What You Want, Not What You Need

[shapinglight]

Which, yeah, does happen to be the title of the last arc in the Angel & Faith comic, but :shrug: it fits this post.

More musings within on how nothing is new in fandom, or among comics/TV show writers. Contains spoilers for True Blood and for the Buffy comics.



Joss Whedon (in)famously said that you have to give the fans not what they want, but what they need.

I understand what he was getting at (while at the same time thinking it rather presumptuous of him to think he knows what the fans need. I mean, it's not like they all need the same thing, is it? Unless he means they all need a bloody good lesson in being careful what they wish for?) but I'm not sure I entirely agree with it.

Or, I agree with it in the sense that you can't let fan opinion influence the story you have to tell (except that I suspect even Joss did many times, whether he'll admit it or not), or at least you have to pay lip-service to not letting it.

On the other hand, you don't want to lose your audience, do you? So, before you decide to ignore those fan opinions, you might at least want to know what they are. Not just to assume that you know.

This post is brought on by reading several interviews with the current showrunner of True Blood, in which he tries to allay fears about the return of Alexander Skarsgard's character, Eric Northman, in season 7, given that he appeared to die a stupid, comedy death in the final episode of season 6. Needless to say, a lot of people were quite upset (yes, I was too, though I'm not in the TB fandom, just a lurker) and the fact that Eric was stark, full-frontal naked when he 'died' didn't mollify them much at all. In fact, it's rather insulting for anyone to think that it would have (shades of the 'women only like Spike for his abs' argument).

Must say, I came out of reading these interviews with the impression that this showrunner was just irritated by this section of the audience ("Why can't they just wait till next summer to find out?"), and resented having to placate them. But, see, I think that's him not so much wanting to tell his story how he wants to tell it, but conflating the audience's needs and their wants. He thinks their need should be to be surprised by the story next year. Is Eric dead, or isn't he? However, the fans might actually need to have a reason for tuning in again.

All these, can't you wait till next summer? kinds of remarks are aimed at general viewers who maybe aren't as emotionally invested. But you want to keep the more fannish viewers watching too, don't you?

Then again, you don't want to go promising something you have no intention of delivering on, the way the Dark Horse PTBs (and Joss) did about Spike/Buffy prior to season 9 of the Buffy comic. Joss said Spike and Buffy were 'gold' (he meant the snappy dialogue exchanges, I suspect), and Scott Allie promised the Spuffy fans their interaction would be worth waiting for. Well, apart from a few nice moments in early issues, their interaction turned out to be (yet another) kick in the teeth for the Spuffy 'shippers, to add to the ones they got (repeatedly) in season 8. So obviously, Dark Horse, Joss et al would have been better off (or more honest) if they'd just told people re Spuffy and Spike's role to 'wait and see.' But of course they knew that section of fans was extremely pissed off after season 8 and wanted to persuade them to keep reading.

Hmm. Think I'm going around in circles here. I think what I'm trying to say is, don't presume you necessarily know what your audience needs, do some research. Then, if you appear to kill off a much-loved character, at least you'll be prepared for the following shitstorm.

And if you do promise fans things in your upcoming stories, make damn well sure you deliver.

Fool me once, etc, etc.

ETA: It is of course possible to f**k up all the above so much that you end up giving the audience/readership neither what they want nor what they need. I think the Buffy comics are a case in point.

ETA 2: And of course that applies to all fan groupings, not just Spuffies, Bangels and other assorted weird 'shippers.

I suspect the use of the phrase 'tune in' really dates me.

Comments

[infinitewhale.livejournal.com]

Just them wanting to have their cake and eat it too. There seems to be this resentment by writers if people value characters and interactions over their soapboxing.

Joss, DH and company of full of it on a lot of things. Like children who refuse to accept that there's a cost for everything. Not too long ago he was complaining about all the flak he gets for killing characters (and made a comment about WB killing Angel). He killed characters for emotional effect or because he was bored with them. Then he acts all irritated that people were emotionally affected by it.

Overgrown toddler, I swear. Can't say much about the True Blood guy since I don't watch it, but it sounds the same way.

[shapinglight]

Just them wanting to have their cake and eat it too. There seems to be this resentment by writers if people value characters and interactions over their soapboxing.

I do understand their POV. It's a tricky balancing act trying to tell your story without alienating your audience/readership, but I also resent being patronised. So, yeah.

Can't say much about the True Blood guy since I don't watch it, but it sounds the same way.

There are definitely similarities. Having said which, Joss doesn't often express irritation with the fans in public (though I'm sure he feels it plenty).

[infinitewhale.livejournal.com]

I do understand their POV. It's a tricky balancing act trying to tell your story without alienating your audience/readership, but I also resent being patronised.

I tend to think if you get right down to it, if you tell an honest story the fans get both what they want AND what they need. Sure there will be some who won't like it, but that's true no matter what you do. Fans'll come along or they won't, but your core audience will stick with it.

Like you, my nose kind of turns when I read the 'what you need' thing. If by what I need you mean a steady progression of why characters make a choice or why a plot point happens, I agree. If you mean I need some kind of morality lesson about liking X character or Y ship, then whatever, you know?

[shapinglight]

Sure there will be some who won't like it, but that's true no matter what you do. Fans'll come along or they won't, but your core audience will stick with it.

Sure, you can never please all the people all the time. That's a given. I actually think Joss made a fair stab of trying to do that in Chosen. Okay, it wasn't perfect, but whatever.

And yes, morality lessons. beer_good_foamy has something to say about that below. Of course, sometimes it's the fans that want everything tied up in a neat moral bow, and that's not very realistic. I have seen people make suggestions about what they think should happen in TV shows etc that have made me think, that sounds absolutely appalling and would make for terrible, boring telly.

As I said, it's a very tricky balancing act, and no wonder these showrunners fail quite often. I am absolutely certain, though, that putting yourself on the moral highground above your fans and preaching at them never works in your favour.

[snickfic]

Speaking of what people want and/or need, I assumed from the opening that the Faith&Angel comic was going to figure in somewhere in this post, but no. :D Is the comic still going along moderately well? We resurrected Giles, didn't we? Does that mean there was Giles+Faith interaction worth reading for?

[shapinglight]

In a word, no.

They turned Giles into a twelve year old boy, because 'old Giles' wasn't 'relevant' any more.

[snickfic]

o.O

It occurred to me recently as I was reading yet another ridiculous superhero comics plot that it seems like part of the problem with the Buffy and Angel comics is that they are being plotted by people who write superhero comics, where death is fluid and deaging is viable tactic to relaunch a character and a character unknowingly being a robot for a year or two just isn't that weird. I mean, you'd think Joss would know better, except of course he's a comics writer, too. It's like the comics sensibility overruled the TV/canon sensibility as soon as we changed media.

IDK. Does that sound way off-base? It just seems to me like the plotting in the Buffy comics is of a piece with what I'm reading in the Marvel books.

[beer-good-foamy.livejournal.com]

You know, as arrogant and condescending as that quote sounds, I really get what Joss means by "what they need, not what they want". I'm reminded of something David Chase said as he was promoting the last season of The Sopranos; that a lot of viewers wanted - or even took for granted - that the series would end with Tony Soprano arrested, prosecuted, and jailed for all his crimes. And he refused to do it, not because it was necessarily unrealistic, but because he didn't want viewers to spend six seasons cheering for the bad guy and then be able to tell themselves "See, he got caught in the end, crime doesn't pay, all is right with the world." That would miss the entire point of the story.

Of course it should first and foremost be about what the story needs as opposed to what the viewers want, but a lot of really great stories manage to make the readers/viewers/whatever confront something about themselves too.

That said, obviously that demands that you actually have a clue what the audience both want and need. As far as I could tell, Season 8 assumed that all readers were Twilight fans who knew every single dumb superhero comic cliché. Based on that, Joss and Allie were never going to give the readers what they wanted or what they needed.

[shapinglight]

You know, as arrogant and condescending as that quote sounds, I really get what Joss means by "what they need, not what they want".

Oh, I understand what he means too. I think he could have expressed himself in a less condescending way, but whatever. And of course, while he still had a good story to tell, you could forgive him a touch of arrogance anyway.

That said, obviously that demands that you actually have a clue what the audience both want and need.

Joss did once upon a time. I think, with the Buffy characters, though, he's lost it.

At least, though, he doesn't tend to get a soapbox and lecture the fans much. This guy from True Blood kind of did that, and it was gobsmacking to see him acting all shocked that people were so upset about what he did to this character. He'd have to have been hiding under a rock for the last six years not to realise that's what would happen.

[beer-good-foamy.livejournal.com]

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you didn't - I just meant that, as arrogant as it is and as easy it is to make fun of, I think there's truth to it. That's how stories should work - if they only gave us exactly what we knew we wanted, what would be the point of storytelling in the first place? The problem, and what I don't think Joss gets (at least obviously not when it comes to the comics), is that when he makes that his goal it demands more of him as a storyteller, not less. It only works if he a) knows what the audience wants, and b) can present what they "need" in a way that they enjoy. Otherwise you get... well, the Season 8 comics.

it was gobsmacking to see him acting all shocked that people were so upset about what he did to this character. He'd have to have been hiding under a rock for the last six years not to realise that's what would happen.

See, this is one of the reasons I'll always respect Tim Minear despite some very questionable ideas. When he kills a character he knows exactly what he's doing and doesn't apologize for it. I'm all in favour of killing characters, but make it mean something. If you don't know your audience, you don't know your story either.

[ex_peasant441]

In politics, people talk about doing the right thing not the popular thing. And any time a politician does it they suffer the consequences - because surprise, surprise the unpopular thing is unpopular and people don't necessarily see the 'rightness' of it for years, if ever.

Joss Whedon seems to be under the mistaken apprehension that giving people what they need rather than what they want will somehow miraculously be popular because it is the right thing to do. It isn't, for exactly the same reasons - people want what they want, and are unlikely to notice or care that something that went against what they want is 'right' in some way.

The difference is that in politics it may be necessary to do the right thing because otherwise the economy may collapse, the country be invaded by giant wasps or Brian Blessed get elected as king. What happens with a TV show is viewers go off and watch something else. Joss really should have learnt the difference by now. I wonder if he has?

[beer-good-foamy.livejournal.com]

or Brian Blessed get elected as king

You say that as if it would be a bad thing. :)

[shapinglight]

You say that as if it would be a bad thing. :)

That's what I was thinking. ;)

[ex_peasant441]

Of course! Imagine what it would be like on Christmas Day - everyone gently somnolent after a lovely meal and suddenly you have that voice booming out at you! The whole nation would be in A&E with indigestion.

[shapinglight]

because surprise, surprise the unpopular thing is unpopular and people don't necessarily see the 'rightness' of it for years, if ever.

Because they know most politicians are lying scumbags anyway.

But yes, that quote of Joss's just makes you feel irritable, and that you want to tell him to stop taking himself so seriously.

[speakr2customrs.livejournal.com]

*or Brian Blessed get elected as king*

But that would be a good thing. He would be the first King in 528 years who I would be willing to accept.

[ex_peasant441]

See my reply to beer_good_foamy above. *peers at your icon and does quick maths* Blessed isn't a known descendent is he?

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I think what I'm trying to say is, don't presume you necessarily know what your audience needs, do some research. Then, if you appear to kill off a much-loved character, at least you'll be prepared for the following shitstorm.

And if you do promise fans things in your upcoming stories, make damn well sure you deliver.

Fool me once, etc, etc.

Nods in agreement. It's all very good and well to declare that you are giving your fans anticipation and not what they think they want..but what they need.

But here's the thing? We have over a million tv shows, movies, books, and comics to choose from. If you aren't providing us with the story that we are craving? We can find it elsewhere, and bye-bye ...

An example of a tv series that gives viewers what they want, and follows their cravings - is Vampire Dairies. It's fast paced. It gives them the moments they crave, and it has an obsessed and adoring fanbase in its demographic. Another example is Scandal - which became the must see hit last year. And say what you will about Stephanie Meyer and EL James - but they gave their readers what they wanted and became multi-millionaires.

You can do what Whedon and True Blood are doing...but you have to give the audience something to grab hold of. Whedon obviously did to an extent or he wouldn't have a such a huge fandom. But Dark Horse isn't.
Also, Whedon had to release the teaser that Spike survived and lived on in Angel, after his death in Chosen, to attract more fans to the dying Angel. Also, if you piss off your fans - they won't continue to follow you. I've admittedly lost interest in True Blood (haven't seen the last three episodes) and lost interest in Whedon completely - he hasn't provided me with an entertaining story since well Angel S5. And in my opinion hasn't written anything worth being fannish over since well Conversations with Dead People. Although Dollhouse's Man on the Street was interesting and the Avengers was mildly entertaining but hardly worth squeeing over.

He's the "IT GUY" now, because of Avengers. Making the covers of mags.
And giving his relative's high-paying and lucrative jobs. But I'm so over him.

Trueblood's writer...has big problems too. Because quite a bit of the audience was only watching for Eric. Alex Skarsgaard is the movie star in the cast and the only cast member that has grabbed a cross-over audience. The other's really haven't taken off. It's like killing off Spike. You don't kill the fans favorite character - not if you don't want them to jump ship. Fans are fickle and have lots of other choices.

[shapinglight]

I notice, though, that the undercurrent of resentment Joss has about Spike's popularity (which he doesn't really seem to understand, and which he equates with the popularity of Loki, which again he doesn't understand, and I could tell him is down to the actor, stupid!) is now cropping up on True Blood.

This showrunner guy wouldn't say how they mean to use Eric next season, but fans are suspicious he means for him to just be a ghost and make cameos in the episodes, like his dead maker Godric. Pretty much what Joss wanted to do with Spike in AtS season 5 until the WB and Marsters insisted on regular status.

It's almost like he resents Skarsgard's popularity because he doesn't get it himself.

[rebcake.livejournal.com]

The new Entertainment Weekly interview with Joss is revealing. I may be reading between the lines, but it seems pretty clear after reading it that what he means is that the story is what HE needs, and he's assuming that some of his viewers will need it, too. And I think he's probably right about that a lot of the time, or was. I can't even align want/need/just-plain-thought-it-would-be-cool with the comics, which are an unmitigated disaster on the artistic, moral, feminist, and emotional scales.

I like his body of work as a whole — aside from the comics and parts of Angel — though there are definitely some egregious bits of fail sprinkled throughout. His concerns about the over-powerful, exposing expectations for being paper thin, his willingness to look at the motivations of the "bad guys", liking comedy, liking ensemble — these all contribute to making work that will resonate with me. I'm not expecting perfection, just a contribution to pulling back the curtain on what I see as the failings of U.S./American society, preferably in a way that won't make me give up all hope. Sigh.

All that is not to say that I enjoy authorial arrogance and defensiveness. And I really don't like it when the "creators" treat the audience in a paternalistic way, which is exactly what I DON'T need from art, thank you very much. Look, if you want to tell a particular story, you should also be willing to own up to what you told. If you can't, then maybe you just need to admit that you didn't think that hard. Learn from the experience. Do better next time.

[shapinglight]

Joss's works is a very uneven experience for me. Basically, it comes down to liking BtVS, AtS and parts of season 1 of Dollhouse. The rest, I'm just not interested.

But yes, even if Joss had retired to wherever and become a goat farmer when AtS ended, he would still have produced a seminal body of work.

I suspect he'll never better BtVS, like it or not.

He frustrates me, actually, because I'm always hoping for a repeat of BtVS from him, and he keeps failing to deliver. I got really excited watching season 1 of Dollhouse, because I thought I was going to get what I wanted. Then I watched Epitaph 1 and it all went to crap. :(

Basically, I know now that what Joss needs (and you're right that he means what he needs, not what the audience needs) isn't what I need.

He does still write some fun dialogue, though. And I do live in hope that he'll surprise me again one day.

[elisi]

I've had this open in a tab ever since you posted, trying to work stuff out in my head. I've often wondered what it is that rubs most people (me included) the wrong way when it comes to that 'Giving people what they need, not what they want', when I am perfectly happy with RTD's 'If you can't cope with drama, go read poetry - poetry's lovely'. OK, so that was said in very specific circumstances, and he was pissed off, but still - I admire the way RTD stands up for his stories, even if I don't like the stories themselves. Whereas that Joss quote just annoys me.

And I think I've worked it out - or at least part of it. The Joss line makes it sound as if it's all about the viewers - as if a writer's goal is just to manipulate their audience. ('Manipulate' isn't the right word, but I'm sure you know what I mean? Like how soap writers must wonder what murder/sexual scandal will generate the most gossip.) Whereas a writer's focus should surely be the story? As RTD says in The Writers Tale:

Creating something is not a democracy. The people have no say. The artist does. It doesn’t matter what the people witter on about; they and their response come after. They’re not there for the creation.

Now that's horrendously arrogant, but I can respect that. And maybe that's what Joss was getting at, but just not able to phrase properly. Mostly I guess I'm just offended at someone thinking they know what I 'need', but I am very happy to go along with someone who wants to share a story. If that story doesn't go how I want it, then that's unfortunate, but the story belongs to them, and they can do what they want. Besides, there is literally no way of pleasing everyone - knowing that the writer is true to him- or herself is what matters.

(This was long and rambly. I hope some of it makes sense?)

[shapinglight]

Oh, it made sense, but I'm not sure I agree entirely. I think both of them are basically saying the same thing, but they both come across as patronising. It's just that Joss is at least trying to be polite. ;)

[eilowyn.livejournal.com]

From what I've seen from immersion into the Eric/Sookie corner of True Blood fandom, no one is happy with Brian Buckner, and they weren't too happy with Alan "I have a giant boner for Bill" Ball. Nobody's too keen on Charlaine Harris anymore either, after the ending of the book series (which I've interpreted to be a tragic romance, as a Buffy/Xander endgame would be for me). It is all very Jossian, but I'm also seeing something similar in Community fandom. Not all fans need the same thing, because not all fans are watching the same show. Show runners only anticipate the fan reactions from fans who watch the show the same way they do - Dan Harmon's tweet about the first shipper video he ever saw was that women and men watch television differently. The problem may be that all these show runners are men - they're not half as aware of shipping-centric female viewers as Julie Plec of The Vampire Diaries (for all her flaws) or Shonda Rimes of Gray's Anatomy and Scandal are, and so these men are taken aback when they find out that people are emotionally attached to ships or chAracters for reasons that they didn't anticipate - no, we don't like Spike because of his abs or Eric for his giant wang. So I think my point is that wants and needs are different for different viewers and male shows runners are just plain obtuse.

And Twangel and Bilith should be buddies. They both drank the kool aid.

[shapinglight]

And Twangel and Bilith should be buddies. They both drank the kool aid.

;)

There are a lot of similarities, aren't there?

And they don't end there. Buckner reminds me of Scott Allie, talking about Eric as one of Sookie's friends (it was in the Behind the Episode podcast for one of the earlier eps of season 6 - and actually maybe it wasn't even Buckner but the previous showrunner), the way Allie talked about Spike as one of Buffy's friends prior to season 9 (so-called). It made it so obvious which way the story was going.

I also tend to think that both Buckner and Allie were taken aback by people 'shipping Sookie/Eric and Buffy/Spike in a rather similar way, though they've chosen different ways of dealing with those fans (apart from the contempt for them, which they've both shown), with Allie choosing to tell a story that stomped all over the 'ship and made it clear it was never going to come to anything (with Joss's blessing, I assume), and Buckner just choosing to ignore it completely by trying to big up the Eric/Norah relationship as more important.

Which, fine, except that the audience barely knows Norah.

Either way, for them to say they're giving the fans what they 'need' is just bullcrap.

I like Bill, by the way, but I don't see them successfully selling re-Bill/Sookie to me in season 7. I think the best end for Sookie would be to put vampire stuff behind her for good and find someone else (not Sam, as in the books. I don't see that working either).