but if the fans voice their objections and vote with their feet there's no audience left and they've effectively killed their own product.
What kills me is what a no-win situation that is, at least for anyone emotionally invested in the show. When any production team can say, "Hey, if you didn't like it, go elsewhere," (Hi, RTD!) or "But we're giving you something newer and shinier!" (Stargate folks, I am looking at you), it just kind of screams of a lack of affection for the show in question.
Speaking generally, I want to feel as though the writer is just as affected by what they've written as I am as a fan; otherwise, it's got that weird taint of manipulation. I can respect an author who aches for a day after writing a death scene. I have a much harder time with one who does it clinically.
It's a fine line between artistic integrity and pandering to the fans by giving them exactly what they want
I've been thinking about that a lot lately, too. I think it comes down to that same distinction between intentions, whether the fan is someone you're in league with or someone you're using. Blatant fanservice, again, has that creepy manipulation vibe. What works, though, is when the PTB recognize what it is about their show that works, and roll with that within the universe they've created.
Possibly the best and worst examples of this are both from Stargate. The 200th SG:1 ep was... okay, walking the fanservice line, but self-deprecatingly and with humor. They knew what they were doing, and why it was funny. On the other end of the spectrum, you have pretty much everything involved in the marketing of SG:U, which took something with a lot of potential and managed to position it in every way guaranteed to alienate the existing fanbase. While I'd normally consider marketing studies to be a little icky and inorganic, in this case, I think these guys need one. They don't seem to have any clue anymore what it was about their franchise that fans enjoyed, and what was just tolerated. At the very least, they ought to have a long talk with their PR division.
no subject
What kills me is what a no-win situation that is, at least for anyone emotionally invested in the show. When any production team can say, "Hey, if you didn't like it, go elsewhere," (Hi, RTD!) or "But we're giving you something newer and shinier!" (Stargate folks, I am looking at you), it just kind of screams of a lack of affection for the show in question.
Speaking generally, I want to feel as though the writer is just as affected by what they've written as I am as a fan; otherwise, it's got that weird taint of manipulation. I can respect an author who aches for a day after writing a death scene. I have a much harder time with one who does it clinically.
It's a fine line between artistic integrity and pandering to the fans by giving them exactly what they want
I've been thinking about that a lot lately, too. I think it comes down to that same distinction between intentions, whether the fan is someone you're in league with or someone you're using. Blatant fanservice, again, has that creepy manipulation vibe. What works, though, is when the PTB recognize what it is about their show that works, and roll with that within the universe they've created.
Possibly the best and worst examples of this are both from Stargate. The 200th SG:1 ep was... okay, walking the fanservice line, but self-deprecatingly and with humor. They knew what they were doing, and why it was funny. On the other end of the spectrum, you have pretty much everything involved in the marketing of SG:U, which took something with a lot of potential and managed to position it in every way guaranteed to alienate the existing fanbase. While I'd normally consider marketing studies to be a little icky and inorganic, in this case, I think these guys need one. They don't seem to have any clue anymore what it was about their franchise that fans enjoyed, and what was just tolerated. At the very least, they ought to have a long talk with their PR division.