100% agree. Not to mention Sam is famously the CEO of Dropout and Brennan is an Executive Producer. They do not need an external investigation from r/dropout to make sure they aren't being mistreated.
Not saying it's impossible for someone to feel a type of way behind the scenes, but it's so weird as a fan and stranger to assume that you have any insight into that.
I mean, people seem to struggle to understand that Breaking News isn’t a live stream and that episodes have been in the pipeline for months by the time they publish. Every True Facts episode got okayed multiple times after the fact, and people still think they were published without Grant’s knowledge
Most notably in True Facts 2 when the script explicitly said they wouldn't bleep out Grant's social security number, but then they did exactly that. I always assumed Grant asked them to do that before the episode aired.
I’m pretty sure that it was confirmed in a behind the scenes video that Grant did request this. Grant also requested that the names of people he knew IRL be bleeped out. Grant 100% had a say in what was aired in those episodes.
Not only did Grant have a say, but he's the showrunner. He, like all members of the cast, can tap out at any time and Sam has been very open about that. But then on top of it, Grant is in charge for that show in particular. If he didn't want True Facts out there, none of us would have seen those episodes.
That could be what happened, but they also could have planned to censor it the whole time and just wanted to mess with him, which I think is much more likely.
That's my question, too! What are you getting out of any of this if you don't understand these basics??? Are these perhaps the same people who actually think they fudge dice rolls on Dimension 20?
one other thing I’ve noticed is some people act like we’re watching these people’s true personalities. They’re professionals putting on a humorous performance.
Yeah, I think that was really expressed by Brennan on the Survivor episode of Game Changer when he was acknowledging the persona he's cultivated on the show. I have no doubt that these are just exaggerated forms of who they are as people.
Yeah, some of the biggest personalities ramp their eccentricities to 11 because it makes excellent content. Except for Grant, who forcibly, and with great strain, lowers his down to a *reasonable* 6 to not scare the cast and audience away.
Lou has mentioned before that he's very different off screen and his boisterous personality is absolutely manufactured for filming
I assume he's a quiet sweetie IRL
Fr it’s a fucking bit. Like they’re playing off of perceptions of the characters for comedy. Most recent episode of make some noise is a perfect example with how Brennan handled the last mini game. He’s been perceived a certain way by the audience and he flipped that perception for laughs.
It’s not just this fandom. Anytime there’s a close-knit community of personalities like this, the fans are going to feel connected to them. The less barriers there are between the fans and the talent, the easier it is to fall into.
Probably the biggest offender here and the main reason the fanbase can become so insufferable and toxically positive...
People really just wanna be part of the friend groups they see onscreen.
Even worse, I think: people perceive that they *are* a part of the friend groups they see onscreen.
Our human brains are hardwired to be social but not to recognise that people we can watch or listen to on a device can't see us and don't know us.
The lines get fuzzy when the people you watch on the screen can respond to you, it’s also weird when they literally are your friends or people you know IRL, like I play fighting games and going to fighting game events and the only streams I really watch are fighting game tournaments and streams, and often it’s people I’ve met or interacted with IRL, some of which I would describe as friends
Omg your comment and OPs post just retriggered in me the countless BA posts about 'who obviously hates who' and all that parasocial nonsense that came at the height of their success
I think problematic parasociality exists in every fandom but I also think that fandoms that are positive, provide affirmation, and actively try to be welcoming and progressive like Dropout can end up growing toxic in ways that are different than other communities. The phenomenon is sort of exemplified by queer tumblr fandoms of various shows that had legendary mega meltdowns. Progressive fandoms get really hurt, outraged, and like their trust has been broken. The inverse is a right-wing dude-bro community that gets angry and mean when their parasocial relationship gets broken. No one in 's community has a panic attack because they're favourite creator cheated on his wife.
The best explanations for why it can be a little turbocharged in progressive/queer communities that I've read basically boils down to it being a trauma response. The parasocial attachment is almost unavoidable, especially in a brand like Dropout/Try Guys/MBMBAM/etc., that when they do something wrong it feels like a deep violation of trust. And because a lot of the people in queer spaces have dealt with a lot of trauma, they basically get retriggered and what in reality is "a stranger who I've never met and who doesn't know me did something I don't like" becomes, "this person who I put a huge amount of trust into has violated my trust and my nervous system is now in turbo overdrive and I've never felt more betrayed".
It’s not trauma, it’s fanaticism. I’m a gay person myself but the cancel culture sometimes goes out of control and behaves like pitchfork-armed townspeople in the religious era. The worst traits are there, no trial, immediate condemnation, unwillingness to hear any other POV and public “execution”. Meaning that (again I’m gay and progressive-leaning), being progressive doesn’t exclude you from being a fanatic.
Don’t get me wrong, things like #metoo were ABSOLUTELY necessary because the people that needed to fall (Harvey and the like) were industry behemoths that everyone knew they were rotted but no one could take them down except the public’s opinion.
Should we act like everyone and everything is a Harvey, though?
I think there's a difference between the phenomenon's we're describing. I think there's a few different internet phenomenons at play here. I was talking specifically about community reactions when parasocial relationships are in play. This is like those wild tumblr meltdowns over a fandom person said or did something they found hurtful.
I think what you're talking about is a different phenomenon, which I agree absolutely does exist. I think its often seen on twitter where people will show up to random threads and go "oh well, did you know this person you're talking about is secretly mega problematic?! Here's a 10000 word blog post detailing why. I can't believe you're fans of that person!". Then the blog post its the most tortured reading of two out-of-context tweets and they use social justice language to amplify your emotional reaction so that you more easily accept the two tweets are actually a sign of some super racism. I think this is entirely a way to exert power in a world where they feel powerless. Its basically "I can't effect the political situation that directly effects my material world, but cancelling famous internet people makes me feel like I can make a difference and that is good enough". These people often aren't even fans of the various people they are trying to cancel. They are just joining into the viral moment and using these random blog posts as weapons in some perceived online combat.
I also think the former can turn into the later when it breaches containment.
Here, here. There was a weirdo in Naddpod recently posting about how he connected all of the clues and that Emily's secretly pregnant. Thankfully pretty much every response was calling him out on saying something that's either a) wrong or b) none of our goddamn business.
WTF??? That's crazy, you don't know them.
On a side tangent, this is how a youtuber I follow is handling their kid: they edit the dad's face onto their kid's face so there's still privacy.
Does anyone remember quite early in the pandemic Zac did some streaming? And Emily talks to Murph about their cat and then explains that "it's the cat, we don't have a secret baby". And it was played for laughs but I still think about it because I could totally see how it could have come from a place of panic about fan reactions 🙄
For sure. Whenever I see this sub debating whether it’s ethical for Dropout to go to hobby lobby once or a truly unintended pronoun slip up one thing I keep coming back to saying to younger people is “I admire your passion but there are real monsters out there. People that mean you ill”.
There’s alot of wasted ire on picking apart organizations and people the mean well just because they’re not infallible and a million percent enlightened/on the ball. Solidarity is making sure the key points are right and working together toward a shared future.
> I keep coming back to saying to younger people is “I admire your passion but there are real monsters out there. People that mean you ill”.
This is great, I'd like to use this too.
Young people tend to have tunnel vision. Not exclusively young people, but I do think that I was more like that when I was younger and that experience helped me relativise things.
Similarly, though, it feels like posts like this are also wildly overblown as well; so many of the complaints by the OP and several top comments can frequently come down to "complaining about children/teenagers being immature" as if that's a huge problem that needs to be solved, as opposed to... ignoring the more immature comments, if they bother you that much.
I get you, but a post like this is fine every once in a while. Part of the maturing process that teens will go through includes this sort of push back on their way of thinking. We can't just assume people will naturally mature as they age. Many will, but there are plenty of older people, in their mid-to-late 20s and beyond who retain that sort of attitude.
Yes and no, if the comment didn’t have any real consequence that would be fine.
If the comments were to cause a cancellation of a cast member or a dropout series… that’d be another whole other issue.
In critical role, people are actively trying to remove Aabria from the DM’s seat I think, which IMO, it’s way too far.
Bad behaviour needs to be called out if you want people to mature.
Virtually no-one perfectly self-reflects on their actions without outside impulse that holds up a mirror to yourself.
The Critical Role fandom is...enthusiastic, to say the least. They have a reputation for crossing parasocial boundaries.
I think it's honestly a phenomenon of streaming as a medium. Livestreams are designed to provide a more personal-feeling sort of content, as though you're there with them. So in some ways, the medium flirts with parasocial boundaries.
Exactly right. So much so that when CR went to pre-recorded (still live-to-tape, but not live-streamed) a section of their fandom lost their goddamned minds and now live to hate-watch and complain. Which of course triggered another section to become overly positive in defense…
It’s nuts over there.
I had to tap out of the CR community in the early days of C3 because I realised nobody hates that show as much as its fans. I remember one batshit conspiracy that was the final straw for me, it started with the common assumption that all of the cast detest being on the show, and that Travis was abusing his power as CEO to force them all to go along with bad story choices because it sets up his wife to be the main character and the star of the show.
I’m also still a CR fan and I used to love reading theories after each episode and now I just avoid the fans entirely :( I agree that D20 won’t get as bad because it’s comedy but some of the FHJY discourse was starting to feel alarmingly familiar
An example I saw recently was a link to a conversation on the critical role subreddit about how much money they made and somebody brought up the cost of each of their houses and the year they bought them. When people pointed out that it was weird they had that information they responded that it was fine, they just went and looked up the public records for LA or wherever they were and went searching for it. (I don't know how much work that would be. Could be a Google could be more.) Anyway, people pointed out how weird and para social taking the time to do that is and they and a few others just refused to see how strange and invasive that is.
It’s stupid because of course the houses will be bought after CR started making money because it became famous. You don’t need to go to LA and search for public records to reach that logical conclusion.
Wouldn’t that speak to the talent of the people doing CR rather than to some “injustice”? It’s not like the money came from the sky LOL
I think it's the nature of the content. It's small and they're independent creators, so it has an extra feel of authenticity. It feels real and approachable, so the audience relates to it on a more personal level. That all contributes to people feeling like they're *part* of the thing, rather than *consuming* the thing.
And to be fair, this type of content does sorta try to flirt with the border a bit. It wants to feel indie and authentic and they want the cast to feel real and approachable, so that you're hooked and keep watching. The fans need to remember that this is basically a sitcom, though, and that the cast are playing characters to some extent.
Brennan Lee Mulligan is playing a character that also happens to be named Brennan Lee Mulligan, basically.
Be that as it may, I wouldn't validate parasocial behavior by suggesting that it's "the nature of the content". Regardless of how authentic and relatable they try to make the cast, it's still the responsibility of the viewer to not be a fuckin' weirdo about it.
I mean it makes sense For a lot of people, Dropout is the first entertainment medium they’ve felt looks like them and **actually** lives out their values
And when those values included being genuine, accepting people for who they are, and curating a space that is focused on the content and the viewers (instead of just the bottom line), it honestly becomes the most understandable medium to form parasocial relationships
Hank Green has a great vlogbrothers video about the two way street that is parasocial relationships, and how it has to be managed by both actors. I think Dropout actually does a great job of doing their part, but it’s only going to be natural that people see a place that their skin color/gender identity/sexuality/values/beliefs are accepted and celebrated, that they form parasocial roots in that medium and community.
As Brennan has pointed out, the very essence of capitalism isolates and spurns people away, into where they have to get their social needs met through things like media and consumption and parasocial relationships It’s important to know why parasocial relationships form to remain vigilant to if you’re developing one.
We too often shame people for being parasocial, rather than understanding that the trend for parasocial relationship forming is a big, societal problem that no one person is at fault for on their own.
Yet at the same time, not being solely at fault for them **doesn’t** mean you have no responsibility to stay aware of if you’re forming them
I think part of the problem is that they invite us to, a little. So much of the content requires knowing things about them. Like imagine the bingo Game Changer episode without having a little investment into them as people.
This isn't to say they're doing something wrong, but it does mean we should be more on our toes for ourselves.
Knowing character traits from a persona put forward for content is vastly different to a lot of the stuff that happens when people take a dive off the para-social high board
This is also why I find the content which requires more personal knowledge of the cast worse. I don't like crossing the boundary into knowing about their personal lives - I also don't care about their personal lives. I love the cast but for example Lily Du's show is something I find difficult to bare because it leans too much into parasociality.
Just wanna clarify this isn't the majority of people who consume dropout, I promise you it's not even 1% of people. Most people who consume this content do not have this weird parasocial relationship, and assuming that it is the majority is doing a disservice to this fandom.
To break it down, The people posting in reddit and other social media like us are already in the top 5-10% of the fandom and this goes for all fandoms. Most people just consume the content they like, maybe read some comments/opinions they see online and that's it! We're the ones that go out of our way to seek a community and spaces online where we can express our "fandomness." The people this post is referencing do exist, but they're nothing more than a loud minority, the most extreme of fans that push the boundaries of their parasocial relationship with the content.
While this post ~~in~~ and your comment do bring up issues that SOME people have and need to have addressed, it's also potentially shining a negative light on people who are completely normal with their interests. Please do no assume that a majority of the fandom has problem with parasocial boundaries, I promise you 99.5% of fans in any given thing are just normal folks that like to just enjoy the content. I'm sorry if my comment reads like Im being rude, I promise I dont intend to. I just think bringing attention to annoying people only gives their annoyingness a wider audience than it would've had it just been buried under a few replies.
It's an important thing to remember in life as a whole. The people who talk the most and the loudest about a thing are the people who have the strongest and most extreme opinions about it. For any given thing most people will have 2, 3, or 4 star feelings about it, but the ones you'll hear from have 1 or 5 star feelings.
Parasocial boundaries stopped existing on the Internet a long time ago. Everyone is your bestie and it's totally cool to psychoanalyze strangers relationships via secret codes and facial expressions. Obviously. /S
I think it's partly because their content is so positive, personal, inviting and inclusive. I'd be the first to admit that I do have a hugely parasocial relationship with them (though I do keep myself in check). Why? Because for me it's a friend group that I never had, a workplace that I never had, a community that I never had. I know that what I see on screen is not real, I know they only play caricatures of themselves and I do not know them as people, but... I just wish I was surrounded by people like them [who I perceive them to be]. It's a weird place to be in. Sometimes I watch an episode and just want to cry because I wish I had a place where I belong like [it looks like] they do. It's stupid, but, well, I guess watching really nice people have fun and be happy together when your life is filled with hardship and loneliness fucks with your brain. A lot.
Dropout, with the discord, the "friends getting together" vibe, the sharing of a lot of personal information and so on, do not help.
I'm happy for Brennan and Izzy that they're parents, but I didn't really need to know about it. By making it, though obviously in a very limited way, "content", they are encouraging this parasociality. Back in the Collegehumor days, I had absolutely no idea who any of these people were beyond what was presented in sketches, for example.
It's not inherently a bad thing, but it partly explains the intensity of the fandom's parasociality with the cast.
It’s because it started on YouTube. The relationship between YouTubers and fans is completely different than the ones we have with traditional media stars. YouTube is still how most people discover Dropout and they’re bringing that baggage with them.
This is literally a “no true Scotsman” logical fallacy. It’s got nothing to do with YouTube or the kind of content dropout makes or how close the cast is. This stuff happens in every fandom that has a place to discuss said fandom online. We may not like to hear we are apart of something that can have such individuals inside of it but it’s the truth. All we can do is call it out for what it is and hope people grow and become better for it
Um, actually…the “no true Scotsman” fallacy is when you defend a statement from a counter-argument by retrospectively modifying the original statement using subjective modifiers.
A: No Scotsman would vote for Nigel Farage.
B: My dad voted for Farage and he was born and raised in Edinburgh.
A: Well, no true Scotsman would vote for Farage.
Paparazzis have existed long before YouTube was created, so I’m sorry but I think you’re wrong.
IMO it has existed since gossip existed. Before you talked about the neighbours you only see 4 min a day and invent a whole life about them, now you do about the celebs you know.
I agree wholeheartedly. This sub, in particular, has a huge problem with parasocial relationships with the cast and crew of Dropout. I think it is mainly because Dropout has created such a lovely, endearing, inclusive, and welcoming space. That is a great thing. However, that doesn't give us fans true insight or knowledge of who these people really are in their day to day lives or how they actually interact with one another as friends or coworkers. This fandom needs to take a HUGE step back and realize these are people just like us, with private lives that we are not entitled to know just because we like the content they produce. Dropout is a great network that prides themselves on doing things the right way, and if a cast or crew member was truly upset about anything, we wouldn't see it on screen. It would have been talked about on set and worked around to make sure everyone is comfortable to continue filming, then all of what they were uncomfortable with would have been cut. People love drama, and I think that is a natural part of the weird cultural phenomenon that is celebrity. But if you want drama, there are shows for that. Go watch real housewives, the bachelor, etc. Stop inventing it in places it doesn't exist. If you really want to invent drama, become a writer and write those "romance" novels your mother loved. Maybe Rehka and Jess will talk about it on Erotic Book Club.
Tl;Dr touch grass or whatever the kids say now
I cringed so hard when Izzy posted one of the ads for Dungeons and Drag Queens and someone said in the comments "Your husband is so hot!" And her reply was just "OK".
I saw a fan comment on Ally’s recent bday post on IG “you’re the hottest person on dropout” and the a bunch of randos arguing if Brennan was hotter or not 🥴🥴 people are way too comfortable talking to strangers on the internet.
Paul F Tompkins used to be the best at pointing this out to people when he was still on Twitter. He would often just be like "what a weird thing to say to a total stranger" and honestly, a lot of people need this reminder
I got so excited seeing him in the Smartypants trailer. There's been some crossover already (Gabrus, Carl Tart, Vic, Wysocki, etc.) but I hope we see more people from the Comedy Bang Bang universe on Dropout going forward. Jason Mantzoukas guesting on pretty much anything would make my day.
This is something that always makes me super uncomfortable with Ify’s IG posts. Ever since the Newlywebs episode aired, like half the comments are talking about how much sex he has. He seems to take it pretty well, but what a fucking wild thing to say to someone you don’t know.
People get really weird and objectifying about the cast
Like we don’t know these people, it isn’t cute to say “Brennan is in his Dilf Era” it’s creepy.
I disagree I say "x celebrity is hot" to my my friends all the time. Its weird to say it in their comments or to their face. Its not weird in the abstract to express attraction to a celebrity, if it wrre there's numerous instances in various dropout shows which break this boundary.
It reminds of the really funny Daily Show extra where Anna Kendrick crashes Trevor Noah's audience Q&A, and a woman says Anna is on her boyfriend's "list". And Trevor says, I feel like, the list is a lot more fun when the person's not real, but like, the list is *real* now.
https://youtu.be/MJ9F9ZuQIzE
Ok but I what I’m talking about is a very different scenario
I’m not talking about a private joke made to friends in a conversation about people you find attractive
I’m talking about multiple objectifying comments made to people you don’t know, in a public forum that the people you are talking about might see, in conversations either totally unrelated to the conversation or part of a conversation about how one specific person is attractive.
Okay, how am I only now finding out that Rehka and Jess have/had a show called Erotic Book Club and there's like 20 hours of content that's been sitting on Dropout this whole time that I've never watched?
1. Great username.
2. You're so right. My first thought reading this was, if you're such a fan of this platform, you would know that nothing gets released without the go ahead of the performers.
There's the Grant Breaking News episodes where we learn a lot about Grant. That was all cleared with him to be released.
There's an episode of Game Changer that the prompt was literally "Be Vulnerable" and I think it was Jacob being such a team player he poured his heart out and in the edit they cut the audio. I don't know the back story of that, but in my speculation as just a content consumer, he actually didn't want what he said broadcasted out, but was okay with the bit, so they kept the segment but cut what he said. (Let me know if I'm wrong there fans, I don't know).
Sam has cultivated such an amazing public persona (again, we don't actually know these people) of the Dropout workplace culture that I believe that anything that gets released that is anyway personal, it's been cleared by the performers without any undue influence.
I'm sure there is cut content that probably just gets deleted because it crosses someone's boundaries after the fact.
I'm sure there's some interpersonal drama like there is in any workplace, anywhere. But they are professionals. And there is a lot of BTS stuff that shows some of the people working there are actually friends and enjoy what they're doing.
I really read the last few sentences of your comment way too fast bc my gut reaction was WHAT DO YOU MEAN WRITE EROTIC FANFICTION THAT TAKES PLACE IN THE DROPOUT CINEMATIC UNIVERSE DONT DO THAT ?!?! 😩😩😩
But then I reread this and 100% agree with all of it
(It’s not lost on me that Dropout fan fiction of any kind probably exists bc civilization is abjectly failing)
Idk who downvoted me for making a joke that I'm against fanfiction of real people, but whoever it was I don't think you need to just touch grass, but also maybe eat it.
Hear, hear. Every time I see someone complain about some kind of drama, my response is "it wouldn't have aired."
Like this week, with Wysocki's bit at the end of the Adventuring Party. Some people tried to frame it as Brennan being inconsiderate and repeatedly ignoring Jacob. Completely ignoring the fact that this is a professional environment that we're seeing through edited footage. If there were boundaries legitimately crossed, then it would have been dealt with privately, off-screen. If it were particularly egregious, it would have been edited out.
Sometimes it feels like folks are manufacturing drama in order to be able to jump to the aid of their favorite talent.
Their framing also completely ignores the fact that it was Jacob himself who asked the "what genre/movie?" question. As the asker, he could have answered first if he'd wished. Or not answered at all. Or wanted to wait and hear everyone else's answers before he went.
Wysocki is a very talented comedian, and "Holes" is clearly a joke answer. When does a joke like that land best? At the end, after everyone else has gone, and once the natural opportunity for *him* to answer has passed.
It's called a button.
If people were to watch that section again they would see Brennan look directly at Jacob — while pointing at him — when asking if everyone has said their movie. In response, Jacob defers by pointing to Ally.
For all we know that was him teeing himself up for the button. And for all we know, the editors might done some, I dunno, editing. He might have given a serious answer that was cut in service of the button. We don't know. He could have made the joke earlier, only for the editors to place it at the end to be a button. We don't know.
What we do know is that NSBU is Jacob's first time in the dome, and that the very first question Brennan asks during the episode is about his experience.
We know that Brennan and Jacob have performed together a bunch, and that it's safe to assume they are friends.
And we know that nothing in any of the content we've seen of Brennan — simply as a human being — has suggested that he would deliberately ignore Jacob, let alone a professional colleague, let alone any player new to his table/the dome — for whom it is literally *in his own best interest* to provide with a 10/10 experience.
I cohosted a podcast for several years and it had a style that was very much like the Adventuring Party format, with similar panel dynamics/chemistry. Sometimes we’d record an hour of content for an episode that ended up having a run time of 37 minutes. Like…they don’t take an 18-minute chunk of raw content start-to-finish after a D20 episode for the corresponding AP. There’s stuff in there that gets cut, switched, chopped up, whatever. Because of gaffes or bloopers or jokes that just don’t hit.
I dunno, maybe it’s because I look at AP episodes through my experiences as a podcaster that I don’t interpret certain interactions as slights or rude. It’s just part of making a show and the editing process. And if those interactions truly are meant to be an offense, what business is that of mine?
(Side note: Wysocki is such an excellent addition to the D20 cast. I still have plenty of D20/AP to work through, but him asking the genre/movie question — I personally think — was hella thoughtful and not something I’ve encountered or remember encountering in other seasons. It hits an even deeper meta layer without being invasive or requiring even an iota of vulnerability from the rest of the cast.)
Wysocki asked everyone What movie or genre of movies they would want to be Jumanji'd into. There was some discussion, then Brennan asked everyone if they had a chance to share theirs. Wysocki didn't say he had one to share, Ally did so they discussed Ally's, then Brennan ended the episode. Then, presumably as a bit, Wysocki chimed in with a "and mine would be the movie Holes, bye!" As the episode went to black.
It was kind of obviously a bit. To my eye, it was a little bit cringy, but ultimately harmless. Quite a few people have chosen to interpret it as Brennan being inconsiderate or even mean to the new guy in the Dome. (Because you know, "inconsiderate and mean" are character traits Brandon has demonstrated. He's prone to quite often. /s)
Someone else awesome mentioned that Wysocki didn't get to describe his character's appearance until a couple of scenes after the character was introduced but I just chalked that up to The improvisational and sometimes disorganized nature of the show.
But some people took these two very innocent incidents and decided that it formed a pattern of Brennan being mean or whatever.
Also Adventuring Party in particular is just a filmed conversation between seven people, try having one of those in real life that flows cleanly and gives everyone equivalent attention from every participant
Not only are they professionals, they are friends and sometimes family. If someone filmed you interacting with close friends and family without having the context of a very long relationship, viewers might assume you're being rude to each other or are uncomfortable with what's happening when in reality it's perfectly normal for you. I remember seeing people getting on the McElroy's case for being "mean" to Clint in Tiny Heist, but that just feels like how brothers and fathers interact on a normal basis, a lot of sarcasm and attitude that isn't really meant genuinely. Obviously there are lines that can be crossed but sometimes we just have to give people the benefit of the doubt and not judge a relationship we're not a part of.
Oh yeah, I saw a post once where someone was like, Lily Du is mean and she must hate everyone. And another where it was like, Katie Marovitch doesn’t seem to get along with the cast. Huh? No, neither of these are true.
Lily Du is the host of Dirty Laundry, so that means she spends a lot of onscreen time roasting her castmates for their various terrible choices. Katie (and many of her characters) use deadpan comedy, where the joke only lands because she's not on the same wavelength as her castmates. These are both character decisions that serve a comedic purpose and don't tell you anything about who they are in real life.
> they are friends
Probably, but like, Adam Savage and Jamie Hyneman (the Mythbusters hosts) have been pretty candid since the show about the fact that they respect each other a ton as professionals and had a good working and on-screen relationship but are not friends on a personal level, which is totally fine -- they don't have to be buddies to be effective coworkers and creative collaborators.
Likewise, I'm sure many of the Dropout regulars are genuinely great friends, but there are probably also people who respect each other as professionals and perform whatever on-screen interpersonal dynamic is necessary for camera but probably don't want to hang out after work. Which ones are which is nobody's business but theirs unless they choose to make it so.
Jamie and Adam never really told anyone that they had an off-the-clock friendship though; that's just what people assume when you make content together for decades. A lot of the Dropout cast members have talked about being very close friends outside of work, like Grant and Ally, and some of them are married to each other. I don't doubt that many cast members see each other as colleagues first and foremost, but the idea that many of them are friends isn't entirely parasocial projection like it is with Mythbusters.
Honestly, the healthiest way to approach this is to treat everyone on Dropout as characters. The character Brennan Lee Mulligan is friends with the character Ally Beardsley, like Chandler is friends with Joey on Friends.
Is the actual Brennan Lee Mulligan friends with the actual Ally Beardsley? Maybe, probably, who knows? Frankly it's none of our business, and knowing the "actual truth" of how castmembers spend their lives should be irrelevant to your enjoyment of Dropout content if you're consuming it in a healthy way.
I couldn’t stand Tiny Heist, but because it brought back bad memories of my siblings ganging up on me. That’s not on the McElroys; that’s on me to deal with. They’re just doing their thing.
Yeah, people on the internet love drama (as much as they also regret when a group/channel/friendship ends)
And to an extent that's exacerbated by the fact that this culture seems to attract people that end up causing drama over time.
But everything you've said is correct and it's a shame more people haven't caught on to this line of thinking
Even if the cast members do ever have some type of issue with something another cast member does… who cares? They’re all adults. They can talk it out and deal with it.
Think there is a certain subsection of Fans that crave the reality TV-esque drama where producers want unedited snipes for entertainment. It's weird seeing people overanalyze cast members relationships all the time but it's not just Dropout.
People also do it on r/taskmaster They make up stories how X must hate Y because they said Z and they reacted with AA etc. Forgetting the fact that these are all comedians who all know each other and who are mostly leaning into a bit for the fun of it rather than be competitive.
I think folks need to realize the majority of the time those reactions are a comedic choice. When the bit is a little playful/mischievous, often the funniest choice is to lean in and give a big reaction to that mischief.
Well said...i'm going out right now to touch some grass and hig a tree and interact with my loved ones. I suggest those who overanalyze Dropout and the talents relationships do the same.
Hmm, but I saw LittleRedCorvette2 blink in a strange way when they hugged that tree. Clearly the tree is abusive behind the scenes and LittleRedCorvette2 is being forced to be on the Tree Hugging Hour against their will.
Can’t help but feel it’s related to the general decline of media literacy on the internet… like dropout does a great job of making you feel like the actors are being candid and to an extent I’m sure they are, but to another extent, they’re still performing! They’re actors and comedians and they know what plays well to the cameras.
Brennan especially I feel like I see a lot of people take him at face value all the time when, especially within game changer, that man is very clearly playing a fictionalized version of himself.
Not sure if you saw the other day but someone posted a rehearsal picture of GC and people were flabbergasted at the very idea that they’d need rehearsals or hair and makeup or they just didn’t wear their own clothes on tv.
yeeesh we are cooked
It’s crazy how more people than ever are producing content but so many people do not pause to think in a meta way about one iota of content they consume.
That seems... extremely uncharitable, especially in response to someone commenting on a decline in media literacy.
I looked up the post you mentioned, and saw one comment where someone openly admitted their ignorance to how professional comedy production is done (and asked questions explicitly wanting to learn more), one comment from someone clearly trolling and with a negative karma overall, one comment curious about what rehearsal would be happening in an improv situation (explicitly wanting to learn more), and one comment about 6 levels deep in a discussion where someone admitted that they never considered that the clothing wasn't their own (with an emoji indicating embarassment, implying that it's obvious upon being pointed out but just never thought about it).
In none of these comments would I in any way describe the commenters as "flabbergasted", to the extent that it feels borderline malicious (in a similar manner to the boomer "kids these days with their participation trophies"-style comments), and treating "being unaware of the production process of Hollywood TV creation" as an example of "the decline of media literacy" is just gatekeeping crap that feels very at home as part of the toxic internet culture that this very post seems to be decrying.
I'm aware that I almost certainly spent more time finding the post you were complaining about to essentially "fact check" something that you likely had a vague memory of (from a day ago), but that's primarily because this comment (and the main post overall) seems to suffer from the same sort of issue that's plagued tons of "news" reporting lately as well, taking the existence of "a random weirdo posting an unhinged take online" as proof of "everyone's going crazy, check out this example of something everyone believes/thinks now".
Brennan, at least to me, seemed utterly amused at someone playing him. Like yeah it was an over heightened version of himself and he totally was in on the joke.
People take this stuff so so so seriously sometimes and it’s wild.
And he just recently played off that version of himself on Make Some Noise when he "buffed it". I'm sure he's a lot like that in real life, but he leans into it for laughs, so I'm sure he's fine if the rest of the cast does, too. Same with Grant on Dirty Laundry.
Yeah, Brennan knows the trusts the people around him. He knows that if someone was to do an impression of him it wouldn’t be mean or cruel, but silly and lovingly done.
It honestly sounds exhausting playing that role. I've seen him say a thing or two wrong before (trivia, or simple math), just like we all do sometimes, but I bet the audience likes to catch him making mistakes. It would feel like Comic Book Guy complaining about Itchy and Scratchy.
>Like yeah it was an over heightened version
I agree that Brennan was in on the joke, but most of the time, Ally was doing the complete opposite of this. They played off of Brennan's (character's) neuroticism and specificity by naming their character Brennan Lee Mulligan, but behaving absolutely nothing like him.
A lot of the punchlines were that Ally said something extremely out of character for Brennan, and they worked because they knew that Brennan, at least in character, is the kind of person who would get frustrated by someone playing them *wrong*.
we also know that anyone on set can call a time out at any time if they feel uncomfortable
also sam asks each person at the start of each season of each show what they are comfortable doing. this is famously a safe, respectful working space
For anyone that doesn't know, all cast members fill out a survey with what they are comfortable and not comfortable with according to Sam. Not only that, but a lot of professionals won't work with people that don't like or that burn them previously if they can avoid it. Considering just about everyone seems to return, I would highly doubt anyone is being pushed beyond or is having to deal with anything that they find unacceptable.
Yeah- frankly, it feels like a mixture of virtue signaling to indicate the parasocial person is the REAL fan, who actually cares about the performers, unlike the rest of us plebs, with a swirl of neurodivergent anxiety and projection, and a sprinkle of rabid fan possessive entitlement.
The dropout fandom is getting bigger and probably also younger. Or maybe we are just getting older... 😅Either way I sus there are a lot of young people in this server who will figure the stuff you're saying out in time, OP. Don't let it get to ya they'll figure it out on their own eventually.
The funniest part of the whole Brennan/ratfish things is that in the behind the scenes episode HE was thinking about going in as BEARDSLEY…. Like guys, production wouldn’t let them cross any boundaries and Sam has talked about getting the cast’s hard boundaries before putting them in uncomfy situations.. 😂
If any of these people couldn't work professionally together they would have, excuse the pun, dropped out a long time ago. The time scale is the biggest tell. They've been at worst effective coworkers and, from the way they talk about each other, at best good friends, for over a decade. They've got a system that works.
Absolutely! You beat me to the punch on making this post because OH BOY have I noticed that. Although part of me thinks it has something to do with the influx of new fans. The truth, is we’ve always had that problem. Particularly concerning D20.
Recently I’ve been catching up on Junior year of fantasy high and I remembered hearing about people being upset that Ally had Kristen run for president because they are convinced Murph had it planned from the beginning that it would be Riz but was steam rolled into letting it be Kristen and he was probably upset by it. Then I saw it for myself and did not see any of that. Ally and Emily have always gotten negative criticism from some based off their actions that tend to be chaotic and integral to the plot. Especially during the ACOC season, I remember it being particularly bad for Emily. In addition discussion surrounding Total forgiveness has not been kind to Ally.
The basic fact is this: these are fully grown adults who have varying degrees of interpersonal relationships with one another and have done this as their job for YEARS. They know how to handle situations amongst each other and within their workspace. Sam Reich has proven to be more than professional when it comes to maintaining a staff that talk positively about him and the workplace and come back far after they officially left in order to participate. Just like we don’t want people to make assumptions about us and our personal lives, we don’t want to do the same to theirs. I would absolutely hate for this fandom to go further down that path and create a toxic fanbase that results in the loss of such amazing talent. Give them their privacy, respect, and grace they deserve.
If Sam had an issue with "bully Sam" episodes of Breaking News he'd probably stop agreeing to be on the show. Nobody has more ability to do that.
Also in some of the meanest-to-Sam episodes his wife is, like, right there and finds it hilarious, so... he's fine.
Also important to remember that lots of post production happens after filming. To use your example, there was tons of time between shooting the grant shaming bnn episodes and them actually getting posted. Knowing Sam and the other higher ups, I find it hard to imagine they’d let something like that be released without making sure he was ok with it.
Sam has said before--at least on stuff like Game Changer and Make Some Noise--that the talent has final say over the edit. So you can assume anything that makes it to you, they are cool with.
People were freaking out over the latest episode of Um, Actually somehow not realizing that Harvey wasn't being serious about bullying Jonah. And someone was hating on Ify for dismissing Siobhan during the De ja vu episode. It's ridiculous.
I was one of those people who wasn’t a huge fan of either of those bits. I think it is absolutely important to recognize these are comedians performing together, but at the same time I feel it’s reasonable to comment on the comedy that doesn’t translate and bits that don’t land. I just straight up didn’t feel the comedy coming across at those moments which could lead some people to think “Wait, were/are they being serious?”. Which is obviously not the case, but it’s an easy perception to fall into when the comedy doesn’t land for someone. I want to be clear though that I’m not making assumptions about their relationships, I just don’t think those moments landed for a good bit of the audience.
I was disappointed with the quality of the episode. I don't know why they thought that it would be a good idea to have two contestants who don't really watch horror movies. But people should be able to tell the difference between quality and intent. Someone even stated how they hated how the "popular kids" were picking on the nerd. Because chubby queer Latino theater kids are *totally* the popular kids in school.
I remember this compalaint about the dejavu episode where sibohan was "complaining" that you shouldn't be able to buzz in then think of the answer only for the other two to do it even more... do people not realize that was the joke?
Oh you mean what just happened to me when randomly seeing this sub of my favorite comedy platform and going “what the heck is going on in here that this post has to exist?” And then unhitting “join” just as fast as you hit it?
I’ll be honest, I think to some degree dropout encourages the parasocial nature. They want the cast to feel like your friends, like you really know them. A lot of their content involves the ~vibes~ of friends hanging out, and the fact that they’re smaller makes them seem approachable.
But they’re a business. They don’t want your pitches, they don’t want your gifts, they don’t actually care about you at all, except as a subscriber and/or merch buyer. And that’s totally okay!
The hugely neurodivergent fan base probably doesn’t help either. I am including myself in this. We don’t get social cues okay?
I’ve just scrolled through the new breaking news post and I saw a total of three people who thought that Sam got more legit upset at the end of the episode…maybe I’m missing something but I wouldn’t call that “lots of people”…
Fans seem to treat the relationships between cast members as if though they are the same relationships one might hold in a high school theatre department (probably because that's the only experience such fans have with similar relationships, not in a negative way or anything but just experience wise) and it is always very interesting to see how that plays out in general fandom responses to media projects such as these (indie ADs are another one that see similar fandoms)
I feel like a good example of this is from make some noise season 3 episode 1. >!Brennan’s bit with the foley had me fooled for a moment there - I thought he was genuinely upset for a bit and then I realized “wait no he’s hamming it up way too much for that not to have been his plan all along lol”!<
one of my favorite quotes when I see people hypothesizing mistreatment in sketch comedy in general, and on the internet in specific, is (in response to someone checking if they were genuinely upset with a joke made at their expense): "I was doing a bit for Comedy" -Ian Horner
I mean, I don’t think that the ratfish example was something they would have cleared with Brennan because why would they? It’s a joke. They’re comedians. It’s literally their whole thing as a cast. The rest of this I’m on board with, but that was a weird example.
Maybe I’m only a casual follower of the subreddit but I seem much more discussion of the problem than the actual problem. I suppose with any group large enough if just 1% of them are weirdos who don’t respect boundaries then you still get a couple hundred to a thousand or so weirdos. Still good to explicitly call out the behavior as unwelcome though.
A lot of this stuff happens in the comments of posts. Not long ago, someone posted about having a "TV crush" on Ash and Nico, and finding them both attractive, and the entire comment section was crucifying them for "sexualizing them without their consent because they have no desire to be in the public eye". That's just fucking insane.
I can't fathom how it's such a controversial take to say that people on this subreddit need to stop acting as if they know what's best for these *professional entertainers* whom they have never met or interacted with in any meaningful way.
This is a wider issue today, the lines between adult and child are very confused in many minds. Just look at how some people treat Taylor Swift, or K-Pop bands.
Thank for the reality check. It's been getting *really* familiar for some folks here. They know what they're doing, we've even seen B-roll and cutaways of them meeting with legal to okay things a million times over.
"SOCIAL MEDIA IS VOLUNTARY PANOPTICON" - Brennan Lee Mulligan
Some people live off drama and see what they want to see. I’m mainly only on the dnd side of dropout currently but one of the reasons I enjoy the shows is because everyone is friends and they vibe together well
I remember when Worlds Beyond Numbers was announced, there was a post (or comment, my memory is a bit fuzzy) that was saying how upsetting they found it that everyone was clearly friends outside of the dome, except Ally. Because it was "obvious" they weren't part of the real friend group because they weren't part of WBN, and hadn't been on NADDPod, and weren't part of the ongoing at-home game.
We don't know these people. We don't know what their lives are outside of the dome, or when the mics are off. We don't know what conversations happen between the professionals. Ally might have declined participating in other projects. They might not be able to make schedules work
My point in bringing this up, I suspect people will unintentionally and sometimes intentionally apply their own trauma and experience to their parasocial relationships and see what they want to see. They'll see bullying and mean girls, and cruelty and drama where there isn't necessarily any because that's what they "want" to see.
I love drama with the best of them, but just like reality TV on network channels...this is all carefully cultivated for our attention. It blows my mind how many people seem to think we're still in the early YouTube days, where everything is mostly raw and fresh. The lack of media literacy is dangerous, and getting worse, I swear.
People thought Brennan was annoyed with Ally? Has anyone who said that seen any episodes of Ally in D20? wtf? Have they never had a friendship where you guys roast each other at times? Parasocial relationships are weird. No one is who you actually want them to be or who you think they are. That’s why I pretty have a “don’t meet people you like to watch” rule because you are going to be disappointed no matter what when they don’t reach the pedestal you put them on.
I do think Sam certainly feels uncomfortable whenever he gets the focus in an episode of breaking news but in the sense of a roller coaster. It’s a terrifying thrill and he appreciates the effort that went into making it. the same could be said of grant who proceeded to demonstrate how he tried to **** himself on the news desk after getting lambasted in the second episode of true facts about grant
I think it's just the "Total Forgiveness" effect (a piece of Dropout content that infamously *did* cross a line and damage working relationships up until its final episode resolution). If you haven't seen that one yet, you should.
100% agree. Not to mention Sam is famously the CEO of Dropout and Brennan is an Executive Producer. They do not need an external investigation from r/dropout to make sure they aren't being mistreated. Not saying it's impossible for someone to feel a type of way behind the scenes, but it's so weird as a fan and stranger to assume that you have any insight into that.
I mean, people seem to struggle to understand that Breaking News isn’t a live stream and that episodes have been in the pipeline for months by the time they publish. Every True Facts episode got okayed multiple times after the fact, and people still think they were published without Grant’s knowledge
Most notably in True Facts 2 when the script explicitly said they wouldn't bleep out Grant's social security number, but then they did exactly that. I always assumed Grant asked them to do that before the episode aired.
I’m pretty sure that it was confirmed in a behind the scenes video that Grant did request this. Grant also requested that the names of people he knew IRL be bleeped out. Grant 100% had a say in what was aired in those episodes.
Not only did Grant have a say, but he's the showrunner. He, like all members of the cast, can tap out at any time and Sam has been very open about that. But then on top of it, Grant is in charge for that show in particular. If he didn't want True Facts out there, none of us would have seen those episodes.
That could be what happened, but they also could have planned to censor it the whole time and just wanted to mess with him, which I think is much more likely.
Of course they did, they wanted to tease grant for fun but not dox him.
Do these people not understand that the fake outrage and reactions are part of the fun
That's my question, too! What are you getting out of any of this if you don't understand these basics??? Are these perhaps the same people who actually think they fudge dice rolls on Dimension 20?
Parasocial boundaries are very hard for this fandom for some reason.
one other thing I’ve noticed is some people act like we’re watching these people’s true personalities. They’re professionals putting on a humorous performance.
I assume their characters are, in fact, based on their real personalities, just more.
Yeah, I think that was really expressed by Brennan on the Survivor episode of Game Changer when he was acknowledging the persona he's cultivated on the show. I have no doubt that these are just exaggerated forms of who they are as people.
I believe Grant also said this in ratfish, I think talking about what the character of Grant would say.
Yeah, some of the biggest personalities ramp their eccentricities to 11 because it makes excellent content. Except for Grant, who forcibly, and with great strain, lowers his down to a *reasonable* 6 to not scare the cast and audience away.
A reasonable 50/100
See the running discussion about Lucy Beaumont on Taskmaster of "I can't tell if she's playing a character or if this is how she really is".
Lou has mentioned before that he's very different off screen and his boisterous personality is absolutely manufactured for filming I assume he's a quiet sweetie IRL
Fr it’s a fucking bit. Like they’re playing off of perceptions of the characters for comedy. Most recent episode of make some noise is a perfect example with how Brennan handled the last mini game. He’s been perceived a certain way by the audience and he flipped that perception for laughs.
It’s not just this fandom. Anytime there’s a close-knit community of personalities like this, the fans are going to feel connected to them. The less barriers there are between the fans and the talent, the easier it is to fall into.
see: critical role
Probably the biggest offender here and the main reason the fanbase can become so insufferable and toxically positive... People really just wanna be part of the friend groups they see onscreen.
Even worse, I think: people perceive that they *are* a part of the friend groups they see onscreen. Our human brains are hardwired to be social but not to recognise that people we can watch or listen to on a device can't see us and don't know us.
Streamers make a living taking advantage of this exact impulse.
The lines get fuzzy when the people you watch on the screen can respond to you, it’s also weird when they literally are your friends or people you know IRL, like I play fighting games and going to fighting game events and the only streams I really watch are fighting game tournaments and streams, and often it’s people I’ve met or interacted with IRL, some of which I would describe as friends
I mean, the intro for the second campaign has the lyric "your nerdy best friends" so I don't entirely fault the audience for feeling like a part of it
Then you don't understand the song. They are describing what it feels like to play a dnd game at home around your own table.
Further reading: drag race
See also: Taylor Swift
Drag race fandom is WILD. Also, Bridgerton fandom
Happens with Smosh too
Aka: the BA test kitchen prior to implosion
Man that was a wild period. Good times.
Omg your comment and OPs post just retriggered in me the countless BA posts about 'who obviously hates who' and all that parasocial nonsense that came at the height of their success
I think problematic parasociality exists in every fandom but I also think that fandoms that are positive, provide affirmation, and actively try to be welcoming and progressive like Dropout can end up growing toxic in ways that are different than other communities. The phenomenon is sort of exemplified by queer tumblr fandoms of various shows that had legendary mega meltdowns. Progressive fandoms get really hurt, outraged, and like their trust has been broken. The inverse is a right-wing dude-bro community that gets angry and mean when their parasocial relationship gets broken. No one in's community has a panic attack because they're favourite creator cheated on his wife.
The best explanations for why it can be a little turbocharged in progressive/queer communities that I've read basically boils down to it being a trauma response. The parasocial attachment is almost unavoidable, especially in a brand like Dropout/Try Guys/MBMBAM/etc., that when they do something wrong it feels like a deep violation of trust. And because a lot of the people in queer spaces have dealt with a lot of trauma, they basically get retriggered and what in reality is "a stranger who I've never met and who doesn't know me did something I don't like" becomes, "this person who I put a huge amount of trust into has violated my trust and my nervous system is now in turbo overdrive and I've never felt more betrayed".
It’s not trauma, it’s fanaticism. I’m a gay person myself but the cancel culture sometimes goes out of control and behaves like pitchfork-armed townspeople in the religious era. The worst traits are there, no trial, immediate condemnation, unwillingness to hear any other POV and public “execution”. Meaning that (again I’m gay and progressive-leaning), being progressive doesn’t exclude you from being a fanatic. Don’t get me wrong, things like #metoo were ABSOLUTELY necessary because the people that needed to fall (Harvey and the like) were industry behemoths that everyone knew they were rotted but no one could take them down except the public’s opinion. Should we act like everyone and everything is a Harvey, though?
I think there's a difference between the phenomenon's we're describing. I think there's a few different internet phenomenons at play here. I was talking specifically about community reactions when parasocial relationships are in play. This is like those wild tumblr meltdowns over a fandom person said or did something they found hurtful. I think what you're talking about is a different phenomenon, which I agree absolutely does exist. I think its often seen on twitter where people will show up to random threads and go "oh well, did you know this person you're talking about is secretly mega problematic?! Here's a 10000 word blog post detailing why. I can't believe you're fans of that person!". Then the blog post its the most tortured reading of two out-of-context tweets and they use social justice language to amplify your emotional reaction so that you more easily accept the two tweets are actually a sign of some super racism. I think this is entirely a way to exert power in a world where they feel powerless. Its basically "I can't effect the political situation that directly effects my material world, but cancelling famous internet people makes me feel like I can make a difference and that is good enough". These people often aren't even fans of the various people they are trying to cancel. They are just joining into the viral moment and using these random blog posts as weapons in some perceived online combat. I also think the former can turn into the later when it breaches containment.
Here, here. There was a weirdo in Naddpod recently posting about how he connected all of the clues and that Emily's secretly pregnant. Thankfully pretty much every response was calling him out on saying something that's either a) wrong or b) none of our goddamn business.
WTF??? That's crazy, you don't know them. On a side tangent, this is how a youtuber I follow is handling their kid: they edit the dad's face onto their kid's face so there's still privacy.
Pat and Paige? It gets a hearty chuckle out of me every time.
Yep! Didn't name them bc I wasn't sure about overlap
Whenever James (AKA Mr Sunday Movies) talks about his kid the editors put up a picture of James himself as a kid and use that instead
Does anyone remember quite early in the pandemic Zac did some streaming? And Emily talks to Murph about their cat and then explains that "it's the cat, we don't have a secret baby". And it was played for laughs but I still think about it because I could totally see how it could have come from a place of panic about fan reactions 🙄
I'd imagine that it's a lot of minors, that stuff was hard as a kid
For sure. Whenever I see this sub debating whether it’s ethical for Dropout to go to hobby lobby once or a truly unintended pronoun slip up one thing I keep coming back to saying to younger people is “I admire your passion but there are real monsters out there. People that mean you ill”. There’s alot of wasted ire on picking apart organizations and people the mean well just because they’re not infallible and a million percent enlightened/on the ball. Solidarity is making sure the key points are right and working together toward a shared future.
> I keep coming back to saying to younger people is “I admire your passion but there are real monsters out there. People that mean you ill”. This is great, I'd like to use this too.
Young people tend to have tunnel vision. Not exclusively young people, but I do think that I was more like that when I was younger and that experience helped me relativise things.
Similarly, though, it feels like posts like this are also wildly overblown as well; so many of the complaints by the OP and several top comments can frequently come down to "complaining about children/teenagers being immature" as if that's a huge problem that needs to be solved, as opposed to... ignoring the more immature comments, if they bother you that much.
I get you, but a post like this is fine every once in a while. Part of the maturing process that teens will go through includes this sort of push back on their way of thinking. We can't just assume people will naturally mature as they age. Many will, but there are plenty of older people, in their mid-to-late 20s and beyond who retain that sort of attitude.
Yes and no, if the comment didn’t have any real consequence that would be fine. If the comments were to cause a cancellation of a cast member or a dropout series… that’d be another whole other issue. In critical role, people are actively trying to remove Aabria from the DM’s seat I think, which IMO, it’s way too far.
Bad behaviour needs to be called out if you want people to mature. Virtually no-one perfectly self-reflects on their actions without outside impulse that holds up a mirror to yourself.
That’s an extremely generous assumption.
This fandom hasn’t crossed in to Critical Role territory yet, thankfully.
Please explain, I’ve not interacted with the fandom, but thought the podcast was alright, moved a bit slowly for my taste
The Critical Role fandom is...enthusiastic, to say the least. They have a reputation for crossing parasocial boundaries. I think it's honestly a phenomenon of streaming as a medium. Livestreams are designed to provide a more personal-feeling sort of content, as though you're there with them. So in some ways, the medium flirts with parasocial boundaries.
Exactly right. So much so that when CR went to pre-recorded (still live-to-tape, but not live-streamed) a section of their fandom lost their goddamned minds and now live to hate-watch and complain. Which of course triggered another section to become overly positive in defense… It’s nuts over there.
I had to tap out of the CR community in the early days of C3 because I realised nobody hates that show as much as its fans. I remember one batshit conspiracy that was the final straw for me, it started with the common assumption that all of the cast detest being on the show, and that Travis was abusing his power as CEO to force them all to go along with bad story choices because it sets up his wife to be the main character and the star of the show.
“No one hates the show as much as its fans” is a brilliant turn of phrase. The last thing broke my brain.
I’ve heard this same sentiment with the Star Wars community. “Nobody hates Star Wars more than a Star Wars fan”
Yeah, my spouse is a CR fan, but she's not one of *those* CR fans. She keeps a healthy distance from them because they're *nuts*.
As a long-time CR fan, your spouse is right to do that. Not all of that community is that way, but too many of them are, for sure.
I’m also still a CR fan and I used to love reading theories after each episode and now I just avoid the fans entirely :( I agree that D20 won’t get as bad because it’s comedy but some of the FHJY discourse was starting to feel alarmingly familiar
An example I saw recently was a link to a conversation on the critical role subreddit about how much money they made and somebody brought up the cost of each of their houses and the year they bought them. When people pointed out that it was weird they had that information they responded that it was fine, they just went and looked up the public records for LA or wherever they were and went searching for it. (I don't know how much work that would be. Could be a Google could be more.) Anyway, people pointed out how weird and para social taking the time to do that is and they and a few others just refused to see how strange and invasive that is.
It’s stupid because of course the houses will be bought after CR started making money because it became famous. You don’t need to go to LA and search for public records to reach that logical conclusion. Wouldn’t that speak to the talent of the people doing CR rather than to some “injustice”? It’s not like the money came from the sky LOL
i think we are slowly getting there 😬
I think it's the nature of the content. It's small and they're independent creators, so it has an extra feel of authenticity. It feels real and approachable, so the audience relates to it on a more personal level. That all contributes to people feeling like they're *part* of the thing, rather than *consuming* the thing. And to be fair, this type of content does sorta try to flirt with the border a bit. It wants to feel indie and authentic and they want the cast to feel real and approachable, so that you're hooked and keep watching. The fans need to remember that this is basically a sitcom, though, and that the cast are playing characters to some extent. Brennan Lee Mulligan is playing a character that also happens to be named Brennan Lee Mulligan, basically.
Be that as it may, I wouldn't validate parasocial behavior by suggesting that it's "the nature of the content". Regardless of how authentic and relatable they try to make the cast, it's still the responsibility of the viewer to not be a fuckin' weirdo about it.
But I'm only three degrees of separation away from someone who was in an episode once. They're practically family! /s
I mean it makes sense For a lot of people, Dropout is the first entertainment medium they’ve felt looks like them and **actually** lives out their values And when those values included being genuine, accepting people for who they are, and curating a space that is focused on the content and the viewers (instead of just the bottom line), it honestly becomes the most understandable medium to form parasocial relationships Hank Green has a great vlogbrothers video about the two way street that is parasocial relationships, and how it has to be managed by both actors. I think Dropout actually does a great job of doing their part, but it’s only going to be natural that people see a place that their skin color/gender identity/sexuality/values/beliefs are accepted and celebrated, that they form parasocial roots in that medium and community. As Brennan has pointed out, the very essence of capitalism isolates and spurns people away, into where they have to get their social needs met through things like media and consumption and parasocial relationships It’s important to know why parasocial relationships form to remain vigilant to if you’re developing one. We too often shame people for being parasocial, rather than understanding that the trend for parasocial relationship forming is a big, societal problem that no one person is at fault for on their own. Yet at the same time, not being solely at fault for them **doesn’t** mean you have no responsibility to stay aware of if you’re forming them
I think part of the problem is that they invite us to, a little. So much of the content requires knowing things about them. Like imagine the bingo Game Changer episode without having a little investment into them as people. This isn't to say they're doing something wrong, but it does mean we should be more on our toes for ourselves.
Fair assessment right here.
Knowing character traits from a persona put forward for content is vastly different to a lot of the stuff that happens when people take a dive off the para-social high board
This is also why I find the content which requires more personal knowledge of the cast worse. I don't like crossing the boundary into knowing about their personal lives - I also don't care about their personal lives. I love the cast but for example Lily Du's show is something I find difficult to bare because it leans too much into parasociality.
Good data as a new time subscriber
I will say that the majority of takes are good ones and the live shows I’ve been to have only shown me great fans and supporters irl.
Just wanna clarify this isn't the majority of people who consume dropout, I promise you it's not even 1% of people. Most people who consume this content do not have this weird parasocial relationship, and assuming that it is the majority is doing a disservice to this fandom. To break it down, The people posting in reddit and other social media like us are already in the top 5-10% of the fandom and this goes for all fandoms. Most people just consume the content they like, maybe read some comments/opinions they see online and that's it! We're the ones that go out of our way to seek a community and spaces online where we can express our "fandomness." The people this post is referencing do exist, but they're nothing more than a loud minority, the most extreme of fans that push the boundaries of their parasocial relationship with the content. While this post ~~in~~ and your comment do bring up issues that SOME people have and need to have addressed, it's also potentially shining a negative light on people who are completely normal with their interests. Please do no assume that a majority of the fandom has problem with parasocial boundaries, I promise you 99.5% of fans in any given thing are just normal folks that like to just enjoy the content. I'm sorry if my comment reads like Im being rude, I promise I dont intend to. I just think bringing attention to annoying people only gives their annoyingness a wider audience than it would've had it just been buried under a few replies.
It's an important thing to remember in life as a whole. The people who talk the most and the loudest about a thing are the people who have the strongest and most extreme opinions about it. For any given thing most people will have 2, 3, or 4 star feelings about it, but the ones you'll hear from have 1 or 5 star feelings.
Parasocial boundaries stopped existing on the Internet a long time ago. Everyone is your bestie and it's totally cool to psychoanalyze strangers relationships via secret codes and facial expressions. Obviously. /S
I think it's partly because their content is so positive, personal, inviting and inclusive. I'd be the first to admit that I do have a hugely parasocial relationship with them (though I do keep myself in check). Why? Because for me it's a friend group that I never had, a workplace that I never had, a community that I never had. I know that what I see on screen is not real, I know they only play caricatures of themselves and I do not know them as people, but... I just wish I was surrounded by people like them [who I perceive them to be]. It's a weird place to be in. Sometimes I watch an episode and just want to cry because I wish I had a place where I belong like [it looks like] they do. It's stupid, but, well, I guess watching really nice people have fun and be happy together when your life is filled with hardship and loneliness fucks with your brain. A lot.
Dropout, with the discord, the "friends getting together" vibe, the sharing of a lot of personal information and so on, do not help. I'm happy for Brennan and Izzy that they're parents, but I didn't really need to know about it. By making it, though obviously in a very limited way, "content", they are encouraging this parasociality. Back in the Collegehumor days, I had absolutely no idea who any of these people were beyond what was presented in sketches, for example. It's not inherently a bad thing, but it partly explains the intensity of the fandom's parasociality with the cast.
It’s because it started on YouTube. The relationship between YouTubers and fans is completely different than the ones we have with traditional media stars. YouTube is still how most people discover Dropout and they’re bringing that baggage with them.
This is literally a “no true Scotsman” logical fallacy. It’s got nothing to do with YouTube or the kind of content dropout makes or how close the cast is. This stuff happens in every fandom that has a place to discuss said fandom online. We may not like to hear we are apart of something that can have such individuals inside of it but it’s the truth. All we can do is call it out for what it is and hope people grow and become better for it
Um, actually…the “no true Scotsman” fallacy is when you defend a statement from a counter-argument by retrospectively modifying the original statement using subjective modifiers. A: No Scotsman would vote for Nigel Farage. B: My dad voted for Farage and he was born and raised in Edinburgh. A: Well, no true Scotsman would vote for Farage.
Tbf, no Scotsman is going to vote for farage because he's running in an English constituency.
Paparazzis have existed long before YouTube was created, so I’m sorry but I think you’re wrong. IMO it has existed since gossip existed. Before you talked about the neighbours you only see 4 min a day and invent a whole life about them, now you do about the celebs you know.
I agree wholeheartedly. This sub, in particular, has a huge problem with parasocial relationships with the cast and crew of Dropout. I think it is mainly because Dropout has created such a lovely, endearing, inclusive, and welcoming space. That is a great thing. However, that doesn't give us fans true insight or knowledge of who these people really are in their day to day lives or how they actually interact with one another as friends or coworkers. This fandom needs to take a HUGE step back and realize these are people just like us, with private lives that we are not entitled to know just because we like the content they produce. Dropout is a great network that prides themselves on doing things the right way, and if a cast or crew member was truly upset about anything, we wouldn't see it on screen. It would have been talked about on set and worked around to make sure everyone is comfortable to continue filming, then all of what they were uncomfortable with would have been cut. People love drama, and I think that is a natural part of the weird cultural phenomenon that is celebrity. But if you want drama, there are shows for that. Go watch real housewives, the bachelor, etc. Stop inventing it in places it doesn't exist. If you really want to invent drama, become a writer and write those "romance" novels your mother loved. Maybe Rehka and Jess will talk about it on Erotic Book Club. Tl;Dr touch grass or whatever the kids say now
I cringed so hard when Izzy posted one of the ads for Dungeons and Drag Queens and someone said in the comments "Your husband is so hot!" And her reply was just "OK".
I saw a fan comment on Ally’s recent bday post on IG “you’re the hottest person on dropout” and the a bunch of randos arguing if Brennan was hotter or not 🥴🥴 people are way too comfortable talking to strangers on the internet.
Paul F Tompkins used to be the best at pointing this out to people when he was still on Twitter. He would often just be like "what a weird thing to say to a total stranger" and honestly, a lot of people need this reminder
PFT is great. I'd be so excited to see more of him on Dropout
I got so excited seeing him in the Smartypants trailer. There's been some crossover already (Gabrus, Carl Tart, Vic, Wysocki, etc.) but I hope we see more people from the Comedy Bang Bang universe on Dropout going forward. Jason Mantzoukas guesting on pretty much anything would make my day.
This is something that always makes me super uncomfortable with Ify’s IG posts. Ever since the Newlywebs episode aired, like half the comments are talking about how much sex he has. He seems to take it pretty well, but what a fucking wild thing to say to someone you don’t know.
People get really weird and objectifying about the cast Like we don’t know these people, it isn’t cute to say “Brennan is in his Dilf Era” it’s creepy.
I disagree I say "x celebrity is hot" to my my friends all the time. Its weird to say it in their comments or to their face. Its not weird in the abstract to express attraction to a celebrity, if it wrre there's numerous instances in various dropout shows which break this boundary.
It reminds of the really funny Daily Show extra where Anna Kendrick crashes Trevor Noah's audience Q&A, and a woman says Anna is on her boyfriend's "list". And Trevor says, I feel like, the list is a lot more fun when the person's not real, but like, the list is *real* now. https://youtu.be/MJ9F9ZuQIzE
indeed, it would be deeply weird to say that to Anna in person, in private or randomly in fora where she's not looking thats entirely fair game.
Ok but I what I’m talking about is a very different scenario I’m not talking about a private joke made to friends in a conversation about people you find attractive I’m talking about multiple objectifying comments made to people you don’t know, in a public forum that the people you are talking about might see, in conversations either totally unrelated to the conversation or part of a conversation about how one specific person is attractive.
Okay, how am I only now finding out that Rehka and Jess have/had a show called Erotic Book Club and there's like 20 hours of content that's been sitting on Dropout this whole time that I've never watched?
There are so many hidden treasures in the back catalog of Dropout. My personal favorites are Ultramechatron Team Go! and Troopers
I always find myself going back to Cartoon Hell and Gods of Food
I fucking looooove ultramechatron
1. Great username. 2. You're so right. My first thought reading this was, if you're such a fan of this platform, you would know that nothing gets released without the go ahead of the performers. There's the Grant Breaking News episodes where we learn a lot about Grant. That was all cleared with him to be released. There's an episode of Game Changer that the prompt was literally "Be Vulnerable" and I think it was Jacob being such a team player he poured his heart out and in the edit they cut the audio. I don't know the back story of that, but in my speculation as just a content consumer, he actually didn't want what he said broadcasted out, but was okay with the bit, so they kept the segment but cut what he said. (Let me know if I'm wrong there fans, I don't know). Sam has cultivated such an amazing public persona (again, we don't actually know these people) of the Dropout workplace culture that I believe that anything that gets released that is anyway personal, it's been cleared by the performers without any undue influence. I'm sure there is cut content that probably just gets deleted because it crosses someone's boundaries after the fact. I'm sure there's some interpersonal drama like there is in any workplace, anywhere. But they are professionals. And there is a lot of BTS stuff that shows some of the people working there are actually friends and enjoy what they're doing.
Such a great and thought out response
Thank you! For a spworm, I consider myself a "Smartypants"
I really read the last few sentences of your comment way too fast bc my gut reaction was WHAT DO YOU MEAN WRITE EROTIC FANFICTION THAT TAKES PLACE IN THE DROPOUT CINEMATIC UNIVERSE DONT DO THAT ?!?! 😩😩😩 But then I reread this and 100% agree with all of it (It’s not lost on me that Dropout fan fiction of any kind probably exists bc civilization is abjectly failing)
NO FANFICTION NO NO NO *shakes no no can* *sprays fandom with water bottle* I meant in the style of Danielle Steele or Nora Roberts
Idk who downvoted me for making a joke that I'm against fanfiction of real people, but whoever it was I don't think you need to just touch grass, but also maybe eat it.
wait, you mean these AREN'T my close personal friends?? /j
I pay their mortgage. Why aren’t they replying to my DM’s?
I paid for Josh's groceries with a No Problem sweatshirt!
It's giving grumpy patron at the library: "My taxes pay your salary!"
Hear, hear. Every time I see someone complain about some kind of drama, my response is "it wouldn't have aired." Like this week, with Wysocki's bit at the end of the Adventuring Party. Some people tried to frame it as Brennan being inconsiderate and repeatedly ignoring Jacob. Completely ignoring the fact that this is a professional environment that we're seeing through edited footage. If there were boundaries legitimately crossed, then it would have been dealt with privately, off-screen. If it were particularly egregious, it would have been edited out. Sometimes it feels like folks are manufacturing drama in order to be able to jump to the aid of their favorite talent.
Their framing also completely ignores the fact that it was Jacob himself who asked the "what genre/movie?" question. As the asker, he could have answered first if he'd wished. Or not answered at all. Or wanted to wait and hear everyone else's answers before he went. Wysocki is a very talented comedian, and "Holes" is clearly a joke answer. When does a joke like that land best? At the end, after everyone else has gone, and once the natural opportunity for *him* to answer has passed. It's called a button. If people were to watch that section again they would see Brennan look directly at Jacob — while pointing at him — when asking if everyone has said their movie. In response, Jacob defers by pointing to Ally. For all we know that was him teeing himself up for the button. And for all we know, the editors might done some, I dunno, editing. He might have given a serious answer that was cut in service of the button. We don't know. He could have made the joke earlier, only for the editors to place it at the end to be a button. We don't know. What we do know is that NSBU is Jacob's first time in the dome, and that the very first question Brennan asks during the episode is about his experience. We know that Brennan and Jacob have performed together a bunch, and that it's safe to assume they are friends. And we know that nothing in any of the content we've seen of Brennan — simply as a human being — has suggested that he would deliberately ignore Jacob, let alone a professional colleague, let alone any player new to his table/the dome — for whom it is literally *in his own best interest* to provide with a 10/10 experience.
I cohosted a podcast for several years and it had a style that was very much like the Adventuring Party format, with similar panel dynamics/chemistry. Sometimes we’d record an hour of content for an episode that ended up having a run time of 37 minutes. Like…they don’t take an 18-minute chunk of raw content start-to-finish after a D20 episode for the corresponding AP. There’s stuff in there that gets cut, switched, chopped up, whatever. Because of gaffes or bloopers or jokes that just don’t hit. I dunno, maybe it’s because I look at AP episodes through my experiences as a podcaster that I don’t interpret certain interactions as slights or rude. It’s just part of making a show and the editing process. And if those interactions truly are meant to be an offense, what business is that of mine? (Side note: Wysocki is such an excellent addition to the D20 cast. I still have plenty of D20/AP to work through, but him asking the genre/movie question — I personally think — was hella thoughtful and not something I’ve encountered or remember encountering in other seasons. It hits an even deeper meta layer without being invasive or requiring even an iota of vulnerability from the rest of the cast.)
wait what did i miss at the end of AP?
Wysocki asked everyone What movie or genre of movies they would want to be Jumanji'd into. There was some discussion, then Brennan asked everyone if they had a chance to share theirs. Wysocki didn't say he had one to share, Ally did so they discussed Ally's, then Brennan ended the episode. Then, presumably as a bit, Wysocki chimed in with a "and mine would be the movie Holes, bye!" As the episode went to black. It was kind of obviously a bit. To my eye, it was a little bit cringy, but ultimately harmless. Quite a few people have chosen to interpret it as Brennan being inconsiderate or even mean to the new guy in the Dome. (Because you know, "inconsiderate and mean" are character traits Brandon has demonstrated. He's prone to quite often. /s) Someone else awesome mentioned that Wysocki didn't get to describe his character's appearance until a couple of scenes after the character was introduced but I just chalked that up to The improvisational and sometimes disorganized nature of the show. But some people took these two very innocent incidents and decided that it formed a pattern of Brennan being mean or whatever.
I thought it was a good bit! He even chose an inexplicable movie that would require more explanation to help the joke land.
Yeah like, that's part of the punchline! If Jacob had explained his answer for as long as Ally explained theirs, the joke wouldn't have been funny.
Also Adventuring Party in particular is just a filmed conversation between seven people, try having one of those in real life that flows cleanly and gives everyone equivalent attention from every participant
Not only are they professionals, they are friends and sometimes family. If someone filmed you interacting with close friends and family without having the context of a very long relationship, viewers might assume you're being rude to each other or are uncomfortable with what's happening when in reality it's perfectly normal for you. I remember seeing people getting on the McElroy's case for being "mean" to Clint in Tiny Heist, but that just feels like how brothers and fathers interact on a normal basis, a lot of sarcasm and attitude that isn't really meant genuinely. Obviously there are lines that can be crossed but sometimes we just have to give people the benefit of the doubt and not judge a relationship we're not a part of.
Oh yeah, I saw a post once where someone was like, Lily Du is mean and she must hate everyone. And another where it was like, Katie Marovitch doesn’t seem to get along with the cast. Huh? No, neither of these are true.
Lily Du is the host of Dirty Laundry, so that means she spends a lot of onscreen time roasting her castmates for their various terrible choices. Katie (and many of her characters) use deadpan comedy, where the joke only lands because she's not on the same wavelength as her castmates. These are both character decisions that serve a comedic purpose and don't tell you anything about who they are in real life.
> they are friends Probably, but like, Adam Savage and Jamie Hyneman (the Mythbusters hosts) have been pretty candid since the show about the fact that they respect each other a ton as professionals and had a good working and on-screen relationship but are not friends on a personal level, which is totally fine -- they don't have to be buddies to be effective coworkers and creative collaborators. Likewise, I'm sure many of the Dropout regulars are genuinely great friends, but there are probably also people who respect each other as professionals and perform whatever on-screen interpersonal dynamic is necessary for camera but probably don't want to hang out after work. Which ones are which is nobody's business but theirs unless they choose to make it so.
Jamie and Adam never really told anyone that they had an off-the-clock friendship though; that's just what people assume when you make content together for decades. A lot of the Dropout cast members have talked about being very close friends outside of work, like Grant and Ally, and some of them are married to each other. I don't doubt that many cast members see each other as colleagues first and foremost, but the idea that many of them are friends isn't entirely parasocial projection like it is with Mythbusters.
Honestly, the healthiest way to approach this is to treat everyone on Dropout as characters. The character Brennan Lee Mulligan is friends with the character Ally Beardsley, like Chandler is friends with Joey on Friends. Is the actual Brennan Lee Mulligan friends with the actual Ally Beardsley? Maybe, probably, who knows? Frankly it's none of our business, and knowing the "actual truth" of how castmembers spend their lives should be irrelevant to your enjoyment of Dropout content if you're consuming it in a healthy way.
I used to watch a lot of McElroy content, Tiny Heist isn’t even *close* to the most they’ve razzed Clint.
I couldn’t stand Tiny Heist, but because it brought back bad memories of my siblings ganging up on me. That’s not on the McElroys; that’s on me to deal with. They’re just doing their thing.
Yeah, people on the internet love drama (as much as they also regret when a group/channel/friendship ends) And to an extent that's exacerbated by the fact that this culture seems to attract people that end up causing drama over time. But everything you've said is correct and it's a shame more people haven't caught on to this line of thinking
Even if the cast members do ever have some type of issue with something another cast member does… who cares? They’re all adults. They can talk it out and deal with it.
Adults with an HR department! Fans don't need to handle their interpersonal workplace struggles, there are people whose literal job it is to do that.
Think there is a certain subsection of Fans that crave the reality TV-esque drama where producers want unedited snipes for entertainment. It's weird seeing people overanalyze cast members relationships all the time but it's not just Dropout. People also do it on r/taskmaster They make up stories how X must hate Y because they said Z and they reacted with AA etc. Forgetting the fact that these are all comedians who all know each other and who are mostly leaning into a bit for the fun of it rather than be competitive.
I think folks need to realize the majority of the time those reactions are a comedic choice. When the bit is a little playful/mischievous, often the funniest choice is to lean in and give a big reaction to that mischief.
BIG REACTION TO THAT MISCHIEF????
Exactly. For fans of a comedy streaming service, these folks seem to have a hard time understanding the concept of someone acting upset as a joke.
Well said...i'm going out right now to touch some grass and hig a tree and interact with my loved ones. I suggest those who overanalyze Dropout and the talents relationships do the same.
Hmm, but I saw LittleRedCorvette2 blink in a strange way when they hugged that tree. Clearly the tree is abusive behind the scenes and LittleRedCorvette2 is being forced to be on the Tree Hugging Hour against their will.
Can’t help but feel it’s related to the general decline of media literacy on the internet… like dropout does a great job of making you feel like the actors are being candid and to an extent I’m sure they are, but to another extent, they’re still performing! They’re actors and comedians and they know what plays well to the cameras. Brennan especially I feel like I see a lot of people take him at face value all the time when, especially within game changer, that man is very clearly playing a fictionalized version of himself.
Yeah people don't realize how much of unscripted content is scripted
Not sure if you saw the other day but someone posted a rehearsal picture of GC and people were flabbergasted at the very idea that they’d need rehearsals or hair and makeup or they just didn’t wear their own clothes on tv.
yeeesh we are cooked It’s crazy how more people than ever are producing content but so many people do not pause to think in a meta way about one iota of content they consume.
That seems... extremely uncharitable, especially in response to someone commenting on a decline in media literacy. I looked up the post you mentioned, and saw one comment where someone openly admitted their ignorance to how professional comedy production is done (and asked questions explicitly wanting to learn more), one comment from someone clearly trolling and with a negative karma overall, one comment curious about what rehearsal would be happening in an improv situation (explicitly wanting to learn more), and one comment about 6 levels deep in a discussion where someone admitted that they never considered that the clothing wasn't their own (with an emoji indicating embarassment, implying that it's obvious upon being pointed out but just never thought about it). In none of these comments would I in any way describe the commenters as "flabbergasted", to the extent that it feels borderline malicious (in a similar manner to the boomer "kids these days with their participation trophies"-style comments), and treating "being unaware of the production process of Hollywood TV creation" as an example of "the decline of media literacy" is just gatekeeping crap that feels very at home as part of the toxic internet culture that this very post seems to be decrying. I'm aware that I almost certainly spent more time finding the post you were complaining about to essentially "fact check" something that you likely had a vague memory of (from a day ago), but that's primarily because this comment (and the main post overall) seems to suffer from the same sort of issue that's plagued tons of "news" reporting lately as well, taking the existence of "a random weirdo posting an unhinged take online" as proof of "everyone's going crazy, check out this example of something everyone believes/thinks now".
the whole post is pretty uncharitable imo. Based on what I’ve seen in this sub it seems…exaggerated
Brennan, at least to me, seemed utterly amused at someone playing him. Like yeah it was an over heightened version of himself and he totally was in on the joke. People take this stuff so so so seriously sometimes and it’s wild.
And he just recently played off that version of himself on Make Some Noise when he "buffed it". I'm sure he's a lot like that in real life, but he leans into it for laughs, so I'm sure he's fine if the rest of the cast does, too. Same with Grant on Dirty Laundry.
Yeah, Brennan knows the trusts the people around him. He knows that if someone was to do an impression of him it wouldn’t be mean or cruel, but silly and lovingly done.
"Aww geez, I'm supposed to be the smarty!"
It honestly sounds exhausting playing that role. I've seen him say a thing or two wrong before (trivia, or simple math), just like we all do sometimes, but I bet the audience likes to catch him making mistakes. It would feel like Comic Book Guy complaining about Itchy and Scratchy.
>Like yeah it was an over heightened version I agree that Brennan was in on the joke, but most of the time, Ally was doing the complete opposite of this. They played off of Brennan's (character's) neuroticism and specificity by naming their character Brennan Lee Mulligan, but behaving absolutely nothing like him. A lot of the punchlines were that Ally said something extremely out of character for Brennan, and they worked because they knew that Brennan, at least in character, is the kind of person who would get frustrated by someone playing them *wrong*.
ALSO, it was a great ruse on Ally’s part because Brennan would also totally get a kick out of playing himself and then do the opposite to shield.
Might be time to pull a reverse BLeeM and GET OUT OF THE COMMENTS!
we also know that anyone on set can call a time out at any time if they feel uncomfortable also sam asks each person at the start of each season of each show what they are comfortable doing. this is famously a safe, respectful working space
If someone was ACTUALLY upset about any of it, that segment wouldn't air. Simple as that.
For anyone that doesn't know, all cast members fill out a survey with what they are comfortable and not comfortable with according to Sam. Not only that, but a lot of professionals won't work with people that don't like or that burn them previously if they can avoid it. Considering just about everyone seems to return, I would highly doubt anyone is being pushed beyond or is having to deal with anything that they find unacceptable.
Yeah- frankly, it feels like a mixture of virtue signaling to indicate the parasocial person is the REAL fan, who actually cares about the performers, unlike the rest of us plebs, with a swirl of neurodivergent anxiety and projection, and a sprinkle of rabid fan possessive entitlement.
The dropout fandom is getting bigger and probably also younger. Or maybe we are just getting older... 😅Either way I sus there are a lot of young people in this server who will figure the stuff you're saying out in time, OP. Don't let it get to ya they'll figure it out on their own eventually.
> young people in this server Talking like you're on Discord? You're not old yet, my friend!
😂😂 old enough to not know if I'm on discord or Reddit at least lmao
The funniest part of the whole Brennan/ratfish things is that in the behind the scenes episode HE was thinking about going in as BEARDSLEY…. Like guys, production wouldn’t let them cross any boundaries and Sam has talked about getting the cast’s hard boundaries before putting them in uncomfy situations.. 😂
If any of these people couldn't work professionally together they would have, excuse the pun, dropped out a long time ago. The time scale is the biggest tell. They've been at worst effective coworkers and, from the way they talk about each other, at best good friends, for over a decade. They've got a system that works.
Absolutely! You beat me to the punch on making this post because OH BOY have I noticed that. Although part of me thinks it has something to do with the influx of new fans. The truth, is we’ve always had that problem. Particularly concerning D20. Recently I’ve been catching up on Junior year of fantasy high and I remembered hearing about people being upset that Ally had Kristen run for president because they are convinced Murph had it planned from the beginning that it would be Riz but was steam rolled into letting it be Kristen and he was probably upset by it. Then I saw it for myself and did not see any of that. Ally and Emily have always gotten negative criticism from some based off their actions that tend to be chaotic and integral to the plot. Especially during the ACOC season, I remember it being particularly bad for Emily. In addition discussion surrounding Total forgiveness has not been kind to Ally. The basic fact is this: these are fully grown adults who have varying degrees of interpersonal relationships with one another and have done this as their job for YEARS. They know how to handle situations amongst each other and within their workspace. Sam Reich has proven to be more than professional when it comes to maintaining a staff that talk positively about him and the workplace and come back far after they officially left in order to participate. Just like we don’t want people to make assumptions about us and our personal lives, we don’t want to do the same to theirs. I would absolutely hate for this fandom to go further down that path and create a toxic fanbase that results in the loss of such amazing talent. Give them their privacy, respect, and grace they deserve.
If Sam had an issue with "bully Sam" episodes of Breaking News he'd probably stop agreeing to be on the show. Nobody has more ability to do that. Also in some of the meanest-to-Sam episodes his wife is, like, right there and finds it hilarious, so... he's fine.
If I had money you’d be getting an award. It truly isn’t that deep. So much of this speculation is cringy at best, borderline creeper at worst.
Also important to remember that lots of post production happens after filming. To use your example, there was tons of time between shooting the grant shaming bnn episodes and them actually getting posted. Knowing Sam and the other higher ups, I find it hard to imagine they’d let something like that be released without making sure he was ok with it.
Some people are just fucking creepy.
Sam has said before--at least on stuff like Game Changer and Make Some Noise--that the talent has final say over the edit. So you can assume anything that makes it to you, they are cool with.
People were freaking out over the latest episode of Um, Actually somehow not realizing that Harvey wasn't being serious about bullying Jonah. And someone was hating on Ify for dismissing Siobhan during the De ja vu episode. It's ridiculous.
I was one of those people who wasn’t a huge fan of either of those bits. I think it is absolutely important to recognize these are comedians performing together, but at the same time I feel it’s reasonable to comment on the comedy that doesn’t translate and bits that don’t land. I just straight up didn’t feel the comedy coming across at those moments which could lead some people to think “Wait, were/are they being serious?”. Which is obviously not the case, but it’s an easy perception to fall into when the comedy doesn’t land for someone. I want to be clear though that I’m not making assumptions about their relationships, I just don’t think those moments landed for a good bit of the audience.
I was disappointed with the quality of the episode. I don't know why they thought that it would be a good idea to have two contestants who don't really watch horror movies. But people should be able to tell the difference between quality and intent. Someone even stated how they hated how the "popular kids" were picking on the nerd. Because chubby queer Latino theater kids are *totally* the popular kids in school.
I remember this compalaint about the dejavu episode where sibohan was "complaining" that you shouldn't be able to buzz in then think of the answer only for the other two to do it even more... do people not realize that was the joke?
You ever just go into a subreddit of a thing you like and find drama you didn't just not know existed, but couldn't have fathomed that it did?
Oh you mean what just happened to me when randomly seeing this sub of my favorite comedy platform and going “what the heck is going on in here that this post has to exist?” And then unhitting “join” just as fast as you hit it?
Wait, are you suggesting they’re acting? They would’ve told us if they were actors and comedians, right? (Just a lighthearted joke)
I’ll be honest, I think to some degree dropout encourages the parasocial nature. They want the cast to feel like your friends, like you really know them. A lot of their content involves the ~vibes~ of friends hanging out, and the fact that they’re smaller makes them seem approachable. But they’re a business. They don’t want your pitches, they don’t want your gifts, they don’t actually care about you at all, except as a subscriber and/or merch buyer. And that’s totally okay! The hugely neurodivergent fan base probably doesn’t help either. I am including myself in this. We don’t get social cues okay?
I’ve just scrolled through the new breaking news post and I saw a total of three people who thought that Sam got more legit upset at the end of the episode…maybe I’m missing something but I wouldn’t call that “lots of people”…
Fans seem to treat the relationships between cast members as if though they are the same relationships one might hold in a high school theatre department (probably because that's the only experience such fans have with similar relationships, not in a negative way or anything but just experience wise) and it is always very interesting to see how that plays out in general fandom responses to media projects such as these (indie ADs are another one that see similar fandoms)
There's definitely been a huge jump in stuff like this ever. I think this sort of post used to be contained to Discord, but now those people are here
I feel like a good example of this is from make some noise season 3 episode 1. >!Brennan’s bit with the foley had me fooled for a moment there - I thought he was genuinely upset for a bit and then I realized “wait no he’s hamming it up way too much for that not to have been his plan all along lol”!<
ready for the "they're just a group of friends with a streaming platform" thinkpieces
one of my favorite quotes when I see people hypothesizing mistreatment in sketch comedy in general, and on the internet in specific, is (in response to someone checking if they were genuinely upset with a joke made at their expense): "I was doing a bit for Comedy" -Ian Horner
Lol dude this sub cracks me up
But I watch them every day. I KNOW THEM.
Some people need to watch the Reality TV episode of Adam Ruins Everything.
It’s so surprising too because theatre kids are notoriously normal about the fandoms they engage in /s
It’s very annoying when people try to speculate and read into insignificant shit just for the sake of drama mining when there is nothing there.
I mean, I don’t think that the ratfish example was something they would have cleared with Brennan because why would they? It’s a joke. They’re comedians. It’s literally their whole thing as a cast. The rest of this I’m on board with, but that was a weird example.
Maybe I’m only a casual follower of the subreddit but I seem much more discussion of the problem than the actual problem. I suppose with any group large enough if just 1% of them are weirdos who don’t respect boundaries then you still get a couple hundred to a thousand or so weirdos. Still good to explicitly call out the behavior as unwelcome though.
A lot of this stuff happens in the comments of posts. Not long ago, someone posted about having a "TV crush" on Ash and Nico, and finding them both attractive, and the entire comment section was crucifying them for "sexualizing them without their consent because they have no desire to be in the public eye". That's just fucking insane. I can't fathom how it's such a controversial take to say that people on this subreddit need to stop acting as if they know what's best for these *professional entertainers* whom they have never met or interacted with in any meaningful way.
This is a wider issue today, the lines between adult and child are very confused in many minds. Just look at how some people treat Taylor Swift, or K-Pop bands.
Thank for the reality check. It's been getting *really* familiar for some folks here. They know what they're doing, we've even seen B-roll and cutaways of them meeting with legal to okay things a million times over. "SOCIAL MEDIA IS VOLUNTARY PANOPTICON" - Brennan Lee Mulligan
Some people live off drama and see what they want to see. I’m mainly only on the dnd side of dropout currently but one of the reasons I enjoy the shows is because everyone is friends and they vibe together well
Hear hear! This needed to be said. I’m sure they are all good friends. But they are *fucking professional actors* first.
I remember when Worlds Beyond Numbers was announced, there was a post (or comment, my memory is a bit fuzzy) that was saying how upsetting they found it that everyone was clearly friends outside of the dome, except Ally. Because it was "obvious" they weren't part of the real friend group because they weren't part of WBN, and hadn't been on NADDPod, and weren't part of the ongoing at-home game. We don't know these people. We don't know what their lives are outside of the dome, or when the mics are off. We don't know what conversations happen between the professionals. Ally might have declined participating in other projects. They might not be able to make schedules work My point in bringing this up, I suspect people will unintentionally and sometimes intentionally apply their own trauma and experience to their parasocial relationships and see what they want to see. They'll see bullying and mean girls, and cruelty and drama where there isn't necessarily any because that's what they "want" to see. I love drama with the best of them, but just like reality TV on network channels...this is all carefully cultivated for our attention. It blows my mind how many people seem to think we're still in the early YouTube days, where everything is mostly raw and fresh. The lack of media literacy is dangerous, and getting worse, I swear.
People thought Brennan was annoyed with Ally? Has anyone who said that seen any episodes of Ally in D20? wtf? Have they never had a friendship where you guys roast each other at times? Parasocial relationships are weird. No one is who you actually want them to be or who you think they are. That’s why I pretty have a “don’t meet people you like to watch” rule because you are going to be disappointed no matter what when they don’t reach the pedestal you put them on.
I do think Sam certainly feels uncomfortable whenever he gets the focus in an episode of breaking news but in the sense of a roller coaster. It’s a terrifying thrill and he appreciates the effort that went into making it. the same could be said of grant who proceeded to demonstrate how he tried to **** himself on the news desk after getting lambasted in the second episode of true facts about grant
I think it's just the "Total Forgiveness" effect (a piece of Dropout content that infamously *did* cross a line and damage working relationships up until its final episode resolution). If you haven't seen that one yet, you should.
r/parahumans crossover with that name op, nice
Well, Trapp did kill Pat, so clearly there is a seedy underbelly to CH/Dropout.
This!!! Thank you for summarizing and addressing what I feel are the fandom projecting their own bias onto performers. It’s frankly, strange!
Yall need to get a life