What You Want, Not What You Need
Aug. 23rd, 2013 03:00 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shapinglightWhich, 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.
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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2013-08-23 11:43 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2013-08-27 09:57 am (UTC)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.