If a writer is constantly offering fan service and shaping the plot to satisfy the demands of the message boards and blogs, then I think a story can suffer greatly.
Agreed. This happens a lot in regards to daytime soap operas in the US. (that and the fact that they set up dreaded focus groups.) It often kills storylines. And is why soaps get a bad name - because everyone knows that writers cater a bit to the fans, more so than in primetime or night time series.
Re: a writer who ignores the audience completely and follows his or her muse wherever it may lead runs the risk of completely alienating the audience, or even offending them. If you're only producing art for art's sake, you might be willing to do that anyway, even if only one person in a thousand appreciates what you're doing. But people like Joss aren't artists, they're entertainers....
Excellent point and well articulated. There is a huge difference between a TV series and a book.
To a degree, much of this is dictated by networks, advertisers, and ratings. For example there was an episode in Angel that the network instructed Whedon and Greenwalt to rewrite and change, because it contained "objectionable" material. In S7 - the network told Whedon no more digs at fast food jobs, they were losing advertisers. Also ratings dictated the break-up of B/A (when they were happy the ratings dived, when they were split up and angsty, the ratings climbed.) Ratings also to a degree saved characters such as Angel and Spike, who would have been killed in S2 permanently.
Fans affected the Spike/Buffy story in part by their vehement protest of any sexual relationship after Seeing Red (made the writers ambivalent as a result) and the Willow arc - the writers had intended to make Willow bi-sexual, but the fan protest regarding Tara's death, alterred that. Fans and ratings are the reason we got the Buffy/Angel cross-overs, particularly in the last season - when the writers saw the shows as completely separate. And fans kept Xander alive.
Regarding Xander/Dawn - I think part of that might be the age difference. In May 2003 Michelle Trachtenberg was 17 and Nicholas Brendon was 32, almost twice her age (a 15-year gap).
This is interesting...because Charisma Carpenter (Cordelia) and Vincent Karthesier (Connor) had similar issues. Carpenter was 32 at the time, Karthesier 17. She was also pregnant. In reality - Cordelia was Xander's age - 21/22 and Connor was well 16. Their age difference was no different than Xander's and Dawn's. Same deal with Dawn and Spike - they separated the two characters b/c the writers were squicked by the on-screen chemistry. Marsters was 38 or 39 at the time, while Trachenburg was close to 17. Technically speaking it was no different than Angel and Buffy. Except DB was 26, when Gellar was 17.
Xander/Dawn doesn't bother me in that way. But I can see why it would bug Brendan - it's amusing that it bugs him for the same reasons Connor/Cordy bugged Charisma, and Dawn/Spike bugged the writers.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2009-11-11 05:30 pm (UTC)Agreed. This happens a lot in regards to daytime soap operas in the US. (that and the fact that they set up dreaded focus groups.) It often kills storylines.
And is why soaps get a bad name - because everyone knows that writers cater a bit to the fans, more so than in primetime or night time series.
Re: a writer who ignores the audience completely and follows his or her muse wherever it may lead runs the risk of completely alienating the audience, or even offending them. If you're only producing art for art's sake, you might be willing to do that anyway, even if only one person in a thousand appreciates what you're doing. But people like Joss aren't artists, they're entertainers....
Excellent point and well articulated. There is a huge difference between a TV series and a book.
To a degree, much of this is dictated by networks, advertisers, and ratings. For example there was an episode in Angel that the network instructed Whedon and Greenwalt to rewrite and change, because it contained "objectionable" material. In S7 - the network told Whedon no more digs at fast food jobs, they were losing advertisers. Also ratings dictated
the break-up of B/A (when they were happy the ratings dived, when they were split up and angsty, the ratings climbed.) Ratings also to a degree saved characters such as Angel and Spike, who would have been killed in S2 permanently.
Fans affected the Spike/Buffy story in part by their vehement protest of any sexual relationship after Seeing Red (made the writers ambivalent as a result)
and the Willow arc - the writers had intended to make Willow bi-sexual, but the fan protest regarding Tara's death, alterred that. Fans and ratings are the reason we got the Buffy/Angel cross-overs, particularly in the last season - when the writers saw the shows as completely separate. And fans kept Xander alive.
Regarding Xander/Dawn - I think part of that might be the age difference. In May 2003 Michelle Trachtenberg was 17 and Nicholas Brendon was 32, almost twice her age (a 15-year gap).
This is interesting...because Charisma Carpenter (Cordelia) and Vincent Karthesier (Connor) had similar issues. Carpenter was 32 at the time, Karthesier 17.
She was also pregnant. In reality - Cordelia was Xander's age - 21/22 and Connor was well 16. Their age difference was no different than Xander's and Dawn's.
Same deal with Dawn and Spike - they separated the two characters b/c the writers were squicked by the on-screen chemistry. Marsters was 38 or 39 at the time, while Trachenburg was close to 17. Technically speaking it was no different than Angel and Buffy.
Except DB was 26, when Gellar was 17.
Xander/Dawn doesn't bother me in that way. But I can see why it would bug Brendan - it's amusing that it bugs him for the same reasons Connor/Cordy bugged Charisma, and Dawn/Spike bugged the writers.