I figured that after "50 Shades of Gray" became a success, we'd get more attempts to monetize fanfiction, but I didn't see this latest one coming. Kindle and Amazon Publishing announced today that they're going to offer a service called Kindle Worlds, that will publish fanfiction for certain licensed properties. Submissions will be vetted to ensure that they follow a set of content guidelines (no erotica, no crossovers, etc.) and that they measure up to some baseline of quality. Authors won't get to retain the rights to their work, but they will get a cut of royalties, either 20 or 35% depending on the length of the story. It's a smaller percentage than they would for get for self-publishing original material through Amazon, where the cut is around 70%.
Still, the idea of making any money at all through writing amateur fanfiction is a big change in how the fan community has traditionally operated. It used to be a cardinal rule that you never, ever monetized fanfiction, because that would be stepping on the toes of the original content creators, and their right to create derivative works like sequels and spinoffs. Now three Warner Brothers television shows aimed at young women, "Vampire Diaries," "Gossip Girl," and "Pretty Little Liars" are the first franchises to grant licenses to create legal fanfiction for sale though the Kindle Worlds platform. There have been officially sanctioned fanfiction and other fanworks for quite a few different properties over the years, particularly for contests, but this is the first time I've heard of anyone granting permission to go try and make a profit with them.
Now, is this a good thing for fandom? As always, it's very hard to say. The big worry is that if Amazon and Kindle do make money with this service, they'll have a better argument that non-licensed fanfic is infringing, and be more motivated take steps to shut down everyone else's fanfiction that isn't being written for profit. The worst case scenario is that your "Vampire Diaries" fanfiction, posted on Tumblr or Archive of Our Own, becomes viewed as a competing product, and suddenly there's going to be a real incentive to end the benign neglect that has allowed the fanfiction community to flourish online over the years. However, the argument can be made that it's in the best interest of the properties involved to keep turning a blind eye. Fanworks essentially operate as free advertising, and they're a part of the fandom experience that has become much more visible and accepted over the years. Also, enforcement has always been notoriously difficult, and risks alienating fans.
Fanfiction writers aren't the only ones who are going to be affected. A couple of years ago, I remember there was a notorious published author who would write up these spectacular, hyperbolic tirades against the existence of fanfiction. Lots of people poked fun at him, especially since his name was on several tie-in novels for television shows. Tie-in novels and fanfiction are essentially the same thing, except that tie-in novels are licensed and they're written by professionals. If Amazon and Kindle can start making money off of work that's being generated by amateurs, and get away with paying them less, where does that leave the pros? A lot of notable science-fiction writers depend on the money from tie-ins to keep them going during lean periods. Is the market for this kind of work still going to exist after legal fanfiction? The delineation between fanfic and pro-fic is going to get even blurrier.
Of course, this is all assuming that Kindle Worlds is going to take off, which is not certain at all. Fanfiction has been around for a long, long, time, and the readership is used to getting it for free. The culture around it has often been strongly anti-commercial, and that may be difficult to change. Personally, I can't imagine paying for fanfiction, especially the kind of safe, friendly fanfiction that Amazon and Kindle seem to be the most interested in. I prefer all the subversive, weirdo, boundary-crossing stuff that would never make it into print in a million years. As far as I'm concerned, that's the appeal of these amateur stories.
I may be the exception though. The nature of media fandom has changed considerably since I first got involved, over a decade ago. Fanfiction is slowly but surely becoming more legitimate content, and eventually people are going to find ways to use it to make money. Kindle Worlds may not be successful, but it's a pretty bold idea. Unlike past efforts, such as the short-lived for-profit Fanlib Archive, Amazon and Kindle are actively addressing some of those thorny legal issues and they're willing to share a piece of the revenues too. I never thought I'd ever see this happen.
Kindle Worlds launches in June.
---
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
"Doctor Who" Prepares For a Milestone
Spoilers ahead for the latest season of "Doctor Who."
The much-anticipated 50th anniversary of "Doctor Who" is coming up in November, and a star-studded special has been commissioned to mark the happy occasion. This most recent series of "Doctor Who," however, particularly the back half that featured Jenna-Louise Coleman as the newest Companion, Clara Oswald, often felt too much like it was setting things up for the big event. There was a lot of time talking up the big, plotty mysteries and series mythology, and not as much on the individual adventures. I liked fewer episodes this series, and didn't feel like I'd gotten to know Clara very well, but whenever we have any kind of format change on "Doctor Who," that's normal in my experience. I didn't like Amy much until Rory became a regular companion, and the last two Doctors each took nearly an entire series each to grow on me.
It wasn't a bad stretch of episodes at all, though understandably not as emotionally charged as the goodbye tour of the Ponds that came before it. My favorites included "The Bells of Saint John," "Journey to the Centre of the TARDIS" and "The Crimson Horror." "The Name of the Doctor," which left us on a big cliffhanger going into the special, was kind of a mess, but also a really fun and tense installment that neatly answered all the questions about Clara and will hopefully give her character a chance to grow from here on out. It's not that Jenna-Louise Coleman isn't doing a perfectly good job, but there really hasn't been much to Clara except being "The Impossible Girl." I'd like to see her given more substance, or at least her current situation as a live-in nanny fleshed out more. The point of Clara may be that she's ordinary, but she shouldn't feel so generic.
Matt Smith continues to impress. He's gotten so well situated into the role of the Eleventh Doctor, that I'm having trouble imagining anyone else in the role now. I've really grown to like this version of the character, who can get emotional and dark and lose control of himself, but there's always something a little otherworldly and a little inhuman about him. Where the David Tennant and Christopher Eccleston Doctors were very good, they always seemed to be very advanced humans instead of truly alien creatures. There's something about Smith that is always off-kilter in just the right way to remind us that he's an alien being doing his best impression of a human, and not the genuine article. And even though he's the youngest actor to play the part, he comes across as having a much higher mileage on him. He's the only reason that some of the weaker scripts worked this year.
This series also brought to the forefront a trio of new sidekicks who won me over in a very short time: the reptilian Silurian detective, Madame Vastra (Neve McIntosh), her plucky wife Jenny (Catrin Stewart), and their butler Strax (Dan Starkey), the potato-shaped Sontaran warrior. The three of them have been hanging out in Victorian England, meeting up with the Doctor whenever he happens to be in their time period. Aside from Madame Vastra, I don't remember how these characters were introduced, but they make for wonderful secondary heroes, and Strax is especially good comic relief. I love that he continually screws up genders and still retains a love for carnage that keeps getting him scolded. I've been hoping for a little more variety in companions, and this is the next best thing. I'm firmly with those who have been calling for a spinoff series to feature this trio.
Disappointments? There weren't any major ones that stuck out on the level of some of the episodes from previous series and previous Doctors. I can't point to anything specific that outright failed, but a few things I was hoping would be really exceptional, turned out to be just all right. The Neil Gaiman episode with Warwick Davis and the Cybermen? All right. Richard E. Grant as this year's Big Bad, the Great Intelligence? Sorely underused, but all right. The return of Alex Kingston's mysterious River Song? All right. The mystery of The Impossible Girl? Fine. It's likely that the anniversary special is going to turn out the same way, even with the promised appearances of so many past actors plus a bonus John Hurt.
However, I've got to say that I'm really impressed with where Stephen Moffat left us with the big cliffhanger. It may end up being a tease, as so many of these things are, but there's the potential for some really serious delving into the show's mythology coming our way. Even if the special in November doesn't deliver, it'll be fun to watch them try. And I'm happily attached enough to this particularly grouping of characters that I don't mind if we hit a few more bumps in the road going forward.
---
The much-anticipated 50th anniversary of "Doctor Who" is coming up in November, and a star-studded special has been commissioned to mark the happy occasion. This most recent series of "Doctor Who," however, particularly the back half that featured Jenna-Louise Coleman as the newest Companion, Clara Oswald, often felt too much like it was setting things up for the big event. There was a lot of time talking up the big, plotty mysteries and series mythology, and not as much on the individual adventures. I liked fewer episodes this series, and didn't feel like I'd gotten to know Clara very well, but whenever we have any kind of format change on "Doctor Who," that's normal in my experience. I didn't like Amy much until Rory became a regular companion, and the last two Doctors each took nearly an entire series each to grow on me.
It wasn't a bad stretch of episodes at all, though understandably not as emotionally charged as the goodbye tour of the Ponds that came before it. My favorites included "The Bells of Saint John," "Journey to the Centre of the TARDIS" and "The Crimson Horror." "The Name of the Doctor," which left us on a big cliffhanger going into the special, was kind of a mess, but also a really fun and tense installment that neatly answered all the questions about Clara and will hopefully give her character a chance to grow from here on out. It's not that Jenna-Louise Coleman isn't doing a perfectly good job, but there really hasn't been much to Clara except being "The Impossible Girl." I'd like to see her given more substance, or at least her current situation as a live-in nanny fleshed out more. The point of Clara may be that she's ordinary, but she shouldn't feel so generic.
Matt Smith continues to impress. He's gotten so well situated into the role of the Eleventh Doctor, that I'm having trouble imagining anyone else in the role now. I've really grown to like this version of the character, who can get emotional and dark and lose control of himself, but there's always something a little otherworldly and a little inhuman about him. Where the David Tennant and Christopher Eccleston Doctors were very good, they always seemed to be very advanced humans instead of truly alien creatures. There's something about Smith that is always off-kilter in just the right way to remind us that he's an alien being doing his best impression of a human, and not the genuine article. And even though he's the youngest actor to play the part, he comes across as having a much higher mileage on him. He's the only reason that some of the weaker scripts worked this year.
This series also brought to the forefront a trio of new sidekicks who won me over in a very short time: the reptilian Silurian detective, Madame Vastra (Neve McIntosh), her plucky wife Jenny (Catrin Stewart), and their butler Strax (Dan Starkey), the potato-shaped Sontaran warrior. The three of them have been hanging out in Victorian England, meeting up with the Doctor whenever he happens to be in their time period. Aside from Madame Vastra, I don't remember how these characters were introduced, but they make for wonderful secondary heroes, and Strax is especially good comic relief. I love that he continually screws up genders and still retains a love for carnage that keeps getting him scolded. I've been hoping for a little more variety in companions, and this is the next best thing. I'm firmly with those who have been calling for a spinoff series to feature this trio.
Disappointments? There weren't any major ones that stuck out on the level of some of the episodes from previous series and previous Doctors. I can't point to anything specific that outright failed, but a few things I was hoping would be really exceptional, turned out to be just all right. The Neil Gaiman episode with Warwick Davis and the Cybermen? All right. Richard E. Grant as this year's Big Bad, the Great Intelligence? Sorely underused, but all right. The return of Alex Kingston's mysterious River Song? All right. The mystery of The Impossible Girl? Fine. It's likely that the anniversary special is going to turn out the same way, even with the promised appearances of so many past actors plus a bonus John Hurt.
However, I've got to say that I'm really impressed with where Stephen Moffat left us with the big cliffhanger. It may end up being a tease, as so many of these things are, but there's the potential for some really serious delving into the show's mythology coming our way. Even if the special in November doesn't deliver, it'll be fun to watch them try. And I'm happily attached enough to this particularly grouping of characters that I don't mind if we hit a few more bumps in the road going forward.
---
Monday, May 20, 2013
Why I Don't Use Tumblr
Big news over the weekend. Yahoo has announced a deal to acquire social networking site Tumblr for over a billion dollars. They see it as a great new platform for selling ad space, a move that is probably going to make its core user base unhappy, including a significant chunk of media fans who use it to share various contributions. However, I'm fairly ambivalent towards this news because I never got into Tumblr, though not for the lack of trying.
I think I may have fallen victim to a generation gap of sorts. When I was really active in media fandoms, the major activity was fanfiction, and the bulk of fandom interaction was centered around message boards, mailing lists, private sites, and finally some of the social networking platforms, specifically Livejournal. I migrated from one platform to another over the years without many problems. Then, a couple of years back, we saw a major shift from Livejournal to Tumblr, where the fanwork became more graphics based, centering around artwork, memes, icons, gifs, and videos. Tumblr, classified as a microblogger site, was great for sharing this kind of content, but I found it difficult to hold any kind of conversation there, and I couldn't make heads or tails of the navigation. Tumblr is closer to Pinterest or Twitter than a traditional blog, and it's all about finding similar content through various tags. While you can leave comments on individual items or posts, these can be difficult to follow from one to the next, and usually requires digging through a lot of links.
I think the appeal of Tumblr is that it's quick and simple to use, and participation is easy. A significant amount of user activity amounts to "reblogging," posting interesting items to your feed that other people have uploaded to Tumblr, the way people use Pinterest boards. This is easier to do with simpler fanworks like pictures than it is with multi-chapter fanfiction or long, involved, analytical discussions about the character development on "Doctor Who." A couple of months back, someone commented on my blog that I ought to be using Tumblr, because I'd get a much bigger audience that way. However, I don't think that Tumblr is a good fit for me, because my contributions are almost entirely text-based, and many of my posts run over a thousand words apiece. Tumblr is better suited for smaller, bite-sized chunks of text information, like quotes and snippets of chatlogs. There are plenty of other places and spaces online for the kind of fandom activities I prefer, the reviews and meta, which is why I've decided to stick to Blogger and Dreamwidth. I think if I were to use Tumblr, it would be similar to how I use Twitter. I'd just post links to my blog entries.
Initially it bothered me when Tumblr became so popular, and the Livejournal and Dreamwidth-based fandoms started to shrink. Sure, the blogs weren't the best places to have good discussions about media, but at least they were pretty good about attracting a significant number of likeminded fans to the same places, so they were worth keeping an eye on. The problem was, or course, that these little communities became insular very quickly, and there were high barriers to entry. If you didn't have a good grasp of writing or you weren't good at socializing, it was difficult to get involved. Tumblr removes or significantly lowers a lot of these barriers. You can follow the tags instead of specific users or carefully delineated communities, and you don't have to interact much in order to be an active user. The kind of Tumblr content that is the most popular often involves remixing or manipulation of existing media, activities that seem to be easier for younger fans to pick up. Tumblr is made for a different kind of media fan than the ones who prefers the older blogging sites, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Anything that keeps the fandom world going should be supported in my book.
I am a little bit worried about the Yahoo acquisition having an impact on the Tumblr fandom community. It's not the ads, but the potential changes in management and oversight of the content that may have the most negative impact. Fandom is notoriously anti-commercial because of the difficult IP issues that monetization usually brings up. Changes in ownership were among the major reasons that Livejournal and Delicious fandom user bases both fell apart. If the Tumblr-based fans move on, though, as fans inevitably do, my guess is that they're going to pick another microblogging service, since that's kind of interaction this group is used to now. Or they could pick something radically different. Even the people most heavily involved in fandom have no idea where fandom is going. That's what makes it so exciting to follow.
---
I think I may have fallen victim to a generation gap of sorts. When I was really active in media fandoms, the major activity was fanfiction, and the bulk of fandom interaction was centered around message boards, mailing lists, private sites, and finally some of the social networking platforms, specifically Livejournal. I migrated from one platform to another over the years without many problems. Then, a couple of years back, we saw a major shift from Livejournal to Tumblr, where the fanwork became more graphics based, centering around artwork, memes, icons, gifs, and videos. Tumblr, classified as a microblogger site, was great for sharing this kind of content, but I found it difficult to hold any kind of conversation there, and I couldn't make heads or tails of the navigation. Tumblr is closer to Pinterest or Twitter than a traditional blog, and it's all about finding similar content through various tags. While you can leave comments on individual items or posts, these can be difficult to follow from one to the next, and usually requires digging through a lot of links.
I think the appeal of Tumblr is that it's quick and simple to use, and participation is easy. A significant amount of user activity amounts to "reblogging," posting interesting items to your feed that other people have uploaded to Tumblr, the way people use Pinterest boards. This is easier to do with simpler fanworks like pictures than it is with multi-chapter fanfiction or long, involved, analytical discussions about the character development on "Doctor Who." A couple of months back, someone commented on my blog that I ought to be using Tumblr, because I'd get a much bigger audience that way. However, I don't think that Tumblr is a good fit for me, because my contributions are almost entirely text-based, and many of my posts run over a thousand words apiece. Tumblr is better suited for smaller, bite-sized chunks of text information, like quotes and snippets of chatlogs. There are plenty of other places and spaces online for the kind of fandom activities I prefer, the reviews and meta, which is why I've decided to stick to Blogger and Dreamwidth. I think if I were to use Tumblr, it would be similar to how I use Twitter. I'd just post links to my blog entries.
Initially it bothered me when Tumblr became so popular, and the Livejournal and Dreamwidth-based fandoms started to shrink. Sure, the blogs weren't the best places to have good discussions about media, but at least they were pretty good about attracting a significant number of likeminded fans to the same places, so they were worth keeping an eye on. The problem was, or course, that these little communities became insular very quickly, and there were high barriers to entry. If you didn't have a good grasp of writing or you weren't good at socializing, it was difficult to get involved. Tumblr removes or significantly lowers a lot of these barriers. You can follow the tags instead of specific users or carefully delineated communities, and you don't have to interact much in order to be an active user. The kind of Tumblr content that is the most popular often involves remixing or manipulation of existing media, activities that seem to be easier for younger fans to pick up. Tumblr is made for a different kind of media fan than the ones who prefers the older blogging sites, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Anything that keeps the fandom world going should be supported in my book.
I am a little bit worried about the Yahoo acquisition having an impact on the Tumblr fandom community. It's not the ads, but the potential changes in management and oversight of the content that may have the most negative impact. Fandom is notoriously anti-commercial because of the difficult IP issues that monetization usually brings up. Changes in ownership were among the major reasons that Livejournal and Delicious fandom user bases both fell apart. If the Tumblr-based fans move on, though, as fans inevitably do, my guess is that they're going to pick another microblogging service, since that's kind of interaction this group is used to now. Or they could pick something radically different. Even the people most heavily involved in fandom have no idea where fandom is going. That's what makes it so exciting to follow.
---
Sunday, May 19, 2013
Saying No to "The Dress"
The media has a major impact on certain parts of our lives in the way that it sets expectations and standards for our experiences. I ran across a show on TLC the other day that is a perfect example of this: "Say Yes to the Dress," a half-hour reality show about brides picking their wedding dresses. At first it looks harmless enough, akin to paging through a bridal magazine. Brides come in for appointments to try on dresses, model for the cameras, get advice from boutique employees on hand, and eventually comes the big moment: saying "yes" to a dress.
However, the further I got into the show, the more it made my blood boil. The featured fittings on these shows always become events, fraught with emotion and drama. Most of the brides drag large numbers of family and friends into the boutique with them. The unspoken assumption is that they can't settle for any old dress, but they need the perfect dress to make their big day truly special. Sure, lip service is paid to financial considerations, but all the dresses we see still cost thousands and thousands of dollars, and are treated as the most important item on the bride's shopping list. The wedding dress acquires a holy mystique, with the ability to inspire all kinds of familial strife and tensions. The episode I saw had a bride and groom clashing over the style of the gown. She wanted something form-fitting. He wanted a poofy princess dress. Their clashing visions were played up to ridiculous extremes, and spun by the show as an early test of the couple's ability to compromise.
Now, I fully understand that the choice of wedding dress is very important to a lot of brides, and picking one is a valued part of the whole experience of putting a wedding together. And I also appreciate that weddings are big, momentous events that tend to attract lots and lots of drama. However, all the wedding shows I've seen, including "Say Yes to the Dress," treat the weddings like life or death experiences that require months of planning, ridiculous budgets, and a list of things that you absolutely, positively have to do in order to have the best experience possible. Sure, you can go get married at City Hall in a pantsuit, but that would be denying yourself the opportunity for the perfect fairy-tale day that you'll cherish for years and years to come. It's the message we've all been fed since we were kids: a wedding means the white dress, the dapper suits, the bouquet, the rings, the big venue, the reception, the showers, the bachelor and bachelorette parties, the dancing, the alcohol, and the multi-tiered cake.
A show like "Say Yes to the Dress" is another insidious piece of marketing, adding another stop on the way to the wedding. Now the wedding dress boutique appointment has become another oh-so-special event that a bride-to-be shouldn't deny herself. It becomes yet another focal point for potential disappointments. It becomes something else to worry about when you already have too many things to worry about. The show hit a nerve with me personally because I got married last year and encountered a huge amount of pressure to conform to the typical wedding narrative. The scary part was, a lot of the pressure was coming from me, from my own internalized ideas of what a wedding should be. It took some significant time and effort to figure out what I actually did and didn't want to do, and I ended up foregoing many things that people running these wedding shows would have been aghast that I had skipped.
And the dress? I don't like traditional white wedding dresses, but I decided to get one in order to look nice for the pictures that would be circulated among all of my relatives for the next few decades. I visited exactly one boutique, without an appointment, before deciding this approach wasn't for me. Instead, I went to a dress outlet store with some girlfriends, tried on the five styles of wedding dress that were available, and picked one. The process took an hour, and the dress cost me $200, including the dry-cleaning. I spent more on hair and makeup. I spent more on the flowers. The dress was not the perfect dress, but it did what I wanted it to, which was to make me look like a typical bride for a few hours that everyone could take pictures with. I'd have rented the dress if I could have, because now all it's doing is taking up closet space.
I'm not saying that nobody should buy an expensive wedding dress, or that you shouldn't enjoy wedding shows. I'm pointing out that nobody is obliged to say yes to the wedding dress experience that TLC is pushing or even any wedding dress at all. And I'm suggesting that it's a good idea to ask yourself why you really want something before spending thousands of dollars to make it happen.
---
However, the further I got into the show, the more it made my blood boil. The featured fittings on these shows always become events, fraught with emotion and drama. Most of the brides drag large numbers of family and friends into the boutique with them. The unspoken assumption is that they can't settle for any old dress, but they need the perfect dress to make their big day truly special. Sure, lip service is paid to financial considerations, but all the dresses we see still cost thousands and thousands of dollars, and are treated as the most important item on the bride's shopping list. The wedding dress acquires a holy mystique, with the ability to inspire all kinds of familial strife and tensions. The episode I saw had a bride and groom clashing over the style of the gown. She wanted something form-fitting. He wanted a poofy princess dress. Their clashing visions were played up to ridiculous extremes, and spun by the show as an early test of the couple's ability to compromise.
Now, I fully understand that the choice of wedding dress is very important to a lot of brides, and picking one is a valued part of the whole experience of putting a wedding together. And I also appreciate that weddings are big, momentous events that tend to attract lots and lots of drama. However, all the wedding shows I've seen, including "Say Yes to the Dress," treat the weddings like life or death experiences that require months of planning, ridiculous budgets, and a list of things that you absolutely, positively have to do in order to have the best experience possible. Sure, you can go get married at City Hall in a pantsuit, but that would be denying yourself the opportunity for the perfect fairy-tale day that you'll cherish for years and years to come. It's the message we've all been fed since we were kids: a wedding means the white dress, the dapper suits, the bouquet, the rings, the big venue, the reception, the showers, the bachelor and bachelorette parties, the dancing, the alcohol, and the multi-tiered cake.
A show like "Say Yes to the Dress" is another insidious piece of marketing, adding another stop on the way to the wedding. Now the wedding dress boutique appointment has become another oh-so-special event that a bride-to-be shouldn't deny herself. It becomes yet another focal point for potential disappointments. It becomes something else to worry about when you already have too many things to worry about. The show hit a nerve with me personally because I got married last year and encountered a huge amount of pressure to conform to the typical wedding narrative. The scary part was, a lot of the pressure was coming from me, from my own internalized ideas of what a wedding should be. It took some significant time and effort to figure out what I actually did and didn't want to do, and I ended up foregoing many things that people running these wedding shows would have been aghast that I had skipped.
And the dress? I don't like traditional white wedding dresses, but I decided to get one in order to look nice for the pictures that would be circulated among all of my relatives for the next few decades. I visited exactly one boutique, without an appointment, before deciding this approach wasn't for me. Instead, I went to a dress outlet store with some girlfriends, tried on the five styles of wedding dress that were available, and picked one. The process took an hour, and the dress cost me $200, including the dry-cleaning. I spent more on hair and makeup. I spent more on the flowers. The dress was not the perfect dress, but it did what I wanted it to, which was to make me look like a typical bride for a few hours that everyone could take pictures with. I'd have rented the dress if I could have, because now all it's doing is taking up closet space.
I'm not saying that nobody should buy an expensive wedding dress, or that you shouldn't enjoy wedding shows. I'm pointing out that nobody is obliged to say yes to the wedding dress experience that TLC is pushing or even any wedding dress at all. And I'm suggesting that it's a good idea to ask yourself why you really want something before spending thousands of dollars to make it happen.
---
Saturday, May 18, 2013
A Trip to "Cars" Land
I grew up in Southern California, so I've been to Disneyland many times, but it's been about a decade since the last trip, and I'd never set foot in the California Adventure park. So when the opportunity came up during my latest vacation, I figured it was about time I took the plunge. And why am I writing about it in my media blog? Well, for one thing it's Disney, and the theme parks are almost impossible to separate from the media empire that they've built up over the years. All the recent properties Disney has acquired were visible the parks this week - lots of "Star Wars" merchandise, "Iron Man" suits in the Tomorrowland Innoventions exhibit, and the Muppets 3D show tucked away in a corner of California Adventure. But besides that, a theme park attraction is something of a pinnacle for a media brand, a sign that you've a big enough draw to justify being associated with an expensive real-world experience. Or as "Community" put it, you want to be the show that gets twelve seasons and a theme park.
Specifically, I want to talk about the presence of "Cars," the PIXAR franchise that kids love, but adults generally rank near the bottom of their lists of favorite PIXAR movies. It's "Cars," not "The Incredibles," and not "Toy Story," that has an entire themed land in the California Adventure park, as big as Toontown in Disneyland. It's a recreation of Radiator Springs, the little town from the 2006 "Cars" movie, comprised of a long street with themed restaurants and shops on either side, finally dead-ending at the Radiator Springs Racers, the most popular ride in the park, with the longest wait times. There are also two smaller rides, Mater's Junkyard Jamboree and Luigi's Flying Tires. The whole place is beautifully designed. The entrance to Luigi's Flying Tires looks like Luigi's tire shop from the movie, complete with the Leaning Tower of Tires out front. The Cozy Cone Motel, with its giant traffic cones, contains a series of snack stands, where you buy items served in commemorative traffic cone-shaped containers. Fillmore's organic fuel stop is now a beverage stand. Ramone's Body Shop sells clothing and merchandise. Flo's V8 Diner, of course, is a working diner.
Despite not caring much for the "Cars" movies, I thought Cars Land was a blast. There was so much work put into the place, from the mountain ranges created using forced perspective, to the talking "Cars" characters rolling down the street with a gaggle of handlers in tow, to the tons of little details incorporated into every single structure and visible item for sale. In line for the Luigi ride, where you ride around in little bumper-hover-crafts shaped like tires, I noticed that the hedges were shaped like tires, the stanchions for the lines were topped by little silver tires, and even the fencing around the greenery looked like tire treads. When I came back in the evening, many of the buildings were lit up with colorful neon signage. I found the Radiator Springs that existed in Cars Land far more engaging than the one that appeared in the movie, where many of the little businesses only registered as cute cartoon automotive gags and were quickly forgotten. Walking around the physical version, I was constantly struck by how cleverly executed the place was, and I couldn't stop looking at everything.
I'm sure that Disney's Imagineers could have made a similarly impressive locale for "Finding Nemo" or "Monsters Inc." There was also a smaller "Bug's Life" area at the park, aimed at smaller children, that had some nice touches. However, I can see how "Cars" had more potential for a variety of reasons. The movie was tied to a major outdoor location, Radiator Springs, that would be easier to recreate. Car racing was a major component of the plot, an activity that was easier to build rides around. "Cars" is also very conceptually and visually distinctive. Lots of other franchises have done insects and fish and toys and monsters before, but it's hard to think of another one involving automobiles. And then of course, I'm sure Disney was swayed by the fact that "Cars" merchandise has always done extremely well. It's almost certainly the reason why "Cars" got its sequel and a new spinoff film, "Planes," that opens later this summer. And it's why "Cars" headliner Lightning McQueen is all over the advertisements and identification banners and signs for California Adventure.
On the flip side, you really had to keep your eyes open to find any sign of "Ratatouille" or "WALL-E" at the parks. I was especially disappointed that "The Incredibles" barely had any presence at all. Now that Disney has all those Marvel superheroes to play with, I guess PIXAR's superhero family is on the outs. That's a shame, since I can think of a lot that Disney could do with the property. Remember Syndrome's secret lair? And Edna Mode's workshop? Guess I need to go buy more "Incredibles" action figures if I ever want to see them at the Disney parks.
---
Specifically, I want to talk about the presence of "Cars," the PIXAR franchise that kids love, but adults generally rank near the bottom of their lists of favorite PIXAR movies. It's "Cars," not "The Incredibles," and not "Toy Story," that has an entire themed land in the California Adventure park, as big as Toontown in Disneyland. It's a recreation of Radiator Springs, the little town from the 2006 "Cars" movie, comprised of a long street with themed restaurants and shops on either side, finally dead-ending at the Radiator Springs Racers, the most popular ride in the park, with the longest wait times. There are also two smaller rides, Mater's Junkyard Jamboree and Luigi's Flying Tires. The whole place is beautifully designed. The entrance to Luigi's Flying Tires looks like Luigi's tire shop from the movie, complete with the Leaning Tower of Tires out front. The Cozy Cone Motel, with its giant traffic cones, contains a series of snack stands, where you buy items served in commemorative traffic cone-shaped containers. Fillmore's organic fuel stop is now a beverage stand. Ramone's Body Shop sells clothing and merchandise. Flo's V8 Diner, of course, is a working diner.
Despite not caring much for the "Cars" movies, I thought Cars Land was a blast. There was so much work put into the place, from the mountain ranges created using forced perspective, to the talking "Cars" characters rolling down the street with a gaggle of handlers in tow, to the tons of little details incorporated into every single structure and visible item for sale. In line for the Luigi ride, where you ride around in little bumper-hover-crafts shaped like tires, I noticed that the hedges were shaped like tires, the stanchions for the lines were topped by little silver tires, and even the fencing around the greenery looked like tire treads. When I came back in the evening, many of the buildings were lit up with colorful neon signage. I found the Radiator Springs that existed in Cars Land far more engaging than the one that appeared in the movie, where many of the little businesses only registered as cute cartoon automotive gags and were quickly forgotten. Walking around the physical version, I was constantly struck by how cleverly executed the place was, and I couldn't stop looking at everything.
I'm sure that Disney's Imagineers could have made a similarly impressive locale for "Finding Nemo" or "Monsters Inc." There was also a smaller "Bug's Life" area at the park, aimed at smaller children, that had some nice touches. However, I can see how "Cars" had more potential for a variety of reasons. The movie was tied to a major outdoor location, Radiator Springs, that would be easier to recreate. Car racing was a major component of the plot, an activity that was easier to build rides around. "Cars" is also very conceptually and visually distinctive. Lots of other franchises have done insects and fish and toys and monsters before, but it's hard to think of another one involving automobiles. And then of course, I'm sure Disney was swayed by the fact that "Cars" merchandise has always done extremely well. It's almost certainly the reason why "Cars" got its sequel and a new spinoff film, "Planes," that opens later this summer. And it's why "Cars" headliner Lightning McQueen is all over the advertisements and identification banners and signs for California Adventure.
On the flip side, you really had to keep your eyes open to find any sign of "Ratatouille" or "WALL-E" at the parks. I was especially disappointed that "The Incredibles" barely had any presence at all. Now that Disney has all those Marvel superheroes to play with, I guess PIXAR's superhero family is on the outs. That's a shame, since I can think of a lot that Disney could do with the property. Remember Syndrome's secret lair? And Edna Mode's workshop? Guess I need to go buy more "Incredibles" action figures if I ever want to see them at the Disney parks.
---
Friday, May 17, 2013
The Kickstarter Conundrum
I've been reluctant to say much about the Zach Braff Kickstarter controversy, because the story is still developing, and it's probably too early to draw any conclusions one way or another. However, this is becoming an important point of reference when talking about Kickstarter in any capacity, so I figured I should at least figure out where I stand on what has transpired so far.
So, here's where we are at the time of writing. Zach Braff started a Kickstarter campaign and has so far raised a little over $2.6 million from nearly forty thousand contributors to fund a new film, "Wish I Was Here," billed as the follow-up to his 2004 comedy "Garden State." There has been spirited debate about whether it's appropriate for a celebrity like Braff to use Kickstarter, since it's a fundraising platform that has been primarily used to help small, under-the-radar, independent film projects get off the ground. Writer Ken Levine wrote a blog post on why he wasn't supporting the project that attracted a lot of discussion. Braff is someone who has access to other backers, who appears to be independently wealthy enough to fund most of the film himself, and has plenty of industry connections. After several casting announcements this week, The Hollywood Reporter revealed that a traditional financier, Worldview Entertainment, will contribute additional funds to raise the film's budget to $10 million. There's some disagreement as to whether this sum is an investment or a loan, and whether Braff would have gotten this money without the interest generated by the Kickstarter campaign.
Still, the question remains. Why is "Wish I Was Here," a film that will star recognizable actors like Anna Kendrick, Josh Gad, and Mandy Patinkin, using Kickstarter? According to Braff, going the crowdfunding route allows him to retain creative control of the film, giving him final cut and the ability to cast who he wants. This is a perfectly legitimate concern, and one I'm sympathetic to. Finding the funding these smaller films has become more difficult in recent years, and Zach Braff may be a celebrity, but I doubt he has the clout to be given carte blanche over even a modest-sized production like "Wish I Was Here." I don't see all that much difference between a project headed up by Braff and one headed up by someone like Dan Harmon or Charlie Kaufman, who used a Kickstarter campaign to fund the stop-motion short "Anomalisa," though "Wish I Was Here" clearly has much better commercial prospects and will probably land a traditional distribution deal. I think what most people are worried about is the precedent for more typically Hollywood-friendly media this project is setting, and the uncomfortable possibilities being opened up for other filmmakers to abuse the system. I'm not saying that there has been any abuse, but there's a significant and growing likelihood that it's where all this may lead to.
Will the increase in celebrity-headed projects like "Wish I Was Here" and the "Veronica Mars" movie end up taking attention and funds away from the smaller projects that need them more? Could Kickstarter end up devolving into a mechanism to pre-sell products and media that were going to happen anyway? Will it be used as a market research tool to gauge interest in future films or as a way to spread the risk around for less conventional projects? Many of the studios are struggling, and it would be tempting to get the fan bases of existing properties to offset the costs of new franchise installments. Remember, Kickstarter contributions are donations, and if a film like "Wish I Was Here" makes a huge profit, the contributors won't get to share in the profits like traditional investors. Their compensation is only limited to the special rewards like DVDs, screenings, and the chance to appear for a few seconds onscreen as an extra.
However, on the flip side this could also mean that interesting projects that might never have been made otherwise will now get a fighting chance. And Kickstarter recently released a statement supporting the Zach Braff and "Veronica Mars" fundraising campaigns, pointing out that they had attracted more contributors to the site who had gone on to donate more funds to smaller projects. We really don't know enough yet to tell if the net effect of these more high-profile Kickstarter movie projects is going to be positive or negative. I think it's important to remember that the power ultimately lies with the contributors. If they feel like they're getting a bad deal, they won't contribute. If they feel like they're being taken advantage of, they won't contribute. And remember, the involvement of a celebrity is not necessarily a positive. A Melissa Joan Hart-backed indie movie recently pulled its Kickstarter campaign after failing to drum up enough interest.
As for me, I kicked in a few dollars for "Anomalisa," but I have no interest in "Wish I Was Here." I didn't find the synopsis about the main character's midlife crisis very compelling, and I didn't think much of "Garden State." I wish Zach Braff all the best, but I'll be saving future contributions for more interesting projects that I hope will be coming our way.
---
So, here's where we are at the time of writing. Zach Braff started a Kickstarter campaign and has so far raised a little over $2.6 million from nearly forty thousand contributors to fund a new film, "Wish I Was Here," billed as the follow-up to his 2004 comedy "Garden State." There has been spirited debate about whether it's appropriate for a celebrity like Braff to use Kickstarter, since it's a fundraising platform that has been primarily used to help small, under-the-radar, independent film projects get off the ground. Writer Ken Levine wrote a blog post on why he wasn't supporting the project that attracted a lot of discussion. Braff is someone who has access to other backers, who appears to be independently wealthy enough to fund most of the film himself, and has plenty of industry connections. After several casting announcements this week, The Hollywood Reporter revealed that a traditional financier, Worldview Entertainment, will contribute additional funds to raise the film's budget to $10 million. There's some disagreement as to whether this sum is an investment or a loan, and whether Braff would have gotten this money without the interest generated by the Kickstarter campaign.
Still, the question remains. Why is "Wish I Was Here," a film that will star recognizable actors like Anna Kendrick, Josh Gad, and Mandy Patinkin, using Kickstarter? According to Braff, going the crowdfunding route allows him to retain creative control of the film, giving him final cut and the ability to cast who he wants. This is a perfectly legitimate concern, and one I'm sympathetic to. Finding the funding these smaller films has become more difficult in recent years, and Zach Braff may be a celebrity, but I doubt he has the clout to be given carte blanche over even a modest-sized production like "Wish I Was Here." I don't see all that much difference between a project headed up by Braff and one headed up by someone like Dan Harmon or Charlie Kaufman, who used a Kickstarter campaign to fund the stop-motion short "Anomalisa," though "Wish I Was Here" clearly has much better commercial prospects and will probably land a traditional distribution deal. I think what most people are worried about is the precedent for more typically Hollywood-friendly media this project is setting, and the uncomfortable possibilities being opened up for other filmmakers to abuse the system. I'm not saying that there has been any abuse, but there's a significant and growing likelihood that it's where all this may lead to.
Will the increase in celebrity-headed projects like "Wish I Was Here" and the "Veronica Mars" movie end up taking attention and funds away from the smaller projects that need them more? Could Kickstarter end up devolving into a mechanism to pre-sell products and media that were going to happen anyway? Will it be used as a market research tool to gauge interest in future films or as a way to spread the risk around for less conventional projects? Many of the studios are struggling, and it would be tempting to get the fan bases of existing properties to offset the costs of new franchise installments. Remember, Kickstarter contributions are donations, and if a film like "Wish I Was Here" makes a huge profit, the contributors won't get to share in the profits like traditional investors. Their compensation is only limited to the special rewards like DVDs, screenings, and the chance to appear for a few seconds onscreen as an extra.
However, on the flip side this could also mean that interesting projects that might never have been made otherwise will now get a fighting chance. And Kickstarter recently released a statement supporting the Zach Braff and "Veronica Mars" fundraising campaigns, pointing out that they had attracted more contributors to the site who had gone on to donate more funds to smaller projects. We really don't know enough yet to tell if the net effect of these more high-profile Kickstarter movie projects is going to be positive or negative. I think it's important to remember that the power ultimately lies with the contributors. If they feel like they're getting a bad deal, they won't contribute. If they feel like they're being taken advantage of, they won't contribute. And remember, the involvement of a celebrity is not necessarily a positive. A Melissa Joan Hart-backed indie movie recently pulled its Kickstarter campaign after failing to drum up enough interest.
As for me, I kicked in a few dollars for "Anomalisa," but I have no interest in "Wish I Was Here." I didn't find the synopsis about the main character's midlife crisis very compelling, and I didn't think much of "Garden State." I wish Zach Braff all the best, but I'll be saving future contributions for more interesting projects that I hope will be coming our way.
---
Thursday, May 16, 2013
"Person of Interest," Year Two
As we work our way through sweeps, it's time to check in on "Person of Interest," which has been developing nicely in its second year. It started out as a crime procedural with some conspiracy elements and vaguely sci-fi concepts. Now it's handily juggling storylines involving organized crime, police corruption, government cover-ups, espionage, cyberterrorism, and a surprisingly strong dose of good, old-fashioned cyberpunk - with better fashion sense. "Person of Interest" has been particularly good at parsing out information, a little at a time, particularly the sequence of events that led Harold Finch (Michael Emerson) to his current cause, using the Machine to help people in need. Despite all the memorable antagonists he and John Reese (Jim Caviezel) have faced this year, it's the revelations about the past that had all the best moments. Some minor spoilers ahead.
First, let me acknowledge the new additions and the expanded roles of the show's ever-growing recurring cast. Alonzo Quinn (Clarke Peters) and Officer Simmons (Robert John Burke) were introduced as the top of the chain of the criminal HR organization, mostly keeping the pressure on Detective Fusco (Kevin Chapman) as he struggled to stay on the side of angels. Detective Cal Beecher (Sterling K. Brown), got a nice arc as a love interest for Detective Carter (Taraji P. Henson), who also may have been mixed up with HR. Nathan Ingram (Brett Cullen) and Grace Hendricks (Carrie Preston) got a lot of screen time as figures from Finch's past, while Kara Stanton (Annie Parisse) and Mark Snow (Michael Kelly) from the CIA showed up for a few episodes to complicate Reese's present. Amy Acker is far and away the show's best villain as the hacker Root, who walks that fine line between crazy and true believer. Every time she kidnaps Finch is a treat. Then there's the weaselly, but helpful Leon Tao (Ken Leung) and government assassin Samantha Shaw (Sarah Shahi), who become regular allies. Oh, and we can't forget Bear, the Belgian Shepherd attack dog who Reese adopted at the beginning of the season. He's become a great source of humor and a way to inject a little more humanity into his human partners.
It's surprising when you look back and see how much happened this season. All four of the leads, Finch, Reese, Carter, and Fusco got their own recurring storylines, and there was frequent switching around among them. You'd get Fusco battling HR one week, Carter navigating her relationship with Beecher in another, and then Reese getting an arc with the CIA to break things up. I found it especially clever that most of the flashbacks with Finch tended to happen in the case-of-the-week episodes that otherwise could be treated as filler. Even more impressive, it never felt like any of the conflicts or mysteries were being dragged out for too long. We got some very definite answers this year about the nature of the botched mission that Reese and Kara Stanton were sent on, about the loyalties of Fusco and Beecher, and lots of details about the Machine. The character who got the most development this year was arguably the Machine itself, which was revealed to be sentient at the end of last season, and this year has to battle a destructive virus, multiple factions trying to gain control of it, and finally a game-changing finale event that shifts the show's power dynamics considerably. I don't think there's a single of the series' big mysteries that didn't see some significant advancement this year, and a few were even resolved completely.
Week to week, "Person of Interest" certainly had its mediocre episodes. The big action setpieces with all the fancy weaponry were used sparingly, mostly saved for the episodes right before or after a breaks. The production wasn't quite as good as the best episodes from last year, but the quality remained very high and very consistent, with some especially spiffy new twists on the surveillance footage visuals. The writing rarely devolved into technobabble, but there was the usual reliance on technology so sophisticated it functions like magic, and the super-cool action hero antics of Mr. Reese and Shaw occasionally bordered on the cartoonish. These were the two characters who I don't think got as much attention as they probably should have, especially Shaw, who was introduced late in the year and abruptly became a major player. Mr. Reese, true to his name, is still rocking his mysterious Man-in-Suit persona, but considering how much we've learned about all of our other leads, he's starting to come off as a little two-dimensional by comparison, and the mannerisms increasingly seem affected.
Well, there's always next season to tackle those issues, and considering how much the second season got done, the third shouldn't have too much trouble getting Reese lined up for growth spurt. Maybe get Paige Turco's fixer character Zoe involved - she's always a highlight, and her appearances this year were too brief. "Person of Interest" moves to Tuesdays in the fall. Stay tuned.
---
First, let me acknowledge the new additions and the expanded roles of the show's ever-growing recurring cast. Alonzo Quinn (Clarke Peters) and Officer Simmons (Robert John Burke) were introduced as the top of the chain of the criminal HR organization, mostly keeping the pressure on Detective Fusco (Kevin Chapman) as he struggled to stay on the side of angels. Detective Cal Beecher (Sterling K. Brown), got a nice arc as a love interest for Detective Carter (Taraji P. Henson), who also may have been mixed up with HR. Nathan Ingram (Brett Cullen) and Grace Hendricks (Carrie Preston) got a lot of screen time as figures from Finch's past, while Kara Stanton (Annie Parisse) and Mark Snow (Michael Kelly) from the CIA showed up for a few episodes to complicate Reese's present. Amy Acker is far and away the show's best villain as the hacker Root, who walks that fine line between crazy and true believer. Every time she kidnaps Finch is a treat. Then there's the weaselly, but helpful Leon Tao (Ken Leung) and government assassin Samantha Shaw (Sarah Shahi), who become regular allies. Oh, and we can't forget Bear, the Belgian Shepherd attack dog who Reese adopted at the beginning of the season. He's become a great source of humor and a way to inject a little more humanity into his human partners.
It's surprising when you look back and see how much happened this season. All four of the leads, Finch, Reese, Carter, and Fusco got their own recurring storylines, and there was frequent switching around among them. You'd get Fusco battling HR one week, Carter navigating her relationship with Beecher in another, and then Reese getting an arc with the CIA to break things up. I found it especially clever that most of the flashbacks with Finch tended to happen in the case-of-the-week episodes that otherwise could be treated as filler. Even more impressive, it never felt like any of the conflicts or mysteries were being dragged out for too long. We got some very definite answers this year about the nature of the botched mission that Reese and Kara Stanton were sent on, about the loyalties of Fusco and Beecher, and lots of details about the Machine. The character who got the most development this year was arguably the Machine itself, which was revealed to be sentient at the end of last season, and this year has to battle a destructive virus, multiple factions trying to gain control of it, and finally a game-changing finale event that shifts the show's power dynamics considerably. I don't think there's a single of the series' big mysteries that didn't see some significant advancement this year, and a few were even resolved completely.
Week to week, "Person of Interest" certainly had its mediocre episodes. The big action setpieces with all the fancy weaponry were used sparingly, mostly saved for the episodes right before or after a breaks. The production wasn't quite as good as the best episodes from last year, but the quality remained very high and very consistent, with some especially spiffy new twists on the surveillance footage visuals. The writing rarely devolved into technobabble, but there was the usual reliance on technology so sophisticated it functions like magic, and the super-cool action hero antics of Mr. Reese and Shaw occasionally bordered on the cartoonish. These were the two characters who I don't think got as much attention as they probably should have, especially Shaw, who was introduced late in the year and abruptly became a major player. Mr. Reese, true to his name, is still rocking his mysterious Man-in-Suit persona, but considering how much we've learned about all of our other leads, he's starting to come off as a little two-dimensional by comparison, and the mannerisms increasingly seem affected.
Well, there's always next season to tackle those issues, and considering how much the second season got done, the third shouldn't have too much trouble getting Reese lined up for growth spurt. Maybe get Paige Turco's fixer character Zoe involved - she's always a highlight, and her appearances this year were too brief. "Person of Interest" moves to Tuesdays in the fall. Stay tuned.
---
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
