Discussion MisaimedFandom / Film

Does Star Trek Insurrection really need to be on this page? Yes, people root for the "bad guys", but as pointed out by many of those people (for example, SF debris, who's own page here has his speech calling Picard out for his stance on the issue listed as CMOA) they have a very good reason to, and at best the situation is a lot more grey than it was supposed to be.

" Reefer Madness, meant to warn of the perceived dangers of marijuana use, eventually became a pothead cult classic that has been shown at pro-legalization fundraisers.

The same is true, but less so, of other So Bad, It's Good anti-drug PS As. And some other PS As generally get to be popular for the MST 3 K tradition."

That's because the exaggerated claims of those propaganda films do to more experienced modern audiences prove how absurd being Paranoid about Marijuana is.

• Inverted with the film version of The Birth of a Nation where the fandom got the racist subtext of the original Thomas Dixon work but D. W. Griffith apparently didn't or just went with it anyways. Griffith was himself not really a racist; his next film Intolerance actually dealt with the negative effects of prejudice. His later film Broken Blossoms even went out of its way to make the Chinese protagonist very sympathetic as a reaction to the rabid anti-Chinese sentiment of the time.
  • Actually, Dixon was a racist, just not a violent one. He once said that saying he hated blacks would be like saying he hated children, because he felt that blacks were inherently child-like.

Did the second troper here mean Griffith? Otherwise it just doesn't quite make sense: Dixon was already stated to be racist, above, and Griffith was the one that seemed open to debate.

• Avatar's position on technology. It seems to be advocating responsible, low-impact technology use. Given its general lack of subtlety, a subset of viewers interpreted it as anti-technology, instead of pointing out that it's the uses that matters while being more broadly anti-imperialist. Many pointed out the apparent Broken Aesop of a film that required oodles of technology to be anti-tech.

I don't see the Misaimed Fandom in this paragraph. It sounds more like criticizing Avatar for a Broken Aesop, which doesn't belong on this page. If it's clear that the film was anti-tech and there was a fandom that totally loved "the Avatar technology", that would be a Misaimed Fandom.

The rest of the entry, which is about fans who cheer for the Marines, makes sense, but the above doesn't really.