Entertainment
Abused Fans Lash Out Over Review Bombing Accusations, Hit The Wrong Target
By Jennifer Asencio
| Published
An article about Starfleet Academy has faced backlash from fans who were misled by its headline. The drama caused by the headline is almost worthy of its own Star Trek show, especially with Alex Kurtzman at the helm. The piece was a response to recent statements made by a Star Trek insider about the state of the show and its fandom.
Last week, franchise veteran Christopher Cushman made a post on X in which he implied that negative reviews of Starfleet Academy were made by a coordinated effort to sabotage the show. He also threatened that “negative review bombing of Academy likely to end the possibility of shows like Legacy as well put Star Trek into 10-15 years hiatus [sic].” By thus indicating that criticisms of the show are being made in bad faith, his claim is that all fans will be punished with no Star Trek at all.
In a That Park Place article by Marvin Montanaro, titled “Star Trek Artist Warns Fans That ‘Review Bombing’ Starfleet Academy Could End the Franchise,” the site called Cushman’s bluff, making the counterclaim that maybe a hiatus wouldn’t be so bad. He pointed to the long break between the original series and The Next Generation as evidence that a hiatus can give a franchise time to refresh while avoiding the fatigue of too much content from a single universe. He also highlighted that the show’s viewership reflects these negative reviews, despite its acclaim from critics.
The backlash stemmed from the use of the term “review bombing” in the title. Although it is in “scare quotes,” suggesting that the article is skeptical of this claim, many Star Trek fans dissatisfied with Alex Kurtzman’s guidance of the franchise and this show in particular thought the article agreed that the show was being review-bombed.
Creators Declare War On Their Own Viewers, Fans Revolt
This couldn’t be further from the truth, but the reaction is understandable. Starfleet Academy is not the only property to have accused dissatisfied fans of artificially inflating a show’s bad reviews, rather than acknowledging that maybe viewers don’t like the show.
After taunting Star Wars fans that The Acolyte would “make them cry,” show creator Leslye Headland blamed sexism and homophobia for the show failing to draw audiences. This ignored criticisms of significant changes to franchise lore that diminished the struggles of established characters. The show was also criticized for what viewers felt was forced inclusivity and overpowered female characters.
Legitimate Examples Of Review Bombing
In 2019, a review-bombing war broke out between fans of Battle Angel: Alita and Captain Marvel. Fans who liked the anime movie better were accused of sexism and attempting to artificially deflate the Marvel movie.
There is even a current review bombing war taking place between fans of A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms and Breaking Bad. When Breaking Bad fans left bad reviews of an episode of the Game of Thrones spinoff, so many Westeros fans review-bombed the older show that its IMDB rating for its pinnacle episode, “Ozymandias,” was reduced from a perfect 10 to a 9.5. The episode had held that rating for over a decade.
Review Bombing Accusations Are Used To Shield Creators From The Consequences Of Their Actions
It’s not that fans can’t be petty and leave bad reviews, but the idea that modern shows that perform badly are not being watched because of bad-faith reviews is a way of dismissing criticism rather than admitting a property isn’t connecting with fans. It’s a lazy way of handwaving what fans want, becoming increasingly common as more shows become about “the message” and “representation” than about story or characters. Many video games, books, and even music albums have also used the tactic of blaming negative reviews on bigotry rather than on fan dissatisfaction.
Cushman himself stated that he’d rather ignore dissatisfied fans. He finished his two-post tweet on X with, “…if you don’t like it, don’t watch!” Apparently, fans are supposed to simply stay silent about what they don’t like about a show rather than offer feedback about franchises and properties they love.
Fans Misunderstood That Park Place
However, the knee-jerk reaction of long-abused fans got it wrong when it comes to That Park Place. The site was not supporting Cushman’s notions about review bombing and listed several other reasons the show hasn’t succeeded. The backlash they received was from people who believed otherwise and criticized the site’s X account for allegedly claiming that the negative reviews were made in bad faith. It was clear these naysayers hadn’t read the article and only judged it by its title.
This reaction is an example of how sensitive viewers have become since their criticisms of unpopular properties are dismissed by producers and showrunners. Slop eaters will always enthusiastically promote their favorite bad shows, and plenty of entertainment is being served to them by creators who want their easy money. But viewers who are tired of slop are being decried, so studios can continue developing the content they want, not what audiences want.
It’s no wonder people reacted badly to a headline that sounded like it supports this callous view. Most fans are not reviewing these shows in bad faith, as their viewing numbers demonstrate. It’s condescending to be told that if we don’t like something, it’s because of our moral character and not a lack of quality in the product.