Editorial: It's a Fan's World

Editorial: It's a Fan's World

Life is good if you're a fan.

Editorial Opinion
By jerichomccune - May 10, 2012 09:05 PM EST
Filed Under: Other


Growing up as a nerd in the 50's was tough. I wasn't there, but I've seen "Back to the Future". More than twice. It wasn't cool to be smart unless you were using those smarts to make money, preferably in a white collar career. Comic books, science fiction and horror movies, fantasy books - these things were fun, but nothing worthy of serious interest. If you were a fan of statistics, baseball was your thing - that or you were weird.

It was in the 50's that the theater and cinema were just beginning to be taken seriously. Storytellers have always had a difficult time of it socially, and until recently it was rare that any artist beside the very select few gain any social recognition or wealth. Historically, societies are built on fairly rigid class systems. Actors, poets and playwrights have consistently fallen into the lower classes, except in the rare cases when someone catches a rich sponsor's eye and lives in the lap of luxury for as long as they're allowed. The job of the court musician and the court jester amounted to the same thing - please the guy with the money or sleep in a doorway somewhere. Theater troops lived in the wagons (now, it's buses) they traveled between towns with and shared meals around campfires like cowboys because it was cheaper. Film changed all that because it allowed for posterity. Actors could become rich when they were no longer performing for 300 people, they were performing for 3 million people.

Many of them did become rich, as did many other people involved in media. And as technology advanced, entertainers became some of the first people to benefit. Musicians were now listened to all over the country. Film stars were marrying into royalty. The game was changing and talented people were finding it easier to become rich. Showbusiness royalty was crowned and dynasties were formed, forcing their way in to the American aristocracy any way they could.

When I discovered comic books and role-playing games, almost simultaneously, a former actor was the most powerful man in the world. The cartoons we watched on Saturday morning could be found in other forms on the comic racks once a month. Our parents often grew up reading comics and they passed on their old issues to us. VHS tapes allowed us to watch Superman save Lois Lane over and over. Technology allowed us to mass produce media like junk food, making art a legitimate money-making industry, but people like to have something to look down upon from on high, so the focus was shifted from the arts and humanities in general to the growing segment of society that was outside the norm. Lumped in with the traveling circus freaks - that is where sidekicks are found, after all - these lesser-than-lesses were dubbed geeks, nerds and the richest people on the planet.

Sorry, the rich thing really didn't happen as much until the nineties. The point is not moot. Nerds started getting stupid rich all over.

Now, people are going to have to find something else to be resentful about. If this summer teaches us nothing else, let it be known that it is a fan's world. One comic book movie just made a billion dollars in two weeks. That's ridiculous; it isn't even funny. There's a recession right now. All over the world. Important people with lots of letters after their name are spending a lot of time talking about how bad it is. And The Avengers just made a billion dollars (not of this writing, but very soon now).

A billion dollars is only a piece of the film industry puzzle, which is worth 10 billion per year. Even with a surprisingly high percentage of films losing money, the film industry has seen steady growth forever. The small hits it has taken in the last two years was thanks to the economy more than it was lack of interest. Although traditional cinema still does most of the steady business, a huge chunk of that annual total comes from films with a large prebuilt fanbase.

The real magic of living in the fan's world is the effect outside the box office. The Avengers' (and films like it) success for many will boil down to the final box office total, but the real success comes from points not often mentioned. It would be interesting to find out, when all is said and done, how much economic movement films like this actually create outside the box office. Toys and comic books and branded clothing, tattoos and craft supplies for costumes, income was generated in unimaginable sectors thanks to fans' vested interest and desire to support that which they care about.

Big budget blockbusters like Batman, Spider-Man and Superman are what really make the noise, but a silent revolution has been happening that is securing the truth of the fan's world. Comics led the forefront. Cheap and easy to distribute, comics reached millions with mixed media messages as soon as printing could keep up with demand. Artist and writers leaped on the medium, and in time it became sustainable to the point that independent publishers started cropping up regularly. Now, Comic-Con, the Mecca of the medium, is visited by every major media company in the game, many of which buy advertising and retail space at the event.

Studios and distributors have figured out the formula for making large piles of money, but they're just hanging onto the coat tails of others. That sounds backwards to many, because one big number always seems more important than a lot of small numbers. The people leading the charge are the people turning fandom into an economy, the people emulating the early comic creators that adopted the new media first. People like Kevin Smith, Felicia Day, Wil Wheaton or Louis CK, who are taking advantage of the internet and social media to advertise and distribute in a way that's much more efficient than the multimillion dollar advertising sprees many media companies mismanage.

Fans of comic books and other things geek are the most fervent supporters of their favorite artists and creators because of the large amounts of time and emotion invested, but all of the arts are affected in the same way. Justin Beiber fans will mob record stores and buy out his albums just to push his name up the charts. Television dramas are packaged into DVD sets with extra footage to help turn casual viewers into fervent fans. Artists are no longer being supported by sponsors, they're being supported by common people that have disposable income and want to be entertained.

Media has changed the world - politically, economically and socially. One of the most pronounced changes has been culturally. We've given people something to be obsessed with, time to fill with the obsession and an avenue to pursue it. As comics, film, television, music and new media continue to cross-over and build bigger universes, the culture of fandom will become more entrenched. Even if superheroes go out of style they will always be around, as will monster horror, fantasy, science-fiction and pop media. The information age is upon us and as long as we don't devolve into anarchy, the information we will most want to trade is the information we enjoy - stories of superheroes and elves and starship captains and other survivors of strange shared worlds we can all immerse ourselves in. From here, the life of a fan can only get better.

Of course, a zombie apocalypse could occur and ruin it all. Don't worry, though; we're already prepared for it.






Check out my fansite for more articles and news!

Holiday Gift Guide 2024 - Essentials From Disney, Jakks Pacific, LEGO, Universal, & More
Related:

Holiday Gift Guide 2024 - Essentials From Disney, Jakks Pacific, LEGO, Universal, & More

A BARBIE Sequel May Be In The Works At Warner Bros. - Will Margot Robbie And Ryan Gosling Return?
Recommended For You:

A BARBIE Sequel May Be In The Works At Warner Bros. - Will Margot Robbie And Ryan Gosling Return?

DISCLAIMER: As a user generated site and platform, ComicBookMovie.com is protected under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and "Safe Harbor" provisions.

This post was submitted by a user who has agreed to our Terms of Service and Community Guidelines. ComicBookMovie.com will disable users who knowingly commit plagiarism, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement. Please CONTACT US for expeditious removal of copyrighted/trademarked content. CLICK HERE to learn more about our copyright and trademark policies.

Note that ComicBookMovie.com, and/or the user who contributed this post, may earn commissions or revenue through clicks or purchases made through any third-party links contained within the content above.

jerichomccune
jerichomccune - 5/10/2012, 10:16 PM
PatientZero - Thanks! You're right, I should have put a little more time into it. I only gave it two passes - the write and a quick edit - before I posted it. I'll use the "my eyes were getting tired" excuse. I'm not disappointed with the final product, at least. Next time I'll get that A ;)
RidiculousFanBoyDemands
RidiculousFanBoyDemands - 5/11/2012, 1:24 AM
Films were already taken seriously in the 1950's. Remember what many believe to be the most groundbreaking movie of all time (The Wizard Of Oz) was released 11 years prior. Also Gone With The Wind (the highest adjusted grossing movie of all time) was released as well, and what is largely considered the greatest movie ever made (Citizen Kane) was released in 41. Film was already a huge medium, and it actually took a little bit of a hit in 1950's because of Mccarthy hearings and the Red Scare. Theater has always been a big form of art dating back to the 16th century.

Also, during the great depression, one of the industry's that was least affected was film and stage productions. Granted they didn't make the money that they do now, but they certainly weren't struggling. Vaudeville struggled, but the the theater didn't.

One last thing, it always amuses me when people say, "it must have sucked living in such and such a time period." Here's the thing, you wouldn't have known it sucked, because you wouldn't have anything to compare it to. If you grew up in the 50's, you didn't know that cellphones, the internet and big budget blockbusters would be the norm in 50 years. All you knew, is the time you lived in. You wouldn't think it sucked, you would just think it was normal.

Good article, but the film industry isn't thriving like you think it is. A lot of studios actually recorded significant losses, and I don't think it was due to the economy. Certain industries are recession proof, people just don't want to waste there money on cookie cutter blockbusters, so they are shying away. Also, you forgot to mention what is killing the industry is the Netflix, instant streaming boom, that really kicked off about five years ago. Not to mention the home theater boom as well. Suddenly it is a lot more affordable to have theater quality entertainment in your living room, and instead of wasting 14-20 bucks for a movie ticket, people are red boxing movies or watching Netflix. The Wall Street Journal had an excellent article about what Hollywood might look like in 20 years, and it wasn't pretty. I'll try to see if it is online, and I'll post the link.
RidiculousFanBoyDemands
RidiculousFanBoyDemands - 5/11/2012, 1:32 AM
Remember just because a film has a budget of 200 million dollars doesn't mean that is all the money that has gone into it. Once you take into account advertising, promoting (which includes but is not limited to air fare, hotel rooms, dining for the actors, directors and producers, wardrobe expenses) it can get really pricy. Especially if you are flying all over the world to promote a movie. I forgot the actual cost, but I remember Disney spent something like 250 million dollars to promote the Prince of Persia, on top of the 200 million it spent on the movie.

Also, while they do make a killing of merchandise they still have to pay to have it mass produced. When everything is all said and done a huge blockbuster (like The Avengers) can cost a studio anywhere between 400-600 million dollars. So even if it makes a billion dollars, after taxes and the producers (generally the silent financiers) and directors cut of the profits, you are looking at a net gain of 100-200 million for a studio (which isn't horrible, but it's sounds a lot less when you compare it to the billion dollar net gain at the box office).

Granted Blockbusters like Battleship won't cost 200 million to promote, but it also doesn't have the merchandising to fall back on. I will be eagerly anticipating Disney's fiscal reports next year, mainly because I bought stock after they bought Marvel in 2009.
jerichomccune
jerichomccune - 5/11/2012, 7:54 AM
RidiculousFanBoyDemands - Thanks for the comments! I would like to address a couple of your points.

My argument about film and theater beginning to be taken seriously in the 50s is as a profession, not as an entertainment choice. Theater has always been a popular form of entertainment, but the people involved in theater (and cinema once it developed) were relegated to a lower class than others strictly because theirs was not an "honorable profession." I'll concede that stage acting was given legitimacy as a profession earlier than cinema (in many circles it is still given more legitimacy), but my point is that the stars of stage and screen were viewed more as famous, attractive decorations for the social elite and less as the social elite themselves.

Great films were made before, yes, but great plays were as well. Oedipus Rex was written 2,500 years ago, yet actors during the middle ages were often refused Christian burials because of their low status. The success of Wizard of Oz is actually a good analogy: when it was released it was a box office flop with a million dollars in studio losses - it wasn't until it was broadcast on television regularly, starting in the 50s, that it became the great classic it is today.

As for knowing whether something sucks because you "wouldn't have anything to compare it to," I cannot concede that point. I knew that being a nerd in the early 80s sucked because I was there. I didn't have anything to compare it to, but did I really need to compare it with anything? Suckiness isn't a question of relativity. Something doesn't begin to suck because you know that something that went before was better or that something that will come later will make things great, it sucks because it sucks. When I was growing up, I embraced punk rock, martial arts and skateboarding. I kept my roleplaying games and comic books to a minimum when I was in a public space (like school), because I didn't want to deal with the flack from people running their mouth and trying to embarrass me. I didn't have anything to compare it to, I just knew it sucked and my life would be better served avoiding it so I geeked-out in private when I got home.

Finally, I would argue that nothing is killing the movie industry. DVD/streaming sales are helping it. They're helping turn all of those unprofitable movies I mentioned into lesser risks. I stated: Even with a surprisingly high percentage of films losing money, the film industry has seen steady growth forever. Box office receipts are not hurting and the film industry is not in any trouble. We're at a point where Disney can have consecutive big-budget flops (Mars Needs Moms, John Carter) and still have a full production slate. Certain studios will struggle or close down, but that's part of business. As a whole, the film industry is in great shape.
TheCapelessCrusader
TheCapelessCrusader - 5/11/2012, 10:00 AM
It IS important to note that the studio exec behind the big flops (Prince of Persia, John Carter) also resigned shortly before the Avengers came out.

Studios do have to answer when a movie is both a critical and financial failure. Those movies together cost Disney well over half a billion dollars, net loss.

The Avengers is a horse of a completely different culture. It appealed not just to comic book fans, but comic book movie fans. Marvel Studios, under Kevin Feige, has put together a more comprehensive studio plan over the last decade than anyone else, bar none.

I think it might be fair to argue that comic books movies are helping Hollywood hold off the ire of moviegoers with respect to other, cookie-cutter type films, but that's mostly been a result of Marvel Studios as well.

I think that it's an extension of the trend toward the popularity of comic books during other times of economic uncertainty. People want their escapism. Comics were the medium that people used 70 years ago, but films have largely replaced them for the young.

What will be curious to see is whether or not some of the more mature concepts in graphic novels wind up making their way effectively to the big screen.
View Recorder