Shiny and New vs Sparkly and Old

Ours is a timeframe in which we see more remakes and reboots than original films. Now, without getting into a snooty debate about what constitutes “original,” let me clarify. I am referring to movies based on characters and settings that have previously been published for commercial means. So, those are the sequels, the adaptations from already famous properties, and the 1990s cartoons brought back from the dead to destroy my childhood.*

I am analyzing the situation based on those factors: the creation of characters and settings, rather than plots. This is because, in my experience as both a writer and an audience member, those are the hardest things to do “right.” Plot is more like lateral thinking cause-and-effect logic once your characters and setting are perfectly in place. Also, one could argue that any plot can be boiled down into a few key elements, so there’s no point in analyzing it for something I already know I’m going to find. So I’m just talking about movies that reuse characters and settings.

What I notice is a strange yin and yang effect in terms of what audiences prefer. The more the mainstream narrows down the scope of originality, the more we crave it. However, online, where we can see anything we want, we gravitate towards things with which we are already familiar. So what do we want? Originality or reboots, and is it really our choice?

The studios tend to invest in only the least risky properties. They’re not going to spend their money making a movie about characters no one has heard of. Therefore, the pool is limited from the get-go. A lot of the people I talk to are hemorrhaging patience for 3D “Yogi Bear,” and their “Last Airbender” rate flatlined about a week after the film first appeared in theatres. In fact, the only long-running series that people haven’t tired of is “Harry Potter” – which is technically still on its first run because it was intended to have seven stories to it.

But are the studios wholly to blame? If they chanced it on original stories from non-Disney et al companies, would you go to see those new movies? Let’s have a look at what is happening online. Webcomics, webtoons, and webisodes of web tv… there is enough web out there to keep Doctor Octopus incarcerated for weeks, and yet do we actually seek out the brilliant and daring?

Let’s take webcomics, for example. Most people I know go only to Penny Arcade, VG Cats, and then one or two of the many comedic tales mocking the swords and sorcery tropes. And that is where they draw the line. No offense, of course, to the folks who created those successful properties. In this moment, I’m judging the readers.**

When did we become so stuck in our ways? As much as we lament the studios and their dumbing down of our culture, could they be right? Are we really so reluctant to take a chance on a new series? A new genre? A new anything, save for a new medium whose potential we will ignore so as to quickly make a new injection site for more of the same?

If you need more proof, go to any online literature*** site. You know, like Wattpad, or deviantArt’s prose section, or anything except for a fanfiction site (because I am talking about original characters and settings). There are some amazing stories out there. You can tell that the writers really put a lot of effort into their works. There are fantasy stories that are, you know, actually interesting. I read a crime drama and was quite entertained, and I hate most crime dramas but this one was so well done, I couldn’t look away. When you’re done enjoying one of those stories, look at the stats for that page. The story will have received one or two views, and zero comments. Zero. How encouraging is that? The monetary and bureaucratic barriers to entry may have been removed, but they have been replaced by a wall of overwhelming audience apathy. So where are all the views and comments going?

The “Twilight” knockoffs. There are hundreds of them, maybe thousands, all teeming with comments professing readers’ love and begging for more chapters. Let me assure you, this is not due to quality. So why are we drawn to vampires in guyliner? Because they’re cool. Why are they cool? Because we’re drawn to them. The more we squee, the more we promote, and the more we promote, the more we squee. I beg you, stop this vicious sparkle – I mean, cycle. Take a chance on something new.

Make something original, if you can, but more importantly than that, read something original. And comment. And fave. Reach across the void and tell that other creator, “I hear you, and you do not suck.”

The studio system was set up to propagate itself, as one might expect from something controlled by big businesses. The Internet, however, is in our hands. Let’s not make the same mistakes that turned us off the mainstream in the first place.

*The Chipmunks were NOT “gangsta.”
**Pitchfork mob in 3…2…1…
***“literature” may not be the correct word for it.

-Tamara Hecht

  • http://profile.typepad.com/6p0120a5823410970b www.genjipress.com

    You’re describing a phenomenon for which there is no known cure: the tendency for people to prefer what is known and comfortable in their entertainments to that which takes risks.
    It’s not all that complicated. Most people — and I include most culture-geeks in this group as well — don’t want to take great risks when it comes to unwinding and relaxing and putting their brain on autopilot. They want what they want, and mostly they want what they know.
    I’ve talked with many other people about this, and that’s almost exactly how they themselves put it. They don’t want to be challenged, because they get enough of that in their daily lives away from the TV.
    Then there are folks like us, I guess, who enjoy things that are challenging precisely *because* they don’t repeat everything that has come before, *because* they are fresh and new. But we get hung up on this as the default approach, and we see other people as being cultural or aesthetic failures because they don’t take that stance.
    It’s a mistake to get hung up about this, because for the most part you can’t change it by haranguing people or guilt-tripping them into feeling like they’re missing out. That just creates resentment and resistance on their part.
    I find an odd parallel in the difference between Japanese and Western console RPGs. The Japanese games are more closed-ended and linear, because that’s what the audience over there likes: they don’t like having to make a lot of choices which would significantly change the gameplay. The Western games are far more open-ended; they’re more like an environment than a fixed narrative.
    As much as I hate to say it, begging people to “read something original” barely works when most people are not in the habit of establishing for themselves what is “original” vs. what’s not. The only thing that works, from what I’ve seen, is one-on-one recommendations — a suggestion from someone whose tastes the other person trusts enough to make that leap. I doubt very seriously that’s something you can codify.
    That’s something that can only happen between peers – and I don’t feel the faux-intimacy of the Internet can replicate that. I may “know” someone on Twitter who says this movie is good, but I KNOW my friends because I see them every Friday night. I think we seriously undervalue the strength of such relationships because we believe they’re something that can be transplanted into another form, and by and large they can’t.
    I’m sorry to go off at length about this issue, but it’s something I’ve wrestled with myself at great length. You cannot expect other people to come around to your way of tastemaking. What you have to do is build something so good they can’t resist it … but that depends on your definition of “good”, doesn’t it?

  • http://leonawisoker.wordpress.com Leona Wisoker

    I COMPLETELY agree. I have met, over the past year, some of the most amazing, intelligent, talented people–who are completely invisible to the mass of people salivating over knockoffs and reruns. For the love of the gods, folks, stop reading Dilbert (although it is still funny, it’s largely run its course at this point in time) and go check out xkcd, partiallyclips, Questionable Content, or Octopus Pie…go to conventions and talk to those people who don’t have the big press-multimedia industry-movie deals–they’re going be be nervous and shaky and not nearly as polished and dressed up as the “pros” — but wow, they have some amazing ideas, stuff that you won’t ever see coming out of a big corporation. Well worth your time! Thanks for the post. Very well-timed.

  • http://www.stevensavage.com/ Steven Savage

    Out-of-the-ballpark fascinating. In fact, you’ve inspired a post for next week already . . .
    You also make a good point that we MUST reach out the unknown but original to tell them they’re good. We often forget that. I do.

  • http://profile.typepad.com/tamara126 Tamara

    @ GenjiPress
    “They don’t want to be challenged, because they get enough of that in their daily lives…”
    Is that so? True, the daily grind is draining, but it is not intellectually stimulating. To me, watching something new and complex IS a break, because it’s a break from boringness. Then again, as my “geek” job is thus far not recognized, I am on-and-off unemployed or doing retail jobs. Perhaps the situation is different for those of us with a traditional 9 to 5. One might project that, if a significant number of people move to Geek 2.0 jobs, this could all change. When the lines between work and leisure are blurred, and we are encouraged at work to celebrate truly original media experiments, then new series will gain their well-deserved spotlight.
    You are right, though, that one can’t “snob” someone into liking something. ‘Tends to have the opposite effect, and you also get called a [profanity] [profanity] hipster. Or, um, so I heard. Hehehe…
    Lastly, speaking as someone who has met more of her friends online than in real life, I would say that credibility has more to do with the source than the medium. I might believe a friend or friend of a friend who tweets about a movie being good. I will not believe it if the studio that made the movie says it’s good. But you’re right, it is the relationship that makes all the difference.

  • http://profile.typepad.com/tamara126 Tamara

    @Steve
    That, in turn, totally gives me an idea for something new to help people along… *writes it down*

  • http://profile.typepad.com/tamara126 Tamara

    @Leona
    Right on. In addition to which, at the last con I attended, the Artists’ Alley selection was a lot nicer than a lot of the things in the Dealer’s Room. Not to mention much more affordable.
    Thanks for your comment.

  • Scott D.

    There’s another factor at work. Studios are very risk-adverse lately. They want the instant hit. They want the huge first weekend numbers and if the movie is in the theatres six weeks, it’s a bonus. (Longer, and it starts being a drawback – the theatres start getting more of the profit then.) So, sequelitis, remakes, reboots, all of that. (In fact, I’d say business has become more risk-adverse since the 80s. Everything is couched in terms of maximizing profit for the quarter with no long-term plans. Anything that impacts short-term gain, even if in the long-term it’d be worth more, gets shunted and buried.)
    Another part is that there are characters that people really want to see more of. Star Trek comes to mind – people wanted to see more of Kirk, more of Picard. This justifies making sequels – people will go to see favourite characters. I am guilty here – I have gone to see movies like The A-Team and Miami Vice because I wanted to see how the new version would look.
    And this isn’t limited to film. (As I think got mentioned originally.) Look at the number of series out there, especially in genre stories. Dresden Files, Mercy Thompson, the Weather Warden series. Still quality works (your mileage may vary) but definitely bringing back loved characters.
    So, what can be done to get original works better known? Word of mouth works to a degree, but takes time. Far better when it comes to written works than limited engagement movies and TV series. Some authors have expanded their repertoire, delving into new worlds, bringing an audience with them. Same with directors. But there’s still a risk that the audience won’t stay.

  • http://profile.typepad.com/tamara126 Tamara

    @Scott
    I majored in film studies, so that’s probably my bias to focus on films. I’d point out the difference between a single film and its sequels/prequels/reboots, and a series that was intended from the start to run for as long as possible. Prime example: Dr. Who – it never gets old because it CAN’T get old. They can go anywhere and do anything in the first try, because they set it up so that the first try never ends.
    You do raise a good point about big name creators bringing fans with them to new places. I think fans are more open to trying new things when the creator’s personal brand denotes a cool style and high quality. For example: Hayao Miyazaki = excellent world builder, and never does the same thing twice, but when you hear about “a Miyazaki film,” you know know that you’re in for something fun and heartfelt featuring sweet characters using cool gadgets in dreamlike locales.
    And then, there are the creators who are all that plus staples in “mainstream” geek culture. Like, I hate sports movies, but if you told me Joss Whedon was writing and directing a sports movie, I’d watch it.

  • Scott D.

    Tamara, I agree on the differences between deliberate long-term series and sequels/prequels/reboots. I left out TV series and long-term stories like Harry Potter on purpose. Dresden is settling in for the long haul with an overall plot arc in the books, but the first three were definitely episodic in nature.
    That said, there are also actors who will bring audiences in. I don’t like horror, yet if Alan Rickman or Tim Curry made one, I’d at least watch it on DVD. The thing to do seems to be get the audience draws to make something or be involved in something outside the norm, to draw their natural audience into something they normally wouldn’t consider.
    So, how do we get this done? :)

  • http://profile.typepad.com/tamara126 Tamara

    @Scott
    Brainstorming here… Outside THE norm? Or outside THEIR norm? It is just as challenging to get someone to watch something in a genre they’ve decided is “not for them” as it is to get someone to watch something totally new.
    Perhaps there is some genrebending that can happen. If we’d follow a big name actor or director into a new series, what about a genre? The most creative properties tend to fuse or reinvent genres anyway. To go with the sports example again, I doubt that a sports film would appeal to many geeks. …but what if that sport was Quidditch? Maybe we don’t need to pull something totally new from the ether – we just need to cherrypick the best qualities of existing genres/series and craft something new of them.
    That was, I surmise, the secret behind Pokemon’s success. It’s a fighting game AND a strategy game AND an RPG. It has items and power-ups and cute baby animals. You can’t go wrong with that!

  • Scott D.

    Outside THE norm. I doubt Tim Curry or Tim Burton has a norm as it is.
    Genrebending would be a great way to hook people into a new paradigm. All the familiarity of one genre, the newness of another. I’d say it’s worth a shot.