(no subject)
Jun. 16th, 2017 10:00 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkat1. I found myself agreeing in part with this assessment of The Josh Whedon Wonder Woman Script by the Mary Sue.
Except, I'm starting to think during various discussions with people about various topics...that we don't necessarily define words or concepts in the same way, and people have different perspectives based on background, etc.
For example? Years ago I had a lengthy discourse on the nature of the human soul on my journal, or rather it was a lengthy discourse on what the term soul actually meant. Because no one agreed or defined the story the same way.
Here, I think...it's possible not to see Whedon's script as either sexist or misogynistic and see that he may well be commenting on it and our societal view of it. Which he's been doing in various ways in his work for quite some time -- commenting on it. Whedon's work tends to have a meta-narrative element, which many people don't realize, and often a satirical element, that many take literally. He is familiar with the comics and history, also how our world handles powerful women -- so he wrote his script through the point of view of a modern everyday male encountering a woman who is more powerful in many ways...and how does he deal with that? A question Whedon asks himself.
While the writers of the movie, made it more about the woman and less how she's viewed by society.
2. There's a fascinating podcast on SmartBitches about branding and why we read what we read, what attracts us to a novel. It's promoting a story anthology that doesn't reveal who wrote which story until September. And each author writes something in a genre or on a topic they've never written before or are uncomfortable with in some way.
What's interesting is it is a challenge to their readers. Because with genre readers, people tend to read one author whose style they like, or one genre. They don't tend to jump or take risks. So by requesting the author's take risks, their reader's do as well -- both jump outside the comfort zone.
Also the writers mention how unrecognizable some of their fellow writers works are -- style wise, they've changed their style.
Some writers can do this, some can't. Like some actor's can do it, some can't. For example? Cary Grant was always playing well Cary Grant. But Dustin Hoffman is often unrecognizable. You always tend to know it is Elizabeth Taylor, but Meryl Streep disappears in her roles.
They mention a "No Name" series that Louisa May Alcott wrote for, and in 1911, there was a concert series that works were presented anonymously.
I think it is harder to be anonymous on the internet. Though in a way by adopting an pseudonym, we are doing that here, aren't we? I feel freer here under my internet name, than under my real one on Twitter or Facebook or Good Reads. Here...I can say and write things with less...worry, somehow.
Except, I'm starting to think during various discussions with people about various topics...that we don't necessarily define words or concepts in the same way, and people have different perspectives based on background, etc.
For example? Years ago I had a lengthy discourse on the nature of the human soul on my journal, or rather it was a lengthy discourse on what the term soul actually meant. Because no one agreed or defined the story the same way.
Here, I think...it's possible not to see Whedon's script as either sexist or misogynistic and see that he may well be commenting on it and our societal view of it. Which he's been doing in various ways in his work for quite some time -- commenting on it. Whedon's work tends to have a meta-narrative element, which many people don't realize, and often a satirical element, that many take literally. He is familiar with the comics and history, also how our world handles powerful women -- so he wrote his script through the point of view of a modern everyday male encountering a woman who is more powerful in many ways...and how does he deal with that? A question Whedon asks himself.
While the writers of the movie, made it more about the woman and less how she's viewed by society.
2. There's a fascinating podcast on SmartBitches about branding and why we read what we read, what attracts us to a novel. It's promoting a story anthology that doesn't reveal who wrote which story until September. And each author writes something in a genre or on a topic they've never written before or are uncomfortable with in some way.
What's interesting is it is a challenge to their readers. Because with genre readers, people tend to read one author whose style they like, or one genre. They don't tend to jump or take risks. So by requesting the author's take risks, their reader's do as well -- both jump outside the comfort zone.
Also the writers mention how unrecognizable some of their fellow writers works are -- style wise, they've changed their style.
Some writers can do this, some can't. Like some actor's can do it, some can't. For example? Cary Grant was always playing well Cary Grant. But Dustin Hoffman is often unrecognizable. You always tend to know it is Elizabeth Taylor, but Meryl Streep disappears in her roles.
They mention a "No Name" series that Louisa May Alcott wrote for, and in 1911, there was a concert series that works were presented anonymously.
I think it is harder to be anonymous on the internet. Though in a way by adopting an pseudonym, we are doing that here, aren't we? I feel freer here under my internet name, than under my real one on Twitter or Facebook or Good Reads. Here...I can say and write things with less...worry, somehow.
no subject
Date: 2017-06-19 07:39 pm (UTC)My own contribution was that it allowed for indirect language about sex. This occurred to me because I was reading fanfic at the time where the author even called mocking attention to the fact that the terms and form of discussion about it hadn't been heard outside of an 18th century novel. And I suddenly realized that you just couldn't do that in a contemporary novel. Well, I mean, you could but really it would seem so absurd and pretentious and completely unlike how you know men actually discuss it.
Oh I agree about other genres, and I wasn't even thinking of romances when I wrote that. In fact I was thinking of fantasy TV shows. And I expect that it's for a similar reason, which is not enough time to get stories done properly. I understand that writer's rooms are not common for British TV shows but they also are scheduled in a very different way (not just shorter seasons but also longer shooting times), and they often begin with the entire season already written.
Regarding fantasy tv shows..
Date: 2017-06-19 10:56 pm (UTC)Regarding sex in romance novels?
Eh, the one's I'm reading have graphic sex. And their euphemisms are similar to fanfic, some better, some worse. There's less of it, sex, I mean in the historical than contemporary. Also it takes much longer for them to have sex -- more build up. The contemporary tend to be "kinky" sex and often, rough sex or seduction - rape. More so than the historical. Also the writer's get bored and start doing weird things with sex...like toys, bondage, spanking, three-somes, etc. Or repetitive. And the language is well ...somewhat funny, in how crude it is in contemporary novels.
That's not to say historical writers don't write that too. They do. But usually it's not as casual or sex just for sex's sake. They occasionally will have it out of wedlock in a historical...which just doesn't quite work for that time period. I keep wondering why the heroine hasn't had a kid yet.
You can't really generalize about the genre as much you think, I've pretty much seen everything. But, Regency's due tend to be rather tame. I don't really like the Regency novels, they bore me. I can't read Georgette Heyer, who is the Queen of the Regency, but sucked at dialogue, and has no sex in her books. Reading Heyer is like reading a rip off of Jane Austen. Rather read Jane Austen.
I prefer the non-Regency's which are the other periods, that have sex in them, and often a plot -- such as mystery, or a conflict outside of the misunderstanding.
Re: Regarding fantasy tv shows..
Date: 2017-06-19 11:50 pm (UTC)I keep wondering why the heroine hasn't had a kid yet.
That made me laugh because it's so true. Amazingly in historical romances, no one gets a prolapsed uterus from excessive childbirth.
Re: Regarding fantasy tv shows..
Date: 2017-06-20 01:08 am (UTC)Looked up Sense8 on Wiki, because I was worried the Whispers/Will situation didn't get resolved in S2. (It does). I didn't spoil myself on anything else.
But found out how they came up with it and how long it took them to develop it. They took it to HBO first, but they didn't understand the concept.
According to the Wachowskis, the origins of Sense8 date back several years before the announcement of the show to "a late-night conversation about the ways technology simultaneously unites and divides us".[32] Straczynski recalls that when the Wachowskis decided to create their first series, because of Straczynski's extensive experience working with the format, Lana chose to invite him to her house in San Francisco to brainstorm ideas together.[31][33] Both the Wachowskis and Straczynski agreed that if they were to do a television series, they wanted to attempt something that "nobody had done before",[34] and change the "vocabulary for television production" the same way The Matrix became a major influence for action movies.[35] After several days of discussion they decided on creating a show that would explore the relationship between empathy and evolution in the human race, and whose story would be told in a global scale, necessitating filming on location in several countries over the world, in contrast to the standard production model for television which attempts to limit or fake that as much as possible.[31][36] A source of inspiration for Straczynski was his own experience concerning friends of his who live in different parts of the world but coordinate to watch a movie at the same time and comment to each other online about it.
The trio became so excited with the concept they came up with, they decided to do initial development on their own instead of pitching it to someone else.[31] The Wachowskis wrote three hour-long spec scripts,[39] and together with Straczynski attempted to shop them around, such as at Warner Bros. and HBO,[40] but when they saw that nobody could understand the concept they decided to shelve it.[36] A few years later, when they felt that the landscape of television had become friendlier towards more experimental concepts, they decided to pitch it a second time.[36] On October 2, 2012, Variety first reported the existence of the show, by writing that the Wachowskis, with the help of Straczynski's Studio JMS and Georgeville Television, would be shopping Sense8 around Los Angeles the week to follow.[39] If the series was picked up, the sisters and Straczynski would be sharing showrunner duties. Additionally, the Wachowskis were planning to direct a few episodes of the show if their schedule permitted it. According to Straczynski, the first meeting with potential buyers was with Netflix. The Wachowskis and Straczynski talked to them about subjects such as gender, identity, secrecy and privacy.[41] According to Lana they pitched shooting on location all over the globe to which Netflix responded favorably, which was in contrast to the "clearly impossible" response they had received by other outlets during their earlier abortive attempt.[40] They also told Netflix they were only interested if they had the freedom to "do anything", like "crazy psychic orgies with all sorts of different bodies" and "live births even" to which Netflix also responded positively.[42] After the end of the meeting, despite it having seemingly gone well,[31] they worried they had made a mistake because they had not pitched any action or otherwise commercial aspects.[41] By noon, and before they had the chance to pitch it to other outlets, such as HBO,[35] Netflix called them to preemptively offer to buy and produce the first season.[31] Netflix announced that they had ordered a 10-episode first season for the series on March 27, 2013.[32] Later, during filming,[43] because of the density of the scripts and the extended length of the first cut of the first episode, the showrunners and Netflix came to an agreement to extend the season to 12 episodes.[33]
Before filming began, Straczynski and the Wachowskis mapped out five seasons worth of stories for the series,[33] including the series' final episode, similarly to what Straczynski had previously done on his Babylon 5 series.[44] The actors cast were signed for five seasons. "We pitched it as a five-year story. We've mapped out five seasons of this thing, our actor deals are being made for five seasons, five or six depending on the breaks", said Straczynski.[45] The first season acts as the origin story for the characters.[46] When asked how long is their story bible, Straczynski replied "It's in our heads".[41] However, Straczynski did compile a 30-page document detailing the key points of a hypothetical second season should the first season become a success.[47]
I wish it hadn't been cancelled. It's weird, series like Grey's and Supernatural, where the writers don't plan at all and have no character bible or pre-plotted stories, last forever, while series that are pre-plotted, with extensive character bibles, which take big risks, don't. Frustrating. But Sense8 cost about $4M per episode. While Supernatural costs more like $400,000 per episode if that.
Re: Regarding fantasy tv shows..
Date: 2017-06-20 03:04 pm (UTC)A source of inspiration for Straczynski was his own experience concerning friends of his who live in different parts of the world but coordinate to watch a movie at the same time and comment to each other online about it.
Heh, so this is inspired by online fandom, especially since it sounds like they came up with this around 2009. I've always found it so underreported or acknowledged how online fandom has been having a pressuring effect on the way that entertainment is released globally.
I wonder if Straczynski will create books with the remaining seasons for Sens8?
Re: Regarding fantasy tv shows..
Date: 2017-06-20 05:14 pm (UTC)The more simplistic and careless a show is, the easier it is to write for (and possibly produce). Plus, a lot of people prefer TV they don't have to follow closely or think about so it tends to repeat well. I generally think that the number of characters in a show is often indicative of how well it's received -- the fewer there are the easier it is to keep track of the storyline and the more people will occasionally watch it
So true. True of books as well...just look at most of the best-seller list and the popularity of James Patterson. I get it. And I know a lot of people, including my parents, who prefer that in a way...in television shows not so much books. You don't have to think, you don't have to work that hard, and it's a nice escape.
The only shows that have had multiple characters that have last multiple seasons tend to be hospital dramas, where the focus is often on the case of the week, and people come and go, or the police procedural drama like NCIS, again where the focus is on the case of the week, and one season is interchangeable with the last one, as are the writers.
Also genre plays a role, the more expensive the show, the harder to maintain. And fantasy/sci-fi is more expensive than something like NCIS or Grey's Anatomy (both going into 13 or 14 seasons and counting, and at the top of the ratings). Sci-fi also appeals to a narrow or nitch audience, so there's that as well. And that audience often prefers violent horror/action to what Sense8 is.
I can see why it got cancelled.
Which is one big reason why the success of Game of Thrones has been such an anomaly.
Well, GoT had a few things that Sense8 didn't. 1) a ready-made audience or fandom going into it. The book fandom is huge. The books were best-sellers prior to the series getting made. 2) a best-selling book series that it was adapted from, with the original creator/writer of the books a co-executive producer, who wrote two or three of the episodes.
You can't beat that. It's why Lord of the Rings got made and had that audience. The marketing campaign just writes itself. And you can do cross-promotion.
Add to this that GoT is a violent, fantasy series aimed at heterosexual men and to some degree women. Specifically those who like historical war epics, with macho characters, and political intrigue -- a very popular trope. It's actually a "mainstream" fantasy series. Very few monsters, more realistic, fantasy for the mainstream audience who doesn't usually like fantasy shows or books. Oh and zombies and dragons, which are crowd-pleasures. Plus sexual violence, and graphic fight scenes. But few if any consensual or loving sex scenes, very little gay or lesbian sex.
While Sense8 was very cult, very risky, and promoted things and ideas that would make a mainstream audience uncomfortable. Sad but true.
I wonder if Straczynski will create books with the remaining seasons for Sens8?
Oh, I hope so. I'd read them. I may have to hunt down fanfic after I finish S2. There's a couple of characters playing with my head at the moment.