But the same argument applies to people who like things that you don't!
New Twilight Zone on CBSAA because of Disco's success
- Thread starter guyute03
- Start date
But the same argument applies to people who like things that you don't!
The catch is that they have to be enticed to pay for the price of admission. That requires a certain type of satisfaction to be fulfilled.
Perhaps we can see that in light of part of the topic thread. The success of STD may have been brought about by the point that it was Netflix international sales that made it possible to pay for the whole production cost, which is around $8 million per episode, making this show per season as expensive as a Hollywood tent-pole. That's probably why it's not surprising that it resembles one.
You're literally just repeating what I said.
Artists should listen to feedback then make their own considered decision whether or not to act on it. There's a difference between an artist compromising the art to please a fan complaint and an artist being interested in hearing how their art is being received so they can improve their delivery of their artistic intent. NEXT
I guess if you want more Star Trek that is not like Discovery, you want Discovery to be profitable, but only a little profitable, and you want CBS to receive a lot of feedback that they want more Trek but they want a lighter Trek.
I guess if you want more Star Trek that is not like Discovery, you want Discovery to be profitable, but only a little profitable, and you want CBS to receive a lot of feedback that they want more Trek but they want a lighter Trek.
Last edited:
There is no “should”. The artist is certainly free to make that choice but it’s not a requirement. Full stop. We, the audience, are owed the art in return for the price of admission—we are not entitled to be consulted nor are we owed satisfaction.
I have zero problem with artists choosing to pay attention to feedback and/or suggestions/requests. The key word is “choosing”. I have a huge problem with an audience feeling entitled to satisfaction and/or having their particular desires catered to. Artists are not owed acclaim and audiences are not owed satisfaction.
If it applies to everyone, then both sides are selfish, which makes your argument pointless.
I think it's not so much artists involved as producers who make final decisions. That's why Hollywood blockbusters are very similar to each other, i.e., generally longer than two hours, crammed with lots of content (especially action sequences, special effects, and spectacle over relatively simple plots), usually in the PG sweet spot, and with high marketing costs (sometimes as high as production cost) to cover a global audience. This is clearly seen in the latest Star Trek movies.
STD has been produced in a similar manner: at $8 million an episode, it is per season as expensive as a Hollywood tent-pole. That's why producers had to rely on Netflix international to cover the production cost. Similarly, it has lots of special effects and crammed with content, leading to poor pacing, character development, etc.
The reason for this is that large amounts of investments are at stake, which means high production costs. To cover that, marketing costs are also needed to target a global audience in order to maximize profits.
The interesting difference in this case is that the show (like others) is being released via subscription, and many subscribers might be paying because they are interested in other programs.
The problem with this argument is that it assumes that audiences will choose to watch a show for reasons other than the point that they find satisfaction in doing so.
No. Not at all. One does not follow at all from the other.
Any artist (musician, filmmaker, sculptor, writer, etc.) who does not produce art only for personal expression (ie, not intended for an audience), hopes to have their art well-received. However, they are not guaranteed such reception. Putting out the art is a risk taken by the artist. It may be loved, hated or leave the audience indifferent (likely the worst outcome, from the artist’s perspective).
Why does anyone partake of an artistic experience? In the hope of satisfaction—hope, not guarantee. I buy music from my favourite composers/performers in the hope I will like it—I don’t always. I’m not OWED satisfaction. I am only owed the music for which I paid. I buy a movie ticket to see a film by my favourite director. I expect I’ll enjoy it, based on past experience. I don’t always. I’m not OWED satisfaction. I buy a book by a favourite author... I watch a TV programme that is a new iteration of a favourite franchise... and so on. I hope to enjoy it and the artists hope I will like what they present. They are not entitled to my approval and I am not entitled to satisfaction.
The artist is always free to consult “the fans”, or try to follow the mould of a previous success. I have no qualms about that, when it is a voluntary choice by the artist. Where I have serious reservations is with the audience feeling entitled to satisfaction from an artist. Art, even commercial art, should not be an endeavour dictated by “the fans” (the vast majority of whom are NOT artists and would be horrible at attempting to produce their own version of whatever is on offer—music, book, film, etc.).
Let’s say my favourite blues guitarist decides he’d like to try his hand at a classical guitar composition/album. I like classical guitar as well, so I give his album a try. I am willing to do so based on my satisfaction with previous work. But, I don’t like his compositions and am disappointed. That’s life. I was owed the album, which I got in exchange for my money. I was not owed happiness.
Star Trek has 700+ hours of TV episodes, 13 movies (and possibly more). I happen to have enjoyed all of it, though certainly not equally. And some of what I enjoy is not held in high esteem by the majority (Enterprise, for example) while some of what I enjoy less is more highly regarded (a good chunk of DS9). I’m not entitled to be fully satisfied with every hour of Trek I watch, nor do I expect the makers of the various iterations to cater to my personal whims and tastes (it would be absurd for them to do so). Moreover, the day a version of Trek comes along that I don’t enjoy, I simply won’t watch it (I have FAR TOO MANY OTHER things to do than watch something I don’t find enjoyable). However, I won’t spend a large chunk of my time heavily criticizing a version of Trek and hoping it fails, just because I don’t like it. That would be foolish, as well as selfish (and more than a tiny bit assholish on my part).
When the latest Trek was announced, I hoped I would find it entertaining and enjoyable—but I had no sense of entitlement to such. The new batch of artists working on the series are not required to satisfy me—I’m not required to watch. It so happens I do enjoy Discovery (though I am disappointed by some of the choices it has made—mostly to do with the Klingons). If I didn’t like it? Well, plenty of other things to watch and do.
Why would you, as a viewer, continue paying to watch something that does not satisfy you?
Please stop attempting to portray the Netflix deal as some kind of "crutch" that DSC needed in order to get a second season. Netflix is not in the business of giving away money with no hope of return. The reason they paid, reportedly, $6 million of the $8 million per episode is because they believed that DSC would increase their subscriptions, thereby increasing their overall profit. This is no different from the reasons they pay for any product, including their own.
Obviously, DSC has been profitable for them as they are apparently willing to pay for another season on their service. The Netflix deal is actually one of the measurements of the success of DSC.
How could you possibly arrive at that conclusion based on what I said?
Well, it's obviously a crutch, and likely much more than that. Where else would the funding come from?
Also, it's obvious that they intend to profit, but that hasn't taken place yet, right? So the title thread is premature.
It's based on this claim:
If you are an artist, you likely won't earn if you don't satisfy your audience, and that satisfaction logically leads to acclaim.
If you're a member of an audience, you likely won't pay for something that you think will not satisfy you, and logically you won't praise an artist for offering you something that you find unsatisfactory.
You’re just going in circles.
No one is being forced to pay for anything. When one CHOOSES to spend money/time experiencing art, they are “paying” for the experience, not for guaranteed satisfaction. If they are not satisfied, they are in no way compelled to keep “paying”. But under no circumstances are they owed satisfaction. They are simply owed the experience. Up to the individual to decide if he wants to risk dissatisfaction in a subsequent experience.
Circles?
Of course, there's supposed to be guaranteed satisfaction. Otherwise, they won't continue paying!
No. Just...no.
Art is a subjective experience—commercial art, fine art, elementary school kids’ art—and there can NEVER be a “guaranteed satisfaction”. It is NOT like buying a refrigerator or a TV. For such things, either it works properly (and you are satisfied), or it doesn’t (and you are entitled to a refund).
And “continue paying” is entirely irrelevant to my point. If you go to the cinema and buy a ticket for a movie—you are only owed a seat in the screening room for the duration of the movie. You are NOT (EVER) “guaranteed satisfaction” with the movie. If the projector breaks or the lens is misaligned, or the sound system is distorted, or the lights stay on...for those objective things, you are owed satisfaction (you should be refunded if those elements of the experience are defective). But you are NOT owed satisfaction with the movie itself. Nor is the filmmaker owed your approval. Each of you takes a risk—you risk a relatively small amount of money, plus your time, in exchange for a viewing of a movie. The filmmaker risks your disapproval and the loss of your future business. At no time are you “guaranteed satisfaction” with the movie (same goes for book, album, painting, sculpture, concert, etc.) in terms of content—the artistic product. It’s not that complicated.
I went to a movie earlier today. It was made by filmmakers whose previous work I have enjoyed. On that basis, I expected to enjoy this one (I did). But there was no guarantee I would enjoy it, nor would I be owed a refund if I did not enjoy the film. I CHOSE to take the risk of exchanging money and time for a film that I hoped would be (HOPED, not guaranteed) enjoyable.
How you manage to conclude that my argument is that I should expect to keep paying for successive unenjoyable experiences, as if I had no choice in the matter is, frankly, beyond baffling. I make a discrete choice, each and every time I buy a ticket, tune in a TV show, attend an art exhibit... I can chose to stop at any time. What I cannot demand is that I will enjoy each piece of art I experience. Nor can you.
This thread isn't about art as a subjective experience but commercial art. With that, there's always an attempt at guaranteed satisfaction. That's why cast and crew of STD engaged in a media blitz before the show was broadcast via streaming.
The point about refunds is illogical because the new TZ, like STD, consists of multiple episodes accessible via subscription. If viewers are not satisfied, they stop paying.
Commercial art in this case does not involve one-shot deals, where only one movie about a concept will be shown and end there. It involves multiple episodes for TV shows, several shows, and several movies. If for that franchise you produce one flop after another and can't reverse the trend, then don't expect more people to subscribe or buy tickets.
If the movie doesn't satisfy you, and if a trend emerges for those filmmakers, then it's likely you won't take the same risk with their future projects. Guess what? Many producers will think the same way.
That's how the business works: you need to offer guaranteed satisfaction to producers, and that means doing the same to potential viewers. It's not about refunds but ensuring a return on their investment for the former, and that can only happen if more of the latter are satisfied. This becomes more pronounced when both producers and viewers look at your track record. They the first were not happy with the returns you gave them for earlier projects, and if more of the latter became increasingly dissatisfied with what you produced, then don't expect to receive more offers or funding for future projects.
Why do you think producers, actors, and directors keep saying that you will like their new movie and give all sorts of reasons why? Why do you think they don't say the opposite?
Because you wrote the following earlier:
When you argue that you don't "expect to keep paying for successive unenjoyable experiences," that is because you ARE are "entitled to satisfaction." Given that, why do you have a "huge problem" with something that you actually believe in?
No. You clearly fail to comprehend what I’ve written—over and over.
I NEVER go into ANY artistic experience with the attitude that the artist OWES me satisfaction. NEVER.
I have various degrees of expectations based on prior experience but that NEVER guarantees I will be happy (satisfied, delighted, etc.) with the newest experience. It is ALWAYS a risk—on the part of the artist and myself. I am NOT entitled to be happy. I’m entitled to the experience itself—good, excellent, bad, horrible or indifferent. Satisfaction is a hope, not a guarantee.
The artist cannot guarantee I will be happy. He can only hope. He doesn’t owe me happiness. He owes me the experience.
Moreover, the artist is never required to cater to my expectations. I’d prefer he didn’t. Instead, I want an artist to put out whatever inspires him, without worrying about what I expect. I want him to take a risk. I might be disappointed but, in many cases, I’m happily surprised. That’s far more interesting and satisfying than a cookie cutter regurgitation of a familiar formula.
I NEVER go into ANY artistic experience with the attitude that the artist OWES me satisfaction. NEVER.[/quote]
My view is the opposite. When I pay for such artistic experience, I expect to be satisfied. Otherwise, I stop paying.
The fact that you have expectations and that you are taking risks means that you expect to be satisfied, and that's a sense of self-entitlement. Otherwise, you would not care about either!
If he doesn't make you happy, then likely you'll stop paying! What do you think he has to do next in order to be paid in the future?
If he doesn't cater to your expectations, and if he keeps doing that, then it's likely that you won't watch his future shows and movies.
If he takes a risk for a future project, then he will have to explain that to his potential investors, and they will fund him only if he can persuade them that the payback will be significant.
Finally, the irony about all this is that STD itself is a good example of that "cookie cutter regurgitation of a familiar formula." It's a a Hollywood tent-pole that needed funding from international subscription sales!
