(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.
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.