![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
beer_good_foamyThis gets kind of pretentious and ranty, much like me.
You know the joke? Two men are out walking in the desert. Suddenly, a lion appears and starts to circle them, clearly seeing them as dinner. One of the men quickly gets out a pair of running shoes and puts them on. The other guy says, "Do you really think you can outrun a lion in those?" The first guy replies "I don't have to outrun the lion, I just have to outrun you."
So, this article: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Marvel’s Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.. I went into a bit of a rant over on![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
sueworld2003's journal, and I thought I'd better expand on it. Because this article really annoys me on several points that go way beyond the TV series in question - not just as a Whedon fan, but as a fan of well-written meta and criticism in general, and about popular entertainment in particular. And also, about the tired old argument that good shows always have shaky first seasons.
The one that fans are most likely to jump on (and rightly so, IMO) is Bowman's statement that the first season of Agents of SHIELD so far is just as good as the first seasons of Buffy, Angel and "what little of Firefly we got to see." Note that she says "if you compare them", but then she doesn't actually do that - she just states it as a fact and moves on. Lazy. Likewise, there's the bit at the end where she claims that Agents of SHIELD gives the audience that old worn-out-by-mindless-repetition phrase "what they need, not what they want" (which I actually kind of agree with as a concept, but it's often horribly misused and if nobody else used it for the next 10 years I'd be ecstatic) in terms of themes of, um, family and government and heroism (how original), but can't actually give a single example of what it says about those themes.
But the bit that really annoys me, and that I've seen in more than one article defending the (not as awful as some people seem to think but also not remotely special so far) show: That people who don't like it just need to relax and change their expectations, it's just a spy show with standard characters, it's not meant to be anything more than that, so why on Earth wouldn't you watch it?
This, of course, is a lesson that's been hammered into lazy critics, and you better believe it's been hammered into producers, writers and marketers, that quality is a function of expectations and delivery. If you set out to make an ambitious, multi-layered, challenging work, and you don't stick the landing, the end result is worse than if you set out to make a dumb action movie and succeed in making a dumb action movie. There's definitely something to that, but... let me get back to that.
Yes, a lot of good shows had shaky starts; to quote some famous examples, Seinfeld; The Simpsons, Buffy and Angel, and even M*A*S*H took a while to find their footing, and common wisdom holds that none of them would have survived past the first season today. But what everyone always seems to forget in that discussion is the vast number of shows that had shaky, unfocused, or even outright crap first seasons... and then never improved, either because they were cancelled or because they found a target audience that, like the proverbial fifty million flies, liked to eat shit. (Charlie Sheen has based his entire career on that over the last 15 years.) Sometimes, things that suck just keep sucking - especially if nobody asks them to stop.
Also, when we talk about shows that improved after their first season... We can probably argue at great length whether this is a good thing or not, but the fact (and yes, this is a fact, notice that I'm about to back it up) is that the media landscape has changed a lot in the last 15-20 years. When Seinfeld came on, it had to compete with what was on the other major network channels at the same exact time as it was on, and with some second-best pilot that could take its slot if it was cancelled. (Well, and with things like people switching off the telly and doing something else instead, but fuck those losers.) That was it. Part of the reason many shows didn't get axed in the first season was that comparatively, they weren't doing as badly as the alternative.
Fast forward to 2013, though, and Agents of SHIELD isn't just competing with what's on the other major networks on any given night at eight o'clock. Or even with what's on the other major networks plus the dozens of cable channels with original programming or reruns of popular shows that have sprung up in the meantime. They're competing with DVD box sets, Netflix, YouTube, torrent downloads, and any other number of ways to watch shows that aren't still working out what they want to do, whether the main cast works, what the main storyline is, etc. (And that's just the competition in the 42-minute-segment; in a wider sense, they're also competing with Kindles, with movies, with PS4 consoles, with game apps...) And what they're competing for is your time. In that situation, you have to ask yourself if a show simply being Not Awful, and possible to improve at some unspecified future point, is enough. To return to the joke at the beginning, there are a hell of a lot more lions out there, and new shows can't just settle for outrunning the slowest ones. If a show does a decent job of building a basis for a great third season in its first shoddy season, good for it; that's still not an argument why I should spend time on it now when I can just as easily watch something that already is great.
Is that fair to people just starting out in the business, or to ambitious storytellers wanting to tell something different? No. It's definitely not, and new TV shows will have a much harder time working out how to balance ratings and story. They need to know, when they shoot the first episode, where they want the show to go and then have the guts and the muscle to stick with it. It can be done - just look at Breaking Bad. It can also be blown spectacularly - just look at what happened to Dollhouse. Personally, though, I'll take an ambitious failure over a tired hit any day.
So we're back to the expectations + delivery = quality issue. And here's the thing that really annoys me about this article: while that formula is true, it's not the same for me as it is for the producers of the show. Their expectation is to make a passable spy series to tide people over between MCU movies; mine is to spend an hour watching something that entertains me. And I don't owe it to a brand new TV series to change my expectations of what I consider good entertainment. I have absolutely no problem with people whose expectations are met by Agents of SHIELD now liking it. If that's what they want, more power to them. But when this article tells me to be impressed by the fact that the show aims for mediocrity and hits it, it really annoys me. As if if you set the bar low enough, and then clear that bar (if only just), then people are somehow obliged to stop whining and think it's good. And I don't buy that, just like I don't buy that people are obliged to think, say, Fifty Shades of Grey is shit just because it doesn't live up to literary standards it never tries for. (It is shit for not even living up to the very lowest of standards, but that's another matter.) I have only so many hours to spend on books, movies, music and television each week; I will spend them on things that meet my expectations. If I'm not the target audience for this show, then don't tell me it's my fault and I need to change.
Here, I could get pretentious and whine about the spreading idea that asking more than simple entertainment makes you pretentious, and how the idea that there's nothing wrong with simple entertainment (which I agree with - did you see all the Buffy the Vampire Slayer fanfic back there? Or all the AC/DC references?) has somehow morphed into the idea that any simple entertainment is therefore good. And I firmly believe that there is good and bad toilet humour, there are good and bad slasher movies, and there are good and bad action TV series. Machete was a great movie; Machete 2: Machete Kills is not. I am the consumer, I have the right to have expectations, and I have the right to demand quality trash - if for no other reason, then because if I don't get it, there's nothing to stop me from getting it somewhere else. I wanted to like Agents of SHIELD, but so far it does nothing for me; if you want to convince me that this show really will be good, then convince me; use your words; don't just tell me I'm wrong not to already see it, and that it's unrealistic of me to expect quality I know is out there. If a new show doesn't win me over, that's its problem, not mine.
Which is kind of my opinion of the "trust the men in suits to know what's best for you" theme of Agents of SHIELD too. Howaboutthat. And to anyone who says entertaining TV can't challenge that notion, I can recommend this little show called Buffy The Vampire Slayer.
Phew. Rant over.
You know the joke? Two men are out walking in the desert. Suddenly, a lion appears and starts to circle them, clearly seeing them as dinner. One of the men quickly gets out a pair of running shoes and puts them on. The other guy says, "Do you really think you can outrun a lion in those?" The first guy replies "I don't have to outrun the lion, I just have to outrun you."
So, this article: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Marvel’s Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.. I went into a bit of a rant over on
sueworld2003's journal, and I thought I'd better expand on it. Because this article really annoys me on several points that go way beyond the TV series in question - not just as a Whedon fan, but as a fan of well-written meta and criticism in general, and about popular entertainment in particular. And also, about the tired old argument that good shows always have shaky first seasons.The one that fans are most likely to jump on (and rightly so, IMO) is Bowman's statement that the first season of Agents of SHIELD so far is just as good as the first seasons of Buffy, Angel and "what little of Firefly we got to see." Note that she says "if you compare them", but then she doesn't actually do that - she just states it as a fact and moves on. Lazy. Likewise, there's the bit at the end where she claims that Agents of SHIELD gives the audience that old worn-out-by-mindless-repetition phrase "what they need, not what they want" (which I actually kind of agree with as a concept, but it's often horribly misused and if nobody else used it for the next 10 years I'd be ecstatic) in terms of themes of, um, family and government and heroism (how original), but can't actually give a single example of what it says about those themes.
But the bit that really annoys me, and that I've seen in more than one article defending the (not as awful as some people seem to think but also not remotely special so far) show: That people who don't like it just need to relax and change their expectations, it's just a spy show with standard characters, it's not meant to be anything more than that, so why on Earth wouldn't you watch it?
This, of course, is a lesson that's been hammered into lazy critics, and you better believe it's been hammered into producers, writers and marketers, that quality is a function of expectations and delivery. If you set out to make an ambitious, multi-layered, challenging work, and you don't stick the landing, the end result is worse than if you set out to make a dumb action movie and succeed in making a dumb action movie. There's definitely something to that, but... let me get back to that.
Yes, a lot of good shows had shaky starts; to quote some famous examples, Seinfeld; The Simpsons, Buffy and Angel, and even M*A*S*H took a while to find their footing, and common wisdom holds that none of them would have survived past the first season today. But what everyone always seems to forget in that discussion is the vast number of shows that had shaky, unfocused, or even outright crap first seasons... and then never improved, either because they were cancelled or because they found a target audience that, like the proverbial fifty million flies, liked to eat shit. (Charlie Sheen has based his entire career on that over the last 15 years.) Sometimes, things that suck just keep sucking - especially if nobody asks them to stop.
Also, when we talk about shows that improved after their first season... We can probably argue at great length whether this is a good thing or not, but the fact (and yes, this is a fact, notice that I'm about to back it up) is that the media landscape has changed a lot in the last 15-20 years. When Seinfeld came on, it had to compete with what was on the other major network channels at the same exact time as it was on, and with some second-best pilot that could take its slot if it was cancelled. (Well, and with things like people switching off the telly and doing something else instead, but fuck those losers.) That was it. Part of the reason many shows didn't get axed in the first season was that comparatively, they weren't doing as badly as the alternative.
Fast forward to 2013, though, and Agents of SHIELD isn't just competing with what's on the other major networks on any given night at eight o'clock. Or even with what's on the other major networks plus the dozens of cable channels with original programming or reruns of popular shows that have sprung up in the meantime. They're competing with DVD box sets, Netflix, YouTube, torrent downloads, and any other number of ways to watch shows that aren't still working out what they want to do, whether the main cast works, what the main storyline is, etc. (And that's just the competition in the 42-minute-segment; in a wider sense, they're also competing with Kindles, with movies, with PS4 consoles, with game apps...) And what they're competing for is your time. In that situation, you have to ask yourself if a show simply being Not Awful, and possible to improve at some unspecified future point, is enough. To return to the joke at the beginning, there are a hell of a lot more lions out there, and new shows can't just settle for outrunning the slowest ones. If a show does a decent job of building a basis for a great third season in its first shoddy season, good for it; that's still not an argument why I should spend time on it now when I can just as easily watch something that already is great.
Is that fair to people just starting out in the business, or to ambitious storytellers wanting to tell something different? No. It's definitely not, and new TV shows will have a much harder time working out how to balance ratings and story. They need to know, when they shoot the first episode, where they want the show to go and then have the guts and the muscle to stick with it. It can be done - just look at Breaking Bad. It can also be blown spectacularly - just look at what happened to Dollhouse. Personally, though, I'll take an ambitious failure over a tired hit any day.
So we're back to the expectations + delivery = quality issue. And here's the thing that really annoys me about this article: while that formula is true, it's not the same for me as it is for the producers of the show. Their expectation is to make a passable spy series to tide people over between MCU movies; mine is to spend an hour watching something that entertains me. And I don't owe it to a brand new TV series to change my expectations of what I consider good entertainment. I have absolutely no problem with people whose expectations are met by Agents of SHIELD now liking it. If that's what they want, more power to them. But when this article tells me to be impressed by the fact that the show aims for mediocrity and hits it, it really annoys me. As if if you set the bar low enough, and then clear that bar (if only just), then people are somehow obliged to stop whining and think it's good. And I don't buy that, just like I don't buy that people are obliged to think, say, Fifty Shades of Grey is shit just because it doesn't live up to literary standards it never tries for. (It is shit for not even living up to the very lowest of standards, but that's another matter.) I have only so many hours to spend on books, movies, music and television each week; I will spend them on things that meet my expectations. If I'm not the target audience for this show, then don't tell me it's my fault and I need to change.
Here, I could get pretentious and whine about the spreading idea that asking more than simple entertainment makes you pretentious, and how the idea that there's nothing wrong with simple entertainment (which I agree with - did you see all the Buffy the Vampire Slayer fanfic back there? Or all the AC/DC references?) has somehow morphed into the idea that any simple entertainment is therefore good. And I firmly believe that there is good and bad toilet humour, there are good and bad slasher movies, and there are good and bad action TV series. Machete was a great movie; Machete 2: Machete Kills is not. I am the consumer, I have the right to have expectations, and I have the right to demand quality trash - if for no other reason, then because if I don't get it, there's nothing to stop me from getting it somewhere else. I wanted to like Agents of SHIELD, but so far it does nothing for me; if you want to convince me that this show really will be good, then convince me; use your words; don't just tell me I'm wrong not to already see it, and that it's unrealistic of me to expect quality I know is out there. If a new show doesn't win me over, that's its problem, not mine.
Which is kind of my opinion of the "trust the men in suits to know what's best for you" theme of Agents of SHIELD too. Howaboutthat. And to anyone who says entertaining TV can't challenge that notion, I can recommend this little show called Buffy The Vampire Slayer.
Phew. Rant over.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2013-12-15 09:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-12-15 10:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-12-15 10:23 pm (UTC)If it helps, this person who isn't Swedish but Jamaican isn't a villain, and they're unmasked as not being Swedish as part of a rather underhand attempt (which is portrayed as normal for American big city politics) to get one of the candidates to withdraw from the election for States Attorney.
Um...that probably doesn't help. But I still think the show is good enough that one can ignore (with gritted teeth, but still...) the usual American TV laziness/ignorance about other countries. I mean, no actually says in the episode Eddie Izzard's in, "If it weren't for us, you Brits would all be speaking German," but it's close.
no subject
Date: 2013-12-15 10:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-12-15 11:15 pm (UTC)Yes, that was sort of what I was trying to get at it. Although I think it is going to be a problem with any story. Because even if you were to write a story based on people voting on what characters to use, which ending etc, it still wouldn't satisfy. In part because it lacks a certain element of surprise and well, stories by committee or focus group, tend to feel a bit formulaic. Stories aren't meant to please everyone, sometimes they are supposed to rile you up. They aren't supposed to be decorative paintings that you put on the wall of a bank building.
It's occurred to me today that what bothered me the most about her post, or stuck in my craw so to speak, was two things:
1) the statement - "well it's just the first season of course its not that great" or "it's just a spy series...lower your expectations". As if we shouldn't expect more than a boilerplate series with boilerplate characters, and that tv series such as Buffy or Breaking Bad or Game of Thrones are anomalies, but Agents of Shield is the rule and be happy with that.
It's letting the writers off the hook. This should not be confused with differences in taste. I'll back up a bit and try to explain a different way.
Years ago I meet with the Sr. Editor of Random House Publishing, this was the editor of John Grisham and Emily Praeger's novels. Two very different novelists, one was the writer of Eve's Tattoo, the other well, a popular legal thriller writer who graced best-seller lists. What Mr. Loomis (the Sr. Editor) told me about them - was John Grisham writes his story the best he can - that's the story he needs to tell, he excels at that type of story. You can try to copy it - but you won't tell it as well. It's his gift and his words, whether you personally like it or think it is crap is irrelevant. Emily Praeger story is hers - it comes from her heart.
You can have a trashy or kitschy tv series that isn't necessarily going to win critical praise, but still is a lot of fun, meaningful and highly entertaining - because the writer is having fun, the writer is doing the best they possibly can. They are invested. Examples: Doctor Who, Star Trek, Vampire Diaries, General Hospital, Nashville, Revenge...It doesn't have to be high quality. No one was expecting MARVEL AGENTS OF SHIELD to be Breaking Bad, we wanted something like Doctor Who or even the British series The Avengers. (I use Doctor Who because the demo they were attempting to get with SHIELD is the exact same demo Doctor Who was developed for. They wanted a sci-fi adventure series that appealed to kids and young men, who didn't watch tv that much outside of sports.)
2. The other thing that bugged me about her post..was the presumption that well, Whedon fans should love Shield because she loved Shield. And that she knew why they disliked it and they are wrong. This presumption that we share the same taste just because we all liked Buffy is a bit ludicrous.
It's also ignoring the fact that I don't believe Whedon is that involved or invested in this series.
no subject
Date: 2013-12-16 03:53 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-12-16 05:55 am (UTC)It's the song, not the singer.
Exactly, though I think I might say "band" more than singer.
Largely that seems to be the underlying problem because as you mentioned, none of this is a defense of AoS; it's a defense of Joss. They're not saying AoS is good; they only attempt to tear down other shows as a rationalization for why it isn't. And we saw that before with the comics--they sure didn't get better. Trust in Joss! Well... Your comment on Jar Jar in a review translates perfectly here. The writer attempts to not defend that Jar Jar is annoying, only attempting to say that other characters were annoying too and you're being unfair about it.
no subject
Date: 2013-12-16 01:18 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-12-16 02:47 pm (UTC)It's funny, both Whedon and Sorkin seem a bit happy to settle for doing "light" storytelling lately - The Newsroom is hardly The West Wing. But at least it wants to tell a story. AoS, for the most part, just seems like a placeholder.
no subject
Date: 2013-12-16 03:35 pm (UTC)'Job' requires more drudgework than 'couch potato.'
no subject
Date: 2013-12-16 09:36 pm (UTC)Minor correction: Doctor Who was originally a children's show. It is now a children's/family show. It is aimed at everyone, more or less, not a specific demographic/fanbase. (As Moffat once said: 'There are thousands of fans, but millions of audience'.) Mostly though, if Doctor Who is aimed 'at' anyone, it's 8 year olds.
:)
no subject
Date: 2013-12-17 01:28 am (UTC)Now it was a fictional movie - it's possible they embellished.
no subject
Date: 2013-12-20 01:52 am (UTC)YES. That makes sense to me and is honest "This is the story I need to tell." The audience can then decide for themselves if that's the story they need to spend their time on or not. Phrasing it as "what the audience needs" is as you say presumptuous." No one can tell me what I need - or should need, as this critic seems to be attempting.
OTOH - if you're making art or popular/mass entertainment and expect people to spend their time on it, you have to be aware of your audience and their needs/wants; it's a tricky balance I think. A creator looking down their nose at their own audience is a risible as an audience that believes a creator owes it to them to give them exactly what they want.
no subject
Date: 2013-12-20 02:00 am (UTC)Everyone's been talking about fictional series here but I have an example of "reality tv", which I normally loathe. They all have the same format and they bore me to tears. Last night we tried watching Oddities, about an antique show in NYC that carries the weirdest stuff (antique gallstones, mummified cats, etc); and it was dull. Not horrible, just not engaging. The one about Dogfishead Ale brewery put me to sleep, literally. So then we decided to give Dirty Money a try - a reality show about two brothers who are flea market vendors in NYC; one of them takes the antiques and junk they find and turns some pieces into one of a kind works of art. It was so much fun we watched 2 or 3 eps in a row. And yet it follows the same format as every other Discovery channel reality show.
I would have never in a million years thought I'd be watching one of these shows. But it's so enjoyable I want to spend time with these guys; whereas the others, I tuned out after one episode. I don't have the time to wait for it to "get better" and if there's something out there that already is better, why should I?
no subject
Date: 2013-12-22 05:55 pm (UTC)I recently saw a new documentary* about the fishing industry called Leviathan, which ends with a looooong scene of an exhausted fisherman falling asleep in front of the TV. The show he's watching? The Deadliest Catch, with a narrator trying to describe fishing as THRILLING and DRAMATIC and STAY TUNED FOR MORE DRAMA RIGHT AFTER THESE MESSAGES... whereas the real fisherman is just a guy doing backbreaking manual labour.
* If you can call it that; it's all very surreal and nightmarish (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQxcfTZmob4). It is brilliant, though, partly because it doesn't even try to force everything into any sort of narrative.