but I don't entirely agree that that's what the need/want dichotomy says.
I've never really understood what Whedon meant by that comment. Was it reaction to the online fandom clamoring for stories about things they "wanted"? (ie. Put Buffy and Angel together and show us their adventures fighting vampires! Or put Buffy and Spike together...ditto. And Whedon responded, yeah, but when I do that it is boring (mainly to him) and the ratings dive, and as was discovered during the show Cheers - when Sam and Diane got together - the show was ruined. So, it's better to not give you what you want. But I consider that a bit lazy, because you know you can pull it off - a better response and a far more honest one would have been, but this isn't the story I'm interested in telling or need to tell and if I tried to tell that one, my heart wouldn't be in it - and you wouldn't care.)
I think the dichotomy may actually be between the story the "writer" needs to tell you and the story the "audience/reader" wants the writer to tell them - which is a conflict for all stories. The point of stories is to communicate something to someone else, to heal, to explain, to clarify, to entertain, and to take you inside another perspective. If the writer tells you the story that you expect or want to hear, you might as well write it yourself (which is what you stated above and I wholeheartedly agree). It's never made sense to me that a writer would tell a story that the audience needs to hear - sounds sort of presumptive on the part of the writer. I mean how would you know? But what does make sense, is that the writer would tell the story that they need to tell - have to tell.
I can always tell when a writer isn't telling a story that they "need" to tell and are just "catering" to an audience. Marvel Agents of Shield is actually a good example of catering - it feels like it was feed to a focus group (which they have been known to do) tested, then changed to meet those needs. In short, I'm not sure the writers are saying anything - they are just catering and as a result the story feels paint-by-numbers. You also see this in stories written by a lot of prolific and best-selling writers. In direct contrast, you have someone like Dickens, Vince Gillian or David Simon who is telling a story they desperately need to tell you. They are driven to tell. And are passionate about.
That's actually the difference between Buffy, Angel, Firefly, Dollhouse and SHIELD. The first four tv shows felt like stories that the writers needed to tell that they felt passionate about, while SHIELD feels a task they've been assigned to bring home a paycheck. And yes, you can see the difference.
no subject
I've never really understood what Whedon meant by that comment. Was it reaction to the online fandom clamoring for stories about things they "wanted"? (ie. Put Buffy and Angel together and show us their adventures fighting vampires! Or put Buffy and Spike together...ditto. And Whedon responded, yeah, but when I do that it is boring (mainly to him) and the ratings dive, and as was discovered during the show Cheers - when Sam and Diane got together - the show was ruined. So, it's better to not give you what you want. But I consider that a bit lazy, because you know you can pull it off - a better response and a far more honest one would have been, but this isn't the story I'm interested in telling or need to tell and if I tried to tell that one, my heart wouldn't be in it - and you wouldn't care.)
I think the dichotomy may actually be between the story the "writer" needs to tell you and the story the "audience/reader" wants the writer to tell them - which is a conflict for all stories. The point of stories is to communicate something to someone else, to heal, to explain, to clarify, to entertain, and to take you inside another perspective. If the writer tells you the story that you expect or want to hear, you might as well write it yourself (which is what you stated above and I wholeheartedly agree). It's never made sense to me that a writer would tell a story that the audience needs to hear - sounds sort of presumptive on the part of the writer. I mean how would you know? But what does make sense, is that the writer would tell the story that they need to tell - have to tell.
I can always tell when a writer isn't telling a story that they "need" to tell and are just "catering" to an audience. Marvel Agents of Shield is actually a good example of catering - it feels like it was feed to a focus group (which they have been known to do) tested, then changed to meet those needs. In short, I'm not sure the writers are saying anything - they are just catering and as a result the story feels paint-by-numbers. You also see this in stories written by a lot of prolific and best-selling writers. In direct contrast, you have someone like Dickens, Vince Gillian or David Simon who is telling a story they desperately need to tell you.
They are driven to tell. And are passionate about.
That's actually the difference between Buffy, Angel, Firefly, Dollhouse and SHIELD. The first four tv shows felt like stories that the writers needed to tell that they felt passionate about, while SHIELD feels a task they've been assigned to bring home a paycheck. And yes, you can see the difference.