgive the showrunners of Lost for lying to the audience.
Neither, thats just even of technocally, they said the island isnt the afterlife isnt ok to pull the, oh they ded, later
@@marocat4749 That's actually not what they lied about.
What was the lie?
@@hiimcrazyfordrwho Several Showrunners said they had a masterplan, that there was an explanation for the many mysteries that kept accumulating. But as the series neared the end, and finally ended, it became clear that they had been lying to us, and were just making things up as they went along.
14:32 this made me think of some production like a tv or movie series where all of the marketing is just saying outlandish absurd lies about what they’re making and like the audience is in on it, that way it’s always a guessing game on what the next installment is going to be
You got me! I do agree about they should not lie. I always make sure to double check my sources, make sure I was reading right and go from there.
The worst one I recall was when the creators were swearing up and down that Benedict Cumberbatch wouldn't be playing Khan in Star Trek Into Darkness. They swore he'd be a new character called John Harrison. Big surprise, he was Khan.
EDIT: Oh, we got to that in the video.
This is also a "citation needed" momenet but I swear I read DC cancelled Tom King's run and that changed the wedding outcome. Although the marriage may have been undone anyways uf he could have completed his run anyways. But yeah, that's part of why ge then got a mini seties to write something akin to his original plans in a different continuity
Sutekh *was* an awesome one-shot villain. Bringing him back despite saying he wasn't using classic era villains wasn't the issue. What was the issue was how RTD made an absolute clownshoe out of this awesome one-shot villain in barely five minutes of screentime.
Always reminds me of that one Bob's Burgers where Linda Belcher tries to do dinner theatre.
And with that in mind, I think there are probably times when it's okay for the creator to lie, but I'm struggling to think of any where it'll actually be worth it. Into Darkness is such a standout because, like, who was that lie even for? Like, I wouldn't have been _happy_ about them just redoing Wrath of Khan for the fourth or fifth time, but most people could accept it as part of the whole "new era" aspect. But trying to present it as a surprise would never work, obviously. So then lying about it came off not as a clever misdirection, but a tacit acknowledgement that they know it's not good. Like... surprise reveals are supposed to be for things we *don't* have every day or every third movie.
So generally speaking, I think maybe creators need to either get better at being coy, or just shut that down. Like, I would totally respect any creator who told an interviewer "No, I'm not going to tell you how the movie ends just because you asked nicely, why the hell would I?" It really comes off like the media thinks that "content" is made for them to talk about, rather than for anyone to experience, and it's exhausting whenever I get into something new and have to avoid Google for a week or so in case some random pop-up ad decides to tell me how it ends before I've started.
i don't put much stock in anything said or done outside of the content itself. a lot of people involved in the creation of a show, movie, book, etc. will sometimes share their ideas and extra lore that never made it into their work(s) and while they may have direct insight to the world they imagined, the world i experience will always overrule them until the put it directly into the piece.
if RTD said season 2 will be about Susan, i wouldn't care less if her name doesn't even get mentioned once and i say that as someone who feels she ought to return; even if just for a goodbye. i don't really watch trailers and definitely dont waste my time with promotional material because id rather go in blind and evaluate it based on the content rather than the behind the scenes stuff
This kind of ties into a pet peeve of mine when it comes to talking with fans about things. I sometimes come across fans saying things about a people being or not being in something or a character coming back or something like that, so I'll simply ask, “Where are you getting this from?” it often turns out that this was news like a week ago that I just didn't pick up on till now, so firstly the dickish fans will be like “what have you been living under a rock?” but I can deal with that. But even the nicer fans won't be able to give a source because they just saw someone else tweeting about it, and everyone took their word for it. Then I'll Google it myself and find nothing outside of social media posts of fans saying it, which I always find odd because many fans don't all start saying something without some source. TBF, most of the time, I understand why the fans take their word for it because it's told by someone who has a good reputation and has never been known to make things up, but I like to check the original source so that I can get all the info and a .it of the time it's hard to find.
I find this with opinions sometimes as well; a while back, many fans said a specific movie was only good because of an actor in it, and the director did nothing. It was odd to me that so many fans gave this specific opinion. Later, I found a film review where a CZcamsr said that, so fans just borrowed that opinion and told it like it was a fact. No one has original thoughts anymore; people tell them what to think.
The kind of lies that you point out usually don't tend to bother me because in many cases it is expected to be a lie to "protect" a twist. But I've started to notice that some lies tend to lead to expectations that are unmet. I think Steven Moffat did this a lot. I remember him categorically stating that after The Impossible Astronaut the Doctor is absolutely dead and look how that turned out (unsurprisingly, but it still dampened the resolution because it set up an expectation of a more clever resolution than the darn robot look-alike!)
But there are times where creators state facts that us fans sometimes expect to be lies because of how often they are made to protect story explanations. I remember when Chris Chibnall spoke about Jo Martin's Fugitive Doctor after Fugitive of the Judoon and how he stated that she is absolutely the Doctor. No tricks. Which turned out to be true even though I found myself not expecting. (and rather hoping for all the complications new incarnations would inject... despite my personal enjoyment of her Doctor. The optics for it to have been a lie would have been terrible I fully respect.)
When it comes to RTD though, I think fans are projecting their frustrations at him after Empire of Death. I feel that we were narratively lied to. The presentation of the show: visuals and the writing lead us to believe that Ruby's mother was someone extraordinary and by extension making Ruby such too. When that turned out not to be true, that was in conflict with what had been shown to us and how it had been done so. The writing and directing was unequivocally pointing at her mother not just being an ordinary human. Now I respect that her story might have more to it given her return next series and RTD has already alluded to as such but the damage has already been done to trust for a lot of fans to care about any future mystery box. Even if Ruby's mother being ordinary was the right thing to do for conveying a powerful message, the way the show went about making you believe contrary felt like an outright lie and disrespectful to the audience.
Thank you for the video, Vera!
I understand the aspect of wanting to hear "creator's commentary" about their media work, such as "how did they come out with certain plot or idea" or "why did they decide to take the story in certain direction". However, when it being about works still to be released, we really must try to keep expectations in check.
In the case of Doctor Who, when I did read about Russel T. Davies' intention of not using iconic and overused villains, such as the Daleks, during the new season, I was really glad. If he was actually lying about it, I would probably get frustrated, but not so much if the new stories involving the Daleks are good. However, as Vera explained, a creator literally lying about their work in order to promote it would make most people to lose trust on them and never believe in any of their statements about future works again.
Honourable Mention: Neil Gaiman completely and utterly making total fabrications about what the next season of Good Omens is about that are so outlandish that they're obviously lies but there is a small grain of truth in some of them that you can't be sure what's in the show or not.
Another example is with the Batman Arkham games. With the Arkham Knight being touted as a 'new character' but ultimately just being Jason Todd with the same motivation he had when he was Red Hood. I think they also said they wouldn't bring the Joker back (I may be misremembering on this one) which was technically true as the Joker stayed dead, but Batman hallucinates him all throughout the game so he's a constant presence regardless. Things that were technically true in a sense but also misleading. All of this also after Arkham origins made it seem like it'd be about new villains like Black Mask only to make it the Joker again too.
I think it's worth pointing out that what Russell said about Susan Twist was actually a joke, despite how seriously some people seemed to take it. He knew that people would be theorising about who she was so he played along with it! Obviously it's still a lie but I don't think he ever expected anyone to actually fall for it and even I'm surprised at how many people did!
Yeah, I just pinned a comment about this.
the thing is, RTD *did* lie about the finale, but it wasn't the Sutekh part - it was the Susan Twist part. he claimed early on that this is a pure coincidence, that it's not on purpose that she's in every episode. and then the very next episode after he said that it was called out in 73 yards.
so it was a lie, but I think that quite intentionally this one was very short-lived and very tongue-and-cheek.
edit: nevermind I now see you literally mentioned that in the video. at least in this case it was very clear even before the twist that that wasn't true, so it's not like the other examples you brought where you found out Khan is Khan when he said "my name is Khan". heck, RTD literally said in the Official Doctor Who Podcast teaser for the finale "look out for Susan".
Oh, are you a Patreon?
He also said in the commentary for the giggle I think, that Triad will have disastrous consequences in the following series. It didn’t. We never even got a proper explanation as to what Triad is selling or what they do. The disaster came entirely from sutekh, not triad.
@@jamiestevens3074 Yeah, the company and name seems to have been just bait to pull the Doctor away from the TARDIS. The product is irrelevant.
Sorry but that Susan Twist comment that RTD made on the commentary is misleadingly cut, it continues and you can pretty clearly tell he's being tongue in cheek - 'come on Sue come and have a laugh'. Really? They ran out of actors? Obviously not the case.
I've just had that info revealed to me. Which I didn't know because BBC only has that stuff on iPlayer, which I don't have since I'm not in the UK. So I was stuck with the clips that made the rounds, which were all cut off.
@@CouncilofGeeks that's fair
My favourite case of creator's lying is Alex Hirsch. Gravity Falls' plot twist was actually guessed thanks to picking up the clues set in the show, so he created a fake screencap, "leaked" it on reddit, tweeted that he was fuming, then deleted the tweet. I think it helped because it was not only high effort, but it was also a good-hearted troll. No one knew if it was real or fake, or even arranged by him in the first place, so it came off as more of a typical fandom prank or an extra red herring rather than a creator directly lying to his audience for the sake of shock value.
Dunno much about Dr Who but at least He didn't lie to us through song. That would be 1000 times worse.
How to respond to creators lying? That's easy: drop their shows and never return. Rewarding bad behavior ensures more of the same, always. For example, take the apologetics that showrunners offer and transfer them to politicans: "I didn't exactly LIE, technically; I just carefully worded my statement to give a certain impression without explicitly saying it, so really it's *your* fault that you believed it."
Lying--including lying by omission or semantics--SHOULD destroy someone's career; we deserve accountability, and our only tool to achieve it is through our money, votes, and views.
admittedly the moment RTD said no iconic like the daleks or the master - My brain was instantly like - OH?? Rani? Please??? Valeyard?? Which other obscurity can I be excited for??
And then it was Sutekh. T_T one day the rani will be back i swear
This became our topic of conversation at the dinner table where my kiddo (12yo) said she’d rather the creator lie than spoil the surprise and now I wonder if we should’ve continued on with the whole Santa Claus thing indefinitely rather than telling her the truth….
This reminds me of the Kevin Smith new Masters of the Universe series for Netflix.
A CZcams channel apparently leaked out the plot of the first season, claiming He-Man would die in the first episode and the show was actually about Teela. They claimed the whole marketing campaign was a bait-and-swtich to make you think He-Man was the main character but it would actually be Teela and her "girlfriend".
Smith came out and denied this, he said the show was all about He-Man and none of it was true. But of course, He-Man is killed off in the first episode and most of the first half of season 1 is about Teela going to find him.
Now, technically he was right. He-Man/Adam was gone but still appeared in flashback form in most episodes anyway and the overall plot was about bringing him back so in that sense you could say it was all about him. Episodes 5-10 prominently feature He-Man/Adam & Skeletor and Teela ends up in love with Adam and not in a relationship with another woman.
But Smith got a lot of criticism for supposedly telling a lie to try and cover up the fact the plot got spoiled, when the easiest option was to say nothing and then laugh when the show proved other people wrong.
I feel like lying to play down a secret (e.g. saying there could be no explanation with Susan twist, which I’m ok with if she is a character who it just makes sense she can break the 4th wall) is different to lying to play up a secret (e.g. with ruby’s mum, though I suspect her dad will fulfil that hype)
I mostly agree, although I also think with Ruby's mum that's RTD's way of avoiding the spoiler. He loves to overhype his own work and sometimes he takes it too far. As we know now, Ruby's mum was just an everyday human mum, so in RTD's overhyping mind that means playing her up as the complete opposite to full effect. Is it a lie? Sure but that's why I don't pay any attention to what he says when he's bigging up and episode or season. Fans should know what he's like by now, they are responsible for believing it as much as he is for telling it.
I didn't even take RTD's comment to mean he'd never bring back the daleks or the Master, and definitely didn't take it to mean he wouldn't bring back old other less prominent villans. I presumed he simply meant he'd rest the daleks and the Master for the foreseeable future (the Master certainly needs it). Having said that, like the Doctor, RTD lies and has done so about other things.
I think this has a tiered approach. I don’t mind being misled in an interview. Andrew Garfield’s not in No Way Home, Benedict Cumberbatch isn’t Khan, these I can accept as trying to protect the story.
I don’t appreciate being lied to in the story. Ruby’s mother being a mysterious cloaked figure, Ruby presenting with powers. These are not red herrings, they are lies.
I spend a lot of my lie feeling stressed, anxious and generally on edge. Vera's intellect, rationality and calm, balanced delivery calms my soul.
I am certainly conflicted about this because it feels like such a case-by-case situation to me, very much tied up in personal feelings about what the person promises will or won't happen. I found the Sutekh reveal lackluster because it didn't feel well setup (hadn't even heard RTD's promises regarding villains) but I liked the Khan thing in Into Darkness (a movie that was certainly flawed, but I generally quite liked), I don't care that we were told he isn't Khan (though I think the reveal scene was definitely played like it was supposed to be a big surprise for fans and maybe to get spliced into later trailers, so it could've been handled better).
Didn't read that Tom King run (it is on my long list, but I don't get to DC very often), but I can understand the frustration - I would've liked to see Batman & Catwoman married for a time, able to live a happy life for a time, even if it was doomed because of status quo issues plaguing various comics (give me back Krakoa, you cowards!).
I don't think it's as simple as "playing coy" on certain questions, though: had JJ Abrams just said "well, watch Into Darkness to see who Benedict Cumberbatch is playing", people would've taken that as all but confirming it's Khan (not like flat out denying it worked out much better) whereas the Blofeld situation...actually, I don't remember hearing denials that Christoph Waltz was playing Blofeld, but I don't think I cared that much (especially once the movie was dubbed "Spectre") - the big reveal of that film to me was his shared history with James Bond, not his name, and that part flopped because it felt like it was poorly setup and meant little to nothing.
Actually, I guess that last sentence (and my comment on Sutekh) outlines my general feelings: I don't tend to mind as much *depending on what they do with/because of it* and *as long as the twist (if it is such) is laid out well enough*. If they didn't do the groundwork for such a reveal to work in the story, I'll probably be annoyed/frustrated. If they don't do anything interesting with that, then I'll probably be frustrated. It's like the big reveal toward the end of Falcon & Winter Soldier: I'm waiting to see if they do anything with the idea that a certain person is actually a villain (could've tied into Secret Invasion but didn't, maybe it'll tie into Armor Wars or Cap 4, though I doubt the latter).
THANK YOU for mentioning _Spectre_ as an instance where the creators flat-out lied! I have been a James Bond fan since I was a kid-- I've seen all of them (most of them more than once), and I own all of them on DVD. The franchise has had its ups and downs over the decades, and I came to terms with that long ago. Wherever there are downs, I can usually look past the lower quality and still appreciate each movie for its place in the series; most of them are at least still _fun,_ even if they're not actually good. But, as much as I can ever hate a Bond movie, I honestly hate _Spectre._ So far as I'm concerned, Dave Bautista's henchman character and the opening sequence in Mexico City are the only redeeming things about it. I hate the Sam Smith theme being chosen over the original Radiohead version, I hate how boring the car chase sequence in Rome and the Spectre base explosion are (yes, I know the explosion set a Guinness World Record, but the way it was filmed didn't do it any justice), I hate the subplot with Nine Eyes and C, I hate the way they made Blofeld into Bond's adoptive brother, I hate the way all of the other Craig movies were linked in as his machinations to get his revenge. But the thing that soured me the most on it was indeed the way they straight up lied to us about Christoph Waltz playing "Franz Oberhauser". The problem with lying like that is, it insults the audience's intelligence. If you're a creator and you lie to cover up something the audience has already guessed, the implication is that you don't believe your audience is very smart, that you underestimated them to begin with, and that you believe they will be naive enough to take your word for it while you're covering your own miscalculation. Don't do that.
Creators lying about something not being an issue: this
Creators lying about something being an issue: Final Fantasy 7 Remake
The final episode may have been divisive but the structure and build-up of Sutekh's return was masterful. FF7 Remake project on the other hand is a sloppy, uncomfortably self-indulgeblnt mess that nobody would have engaged with had they knew what was coming, and the creators KNEW that.
To clarify, there is narrative misdirection that needs to extend beyond the work to work, and then there's wilfully misrepresenting your work to get people to buy in. And it's admittedly a fine line! But I definitely feel these two examples sit on respective sides of that line
Just my perspective on how these things work
I'm gonna have to go hunting for the CGI obfuscation for where ncuti was in his original "what the hell is going on here" trailer reveal. If memory serves that was deliberate. Other versions of that were avengers trailers showing the hulk when he was banner in ironmans hulkbuster instead but not sure if that was deliberate or rewrites or what.
I’ll defend the Tom King situation because the story clearly illustrates that while Bruce does love selina his proposal was motivated primarily because of Flashpoint Thomas Wayne telling him to be happy so he was doing it more because his “father” told him rather than for the right reason and the end of kings run had Bruce and Selina in a more healthy place to build a relationship which was carried into Batman/Catwoman
I haven’t actively read new comics in like a decade, but I have been thinking of getting back into it.
But I honestly had been hearing mostly positive things about King, so your implication that much of his work is bad is interesting to me!
Batman and the event Heroes in Crisis are the big problem stories from him, for clarity. And while it may be true that it’s a minority of his output, I tend to weigh horrible events more than I would just a bad story in a standard run.
@@CouncilofGeeks Good to know! I feel like I’ve mostly heard good things about Vision and Supergirl, and some mixed/leaning positive things about his Wonder Woman. But it’s good to hear from a voice I trust that there are at the very least some stinkers in his bibliography…
I think most fans understand they are just trying to entertain us and are more forgiving of this kind of thing.
I think happy fans tend not to view the promotion of things.. because promotions are for people on the fence.
idk about TV or movies, but I do know of one incident that fans call lying as part of promotional material in relation to TLOU2. I'm going to be dancing around spoilers just in case you've managed to avoid them and intend to watch subsequent seasons of the TV show (I'm uh. debating whether I want to given Druckmann's assholery in recent months [cough]). Basically, there was a trailer that shows a particular character surprising main playable character Ellie, but when we get to that actual part in the game, that character can't be there because Plot. and people were PISSED about it. I personally saw it as not wanting to spoiler that plot point, but like. idk, I guess I'm not that bothered given I imagine creators don't want to spoil things for their work. But also, I can understand in the event of, say, denying the idea of a previously seen villain coming up or other types of lies.
I thought Russell said no returning monsters... if he said this, it would still be true, Suetekh is a god, not a monster. The monsters of doctor who are more daleks, cybermen, weeping angels, slytheen, many others.
I believe he said none of the main returning monsters for the first season only. That's how I recall it being reported when he first said it. You could look at the term 'monsters' that way but it's also just a widely used term to describe DW villains over the decades, including the Master. It doesn't mean just monsters in the way you mean it, or I'd argue the Daleks and Cybermen don't fit that term either. Or you could take it to mean beings that do monstrous things. 🙂
Sutekh is still a monster.
I'm not mad that Tom King implied that Batman would definitely 100% marry Catwoman in #50 (not a hoax, not an imaginary story).
I'm mad that he consistently writes DC's bigger and smaller icons outrageously out of character.
Oh this should be interesting.
Did "Star Seed" not happen in the Kelvin Timeline? The whole Khan reveal seemed stupid.
"I'm Khan!"
"Who's 'e when 'e's at 'ome then?"
Like, the Eugenics War was hundreds of years ago.
My favourite example of this was when Scream came out in 1996 and they put Drew Barrymore front and centre of the marketing campaign (Google it. Even in the posters, it is solely either Barrymore’s face or, in group shots, she is in the middle). While they never explicitly said that she would be the main character, the narrative was very much it being her first major film role in many years and this being a comeback for her.
In my opinion, it actually improves the end product as when her character is killed in the first scene, it’s more of a shock as, while they never lied about it, we were primed to think her character would make it through to the end.
On the batman thing: It sounds like he basically said "Here's this interesting thing we've never explored for batman before" and then added a silent "and we're not going to now" at the end. Which is still pretty shitty all things considered.
I'm not saying this is common... but there are certain urban legends or rare cases of it, where production crews (directors, creatives, whatever people behind the making-of-the-thing) will do the work in such a way as that key actors won't know the twists themselves until very late in production, if at all.
For example: the big "No, I am your father" twist in Star Wars was purported to be a surprise to most of the actors even at the premier because the film was so heavily edited and James Earl Jones' voiceover wasn't recorded until post-production. The actor in the suit, during filming, iirc delivered the scripted line "No, Obi-Wan killed your father."
Sorry I don't have a citation for that, but its veracity is beside the point - modern technology makes that kind of heavy post-production editing not only plausible but common. So I'd be very wary of labeling things as lies, especially if it's stuff that's being said early in a production schedule or by an actor who may have been kept in the dark about certain details specifically to avoid them leaking spoilers.
All that said, these are still interesting thoughts on the general issue. And it remains a good question - what is the proper way to handle "spoilers" questions in press junkets? I think I'd probably sidestep with a clever joke or drop a hint, find some way to walk a thin line between possibilities so that everyone has their theories but nobody's quite sure, and it gets them talking and then if they're right, even if they're not surprised, they're vindicated. Maybe some things are just too big for that, idk. Maybe there's a reason I'm not in movie promoting. 😅
I just don't like spoilers. Which most things the creators say are. Them lying doesn't alleviate it much if at all. So I stay away entirely.
"The Cylons were created by man. They evolved. They rebelled. There are many copies. And they have a plan."
I have a problem with cutting them this much slack as they have entire teams to handle press releases. What could RTD have said, "while there will be no master, cyberman or daleks this season....that doesn't mean we won't see the return of a classic villain!"
I literally came up with that while posting this, and it isn't even a spiritual lie and would have gotten uber fans guessing for weeks.
screaming into my pillow forever about Cumberbatch as Khan, I had to pause for a second to compose myself. Gary Mitchell was right there!
I honestly don't see the problem with creators lying about these sorts of things. I watched the whole video waiting for some sort of argument about why this might be something to be upset about, but the only thing seemed to be was that people would stop trusting their word, even if they might not stop watching their things, which is surely what they expect to happen?
Fans who have worked it out and are convinced are going to remain convinced no matter what. Fans who haven't or are more on the fence get to be surprised by the thing they wanted to be a surprise. That seems like a win-win to me. Maybe I've just been conditioned by years of this, but I already didn't believe RTD about Susan Twist and thought that was something everyone was on board with. He can't go ahead and agree that there's something significant about her outright, but people who are paying attention will get to laugh about the fact we know something else is coming.
Those are just my two cents, but yeah, I'm really not bothered about creators lying about this sort of thing to try and keep a secret. Giving actors a fake character name to try and make the reveal as impactful as possible and keep people off the scent who aren't hugely into the fan space is a-okay in my opinion. Maybe there are certain kinds of lie that would annoy me, eg. queerbait-y things, but I don't think lying is necessarily bad.
Right there with you. RTD loves to overhype his stuff and as such I've learnt not to pay attention to him when he's talking about things like this. Same goes for other creators too. As someone who doesn't like spoilers, I'd much sooner be 'lied' to, believe it's wrong and then find out I was correct all along....rather than have it spoiled by honesty and the reveal moment lose any impact whatsoever.
You cover this and I'd also agree that the 'lies' and covering for spoilers isn't for those who figure something out, it's for those who haven't.
The lies do tick the fanbase off. Eventually people do stop hate watching.
I think the biggest liar I got annoyed by Doctor Who was Stephen Moffett. He just couldn’t let anybody die. starting with Rory numerous resurrections by the end of his run I just someone would die and it’s like a perhaps I have perhaps I haven’t so I never really got a Heavy emotional kick out of a lot of stuff because people just don’t stay dead
I will always maintain that Into Darkness would have been a much better film if John Harrison (while being portrayed as dangerous as Cumberkhan is shown to be) is a devoted follower of Khan, on a mission to free his master.
At the time of Batman/Catwoman, there was another relationship that was heading towards marriage in the main timeline/Earth, Batwoman/The Question.
There was a backlash from what would become the Culture Warrior sect about two women getting married, so DC backpedalled on it. To stave off the backlash from those who'd like to see progress in relationships in comics, the top dog (who apparently hated legacy characters, like Dick Grayson/Nightwing) axed all marriages, so as to not look like they were only against same-sex marriages.
Tom King had to make do, because it would have been far worse for his career if he spilled the beans about the 'No marriages edict' thanks to that editor-in-chief/publisher(?).
IMO it's only actually a *lie* if the person who says the thing knows or suspects WHEN THEY SAY THE THING that it's untrue, misleading, or undecided. Merely being wrong =/= lying, if you believe or plan that thing to be true when you say it.
Even if it turns out to be incorrect. Even if they change their mind later, or someone higher up the command chain changes things on them.
In case nobody in the comments has already said it: “The Dark Knight Rises” in 2012, had Marion Cotillard as Talia Al Ghul and she flat out lied about that one too…
Ah, sorry… I didn’t finish the video when I first wrote this and so didn’t know about the citation thing. My bad; if I have time I’ll go and find it later.
In my opinion, Star Trek into Darkness is a much better movie if you think of Benedict Cumberbatch as not playing Khan, but rather an enigmatic, genetically engineered, British scientist named John Harrison (whose existence has been scrubbed from the historical record) who has tricked his captors into believing he is actually Khan. This would explain his behavior in the film which is very un-Khan-like.
I don’t really care, to be honest. At least if it’s not about something important. If it’s just saying “no old villains” and then bringing back an old villain, I’m actually cool with that. It doesn’t bother me, it just tells me that maybe we shouldn’t the creator at their word with this sort of thing.
If Abrams didn’t want people to guess the twist to his adaptations, he shouldn’t be so generically derivative with his plot.
I don’t know or care if RTD said he wasn’t bringing classic villains back. I care that he lied about this being a jumping on point for new fans, hence the obnoxious season 1 rebranding and soft reboot, when this season was an absolutely terrible jumping on point.
My family who *aren’t even new fans* but are not well versed in classic who, were totally alienated and confused by anything to do with Sutekh or Susan. The “that’s the name of my granddaughter” moment caught my stepmum off guard, she had no idea the Doctor had one and was shocked when I revealed this was common knowledge and not a massive plot twist.
And let’s not forget that the main character basically skipped a quarter of the episodes in his debut season, and he has no relationship with the companion because they skip their first few weeks/months travelling together. If the actual modern series 1 pulled this, we wouldn’t be talking about Doctor Who today.
Is it bad that I couldn't tell whether the intro was the same or not? I usually listen to these videos like a podcast lol
You’re not the only one.
I think my comment disappeared because it included a link to the article, so apologies if this shows up twice. Steven Moffat & co lied in interviews that the show would reveal how Sherlock survived the Fall. He said there was "a clue everyone's missed" in an interview with The Guardian (20 January 2012). Then when the show returned two years later, the solution to the Fall was not explained, fans were told they shouldn't care how Sherlock survived, and made fun of directly in the episode. I think fans worked out the solution online, and Moffat had a tantrum and changed it.
Didn't RTD say the old lady was in every episode cause they ran out of actors... that was a very blatant lie, yes... but still a lie...
The source was one of those post episode talks they have, but I didn't actually watch it, just read someone mention it on reddit...
It's the reason why I'm not buying anything he said about the next season...
Soooooo... sort of? I've actually gone back to check this myself. Most of what's going around is a clip that cuts off after he says "there's no mystery to this" which makes it look like a flat out lie. But what he says after that is way more open ended where he goes "Yes! She keeps cropping up. Yes, you've noticed. Yes, we've noticed" which is said in a tone that *can* be read as him dropping the mask and implying it's obviously a thing, but then the subject shifts and it's really kind of up in the air.
@@CouncilofGeeks Well... thanks for clearing that up :)
hey you didn't lie!! there was no bbc transphobia warning on this one!!
That's because it's not exclusively a Doctor Who video.
@@CouncilofGeeks ah, very fair!