The fans don't matter

[storytimebiondi]

Where is this documentary? This sound incredible.

[ZombieOwl]

I had to watch it in theatres because I couldn't find a dvd copy anywhere, and I couldn't find a website to watch it online D:

[simplykit]

i agree

lets strive for excellence in our work rather than fame right away

i got that from the movie - three idiots

[Pablo.C.S]

Capitalism works to a point when generating creative media, but the fact is, capitalism has just gotten more and more aggressive, it's no longer the case to make a fun, successful or cult film, now it's become about creating franchises and movie universes, as well as riding supposed trends etc.

I think the best solution is to offer state funded media as a an alternative to private companies. State funded creative media wouldn't be as obsessed with making returns as a private company, thus giving more leeway to creative freedoms and unconventional stories.

For example the BBC is state funded and produces a lot of brilliant, fun and weird TV shows, doctor who, Broadchurch etc.

And a lot of Korean films are boosted and financially assisted from the state, and produces consistently brilliant films.

My editor's main point is that themes, regardless of others' opinions and social values at the time, are the entire creative domain of the author, and that the author shouldn't have to change their vision to make a less confronting/controversial story. So long as said theme/scene is justified in-universe.

[punkarsenic]

I think the best solution is to offer state funded media as a an alternative to private companies. State funded creative media wouldn't be as obsessed with making returns as a private company, thus giving more leeway to creative freedoms and unconventional stories.

true! state funded media (at least in tv and film) is far more prominent in europe - in the uk we have the BBC as you mentioned, and we also have a lot of national film funds. although while the capitalist media conglomerates exist, the state / nonprofit media outlets must always be aggressively defended; rupert murdock is desperate to destroy the tv license and therefor the BBC funding in the uk bc it threatens his cable business, for example.

also, the BBC isnt without its own creative stifling, from phases of taking only incredibly safe moves, failures in diversity, and a very close-knit inner circle. there is increasing pressure for the BBC to justify itself monetarily due to tory budget cuts and outside pressure from capitalist forces - and whenever art is forced to answer to money, creative limitations will be at play.

My editor's main point is that themes, regardless of others' opinions and social values at the time, are the entire creative domain of the author, and that the author shouldn't have to change their vision to make a less confronting/controversial story. So long as said theme/scene is justified in-universe.

right... except dan olsons original video that he seems to be responding to isnt talking about controversial story decisions but rather things that are misogynistic or racist. while writers have a right to write these things, critics (and all viewers / readers) have a right to critique them - dan olson was simply confronting the claim that a diagetic explanation can dismiss all accusations of misogynistic / racist / etc decision making. so while i agree with your point in the thread, i dont agree with your editors video at all.

[ratscout]

I think it all goes back to the idea that you should keep one ear open to fan critique, but only take it if it makes sense. So I pretty much agree with all your points. A lot of media these days listens way too closely to the fans and the ultimate end product ends up as like... Soulless fan fiction. XD

I think the only time when a creator should take fan input deadly seriously is if you're making a videogame and fans test it for you and tell you that certain gameplay mechanics aren't working or need to be ironed out. Otherwise, as I said before, fan input should only be taken if it makes absolute sense for the story.

[Luminosophy]

and who decides that its not art?

The audience does.

If they're not buying your product, it's because you failed them as a creator.

[handsoutofmymouth]

by those standards wouldn't that mean AAA games are more artistically valid because everyone buys them? that sounds like an arbitrary line in the sand to me

[Luminosophy]

If you're going with the argument that art is subjective, you can't force people to see things as "art". One man saying something isn't art is just as valid as the guy who sees it that way. The artist's efforts mean nothing to the audience. They're paying for a good service, if they don't get it, they leave. It's not philosophical, it's simple business.

[handsoutofmymouth]

yeah but the thing is that people clearly do like them because their sales only go up with every year. clearly the simple business is fine if millions of people are buying every year

[Pablo.C.S]

The audience isn't the objective measure of success, it isn't necessarily the creator's fault if a creation isn't successful, there are many reasons as to why a story isn't, lack of marketing in an over saturated industry, for instance.

[skicoak]

there are many reasons as to why a story isn't, lack of marketing in an over saturated industry, for instance.

I agree.

There's also hundreds of cases where initial audiences/critics just didn't "get" the work.

"It's a Wonderful Life" lost money at the box office and largely got negative reviews... and took three decades to become the beloved seasonal classic it is now.

And the list of other classic films ahead of their time is massive.

[AVXP]

I read it as ONLY WHEN PUSHED TO EXTREMES do you get a solid point that can't be argued with- but that's rarely the case in reality.

1) Making something that is made solely for you, the creator is GREAT! Have fun and express yourself. Releasing it for the world and with other (people, staff, companies, etc) entities heavily invest in it IS BAD. That happens when a creator is given license over a popular property and turns it into a self-projecting-personal-statement piece.

2) Making something for the FANS is Great when the fans are all on the same page. Once you release something into the wild, it is no longer yours. It is theirs to enjoy, hate, whatever. When you get a blessed chance to give them more, your job is be true to the original vision -you gave them, give them more things THEY DIDN'T KNOW THEY WANTED, supply some expected turns so that LOGICAL EVENTS HAPPEN. A stagnant property is one where the creator(s) ONLY know how to give you more of what you already got and therefore miss out on opportunities to make NEW things for fans to latch on to. Remake, rehash, remix and same old same old.

3) So doing either choice TO EXTREMES is bad. Lots of things that are now big started small. It's why a restaurant doesn't have the same menu as a fast food joint or a cafeteria.

4) I think artists (and would-be artists/creatives) are heavily led by their ego and think everything is made for them and their taste is the one true ruler to measure with. Everything is subjective, but we have THREE groups that combine to form a clear and true sense of value.
4a) The audience. They like it or don't like it. Simple.
4b) Other creatives. They understand the process and have deep insight.
4c) Critics. They supply a historical context and judge along a wide spectrum with a narrow focus.

You need all three to hit the topmost levels of excellence, but you can do well being heavily favored in any one area.

[skicoak]

Everything is subjective, but we have THREE groups that combine to form a clear and true sense of value.

I think you're missing a big point when you leave out the big business/corporations in your formula.

You can argue that they exist to funnel creative works to The Audience but we're really not seeing that so much anymore... They don't even usually care about the works themselves above them being as marketable to the largest amount of people as possible.

Even DC comics "Evergreen" policy, which on the face of it seems creator driven, boils down to works that can be pushed in other media and generate additional revenue streams.

[AVXP]

You can argue that they exist to funnel creative works to The Audience
That would be my point. They base their moves on the same THREE groups and to be honest they follow by scale. Small movie financiers (which is what they are) release small-audience-aimed flicks, large companies release the blockbusters.

They don't even usually care about the works themselves above them being as marketable to the largest amount of people as possible.
You're only talking about the biggest corps. A zillion indie movies come out a year, just like comics and other media....songs, etc....A common fantasy is that a huge entity makes a great small market film or some small-market film gets a massive budget and promotional campaign.

And I'd add that a company or corporation or indie or one-man-film-house faces the same challenge of making a balanced work. There is always a downside to an imbalance.

[skicoak]

A zillion indie movies come out a year...

And the majority play film festivals, like Sundance, hoping to be bought by a studio/distributor that will THEN market it too largest demographic possible...

or

They try to sell directly to the growing original content channels like the high end as Netflix or low end like Chiller. Again creating content that is aimed for a potential business deal... not a direct audience.

And I'd add that a company or corporation or indie or one-man-film-house faces the same challenge of making a balanced work

I don't inherently disagree for those creators who are legit trying to create something from a creative vision.

But if the whole thing is conceptually to get an IP to the largest audience possible... those decisions are basically just metrics/formulas with potential scapegoats in the creators positions... in case blame needs to be assigned.

[AVXP]

But if the whole thing is conceptually to get an IP to the largest audience possible

You do know that is us and ...everything.
That's the whole point. Make something and have as many eyes see it as possible.
That's why you (not you, you, buy EVERYONE) uploads your comic on Tapas and everywhere else.
The only other option is to make something and let no one see it. And there's no need to talk about something we've never seen or heard of. lol

We just went in a circle.
I said: A common fantasy is that a huge entity makes a great small market film or some small-market film gets a massive budget and promotional campaign. And THAT is the ultimate balance. You make something that is ultra inspired. Very personal. Release it to CRITICS and CREATIVES, they love it so much that it gets attention from a feverish audience, picked up by a major entity and shot to a larger/largest AUDIENCE.

Who...doesn't....want....that?
And somehow you can make a very personal ...moral judgement about the artist and even assign some kind of blame....
I don't understand that part. Maybe I missed something there.

-
The only other point that I can make that is relevant here is the difference between Art and Craft.
Art exists only to be appreciated.
Once it has a purpose beyond that, it becomes craft.
And the creator, a craftsman, not an artist.

And again, those lines tend to blur by those same three categories I mentioned.
-
And I only mention that because sometimes these debates lead us into what is art? questions.
And someone says TRUE ART is.....and then drops a very narrow definition.....
And someone else says "If you create art, then you're an artist!"

The balance between the two is Arts and Crafts.....
I also said: "Lots of things that are now big started small."
That's the fantasy many of us/artists/creatives/whatevers have.

If you get enough small successes they give you bigger projects.
With more eyes and more at stake...
That's usually a spot you've earned.
And there will be those who say...you don't deserve to be there...or what you're NOW doing isn't true to the sport/art/endeavor. You play for money or create for the masses..... bad, bad (fake) artists, shame on you.

[akemikae]

I'll admit, it's really hard not to let fan's requests and demands get to you in your creative process. I have a bunch of comic friends that did just that and they ended up hating their stuff. You really need to stay true to yourself, remember why you decided to create your content in the first place. The fun stays there.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with twisting and turning things a little bit, so long as you feel like a suggestion is something that will actually benefit the story and not just cater to the audience. On the other end, I think it's also a great idea to get ideas from people who would otherwise never read said story to see what would help make it more unique. If you tend to stick to the people that are flooded by the type of content you create, they come to expect very specific things. (IE BL trends, we all know the ones).

So far, I haven't allowed any complaints, demands or requests in my fans decide what I want to do with my story, and I'm very thankful for that. I have a very set goal in mind, and I know if I were to ever let someone else dictate my decisions, it would no longer be mine.

[skicoak]

That's the whole point. Make something and have as many eyes see it as possible.

That's the crux of our debate. Not every creator thinks that way, some just want to find their audience and sustain that fanbase indefinitely ....and some do want mega exposure, an "all bases belong to us" reach.

The OP's point was more in lines with pandering to reach either goal was bad.

My main point has been the business side is more actively at fault for creating the pandering through hype/marketing tactics.

Creators increasingly have to sell their visions through that fiscal/corporate culture. You're taking studio notes through the dailies, studios retain final edit rights, IP rights have skyrocketed in value and supersede other creative decisions.

Much of your argument holds up when talking about the best of things, I'm talking about the common/worst practice.

I mean seriously, this critic's quote was used to mass market a film last year...

" "Bumblebee" isn't just the best "Transformers" movie Paramount Pictures has made. It's a great movie. Period."- Kristen Acuna.

I'll admit, I'm not a Transformers fan or even saw Bumblebee, but Damn! They used a quote that threw shade on the entire franchise to tell a different demographic it was safe to see this film because at least it was great. That's some weird marketing... and dictates that the studio's marketing team didn't care about what remained of the core fan base. It was willing to trade it for a different audience.

The cynical part of me says the whole film looks constructed that way... from business decisions to cast a younger female lead to making it a prequel to shed history/mythology of the earlier films and play on 80's nostalgia more heavily. You could argue they're creative changes but even so... they served the business side more than the creative vision.

I think it's where we differ... Your points are from a view of the best that the field has to offer... I'm talking about the worst.

[Maps]

I had been skeptical posting my work because of the response I’d get. But I’ve always told myself to write for me. I began writing my novel years ago and have buffered and changed it a bit for tapas, but the changes weren’t necessarily for my audience (maybe a little for the warnings) but for myself and how I’ve changed as a writer and thinker in the years. I read back through my work and thought, maybe not this, but this instead. I think it’s important to write for yourself first and foremost and not write for an audience. And it’s also but a huge plus having a big portion of my story written to keep me on track and make me less prone to change my story based on criticisms.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s great having fans and readers and amazing to receive positive feedback; it’s incredibly motivating. But I do hope people don’t give up on their stories because they aren’t crowd pleasers or they receive criticism. It’s your story and you should keep it that way. (It’s easier said than done to try to move past criticism on something that is precious to you, but you must decide whether that will influence your idea).
Obviously I’m speaking for novels here but the same goes with your art, the story there, and the art style. If you enjoy your style, keep at it.