Which is always going to be a problem in any form of serialised storytelling, but at some point I have to agree with him: whatever the fans want, they have to give the storyteller the benefit of the doubt and a chance to tell the story he/she wants to tell. If they end up disappointed, so be it, you can't please everyone; but if fans get to dictate every step of the way what they want the story to be from here on out, then we don't need storytellers at all.
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
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.