 |
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
Meta | |
I Know What Boys Like
May 10th, 2007
by Guy LeCharles Gonzalez
I know what boys like Everybody knows boys like girls, cars, sports, beer and action movies. Right? They don’t cry, don’t say “I love you.”, and hate “chick flicks” with a passion that dooms the genre to box office failure. And girls, of course, only like strong men, handbags, white wine and happy endings; they talk too much, and would never be caught dead watching an action movie like Casino Royale. Fairy tales and manga only, please! Right? Right? Um…no, actually, and yet somehow these stereotypes are so deeply ingrained in our culture that even otherwise intelligent people can frustratingly debate them in a “can’t see the forest for the trees” kind of way. I’m a big fan of Grey’s Anatomy, and while it can arguably be categorized as being the epitome of “chick TV”, I highly doubt it would be the ratings smash it is if it didn’t have a similar, if not necessarily equal, appeal to men. ABC didn’t give it the premium post-Super Bowl spotlight last year — when it finally caught my attention and immediately seized it — to attract more women, and they were rewarded for their gamble with a ratings boost that saw the show not only outdraw its [at the time] monster hit lead-in, Desperate Housewives, but saw its ratings increase even more after being moved to the highly competitive Thursday nights for its third season. Grey’s success is attributable to an enviable mix of being a well-produced, critically acclaimed dramedy that boasts a talented and diverse cast; a balanced approach by its writers that delivers character-centric drama that let’s that cast shine, with the inevitable sweeps month “event” story arcs that remember to move those characters forward in believable ways; plus, savvy marketing efforts on the part of ABC that include immediate repeat viewings on Friday nights as well as a strong internet presence. Are there guys who won’t watch it because it’s perceived as a “chick show”? Sure. (But they’re missing out, not just on the show itself, but on a life lived on one’s own terms.) And there’s plenty of women who won’t waste an hour of their time watching it, either. C’est la vie! As they say, “It takes, Diff’rent Strokes to move the world.” What does this have to do with comics, though? Everything, actually. Comic books and serial television dramas have a lot in common, and comics would do well to take some cues from its more popular sibling, particularly from successful ensemble shows like Grey’s Anatomy, ER, CSI, House, et al. The best of these shows feature the same elements that have made Grey’s Anatomy so successful, and are easily duplicable in comics form: diverse, ensemble casts in stories that feature steady character development, while balancing entertaining done-in-one plots with ongoing sub-plots. Hell, the primary doctors on the show are practically superheroes in their own right — the Justice League of Seattle Grace, if you will — with Grey and her fellow interns/residents as their sidekicks, and sometimes nemeses. The key to the cast’s broad appeal is that each character has a distinct, relatable identity and it’s not unusual for any one of them to act unpredictably. Not “out of character”, mind you, but unpredictably. There’s a stark difference between the two that too many comics writers don’t seem to get. One of the most common complaints about comics these days — and one I’ve made myself, many times — is the lack of characters who are relatable to a broader audience; whose appeal goes beyond the generally accepted core of 30-and-up white fanboys who grew up on comics, several of whom are now writing them from a severely limited worldview. Never mind the artists whose limited skills, lack of imagination, courage, or a combination of the three, insist on every superheroine or love interest resembling a surgically enhanced Playboy model. Corporate comics could benefit from television’s use of a staff of writers instead of the merry-go-round of hot creators du jour that lead to inconsistent storytelling, characterization and sales. This approach would likely necessitate editors be more directly involved in the writing process, with their star shining a bit more brightly than the individual writers, but it would result in better stories with longer shelf lives and less audience churn. (Same thing could apply to artists, rotating two or three similar but distinctive talents between story arcs to maintain the shipping schedule.) Does any of this mean, though, that comics are inherently a medium for boys — presumably white boys — and that the female minority who read and enjoy them are an aberration to be ignored? That depends on a particular publisher’s business model, really. Johanna Draper Carlson makes an interesting comment in the post that spurred my thoughts here:
My first thought here went back to my initial reluctance to embrace a show with a character nicknamed “McDreamy”, and imagined the likely ridicule that I would have been met with had I posted something to that effect on my [imaginary] IAmAGuyWhoLikesGreysAnatomy.com blog. My second thought was, “Wow! Did Johanna just dis the When Fangirls Attack crowd?” The subsequent reaction to her post certainly suggests others took it that way. Granted, my referencing Grey’s Anatomy here is partly anecdotal, but while I’m definitely not the “norm” when it comes to the so-called average “guy”*, neither am I so “unusual” that my take on things is skewed towards irrelevance. Following that line of thinking, I can see where some took offense at Johanna’s seemingly telling them to “shut up”. If the stereotypical average “guy” were the determining factor in failure or success on the mainstream level, Spike TV wouldn’t be a little-watched niche basic cable station; sports ratings wouldn’t be on a steady decline; and pisswater like Budweiser would be the best-selling beer in the country. Okay, so that last one is true, and my despising Bud does technically make me “unusual”, but I referenced it purposefully to illustrate the concept of broadcasting and narrowcasting that often gets completely lost in these discussions about comics, which more often than not are really about Marvel and DC’s superhero comics. ABC is a broadcast network, targeting the wide (and somewhat mythological) 18-34 year-old demographic with a variety of shows, and Grey’s Anatomy is a show with broad appeal that fits their business model. Marvel and (to a slightly lesser degree) DC, on the other hand, are narrowcasting publishers, targeting a very niche (and, again, somewhat mythological) 18-34 year-old, male demographic with a variety of characters in an increasingly narrow, interlaced setting. Neither business model is better than the other, and there are many examples of companies who have gone too far in attempting to broaden their appeal only to lose their core audience (or, like Timberland and Cristal, unnecessarily alienating a key segment of their audience), but one could argue that Marvel and (again, to a slightly lesser degree) DC, have gone too far in the other direction, narrowing their focus so tightly that they “run the risk of creating a micro-niche that is too small to yield enough customers to sustain a business.” Comics can certainly be considered a “micro-niche” that is arguably too small to sustain more than a handful of legitimate major comics publishers, but since Marvel and DC own that “micro-niche”, narrowcasting is less a problem for them than for their competitors. But what of the audience, the readers who want more diversity in their comics and are outspoken about that desire? Should they be dismissed with a “giggle”? Told to shut up? Encouraged to make their own fucking comics? I’ll opt for the latter on this one, pointing out the fact that Grey’s Anatomy creator Shonda Rhimes is a 37-year old black woman who busted her ass in Hollywood before finding success and was just named to Time’s 100 Most Influential List, while tsk-tsking Johanna’s * “No. The world is full of guys. Be a man. Don’t be a guy.” (Say Anything, 1989) | |
 |
 | |
12 Comments Add your own
1. SKleefeld | May 10th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
I think you’re right that comics can/should learn a thing or two from television.
If you look at the big networks, they generally carry a broad range of shows appealling to a wide audience. There’s some news, some game shows, some comedies, some dramas… That’s where the “broad” in broadcasting comes from — they’re trying to hit any number of demographic markets. The networks then narrowcast somewhat with individual blocks of shows to appeal to a certain segment for that time period.
The heavy hitters in the comic world target one demographic pretty exclusively, and with one genre pretty exclusively. Comics shouldn’t be a “micro-niche” but they are because that’s how the publishers market themselves. And that’s why so many individual comic titles don’t last — even from the big houses — because the publishers are narrowcasting to a micro-niche that’s unsustainable.
TV has a audience pool in the millions to draw from, but comics are drawing from a pool of, what? 200-300,000? You can’t really afford to narrowcast in that market unless you’re specifically a low-overhead operation.
Corporate comics could benefit from television’s use of a staff of writers… but it would result in better stories with longer shelf lives and less audience churn.
I’m going to have to disagree with you on this point. The primary reason I dislike movies and TV on the whole is precisely because there are too many cooks in any given story. They’re quick to lose focus because you’ve got a batch of writers all bringing their own interpretations to the table, collated by at least a couple of editors, then interpretted by a host of actors, seen through the eyes of a director and yet another editor. However great the original idea was, it’s been filtered and diluted too much (for my tastes, at least) by the time it reaches the audience.
One of the reasons I love comics is that there are considerably fewer filters. Generally, you have a total of maybe six guys working on the book overall, and generally only two of them can provide substantial impact.
It’s not impossible for TV and/or movies to keep the original vision more or less intact, but those are decidedly the exceptions and not the rule. You need a primary source who has a very strong, recurring presence throughout the entire process, from inception to editting the final cut, and there just aren’t that many Fritz Langs, Orsen Wells or Joss Whedons out there.
Of course, that’s just me. And I do have a tendency to be “skewed towards irrelevance.” :)
2. Katherine Dacey-Tsuei | May 10th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
I’m glad to see I’m not the only one who found Draper-Carlson’s comments a little off-putting. There’s nothing inherently natural about the genres she describes; these categories are the result of social conditioning and market forces. While there may be some truth to what she says about the potential female audience for superhero comics, I think she’s underestimating the symbolic value of characters like Wonder Woman and Princess Leia for young girls.
3. Guy LeCharles Gonzalez | May 10th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
@Kleefeld: I’m suggesting a head writer/visionary model here, similar to that of Grey’s Anatomy and the first couple of seasons of Boston Public, West Wing, etc, where the creator’s imprint was clear and distinctive. Marvel and DC have effectively had a by-committee approach to their overall planning the past couple of years; to disastrous effect, IMO. Instead of spreading Bendis, Millar and Brubaker thin across a bunch of random books, I’d give them a connected group of titles, a senior editor, a couple of co-writers, and let them go crazy.
@Katherine: Off-putting and disappointing, as I generally respect Johanna’s opinions on things, even if I don’t always agree with her. Interestingly, I seem to have recently been removed from her blogroll, again, so I must have posted something similarly disappointing recently!
4. SKleefeld | May 10th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
I’m suggesting a head writer/visionary model here, similar to that of Grey’s Anatomy and the first couple of seasons of Boston Public, West Wing, etc, where the creator’s imprint was clear and distinctive.
You know that bit where I said I have a tendency to skew towards irrelevance? That totally applies here; I’ve never seen more than a couple of minutes’ worth of any of those shows and that was mostly from ads. So I don’t have any real basis to know how well that worked or didn’t. :\
5. plok | May 11th, 2007 at 3:18 am
I feel like I ought to point out two things here, before running off to the links to see what all the fuss is about with my own eyes.
One, in the early years Marvel arguably owed its success to just such a “head writer/visionary” system as you describe: that was Stan, of course. And as Marvel grew, Stan continued to hang onto “head writer” status for a very long time, even though he moved into full-time editing, and then more distant full-time EIC-ing. Remember Iron Man’s “nose”? That was a result of Marvel’s new size trying to cope with Marvel’s old organization around Stan’s cult of personality. Thing was, that organization still worked better under Stan than it does today under the Quimbies, even when it didn’t work quite so well. Roy had a similar thing going after a while, too. It was all almost nepotistic, even almost Shakespearean, a couple of little interlocking fiefdoms run by EIC/editor/writers. Len Wein brought a distinct tone to Marvel, too, as did Archie, and Shooter, of course. I didn’t care for Shooter’s (although I liked it better than the current set-up, and that’s saying something), but you can’t say he wasn’t hands-on, nor that he didn’t effectively put his stamp on things.
Oh no, what am I trying to say here, again?
Oh yeah, that Marvel’s a writer/editor’s company at heart, and it seems to work best when the bigwigs are also working down on the line, producing tone. Kind of like the difference between a good bar-atmosphere, and a bad one: in the good one, the owner’s there five nights a week, instructing by example. But I won’t run too far with that whole thing right now, I just thought I’d mention it in passing…
To my second point, two, which is that there’s lately been quite a lot of crossover between SF and romance, and even Marvel itself built much of its success on the folding-in of romance comics into monsters and superheroes, so before I even go look at Johanna’s articles I’m going to call a little bullshit on the “romance is for girls” bit. I can’t even think of a TV comedy or drama off the top of my head that isn’t leavened with romance, and that doesn’t spend an automatic amount of time hitting the notes of emotional dramatic relevance. No, I don’t think The A-Team and Dukes Of Hazzard would do well at all on TV these days…plenty of action, but not enough sizzle, and let’s face it: it’s the sizzle that sells the soap.
Or, y’know…something like that.
I guess I’m saying…I agree! And also if I was in charge of a big romance-novel line, I’d be looking around thinking “what can we do here to hook more of the male market? There must be something we can do…” Hey, that’s the very reason Wonder Woman and Supergirl exist, come to think of it!
Good points.
6. Thom | May 11th, 2007 at 8:26 am
?Are there guys who won’t watch it because it’s perceived as a “chick show”? Sure. (But they’re missing out, not just on the show itself, but on a life lived on one’s own terms.) And there’s plenty of women who won’t waste an hour of their time watching it, either.”
Yeah…for me, I just did not get into it when I tried watching it. Mainly because I just am not interested in medical dramas (I didn’t care for ER either).
7. Guy LeCharles Gonzalez | May 11th, 2007 at 9:02 am
@Kleefeld: LOL! We all have our moments of irrelevance. Hell, we blog about comics! Does it get more irrelevant than that?!?! ;-)
@plok: Thanks! The links are worth a peek, though after rereading my own post last night, I realized I was kind of all over the place, using them more as a springboard for some loosely related thoughts that had been percolating for a while than commenting directly on the issue at hand. That’s what happens when you try to rattle off a quick post at work and it snowballs into an essay, I guess!
@Thom: Genre preference is fine as a determining factor; I was referring to guys (and girls) who refuse to watch Grey’s purely because it’s considered “chick TV”. That’s just lazy and reductive.
8. Kayode Kendall | May 11th, 2007 at 9:31 am
I tried to watch Grey’s Anatomy once, and it just didn’t interest me. Lord knows I’ve watched my share of shows most would consider “Chick TV”.
9. Jimmie Robinson | May 12th, 2007 at 12:45 am
Most of what I wanted to say was posted and articulated well in the blog and by others.
I just wanted to say I love you, LeCharles.
10. Vincent | May 12th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
You have some interesting points about TV vs. comics, but it’s hard to take seriously a show where fans call one of the characters “McDreamy.” You figure the audience is comprised of Peg Bundy clones eating bon bons, dutifully waiting to follow whatever Oprah tells them to the next afternoon.
11. sshhh... | May 14th, 2007 at 8:16 pm
greys wut?- who cares
12. Jo- Jo | August 5th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
I love grey’s, and always watch it. Most of my friends dont watch it, but i don’t really carecause its wat I like, so who cares if the rest doesn’t. I think meredith rokz and no, girls are not all about handbags make up and chick flicks, and boys dont only like sports , hot gurlz and are incapable of saying I love you. every1 is diferent, so wtf if u dont know anything about life.
Leave a Comment
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed