This a touchy question, but personally I think that if you were a fan of something once, and you called yourself a fan, then you were a 'true' fan. Just because you stopped liking it doesn't mean you weren't a true fan, even if you stopped liking it because of a change made to the thing. It happens all the time. Someone being in charge of a thing that you like doesn't mean that you have to agree with every decision they make to be a fan, and if you stop liking something because of a change that was made by the people in charge, that does not mean that you were never a true fan.
Great poll...interesting question, especially in "this day and age".
Nail on the head with all those old farts who see it for what it mostly is (and the young farts that see it too).
Blindly following, joining.....jumping on a bandwagon because it appears to be full of others telling you it's a "happy place to be".....well, actual human history tells us that is a bad idea doesn't it?
Well it Should anyway....another thing many of us like to Say but don't actually adhere to.... "if we don't Learn from History, we are Doomed to repeat it"
How can "something of it" change? I thought. If you are a fan of a movie/game/book, you will remain a fan of it, cause that movie/game/book is fixed, it won't change. (at this point the only thing that can change are your feelings towards it, but I'll address this later) But then what if this movie (let's stick with this from now) is part of a series, and a new one of it is released? Let's imagine that, with time, it becomes a trilogy. Then you might like the second... but maybe not the third (be it because of bad plot, acting, whatever). In this scenario, you won't cease being a fan of the first two movie. Maybe when people will ask you: "are you a fan of that trilogy?" you will just answer: "I am only fan of the first two because of *explaining reasons*". I see nothing wrong in that.
The let's talk about art. You can be a fan of an artist's artworks. If you like more than a certain number (subjective parameter) of artworks of this artist's gallery, you might start defining yourself a fan of said artist. (You don't HAVE TO like all of them, nobody should tells you that you should blindly like them all to be considered a fan of the artist!) If at some point the artist's style changes, you might not define yourself as one of their fans anymore. BUT you would still like those artworks of theirs that you liked, you might still feel like a fan of those, selected arworks. And in my opinion there's nothing wrong with that. You can say "I am a fan of his earlier works".
The concept of "true fan" looks rather silly to me, something that only child can question among themselves. You are free to like whatever you like. And what you like can even change through time. Maybe when you were a child you were a huge fan of something. Now maybe you would not define yourself as a fan anymore, or maybe yes, who knows. You may still be excited re-watching it, or you may only feel nostalgia. Feeling to be a fan of something is a very subjective thing I believe.
(And on this subject I could go on, reading other people's comment has made me come up with new aspects of it, but I'll stick with this for now XD )
I disagree because if you're a fan it's because you really like what the thing is at that moment. If it changes then it's not the thing you really loved anymore, but that doesn't change the fact that you were (and maybe still is) a fan.
Why must "I disagree" and "shiny balls" be two different options???
But I disagree.. If you're a fan of something, you're a fan of what it is, not what it may become. Say I like chocolate pudding.. if you shove licorice in there and I tell you I dislike it, and you come to the conclusion that I didn't truly like chocolate pudding, I would look at you like you've got severe issues and probably cease to have further conversation with you.
New Daredevil comics: after Secret Wars (weird intercompany crossover event) he moves back to New York FOR THE SECOND TIME, gets a nifty new outfit, a partner and even after years of DD protecting his identity even after everyone knew and just unmasking anyways, nobody apparently knows his identity anymore.
this is the kind of change that turns people off because you're going back to a dark and gritty theme nobody liked from a nice new fresh and colorful theme we haven't seen in years.
taking something new gone good and everyone likes and putting it back where it was.
getting out of hand but I'm just putting my thoughts out there in a relevant thread
If you're a fan of that thing, and it changes, then it's something different from what you were a fan of. So it's irrelevant whether you like the new content or not because it's not what you originally had.
A real fan knows when to say "stop, this isn't cool any more" if something bothers them. Leaving something without making any drama and just saying "don't like it any more" doesn't hurt anyone.
In the cases where they stop fawning over something like they did before it's just a case of "I enjoy this but not on the level where people question if need to see a shrink about my obsession." which means they will still talk about the thing, it's just not 100% perfect all the time on all accounts and they recognize that.
I totally agree with dragondoodle being a fan of sth is very diferent to being a purist of sth. A fan is someone who appreciate certain aspects of a story for example, if you love the protagonist but then they change his personality and it doesn't connect with you then there's no need to defend something to death if you don't like it. This happend to me when I watched Elementary after watching bbc's Sherlock, same character but then they changed some things and it just didn't feel the same (Cumberbatch is the best)
I think it really depends on WHAT changes. You can be a fan for the characters, or the setting, or the writing, or something else . . . but if that is the thing that changes and you find yourself not liking the result then I don't see why anyone would be accused of never being a true fan. You were a true fan of that aspect . . . now that it's changed you have no reason to be a fan of it since you don't like it
I find this especially true of writing. If something is really well written and suddenly the writer leaves and a new one comes on and just doesn't write the way you've been loving then I see no reason to accuse someone of not being a fan if they don't like the way things have changed.
In my personal opinion all this "true fan" stuff is nonsense. To love something blindly, even when the quality degrades to the point that it is no longer what you fell in love with, just so you can still call yourself a "fan" is just a tad . . . clingy? Desperate? Comes off as a bit sad.
Then again, I'm a jaded old fart and haven't been what anyone would call a "true fan" of anything in a long time. I like things, but never blindly or just because I should. I'm too old for that nonsense XD
Exactly! This has happened in a few cases for me . . . although in a couple of cases the sound changed and I still liked what they were doing, it was just different so I kept listening. I've noticed it's more glaring when there's a band upheaval and someone who was integral leaves. I cases like that I'll hunt down the "deserter" and see what they're doing and see if that's what I liked in the first place
If something changes then if you're a true fan your feelings about it should actually change!
The other situation doesn't make sense. If you like it whatever is going on in it, you're just somebody who is easy to please. If you were 100% into something and suddenly it is no longer that thing... then unless your feelings were fake or volatile or easily changed... you shouldn't still like that same thing 100%, right?
Honestly yes and no. I think being a "fan" of something has a different meaning to different types of people. If, for example, you really like a T.V. show for what the characters stand for and represent and then the second season comes out and all those morals seems to be forgotten then I think it's perfectly alright to stop liking it. Unfortunately I think a lot of times when people say things like "you're not a real fan" it's because they are obsessed with whatever it is and feel the need to show that. In someway that thing has helped them to overcome something, or feel better, or let them escape the world they are in and for another person to watch the show, book series, sport, etc for a while and then stop watching when it no longer appeals to them feels very personal. I think people go through a lot of different stages where different things help them out. I just went through one of those phases last year and would fight someone tooth and nail over a certain T.V. series to uphold its honor because that was the T.V. series that helped me get out of the rut of my depression. Now I am in a better situation and am so much happier than I was. I still love the T.V. show and can't wait for episodes, but I no longer feel the need to defend it endlessly. I think it is perfectly alright to love something entirely because it resonates with you and then you find you no longer love it because it lost the part that effect or moved you. For the time you loved it you were a "real fan" and then as you lost interest you became just a normal fan or maybe not one at all. You do not have to love something for all eternity to be a real fan, you only have to love it while it's important to you. As long as it makes a difference however small it was worth it.