| |
[Oct. 27th, 2009|11:46 am] |
Which came first?
Which came first for members of the comm who are fans of series and movies featuring live actors, particularly those based on literature (including comics/graphic novels):
being a fan of the original source?
being fan of the movie/television show?
being a fan of the actor(s)?
being a fan of spinoff materials such as fanfic or official fic? Hey, it could happen
As examples: Star Trek, any incarnation, or X-Men.
And how have these fandoms overlapped and interacted for you?
Maybe this has been asked before, but if so it was probably a long time ago, and we may have different comm members. Apologies to anime fans. I don't know enough about anime to include them in my questions, but feel free to comment |
|
|
| filing off the serial numbers |
[Oct. 12th, 2009|07:24 am] |
Perusing the wiki for my fandom tonight and discovered that, apparently, the PTB ordered a backstory retcon into the recent comics that goes a long way to Joss the fic and RP worldbuilding I've been doing for the last ten years. This, coupled with a comment someone made on the recent HP wank where it's mentioned that the wankers are bitter because they want canon to be like their fanfic or like their favorite fandom. I think I'm guilty of the latter, at the very least-- I've got a huge influence on my stuff from another fandom that I think handles a culture I find similar in a way that to me makes more sense. And I think I'm bitter enough about the Executive Meddling that goes down in that fandom as it is, I don't want to end up as bad as the Slytherfen. It also seems like there's an endless array of things coming out based in the same period that I can't just toss the retcon in the mental DisContinuity pile and move on.
My OCs and original worldbuilding have always been in that nether zone between fanfic and original fiction, but I've been laboriously trying to tie it to canon the whole time I've been working on it. Now that the canon has changed and I realize how completely different my stuff is anyway, I'm really thinking it might be time to start thinking of how I can file off the serial numbers and make it completely original.
Have you ever done this? How the heck do you even start? And how do you get the iconic things about the canon out of your head? On one hand it's really freeing to think about how I'd change things without having the "it doesn't matter if I think it makes no sense, it's canon and I'm stuck with it" hanging over me, but on the other hand I'm so used to thinking of my backstory in a canon context that I'm at a loss how to begin. |
|
|
| You see what you want to see, or: progressive interpretations? |
[Jul. 28th, 2009|06:06 pm] |
With all the racism/sexism unfunny in fandom that has been going on in the form of wank and Race Fail, I've had a real awakening in terms of looking at things from a more feminist perspective, as well as paying closer attention to race relations (especially in mainstream US TV). I'm sure I'm not the only one.
Now, while I'm sure most of us can see problems in something and still continue enjoying it, I think it's always easier to pick apart something and problematize portrayal of women and PoC than to be all "Wow, this is awesome in terms of gender/race portrayal!" (as in, to find something you truly enjoy without seeing much wrong with it). I mean, at the end of the day it's subjective - especially when it comes to portrayal of women, I find, as one fandomer's awesome lady character another will find oversexualized, objectified, etc.
So how do you - if you are into this sort of race/gender problematizing/thinking - settle these two in your head and fandoms? Do you actively state and debate what you find awesome against people who find it problematic? Do you try to steer away from such debates as they can get messy? Do you only state your case when you find something problematic?
(For those curious, what inspired this was my recent love for Ashes to Ashes, which in my mind has a pretty awesome leading lady, but you won't see me debating with anybody who disagrees. I'll just be in my corner, girlcrushing Keeley Hawes. :D) |
|
|
| Metahuman Metaphysics |
[Jun. 2nd, 2009|07:52 pm] |
Okay, so I (like so many) have been sucked into Star Trek Reboot. I am also currently reading the latest Anita Blake book. Combining the two has lead me to a few questions that I'd love some insight on:
1. In general were-anything tend to shift under the influence of the full-moon. If you take a were and pull them away from the influence of the moon, would they still shift? If they did, would they follow a lunar calendar? Or, if the ship could still be affected by the gravitational pull of orbiting objects, would they shift when that object was sensed as "full" by the were? Or would it really only work for the Earth's moon?
2. In general vampires tend to be night dwelling types. If you put one on a ship with a 24 hour cycle that's more or less imposed on the ship for the sake of the mortal's bio-rhythmic cycles could you have day-walking vampires? Even the ones who "die" with the day or otherwise become incapacitated with the rise of the sun?
Obviously every vamp/were is a little different because of the canon they come from, but I think it kind of interesting what would happen if you take them away form the ruling force in their un/life so to speak and I'd love your two cents :D |
|
|
| Alan Moore wants more. |
[Apr. 9th, 2009|05:52 pm] |
Alan Moore takes 'Watchmen' movie money to sue DC for print rights reversion
In what may go down as the biggest sucker-punch to hit DC Comics since the Superboy lawsuit, Alan Moore has reversed his position on taking money from the film version of Watchmen. The reason is elegant and ironic; he's using the money to fund a lawsuit against DC, with the intent of forcing a reversion of rights to the print edition of Watchmen.
Watchmen has been the all-time best selling graphic novel for the two decades since its collected release, and has enjoyed a major surge in the last few months with anticipation from the movie, topping bestseller lists and becoming the #1 book sold on Amazon in early March.
It's unclear, at this point in time, what this will do to DC's backlist sales, which revolve around the mega-seller. Further complicating the issue is that Moore has filed an injunction against both DC and Diamond preventing the further sale of any additional copies of Watchmen from their inventory. An American judge is expected to rule on the motion later today; a ruling has already come down in England in Alan's favor, which has caused the suspension of all UK sales. Stores are apparently scrambling for back issues and used copies over there, as it's the only thing they can legally sell.
So, I'm an idiot, what does that mean exactly? |
|
|
| Fanfic writing vs. original writing: |
[Mar. 17th, 2009|10:58 pm] |
| [ | mood |
| | contemplative | ] |
| [ | music |
| | Keith Olbermann | ] |
I have a question for those who write both fanfic and non-fandom, original fiction (of any genre):
Do you believe that writing fanfic has helped your writing of original fiction, harmed it, or a combination of both?
Personal thoughts...
I've been posting fanfic online since I was eleven years old. I cringe when I look back at the trash that I wrote back then (though the fics are still up on ff.net, if only to keep me humble), but much of what I've learned about creative writing, I learned from fanfic. It's partly because I've simply gotten in a lot of practice, but I also believe that the feedback I've been given has really improved my writing. Thoughtful criticism taught me about grammar, about how to improve phrasing, helped me to spot plot holes and tighten up a rambling story, and gave me the encouragement to keep going. I know that I would not be half the writer I am today without the many, many reviewers who took the time to write a few lines in response to a story, especially when I was just getting started. I wrote some truly vile fanfic back in the day, and I'm sure it was quite obvious to many people that the stories were written by a middle-schooler, but people still took the time to show me what I was doing wrong, and give me advice on how to fix it. I wish I could go back and hug each and every one of them, especially because, at the time, I did not appreciate criticism.
( And the teal deer scampers across your monitor... ) |
|
|
| |
[Mar. 17th, 2009|12:45 pm] |
| [ | mood |
| | replacing green with "potato" | ] |
I know we often discuss MarySue/Mary Stus, but a conversation with a high school friend who railed about so many popular fictional characters got me to thinking:
What exactly makes people dislike MarySues so much?
Is it something implicit or explicit in the character her/himself? (This question is only as simple as one choses to make it).
Is it something that the appearance of a supposed MarySue in non-fanfic indicates about the author or the quality of the writing?
Or it is something about the reader's self-perception that defines MarySue/Stus and whether they like them?
And
Are readers just flinging around the epithet randomly at any character they dislike?
(I'm assuming that people in this comm are familiar with previous discussions on what defines a MarySue/MaryStu, but feel free to reiterate your own definition) |
|
|
| Canon! Say it like you mean it. |
[Feb. 25th, 2009|12:31 pm] |
I was talking to a friend the other day and he did something strange....
He said the word 'canon' aloud. But he pronounced it 'ca-nohn'(like John) and not, well, like the weapon 'cah-nun' (Like nun).
So, how do you pronounce Canon? |
|
|
| fandom surveys |
[Dec. 30th, 2008|09:45 pm] |
Grad Student Studies Fandom with FAN MEDIA AND CREATIVITY survey. Yeehaw!
The grad student in question is more gamer than fen, but I think the survey is pretty aware of the fandom experience anyway. The questions towards the end are thought-provoking in... unusual (okay, kinda weird) ways, but there's a nice little space to ramble on about them. The fact that the survey-creator is a friend of mine should in no way detract from my totally rational opinion that contributing lots of (anonymousey) data to a research study that's actually trying to understand fandom culture can only be a Good Thing. Right? Right. So, you know, spread the link far and wide for the next few weeks while she collects the responses. :)
I'm posting this here instead of fandom-lounge in part because I'm curious: what are YOUR thoughts on academic-type surveys of fandom behavior?
a) Hell yeah! I fight crime with data!
b) BORING and/or elitist. I'd rather read fic.
c) Usually they suck
c1) This one sucks
c2) This one actually doesn't suck
d) I'm skeptical of fandom surveys for reasons I may or may not explain in the comments.
e) I want a "I fight crime with data" t-shirt.*
f) I have an actual answer to this question that cannot be contained by multiple choice.
*Me too. Someone get on this.
***ahem***. |
|
|
| |
[Dec. 22nd, 2008|04:56 pm] |
I see this pop up in fandom from time to time.
1) Are you the type that believes the original (book/comic/TV series/movie/manga/anime/etc) will always be better and won't give adaptations a chance? (Ex: THEY CHANGED IT SO IT SUCKS!)
2) Are there any adaptations you found to be better than the original? (Ex: I find the Sgt. Frog anime adaptation to be better than the original manga.)
I was thinking about this because about a month ago, I remembered that my friend and I used to watch the cute Making Fiends webseries and it was supposed to get a Nicktoon TV series sometime whenever. I found out that it finally aired so we watched the episodes online and started talking about how much of an improvement the TV series was to the original webseries. (We loved the webseries but it's just that we found the TV series better.) Another friend joined in and argued that the original was much better and was not impressed by the TV series. Everyone has opinions, so that's OK. But then right after, he admitted he didn't watch very much of either and doubted watching more would change his mind. |
|
|
| Icon extremely relevant |
[Oct. 28th, 2008|01:55 am] |
Karma Houdinis: Do they make a story more interesting and realistic or just make you want to throw things? When is it an effective move and when does it smack of copout?
I personally fucking hate 'em and it kinda dampens my enjoyment of something if a complete monster isn't punished in some way for their deeds. But if given the choice, I'd take a Karma Houdini for the sake of a well-done downer ending over one where it's obvious the creator is trying to be Dark And Edgy, or is too in love with the character to punish them. |
|
|
| Fantasy Races and Their Implementation |
[Oct. 18th, 2008|01:30 pm] |
| [ | mood |
| | Navel-Gazing | ] |
| [ | music |
| | Jaan Pehechaan Ho! | ] |
So it's a pretty well-established rule(well, not as much as I'd hope) that renaming your dragons/elves/vampires as something different when they're mostly the same concept confuses the reader and impresses no one. Or even if your changes are minor, like making a sparkly vampire, you still have to cleave to the name.
But how far do you have to take a concept before you'd have to rename it because the reader is expecting something different? Giving them traits that make them a little more realistic or a little more cool is generally understood, but what about other things? This seems easier with some mythical race ideas more than others, if they have a core idea. You can do whatever you want with vampires as long as they still drink blood. Dragons have to be giant lizardy things, no matter how dumb/all-powerful/whatever you make them.
But for others, it doesn't seem as clear. Say, if you have a very elf-looking race that doesn't have a European-influenced culture, when elves themselves come from European culture. Would you be confused/delighted that elven-looking things are worshiping a feathered-snake god/eating rice with chopsticks/using a very non-Western standard of beauty/named Barack Obama/whatever? Is the original mythical race's traits more important, or the popularized version? When does it go too far in the opposite direction?
|
|
|
| Fandom "loyalty" and such. |
[Oct. 15th, 2008|11:02 am] |
If you're like me, you get excited over new shiny things and quickly caught up in new fandoms and new interests. I don't drop everything I previously liked (unless it turns out to be disappointing in retrospect), in fact I quite often go back and revisit those fandoms, re-read fics by me and others, rewatch/-read/-play the canon. It's fun! But if it's something I was fanatic about in 2005, I'm not very likely to be into meta-ing it and ficcing it anymore.
However, when I go back to surfing the fandom comms I used to surf for fandoms I used to be fanatic about, I sometimes come across the same usernames and people I remember seeing in 2004, 2005, 2006. I think it's fun to run into familiar names in fandom in general but seeing the same people still in those fandoms you left behind, it feels a little odd. I left but they never did. How come?
For me the feeling is a little guilty, a little nostalgic. Why did the fandom fail to keep me interested for years and years? What's keeping these people here all this time?
So here's my question: Do you stay in the same fandoms for a very long time, actively participating, organizing, ficcing/making art, meta-ing, whatever you do in fandoms in general? Or do you fade in and out of fandoms, sometimes obsessed with one thing while passively still enjoying other previous obsessions? Why do you think this is?
And something related I've been wondering a lot: Are cool people enough to keep you in a fandom if the canon is not the most interesting, greatest thing any more for you? Do you stay for the people or the source material? Can you stay just for one of them? |
|
|
| |
[Sep. 26th, 2008|09:40 pm] |
So when watching/reading something, are there things authors add in to an otherwise decent story that drives you nuts and wish they left out?
For example, one thing I can't stand is when the author has characters say "Girls can do anything boys can!" and then never back it up. It's like they just put it in there so no one can call them on it. Though, it would be nice if an author can write a story where both guys and girls can do anything and not having to resort to saying that in the first place.
Also, I hate when authors throw in unnecessary romances that the story would be better off without it because it feels out-of-place and forced. |
|
|
| Fandom & Language |
[Sep. 23rd, 2008|07:56 am] |
| [ | music |
| | You're So Vain--John Barrowman | ] |
At the suggestion of the amazing ![[info]](http://www.journalfen.net/img/userinfo.gif) tehrin I'm here to seek wisdom, answers, and sparkles.
I'm applying for a travel/research fellowship studying anime, manga, and fandom. The application requires a fairly detailed project proposal, so I am trying to figure out where appropriate places to visit would be. That being said, there are actually 2 parts to my question.
WHERE TO GO? This must be outside of the United States. Japan is definitely on my list (somehow not surprising...), and the other countries (among my considerations: China, Taiwan, Australia, England, Spain, the Netherlands, Germany, Singapore, and hopefully somewhere in South America...) were originally going to be based on, for organizational purposes, the location of conventions. Does anyone have any suggestions for conventions or other events around which to structure my travel, or just countries in which anime and manga are becoming cultural phenomena?
The second part is related to the first.
Is there a particular language that fandom - particularly that of manga, anime, and games - favors?
Is English a preferred language for fans, or are most fans in non-English speaking countries speakers of their native language?
Do people learn or use English to communicate more often in forums, communities, scanlations, and fansubs than other languages?
What role does the English language play in the creation of fandom communities across country/national lines?
In other words: as an only English and Japanese speaker, where in the real world of fandom will I be "safe"?
I've phrased the question multiple ways, to give people different ways of thinking about it. Unfortunately, I'm inherently limited in that I am only capable of interacting in English-speaking fandom and posting this in English.
I would greatly appreciate feedback. And sparkles. ♥ |
|
|
| Rules of Fandom |
[Sep. 20th, 2008|12:59 pm] |
Because I (apparently) believe that one can herd cats, and have some kind of vague hope that the stupid can be beaten out of some people, I started putting together a list of rules that, if spammed over every fan community on the Internet, would seriously reduce wank and make fandom a lot less tiresome. "Where's the fun in that?" you may ask. Well, I don't know. But let's be honest, we'd still get people who would totally rationalize why the rules don't apply in their speshul situation, which would add another dimension of hilarity as they try to prove it.
So, without further ado:
Any additions? |
|
|
| Heroes: Let's talk pereferences |
[Sep. 18th, 2008|08:26 pm] |
Of these 18 types, which are your favorites and least favorites? Which do you think there need to be more of and which do you find overrated and overused?
( The list and my favorites, since this got kinda long ) |
|
|
| Of heroes, expectations, mistakes, and Draco in Leather Pants |
[Aug. 10th, 2008|03:55 pm] |
So thanks to a couple choice entries on TVTropes, I've got a question to pose the fandom masses.
We have the hero of the series. Hero implies a good person who wants to do the right thing and save the world, right? And their actions should line up with the description, if the writers want us to root for them and see them as the good guy, they shouldn't go around destroying property and killing innocents just to rescue a lost puppy or hunk of rock from a burning building, a good hero is resourceful enough to think of another way.
But heroes are, just like everyone else, human. And human beings make mistakes, right? Or are forced to resort to unpleasant measures when they've run out of options. So the hero ends up causing some serious property damage or hurting people and it doesn't look good at all.
The fans cry Moral Dissonance. Suddenly, the hero is a hypocrite and not such a good person after all, and the bashers roll in.
Now, it's only natural the viewers would feel like they were punched in the gut. Even if the hero gets called out or realizes their mistake, they still fucked up big time and it was pretty unpleasant to watch.
In the other corner, we have Draco in Leather Pants. The badass anti-hero or bad guy who's loved by millions of fans for being such a rebel. He kicks puppies, rapes elephants, bitchslaps old ladies, torches whole cities and sticks gum under tables. People know he's a total bastard but praise his badassery anyway. Or, we have the Lancer, who's gruff and cynical and doesn't give a shit, and unlike the hero he doesn't mind if people die or stuff gets blown up. He's also very well loved by the fanbase.
My question is: If these other characters are embraced for their flaws and their mistakes, why not the hero? Is the hero not human just like they are? Why is the Draco in Leather Pants allowed to actively rape the dog and start wars and be thought of as cool and daring for it, while the hero making one mistake brands them a bastard for life...yet when the hero calls the DiLP out for their screwups and punishes them, they're awful, while DiLP kicking the hero's ass makes them cool?
ETA: Thanks to everyone who brought up some VERY good points I didn't originally address! |
|
|
| Mod Post |
[Jul. 25th, 2008|08:00 am] |
Rule 3 has been updated. The update is in bold.
3.Check your personal feuds at the door. Argue the post, not the poster. If you can't do that, don't reply or get bopped with the The One Swipe Rule . What's the One Swipe Rule, you ask? Simple. If you attack or flame someone, they get to respond in kind once. Then the matter is dropped. If either party continue the personal attacks, the offender's comment will be screened and posting priviliges revoked for at least 24 hours. This rule also applies to discussions of serious political and social issues as they relate to fandom.
Email questions/concerns to the community owner. |
|
|