Modifier: Found footage
Category: Sub-genre
Type: Negative
Strength: Low
Although the Found Footage sub-genre is not technically limited to Horror films, they do seem to be where the format has found the most traction. Which is understandable; when a film's premise is built around the fact that all the footage shown was "real life" video later discovered by a third party, there has to be a reason why the found footage was lost in the first place, and reasons don't get more convenient than "everybody dies," which in itself is a pretty Horror-friendly idea.
Although Found Footage films have been around for a while, in the years following the break-out success of The Blair Witch Project they have become an increasingly popular vehicle for Horror filmmakers to utilize. Only a few have managed to capture lightning in a bottle like Blair Witch, but it's easy to see the appeal of the format to both filmmakers and audience members. On the production side, a Found Footage flick can be relatively cheap to produce; all you need is a camcorder and an actor who doesn't mind being mostly an off-screen voice, and you're good to go. Sure, they might need to pour some money into makeup or special effects, but the grind of trying to set up a full camera crew and crafting intricate, precise shots is largely absent; half the point of a Found Footage experience is that it's like watching a home movie, so having an amateurish quality to the camerawork can only enhance that. And it's that home movie aspect that can be appealing to the audience; for some people, it's just easier to get sucked into the tension and suspense if they feel like they're watching something that they themselves could have shot on their own video-camera.
One of the problem with the Found Footage format, however, is the need to construct a narrative that explains why someone is constantly videotaping while horrendous things are happening. Some films build that into their plot fairly easily by making their films center around documentarians (The Blair Witch Project, Trollhunter), newscasters (REC and its remake Quarantine), scientists (Apartment 143), Reality TV stars of the Ghost Chaser variety (Grave Encounters, Episode 50), or everyday victims of supernatural happenings who just want some proof (the Paranormal Activity Found Footage franchise). Others, however, rely on the problematic "this person refuses to put down the camera even while running for their life" strategy, which often involves lots of people screaming "WHY DON"T YOU PUT DOWN THAT CAMERA WHILE YOU'RE RUNNING FOR YOUR LIFE?!?!?!?!" -- both on-screen and off. Cloverfield is a prime example, but it is not alone in its lazy handling of motivation (Skew, Area 407).
In the beginning, I was fairly neutral towards Found Footage films; even after the initial novelty wore off after the fourth or fifth Blair Witch knock-off, I didn't mind when one would pop up. But in the last few years, it has felt increasingly like the format's tendency to make people uneasy by over-identifying with its pseudo-realism has become a crutch the filmmakers lean on in lieu of constructing a solid script. While I don't tend to write Found Footage films off automatically, I have found myself rolling my eyes a bit with each time a film starts up with a "This footage was discovered . . ." scroll of text. There are some quality Found Footage films out there, but more and more they are becoming the minority.
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
Monday, October 1, 2012
Countdown to Halloween Day 1 -- My Top 5 Buffy episodes
Welcome to the first of my Countdown to Halloween themed posts here at Categorically Thinking. Due to time constraints, I'm starting off with a quick list.
MY TOP 5 FAVORITE EPISODES OF BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
5. "Tabula Rasa" -- Although this episode would lead to some of my least favorite BtVS plots, it will always hold a special place in my heart for the comedy gold of the amnesiac Scooby Gang trying to suss out their names and relationships. Not the scariest or creepiest of episodes, but one that makes me laugh a lot.
4. "Restless" -- And speaking of laughing a lot, the Season 4 finale which finds the Core 4 being stalked by some mysterious force in their dreams is filled with Whedonisms and non sequiters that amused me greatly. It also managed to capture the shifting logic and locations of dreams better than most any other show I've seen. And, unlike the incidental villains of "Tabula Rasa," the mysterious force here brings a bit of the creepy. But, not as much as . . .
3. "Hush" -- Probably best known for its gimmicky premise -- there's zero dialogue in the second and third acts of the episode -- the real reason this episode stands out for me is the fact that the Monsters of the Week are among the creepiest things I've ever seen on broadcast TV. Seriously, it's rare for me to get creeped out by a TV show, but "Hush" managed it easily.
2. "The Body" -- This episode revolving around the death of a long-time character never ceases to choke me up; the sequence where Anya has her breakdown gets me to tear up every time I watch it.
1. "Once More With Feeling" -- Yes, the musical episode of Buffy is my favorite episode of Buffy; is anyone really surprised?
MY TOP 5 FAVORITE EPISODES OF BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
5. "Tabula Rasa" -- Although this episode would lead to some of my least favorite BtVS plots, it will always hold a special place in my heart for the comedy gold of the amnesiac Scooby Gang trying to suss out their names and relationships. Not the scariest or creepiest of episodes, but one that makes me laugh a lot.
4. "Restless" -- And speaking of laughing a lot, the Season 4 finale which finds the Core 4 being stalked by some mysterious force in their dreams is filled with Whedonisms and non sequiters that amused me greatly. It also managed to capture the shifting logic and locations of dreams better than most any other show I've seen. And, unlike the incidental villains of "Tabula Rasa," the mysterious force here brings a bit of the creepy. But, not as much as . . .
3. "Hush" -- Probably best known for its gimmicky premise -- there's zero dialogue in the second and third acts of the episode -- the real reason this episode stands out for me is the fact that the Monsters of the Week are among the creepiest things I've ever seen on broadcast TV. Seriously, it's rare for me to get creeped out by a TV show, but "Hush" managed it easily.
2. "The Body" -- This episode revolving around the death of a long-time character never ceases to choke me up; the sequence where Anya has her breakdown gets me to tear up every time I watch it.
1. "Once More With Feeling" -- Yes, the musical episode of Buffy is my favorite episode of Buffy; is anyone really surprised?
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Legion of Super Heroes Favorites -- Villains
To finish off my expanded look at my favorite characters from Legion of Super-Heroes, I've decided to deviate slightly and focus on a different group: the Legion's villains.
Honorable Mention
And we return yet again to the "style over substance" discussion for the very distinctively designed mindless brute known as Validus.
TOP 3
Before the Gap Years, Glorith had a whopping one appearance in the 60s as a henchwoman for the recurring villain The Time Trapper. However, when the writers did their soft reboot to remove Superboy and Supergirl from the Legion's history, they used Glorith as their vehicle to do so, having her cast a spell to usurp the Time Trapper's place in history. Whereas the Trapper was a figure of mystery and contradictions, Glorith was a creature of desire and cunning driven by a lust for power and an obsession with the Legionnaire named Valor.
Wielder of the mystic object known as the Emerald Eye of Ekron, there have been multiple people to hold this title throughout the years and various reboots, but the common theme tends to be the corrupting influence the Eye holds over them. While the original Empress is still my favorite, I have found something to like about the subsequent versions as well, especially the Reboot version, who was introduced as a deadly villain in her own right even without the aid of the Eye.
Although I had bought a couple of issues of Legion here and there, it wasn't until 1982 and the beginning of The Great Darkness Saga -- widely regarded as one of the heights of the Legion in all its forms -- that I became a true Legion fan. And while the master villain behind it all turned out to be a highly recognizable 20th century character, it was the twisted clones that acted as his Servants which captured my imagination, even before I knew who they were.
Honorable Mention
Validus
And we return yet again to the "style over substance" discussion for the very distinctively designed mindless brute known as Validus.
TOP 3
Glorith
Before the Gap Years, Glorith had a whopping one appearance in the 60s as a henchwoman for the recurring villain The Time Trapper. However, when the writers did their soft reboot to remove Superboy and Supergirl from the Legion's history, they used Glorith as their vehicle to do so, having her cast a spell to usurp the Time Trapper's place in history. Whereas the Trapper was a figure of mystery and contradictions, Glorith was a creature of desire and cunning driven by a lust for power and an obsession with the Legionnaire named Valor.
Emerald Empress
Wielder of the mystic object known as the Emerald Eye of Ekron, there have been multiple people to hold this title throughout the years and various reboots, but the common theme tends to be the corrupting influence the Eye holds over them. While the original Empress is still my favorite, I have found something to like about the subsequent versions as well, especially the Reboot version, who was introduced as a deadly villain in her own right even without the aid of the Eye.
Servants of Darkness
Although I had bought a couple of issues of Legion here and there, it wasn't until 1982 and the beginning of The Great Darkness Saga -- widely regarded as one of the heights of the Legion in all its forms -- that I became a true Legion fan. And while the master villain behind it all turned out to be a highly recognizable 20th century character, it was the twisted clones that acted as his Servants which captured my imagination, even before I knew who they were.
Friday, August 26, 2011
Enjoyment Modifiers: Fantasy
Modifier: Fantasy
Category: Genre
Type: Positive
Strength: Medium
Closely related to last week's entry, the genre of Fantasy can probably best be summed up by one word: magic. Much like Science Fiction, Fantasy works are built around creating a world different from our own, albeit difference based on the supernatural and mystical rather than scientific. This isn't always as clear cut a division as it might seem -- many Fantasy works will bring SF elements into themselves, and vice versa. Generally, whatever aspect is prevalent will determine how the work is categorized, but even that can be a matter of preference.
When talking about Fantasy, people often speak in terms of High Fantasy vs. Low Fantasy, but as demonstrated by a recent conversation with my pal Josh, the text book definitions of the two terms often differ from the general perception people have of the terms. If you were to consult a text about genre fiction, odds are good it would define High Fantasy as a Fantasy taking place in a world completely different from our own and Low Fantasy as one that takes place in our world, with just a bit of magic sprinkled in. However, many discussions I've observed among general Fantasy fans shows a different understanding of the terms, with High Fantasy indicating stories filled with epic quests pursued by noble heroes and champions of virtue, while Low Fantasy is much grittier, grimier, and greyer in terms of morality and motivation.
As with SF, one of the bigger draws of Fantasy for me is world building and seeing the inventiveness of the creators in conjuring up a greatly different world. Unfortunately, one of the pitfalls of many Fantasy works is an adherence to ideas originating from two sources: Lord of the Rings and Dungeons and Dragons. While there can still be well-crafted works that draw from these sources, my enjoyment is usually lessened when a work is too obviously derivative. This is part of why Fantasy's strength as an Enjoyment Modifier is medium across the board for me. I prefer Fantasy works that invent their own rules for magic rather than consulting the D&D Player's handbook.
This is the first of the genres I've talked about in depth where I feel like the details of the sub-genres and other thematic elements hold more weight in my enjoyment than the trappings of the genre itself, so I think I'll hold off on any more in-depth discussions of Fantasy tropes and themes until I get to them.
Audience participation time: Do you love to escape into worlds filled with magic, or do you prefer your fiction to stay rooted firmly on the ground?
Category: Genre
Type: Positive
Strength: Medium
Closely related to last week's entry, the genre of Fantasy can probably best be summed up by one word: magic. Much like Science Fiction, Fantasy works are built around creating a world different from our own, albeit difference based on the supernatural and mystical rather than scientific. This isn't always as clear cut a division as it might seem -- many Fantasy works will bring SF elements into themselves, and vice versa. Generally, whatever aspect is prevalent will determine how the work is categorized, but even that can be a matter of preference.
When talking about Fantasy, people often speak in terms of High Fantasy vs. Low Fantasy, but as demonstrated by a recent conversation with my pal Josh, the text book definitions of the two terms often differ from the general perception people have of the terms. If you were to consult a text about genre fiction, odds are good it would define High Fantasy as a Fantasy taking place in a world completely different from our own and Low Fantasy as one that takes place in our world, with just a bit of magic sprinkled in. However, many discussions I've observed among general Fantasy fans shows a different understanding of the terms, with High Fantasy indicating stories filled with epic quests pursued by noble heroes and champions of virtue, while Low Fantasy is much grittier, grimier, and greyer in terms of morality and motivation.
As with SF, one of the bigger draws of Fantasy for me is world building and seeing the inventiveness of the creators in conjuring up a greatly different world. Unfortunately, one of the pitfalls of many Fantasy works is an adherence to ideas originating from two sources: Lord of the Rings and Dungeons and Dragons. While there can still be well-crafted works that draw from these sources, my enjoyment is usually lessened when a work is too obviously derivative. This is part of why Fantasy's strength as an Enjoyment Modifier is medium across the board for me. I prefer Fantasy works that invent their own rules for magic rather than consulting the D&D Player's handbook.
This is the first of the genres I've talked about in depth where I feel like the details of the sub-genres and other thematic elements hold more weight in my enjoyment than the trappings of the genre itself, so I think I'll hold off on any more in-depth discussions of Fantasy tropes and themes until I get to them.
Audience participation time: Do you love to escape into worlds filled with magic, or do you prefer your fiction to stay rooted firmly on the ground?
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
The Spoiler Effect: To Know, or Not to Know?
If you've spent much time reading about and/or discussing your entertainment type of choice, odds are good that you have come across examples of the dreaded spoiler, i.e. plot and character information about something you haven't yet watched/read/listened to/downloaded directly into your cerebellum.* And if you peruse message boards and comment sections, odds are even better that you've run into people who are on both sides of the spoiler debate; to wit, whether a spoiler is truly harmful to a person's enjoyment of a work or not. Recently, the pro-spoiler camp got some new ammo in the fight with the release of a study that's been reported all over the place in articles bearing variations of "Spoilers Don't Spoil Anything" as a headline. After seeing the umpteenth "Science proves spoilers are harmless!" article, I decided as a member of the anti-spoiler camp it was time for me to compose a rebuttal.
One argument that gets trotted out a lot by spoiler proponents is along the lines of "If the big twist is all something has going for it, it's not really worth much, is it?" And yes, I will concede that there are some works out there whose primary value is of the shock variety, and therefore lose most of their potency when the audience is deprived of said shock. However, to say that something only has shock value is not to say that it has no value at all; and, if something's value is tied directly into the twist, why would you feel the need to ruin that experience for someone? Not everything is designed to be viewed or read over and over again; I don't believe disposable entertainment is the downfall of our culture as long as there are still other works out there that engage people on other levels.
A related argument says "If a work is done well, then what does it matter whether you know what's going to happen? The skill and talent involved will make it worthwhile regardless." This argument often relies on the concept of re-reading and re-watching to drive its point home, the idea being that when you experience a work a second time, you know what's going to happen and you still enjoy it, so therefore you would have enjoyed it in the first place no matter what. What the people who use this argument fail to grasp is that just because you can enjoy a work even with spoilers doesn't mean that your level of enjoyment is the same, nor is the type of enjoyment you experience the same.
Let's take a couple of examples from my own life. First, the film Serenity. I love this film, and have watched it multiple times without my enjoyment of it lessening at all. However, my first viewing was a distinctly different experience from all subsequent viewings due to the high level of tension I felt over the fate of the characters. In the final act of the film, there is a distinct moment for each character wherein that character could possibly die, and with each of those moments I felt a stab of fear that this character I loved might be gone for good. Now, if I had gone in knowing ahead of time precisely which characters would survive and which wouldn't, that tension and fear that kept me glued to the screen would have been lessened; and, while I can still watch the film and enjoy it for the writing, acting, direction, action, etc., I will never again be able to reproduce that original feeling. But at the same time, when I re-watch the film, I can sometimes feel echoes of that tension, and remember just how powerfully it affected me the first time.
On the flip side is the movie Psycho. By the time I saw the Hitchcock classic my 7th grade year -- caution, mild spoilers ahead -- the shower scene and the secret of Norman's mother had long since been burned into my brain through pop culture awareness, and my highly anticipated viewing of it was quite underwhelming. You could chalk part of that up to my being a callow youth at the time, but what people sometimes forget about Psycho is that those unfamiliar with the plot went in thinking that Janet Leigh's character would be the protagonist throughout, making her death at the end of the first act extremely shocking. I, however, went in with a working knowledge of the Bates Motel set-up and the circumstances of her demise, so the shower sequence lost a great deal of its impact.
Of course, in both of these cases, pro-spoiler advocates might argue that I'm only conjecturing how I might have reacted in the presence of absence of spoilers, but I can't really know for sure; and, while it might be true that I can't know 100%, my overall experience of reading and watching both spoiled and non-spoiled entertainment has given me a pretty solid foundation upon which to base my conclusions.
"But Todd," the pro-spoilers among you might be asking, "so far you've been talking about general pro-spoiler arguments, but what about the study that sparked this diatribe? Are you arguing against science?"
No, of course not. What I am arguing against is a study whose sweeping conclusions about the value of surprise -- or lack thereof -- appear to be an example of comparing apples and oranges. The study is based on giving a group of undergraduates a selection of short stories, some with spoilers attached, some without, and then having them rate their enjoyment of each. They found that the enjoyment factor was generally larger among those who had been spoiled as opposed to those who hadn't, ergo spoilers don't hurt.
Oh, where to begin . . .
First of all, let's get the fact that the subjects enjoyed "literary" stories less than the more genre pieces out of the way -- after all, while it might show that the subjects picked weren't interested in more complex works, it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with whether spoilers matter or not . . . although, since the study's argument rests largely on the "people prefer to deal with familiar things because they're easier" premise, it could actually be relevant . . . but I digress.
No, for me the more pressing factor is that the researchers took a small sample of people, assigned them some short stories to read, took their general rankings of enjoyment and then extrapolated it into "spoilers mean nothing, people who think they do are wrong, this could shatter our very understanding of surprise and suspense!"
Except, well, no, not really. Because first of all, short stories are not novels or TV series or movies or Comic books or plays or any other long-form piece of literature which, by their nature, rely more on developing tension and suspense over a greater period of time to achieve their effect. All formats are not created equally; each has its own strengths and weaknesses, and assuming that you can take the results of testing one type of work and apply it to all types of works is a fallacy**.
And secondly, there is a little thing called "context" involved in determining whether or not a spoiler has a negative effect on an audience member. If someone were to pull me aside, give me a random short story to read, and intro it with "And by the way, the narrator dies at the end," would I be upset and feel my enjoyment had been harmed? Possibly not. But, let's say someone were to give me the long-awaited sequel to one of my favorite books that I had been anticipating for a decade, and then tell me "It's crazy that they killed off the main character's wife on the last page, isn't it?" then, yes, odds are good that I'm going to be upset. While I am firmly anti-spoiler in my philosophy, in practice I find that I prefer certain works to remain a mystery before experiencing them, while others I couldn't care less whether they were spoiled or not. Context and emotional connection are key.
I think that's one of the things that bothers me most about the pro-spoiler camp; in addition to the one-size-fits-all, it-doesn't-bother-me-so-it-shouldn't-bother-you method of arguing, they often try to divorce all reactions to works from any emotional connection. When someone blurts out a spoiler for something you've been highly anticipating, the negative feelings generated by their carelessness can color your enjoyment of the work. That may not be rational, but it is definitely human. Trying to ignore that aspect of the spoiler phenomenon seems to be missing the point.
In the Wired article I linked to at the top, the author -- who came into this as someone who likes to read the last five pages of a book first -- comes up with his own rationalizations for why spoilers are meaningless, including this snippet:
Like I said earlier, I too have times when I indulge in spoilers, although for me it's usually in the context of sporting events or other competitions -- if someone I really like (GSP, OSU, Colts) is going up against someone I really loathe (Koscheck, OU, Patriots) and I can't watch it live, I will often go ahead and look at the results before watching so I won't give myself an ulcer hoping the good guys win out. But on the whole, when it comes to fiction, I prefer to be kept in the dark as much as possible beforehand so I can experience the work as its creators intended.
In conclusion I'd like to say this: if you're someone who enjoys knowing as much as you can about something before you read or watch it, then there's nothing wrong with that. But when you force that information onto someone who doesn't enjoy it, or deride them for their desire to be spoiler-free, it's a different story.
Audience participation time: How do you feel about spoilers? Do you want it all laid out beforehand, or do you want to be surprised at every turn?
*That last one is for future readers/downloaders.
**As is taking the study and applying it to surprise parties and wrapping presents; apparently, enjoying "An Occurance at Owl Creek Bridge" more because you know the narrator's dead means that all forms of surprise lessens all forms of enjoyment in the world.
One argument that gets trotted out a lot by spoiler proponents is along the lines of "If the big twist is all something has going for it, it's not really worth much, is it?" And yes, I will concede that there are some works out there whose primary value is of the shock variety, and therefore lose most of their potency when the audience is deprived of said shock. However, to say that something only has shock value is not to say that it has no value at all; and, if something's value is tied directly into the twist, why would you feel the need to ruin that experience for someone? Not everything is designed to be viewed or read over and over again; I don't believe disposable entertainment is the downfall of our culture as long as there are still other works out there that engage people on other levels.
A related argument says "If a work is done well, then what does it matter whether you know what's going to happen? The skill and talent involved will make it worthwhile regardless." This argument often relies on the concept of re-reading and re-watching to drive its point home, the idea being that when you experience a work a second time, you know what's going to happen and you still enjoy it, so therefore you would have enjoyed it in the first place no matter what. What the people who use this argument fail to grasp is that just because you can enjoy a work even with spoilers doesn't mean that your level of enjoyment is the same, nor is the type of enjoyment you experience the same.
Let's take a couple of examples from my own life. First, the film Serenity. I love this film, and have watched it multiple times without my enjoyment of it lessening at all. However, my first viewing was a distinctly different experience from all subsequent viewings due to the high level of tension I felt over the fate of the characters. In the final act of the film, there is a distinct moment for each character wherein that character could possibly die, and with each of those moments I felt a stab of fear that this character I loved might be gone for good. Now, if I had gone in knowing ahead of time precisely which characters would survive and which wouldn't, that tension and fear that kept me glued to the screen would have been lessened; and, while I can still watch the film and enjoy it for the writing, acting, direction, action, etc., I will never again be able to reproduce that original feeling. But at the same time, when I re-watch the film, I can sometimes feel echoes of that tension, and remember just how powerfully it affected me the first time.
On the flip side is the movie Psycho. By the time I saw the Hitchcock classic my 7th grade year -- caution, mild spoilers ahead -- the shower scene and the secret of Norman's mother had long since been burned into my brain through pop culture awareness, and my highly anticipated viewing of it was quite underwhelming. You could chalk part of that up to my being a callow youth at the time, but what people sometimes forget about Psycho is that those unfamiliar with the plot went in thinking that Janet Leigh's character would be the protagonist throughout, making her death at the end of the first act extremely shocking. I, however, went in with a working knowledge of the Bates Motel set-up and the circumstances of her demise, so the shower sequence lost a great deal of its impact.
Of course, in both of these cases, pro-spoiler advocates might argue that I'm only conjecturing how I might have reacted in the presence of absence of spoilers, but I can't really know for sure; and, while it might be true that I can't know 100%, my overall experience of reading and watching both spoiled and non-spoiled entertainment has given me a pretty solid foundation upon which to base my conclusions.
"But Todd," the pro-spoilers among you might be asking, "so far you've been talking about general pro-spoiler arguments, but what about the study that sparked this diatribe? Are you arguing against science?"
No, of course not. What I am arguing against is a study whose sweeping conclusions about the value of surprise -- or lack thereof -- appear to be an example of comparing apples and oranges. The study is based on giving a group of undergraduates a selection of short stories, some with spoilers attached, some without, and then having them rate their enjoyment of each. They found that the enjoyment factor was generally larger among those who had been spoiled as opposed to those who hadn't, ergo spoilers don't hurt.
Oh, where to begin . . .
First of all, let's get the fact that the subjects enjoyed "literary" stories less than the more genre pieces out of the way -- after all, while it might show that the subjects picked weren't interested in more complex works, it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with whether spoilers matter or not . . . although, since the study's argument rests largely on the "people prefer to deal with familiar things because they're easier" premise, it could actually be relevant . . . but I digress.
No, for me the more pressing factor is that the researchers took a small sample of people, assigned them some short stories to read, took their general rankings of enjoyment and then extrapolated it into "spoilers mean nothing, people who think they do are wrong, this could shatter our very understanding of surprise and suspense!"
Except, well, no, not really. Because first of all, short stories are not novels or TV series or movies or Comic books or plays or any other long-form piece of literature which, by their nature, rely more on developing tension and suspense over a greater period of time to achieve their effect. All formats are not created equally; each has its own strengths and weaknesses, and assuming that you can take the results of testing one type of work and apply it to all types of works is a fallacy**.
And secondly, there is a little thing called "context" involved in determining whether or not a spoiler has a negative effect on an audience member. If someone were to pull me aside, give me a random short story to read, and intro it with "And by the way, the narrator dies at the end," would I be upset and feel my enjoyment had been harmed? Possibly not. But, let's say someone were to give me the long-awaited sequel to one of my favorite books that I had been anticipating for a decade, and then tell me "It's crazy that they killed off the main character's wife on the last page, isn't it?" then, yes, odds are good that I'm going to be upset. While I am firmly anti-spoiler in my philosophy, in practice I find that I prefer certain works to remain a mystery before experiencing them, while others I couldn't care less whether they were spoiled or not. Context and emotional connection are key.
I think that's one of the things that bothers me most about the pro-spoiler camp; in addition to the one-size-fits-all, it-doesn't-bother-me-so-it-shouldn't-bother-you method of arguing, they often try to divorce all reactions to works from any emotional connection. When someone blurts out a spoiler for something you've been highly anticipating, the negative feelings generated by their carelessness can color your enjoyment of the work. That may not be rational, but it is definitely human. Trying to ignore that aspect of the spoiler phenomenon seems to be missing the point.
In the Wired article I linked to at the top, the author -- who came into this as someone who likes to read the last five pages of a book first -- comes up with his own rationalizations for why spoilers are meaningless, including this snippet:
The human mind is a prediction machine, which means that it registers most surprises as a cognitive failure, a mental mistake. Our first reaction is almost never “How cool! I never saw that coming!” Instead, we feel embarrassed by our gullibility, the dismay of a prediction error.As someone whose counts among his favorite works ones which generated the "How cool! I never saw that coming!" effect, I find this line of thought puzzling. Which in turn brings me back to the cornerstone of the Enjoyment Modifiers schema: the tautology of "Different People Are Different." There are those who go into a movie or novel trying to guess everything that's going to happen, and they might very well suffer disappointment when they guess wrong; then there are those such as myself who just want to submerge themselves in the experience and let it unfold before them, and they will probably react to surprises with enjoyment at where the ride has taken them.
Like I said earlier, I too have times when I indulge in spoilers, although for me it's usually in the context of sporting events or other competitions -- if someone I really like (GSP, OSU, Colts) is going up against someone I really loathe (Koscheck, OU, Patriots) and I can't watch it live, I will often go ahead and look at the results before watching so I won't give myself an ulcer hoping the good guys win out. But on the whole, when it comes to fiction, I prefer to be kept in the dark as much as possible beforehand so I can experience the work as its creators intended.
In conclusion I'd like to say this: if you're someone who enjoys knowing as much as you can about something before you read or watch it, then there's nothing wrong with that. But when you force that information onto someone who doesn't enjoy it, or deride them for their desire to be spoiler-free, it's a different story.
Audience participation time: How do you feel about spoilers? Do you want it all laid out beforehand, or do you want to be surprised at every turn?
*That last one is for future readers/downloaders.
**As is taking the study and applying it to surprise parties and wrapping presents; apparently, enjoying "An Occurance at Owl Creek Bridge" more because you know the narrator's dead means that all forms of surprise lessens all forms of enjoyment in the world.
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Legion of Super-Heroes Favorites -- L.E.G.I.O.N.
And now: bonus round! I figured since I was having so much fun listing my favorite Legion members, I'd keep the streak going and focus on some other LSH related favorites. Today it's the members of the L.E.G.I.O.N.
L.E.G.I.O.N. '89-'94
At the same time as the "Gap" Legion, DC also started a companion series set in modern day times, with a team originally populated largely by ancestors of the original Legion. Entitled L.E.G.I.O.N. '89 -- a title that would of course change each year -- this anagramic title and team name stood for Licensed Extra-Governmental Insterstellar Operatives Network, which was basically an intergalactic police force for any planet willing to pay to join up.
A few years ago when I ranked my top 50 DC comics characters, the Machiavellian Virl Dox clocked in at #1. A brilliant mind coupled with a calculating nature made Dox one of those "love to hate" characters; always loved the fact that what kept most of the core L.E.G.I.O.N. members on the team in the beginning was their fear of what might happen if Dox was allowed to run things unchecked.
One of the few founding L.E.G.I.O.N. members with no overt ties to the LSH, Stealth always intrigued me when I was younger due the mysteries surrounding her origins -- there were frequent references to the fact that nobody was familiar with her race or planet of origin, and her biology confounded any scans performed. By the time that crazy biology led to her going into a violent heat and nearly killing Vril Dox after mating with him, my need to know more about her was overpowering. The issue where Stealth finally gives birth is probably one of my all-time favorite stand-alone issues, giving tantalizing hints to her origins while serving up some of the most disturbing biology I've seen on the comics page.
As stated before, many of the L.E.G.I.O.N. members had connections to the future Legion -- one member was even a younger version of a future member -- but Phase as originally conceived* was actually a time-displaced Tinya Wazoo, a.k.a. Phantom Girl, hurled back to the 20th Century and mind-wiped by the temporal villain Glorith. The amnesiac Tinya took some time to acclimate to her new surroundings, but eventually proved herself to be one of the few people who could stand up to Dox, and was subsequently made his 2nd in command. The phrase "could stand up to Dox" should be enough to sell you on why Phase made my Top 3.
*Although obviously always intended by writer Keith Giffen to be the time-lost Tinya, later writers changed it so that she was really PG's sister Enya who had been struck by Glorith's power by accident. During the Reboot years, Phase was once again determined to be a time-tossed Tinya, albeit with a twist that led to a plot device which basically wound up wiping Phase out of existence . . . man, that still makes me angry. I miss Phase!
L.E.G.I.O.N. '89-'94
At the same time as the "Gap" Legion, DC also started a companion series set in modern day times, with a team originally populated largely by ancestors of the original Legion. Entitled L.E.G.I.O.N. '89 -- a title that would of course change each year -- this anagramic title and team name stood for Licensed Extra-Governmental Insterstellar Operatives Network, which was basically an intergalactic police force for any planet willing to pay to join up.
Vril Dox
A few years ago when I ranked my top 50 DC comics characters, the Machiavellian Virl Dox clocked in at #1. A brilliant mind coupled with a calculating nature made Dox one of those "love to hate" characters; always loved the fact that what kept most of the core L.E.G.I.O.N. members on the team in the beginning was their fear of what might happen if Dox was allowed to run things unchecked.
Stealth
One of the few founding L.E.G.I.O.N. members with no overt ties to the LSH, Stealth always intrigued me when I was younger due the mysteries surrounding her origins -- there were frequent references to the fact that nobody was familiar with her race or planet of origin, and her biology confounded any scans performed. By the time that crazy biology led to her going into a violent heat and nearly killing Vril Dox after mating with him, my need to know more about her was overpowering. The issue where Stealth finally gives birth is probably one of my all-time favorite stand-alone issues, giving tantalizing hints to her origins while serving up some of the most disturbing biology I've seen on the comics page.
Phase
As stated before, many of the L.E.G.I.O.N. members had connections to the future Legion -- one member was even a younger version of a future member -- but Phase as originally conceived* was actually a time-displaced Tinya Wazoo, a.k.a. Phantom Girl, hurled back to the 20th Century and mind-wiped by the temporal villain Glorith. The amnesiac Tinya took some time to acclimate to her new surroundings, but eventually proved herself to be one of the few people who could stand up to Dox, and was subsequently made his 2nd in command. The phrase "could stand up to Dox" should be enough to sell you on why Phase made my Top 3.
*Although obviously always intended by writer Keith Giffen to be the time-lost Tinya, later writers changed it so that she was really PG's sister Enya who had been struck by Glorith's power by accident. During the Reboot years, Phase was once again determined to be a time-tossed Tinya, albeit with a twist that led to a plot device which basically wound up wiping Phase out of existence . . . man, that still makes me angry. I miss Phase!
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Enjoyment Modifiers: Science Fiction
Modifier: Science Fiction
Category: Genre
Type: Positive
Strength: High (Literature, Comics) Medium (Movies, TV)
For many people, the genre of Science Fiction conjures up images of spaceships, aliens, and futuristic landscapes, but really it encompasses a wide range of possibilities: time travel, alternate history, psychic abilities, mutations, extrapolations of scientific theories and concepts, etc. There's "hard" Sci-Fi, where all of the scientific principles are grounded in cold, hard fact -- at least as understood at the time of writing -- and then there's the branch where the laws of physics are treated more as suggestions. At its core, Science Fiction is about conjuring up a world different from our own, in ways both large and small.
One of my pet peeves is hearing a writer/actor/director/producer/etc. claim that a Sci-Fi project they're involved in isn't really a Sci-Fi project, but instead something "serious." You know, the typical "Oh, sure, we're a series set in outer space that involves sentient robots hunting down a fleet of spaceships bearing the last remnants of humanity, but we're more of a Tense Character Drama than a Science Fiction show" type of comment. This always infuriates me, as it ghettoizes the genre in a way that not only insults its fans, but also ignores the fact that Science Fiction has long been a genre which lends itself to introspection, philosophical musings, political commentary, satire, and examination of the human condition. And no, not all Science Fiction is concerned with such lofty intellectual goals, but to suggest that adding literary merit automatically removes a text from the genre is asinine.
Much like with Horror, my love of Science Fiction stems from the inventiveness and departures from the norm inherent in the genre. At the same time, Sci-Fi is the flip side of Horror in terms of which media I'm willing to cut more slack. For Sci-Fi I'm much more forgiving of the printed word than I am film; also, the MST3K Effect comes into play much less often. I believe this is because, for me, Science Fiction is largely a genre built around ideas, and when those ideas are lacking or poorly executed, the work loses me. I have low tolerance for lapses in internal consistency in Sci-Fi works; I don't care if your work plays fast and loose with science, as long as your world's rules don't contradict each other. And while Horror can often win me over with its tone and atmosphere, for Science Fiction that's a much rarer feat; yes, I can be swayed by cool visuals or effects, but they have to be well-executed, or else I'm drawn out of it.
Another aspect of Science Fiction that appeals to me is the concept of world-building. I love discovering the details of a society and culture vastly different from our own conjured up out of whole cloth, whether it be an alien world or a future shaped by radical technology shifts or a past where key events happened in vastly different ways; watching these details unfold and admiring the imagination that fuels them is one of the things that makes Science Fiction one of my favorite genres.
Audience Participation Time: Do you love all things Science Fictiony, or does anything with an out-of-this-world flavor kill your interest immediately? If you are a fan, are there any particular sub-genres you'd like to see me tackle? Comment away below, and then join me next week for a look at Sci-Fi's chaotic sibling, Fantasy.
Category: Genre
Type: Positive
Strength: High (Literature, Comics) Medium (Movies, TV)
For many people, the genre of Science Fiction conjures up images of spaceships, aliens, and futuristic landscapes, but really it encompasses a wide range of possibilities: time travel, alternate history, psychic abilities, mutations, extrapolations of scientific theories and concepts, etc. There's "hard" Sci-Fi, where all of the scientific principles are grounded in cold, hard fact -- at least as understood at the time of writing -- and then there's the branch where the laws of physics are treated more as suggestions. At its core, Science Fiction is about conjuring up a world different from our own, in ways both large and small.
One of my pet peeves is hearing a writer/actor/director/producer/etc. claim that a Sci-Fi project they're involved in isn't really a Sci-Fi project, but instead something "serious." You know, the typical "Oh, sure, we're a series set in outer space that involves sentient robots hunting down a fleet of spaceships bearing the last remnants of humanity, but we're more of a Tense Character Drama than a Science Fiction show" type of comment. This always infuriates me, as it ghettoizes the genre in a way that not only insults its fans, but also ignores the fact that Science Fiction has long been a genre which lends itself to introspection, philosophical musings, political commentary, satire, and examination of the human condition. And no, not all Science Fiction is concerned with such lofty intellectual goals, but to suggest that adding literary merit automatically removes a text from the genre is asinine.
Much like with Horror, my love of Science Fiction stems from the inventiveness and departures from the norm inherent in the genre. At the same time, Sci-Fi is the flip side of Horror in terms of which media I'm willing to cut more slack. For Sci-Fi I'm much more forgiving of the printed word than I am film; also, the MST3K Effect comes into play much less often. I believe this is because, for me, Science Fiction is largely a genre built around ideas, and when those ideas are lacking or poorly executed, the work loses me. I have low tolerance for lapses in internal consistency in Sci-Fi works; I don't care if your work plays fast and loose with science, as long as your world's rules don't contradict each other. And while Horror can often win me over with its tone and atmosphere, for Science Fiction that's a much rarer feat; yes, I can be swayed by cool visuals or effects, but they have to be well-executed, or else I'm drawn out of it.
Another aspect of Science Fiction that appeals to me is the concept of world-building. I love discovering the details of a society and culture vastly different from our own conjured up out of whole cloth, whether it be an alien world or a future shaped by radical technology shifts or a past where key events happened in vastly different ways; watching these details unfold and admiring the imagination that fuels them is one of the things that makes Science Fiction one of my favorite genres.
Audience Participation Time: Do you love all things Science Fictiony, or does anything with an out-of-this-world flavor kill your interest immediately? If you are a fan, are there any particular sub-genres you'd like to see me tackle? Comment away below, and then join me next week for a look at Sci-Fi's chaotic sibling, Fantasy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)