So, Archer and new seasons
Context: Archer is a TV show that for several years now has been producing less and less "normal" content. At first it was about a spy agency for five seasons and people liked it, but then it started moving, for a lack of a better word, sideways. At first it was objectively hilarious, but the number of "loyal fans" has been dwindling over the seasons. Now there is a talk about new season and in line with the recent ones, it's again 'weird'. I would like to present a different perspective than "it's weird and I don't like it."
Imagine you are producing content. You have generally two choices: Either you can constantly make similar content, drawing upon the hungry people who want more of the same, or you can explore new ideas and themes, usually losing your loyal fanbase in the process. Usually, you have to eventually stick to the first option. Find your calm little corner and create your content there, using the money you earn from it to feed yourself and your productivity.
But for now, imagine you can take out the money out of the equation. Imagine you don't have to live from your creations and that you don't care about how many people follow you and are fans of your work. Imagine you can be free of consumerism and create your content the way you want, not the way others want.
This is what Adam Reed is doing. To a degree at least. If he cared about income and fancounts and all that, the show would probably stay in the spy agency bubble for a long time until people got bored of it. And maybe they wouldn't. And maybe the show wouldn't stay there, because there would be nowhere to stay. Maybe the whole show would never spring to life if Adam Reed and others around him wanted to stick to "the usual".
Now that we have that out of the way, let me point out a few things, which may be obvious. There exist shows that stick to their premise and don't ever change it. Twenty something seasons of Simpsons spring to mind. And we know how great ratings that has. It's producing money, yes, but it's also just not as unique as each and every episode of Archer is.
Before I was going to type all this out, I stumbled across an idea to better visualize it and maybe rationalize both ways from the consumer view.
Imagine there is a shelter and you regularly borrow a dog to walk(this exists and please do it, the dogs love it). You always borrow the same dog because you like it. One day, you learn that somebody has adopted the dog, but you are welcome to walk another dog. Do you choose the same breed as the dog you liked, or do you choose a different breed? In both cases: good for you. But do not shame one or the other, just do your thing.
Also all this time I have been lying. There is a third approach that tries to combine the two. Combine the expected with the unexpected. Keep the feel, change the content. The Mario franchise is a good example of this. Whatever game you are getting, you know roughly what you are getting into, but each and every new installment is different enough to feel new and not stale. So the exploration is there, but it is very constrained.
Imagine you are producing content. You have generally two choices: Either you can constantly make similar content, drawing upon the hungry people who want more of the same, or you can explore new ideas and themes, usually losing your loyal fanbase in the process. Usually, you have to eventually stick to the first option. Find your calm little corner and create your content there, using the money you earn from it to feed yourself and your productivity.
But for now, imagine you can take out the money out of the equation. Imagine you don't have to live from your creations and that you don't care about how many people follow you and are fans of your work. Imagine you can be free of consumerism and create your content the way you want, not the way others want.
This is what Adam Reed is doing. To a degree at least. If he cared about income and fancounts and all that, the show would probably stay in the spy agency bubble for a long time until people got bored of it. And maybe they wouldn't. And maybe the show wouldn't stay there, because there would be nowhere to stay. Maybe the whole show would never spring to life if Adam Reed and others around him wanted to stick to "the usual".
Now that we have that out of the way, let me point out a few things, which may be obvious. There exist shows that stick to their premise and don't ever change it. Twenty something seasons of Simpsons spring to mind. And we know how great ratings that has. It's producing money, yes, but it's also just not as unique as each and every episode of Archer is.
Before I was going to type all this out, I stumbled across an idea to better visualize it and maybe rationalize both ways from the consumer view.
Imagine there is a shelter and you regularly borrow a dog to walk(this exists and please do it, the dogs love it). You always borrow the same dog because you like it. One day, you learn that somebody has adopted the dog, but you are welcome to walk another dog. Do you choose the same breed as the dog you liked, or do you choose a different breed? In both cases: good for you. But do not shame one or the other, just do your thing.
Also all this time I have been lying. There is a third approach that tries to combine the two. Combine the expected with the unexpected. Keep the feel, change the content. The Mario franchise is a good example of this. Whatever game you are getting, you know roughly what you are getting into, but each and every new installment is different enough to feel new and not stale. So the exploration is there, but it is very constrained.
Comments
Post a Comment