That's the best part: it usually isn't. A change in any system usually results in either catastrophic effects, or the system becoming unrecognizable compared to its former state.
Puberty is a change. Once you go through it, you are fundamentally different than you were before it.
The Great Depression was a change. Before, things were going great, the economy was booming. After, people wiped their asses with money because it was worthless.
The fall of the Soviet Union was a change. Before, it was a repressive regime that spread evil throughout the world. After the collapse, it reverted to just being a bunch of slavic countries with lackluster economies.
Evolution is a change. Some creatures evolved to be more efficient hunters, and others evolved to be less efficient. Guess which ones died out? Hell, Pandas are really only alive right now because we think they're cute.
Then there's climate change. The dinosaurs died out because of a cataclysmic change in their climate. Not the oceans getting a bit warmer, mind you, but the sun literally being blocked out by ash.
Because in theory it means that it isn't predictable. Its the end goal of the Shayamalan "twist" beyond just that final moment of twisting.
Which, again in theory, can be a great thing. The hero just getting domed by a random bullet during an action scene can dramatically raise the stakes and make the whole thing a lot more tense because it subverts the plot armor we expect.
However, when they use it it means "deliberately leading you on to flip the switch after like we didn't."
If the people making the changes had a track record of making things worth watching, no one would care. The real issue here is that those making the changes always make bad stuff.
Every. Single. Time.
For over a decade now.
It can't be accidental, or a mistake. Not after all this time. It is intentional.
Their skill level is so low, that imitation or mimickry would fall flat, and be clear it was an inferior product. Arbitrary negative changes allows them to blame their lack of talent, effort, and forethought instead on the asinine changes.
When it's done well, you get things like the A Song of Ice and Fire series of books, where the author takes the tropes of a genre and refuses to follow them. However, you then have the flip side, like the trope of actually finishing the series.
When it is properly done in an O. Henry-style plot twist, it can be a useful storytelling tool. The trouble is, the writer has to be skilled in its implementation, otherwise it comes off as hackneyed and trite - and most of the writers using it these days don't go for the plot twist. They instead use it to describe their typical bait-and-switch tactics of emasculating the male heroes and self-inserting their Mary-Sue heroines that are better than their predecessor in every possible way. It's massively annoying to fans of the original work, but since the fans have no say in the production they can't really do anything about it until the work is already produced - and even then all they can really do is boycott the film/TV show/book/whatever.
Why is "change" a good thing (especially when it doesn't improve jack shit)?
Some change can be good. A "passing of the torch" from an older property to the new generation can be good if done properly (a la Ghostbusters: Afterlife) but their "change" is usually a strip-mining of an IP for its fan-base and a rewriting of the original work while claiming it is a "subversion" of the fans' expectations. They don't want to make new things. They want to destroy the old thing and replace it with the new thing that's compliant with their groupthink worldview. They want to control the property and its fanbase, or they want to destroy it.
Well, if you're a bit special needs and always assume that the way things are now are the worst they can get (I suspect because they're not the Glorious Communist Utopia, but don't really have any backing for that), any change is a good change.
Why is "subversion" a good thing? Why is "change" a good thing (especially when it doesn't improve jack shit)?
That's the best part: it usually isn't. A change in any system usually results in either catastrophic effects, or the system becoming unrecognizable compared to its former state.
Puberty is a change. Once you go through it, you are fundamentally different than you were before it.
The Great Depression was a change. Before, things were going great, the economy was booming. After, people wiped their asses with money because it was worthless.
The fall of the Soviet Union was a change. Before, it was a repressive regime that spread evil throughout the world. After the collapse, it reverted to just being a bunch of slavic countries with lackluster economies.
Evolution is a change. Some creatures evolved to be more efficient hunters, and others evolved to be less efficient. Guess which ones died out? Hell, Pandas are really only alive right now because we think they're cute.
Then there's climate change. The dinosaurs died out because of a cataclysmic change in their climate. Not the oceans getting a bit warmer, mind you, but the sun literally being blocked out by ash.
Improving things is hard and they refuse to accept they're too mediocre to pull that off, so they just pretend changing things is the same.
Most of post-Soviet countries aren't Slavic. The only ones are Russia (mostly, but this is changing), Ukraine, Belarus.
I despise the word subversion. Ever since TLJ
Because in theory it means that it isn't predictable. Its the end goal of the Shayamalan "twist" beyond just that final moment of twisting.
Which, again in theory, can be a great thing. The hero just getting domed by a random bullet during an action scene can dramatically raise the stakes and make the whole thing a lot more tense because it subverts the plot armor we expect.
However, when they use it it means "deliberately leading you on to flip the switch after like we didn't."
At this point, the only subverting my expectations that is possible is if they actually made good content. That'd subvert my expectations real good!
If the people making the changes had a track record of making things worth watching, no one would care. The real issue here is that those making the changes always make bad stuff.
Every. Single. Time.
For over a decade now.
It can't be accidental, or a mistake. Not after all this time. It is intentional.
That is the issue.
Their skill level is so low, that imitation or mimickry would fall flat, and be clear it was an inferior product. Arbitrary negative changes allows them to blame their lack of talent, effort, and forethought instead on the asinine changes.
When it's done well, you get things like the A Song of Ice and Fire series of books, where the author takes the tropes of a genre and refuses to follow them. However, you then have the flip side, like the trope of actually finishing the series.
When it is properly done in an O. Henry-style plot twist, it can be a useful storytelling tool. The trouble is, the writer has to be skilled in its implementation, otherwise it comes off as hackneyed and trite - and most of the writers using it these days don't go for the plot twist. They instead use it to describe their typical bait-and-switch tactics of emasculating the male heroes and self-inserting their Mary-Sue heroines that are better than their predecessor in every possible way. It's massively annoying to fans of the original work, but since the fans have no say in the production they can't really do anything about it until the work is already produced - and even then all they can really do is boycott the film/TV show/book/whatever.
Some change can be good. A "passing of the torch" from an older property to the new generation can be good if done properly (a la Ghostbusters: Afterlife) but their "change" is usually a strip-mining of an IP for its fan-base and a rewriting of the original work while claiming it is a "subversion" of the fans' expectations. They don't want to make new things. They want to destroy the old thing and replace it with the new thing that's compliant with their groupthink worldview. They want to control the property and its fanbase, or they want to destroy it.
Well, if you're a bit special needs and always assume that the way things are now are the worst they can get (I suspect because they're not the Glorious Communist Utopia, but don't really have any backing for that), any change is a good change.