Decoding Fandom is a weekly column that dives deep into the world of fan culture and runs on Wednesdays in the Daily Dot’s web_crawlr newsletter. If you want to get this column a day before we publish it, subscribe to web_crawlr, where you’ll get the daily scoop of internet culture delivered straight to your inbox.
Last week, Variety published an article investigating how Hollywood studios are dealing with the problem of toxic fans. The article alleges that industry leaders are legitimately fearful of toxic fans, leading some to implement new standard practices, including the creation of superfan focus groups. The studios that spoke with Variety “all agreed that the best defense is to avoid provoking fandoms in the first place.”
Unsurprisingly, when Variety posted the article on X, users had a lot to say. Many comments under Variety’s post were angry, incredulous, and defensive.
Users alleged that the article got things wrong—it’s not fans that are toxic, it’s the studios themselves. Several people suggested the real problem at hand is the “activists” who have taken over Hollywood and spearheaded “DEI” and “politically correct” entertainment. Others blamed “toxic journalism” for publishing an article like this in the first place.
Many concluded that Hollywood’s complaints about toxic fans are a distraction from the fact that they produce nothing but “garbage” these days. “Try making movies that don’t suck,” wrote one user. “So it’s toxic to hate bad movies?” wrote another. The solution? “Don’t make things no one asked for and even fewer people want.”
A common sentiment here was the notion that, as one user put it, “We don’t work for them. They work for us.” These fans see themselves first and foremost as customers, and they find power in this distinction. “Our wallets, our choice,” wrote one disgruntled consumer.
Among this subset of fans—those who resent being called toxic—there is a sense that not only are they in the right, they are in the majority as well. “We are winning, Keep seething,” wrote one fan. Another suggested that “toxic” fans are the “real audience” and that everyone else is in the minority. This hypothesis directly contradicts the Variety article, which reports that toxic fans represent only a small percentage of fans overall.
Toxicity or bigotry?
The second discourse that emerged about the article took up a different rhetoric entirely. In the quote tweets about the piece—avoiding debates in the comments—many noted that there’s a difference between criticism and toxicity, a distinction the aforementioned users denied. Indeed, a number of users took issue with the language being used here, suggesting that we shouldn’t be calling these fans toxic, but rather what they really are: bigoted.
Numerous posters laid the blame at Hollywood’s feet, claiming that the studios have given these toxic fans power by cowing to their demands. “Should be pointed out here that these bigots arent ‘powerful,’ they’re just loud,” wrote one user.
Indeed, many took issue with what they saw as the studios’ “cowardly” stance regarding toxic fandom. The worry is that studios’ fear of toxic fans will lead to less diversity in film and television going forward. Several users argued that studios should take a stand against bigotry and stand by the work they’ve put out, protecting their creators and actors in the process. Fans don’t run the show, and that’s how it should be,
We’ve seen what happens when studios don’t denounce bigotry—you get racist hate campaigns against actors in the Star Wars franchise, for example. On the other hand, a few fans used Amazon’s The Rings of Power and The Wheel of Time as examples of shows that received racist backlash but remained successful because the studio stood behind them.
What’s the difference between a fan and a customer?
The dividing line between these two responses to the Variety article is clear. Those who reacted defensively to being called toxic feel entitled to media that aligns completely with their worldview.
They possess a “the customer is always right” mentality and believe their demands deserve to be met without question. These fans tend to focus on profits and other metrics of success, alleging that their viewpoint is actually the majority opinion and as such, catering to their needs is the most profitable strategy.
On the other hand, some fans understand fandom in an entirely different light.
As writer Lucy Ford posted, “fans used to create extended worlds out of their favourite things like fanfic and art and community,” but now, “there’s a huge swathe of people who’ve lost the practice of engaging in art as inspiration.” Instead, they want to be “coddled” and expect studios to give them everything they want rather than interacting with pop culture from a place of curiosity.
These two divergent viewpoints illuminate how people think about fandom and media today. Is popular culture and art something we’re owed, or a gift we’re given? Are audiences fans, or simply customers? It all depends on who you ask.
The internet is chaotic—but we’ll break it down for you in one daily email. Sign up for the Daily Dot’s web_crawlr newsletter here to get the best (and worst) of the internet straight into your inbox.
