I've long believed that you can tell a
lot about a civilization by its entertainment. When Romans loved to
watch people fight to death in gladiator fights, it said something
about what large percentages of that people found entertaining, and
the same can be said today. When reality shows and Saw sequels make
so much money that studios will not stop making them, it says
something about the civilization that we live in. It says that a
large enough percentage of our population loves watching dumb people
and fictional torture that the people who bring us our entertainment
will make sure we are never without a steady supply of new idiots to
gawk at and fresh and innovative ways of killing people painfully.
But if people in general really do love these things, how come
Hollywood says it's struggling? If our entertainment is being made
based on what people really want, why does everyone complain that
there's nothing good on TV? The entertainment industry has begun to
base nearly all of its production line on what's lucrative, but given
the growing despondency of audiences, I'm starting to think that
money making can be deceptive as to letting us know what people
really want. After all, a movie can flop for stupid, stupid reasons, and the same can be said for success. Reality shows,
while they certainly have their audience, are really so popular with
TV execs because they're cheap to make when script writers aren't
being paid. Meanwhile, John Carter, a great movie with a pretty high
audience satisfaction rate, pulled in low audiences because of a
terribly executed ad campaign and is considered a flop chiefly
because its budget was way higher than what it made back. So what
can give an accurate depiction of what people are looking for in
entertainment? Hows about just straight up asking them?
This is what brings me to the internet.
You see, the internet right now can
truly be said to be a cross section of humanity. Not long ago, that
statement wouldn't have been accurate. The early internet was
comprised mostly of brainy types, because only people who were good
with computers could maintain or navigate early websites. Most of
the sites that popped up at the beginning, therefore, catered towards
the likes and dislikes of that demographic. This opened up a cycle
that caused more nerdy people to flock to the internet, and more
sites to pop up that were tailor made for nerds. Even as the
internet grew and offered a little something for everyone, it first
took the form of sites and forums for fans of certain things. Even
when there were forums for sports teams and musicians, it still meant
that most websites were essentially made for one demographic at a
time.
This is basically as unreadable as
Egyptian hieroglyphics.
But all this changed. Google, Myspace,
Facebook, Reddit, Tumbler, DeviantArt. Sites began to show up that
were made without one particular demographic in mind, and now they're
the dominant type of non-commercial website on the internet. You're
not required to be a nerd or a fan in order to find something worth
your while on the internet; all that is required is a computer and
internet access, and it will find something that is right up your
alley, even if that thing is just talking to the friends you already
have. And what this means is that the internet now truly can
represent all of mankind (or at least the ones with wifi). And what
does this mean for things that the internet latches onto? It means
that if a show is big on the internet, it's big with representatives
of all demographics. Seeing as how the folks that make our
entertainment for us are more concerned with what's successful than
what's popular, taking a look at what's the most talked about on the
internet is a much better way for people like me to judge the rest of
humanity based on what they fill their heads with when they're bored.
As I've begun to look into what the
internet finds entertaining, the results have actually vastly
improved my outlook on mankind. Want to know why? Let me begin with
a specific example.
I'm a really big fan of the show
Community, which as you may know (or statistically, not) is on the
verge of cancellation. To be more accurate, is basically canceled
already with a shortened season coming up before the end. Now, the
show hasn't really had the best of times with the ratings, partially
because it's been up against Big Bang Theory. Community itself is a
show about a group of people in a community college, and and while it
certainly has its share of nerdy references, it's moreso a show with
a little bit for everybody, the kind of show that anyone with a sense
of humor should find accessible. Big Bang Theory, on the other hand,
is a show about outdated nerd stereotypes from 80's films, and the
dialogue of every episode consists 50% of references to whatever geek
fare is closest to mainstream at that particular moment.
In case you couldn't tell, I'm not
really a fan.
The interesting part? Big Bang Theory
is doing splendidly in the ratings (which is completely inexplicable
from my point of view), while Community is doing poorly ratings wise,
with the exception of its huge internet presence.
Now, my point isn't that the internet
is great simply because it has vastly superior taste to the Nielson
families. It's something more; it's why the internet loves
Community so much, but can only give an unenthusiastic “meh” to
Big Bang Theory, despite the fact that it seems like it would be
(ostensibly) aimed directly at them.
Why wouldn't nerds enjoy this accurate,
loving depiction of their culture?
Gawker recently asked this question,
and their answer is, I think, a good reason to give the internet a
second chance. Essentially, it boiled down to the way each show
portrayed the relationships between the characters; Big Bang Theory
just shows us some people who hang out together and plays their
personal conversations for laughs; Community portrays a group of
people coming together, becoming friends, and overcoming obstacles to
remain friends. The point of one show is “ha, those nerdy types
sure are a hoot, aren't they?”, while the point of the other is,
“let's all be buddies here”.
And the internet is eating it up.
Gawker's conclusion was that the
internet finds appealing entertainment that emphasizes friendship,
closeness, communication, and, if you will, a sense of community. I
find this suggestion very encouraging, and it got me to take a closer
look at what else is popular. Stuff like My Little Pony. Have you
heard of Bronies? That's the name given to the vast hordes of adult,
male fans of My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic. It sounds
horrible, mostly because any portmanteau that features the word “bro”
is horrible. But
when you stop to think about it, it's actually kind of sweet. I was
morbidly curious when I heard how oddly popular My Little Pony was,
so I watched the pilot. I'm not going to lie, I kind of loved it.
The aesthetic was obviously not made with me in mind, but there was a
core essence of kindness that I enjoyed thoroughly. There was an
extended sequence where one by one, each of the protagonists (I can't
say “each of the ponies” and still have you take this sentence
seriously) individually overcomes an obstacle through some unique,
positive trait and gets the group one step closer to their goal.
This even included taming a furious manticore (I know, right) by
removing a thorn from its paw, and I'm not afraid to say I teared up
a little there.
I'm not going to continue watching My
Little Pony, mostly because I simply cannot allow myself to belong to
a group with “bro” in its name, and also because as much as it
was my perfect idea of a fairy tale, I just can't watch a show about
ponies.
Also, the dragon sidekick is pretty
annoying, and gives me a serious Max from Dragon Tales vibe, which is
entirely the wrong kind of nostalgia.
But just look at how much this show
which is designed for young girls is bringing together fans from all
sorts of demographics, just because they want to be entertained by
something sweet and kind. And it's all over the place. Plenty of
shows get canceled
every year, but which ones get noteworthy fan campaigns to save them?
How about Firefly, which
features a tight knit, familial crew of a spaceship. Or Kim
Possible, about a tight knit, familial trio of teenagers who
fight crime (and also spend time loving their own, literal families).
Or Jericho, which is about a tight knit, familial group of people
trying to survive in a post apocalyptic wasteland (seriously,
Wikipedia even says, “Several
themes regularly addressed in the show included... community
identity, the value of family, and the hardships of fatherhood”.)
What
about comic books? Yeah, it's true that Batman is the most popular
character right now, but if you want to know what's big on the
internet, look for what the publishers refer to as “fan favorites”.
Fan Favorites include Birds of Prey, an all girl superhero team that
has dealt with strengthening the bonds of friendship on so many
levels; the All New Atom, about the adventures of Ryan Choi and his
ever loyal supporting cast; Blue Beetle, which featured the teenaged
Jaime Reyes coming completely clean to his whole family and best
friends about having a secret superhero identity by the third issue;
even Secret Six, which got about as dark as a comic about a mercenary
team of supervillains could get, but still managed to make you love
the characters because of how close knit and familial they were.
The
lesson here? For every Yahoo Answers trolling, there's someone
talking about how the happy ending to the latest Doctor Who episode
made them cry. For every YouTube comments Flame War, there's a forum
hoping for a full series of Super Best Friends Forever.
And for every Craigslist killer, there's about 50,000 internet users
who just want a hug.
Gee,
maybe humanity isn't so bad after all.
No comments:
Post a Comment