When creators lie and how fans react to it

[@CouncilofGeeks]

*NOTE ABOUT RTD'S COMMENTARY ON SUSAN TWIST* So originally this video had a segment commenting on RTD saying during the commentary for Boom (only available on iPlayer) that there was no secret behind Susan Twist showing up repeatedly. I trimmed it out after it was noted that the full clip is longer than the bit I found, and after that he said something that seemed to bring that into doubt. Having now gone through the hassle to find the thing myself, I'm going to call it "interpretable." He does absolutely say there's no mystery about it and has a concocted story about running out of actors, and that's where most versions of this I've seen passed around the net end. But what he says after that is way more open ended where he goes "Yes! She keeps cropping up. Yes, you've noticed. Yes, we've noticed" which is said in a tone that *can* be read as him dropping the mask and implying it's obviously a thing, but then the subject shifts and it really leaves it all kind of up in the air. Also, hey BBC (and maybe Disney too, I don't know whose call this is), maybe make stuff like the commentary or Tales of the Tardis officially available in the territories where you're pushing the damned show?

[@brewster_4]

or at least give a dvd release! I need to have a complete set!

[@Elwaves2925]

There's also the little detail that he and Steven were clearly having a little joke. One played very straight faced but still a joke. If anyone took anything seriously from that they should book a lobotomy right now (which is also a joke). I mean, in the same bit RTD says the reason they kept using Susan was because they ran out of actors. 🙂

[@lcflngn]

Yes please extras in the US and elsewhere! Amazing that they are not shared anywhere we can see them, even paid for. It’s weird. We’re already paying for the show! (At least not via endless ads, giving them that, tho just my view)

[@hasrock36]

Thats on how BBC funding works, disney didn't fund the commentary or tales of the tardis that was entirely BBC which means license fee which means its going on BBC alone without extra being paid by disney

[@Elwaves2925]

@@hasrock36 Good point I hadn't thought of. It's on Disney to pay for all that extra stuff if they want to stream it.

[@Coolcoolcooldude]

I think the biggest lie in recent film history was that Andrew Garfield wasn't the werewolf when we all knew he was.

[@bjam89]

What movie was that?

[@Coolcoolcooldude]

@bjam89 Spiderman No Way Home. There are several interviews from him where everyone asks him if he is in it. In one famous clip he says, "I'm not the werewolf!" That is a reference to the game werewolf.

[@sebastianoleary2743]

See, I think this is one of the examples where I think it was basically fine. Sure, people expected him to appear in the movie, and he continuously lies about it, but no one really got mad at him. This is mostly because people were happy with the movie and his role in, whereas in something like Star Trek: Into Darkness, people didn't want Benedict Cumberbatch to play Kahn and were disappointed when he did. In that case, the lie would have more interesting than what we got, but with Spiderman: No Way Home, people wanted Andrew Garfield to return and were happy when he did. The lie was more of a fun game he was playing, a way to market the movie without breaking any NDAs or completely spoiling it for people who genuinely didn't want to know.

[@doctorgarryderekmccduck8957]

What?

[@CritterKeeper01]

You're allowed to say flat out you're not the werewolf, it's assumed you could be lying. That makes this a very clever way to deny it without lying!

[@GaiashKetoji]

Ok the best “the creator lied” story is when the Gravity Falls team created a fake leak of Old Man McGucket being the author of the journals. It had a time code, they leaked a real screenshot with the same visuals to make the fake look more real and Alex Hirsch tweeted about being annoyed about leaks.

[@MateusDrake]

The one that I never understood was Rocksteady claiming the Arkham Knight was a new character... And we all guessed it was Jason Todd immediately. They denied it, but we were right all along.

[@bretthansen3739]

That was especially weird, becuase one of my favorite subversions of this was from the same game. Mark Hamil insisted that the Joker wasn't being brought back to life when he was asked if he'd be returning to play him. He wasn't actually answering the question, but it sounded like he was.

[@HotDogTimeMachine385]

There's also moments where creators promise something but due to unforeseen circumstances things get changed, so they come across as liars. Some fans can be insufferable too. There's some creators who really avoid talking about any future events because they don't want to lie, and in interview say things to clarify behind the scenes choices... and some fans call everything lies anyway..

[@Elwaves2925]

Yes, while some of this can be put on the creators, it can also be laid at the feet of those fans too. The ones that push and ask the same questions over and over, get disappointed and call out a creator when they won't spoil the bit they want to know.

[@Rmlohner]

One that I felt especially bad for was Tessa Thompson having to back out of Valkyrie looking for a queen.

[@bookswithike3256]

@@Rmlohner Not the only one about Marvel's queer rep.

[@dismurrart6648]

On insufferable fans, I remember a Fandom I was in, the biggest controversy was over the age of some characters. A fan shoved a camera in some writers face, asked a leading question and the very distracted person said "yeah." Some very annoying teenagers made their ship battle the bulk of the Fandom and the whole thing was extremely dumb and ruined the show for me. On that day I left fandom

[@TheDumdei]

One of the things that makes it even more frustrating when studios and filmmakers lie to hide what is supposed to be a big reveal is how often on the other end, they spoil half their cool reveals in trailers.

[@ArrowOdenn]

I think my comment disappeared because it included a link to the article, so apologies if this shows up twice. Steven Moffat & co lied in interviews that the show would reveal how Sherlock survived the Fall. He said there was "a clue everyone's missed" in an interview with The Guardian (20 January 2012). Then when the show returned two years later, the solution to the Fall was not explained, fans were told they shouldn't care how Sherlock survived, and made fun of directly in the episode. I think fans worked out the solution online, and Moffat had a tantrum and changed it.

[@SoTOreo]

the Obi-Wan problem...... "It wasnt a lie..... from a certain point of view"

[@sparshjohri1109]

From my point of view, the Jedi are evil

[@thespidercrafter8547]

@@sparshjohri1109 Then you ARE LOST!!!!

[@sparshjohri1109]

@@thespidercrafter8547 I HATE YOU!!!

[@thebitterfig9903]

That’s what I love about the scene between Obi-Wan and Ezra in Rebels. Obi is basically tells Ezra like 4 lies in a row.

[@marocat4749]

​@@thebitterfig9903But that obi wan is established as trickster and covering for luke too?

[@LordDayehawk]

While lying about stuff is often dumb, I feel like people get overly upset about lies given during press junkets to preserve twists. Like…you asked them a question that would reveal a twist. What are they supposed to say? The answer of “watch and find out” will be seen as a dodge and most people will take it as a confirmation the guess was correct. Unless they take the position of answering all questions related to the production that way; which gets boring real fast. And as a recent example, I find it endearing seeing Manny Jacinto lamenting not being able to do any lightsaber training for Acolyte or going back and watching Andrew Garfield try to tie himself into knots not revealing he was in NWH during press junkets for other projects.

[@ytuser_3122]

I also forgot fans speculated Avengers 4 would be called Endgame and the Russo’s denied it till the trailer dropped in 2018

[@kyrauniversal]

Yeah! Exactly!

[@cfsfilms5091]

One of those things where it does kinda make sense, movie names may not have been finalized for a while, given they don't need to have the final name during production or even most of post-production, and the official title of a project is probably under NDA anyway.

[@Venemofthe888]

@@cfsfilms5091 i agree they could have announced the movie way ahead of time (which i think they did) but didnt have a script or a idea for what film that could be and when it turns out to be what people speculated thats not a lie at all. I think people cant distinguish the schematics and fly off the handle when there was no need to

[@mzaite]

I defer to the Venture Brothers Doc Hammer in regards to asking creators about the thing they're making before they've made and released it; "Watch the show!" Is Hank going to become a Villain? "Watch the Show!" Will Rusty and the Monarch ever find out what started their rivalry? "There's a TV show that covers that, it's called The Venture Brothers, watch that and your questions may be answered!" Is Kim coming back? "You know what? No, Kim is never coming back." A lot of these lies are due to people demanding to know everything about a project BEFORE it's released. Speculation is fun, but leave the creator out of it or you'll either ruin the surprise early, or they'll lie to you to shut you up. Pick one.

[@trinitybernhardt9944]

This is why i don't like reading press about things i am excited about. I hate spoilers and they are stuck between lying or somewhat spoiling their own work. Even when they just choose their words carefully to avoid lying they lose, but it also catches my attention how specifically they speak.

[@MalzraAirwynn]

Another example is with the Batman Arkham games. With the Arkham Knight being touted as a 'new character' but ultimately just being Jason Todd with the same motivation he had when he was Red Hood. I think they also said they wouldn't bring the Joker back (I may be misremembering on this one) which was technically true as the Joker stayed dead, but Batman hallucinates him all throughout the game so he's a constant presence regardless. Things that were technically true in a sense but also misleading. All of this also after Arkham origins made it seem like it'd be about new villains like Black Mask only to make it the Joker again too.

[@NightAtTheOpera3]

I will never forget watching Into Darkness in theaters because it's honestly one of the funniest moments of my life. After the word "Khan" growls out of Bandersnatch Cabbagepatch's mouth, we are treated to two lingering, gravitas-laden reaction shots from Spock and Kirk; clearly deliberately placed there to give the audience just enough time to ooh and ahh and savor the memberberries that have just hit them in the face. Whoooooooa y'all, it's Khan. THE Khan. And he's back! (Not in pog form, sadly) In my screening, a good amount of people groaned. The rest were silent. Then that one guy in the back- and there's ALWAYS that one guy in the back- yelled "Oh FUCK you" and we all collectively lost our shit over it. That then set the tone for the rest of the viewing. The vibe of "done with this" emanating off everyone present was positively tangible. I hate that stupid movie .

[@uhfrank]

i don't put much stock in anything said or done outside of the content itself. a lot of people involved in the creation of a show, movie, book, etc. will sometimes share their ideas and extra lore that never made it into their work(s) and while they may have direct insight to the world they imagined, the world i experience will always overrule them until the put it directly into the piece. if RTD said season 2 will be about Susan, i wouldn't care less if her name doesn't even get mentioned once and i say that as someone who feels she ought to return; even if just for a goodbye. i don't really watch trailers and definitely dont waste my time with promotional material because id rather go in blind and evaluate it based on the content rather than the behind the scenes stuff

[@carsfan1995]

I think Gravity Falls’ twist about the author’s identity was probably the best form of lying because it’s a show about mystery. Even if people knew the twist coming, it still worked. I think the staff on the show handled the spoiler territory with online interactions with finesse

[@cfsfilms5091]

I want to comment on the fact that the show's staff realized people were figuring out the answer to the mystery way more quickly than expected, and so they made an incredibly convincing fake leak with their real production resources and slipped it into the online discussions as a red herring because that is honestly one of the greatest misdirection plays I've ever seen a media property make. We didn't even know for sure who faked the leak or why until basically the "we've made it to the finish line" celebration stuff, so it didn't feel like a betrayal, more like "oh that Alex is an evil genius who knows how to play this game."

[@Rmlohner]

@@cfsfilms5091 Though that reputation also came back to bite him when no one would believe him that he only brought in Cecil from Welcome to Night Vale for a quick joke, and then got pissed that he didn't have some secret importance even though Alex literally had always been saying he didn't.

[@akaneh1989]

I remember them even poking fun of the inevitable fan discourse before and after the reveal, with Soos going "This BETTER line up EXACTLY to my fanfic or else" and the Duck-Tective bit😂😂

[@Zectifin]

@@cfsfilms5091 I'm fine when they do this on purpose, for fun reasons. When Remnant 2 came out they knew fans were going to datamine the crap out of it, so they came up with a hidden class type that no person would find on their own without datamining and a wiki, then the devs snuck into the discord where they were searching for secrets and datamining and gave them false leads and shot down legit ones. It drew out the search a week or two longer than it should have and everyone thought it was really fun. its a game about secrets and they played into it.

[@aazhie]

@@akaneh1989 omg so funny, I love that bit xD

[@DeepThought42]

I didn't even take RTD's comment to mean he'd never bring back the daleks or the Master, and definitely didn't take it to mean he wouldn't bring back old other less prominent villans. I presumed he simply meant he'd rest the daleks and the Master for the foreseeable future (the Master certainly needs it). Having said that, like the Doctor, RTD lies and has done so about other things.

[@1monki]

I don't care about this stuff for the most part. I dislike these lies when they say "We're avoiding an overused trope," or "not repeating the popular thing we did before." Then they repeat tired tropes and do the popular thing they did before. Khan in _Into Darkness,_ for example. Had Abrams followed through and used a different member of the Botany Bay crew, he could've created a unique narrative.

[@apersonwhomayormaynotexist9868]

Or Jason Todd in Arkham Knight

[@DiamandaHagan]

Khan in Star Trek into Darkness should have been Joachim, Khan's 2nd (and possible lover) from Wrath of Khan. Khan died while being revived by Admiral Robocop and so Joachim want revenge, simple.

[@ghostporcupine]

I love this so much

[@CouncilofGeeks]

Narratively would have worked. Though you just know half the fanbase would cry over Khan being dead.

[@voltijuice8576]

Always thought it was weird that Judson Scott wasn’t credited for that role. As a kid i dug him in _The Phoenix_

[@doctorvanya]

​@@CouncilofGeekseasy fix; rather than having died Khan is still frozen and Joachim us trying to liberate him along with the rest of the superpeople. That way the threat of Khan can still loom over the film without the character needing to be present.

[@lightcastle99]

@doctorvanya - that was literally the fix I suggested when I left the movie. Just have Khan still be frozen.

[@theamyway4832]

Said this very late in the vid (lol I'm silly), so think I'll pop my comment here: The Susan Twist lie didn't actually bother me, because it felt so OBVIOUSLY a lie to me, personally. But the hype around Ruby's mum almost felt like more of a lie to me, even though it wasn't really. I felt like I'd been lied to, even though RTD never specified she was a character we already knew. It felt like the deliberate setting of expectations he knew he was never going to meet.

[@TheCagedCorvid]

Yup I can just see him in his office rubbing his hands together as all the videos, theories, and general content are getting produced, thinking "I didn't even have to work for all this publicity, just manipulate the fan base... I can't wait for everyone to feel betrayed and disappointed at the end and make even more content about that, and I even get to claim plausible deniability." I honestly don't think he has any respect for the fans anymore.

[@cfsfilms5091]

Okay, a little bit paranoid treating RTD like a supervillain. Yes, he obviously planned for the mystery to be theory fodder because several lines in the finale episodes make it very clear he intended it to be a commentary on that phenomenon. But I don't think he actually wanted people to be disappointed, I genuinely believe he thought it was a cool twist and wanted to try it. Are there people who will genuinely take an "any press is good press" approach? Sure, but I don't think the people in charge of popular series have *ever* taken that kind of risk. Someone can make something that disappoints you without it being due to malice.

[@TheCagedCorvid]

@cfsfilms5091 I was going for hyperbole rather than paranoia, but it was still a disrespectful decision. Having the Doctor delivering the line that basically made so many of us feel like fools when it could have remained a mystery to be explored in the next season, or even left unexplained like with 73 yards, would have had the same effect without it being a "haha, fooled you" attitude. He didn't even have explanations for all the inconsistent plot points it created.

[@cfsfilms5091]

@@TheCagedCorvid Fair enough, though personally I didn't take the Doctor's lines as being mocking at all. He also thought the mother was important, and the delivery seemed more like he was in awe of the power of investing in a narrative than finding that stupid. Everything about how earnestly it was played makes it feel to me like he was trying to say it's a beautiful thing, but the fact that it was a disappointing misdirection for a lot of people kinda soured the reading. It's not like say, the Sherlock episode where instead of answering the mystery the showrunners said fans could solve, they wrote in a mean parody of their fanbase trying and failing to solve the mystery and had one of them comedically lose their mind at the end, for instance. That framed the in-story investment of the people trying to solve the mystery as laughable and stupid in a way you can't really interpret as anything else. This comment got away from me, but basically, I think this was meant more as a tribute to the power of speculation than intentionally telling people they were stupid to care. But I can't really fault anyone for deciding they can't get invested in big mysteries going forwards. I'm just hoping he got this idea out of his system and if he does another mystery it will have a more satisfying answer for everyone.

[@theamyway4832]

@@cfsfilms5091 Agree with your take. Definitely wasn't malicious, and was something he probably REALLY thought would work. Sadly, subverting expectations is context-dependent, and it's risky in such a lore-heavy show, ESPECIALLY when he put so much emphasis on 'solving it' and making us REALLY want to know who was under the hood.

[@rocket396]

When RTD said "Old Villains" I assumed he meant the same 7 core villains from the past 30 years.

[@blueroseknight]

I'm glad you brought up Into Darkness, because I'm a hardcore Star Trek fan, and that's what was on my mind when you mentioned this. I hated that reveal precisely because we were lied to beforehand, and liked the film up to that point. I was so livid that it killed whatever enjoyment I would have gotten from the rest of the movie, and I would have walked out if I hadn't been with a friend.

[@Carabas72]

About the Batman/Catwoman thing, no source, just conjecture, but it would not be the first time that a writer got the greenlight to do a particular story, and then at the eleventh hour got a not from editorial to scrap it, sometimes even after the art has already been done and the next couple of issues have already been written.

[@peekaboo7424]

I’m not as pissed off about sutek as I am about ruby’s mom. First of all why put her in a dark hooded cloak if she was simply a human single mother? Why not a hoodie with the hood up! Why emphasize that sutek needed her mom’s name! I don’t buy the explanation that ruby’s human mother was ominously pointing at a simple street sign! Or the fact that the music creature seemed to sense something in ruby (don’t remember the exact quote)! Now granted we haven’t found out about ruby’s father. But after being led down the primrose path I’m not that excited anymore. Oh & btw yes I am & remain salty but I’ll still watch season 2.

[@The-Cosmic-Hobo]

Not only a big reset button to undo the 'damage' generated by the season finale's "Big Bad" - but they also had content that was a complete red-herring which was presented in such a way that it makes absolutely no sense for it to be a red herring...

[@shimonnyman1138]

Why a hooded cloak? Were you around in 2003?

[@SeanJacksonTutorials]

@@shimonnyman1138 I was around in 2003. People did not walk around in hooded cloaks on the regular.

[@HalfLight333]

"I promise that you will NOT see the usual intro" Well thanks now I have trust issues

[@strataseeker2981]

Not the direction I expected with this vid honestly. I'd not seen anyone upset at least in my branch of the fandom over Sutehk's return. We were all raging at all the blatant BS surrounding Ruby's mother and how the resolution was an absolute lie, up to and including putting things in that were not in the original broadcast to try and justify it. That's more where I thought you were heading. That said, I completely agree with your points.

[@philpagett]

I’m totally fine with lying if it’s a denial. “X will not be appearing/happening”. To say “X WILL be showing up in this thing” and then not doing it? Well that would just be mean. And what creator would be stupid enough anyway?

[@Stubagful]

I really hate it when there's a guy in a movie who says what their name is during the movie, and then you look in the credits and it turns out their name is A DIFFERENT NAME ENTIRELY! THAT MOVIE LIED TO ME! I WAS CHEATED!

[@fruitchewx127]

Omg it's stubagful

[@voltijuice8576]

cheater cheater pumpkin eater!

[@richardgale1287]

I've got you queued next.

[@capybara1331]

It's the number one steven moffats brain fan

[@FloorDoughnut]

13:18 in the commentary he immediately follows his comment up with "oh im joking we know you've noticed, wait and see" which everyone keeps cutting out because its inconvenient to their belief that rtd is constantly lying about everything

[@CouncilofGeeks]

Huh... that's frustrating to find out, because not having iPlayer (since I'm not in the UK) I couldn't get the original and only had access to the clips that went out. Hey, BBC, maybe make some of that stuff available on other platforms, huh?

[@NicholasHerve]

​@CouncilofGeeks in case you to use iPlayer, it's works with most uk vpns, not really protected in any significant way

[@CouncilofGeeks]

I understand that, but I still don't like doing it because I find it a hassle and I'd thought I didn't have to in this case.

[@benlawrence97]

​@@CouncilofGeeks But even without that extra bit of context, it's clear (to me at least) that what RTD said about Susan Twist in the commentary was a joke rather than a lie as one of his reasons was that they were running out of actors, which clearly isn't the case.

[@FloorDoughnut]

@@CouncilofGeeks yea commentaries and unleashed should absolutely be on disney plus too. but id imagine its something to do with the deal with disney itself rather than the bbc just choosing not to

[@kaiboennighausen3526]

That interview where RTD says he had social media engagement in mind with his mystery box decisions come to mind because you’ll quickly get caught lying or misleading your audience but you sure will get engagement before that gets revealed

[@TheCagedCorvid]

And after, when people complain about it, that's still engagement. He's turned my favourite show into an engagement farm and it feels so disrespectful.

[@Elwaves2925]

@@TheCagedCorvid To play a little devil's (chord) advocate here, isn't that just as much your fault for engaging as it is for him trying to get that engagement. It's a two way thing. Personally, I don't pay attention to what RTD says in these cases. He's always liked to massively overhype episodes and seasons, it's his way and he's better off ignored.

[@TheCagedCorvid]

@Elwaves2925 how are you meant to watch and enjoy a show without engaging in it? Yes he's overhyped a lot in the past, but actively misleading people? That's new, and pretty crappy honestly.

[@Elwaves2925]

@@TheCagedCorvid I'm not talking about engaging with the show, of course you need to do that. I'm talking about engaging with social media etc around the show. The thing the OP brings up and you replied to. It's new? It definitely isn't. Don't you remember the fuss around what became his Dalek episode back in 2005. He stated there were no Daleks in Eccleston's season. Yet certain fans got all uppity at this, causing him to retract that and spoil the reveal in his Dalek episode. I seem to recall a similar fuss around the Daleks and Cybermen being in the same episode later on, but I can't recall exactly what it was about that.

[@friendlyotaku9525]

I feel like this is a very disingenuous criticism because this is how media works in general, and was even the same back during his first era. Yeah, you want to get people talking!

[@Bored_Barbarian]

Rtd did lie about Ruby’s mom though. He leaned into the whole “oh it’s someone so special”, but nah. Ruby can summon snow for no reason. She has Carol of the bells inside her for no reason. The maestro is afraid of her for no reason.

[@auberginebear]

This is similar to what happened with BBC’s Sherlock. In a interview with Moffat and Gattis about the series, before it aired, they said very clearly that they know many interpret Sherlock and Watson as a couple but that their new show would not be doing that, that they would only ever be friends, and then everyone kept getting more and more pissed and called the show queerbaiting after that. It honestly drove me nuts.

[@hiimcrazyfordrwho]

The Johnlock ship made a lasting scar on hiw fandom and online queer culture exists. It fueled the gays vs asexuals discourse.

[@auberginebear]

@@hiimcrazyfordrwho gay vs ace and ace erasure existed before Johnlock. My point is the fandom insisted the creators either always intended them to get together and the BBC said no or that they intentionally misled the fandom by implying they would get together, even as the creators, writers, and actors all kept saying, from start to finish, that it would never happen. Fandom ignoring all of that isn’t new, but any and all BS that came from Johnlock will always remain discourse of their own making, like the old man yelling at clouds meme.

[@achilleus9918]

the thing i find fascinating about this is that one of the premises of the johnlock conspiracy was that moffat and gatiss lie. and like... yeah, actually, the tjlc people presented a bunch of examples of where the creators at the very least misled the audience. so, why should we believe them when they claim there would be no romance between sherlock and john? (also, as a lit student myself (phd now, undergrad when the final season aired and i found out about tjlc for the first time (i was never involved, just a mildly curious outsider to the community), their analysis wasn't awful. not perfect, not always even good, but the tjlc explained youtube channel for example had some legitimately good analysis) i guess that just proves how badly wrong things can go if you consistently lie to your audience - when you do want to emphatically make sure that something is understood as truth, your audience won't believe you, and you can quickly end up in a "methinks the lady doth protest too much" situation if you keep insisting.

[@henrywood1304]

To be fair to Tom King (which is not something you should never feel the need to be), his plan was to have them get married, but AT&T (who owned WB at the time) stepped in and told him he couldn’t do that

[@veirdvolf1695]

First of all; great video, I always learn a ton from your channel! Second; I haven't watched Doctor Who and I haven't read up on any of this, but in the first excerpt you provide RTD said: "It's a balance. [...] you can expect to see one or two old faces come back, maybe in a different form and guise, but there's that fanbase to satisfy as well. It makes it seem like a consistent, coherent universe. The Doctor would have enemies who regularly seek him out to kill him." And then RTD specifically excludes the Daleks' return, as they had appearances with the previous Doctor. Now, it's not my fandom so I don't have strong feelings either way, but it seems to me like RTD actually hinted at new enemies as well as old enemies being brought back and only excluding the Daleks (and maybe the Master?) in particular. Sorry if there is more concrete denial of old enemies in the interviews, I didn't read them... Third; On TK and the Batman thing, I was also very sour on the whole thing until I saw him explaining the situation on ComicPop Returns' podcast last month (kzbin.info/www/bejne/hpjIZqJuZbpgj7c) (around the 14 minute mark). It basically boils down to wrong marketing and it could just be TK lying to mitigate a blunder, but it definitely soften my opinion a lot (though I still feel a sting of betrayal)!

[@StevenErnest]

I'll never forgive the showrunners of Lost for lying to the audience.

[@marocat4749]

Neither, thats just even of technocally, they said the island isnt the afterlife isnt ok to pull the, oh they ded, later

[@StevenErnest]

@@marocat4749 That's actually not what they lied about.

[@hiimcrazyfordrwho]

What was the lie?

[@StevenErnest]

@@hiimcrazyfordrwho Several Showrunners said they had a masterplan, that there was an explanation for the many mysteries that kept accumulating. But as the series neared the end, and finally ended, it became clear that they had been lying to us, and were just making things up as they went along.

[@jacobdurney-steel5112]

Quick question, was there a similar outcry about 'no classic villains' at the return of The Toymaker in the second special? I don't remember. A lot of this might just be people dissapointed their theories were wrong and clasping onto whatever reasoning they can for why they technically were'nt wrong. Or wouldn't have been wrong if Davis had stuck to a promise he didn't actually make.

[@samleheny1429]

The Star Trek and Spectre examples remind me of Bob's Burgers when Linda hosts are musical show at the resteraunt. "But you specifically told us you WEREN'T the killer" "Right! It was a twist!" "No. It was a lie."

[@orangepizzaparty688]

One of the many things I love about Neil Gaiman, is how he very much leaned into the "Wait and see" response (enough for it to be a meme) to avoiding revealing information about Good Omens S2. It's a great response to see, and something I wish more creators would adopt

[@R_SENAL]

Rose in Army of Ghosts : "This is the story of how I died." Pssssttt - she's(RTD's) lying!!

[@hiimcrazyfordrwho]

I kinda found that cheap, but more in a poor writing kinda way

[@Sootielove]

My favourite case of creator's lying is Alex Hirsch. Gravity Falls' plot twist was actually guessed thanks to picking up the clues set in the show, so he created a fake screencap, "leaked" it on reddit, tweeted that he was fuming, then deleted the tweet. I think it helped because it was not only high effort, but it was also a good-hearted troll. No one knew if it was real or fake, or even arranged by him in the first place, so it came off as more of a typical fandom prank or an extra red herring rather than a creator directly lying to his audience for the sake of shock value.

[@dadman3992]

the RTD Susan Twist thing couldn't be more obviously a joke, he was deliberately drawing attention to her to provoke speculation

[@j4yb0b]

Yeah, it sort of blows my mind that people can’t see that it’s a joke. He’s joking.

[@Elwaves2925]

Said the same thing myself. I mean, in that same bit he says the reason they kept using Susan was because they ran out of actors. He played it straight faced but that line clearly indicated he wasn't being serious about any of it.

[@BlueSparxLPs]

Genuinely, I think it was delivered straight enough that not reading it as a joke is entirely understandable, especially if you're not British or you're neurodivergent. There's a lot of British humor that goes right over my head because neither the words nor the delivery sound like a joke. This was one of those times (though to be clear, I only saw the edited clips that removed the comment he made right after clarifying he was joking).

[@Elwaves2925]

@@BlueSparxLPs I could understand that if it was just the straight delivery. However, those edited clips also show him saying they ran out of actors, which clearly isn't true and shows it to be a joke. The bit that gets cut does clarify it but shouldn't be needed. 🙂

[@BlueSparxLPs]

@@Elwaves2925 Considering the Disney funding rumors were also wildly overstated, it didn't seem unlikely to me that they would want to reuse an actor for that reason.

[@1monki]

I convinced myself the intro had changed, darn it!

[@aliservan7188]

I spend a lot of my lie feeling stressed, anxious and generally on edge. Vera's intellect, rationality and calm, balanced delivery calms my soul.

[@TJWehse]

I think that the only time that blatant lying worked was Spider-Man No Way Home, if only for the reason that nobody actually believed any of the actors for a second that they weren’t in it, which of course they were.

[@JustB3NJI]

Lies can be good if they are about lowering expectations to set up a surprise. Lies are bad if they make people overhype...Yes people overhype things without help, but therefore you shouldn't add fuel to a fire people will want to burn you on. As for the lies around Ruby leaving/returning, well what a complete joke, which is a good example of why I think that overall they should just talk a whole lot less. Doctor Who lifts up its skirt far more than most shows then they all wonder why being showrunner is poisioned chalice! I think its best we don't get to see behind the curtain so easily and completely. Having faces and names to easily match to lies and other controversial decisions makes it easier for it all to get personal. The Moff was right about steering clear of spoilers....RTD promotes well, but I think his need to talk as much as he can to keep the show in the media conversation, is creating in his mind the need to lie so he has something to say. We never saw behind the scenes so much back in the day, actors promoted the shows, not the writers and producers, and I feel it was better that way.

[@Brunoxsa]

Thank you for the video, Vera! I understand the aspect of wanting to hear "creator's commentary" about their media work, such as "how did they come out with certain plot or idea" or "why did they decide to take the story in certain direction". However, when it being about works still to be released, we really must try to keep expectations in check. In the case of Doctor Who, when I did read about Russel T. Davies' intention of not using iconic and overused villains, such as the Daleks, during the new season, I was really glad. If he was actually lying about it, I would probably get frustrated, but not so much if the new stories involving the Daleks are good. However, as Vera explained, a creator literally lying about their work in order to promote it would make most people to lose trust on them and never believe in any of their statements about future works again.

[@Itcouldbebunnies]

When Buffy first aired, there was a message board called 'The Bronze' where fans of the show gathered to talk to each other about the show. People who worked on the show regularly dropped in to talk with fans as well. Early on in season 6 many fans became worried that Whedon was planning on deleting Tara's life account due to the unsubtlest foreshadowing in the history of hinting. ("Willow, don't you see, there'll be nothing left of me..."🙄🙄🙄) When asked, Amber Benson said something like "you'll have to wait and see", but at some point one of the writers, Steven DeKnight, dropped in to swear *ON HIS LIFE* that they would never do that. Guess who wrote 'Seeing Red'? I didn't want him to kick the bucket of course (because I'm a well-enough-adjusted humanoid), but I do still hope he has stepped, and will continue to step, on many a Lego.

[@elisabethmontegna5412]

This became our topic of conversation at the dinner table where my kiddo (12yo) said she’d rather the creator lie than spoil the surprise and now I wonder if we should’ve continued on with the whole Santa Claus thing indefinitely rather than telling her the truth….

[@MadameChristie]

I'm confused, I never thought it was a problem? Like Moffat was known for flat out lying to conceal twists, it was practically a meme.

[@cozyvrc]

14:32 this made me think of some production like a tv or movie series where all of the marketing is just saying outlandish absurd lies about what they’re making and like the audience is in on it, that way it’s always a guessing game on what the next installment is going to be

[@craftypacaderm2095]

Oh my god, the Tom King thing. I had that exact same feeling/memory. I think part of the issue is when people lie during marketing, it starts to feel like or can be false advertising. I definitely would rather people be cagey and not answer questions than to lie about anything.

[@Netherfly]

I feel like there's an adjacent topic here that, I think, matters a bit more -- when it's the media itself that "lies." By which I mean stories that are written to clear set up one thing, but then swerve elsewhere, for no plausible in-narrative justification: the goal is *solely* to "surprise" the audience. I'm a strong believer that every individual piece of media has to stand on its own. So I don't think it really matters much what the creators say about something, or what kind of impression they try to create, or how the marketing frames thing... because that's all outside of the media itself. A year after release, few people are going to remember or care; ten years later, no one will. It's just... incredibly disrespectful to the audience. RTD barely gave us any Doctor Who episodes this season, for example, and wasted a great deal of time teasing us with this supernatural mystery around Ruby that he never had any intention of doing *anything* with -- it was all just empty misdirection that wasted our time and attention when both were severely limited. And because there's no in-narrative justification for that choice, it's not a very engaging or fulfilling story -- and that's all that matters. Conversely, the biggest problem with Star Trek Into Darkness isn't (at all) that Abrams *lied* about Khan being in the film, it's *that Khan was in the film in the first place*, and that it wasn't a very good story, making the whole endeavor feel like a cheap imitation of TWOK. If Into Darkness had been a *good* story, reusing Khan wouldn't've mattered.

[@marionbaggins]

Paul Bettany: *for WandaVision* I am going to work with someone I always want to work with, like fireworks... Paul Bethany: *works with himself...*

[@superkid801]

You got me! I do agree about they should not lie. I always make sure to double check my sources, make sure I was reading right and go from there.

[@Sir_Gerald_Nosehairs.]

Sutekh *was* an awesome one-shot villain. Bringing him back despite saying he wasn't using classic era villains wasn't the issue. What was the issue was how RTD made an absolute clownshoe out of this awesome one-shot villain in barely five minutes of screentime.

[@MrLCGO]

This is also a "citation needed" momenet but I swear I read DC cancelled Tom King's run and that changed the wedding outcome. Although the marriage may have been undone anyways uf he could have completed his run anyways. But yeah, that's part of why ge then got a mini seties to write something akin to his original plans in a different continuity

[@jasonlescalleet5611]

I think the creators lying about a character’s identity, when the character is *also* lying about there identity, doesn’t bother me at all. A doctor who example might be only ever referring to Sacha Dhawan’s character in Spyfall as “O”, or to Derek Jacobi’s character in Utopia only as “Professor Yana” and not mentioning the fact that in both cases they were really the Master. That reveal was meant to come as a surprise, and spoiling it in the marketing would ruin that surprise, even if “hey, the Master’s in this one” might bring in fans who like that character. I think though this only works when the revealed identity is more significant to fans that the assumed one. Doctor Who fans don’t care about a random spy or professor any more than any other guest character, but they *definitely* care about the Master. The other way doesn’t work. Imagine if an actor was billed in an upcoming episode as playing “the Master” only for it to be revealed that they were actually talking about the famous 1920s era cricketer with that nickname (referenced in Black Orchid) and *not* the actual Master. Seeing that reveal would just cause disappointment, and anger that a famous character’s name was misleadingly used to get people to watch an episode they might not have watched otherwise. I think that’s a big part about the reveal of Ruby’s birth mother as being an ordinary person. Most companions’ parents have been ordinary, even ones that would later go on to become godlike beings or split into numerous echoes across the timelines, etc. It doesn’t really *matter* that Ruby’s mom is ordinary, except to emphasize that regular folks can become companions and who your parents are isn’t what makes you special. But the buildup towards that reveal made it *really* seem like it would go the other way, so IMHO this is a case of a time-lord-to-cricketer reveal, rather than a cricketer-to-time-lord reveal.

[@connorwood9211]

First thought this was regarding the handling of Ruby's mother plot

[@FTZPLTC]

Always reminds me of that one Bob's Burgers where Linda Belcher tries to do dinner theatre. And with that in mind, I think there are probably times when it's okay for the creator to lie, but I'm struggling to think of any where it'll actually be worth it. Into Darkness is such a standout because, like, who was that lie even for? Like, I wouldn't have been _happy_ about them just redoing Wrath of Khan for the fourth or fifth time, but most people could accept it as part of the whole "new era" aspect. But trying to present it as a surprise would never work, obviously. So then lying about it came off not as a clever misdirection, but a tacit acknowledgement that they know it's not good. Like... surprise reveals are supposed to be for things we *don't* have every day or every third movie. So generally speaking, I think maybe creators need to either get better at being coy, or just shut that down. Like, I would totally respect any creator who told an interviewer "No, I'm not going to tell you how the movie ends just because you asked nicely, why the hell would I?" It really comes off like the media thinks that "content" is made for them to talk about, rather than for anyone to experience, and it's exhausting whenever I get into something new and have to avoid Google for a week or so in case some random pop-up ad decides to tell me how it ends before I've started.

[@marblestoday4526]

I feel like lying to play down a secret (e.g. saying there could be no explanation with Susan twist, which I’m ok with if she is a character who it just makes sense she can break the 4th wall) is different to lying to play up a secret (e.g. with ruby’s mum, though I suspect her dad will fulfil that hype)

[@Elwaves2925]

I mostly agree, although I also think with Ruby's mum that's RTD's way of avoiding the spoiler. He loves to overhype his own work and sometimes he takes it too far. As we know now, Ruby's mum was just an everyday human mum, so in RTD's overhyping mind that means playing her up as the complete opposite to full effect. Is it a lie? Sure but that's why I don't pay any attention to what he says when he's bigging up and episode or season. Fans should know what he's like by now, they are responsible for believing it as much as he is for telling it.

[@laurenmajor343]

screaming into my pillow forever about Cumberbatch as Khan, I had to pause for a second to compose myself. Gary Mitchell was right there!

[@Dunybrook]

I think most fans understand they are just trying to entertain us and are more forgiving of this kind of thing.

[@ChildOfTheWilderness]

This reminds me of the Kevin Smith new Masters of the Universe series for Netflix. A KZbin channel apparently leaked out the plot of the first season, claiming He-Man would die in the first episode and the show was actually about Teela. They claimed the whole marketing campaign was a bait-and-swtich to make you think He-Man was the main character but it would actually be Teela and her "girlfriend". Smith came out and denied this, he said the show was all about He-Man and none of it was true. But of course, He-Man is killed off in the first episode and most of the first half of season 1 is about Teela going to find him. Now, technically he was right. He-Man/Adam was gone but still appeared in flashback form in most episodes anyway and the overall plot was about bringing him back so in that sense you could say it was all about him. Episodes 5-10 prominently feature He-Man/Adam & Skeletor and Teela ends up in love with Adam and not in a relationship with another woman. But Smith got a lot of criticism for supposedly telling a lie to try and cover up the fact the plot got spoiled, when the easiest option was to say nothing and then laugh when the show proved other people wrong.

[@chevand8]

THANK YOU for mentioning _Spectre_ as an instance where the creators flat-out lied! I have been a James Bond fan since I was a kid-- I've seen all of them (most of them more than once), and I own all of them on DVD. The franchise has had its ups and downs over the decades, and I came to terms with that long ago. Wherever there are downs, I can usually look past the lower quality and still appreciate each movie for its place in the series; most of them are at least still _fun,_ even if they're not actually good. But, as much as I can ever hate a Bond movie, I honestly hate _Spectre._ So far as I'm concerned, Dave Bautista's henchman character and the opening sequence in Mexico City are the only redeeming things about it. I hate the Sam Smith theme being chosen over the original Radiohead version, I hate how boring the car chase sequence in Rome and the Spectre base explosion are (yes, I know the explosion set a Guinness World Record, but the way it was filmed didn't do it any justice), I hate the subplot with Nine Eyes and C, I hate the way they made Blofeld into Bond's adoptive brother, I hate the way all of the other Craig movies were linked in as his machinations to get his revenge. But the thing that soured me the most on it was indeed the way they straight up lied to us about Christoph Waltz playing "Franz Oberhauser". The problem with lying like that is, it insults the audience's intelligence. If you're a creator and you lie to cover up something the audience has already guessed, the implication is that you don't believe your audience is very smart, that you underestimated them to begin with, and that you believe they will be naive enough to take your word for it while you're covering your own miscalculation. Don't do that.

[@Rmlohner]

One that really comes to mind is Paul Bettany's joke that the final Wandavision episode would have "an actor I've been dying to work with for years," which turned out to mean himself. A decent gag on its own, but where he screwed up was announcing it a whole MONTH before the episode's release, and then just letting the fans' excitement over what the big surprise appearance could be build for all that time rather than just admitting it. And I absolutely don't believe him that after more than a decade in the MCU, he had absolutely no idea the fans would react that way.

[@linus1703]

Another big one is when an episode is advertised as something it is not and how it can really throw it off. A good example is Steven Universe there was a 'bomb' (they released episodes in random 5 episode bursts for some reason) where the trailer said this was a lore intensive one and used the tag line "all will be revealed". Turned out all the new lore we got was already in the trailer and these eps focused on the relationship between two of the characters and their growth. It totally threw me off and I hated this because I watched it thinking we would finally get answers to so many questions they have made. Rewatching it now I think they are excellent episodes but the way I went into it messed with that.

[@eatatjoes6751]

I like the intro this woman uses for her channel. It’s great and my head bobs all the time.

[@wolfgang8181]

The kind of lies that you point out usually don't tend to bother me because in many cases it is expected to be a lie to "protect" a twist. But I've started to notice that some lies tend to lead to expectations that are unmet. I think Steven Moffat did this a lot. I remember him categorically stating that after The Impossible Astronaut the Doctor is absolutely dead and look how that turned out (unsurprisingly, but it still dampened the resolution because it set up an expectation of a more clever resolution than the darn robot look-alike!) But there are times where creators state facts that us fans sometimes expect to be lies because of how often they are made to protect story explanations. I remember when Chris Chibnall spoke about Jo Martin's Fugitive Doctor after Fugitive of the Judoon and how he stated that she is absolutely the Doctor. No tricks. Which turned out to be true even though I found myself not expecting. (and rather hoping for all the complications new incarnations would inject... despite my personal enjoyment of her Doctor. The optics for it to have been a lie would have been terrible I fully respect.) When it comes to RTD though, I think fans are projecting their frustrations at him after Empire of Death. I feel that we were narratively lied to. The presentation of the show: visuals and the writing lead us to believe that Ruby's mother was someone extraordinary and by extension making Ruby such too. When that turned out not to be true, that was in conflict with what had been shown to us and how it had been done so. The writing and directing was unequivocally pointing at her mother not just being an ordinary human. Now I respect that her story might have more to it given her return next series and RTD has already alluded to as such but the damage has already been done to trust for a lot of fans to care about any future mystery box. Even if Ruby's mother being ordinary was the right thing to do for conveying a powerful message, the way the show went about making you believe contrary felt like an outright lie and disrespectful to the audience.

[@stevetayler9518]

RTD has broken my heart. For 45 years Doctor Who has been my favourite programme. My room is full of books and toys. It's made core memories and defined my life more than I realised. Fourth wall breaks so the characters know they are fictional and there are zero stakes (don’t even come at me with Deadpool, Doctor Who is not f**king Deadpool!) Introducing the supernatural? “If anything is possible, then nothing is interesting” - H G Wells That last season, that finale, he DELIBERATELY laughed in our faces. "ha ha, nothing makes sense or means anything, isn't that funny" No. It's hateful, and cruel, and he BETRAYED OUR TRUST. I'm so angry and sad and broken I can't even convey it.

[@billydeeuk]

My favourite example of this was when Scream came out in 1996 and they put Drew Barrymore front and centre of the marketing campaign (Google it. Even in the posters, it is solely either Barrymore’s face or, in group shots, she is in the middle). While they never explicitly said that she would be the main character, the narrative was very much it being her first major film role in many years and this being a comeback for her. In my opinion, it actually improves the end product as when her character is killed in the first scene, it’s more of a shock as, while they never lied about it, we were primed to think her character would make it through to the end.

[@whitediamond133]

Dunno much about Dr Who but at least He didn't lie to us through song. That would be 1000 times worse.

[@AylethsBlade]

admittedly the moment RTD said no iconic like the daleks or the master - My brain was instantly like - OH?? Rani? Please??? Valeyard?? Which other obscurity can I be excited for?? And then it was Sutekh. T_T one day the rani will be back i swear

[@Mangacide]

On the batman thing: It sounds like he basically said "Here's this interesting thing we've never explored for batman before" and then added a silent "and we're not going to now" at the end. Which is still pretty shitty all things considered.

[@nandaoliver1992]

I LOVE your videos. You give such a good perspective from things and make us think. Thank you

[@williammoore9794]

I seem to remember Rusty telling everyone in about 2005/06 he wasn't going to bring the Master back. Which subsequently made Utopia more of a surprise. Unfortunately i dont have a citation and the internet won't help. Perhaps it was in DWM? Or my memory cheats...

[@mightierthanthesword3179]

I think the Happiness Batman issues were explored thoroughly in the iconic 2017 Lego Batman Movie!

[@404maxnotfound]

I feel like the part where you said how if they have no plans on doing it and then do it later in the media they are working on is the biggest key takeaway. Media changes frequently, some movies can be almost completed filming and then during the edit the could massively change the story narrative. That being said there are many creatives who lie about the media they are working on especially in the games industry and I wish it stopped(Todd Howard, Sean Murray, etc).

[@Benlovescheese]

I thought Russell said no returning monsters... if he said this, it would still be true, Suetekh is a god, not a monster. The monsters of doctor who are more daleks, cybermen, weeping angels, slytheen, many others.

[@Elwaves2925]

I believe he said none of the main returning monsters for the first season only. That's how I recall it being reported when he first said it. You could look at the term 'monsters' that way but it's also just a widely used term to describe DW villains over the decades, including the Master. It doesn't mean just monsters in the way you mean it, or I'd argue the Daleks and Cybermen don't fit that term either. Or you could take it to mean beings that do monstrous things. 🙂

[@friendlyotaku9525]

Sutekh is still a monster.

[@Loalrikowki]

"The Cylons were created by man. They evolved. They rebelled. There are many copies. And they have a plan."

[@Tillyard86]

This kind of ties into a pet peeve of mine when it comes to talking with fans about things. I sometimes come across fans saying things about a people being or not being in something or a character coming back or something like that, so I'll simply ask, “Where are you getting this from?” it often turns out that this was news like a week ago that I just didn't pick up on till now, so firstly the dickish fans will be like “what have you been living under a rock?” but I can deal with that. But even the nicer fans won't be able to give a source because they just saw someone else tweeting about it, and everyone took their word for it. Then I'll Google it myself and find nothing outside of social media posts of fans saying it, which I always find odd because many fans don't all start saying something without some source. TBF, most of the time, I understand why the fans take their word for it because it's told by someone who has a good reputation and has never been known to make things up, but I like to check the original source so that I can get all the info and a .it of the time it's hard to find. I find this with opinions sometimes as well; a while back, many fans said a specific movie was only good because of an actor in it, and the director did nothing. It was odd to me that so many fans gave this specific opinion. Later, I found a film review where a KZbinr said that, so fans just borrowed that opinion and told it like it was a fact. No one has original thoughts anymore; people tell them what to think.

[@that_morrigan6184]

I'm gonna have to go hunting for the CGI obfuscation for where ncuti was in his original "what the hell is going on here" trailer reveal. If memory serves that was deliberate. Other versions of that were avengers trailers showing the hulk when he was banner in ironmans hulkbuster instead but not sure if that was deliberate or rewrites or what.

[@adammyers7383]

Oh this should be interesting.

[@brewster_4]

I had interpreted RTD saying there's no purpose behind Susan Twist (based on the way he says it, and Moffat reacts) as him going "Nope! Susan Twist is definitely not important! There's 100% no meaning behind it! ;) ;) ;)"

[@susanleslie6178]

Same. Obvious joke.

[@SnowLily06]

He literally says it's a joke right after. People just keep cutting that part out when they share clips of him saying he's a liar (which he kinda is but not about Susan twist)

[@marocat4749]

Through as red herring, or, she was just a random person suthek used would be better

[@Tuaron]

I am certainly conflicted about this because it feels like such a case-by-case situation to me, very much tied up in personal feelings about what the person promises will or won't happen. I found the Sutekh reveal lackluster because it didn't feel well setup (hadn't even heard RTD's promises regarding villains) but I liked the Khan thing in Into Darkness (a movie that was certainly flawed, but I generally quite liked), I don't care that we were told he isn't Khan (though I think the reveal scene was definitely played like it was supposed to be a big surprise for fans and maybe to get spliced into later trailers, so it could've been handled better). Didn't read that Tom King run (it is on my long list, but I don't get to DC very often), but I can understand the frustration - I would've liked to see Batman & Catwoman married for a time, able to live a happy life for a time, even if it was doomed because of status quo issues plaguing various comics (give me back Krakoa, you cowards!). I don't think it's as simple as "playing coy" on certain questions, though: had JJ Abrams just said "well, watch Into Darkness to see who Benedict Cumberbatch is playing", people would've taken that as all but confirming it's Khan (not like flat out denying it worked out much better) whereas the Blofeld situation...actually, I don't remember hearing denials that Christoph Waltz was playing Blofeld, but I don't think I cared that much (especially once the movie was dubbed "Spectre") - the big reveal of that film to me was his shared history with James Bond, not his name, and that part flopped because it felt like it was poorly setup and meant little to nothing. Actually, I guess that last sentence (and my comment on Sutekh) outlines my general feelings: I don't tend to mind as much *depending on what they do with/because of it* and *as long as the twist (if it is such) is laid out well enough*. If they didn't do the groundwork for such a reveal to work in the story, I'll probably be annoyed/frustrated. If they don't do anything interesting with that, then I'll probably be frustrated. It's like the big reveal toward the end of Falcon & Winter Soldier: I'm waiting to see if they do anything with the idea that a certain person is actually a villain (could've tied into Secret Invasion but didn't, maybe it'll tie into Armor Wars or Cap 4, though I doubt the latter).

[@dannydonnelly8027]

I haven’t actively read new comics in like a decade, but I have been thinking of getting back into it. But I honestly had been hearing mostly positive things about King, so your implication that much of his work is bad is interesting to me!

[@CouncilofGeeks]

Batman and the event Heroes in Crisis are the big problem stories from him, for clarity. And while it may be true that it’s a minority of his output, I tend to weigh horrible events more than I would just a bad story in a standard run.

[@dannydonnelly8027]

@@CouncilofGeeks Good to know! I feel like I’ve mostly heard good things about Vision and Supergirl, and some mixed/leaning positive things about his Wonder Woman. But it’s good to hear from a voice I trust that there are at the very least some stinkers in his bibliography…

[@oeurydice]

Is it bad that I couldn't tell whether the intro was the same or not? I usually listen to these videos like a podcast lol

[@elisabethmontegna5412]

You’re not the only one.

[@doodledibob]

If Abrams didn’t want people to guess the twist to his adaptations, he shouldn’t be so generically derivative with his plot.

[@kurathchibicrystalkitty5146]

I feel like there's a very thin line between a teasing/joking creator and a lying creator, and it's easy to go from the former to the latter over time. As far as i can figure, having hundreds to thousands [or more] of people devoted to something they made is one heck of a power trip, and it can distort their overall sense of importance.

[@CharlieMarlin]

The thing is, if Russell wouldn’t have said, that these iconic villains wouldn’t appear, people would have speculated them to be in it and would have been disappointed and mad at him too. Part of the reason he said what he said was surely to set up the right audience expactations in that regard. Those types of fans will never be happy

[@Someoneinthecomments-to8tm]

I think it's worth pointing out that what Russell said about Susan Twist was actually a joke, despite how seriously some people seemed to take it. He knew that people would be theorising about who she was so he played along with it! Obviously it's still a lie but I don't think he ever expected anyone to actually fall for it and even I'm surprised at how many people did!

[@CouncilofGeeks]

Yeah, I just pinned a comment about this.

[@cardcaptor_morbius]

For me the reward for the most annoying lie goes to Rise of Skywalker. After the trailer revealed the Emperor, I remember hearing a statement that the emperor was planned to return from the start of the trilogy. This made me hopeful that there was a more of a plan to the entire Trilogy than we had all assumed. When Colin Trevorrow's script was leaked and the emperor didn't appear this made it pretty obviously a lie.

[@DillonExner]

More creators should just dodge questions about spoilers. And another thing: Tgey need to stop changing their twists, when fans figure them out!

[@spluff5]

I love how Vera subverts expectations at the start of this video!

[@joxclever]

All of this makes me think about Fargo. Remember when the Coens put a card at the movie's opening, saying "this film is based on actual events". That was even in the script. William H Macy went to one of the directors and said "hey, should I be researching these events, maybe talk to the surviving families?" To be told "nah, we made it up". In my 20s, wanky film student era, I LOVED that story. I thought it was kind of a power move, and also a neat addition to a film. It poses the question of where does text end and meta text begin? I think the opening credits are clearly involved in the meta textual cloud, but what about interviews? This latest series of Who HAS been quite meta textual and fourth wall breaky. Even the goddamn Susan TWIST thing felt like part of a scripted RTD chess game. My point being, I don't always hate a balls-out lie, I almost think it can shoot the moon and start being good, if it's done smartly.

[@redeem147]

Please lie to me about stories, creators, to keep me from getting spoiled

[@oliverrose7796]

This feels related to the big issue of media literacy, specifically I'm thinking about scientific research that gets skewed through the media such that wrong conclusions are drawn.

[@Rexotec]

Honourable Mention: Neil Gaiman completely and utterly making total fabrications about what the next season of Good Omens is about that are so outlandish that they're obviously lies but there is a small grain of truth in some of them that you can't be sure what's in the show or not.

[@paulshipper143]

I think happy fans tend not to view the promotion of things.. because promotions are for people on the fence.

[@jd_music23]

With RTD there definitely is other instances of him getting or at least allowing other people to lie e.g. Steven Moffat and also Catherine Tate and David Tennant about their return to show. I'd be interested to know your thoughts on that and, especially with the secretive nature of Doctor Who, how you ethically hide what's going on behind the scenes.

[@ConnorKent428]

Sometimes, you just have to enjoy the ride.