Its not backroom pandering I promise you that. Movie reviewers are generally stuck up people who form a distinction between "popular" and "artistic" films. They tried to make a new oscars category this year of "best popular film" pretty much only so they would have an excuse not to make Black Panther best film. As opposed to whatever stupid oscarbait bullshit came out this year. Its like the difference between "genre" books and "literature".
That applies to groups like the Academy, but Reelya already cited loads of films that fall very much on the "popular" side, regarding tone, yet it has been decided among the mainstream critics of Hollywood that this is neither a popular nor an artistic movie.
Although I think there may be a bit of confirmation bias; at least within my bubble, I seem to be seeing mostly the reasonable interpretation that it's not a failure, but neither is it a success of the magnitude that you'd hope for the launch of a franchise.
All I remember about Gamergate is that it made 4chan even more autistic and toxic, and managed to birth a splinter site that makes even that new 4chan look like Tumblr.
So I hate it.
That already existed, it was just thrust into the spotlight because of the gamergate thing being banned from 4chan. By the standards of off-brand 4chan spinoffs, it doesn't stand out in any regard aside from allowing people to make their own boards, reddit style. That difference mostly means that the site has a lot of boards for foreign language discussion, religious discussion, and relatively obscure fandoms and fetishes*. Most of these are very autistic, but not particularly toxic.
Also you and me remember gamergate very differently, where are you getting the mailing list thing?
After googling, it seems the original source is Breitbart, which isn't great but one has to remember that this was before it was like it became around the election. Even so, I'd rather not direct views to them; you can google it yourself if you like.
haha gamergate remember that what a blast from the past some of that retro eThICs iN GAmeS jOURnaliSm
At this point it's been dead for significantly longer than it was ever not dead. I think the people who care about ethics in general got distracted by politics, for the most part.
Its not backroom pandering I promise you that. Movie reviewers are generally stuck up people who form a distinction between "popular" and "artistic" films. They tried to make a new oscars category this year of "best popular film" pretty much only so they would have an excuse not to make Black Panther best film. As opposed to whatever stupid oscarbait bullshit came out this year. Its like the difference between "genre" books and "literature".
Also you and me remember gamergate very differently, where are you getting the mailing list thing?
Gamergate was all about the corruption of gaming journo sites to push specific narratives about different games (usually in pursuit of bribes from publishers), about the selling of positive scores and good spin for kickbacks and access deals. The whole gender blah blah who the fuck cares bit was a literal sideshow instigated by a pair of lying asshole exes in said community of gaming journo sites who tried to hijack outrage. This is why there's such a divide in perception about it: gamers who gave a shit about honest reviews cared about the ethics. Redpillers and SJWs cared about the stupid noise about muh misogyny muh SJWs blah blah fucking blah.
To put it simply, journalists were effective at controlling the media narrative and demonizing their opponents. We see this happening in the political field as well, though in that field there are two factions, providing an illusion of choice, whereas the journalists in this case were united.
*But then, 7chan has had /v/ for years and years, and it doesn't get much more obscure than that.
Also I know this tangent is kinda my fault, but maybe there's some other thread it should be moved to, if people want to continue discussing it? Although I don't know which, and it's news too old to justify a new thread.