Someone Needs to Say It
As involved as I've been for the last many years in internet and fandom culture (at 26 now more of a commentator and observer than partisipant) someone finally said something regarding the influence of fan criticism on entertainment media that I can agree with (and have been saying for a while, to anyone who will listen.)
One of the amazing things about the internet is that there's been an opening of a line of communication between audience and creator that, over the last few years has been fueled by blogs and twitter and all other social media. Fans can and do (often very loudly) tell creators -- be they tv script writers, actors, directors, artists-- exactly what is on their mind. And this happens instantenously, more often than not, as soon as new product is introduced to the fan base. It's a pretty breathtaking thing to behold, and really on some level, I don't think I'll ever not stand in awe that something like that is possible at all.
There are days I wake up and find myself amazed that yes, this is the 21st century, and for all intents and purposes, the future is, indeed, now.
On the other hand, every blade has two edges to it, and while it's a fantastic marketing ability to be able to communicate directly with the people who are buying your product there's the temptation to slog through all the blogs, tweets, and (ahaha) LiveJournal posts and distill all of that mindlessness down to a nebulous, vague concept of "what the consumers want."
For some products, this is a good thing, say, vacuum cleaners. Dirt Devil comes out with a new carpet cleaner and almost automatically, there's feedback from the people who bought it. "The suction is weak." Some say, while others say, "It works, but it doesn't match the feng shui of my closet." From there, the little vacuum building people can work out a way to make a better vacuum, which more people buy. It's a win-win for all.
Unfortunately, for the creative process, this model doesn't work as well--mostly do to the nature of the beast. A television show is a product in the sense that it is marketed to an audience for people to watch and enjoy; also like the vacuum cleaner in the above example, there are some weird people who don't mind weak suction, but care more about the over-all aesthetics of the thing. They want their carpet cleaner ( maybe like their entertainment) to have a solid, pleasing form, and if that means sacrificing functionality to an extent, that's fine with them.
Where it's possible to find a happy medium between function and form when building a vacuum, the same can't always be said for a television show. There, you are entering the world of the creative, where characters, plot, and most importantly, the intentions of the creators must be taken into account. It's tempting, I think, when there is a (seemingly) massive outcry from fans for creators to redact certain things that didn't go over well or forsake any sense of continuity and forget the offending events ever happened.
This is not. a good. thing. There are precious few cases were catering to fans ever made a show better, and it's important that every once and a while, someone come out and remind fans of that, however much it galls them or makes them feel "betrayed" by the people who bring them their 30-60 minute span of escapism every week. Recently, Greg Weisman, co-creator of Cartoon Network's new series Young Justice based on the DC comic series, laid down the law rather bluntly, in a way that left me with nothing but respect for the man.
The series was reported as possibly canned by CN after only ten episodes, but in his latest blog update he took the time to address the status of the series and a few internet rumors.
From www.s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php Weisman's Blog:
"Let's be clear: for better or worse, this series is COMPLETELY unaffected by internet criticism BECAUSE of schedule. Everything of any significance was set and DONE before even the pilot movie aired last November, so we couldn't address fan concerns even if we wanted to. And, honestly, we don't want to. We don't in part because there is way less consensus than some people seem to think....As with every series I've co-helmed, all we can ever do is write and produce to OUR OWN passions - and then just cross our fingers and hope enough people share our passions to make it a success. Anything else is doomed to failure, because if we're not passionate about it, it'll show in the work, and then no one will like it. And just to make it clear: WE LIKE OUR SHOW!! Doesn't mean you have to - but don't try to tell me I don't."
Is it defensive?
Yes.
Is it caustic?
Absolutely.
Does he have a right to say it?
Fuck yes. And kudos to him for doing it.
If it's one can of worms that doesn't get addressed seriously enough in internet and fandom culture, it's entitlement-- that sense that the creators exist for the fans and that they should be doing everything in their power to keep them happy, to hell with their own intentions or goals for what, in the end is their creation. A lot of creators walk on eggshells around the issue because they don't want to seem like they're ignoring their fans.
I say ignore away.
One of the amazing things about the internet is that there's been an opening of a line of communication between audience and creator that, over the last few years has been fueled by blogs and twitter and all other social media. Fans can and do (often very loudly) tell creators -- be they tv script writers, actors, directors, artists-- exactly what is on their mind. And this happens instantenously, more often than not, as soon as new product is introduced to the fan base. It's a pretty breathtaking thing to behold, and really on some level, I don't think I'll ever not stand in awe that something like that is possible at all.
There are days I wake up and find myself amazed that yes, this is the 21st century, and for all intents and purposes, the future is, indeed, now.
On the other hand, every blade has two edges to it, and while it's a fantastic marketing ability to be able to communicate directly with the people who are buying your product there's the temptation to slog through all the blogs, tweets, and (ahaha) LiveJournal posts and distill all of that mindlessness down to a nebulous, vague concept of "what the consumers want."
For some products, this is a good thing, say, vacuum cleaners. Dirt Devil comes out with a new carpet cleaner and almost automatically, there's feedback from the people who bought it. "The suction is weak." Some say, while others say, "It works, but it doesn't match the feng shui of my closet." From there, the little vacuum building people can work out a way to make a better vacuum, which more people buy. It's a win-win for all.
Unfortunately, for the creative process, this model doesn't work as well--mostly do to the nature of the beast. A television show is a product in the sense that it is marketed to an audience for people to watch and enjoy; also like the vacuum cleaner in the above example, there are some weird people who don't mind weak suction, but care more about the over-all aesthetics of the thing. They want their carpet cleaner ( maybe like their entertainment) to have a solid, pleasing form, and if that means sacrificing functionality to an extent, that's fine with them.
Where it's possible to find a happy medium between function and form when building a vacuum, the same can't always be said for a television show. There, you are entering the world of the creative, where characters, plot, and most importantly, the intentions of the creators must be taken into account. It's tempting, I think, when there is a (seemingly) massive outcry from fans for creators to redact certain things that didn't go over well or forsake any sense of continuity and forget the offending events ever happened.
This is not. a good. thing. There are precious few cases were catering to fans ever made a show better, and it's important that every once and a while, someone come out and remind fans of that, however much it galls them or makes them feel "betrayed" by the people who bring them their 30-60 minute span of escapism every week. Recently, Greg Weisman, co-creator of Cartoon Network's new series Young Justice based on the DC comic series, laid down the law rather bluntly, in a way that left me with nothing but respect for the man.
The series was reported as possibly canned by CN after only ten episodes, but in his latest blog update he took the time to address the status of the series and a few internet rumors.
From www.s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php Weisman's Blog:
"Let's be clear: for better or worse, this series is COMPLETELY unaffected by internet criticism BECAUSE of schedule. Everything of any significance was set and DONE before even the pilot movie aired last November, so we couldn't address fan concerns even if we wanted to. And, honestly, we don't want to. We don't in part because there is way less consensus than some people seem to think....As with every series I've co-helmed, all we can ever do is write and produce to OUR OWN passions - and then just cross our fingers and hope enough people share our passions to make it a success. Anything else is doomed to failure, because if we're not passionate about it, it'll show in the work, and then no one will like it. And just to make it clear: WE LIKE OUR SHOW!! Doesn't mean you have to - but don't try to tell me I don't."
Is it defensive?
Yes.
Is it caustic?
Absolutely.
Does he have a right to say it?
Fuck yes. And kudos to him for doing it.
If it's one can of worms that doesn't get addressed seriously enough in internet and fandom culture, it's entitlement-- that sense that the creators exist for the fans and that they should be doing everything in their power to keep them happy, to hell with their own intentions or goals for what, in the end is their creation. A lot of creators walk on eggshells around the issue because they don't want to seem like they're ignoring their fans.
I say ignore away.