Note: The title is fairly inappropriate considering the content is focused around an American cartoon using the anime aesthetic, but the more I think about it, the more I feel like this really does apply to a lot of other anime series, and it continues some of the stuff I talked about in the first part regarding fandom.
1. Fans v. Fandom
A week ago my girlfriend and I were ecstatic because it was the series finale of Avatar: The Last Airbender (2005-2008), a show that I've loved since its debut and - only this past summer - she had gotten into as well. On one hand, yes, we were sad that the series was finally coming to a close, as all fans are when one of their favorite shows does the same. At the same time, we acknowledged that all the loose ends would finally be tied up in one epic finale, which was what we had been anticipating since the beginning of the season; hell, they technically gave us two epic finales, the first being the mid-season finale. We enjoyed every second of the last few episodes, and once it was over we were both still reeling from it, trying to cope with the fact that it was over. Sometime during the week it sunk in, and I think for the most part we're both satisfied with the outcome.
As much as we'd like there to be another season of the show, it wouldn't make a lot of sense given the circumstances in the current story. Think about it. It's like trying to fit another full Harry Potter book after killing off Voldemort - there wouldn't be anything left to talk about other than second-rate issues that most fans can probably resolve with their imaginations. And that is exactly where this division between fan and fandom occurs. Before I delve further into this, allow me to present a situation which will hopefully show the difference.
Yesterday at the San Diego Comic-Con the creators of Avatar, Michael Dante DiMartino and Bryan Konietzko, held a panel for the show, in which they screened what looked like a clip from a supposed fourth season of Avatar. The result was the video you see on the right-hand side: a hilarious poke at the legions (and I do mean legions) of "Zutara" fans. In case you're unclear about the whole Zutara thing, essentially there's a huge debate among hard-core Avatar fans [link may not be work-safe] about whether Katara, the lead female protagonist of the show, should be romantically involved with either Aang, the protagonist and canonical love interest, or Zuko, the former antagonist-turned-protagonist. Supposedly, Zutarians claim that they make up the "core audience" of the series. Not too sure how accurate that is, but if it's - somehow - true then Mike and Bryan should start thinking about re-targeting their audience.
Anyway, to put it bluntly, Mike and Bryan - the creators of the show - essentially said two things: (1) there will not be a fourth season of Avatar, and (2) seriously, get over it, Zutarians. Hours later, I find posts like this, filled with hundreds of comments from whiny fangirls who are "heartbroken" and plan to "give up the series altogether" because the creators didn't pair Katara and Zuko together - and that should not be a spoiler to anyone at this point.
So at this point I'm sitting here scratching my head and saying to myself, "Wait, you're going to dislike the show because the creators told the story they wanted to tell? What gives you the right to decide how it should be done?" I don't get how, all of a sudden, the "core audience" of Avatar hates the series just because their stupid delusions weren't adhered to. Are these people really so ignorant that they think the creators are just going to change the canonical ending of the story and make another season (let alone a remake of the series, as I've seen suggested/hinted at) solely for the purpose of pairing Katara and Zuko up? Good lord, I almost feel dirty for being an Avatar fan!
This is where fans and fandom differ. While fans will ultimately respect the decision of the creators and accept the finality of whatever they decide to do with their creation, fandom chooses to alter the fictional reality of the setting to suit their own tastes. They live in their denial, defying canon and essentially ruining a perfectly good series. Fandom does not know when to stop, much to the chagrin of real fans.
2. The Dilemma of Creators
Avatar isn't the only series to provoke this kind of behavior. Back in the early days (read: high school) when I first started writing lengthy stories I was involved in fan fiction myself, and I saw this sort of thing all the time. It didn't take me long to realize that my favorite series were being ruined by no-talent, creative-less hacks who simply cared about pairing up their favorite characters. Not long after, I switched over to writing original fiction of my own creation.
Creators like Mike and Bryan really deserve some respect for having to deal with their crazed fanbase year after year, and doing so in a way in which they continue to be themselves. One of the biggest problems with creating something that becomes a hit is that the fans think the story should go one way that may be entirely different from what the creators envisioned, and they get testy when their demands aren't catered to. These fans feel like the creators are marginalizing them in some way, but in reality the creators need to tell the story the way they want; they're not there to satisfy some childish personal desire of their fans.
As a writer I have a very clear idea of what I want to do in my stories. I know what's going to happen with the characters and the story, even if I'm not looking straight from beginning to end, and when I do change my ideas they're because of practical reasons, not because of someone else's desire to see such-and-such happen. Mike and Bryan probably worked the same way with Avatar. Because of that reason I accept their work for what it is. They haven't disappointed with the show in its three-year run, and if anything I appreciate and respect them so much more for not giving in to the demands of either the producers or the fans, both of whom would love to see a fourth season. I'm not really sure why anyone else would think differently.
As far as I'm concerned, I think the Zutarians are a ridiculous little cult that seriously needs to stop whining and get over it. They need to start to live their lives outside of a cartoon world, or at the very least accept the fact that that's just how the story goes. Frankly, by now it's just really annoying for the rest of us.
Time to get back to real life now. I at least feel a little better that I got all of this out of my system.
YouTube fascinates me. It really does. It is quite possibly one of the most innovative websites to come along in the last few years, and it's completely revolutionized personal and viral videos on the Internet. It's not unusual these days to see your friends and co-workers on the site, whether as avid watchers with hundreds of favorites or vloggers who pour their hearts out to virtual audiences via webcam. Either way, YouTube and its clones have become major outlets for artists and advertisers alike.
Lately, I've been trying to think of distribution and using YouTube as a means to seriously get TBM 'out there', so-to-speak. Obviously we've already got a page on the site and we've posted the films we've made so far, but we've yet to sit down and seriously focus on a way to use YouTube as a means of promotion. And when I say that I mean looking at how people find our films, checking demographics and hit counts, toying with things like tags and length in order to maximize our audience, etc. Hell, even focusing on specific content geared towards certain established audiences; I'd love to do a series on deconstructing YouTube "celebrities" who don't deserve the title, even if it's the audience that puts them on a pedestal.
From what I've seen, YouTube can be a great outlet for creativity, but not in the same ways that traditional distribution works for lengthy narrative films. Take our 15-minute short from 2006, Delivery. Despite being what I feel is one of our best shorts thus far, it's got the least amount of views out of all of the films we've posted on YouTube. In fact, our most viewed film happens to not only be our shortest, but quite possibly our worst! I don't want to say it doesn't make sense to me, because it actually does make a lot of sense: the majority of the viewers on YouTube prefer shorter, easier to digest videos that have an average length of two minutes or so, with the exceptions being if the videos are produced by a specific user who holds some kind of popularity on the site (i.e. HappySlip, ArtieTSMITW). So how exactly do you gain this sort of Internet fame?
Well, there's probably no 100% fool-proof way to get popular on YouTube, but from what I've seen and read, there are a number of little tips and tricks that I'm itching to try out:
1. Produce short, episodic content that is generally appealing. As my friend King was telling me the other week when we were brainstorming ideas for a short film, if you want to reach the biggest audience possible you need to produce something that people can really relate to, and that makes them feel good. It's hard, given that a lot of the stories I like to tell deal with darker, more emotionally challenging issues, but I'm willing to start thinking outside the box. The episodic content is fairly crucial too, because it generates some buzz over time that keeps users coming back to your channel for more.
2. Create a persona. Some of the best YouTubers tend to use the vlog form as a way to construct a personality that others find interesting. Personally I never found the whole webcam video form that appealing, but if done right it can be just as engaging as a narrative character study, and more real than 'reality' TV. If you or someone who know has an outgoing, striking personality (good looks help as well), put them in front of the camera. Doesn't matter if they can't act.
3. Make an attempt at originality. No one likes a copycat, so try not to follow in the tracks of other, more popular users. Sure, movie re-enactments are fun to do, but don't bank on that idea alone less you want to be compared to ArtieTSMITW. Instead, think of something that hasn't been done before, or at least delve into a topic that - while still appealing - doesn't seem to have a whole lot of coverage on YouTube. Combine genres and forms in a way that's unique. It's a helluva lot easier to gain noteriety when it's your own brainchild.
4. Learn to take criticism and other comments with a grain of salt. Although not as bad as some viral video sites like Break, many users on YouTube tend to leave horrible comments which contain - but are not limited to - blatant racism/sexism, ignorance, bias, unprovoked insults, flamebait, etc. On one hand you might be tempted to fight back, spending an hour or so typing up responses left and right, but just learn to let it go. Take everything with a grain of salt and soon your own peers and fans will start fighting for you, marking stupid comments as bad remarks or spam so you don't have to.
5. Know your audience. Start keeping track of the types of people who watch your videos. With YouTube's new Insight feature it's easy to tell who's been watching, and there's all sorts of neat little demographical information you can get. Learn to manipulate your tags and other things to target the audience you want. I'm sure this will come in handy at some point.
I want to try and work more with the site in the near future. I've got some ideas in the works that will put some of my theories to the test. See you on YouTube.
A Repetition of Procrastination --
We seem to do this every year now without fail. Our output seems to consist of doing one real project a year with one or two other shorts (moreso if you include the Team Internet stuff Derek does with his other friends) randomly assorted sometime around that one project. Not an ideal situation if you're trying to break into the whole film business and/or build up a portfolio for graduate school. Since forming The Breakfast Machine about three years ago we've made some films that really stood out amongst our friends, but for the most part I feel like I haven't been contributing as much as I should be.
It's just hard to find motivation sometimes, especially when you're working with such outdated, low-budget equipment. We're pretty much reliant on natural lighting and in-camera audio - which, if you've ever worked with a low-end Hi-8 camcorder, you know is a pretty crappy way to do things. Sometimes it can be hard to get the right shots because of technical limitations. And then there's the lack of good actors. Somehow between the main four of us (myself, Mari, Derek, and Tommy) we don't really know too many people who are willing to be in front of the camera, let alone take on a starring role. We wind up having to be in our own films, which can be somewhat difficult if you're also trying to direct or otherwise view things semi-objectively.
So follows the same repetition of our workflow for 2008, although this time we started a lot later (we usually try to finish a film before spring so we can submit it to our college's film festival), and we're looking at completing two seperate projects. The first, naturally, is Purgatory, a short I wrote sometime last year and never got around to completing due to changes in my housing situation and because I kept altering the script. The second is an adaptation of Raymond Chandler's short story, Pearls are a Nuisance, which I read in The Simple Art of Murder this past spring. This past weekend Derek and I spent most of the afternoon discussing ways to both modernize and adapt the story in a way that we'd be able to do it, and we even found a radio show of it from 1945 (check it out here).
To top things off, since it's The Breakfast Machine's third anniversary we're trying to (finally) get a logo and start up a website so we can look official and maybe begin to take our group in the direction of a real business. It's something I've been dreaming of since our inception, and it's not unreasonable to think that we can succeed in this field so long as we put our minds and talents together and, most importantly, focus.
Status Reports --
In terms of the actual projects themselves, everything is moving at a decent pace. I'm in the middle of rewriting the Purgatory script (how many times have I said that though?) and two scenes for the as-of-yet untitled Pearls adaptation are finished. The former we can technically start shooting anytime, since I already have the scenes planned out and most of the dialogue can be improvised; it's a technique we've used more than once (see Apt. 309 for a good example). As for the other, we need to start planning out locations, making sure all of our friends and fellow crewmembers are on-board, and finalize the story. It's not that hard when you're working with pre-made material, but when it's from the 1930s-1940s it's a bit of a challenge trying to adapt it so it easily translates to modern times without completely overhauling everything.
Really we've just begun, so hopefully I can motivate myself by posting periodic updates and perhaps some screenshots from the work we'll be doing. Until then...
One thing that's been missing from this film blog has been reviews of the films I've been watching lately. I mean, if my resolution is to watch 120 new movies during the course of the year, I'm bound to come across a lot of good, bad, and horrendously terrible films. Why shouldn't I have something to say about them? After all, with a B.A. in Film & Digital Media I should be thinking critically, analytically, and serioously about each and every film I come across. And so begins the monthly series I've named "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly", after one of my favorite westerns (as if you couldn't decipher that on your own, right?).
Here are the rules: (1) You don't talk about GBU; (2) You do talk about movies seen during the month; (3) Pick three movies, one that was good, one that wasn't so great, and one that was just plain crap; (4) Explain why the movie was awesome or why it sucked; (5) Rinse and repeat once a month. Shall we begin the first session?
The GOOD: Surf's Up (2007) --
First off, the decision to stage the film as a pseudo-documentary/mockumentary was one that - as far as I've seen - hasn't been done in a mainstream animated film. This style not only makes the film a little more engaging for viewers - with handheld camera movements and the ability for characters to break fourth-wall conventions and seemingly interact with the audience - but also allows for a greater degree of freedom when it comes to character development. And the characters in Surf's Up, while sometimes cliche for a movie of this kind, are pretty nicely developed through this method. Of course, one problem with the use of documentary aesthetic is that sometimes there's no real excuse for the camera to be there, and some scenes certainly lose the feel of authenticity because of it.
Another thing that struck me about the film was the incredible quality of the visuals. Water is always hard to texture and animate in a CGI film because there's just so much random movement and fluidity that it's easy to gloss over and forget about. But when you're dealing with a film about surfing penguins then you really can't ignore the water effects, and I have to say, I have yet to see better water effects in an animated film or video game. The other textures were also beautifully done, as were the characters and their movements. A definite nod to the animators for their attention to detail.
Overall, Surf's Up is quite a stand-out film in the growing field of 3D animated films that have become popular in the US since Toy Story (1995) was released. It's perfect for younger audiences but has enough general appeal to satisfy practically anyone. I have not been impressed by a CGI film since The Incredibles (2004), and I'm always glad to see 3D animation done in a way that doesn't totally tank (cough, Matrix Reloaded, cough).
The BAD: Suicide Circle (a.k.a. Suicide Club) (2002) --
Don't get me wrong, the film is actually fairly well made, utilizing a lot of hand-held camera movements and long takes to really suck you in, and the conventions I mentioned above really fit with the creepy story (I mean, it's people killing themselves in huge waves). The social commentary is also quite apparent, given that Japan has a huge problem with suicide. However, much of the real power of the film is lost due to the lack of both sense and closure. And, from what I've read, the sequel - Noriko's Dinner Table (2006) - doesn't quite fill the void.
It's funny, but when my girlfriend and I talked about it afterward, I realized that Suicide Club is a lot like Haruki Murakami's After Dark: the writing is great, the characters are all interesting and well-developed, and the plot is fairly riveting, but by the end you realize the entire thing throws itself off the cliff before reaching the summit (actually, that seems to be a suitable metaphor for this movie). It's more unfortunate than it is bad really, which is why it's the Bad for June, as opposed to the Ugly.
The UGLY: The Forbidden Kingdom (2008) --
The plot of the film is pretty much a carbon copy of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles III (1993), in which the protagonist of the film, some kung-fu obsessed white kid from the mean streets of contemporary Boston, discovers the legendary staff of the Monkey King, Sun Wukong, is an old Chinatown pawn shop and gets sent back in time to a mythical Tang Dynasty China. There, he is made to fulfill the quest of returning the staff to its rightful owner, and along the way is joined by a drunken scholar (Jackie Chan) and a monk (Jet Li). Oh, and the beautiful-but-deadly young female who - obviously - the white kid starts to fall for. I don't know about you, but I certainly see how the Hollywood power-play comes into effect here: when you're billing this as a film starring two of the world's most famous martial arts superstars, why include a character who has absolutely no business in the story? And to top it off, why make him the only white kid in the film? As opposed to what you might think, there weren't many Caucasians running around China in the Tang Dynasty, let alone speaking English.
Another thing I'm mad about is how badly all of the actors seem to be in this film. With such stars as Jackie Chan, Jet Li, and even Colin Chou you'd expect The Forbidden Kingdom to at least showcase their acting abilities in a well-developed manner. But no, they all continue to be placed in horribly stereotypical roles - Chan with his silly, drunken master role, Li with his unsmiling and serious monk role (though his Sun Wukong is funny to watch), and Chou as the make-up wearing bad guy who sounds "right out of a comic book", as Jim Kelly would put it. Naturally, the white kid's acting is also pretty bland.
I could go on and on about all the other little things I disliked about The Forbidden Kingdom, but instead I'll end my review with a positive note. This is probably one of the few Hollywood films that does martial arts action in a good way. Naturally, whenever you have Yuen Woo-Ping it's a good thing, but the director seemed to allow him, Chan, and Li a lot of freedom in terms of the fight scenes, which are face-paced and beautifully choreographed. While that may be the saving grace for some, like my friend Derek, it's not enough for me to consider this film good by any means.
The WRAP-UP --
That's all for this month's installment of the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. It wasn't too difficult picking from this month's films (head over to my 43 Things or All Consuming page to see what else I watched), although for a moment I considered replacing The Forbidden Kingdom with Troll 2 (1990). Although universally considered one of the worst films of all time, Troll 2 does have one saving grace: it's downright hilarious, which is more than I can say for The Forbidden Kingdom. Anyway, I need to get started on watching my ten films for July. I've been downloading a ton of Asian films lately so my list will probably be pretty centered around them. Until next month!
My Groups
-
Filmmaking Updated: 5 hours ago
-
Coffee Updated: 5 days ago
Neighborhood
Explore friends, family, friends & family, or entire neighborhood.
