The Future of Storytelling Has Arrived

48 min read

Deviation Actions

techgnotic's avatar

The recently announced changes to the core mythos of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and the backlash from fans over the ending to Mass Effect 3 have ignited an incredible discussion about the rapidly evolving “collaborative” relationship between producers and consumers of videogames, movies, and similar “products.” Now it’s exploded beyond the secure borders of top news publications, gaming and entertainment websites. Looks like this long-bubbling cauldron of traditional ways and means, modern tech, web economics, core beliefs and future shock has finally boiled over...

Should you listen to your audience?

The Contenders

The gaming industry, and gaming media, is wrong to label upset consumers as ‘entitled’ or ignore the
investment of fans beyond simply spending their hard-earned cash.


They don't "owe" you anything. They make a product, and then you decide if you're going to pay for it. Since many of you think it's okay to download anything you want for free, even that second step isn't a guaranteed part of the process anymore. But it's a very simple transaction. They make. You consume. … Even so, you are not actually owed anything beyond whatever entertainment they produced for you in the first place.

It’s the question roiling the genre arts sparked by the release of Mass Effect 3 and speculation about changes Michael Bay may make in his reboot of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles:

Should a video game creator rework a game’s ending if

enough fans are dissatisfied with the original?

Should fans’ responses to rumors about

projects-in-planning be a major consideration in

the creation of those projects?

In this article I contend that it’s not simply that the gaming and movie industries are mistaken to dismiss
disgruntled fans as nuisances deluded with a false sense of “entitlement” – I actually contend that commercial
storytelling across all media should increasingly incorporate community feedback as an essential element in a
project’s success. Fan influence might alter a project by 5% or 60%. It’s all in the balance of how fan feedback
is utilized in the process.

Let me make another important point. I’m always annoyed when the “they make – you consume” contenders try to moot or obviate the whole discussion of producers and consumers by referring to movies, games, songs, etc. as mere “entertainment”.

When I eat a cheeseburger at Umami, ride a rollercoaster, or laugh at a joke in a late nght talk-show host monologue,
I am partaking of an “entertainment”. These are those momentary pleasures in life that help you relax or give you a cheap
thrill – and they are instantly disposable.

But movies, videogames and music are different. We “invest” ourselves greatly in them. Ask any young fan who thrilled
to vicariously inhabiting one of the characters in the Hunger Games. Dick Clark once rightly said that music becomes the
“soundtrack of our lives.” Movies have always been (and now, too, videogames) the alternative “religions” or mythos that
we choose to identify with, and by which we often define and direct how we think about our lives, sometimes to an extent
exceeding actual religions or ideologies. What I’m saying is that the “psychic stakes” in this current dispute are a little
higher and more vital to our culture than it just being a “consumer complaint” situation.

From TheArtist GodsOf The Genre

There is no such thing as a singular fan reaction. Art is an interpretive experience. What you read in Moby Dick,
and what I read in Moby Dick, are different things. That is very much one of the joys of the arts. We don't have a singular
response. There's a quote which states, 'All art aspires to the condition of music,' and that's because music is infinitely
interpretable. Who would want to conform an artist's vision into something else?

No person other than the artist can make his or her art. Art is the manifestation of one man or woman's vision for a
better world. And, hopefully, that vision will inspire generations to create their own art. That's just the way I see it.

CliveBarker, as a uniquely modern renaissance man, is especially qualified to comment on our topic. Only Stephen
King rivals his fame atop the charts of popular fantasy and horror fiction. As a novelist his books include "Abarat", "Imajica" and "Thief of Always". The Candyman and Hellraiser films were based on
his writings. But he is also a renowned visual artist, his paintings and drawings having hung in prestigious fine arts galleries.
He has been creatively involved in videogames, comic books, films and even costume design. He has produced films as diverse as
Gods and Monsters and The Midnight Meat Train. His perspective is that of an absolute original.

In my personal experience, listening to the feedback of a rabid fanbase can be a double-edged sword. Say your film or TV show is
based on preexisting material like a comic. On the one hand, you have to be careful not to adhere too closely to the source material.
What's right for one medium (a comicbook or videogame, say) may not necessarily be right for a film. And vice versa. Secondarily, when
thinking about a film or TV show, you're talking about million or even tens of millions of viewers (as opposed to, say, 40,000 comicbook
readers). You are making a mass-market adaptation, so the broader audience may or may not be amenable to certain conceits.

But the flip-side is, ignoring the early adopters or original fans can be to your peril. Often, film and TV executives are far removed
from their actual consumers. Many of them no longer see movies in a public theater. More still, have never set forth in a comicbook
store. To some executives, there is literally no differentiation between, say, Superman and some small-press indie comicbook. They
perceive all comicbooks to be the same. They may have no understanding of the source material's DNA. I can't tell you how many times I've
had an executive suggest a change that I knew, in my gut, would send the fans screaming. It's hard to explain that to an executive,
sometimes. It's truly a gut-check kind of thing.

David Goyer provides invaluable perspective, having mastered every facet of the genre arts narrative. He is a
screenwriter (Dark City, Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, Man of Steel) who has also written for TV, comic books and videogames. He is
a film director (Blade: Trinity, The Unborn) and producer (Blade II and Trinity, Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance). He is a novelist
(Heaven’s Shadow). Heaven’s War, the second book of his sci-fi trilogy, is unleashed this July; The Dark Knight Rises, the film sequel
from his original story, is in post-production; and his newest creation, Da Vinci’s Demons will debut soon on Starz.

Personally, I think the best storytelling is the product of a strong, single voice. I think it's important for creators to listen to
their fans and to make adjustments along the way, but I'm not so sure that a collaborative effort can create a singular vision. I think a
creator should not only write to please their audience but also to occasionally surprise them.

Jeff Kinney
Author/Creator of “Diary of A Wimpy Kid”

So what’s really going on with theMass Effect 3& TMNT showdown?

The makers of Mass Effect have, I imagine quite by accident, found themselves suspended over what they must find a frightening abyss, with
one foot planted in the old way of doing things, and the other foot toeing the unfamiliar terrain on the other side of the yawning chasm. They
encouraged fans to change the outcome of the game with their own decisions – but then largely ignored those decisions. Is this really a dispute
over creator’s rights vs. fan entitlement – or is it about how technology’s new tools are fundamentally changing commercial story narrative creation?

There have always been editors, censors, critics and all the other intruders necessarily a part of commercial publishing. And the “input” of public
readership has always factored in as well, with some artists cursing it and others embracing it. Rather than write “take-it-or-leave-it” novels,
complete at time of publication, Charles Dickens was famous for creating his serialized stories a chapter at a time, published weekly of monthly
in magazines or newspapers specifically so he could gauge readers’ response to each chapter before writing or revising the next. Great Expectations
is certainly the product of Dickens’s brilliant compassionate mind and expert writing talents – but it’s also to a tremendous extent a collaborative
creation with hundreds of “contributing authors”!


Having an open and sincere dialogue with fans has become an integral part of our business and our books. We value their passion
and input, so direct conduits like social media have helped us form a solid bond and bring us even closer in what is already a
tightly knit industry.

Ted Adams
CEO/Publisher of IDW Publishing

While I think there is a lot of merit to the idea of listening to the core audience of any given franchise. I think "caving" too
much to what fans want can lead to a watered-down product. Sometimes fans think they want something and as soon as they get it, the
franchise suddenly loses its dramatic tension. The bottom line, for me, is that sometimes there's a groundswell that is too loud to ignore.
If the majority of your fanbase is upset by something you've done or clamoring for a plot point that has been ignored, it would be
silly to dismiss it out of hand.  But creators should also be wary of taking every single critique of their project too seriously.

Brendan Deneen

Co-President and Co-Publisher, Ardden Entertainment LLC

Comic Book Writer, Flash Gordon and Phoenix / Founder, Macmillan Films

So Here IsThe Point

Dickens never would have made the mistake of incorporating his readers’ ideas throughout a novel’s chapters and then written a final chapter
completely at odds with all those ideas. The Mass Effect 3 mistake was to encourage player “revisions” to the storyline – but only as a gimmick
rather than committing to this new reality as an integral part of the evolution of the narrative. Any “narrative” today, to be commercially viable,
will have to be “written” for the full spectrum of storytelling demanded by the evolution of web production and distribution. Stories must be full
spectrum narratives, able to fit themselves to tellings as videogames, comics and graphic novels, traditional novels, feature film and television
and Internet productions (live action or animated).  And all these iterations of a core story will be subject to constant fan comment for revision
and extension. This is the brave new world that Dickens would have embraced as liberating rather than destructive of his authorship, the tool of
“reader” feedback having now become an instantaneous and continuous global information stream that will propel forward those who learn to navigate
it, and drown those who fear a “loss of control” in uncharted waters.

So is “authorship” doomed?

Hardly. The new technology driving instantaneous feedback and a greater demand for reader participation is simply forcing writers and visual
artist/creators in other art forms to face new realities and make tough decisions about how their artistic expression is going to be distributed to the planet.
Every time a painting or journal is posted on deviantART it has the potential to be experienced by a thousand times the number of people who had access
to anything written by Charles Dickens in his time. And be instantly commented upon by those people. Personal artistic expression and connection
has been liberated as never before. But the conundrum remains: No artist has to ever alter or revise an artwork, but then again, no artist has to
ever make a penny from his or her art. Writers, and all artists, must find the spot on that “art vs. pay” continuum where they are most comfortable
and functional. There can always be art for art’s sake, unintended for sale, but there is now a radical new way of becoming a successful and
world-popular commercial storyteller. And the new way heeds the feedback enabled by the new tech from word one.

The new paradigm of feedback-fed conception, production and distribution will take a while to establish itself on the still “Wild, Wild West”
Internet, but it will provide producers of content-driven stories with a real security in the commercial success of their properties – rather than
the increasing chaos they are currently falsely fearing. In the end “authorship” will always be bestowed upon the artist individual who most
commands respect as the one whose efforts most connect with us, the readers or viewers, regardless of any input from feedback or cuts by editors.
Writers need not fear a degradation of their work, nor their becoming mere typists transcribing the public’s wishes.

In the end, as always:

True talent and true vision will win out.

Deviant Artists AlreadyEmbracing the Futureof Storytelling

yuumei, alexiuss and vesner are creative, visual and narrative storytellers who, with well over a million
reads each for their stories on deviantART, enjoy an unprecedented relationship with their online audience. Their input is informed
by their status as artists already participating in storytelling’s new paradigm.

Writers have editors, but who says the editors can't be the audiences themselves? If I were writing a story mostly for my own
enjoyment, then I have no obligations to please the audience. However, if I am creating something with the main purpose of
marketing to the masses, then my work should reasonably meet their expectations, and the best way to do that would be to listen to their opinions.

Author/Creator of Knite & 1000 W0RDS

I believe in altering endings, as long as the fanbase demands it, but not in a way that the original book/game/title is heavily
edited, but rather in the way in which the 2nd story of the title continues. For example, if the protagonist dies in the 1st book,
he can be somehow brought back to life if the fanbase really really wants to read a 2nd book about him. Without this alteration,
one of the greatest books I've read called 'The Golden Calf' would not exist. Personally I'm very heavily influenced by critics and
fans, so if my work is lacking in some regard, I update it or try to improve on it.

People were disappointed with ME3's ending, not just because the developers promised something completely different, but because
players didn't just watch/play this story – they were an integral part of it up to that point. Every player who spent their time
playing all of the three games created a strong bond between themselves and Commander Shepard to a degree that, in a way, they all
became Commander Shepard. We all want to believe that our actions can change our fate and the fate of the world.

Dave Elliott and Jordan Greenhall are acute observers of the deviantART community and its impact.

Being in the comics industry, you are acutely aware of two things: 1) that every corporate character has a history
with certain aspects of that history carved in stone, and 2) these characters have a strong, ardent following that, if
you are going to change them, it had better be good, or you'll know about it via Twitter, Facebook, and deviantART. I
will no doubt face this myself 10 times over with "The Weirding Willows," which merges timelines and histories of more
than a dozen beloved, classic characters. Whilst being as respectful of the characters and their histories as possible,
I won't let that stand in the way of what I want to do with the possibilities represented. I'm looking forward to the
feedback I expect from this one.

Author/Creator - Weirding Willows

It is no stretch to recognize that the nature of a civilization is tightly linked with its form of media.
It must be understood that we are undergoing a media transformation quite as substantial as the invention of written
language. As a consequence, we should expect social media (or, better, what will come to be known as Transmedia) to reshape
our world in deeply profound ways. This movement from center to edge, from author to community, from broadcast to interactivity,
is a fundamental. We will be seeing it literally everywhere, including art. Especially art - as we come to discover that one
of the core threads of this transition is a (real) aestheticization of life.

There will always be astounding stories that pay no regard to what an audience wants and are all the more richer for it. And I'm bloody thankful for that…I certainly care for the opinions of my readers, and I have kept them in the front of my mind during one story or another.

People who create to be consumed would care about pleasing the audience, people who are consumed by their creation quite frankly care only to please themselves.

QuestionsFor the Reader

  1. As a visual artist, have you ever experienced being pressured to alter an artwork, either by a dealer to make it more “salable,” or by your watchers, critics, or friends?

    As a writer, have you ever experienced being pressured to change an important part of a story, either at a prospective publisher’s or editor’s insistence, or simply because of a reader’s impassioned entreaties?

    As a reader or viewer (of movies, TV shows, videogames, art, etc.) do you feel a sense of entitlement giving you the right to not only criticize but actually demand changes be made to a disappointing work?

  2. Do you feel this entitlement is based in your great investment of both money and time in the work? Or do you feel this entitlement is based in your great investment of your head and heart in a particularly resonant storyline?

  3. As a writer or visual artist, is the connection between you and your audience important enough for you to want to make a change pleasing to them?

  4. As an online reader of Knite, Romantically Apocalyptic, or Off-White, is there an increased value or special connection you experience in being able to connect with the authors of your favorite works-in-progress and contribute your feedback?

    Does the ability to offer comments, suggestions, criticisms, and encouragement bond you creatively to a property in a way eclipsing passive fandom?

    Does Fan art and Fan Fiction created around an online story with author/reader interactivity become more of an integral part of the property than traditional offline fan art tributes?

  5. If you played ME3, how did you feel about the ending? TMNT or TANT?

© 2012 - 2021 techgnotic
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
Nazaxprime's avatar
"Now it’s exploded beyond the secure borders of top news publications, gaming and entertainment websites."
Implying it doesn't start elsewhere?
Come now, Its hard to complete articles with such flawed assertions in an opening thesis.
Crown-Heart's avatar
Wow, just want to say how awesome this article is on so many levels. The graphic and illustrative parts are excellent as always, and I'm always surprised at how well put together DA's articles are! I'm so grateful at having access to more alternative, relevant articles, such as this, to use in my college research and as an informative foundation for my written and artistic projects.
techgnotic's avatar
Thank you for this kind compliment. So glad you are enjoying the articles. $marioluevanos designs all of them.
Crown-Heart's avatar
Oh, no prob! :D Thanks much for posting them and the link to the designer!
HipolitaMoreira's avatar
is very important the feedback .You could lose your fans if your mistakes like a creator are big .Happends in music or movies too .XD
An-Old-Otaku's avatar
I won't comment on the individual merits of the article.

But I do want to say that this is just about the best laid out and most impressive looking piece that I have ever seen. And I used to work in the printing industry for over ten years.

The lay out, spread, fonts and drawings used is just A plus all the way! :thumbsup:
Aliz-Seraphim's avatar
wow thats an amazing artical, i was going to stop reading so many times becsue of the size but it kept me reading. it is alot to think about
tatsuyabocchan's avatar
i use to write something, well, i usually caled it fan fiction tough i don't know if write a kind of drama skenario and wishing that yo and your fave actor is kind of fanfiction or not. but when t come to 'fandom' as a fanfic author i try as much as possible my fandom friends read it. lol.. so somehow their idea pursue me to different ending story from my first story draft. lol...

somehow i decide it a different story and i will re write it in the near future. *if i get time to do*
Somnium-23's avatar
Here's another thing to consider:

Is there such a thing as "overrated" or "underrated"?
techgnotic's avatar
Yes, depending on the context of the conversation.
Somnium-23's avatar
Never mind, here's the answer:

No, there's no such thing as overrated or underrated as saying so would suggest that there's such a thing as an ideal or perfect work. There isn't. Most people say that a work is perfect if it does everything right. Well; "The Room" did everything right at being a bad film, and people don't call it perfect, and then there are all those critics who say that "Amadeus" is perfect and yet my sister and mom hates it, and then you have all those art house fans who say that "The Tree of Life" is glorious whilst almost everyone else says it's shit.

The fact is, if something is perfect it means that it can never be changed or it would become imperfect, so really perfection is a dead-end. A work can only do so well in one regard, it can never work on any level. But working on any level is the definition of perfection, but it's disproven at every turn, why else do most people today go with Batman instead of Citizen Kane or the other way around. In other words the true definition is this: a work is perfect if it pleases everyone on every level.

You don't need to be genius to understand that it's impossible.

The world of creative arts just like nature do not follow by any written rules, it just evolves into whatever it can be, there's no ideal or goal. I mean just look at us humans for example; we are not a perfect life-form nor the goal of evolution, we are just another mutation that's survived, and in most natural environments we are at a huge disadvantage due to our frail construct. Similarly in the world of arts; no work is better than the other, they are just different.

Different artists have different methods of how they approach creating and distributing their work, to varying degrees of efficiency. Most hardly gain any success at all, but some are luckier. The important thing to remember though is that quality is measured by popularity and impact, not by individual opinions. All of these discussions and arguments are just a bi-product of misusing language. We all to often make the mistake that language is a mirroring of the human condition, it's not, just like the thought and feelings of an animal the human condition can't be explained or put in words. The only way to access the human condition is to experience it for yourself. Language is a string of ideas that subvert the human condition into something more commutable, but these ideas can mean anything to anyone, and as more people gather around one another the different subjectives are taken as universal and so the arguments begin; an ever spinning web of meaningless ideas where people try to justify their subjective experiences.

The reason why quality is measured in popularity is because that shows just how well an artist's methods worked, it touched a large number of people in such a way that they become invested. "Overrated" and "underrated" are just words invented by the minority to try and justify their position when really they don't have a say in the matter. It's all a matter of tastes, voicing them is irrelevant, what's relevant is the investment. If you say a work is bad or good, it just means that it's good or bad for you. But what you feel individually is only important for you, the true value lies in the investment of the masses, not the voices of the individual.

You can't truly communicate how you feel about a work in language, only in actions. So really, all these arguments, debates, opinions are meaningless. You either join the cheering crowd or shut your mouth and leave. But remember; the bigger the crowd is, the more effective the art is, and that is the true measurement of quality.

For that reason I dare to say that Harry Potter is a masterpiece, even though I don't like it.
Somnium-23's avatar
Elaborate please.
Asheraine's avatar
TMNT over TANT. This is because I grew up with the TMNT and they became an integral part of my childhood. Seeing them suddenly altered into something so profoundly different is like tearing the piece of my childhood and warping into something just to appeal to those who have never heard of the series.
gir131's avatar
1. NO, I've never been pressured to change a central aspect of any story I've written by anyone other than me. And yes, I always feel like I have the right to express my concerns and ideas about the execution of a piece, Especially a piece that is a reimagined version of a historic work.
2. It's because I have so much emotional investment in the characters.
3. I think it would be if I had more than three people following me.
4. I think fanfivtion does enhance the experiance of the general work, because it opens you up to ne ways of looking at different characters, it's like if all the fans got together and threw a party all over the internet.
kronusnec's avatar
I'm a kind of a writer and I have experienced pressure from my sister to change some important parts of the story. I think it is realy important for an artist, especially in RPG area, to listen what readers have to say. When I finished ME3 I felt awfull. I died! Damn it, I realy died, because I WAS Commandor Sheppard. Sth I loved about Fable1 was that if you watched credits you could continue to play, although the campaign was finished. If ME3 had the same thing I would love BioWare. I wish they will make a patch with alternative ending where I survive, cause dieing sucks!
Abyss-of-Insanity's avatar
1. A&B. Whether as an off-hand murmur or a vehement protest every involuntary mishap is all to familiar when seen from a different perspective and made more memorable when you feel incapable of appeasing their demands.
C. The value of media-based entertainment is decided by making evaluations based upon experience with said entertainment. So it seems logical to concur that the ability to reach a verdict is justified in the hands of the consumer, but the consumer is liable to fault and typically lacks the skills to make solid revisions. In the end, no as a consumer we do not deserve such influence but as undeserving as we are we occasionally make a damn good time of it.
2. Responsibility all boils down to "I am a part of this" whether financially, emotionally or both.I believe that a consumer is allowed involvement directly proportional to contributions.
3. Highly situational. If the work is nonsensical then peer review is excusable, however if something tangible is at stake then constructive criticism is appreciated.
4. A&B Without a doubt the simple hope that you can even contact such venerable deities makes the immersion factor sky-rocket through the roof.
C. I think that user-generated content is'nt necessary but it's a welcome site seeing as how it can promote creativity not only in the community but perhaps the creator if she/he started perusing inspiration.
5. I have played ME3 but not to the end, but I have a general rough draft of what is to come. From the sounds of it gamers were terribly disappointed, with my irl survey topping out to1/7 gamers being slightly content with ME3's endings, and after some decent contemplation I decided ME3 wasn't worth my time until proven.
PaperMatt202's avatar
I want to read this, but I haven't found the time to...
NinaMarinaAcuatico's avatar
Wonderful article, it directly addresses the fuss that is going on around this issue.
In regaurd to question one, as a reader or viewer of videogames/movies and such, I do not feel entitled to demand changes to the plot. Unless given the choice, such as in the Mass Effect series. I do feel that they should have had much more varience in the outcomes according to what YOU choose, seeing as they seemingly give you the choice. If you are going to give the reader/viewer/gamer the choice to choose, the outcome should be adjusted accordingly.

Question four is interesting, for if the creator gives you the choice to directly affect the story or work of art, then I do feel more of an attachment to the work. But on the other hand if there is no hinting at being able to choose then I am content to take the work from the creator as is, for there has been much effort on the creators part to make it in the first place and I respect them in doing so.

And lastly question five. I played all of the Mass Effect games and thoroughly enjoyed the interactive game play, choosing the outcomes in playing the nice guy or a complete jerk, and the outcomes that result from those choices. I was throughly dissappointed when playing the ending of Mass Effect 3 in finding that pretty much no matter what I did the outcome was pretty much the same.

Thanks for giving such an amazing article on this dilicate issue and giving the readers a chance to voice their opinion.
thelovebat's avatar
Very interesting article.
ravensartshack's avatar
I enjoyed reading this article so I wil be sharing this on facebook. I am writing my first novel and have been wondering how does one write for video games?
Mercurial-Mythic's avatar
My initial views (subject to change if I think about it in more depth later):

As a writer, I've been pressured to change some of my short stories by some of the people who've read them- actually, mostly by my mother, who continually tells me to "write about other topics, nobody likes reading about this subject, write something that there's a market for" (to paraphrase). It's not the individual plotlines that get complaints, it's the premise of what I write. Still, I write because it's important to me to get the information down and existing in the 'real world' outside of my head, not to sell. That would just be an extra perk. ;)

I think that as a reader of books, a watcher of TV shows, and a viewer of art, I don't really have a sense of entitlement about demanding changes- I mean, I think I can criticize things that I can support, like "the dialogue was slightly stilted", "such and such was kind of contrived/pulled out of nowhere", "x and y were inconsistant in a way not in fitting with the professed theme", that sort of thing, but ultimately a book is written for the writer, art is made for the maker, and TV shows have a central and main arc that is the vision of the creator which will probably come together at the end- if the show fails entirely, that's a different story (this coming from the perspective of a writer, a sort-of-artist, and someone who writes episodic plot arcs). While you can criticize the concrete, I don't think we have a right to demand anything of the basic plot or things like that. For the most part, I think this goes for movies too.
However, there is an exception- if the movie, TV show, or book is spun-off of an already established work (particularly a successful one), then I think the creator should listen to the fanbase, at least insofar as staying true to the source material goes. Because while in these cases the new creator probably does have their own vision of how things should go, it's based heavily off of someone else's, and it should respect that work as an important aspect of the 'franchise' or whatever. Also, in many cases spin-offs or new takes on old things (movies and TV, mostly, to my knowledge, though probably also videogames) have at least some motivation of monetary gain. If you're intent on selling to the fanbase, listening to what it considers the hallmarks of the 'story' or whatever you're reworking is probably a good idea- the same way that basic supply and demand works, by one person providing what other people want, or not selling anything.
As for videogames- while I freely admit that I do not have a large amount of experience in being quite so invested in them as others, I am of the opinion that they are created to sell, and thus created for the buyer, in the same "supply-and-demand" way as above. So, if you're making it for the buyer, listening to their demands and at least taking the strongest ones into account seems like it would be a good idea- unless you're honestly making the game for the sake of making it, with your own non-profit outfit and organization, not caring what other people think. Then it's really up to you whether or not you listen to the fans.

I think the entitlement, when it exists, is based a bit on the money invested in the work- a case of "we're buying it, so give us what we want"- in, again, the whole free-market sense. But I also think that, as stated above, some of the stuff being created is being created *for* the buyer. So we invest ourselves in it, the creator deliberately sets out to get us to invest ourselves in it, if only to sell out, and we have a stake in the outcomes. No work will please everyone (or if it does, there's mind control of the public being involved somehow), but if the creator sets out to get us 'invested', then in a sense she or he gives the public a little bit of the story- the same way that, in the market, 'investing' means getting a share and a say in a stock or something.
Again, particularly if the work is based on something pre-existing- whether it's a reboot of a beloved classic or if it's a sequel to a hit somethingorother- there is even more 'entitlement'. The new creator goes into it knowing that the fanbase has expectations, that they're *already* invested in the storylines, and that the expectations now fall on the new creator too. If the new creator is a fan of the original work themselves, they may have just such an attachment. The new work, being produced for the buyers and the public, shouldn't seek to break the fanbase- if the new creator is a fan, they wouldn't want such a thing to happen to the storyline from *their* perspective. It's a case of human understanding of the way emotional connections to the unreal go.

As a visual artist, a lot of what I do (which it occurs to me I have posted very, very little of on this site...) is done for my own sake- self expression and the leaking of Important Stuff into the real world. But when I have something that people really like, that's done for them, whether to sell or just to show, then yeah, what my audience thinks is really important. If they don't like it, I can't convey the subtleties I'm trying to get across, and I can't give them something profound to hold onto. The art for me is for me, and the art for them is most emphatically *for* them. There aren't too many points that I'd be unwilling to at least compromise on- the basic style, which I'd assume people are fine with if they like the art as a whole, and some of the implications of my work (I won't pass along messages I vehemently dissagree with, for example), are about it.
As a writer, it's a little bit complicated. A lot of my work is for me- I'm of the I-wrote-it-because-it-happened-it-happened-because-I-wrote-it perspective. The worlds I write often spring fully formed to mind. And, because I try to prortray me characters relatively consistantly (except the story with my author avatar as a main character, which will likely never be published or see any eyes but mine and my closest friends), I would assume that anyone invested in the story won't ask me to change that. Equally, if there's a big profound event or character trait that some people don't like, I'm not likely to be changing it just because people ask. It's probably integral to how I see the character, and the characters are *mine*. But if there's something that everyone objects to- a stray implication, something that they say really doesn't fit with the rest of the character's portrayal, that sort of thing- then I might consider changing it. If nothing else, the fact that other people are reading whatever it is and there are enough of them to form a coherent audience base would say that I have accepted that I'm giving part of the story to my audience, to borrow the time of or contemplate as they see fit. I figure that if the point is valid, I owe them that. Or, if they give me a suggestion about "write such and such story, for character development, it would fit them much better than such and such", then I'll probably take the suggestion because the character is mine, but some of the character's time is for the audience, to give them something, to spread a certain ideal or feeling or whatever. The audience, in that case, has a right to give me a kick in the pants and a startoff.
Of course, the fact that most of this is me saying "I'll take audience suggestions if I feel like it" is kind of unhelpful. But the thing is, the characters are mine entirely- I'm not trying to write characters that belong to other people (except in the story with my author avatar as the main character, but those bits would probably be edited out anyway). So I'm not intruding on already established territory and trying to make my mark on a small and established character interpretation. If I were, I would definitely welcome input from the fanbase, and especially from the original creator(s). The fans would have to have a well supported point, because fanon can get in the way of open-minded creativity sometimes, but their opinion should have some weight. The original creator should be someone with at least a certain "veto power" on the intrinsic aspects of the story and chracters. If it were my works being used as source material, there would be certain instrinsic aspects that I would be pretty much uncompromising on. People messing up those would be fairly heartbreaking for me. The original creators are the ones who 'own' the characters, and though there are aspects that are probably open to interpretation, the important essence of the character should be preserved. I figure that if I'd like people to give me that much, that doing the same for others is their just due.
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In