When stories understand their audience

Expectations. We are people of expectations whether we want to admit it or not. When we go to read a book or watch a movie we have an expectation of the story that must be made if we are going to positively reinforce it to people that we know.

When I started off my writing career I did my best to craft a story that would resonate with a broader audience. But truth be told I didn’t understand how to do that, and now I understand that you should not do that. The story doesn’t necessarily need to be divisive but it should be thought-provoking and challenging to folks of a different world view.

Someone who picks up a harlequin romance is going to have a different expectation than one who is looking for a Christian Amish romance. On the one hand a conservative reader might appreciate the lack of physical description and sexuality in an Amish romance. But on the other hand another reader might have an expectation of realism. To them the Amish romance is rediculously tame, to the point that they find it unrealistic and cannot enjoy the story.

Reader expectation is everything.

For those of you who have watched the first Maze Runner movie, you will appreciate what I’m about to say. If you thought that it was a dystopian along the lines of the Hunger Games, as I did, then when movie two came out you were severely disappointed when it turned into a zombie apocalypse. Your expectations were let down and you felt deceived.

Amidst the muck of politically-charged media-driven fiction, a few stories highlight what’s beautiful.

When I say muck, I am referring to that moment when I was watching a show with my kids, in this particular case it was the show Voltron, when the last episode introduced a gay couple wedding. I am referring to the Netflix original series the dragon prince, which had a great story going for it but in the second season decided to introduce a prominent lesbian couple. In the absence of strong traditional male-female romantic interests these pointedly emphasized relationships reek of political correctness. Thankfully there have also been some examples recently of stories that do themselves service by understanding their audience and delivering a story that their audience loves because it resonates with their values.

As a parent, I find it increasingly frustrating when I cannot simply enjoy the show without worrying that a politically charged message is going to be thrown in my kids’ faces.

This post is not a rant. It is not even a disparagement to those types of stories that I find offensive to my kids. Although I will note that my kids were the first to find it confusing and offensive because it went against their very nature. It is interesting that in the simple thinking of children is often found the greatest truth.

As a writer I have often struggled to understand my own audience. Even now as I am re-writing my first novel I have struggled with some elements of the story that could’ve been crafted in a mature fashion, but instead I wrote in a simplistic way so as not to offend certain readers. I have experimented with re-writing some of those sections of the story in a more adult manner, and in some respects the story is far better for it. But I will let the readers be the judge. My job is to make people think without breaking down their sense of morality. If my stories are successful than they encourage my readers in the ideals that they strive to live out.

I think that the recent Toy Story 4 was a fantastic example of a creative team who understood their audience. I saw an interview on the BBC where someone was complaining about the “lack of diversity” in the characters. Her complaint was laughable really, because it centers around a bunch of toys! But I found it interesting that she complained about one toy that didn’t seem as strong to the feminist perspective. In my opinion that element of the story was what made the film as great as it was. And you know what? My kids absolutely loved it.

When a creative team understands the audience that they are appealing to, then the story resonates and impacts the audience’s soul. If, instead, the creative team seeks to placate a critic, then the story loses its punch.

I am fascinated by this. The closer we get to strongly-set morals, and the closer we get to a familiarity in the story that challenges us and makes us stronger or encourages us, the more impact that story has on us.

For some people that set of morals is going to look entirely different than it does for another audience. But that’s okay. Not all stories are made for all people. Neither should they be.

Controversy generates hype. Similarities create relationships. Relationships are built on trust, and relationships only grow deeper the longer they last.

Q: What expectations have you recently enjoyed or found disappointing?

Noah: the movie… Is this Noah or not?

Noah, the movie. Have you watched it? I saw it for the first time because it popped up on Netflix. Disappointing would be an understatement of my feelings regarding this film. Warning: I’m going to discuss major spoilers because it’s necessary to the evaluation.

It seems that Hollywood took this opportunity to completely reimagine the historical story. I’m (almost) at a loss for words because this film was so bad.

It would be easier to imagine that this is not supposed to be the Biblical story but rather a straight up work of fiction. It is a poor story, over-dramatized, unbelievable, mystical, and bad character development. Here are some reasons I think this is the worst film I’ve seen in a long time:

  1. The fallen angels only fell to earth because they wanted to aid mankind. In punishment the Creator encrusts them in stone. What?! Yes, you heard right. Instead of going with the fact that there was war in heaven and God cast out the angels who joined with Lucifer, now the angels are the good guys who tenderly long to be re-admitted to paradise.
  2. Noah loves the creation and believes that God wants mankind wiped off the face of the earth. Whereas in the Biblical account God commanded them to go forth and multiply and replenish the Earth.
  3. There were seven who rode the ark… It was Noah, his wife, his three sons, one wife for one son, and of course (Hollywood’s favorite addition) a stowaway. It felt like an excuse to let Russell Crowe land punches in a death-match aboard the ark. Besides this, Ham actually found a girl but Noah purposefully leaves her behind to die. Oh, and he left Methuselah behind to die as well.
  4. Noah details for everyone aboard the ark how they are to make sure they die as the last of humanity, because the new world is not for them but for the creatures.

This is a terrible film. I was laughing at several points because it just carried everything so far overboard (pun intended). When a story is drafted from well-known source material it needs to come close to that material, otherwise it need not credit the source material. Noah has this problem to a degree I’ve not seen before.

The movie is also plumb full of plot holes. Here is a laughable example:

At the end of the film Noah is rather depressed (as he is throughout the entire film). His sons and wife have begun to build new homes for themselves. As they are building he picks grapes and makes himself wine. He gets himself drunk and naked in a cave. See the problem? They just got out of the ark and, in order to make wine, grapes have to ferment. Not gonna happen if you just crush them into a cup. That’s called grape juice and you can drink a lot of it without any problems. Trust me, I’m living proof!

My conclusion then: If you want to waste a couple of hours watching a heartless story with pointless drama that you can poke fun at, try Noah! It won’t disappoint you.

Question: Have you watched Noah?

Cinderella: a true heroine

My wife made the suggestion that she take our 3-year-old daughter to see Disney’s remake of Cinderella. Inevitably it ended up being a family trip. The local theatre in town has a Tuesday all-day special price that we’ve taken advantage of before. Coming into this film having already loved Maleficent, I was curious if Disney could succeed in turning another classic cartoon into a worthy live-action film.

Cinderella’s character is honorable in this story and, I think, extremely likeable as well. The supporting cast of actors and actresses filled their roles almost seamlessly. The one exception, I felt, was the fairy godmother. Same actress as the Queen of Hearts in Disney’s live-action Alice in Wonderland. Her personality was so strong that it jerked me out of the fairytale, albeit for only a few moments. Even then I can barely complain as she did play her part well.

So, did Disney succeed in reviving the old classic? I think they did. The overarching theme of love and forgiveness at all costs is a noble part of this story.

Disney seemed to steer away from incorporating non-traditional-family-values into the film. The only point I found a bit “preachy” was how Cinderella convinced the hunter to let the stag get away. All of the big film studios seem bent on convincing us that the life of man is of equal value to that of the beasts and creatures of this world. It is not.

God made the beasts for man, and sacrificed beasts for man. Yes, we need to value the lives of the creatures in this world. Life is a precious gift that is too often taken lightly. Perhaps this is Cinderella’s intent. Perhaps merely a reminder that we are so absorbed in ourselves that we devalue the creation around us.

Cinderella takes us to the heart of God’s love (though God is not mentioned in this story) by offering us a noble heroine who rises above the scum around her to be a truly good person. I think the greatest message behind this movie is that a great hero or heroine rises above their circumstances to do the right thing… no matter what the cost. We need more fiction exemplifying these values.

Question: What was your impression of Cinderella?

Changing the story formula with Godzilla

Godzilla stories had an interesting angle: nature was too big for humanity to ever conquer. I remember when I was a kid riding my bicycle five miles to my grandparents’ house. My grandmother would usually offer hot chocolate and/or instant mac and cheese. My grandfather would offer snacks (often cookies) and a movie. He introduced me to the original Godzilla movies and I was hooked!

Godzilla (2014)

Mild spoilers if you didn’t see the movie: Recently I had the opportunity to watch the latest incarnation of Godzilla. It was a well-conceived story, where, just like in the old classics, nature is beyond humanity’s control. The monsters that awakened to ravage the Earth swiftly moved from Japan to Hawaii, then on to the US pacific coast. Military might and technological ingenuity proved as ineffective as flies in the monsters’ path. Godzilla figured as the balancing power, an entity whose sole purpose seemed to be destroying the indestructible.

I think there is something modern storytellers can learn from this. We have developed formulas. Big problem equals bigger or more clever response from mankind to solve it. But why not show more scenarios where world-changing events are insurmountable. The monster will ravage and cannot be stopped. The villain is so far technologically superior that no one can overthrow them. In exploring these possibilities the stories must necessarily put forth solutions other than mankind. Solutions of the supernatural.

Question: What do you think of stories that need that other-than-human solution? Have you enjoyed incarnations of Godzilla?

The Power of a Tragic Ending

A tragic story will often pull us in like no other story can. Strangely, tragedy in fiction leaves a far more powerful impression than a happy or thrilling moment. Whether a book or  a movie, we gravitate toward these stories because they remind us of how precious the moments in our lives are.

Such a story is well illustrated in one of my favorite books and also in one of my favorite films.

The book is Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows. Arguably this is one of the best pieces of Young Adult writing that has been published. The writing is amazing, and the story is incredible. The tragedy is two-fold: 1) in the sacrifices of Harry’s friends, sometimes their lives, and 2) in Snape’s revelation. Villain is revealed to be hero, and the main character is forever changed as a result.

The movie is Batman: Mask of the Phantasm. The story follows a slight re-imagining of the Batman character known in the original animated series. He is heroic and steadfast, never seeming to waver in the purity of his heart. During the course of the film, Bruce Wayne’s passionate love for Andrea Beaumont is revealed when she returns unexpectedly to Gotham. The movie shifts seamlessly between the present troubles and Batman’s flashbacks. The script for this is amazing. It grabs from the get go and there is no happy ending to the tale. And yet, it has become a cult classic, and I understand why.

This has made me sit back and re-evaluate the contemporary stories playing out on screen and in books. Most stories, especially the superhero type, have happy endings and there are few permanent losses that the heroes and heroines must endure. Are many storytellers forgetting the power of a sad ending? Let’s tip our hats to the stories of yesteryears, and the tragedies that hooked us and stayed in our memories.

What books and movies have had this effect on you?

Movie Critic: A Plastic Legolas?

Fantasy characters grow. They evolve or change in any well-conceived story world. But in Peter Jackson’s movies I felt a disconnect with Legolas’s introduction to The Hobbit movies. Did you notice the change?

In The Lord of the Rings movies we met an exciting Legolas, one unafraid to battle but also willing to revel in a jolly good time with his comrades. The rivalistic relationship of Legolas with Gimli the dwarf provided the movies with their strongest humor moments. (Remember how they kept track of their kills during battle in order to score who was the best?) And Legolas was intuitive and borderline wise as he assisted Aragorn in his quest.

Personally I feel that Peter Jackson’s last film in this series, namely The Desolation of Smaug, was superb. The characters were put forth with superb creativity and intrigue. But I make exception for the introduction of Legolas into the film.

The CGI work on his face made him stand out like a sore thumb (or an odd Elf in this case, LOL!) It reminded me of the way that CGI work brought back the young Flynn in Tron: Legacy and how they put Arnold Swartzenegger into Terminator Salvation. It was fun to see Legolas again, but his stiff doll face kept demanding my focus. Worse than that, he lacked expression. True, he’s an Elf, but the expression of his eyes empowered his character in TLOR movies and that was missing here.

Devoid of humor and lacking his roguish side, the new Legolas leaves a lot to be desired. Fortunately, it was Smaug the dragon that ruled the screen in this film.

Question: Did you like or dislike Legolas’s portrayal in Desolation of Smaug? How do you think it compared to the Legolas we knew in The Lord of the Rings movies?