Deviant Login Shop  Join deviantART for FREE Take the Tour

:icontechgnotic: More from techgnotic

More from deviantART


Submitted on
April 3, 2012
Submitted with Writer


614,168 (22 today)
2,436 (who?)

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.

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.

Cake ID by StJoan

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?

Add a Comment:
foxmoonink Apr 4, 2012  Student Traditional Artist
btw I haven't read all the comments so I'm sorry if some one already said this but; the green slime that turned the (ya know from the comic book where the turtles cursed and killed people before the tv series.)original turtles into mutants came from aliens (Remember Krang). So they were kinda aliens. Fortunately the director remembered this better than the "Turtle Fans" Link to news story. [link]

So to me the TMNT doesn't really fit in the idea of this story because it's not an issue of fan input it's an issue of fans not being correctly informed before they go off on a rant.

As far as ME3 goes I don't know how to feel about this. I honestly think the ending was poorly directed. As it is I think it simply went over peoples heads. I could speculate about it all day. However the fact of the matter is it didn't give fans the sense of closure you get from an ending. Be it good or bad.
I can say I'm honestly interested to see where this turn of events takes the story. However I would like to know if this was their initial intention(not to piss off fans, but to get their input on the games final scenes and release them as a DLC) or if they really intended to leave that as the games final ending.
One thing the ending did do though is show the true power of the Reapers; Despair.
nime080 Apr 4, 2012  Professional Digital Artist
Wonderful article, thanks! :D

1. In my opinion, the matter is "who carries the vision here?".
On comission, I'm used to modify my artwork to satisfy a customer or publisher. I must match *their* vision with my art.
However, when I work on my own projects and characters, I'm much more careful. I own the exact vision, I sense how details should sound together. When I'm asked to change something, I take all opinions in and elaborate them to produce a solution that won't alter my vision.

As a writer, people enjoy my stories so I had no problems until now. ^__^

As a reader/viewer, I just learn what "works" and what doesn't, but I wouldn't criticize or change other's work. They deserve my respect for simply doing it.
Right or wrong, they have their own reason to invest a lot of money in what they produce.

2. I'm concerned about delivering darn good stories, about thrilling people. Investiments and pricing are just tools to continue doing so. You don't want authors to starve, do you? ^__^'

3. I don't struggle to please my audience, however I carefully listen to them all the time.
P.e. readers didn't like the "grudge pencil" in my early comic issues, so I switched to ink. I put some of their jokes and ideas into the comic, shaping the world as they image it to be. The main storyline is safe, but the overall feeling became closer to what fans expect. To this point, the comic series is a team-work between the author and the fans. I love to work this way!
1. "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?"

That depends on how disappointing it is, how much respect I have for the work, and how much respect I have for the creator. For instance, I think the Half-Life/Portal series could use some changes, but I also love the games as they are, and I love Valve, and I would never "demand" a change from them — I'll just write my own "Fix Fic" version. XD (I'm actually working on it right now. XD) I can say, "I think they should have done this", but I wouldn't say, "They have to change this, or else." I can say, "I think they should do this for [future game]", but I know that I can usually trust their judgment, so I know I'll probably love the game even if it's not what I would've ideally wanted. If it were what I ideally wanted, it would be my story, not Valve's.

It also depends on how awesome I feel a particular change would be. If I think, "Well, this would have been better, but it's fine as it is", that's usually the end of it for me. But sometimes I think, "This would change absolutely everything and make it 100 times better than it is now", then I'll be more likely to say, "YOU MUST DO IT! YOU MUST DO IT NOW!"

And finally, it also depends on how accessible the creator is, and how easy it would be for them to change something. Alexius is immediately accessible pretty much all the time. All you have to do is post something on one of his character's Facebook pages, or one of his deviations, or one of his comics on his webiste. Maybe he won't see your particular comment, but if enough fans say something, he'll notice. He has a very intimate relationship with fans, and you can talk to him as an individual. And if you point out a spelling mistake, it's usually fixed within a day, so it's easy to change dialogue at least. So if you want to say, "DO THIS! DO IT NAO!" you can do that pretty easily. But when you're talking about a company like Valve, that's different. There are no comment boxes. There are forums, but look at how many threads there are. How likely is it that a Valve employee will not only look at what you have to say, but actually care? You could e-mail Gabe Newell, but he's a very busy person, and probably gets thousands of e-mails a day. And even if anyone gets your message, how likely is it that the change you want would actually be easy to make? Making a video game takes a ton of work and coordination from a ton of people, and it's expensive. Only a change that resonates with the creators in a really "Fuck yeah!" kind of way (that was one developer's reaction to F-STOP) would be worth putting a team together again to implement it, and maybe not even then.

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?"

Both! Not always money (I'm not paying to read webcomics), but definitely time, head, and heart. Definitely. It's not even about the money, really. I payed $45 for Portal 2, but that's not what I'm thinking about when I think, "They should have done X instead of Y." I'm thinking about how much my enjoyment of the story and game would increase. I could have paid $10, but I'd still want that change. I could have paid $0 and I still would want that change.

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?"

I don't know, since I don't yet have an audience, but I can imagine. Sometimes I imagine how an audience might react to something, if I had an audience. And there are cases where I would be perfectly willing to change something to please them. But in other cases, I would have to put my foot down. It is still my story, and if a certain aspect or element of it is really important to me, it is probably going to stay.

I like what StJoan said: "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."

I mostly fall into the latter category. For the most part, I only think about hypothetical audience reactions in order to view my work from another perspective, so I can highlight flaws in my work — sometimes it's easier to see where something has gone wrong when you're not the one who made it. It's like Schneier's Law: "Any person can invent a security system so clever that he or she can't imagine a way of breaking it." It takes an outsider to find the flaws. That's how feedback can be useful. But unless I find something so glaringly wrong that it goes against what I, as the writer, want, I probably am not going to change it.

Of course, none of this really matters right now since I don't really have an actual audience. Maybe if I ever get one, this will all change. Who knows?

As both a writer (in a manner of speaking…) and a consumer, I can sympathize with both sides of the issue all too well — to the point where I can be hypocritical about it or be guilty of double standards. I remember a few weeks ago I was trying to figure out when it is and is not okay to reject "Word of God" as canon, and I just could not figure out a perfect litmus test. I found some indicators that would hold in most situations, but none that would hold in all. So I don't 100% know what makes me take one side over the other in a given situation, but I have a pretty good idea. XD

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?"

Oh my, yes!!

"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?"

Offline fan art tributes? What is this of which you speak?

XD Seriously though, the only offline fan art I've ever seen is cosplay, and I've never been to a convention. So I guess my answer is a resounding "Yes". XD

5. N/A
CEZacherl Apr 4, 2012  Professional Traditional Artist
I think that the solution ultimately resides in the creator and the amount that they're willing to collaborate with their audience. If I want to create something under a singular vision, I need to just do that and then be cool with receiving or ignoring critiques as they come. But if I want my work to be more involved with the reader/viewer than I need to commit to that and be willing to consider & adhere to the advise/contributions given.

That being said, the second I pick up an established item that has an existing fan base I owe it to that fan base and more particularly to the creators that came before me to honor that pre-existing work. My hope w/ the new TMNT is that the rumors are just that and are misconstrued from the film reckoning back towards the oldschool comics/cartoon & tabletop RPG where the *villains* were primarily aliens. Here's to hoping.

On a seperate note, I'm distinctly sick of remakes in general and the fall-back crutch that producers are relying on them for. I refuse to commit any financial contribution to these lack of inspirational originality more than a one dollar Red Box rental at best :-P
I LOVE MASS EFfECT SO MUCH!!! It was so much fun to play. It is because of this great love I have for this world created by such a talented, ambitious, and revolutionary group of people that I just want to say one thing...

It hurt to see that ending. What went wrong? How could the same people who came up with the first 98% of this game that was so amazing end it so badly? Three cut and paste options to chose from and they are all basically the same? I wanted the choices I made in this game to have a more dynamic effect on what happened at the end. This was so disappointing and the people petitioning too have it changed have it right.

The players of these games don't just play them for the fun of it. We take the time to invest a part of ourselves into the story and make the characters a part of us. When the main character sacrifices so much toward a noble goal we see ourselves, in some small way, doing the same. Every time we do we are becoming, by whatever measure, better people for it. Through participating and enabling the completion of this fiction we grow as individuals through the narrative. Because of this when we are cheated the ending that is consistent with the story we have become a part of, it could be said that they have harmed us in some fundamental way. Bioware has inflicted upon its players this ending and so we rise up like the hero who fights to save his world in order to right what has been made wrong.

I know that it is a privilege to play these games and we have no real right to demand more from you, but I would hope that you will see all the love and support we the gamer's have given you and try to take our words to heart. See things from our perspective and don't just give us what we want, give the world you created the ending it deserves.
A piece of art you look at, hardly any emotion or effort invested. You either enjoy it or you don't. But if you are paying for it of course you want it to look good.

A movie you watch, you can understand what they might be going through. You have a somewhat vested emotion in the characters. Even more vested if you are a fan of the series.
For Examples:

Iron Man LARGELY deviated from the comic book and was a resounding success, and boy were the comic book loyalists not happy about that. But the comic book was 1700 issues and a whopping 32,000 pages of material. Of course some things were going to be rewritten cause it just wouldn't fit within a movie environ.

Green Lantern FOLLOWED the comic books to a T and yet was not well recieved. *not counting economic factors* GL was portrayed a Superman without Invincibility, Freeze Breath, Laser eyes, or Super Speed and debilitating weakness to the spectrum of yellow... So theoretically a Pikachu or some guy in a yellow Haz-Mat suit could toss Yellowcake on him and he'd be done for.

Though I guess for the sake of arguments sake, Iron Man had to earn his freedom and super powers while GL was just given a ring with super powers and told to do stuff.

Video-game you purchase @ 6X the price of a movie for experiences that promise to make you laugh, cry, sweat and question your own moral nuances.
You BECOME the character(s), you are wholly that person, you Empathize and Sympathize with them. You didn't ask for this, but dammit all to hell you are going to try the best damn job you know how and hopefully come out on top.

So i guess with Visual art you can move on, Audio not listen to it, a movie criticize it, but a videogame gets into your brain... it rewires your neurons to fire differently then they did before, you think better and faster after playing a videogame. Scientifically proven too!

I guess what I'm trying to say is that:

Artists have a specific message they want to get out, and it more than likely WILL not be received by the whole of the masses unless they're audience is in total agreement. Famous works of art are timeless, they speak to the core of humanity.

But for videogames, and movies, if you release a crappy product... you may sell to the diehards and the curious which will get your money back, but if you could listen to your fans and rework the small things and the big things. that maybe you will not have such angry customers.

I mean imagine how much better "the Mario Brothers" movie would had been if you had crowd sourced the story with the "appropriate" crowd? ( and by appropriate I mean us gamers who GREW UP WITH IT, and want OUR CHILDREN TO REMEMBER IT JUST THE WAY WE DID!) I guess that's my biggest beef with TANT, It's not TMNT. and yeah the first 3 movies sucked graphically, but storywise, they were SPOT ON!

On the other side of the coin, could you imagine how horrible the second Star Wars prequel would have been if we hadn't been silent about the annoying Jar Jar Binks???
1. I am a fairly reasonable person but there are things I am super stubborn about. I have never really had the deal with changing my work for others but I have a feeling I would not be very accommodating. As the audience I’m there for the ride, let’s see what you got. But don’t be stupid about it.
2. This is my work.
3. Read my write up below. Particularly the last paragraph.
4. Responses and criticisms are welcome and I can handle them but they are put in their correct place in my mind. In most cases as post script, after the fact.
5. Don’t play m.e. but tant is dumb to me personally

Okay here is my opinion on this; this issue is much more of a film or transitioning from one media to another IE film, type issue. As a solo artist my pieces are mine to create and if I choose to make a change that is my choice to make and no one else’s, the audience is there to partake in what I am offering, My ideas my stories my art. But … when talking about a mass collaborative effort like film the reasonability of control of ideas and direction of production is much more skewed, more people have their hands in the pot and it will affect the final product.
A film based on a pre-existing story or charactors has a certain expectation of fan service. There is (and should be) a larger onus on being faithful to the source material, but a little space for personal interpretation should be allowed. A film that is new, new charactors and a new story is pretty much exempt from that because the people are allowed to create and there are no preconceptions or expectations. IE when David Fincher did his version of “the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” (which he didn’t write) there was a huge expectation on him to be faithful to the book and the people in it. He, for the most part did that, created, what some would call, a ‘good’ interpretation of the book. But things had too be changed he made some small changes and some large ones as well, think of those things as you will. In reverse of that Quentin Tarintino writes directs and sometimes produces his own films never really(with one exception) basing his stuff on something already created and by doing that can do what the hell ever he wants too. Films like “Pulp Fiction” and “Django Unchained” there are no preconceived notions of what to expect from those films, aside from fans of his knowing his particular style. I try to keep my collaborators to a bare minimum.
My point on this is the only reason this is a conversation is because of expectations, people go to a “James Bond” film the want to see a bond film, people want to go to a film based on the “Hunger Games” books they want it to be 90% like the book, and when people go to a “Teenage Mutants Ninja Turtles” film they want to see the ‘mutant’ turtles. It is a very real hazard when dealing with pre-existing material, if that is the direction people want to take their work then they should be conscious of that fact (Michael Bay.) Original ideas never have to really face that problem.
If I am creating a piece that someone else has created before me, whether it is a story or a character, I try to honour their creation by being faithful. But when I am creating my own stuff I live by a quote I got from Alan Moore, “They are the audience, they don’t know what they want. I as the creator know what they need. I will give them what they need not what they want.”
Corpse-Killir-PhD Apr 3, 2012  Student Digital Artist
This a really well written article, nice job my man, personally when I start my manga next year, I will listen to my watchers and fans about what they want, cause I may write something and find out none of them liked it I would be willing to poll the three most wanted changes and which of those wins I willl do that change, into my manga, to where it wont alter the whole the storyline, but incorperate that into it and make few changes instead of the whole thing, but make it longer so it all works together. I believe that my fan base should be entertained, don't get me wrong I want to be just as entertained as they do, but I believe their opinion should be taken into consideration. Cause if I ignore their ideas I might not get the most enjoyable story told and one thing is I might not change things do to something they havnt seen yet. Thats my opinion of the matter of being a writer and a illustrator. THanks for the article it looks pretty sweet, :).
Beautiful article, it's hard to sum up my feelings on all the topics but I can with Mass Effect 3 and TMNT.

On ME3, I do feel that we were cheated out of really choosing the ending of our journey as Shepard. Especially when the tales of so many multiple endings were touted, and the fact that Bioware usually is stellar with endings and their impacts, I felt more disappointed than enraged. I merely hope if they do release a DLC to expand the ending and give us more choices, they do it right.

As for TMNT, I'm honestly waiting til I know more about it. I'm not a Michael Bay fanboy but I'm no hater either. While mistakes were made with the TF live actions movies, I loved them, and I'm willing to give Bay the benefit of the doubt. Some people neglect to remember with TF2, Bay had to deal with the writers strike and crunching deadlines, and with TF3, he wanted an extra year to do a none TF project and prep for the third movie, but Paramount forced him to do the next sequel asap.

We have the opportunity to serve, entertain, and help the people around the world. America required us who can write a book or novel, draw, create, design graphic, fasion, video games, and animation. If you have a dream of being somebody you wanted, you can seek the opportunity anywhere you can. You can go to college so you might succeed. I know there are million of people in the US want to live their dreams.
Add a Comment: