Church of the Customer Blog
« Friday evening quarterbacking about SoaP | Main | links for 2006-07-18 »
July 15, 2006
Friday evening quarterbacking about SoaP
Chuck Klosterman of Esquire laments the Snakes on a Plane phenomenon, calling it "the Wikipedia version of a movie."
He claims, a bit dubiously, that New Line reshot parts of the movie "to give audiences whatever they wanted" (his emphasis, not mine), and even added dialogue that "countless bloggers demanded to hear." If SOAP is a success, he predicts that "choose-your-own adventure filmmaking is going to become a model... and that model will be terrible."
I suppose Klosterman could have misread the several interviews SoaP director David Ellis has given for reshooting parts of the movie, or maybe he's just clumsy.
For instance, Ellis told the LA Times that he and New Line didn't ask what people wanted in the movie. They watched what people were saying online and listened, so Klosterman's facts are off. First, it's hardly a surprise to Klosterman or anyone else that Hollywood tinkers with every movie prior to its release, usually by showing it to random groups of young moviegoers in the San Fernanado valley who have little or no prior knowledge of the film they're seeing. Studios will often make small or major changes to a film based on the their comment cards. They're students but hardly students of film.
Second, any filmmaker worth her salt will tell you that a movie is the total sum of its many collaborators, from the screenwriter, to the director of photography, to the actors. Collaboration along every aspect of a film's creation is inherent; there is no formula for a good movie, otherwise every movie would be good, if not great.
Third, I think Klosterman's filter is skewing his vision. He primarily writes about music and pop culture. His work experience is to ask people questions, then sit alone at a computer and write stories about them.
Ellis and Co. saw what fans were saying online about the movie a year before its release (a rarity for most products) and recognized the potential to add another collaborator -- the self-identified early fans. Ellis sensed that a PG-13 movie would not play well with the sizeable group of people who clearly loved the idea of the movie and imagined collaborating on it. If a studio brings in a seasoned producer during the creation process and makes adjustments, is that going to make the movie terrible? With Klosterman's logic -- and by extension, the logic of those who pooh-pooh input in general -- are we to bemoan the role of content producers and invalidate their Wikipedia-like movie knowledge because they are not a sole creator?
Seth writes of Klosterman's thesis: "The people want what the people want, but if you ask them first, you don't always end up with something they actually like." This is true, but I don't recall David Ellis or the movie's screenwriters describing how they went to fans with blank pages and asked, "So what would you like this movie to be about?"
SoaP has captured the attention and imagination of so many people because it demonstrates that for some big projects with multiple levels of collaboration, listening to and giving a voice to the early adopters, the One Percenters who know their stuff, strengthens ownership levels, builds buzz and reduces inherent risk. That's the story, and the model.
UPDATE: Crazymonk has a better and more concise review of the article.
Other blogs that reference Friday evening quarterbacking about SoaP:
Your logic is incomprehensible. To wit, "His work experience is to ask people questions, then sit alone at a computer and write stories about them." That is what you do; it is what I do; it is what every journalist does. Unless you write your posts with a roomful of people talking to you as you type. You’re damming a process, not a person, with that comment. How can this process skew his vision? It is the same process you use. Is your vision skewed?
Your discussion of how Snakes on a Plane was revised is completely illogical. You claim that Klosterman got his facts wrong, "I suppose Klosterman could have misread the several interviews SoaP director David Ellis has given for reshooting parts of the movie, or maybe he's just clumsy." In the very next paragraph, you write how the writers of this movie observed and watched the comments among bloggers to decide which scenes to reshoot. You are arguing semantics, at best, and Klosterman's thesis remains in tact. Indeed, that very paragraph buttresses Klosterman's thesis, while disproving yours.
The remainder of the post reinforces Klosterman's thesis. Why quote a second person's use of Klosterman in the second to last paragraph? Why not cite directly from Klosterman's Esquire piece?
If you truly practice what you preach, then you should rework your post to refute Klosterman's thesis with a logical argument. In your entire thesis, you fail to accomplish this fete.
This is not a question of whether of bloggers (you) are journalists (Klosterman). It is a question of whether you are a competent writer or not. Based on your use of illogical arguments that fail to support a thesis, which could be summed as Yet Another Journalists Does Not Get The Awesome Power Of The Consumer, we know the answer to the question.
The movie does take itself seriously, and it's not a joke.
Michael, you will be eating your hat.
Yes, please check out Crazymonk's better and more illogical argument.
I never realized that journalism training included thorough fact checking; judging by the bulk of what Klosterman has written, or its ilk in Wired or Pitchfork, mindless rumination on supposed cultural significance is the meat of an education in journalism.
Certainly, Klosterman's 'thesis' has no more factual, ironclad merit than anything his detractors have said.
Besides, arguing that a ludicrously plotted and executed movie will have a grim impact on an industry that is already creatively gutted says more about the initial quality of that industry than anything else.
