Jump to content
Awoo.

Who "owns" the story: creator or audience?


MetalSkulkBane

Recommended Posts

Context: In this review of "Luca" I learned that a lot of people interpreted Luca and Alberto as having gay crush on each other. And director of the movie denied this, seemingly trying to stop people from interpreting movie this way. That movie is about friendship, that per-pubecent kids don't do romance, yada yada.

Just to be clear. I don't want to talk about whenever he was right to do so. 1) CellSpex said everything that is to be said, 2) My recent topic about kid ships was blocked, so I guess it's touchy subject for some weird reason.

What I want to discuss is how much Creator has control over his own work. Physically speaking, it's impossible for Writer to force opinions on people. But does he have a... idk 'spiritual' right to say "Your opinion is wrong?" Stories aren't math, they can't be objectively calculated. But still, shouldn't author know best what his own creation represents?

(For argument sake let's pretend 'Creator' is a single person, not director, writer, animator, editor, voice actor and so much more)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When a story becomes public you kind of turn it over to the audience. You can use the weight of your own word to influence how people interpret it but ultimately what that majority thinks is what will decide how your story will be remembered.


That being said, I don't think a queer reading of Luca as that common outside of the internet. The director has stated that he welcomes alternate readings of the film too, so this OP comes off as a tad disingenuous.


 

Quote

Although I identify with the pronouns he / him and I am a straight man, the themes of diversity, acceptance and inclusion in our film are dear to my heart!

Quote

We were aware making the movie that this was a wonderful journey of owning your own identity, and coming out with it – whichever that identity is. I thought that everyone would bring their own identity to it.”


The movie is a catch all metaphor for feeling "different" in his own words and can be read in a variety of ways. Disney films are meant to cast a large net with their metaphors for the widest possible appeal, so I doubt that they're losing sleep over this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless done for a company, it belongs the creator. No if, ands, or buts about it.

If I were to work for Disney and make a story published and distributed under their banner, Disney owns my work.

If I go indie and produce the work myself and distribute it for all to see, the work entirely belongs to me as the author.


The audience can purchase, judge, and critique the work if they show interest, but they sure as hell don’t get to own it or dictate how it should work based on their own personal whims. That said, the fact that the creator has an audience means they need to be aware of perception—not sure if it fits the context, but you don’t get to make a character making blatant discriminatory slurs, for example, and then claim they’re not being bigoted when people call that out. The only reason the audience has influence is because they’re spending their hard earned money to support you into making more, as they enjoy what you produce—but they can stop that at any time they please, hurting your pockets.

Of course, it’s not that one-sided, as that doesn’t excuse audiences from being asshats, but that’s to say the audience is there to enjoy the experience—the creator of a work does not have to cater to an audience making demands of the work. And there’s good reason for that given how people can sue or try to take credit of an idea in a work. And then there’s cases where the work changes hands, and the new person in charge has less understanding of the story than the audience does.

But to simplify, the audience never owns the brand, trademark, or copyrights.

  • Thumbs Up 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say the creator's word is gospel generally speaking, even if that can lead to some unpleasantness sometimes (two worlds in Sonic, anyone?).  The audience owns their experience and interpretation of it, but the creator still has every right to say "yeah that really wasn't what I was going for", make their audience aware that the alternate interpretation is pure fanon. All the same though, if the creator actively tells people they are not allowed to interpret it a different way and their interpretation is bad/stupid then they're just being kind of an ass.  Still technically their right, but real bad form.  The original work is owned by the creator, but the creator has absolutely no authority over the audience's personal experience of the work.

And if the creator can't handle that fact with dignity, they have to weigh up the risk vs reward of putting their work out into the world to be consumed by others.

  • Thumbs Up 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Put another way, it’s like owning a car:

I, the creator/author, own the car under my name. The audience can sit in the passenger seat and enjoy the ride or not, but they don’t own the car. And if I crash it, that’s my fault.

  • Chuckle 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well given the entertainment industry is mostly about artistic expression, the audience having different interpretations than what the author intended is pretty much inevitable.  As mentioned, the second you put your work out to be consumed, you've more or less forfeited the right to have the final say on what people can or can't think about it. 

So...depends on how the creators react; some creators encourage fans to have their own interpretations and draw their own conclusions about their work, while others kind of dissuade that, particularly when said interpretation runs counter to what message or theme the author was trying to convey. 

 

A lot of fans would say that the creator shouldn't have any influence on how the work in interpreted, after all, who has any right to judge how they think right? And that is true...to an extent. There are instances where a creator would try to get some message across that just goes over everyone's head, and if you're a creator, there's nothing worse than being misunderstood and that can breed some annoyance. Particularly if your work becomes more well know under that misunderstanding and what's everyone immediately thinks of. 

 

So....eh, case by case basis. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say that the creator owns the story since they are the ones who created the story in the first place.  However, once they show their work to the public, then they should expect the audience to sometimes have a different reaction to how their stories go.  Like for example, if I wrote a story and I had a specific message for the work in the mind and I decided to showcase my work to the general audience, then the audience might have a different reaction to my work.  Even if I told the audience straight up what kind of message I'm trying to push, they will still look at my work in a different light because some of them don't have the same mindset that I do in regards to how I'm writing the book.  The creator may own the story, but expect the audience to have a different viewpoint on your works once you release it to the public.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I think it depends on if the creator can tell a better story than the audience.  For example if you write a comic book about cyborg nazi echidnas, walls of text, and deadbeat echidna dads you probable dont own shit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, TailsGotTrolled said:

I think it depends on if the creator can tell a better story than the audience.  For example if you write a comic book about cyborg nazi echidnas, walls of text, and deadbeat echidna dads you probable dont own shit.

I see your reasoning, but that's double standards. You can't give rights to people you like and take them from those you don't.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a very interesting topic. Personally I don't know how I feel. Speaking in as technical terms as possible, the creator (which can be a company as well as a single person) owns the story, untill something happens that makes the story fall into the public domain (usually simply meaning that enogh time passes).

But even then, what dows "own" really mean? Obviosuly the term is first and foremost a legal term; Disney legally owns Mickey Mouse, Viacom legally owns Sponegbob, ect. But unlike a specific object that exists as a singular entity in real life, a fictional character or fictional story cannot be contained in someones living room. It's out there for the world to use, even in cases where the owner tries their best to delete unauthorized versions of it. This begs the question; in practical terms, is it even possible to truly own fiction? Sure, if Disney found out that a feature lenght fully animted Mickey Mouse movie  were being made by a random group of people they could hut down production, but even they can't delete all the fanfiction and fanart that exists of the character. And to write a story or paint a picture of a character is just as much using that character as when making a full lenght movie about them. I'd say that in practical terms, the best that the legal owener of a story can do is to try to enforce that ownership, but providing that the story is popular enough to have fans in the first place, they will always fail to certain degree.

Of course, another way to interpret the concept of ownership is in terms of "canon". That is, thinking in terms as if the fictional story was real and deciding what "actually" happened, and likewise thinking as if the characters were real and deciding what they're "actually" like. Is the canon that exist in the actual work the only true canon? Are statements by the author canon even if they're never actually shown in the work? If George Lucas suddenly came out today and said "Oh and by the way Chewbacca had AIDS", do have have to accept this as canon? This to me is when any attempt at objectivty must be thrown out the window; there is simply no right or wrong answer to this.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, MetalSkulkBane said:

I see your reasoning, but that's double standards. You can't give rights to people you like and take them from those you don't.

I didnt think you meant actual legal rights, just what the community considers acceptable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, TailsGotTrolled said:

I didn't think you meant actual legal rights, just what the community considers acceptable.

If we're talking ethical rights, that's still sketchy.

Like, imagine Flynn sued Archie and wanted to get back Eclipse and all of his Archie characters, so they can appear in IDW.
I like Flynn, I want to see Eclipse again and I don't know enough about legal situation but ETHICALLY speaking, I couldn't cheer for him, without being absolute hypocrite when it comes to Penders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can never stop people from interpreting your work in their way; but that doesn't mean everyone can be right. Paying attention to the author's original inspirations and intent is important when viewing art. In this case, the writer said it wasn't true, so it isn't. Really doesn't get much more complex.

It's funny, because this is a consistent problem in the Sonic fanbase (and current developer team) too. Nobody actually seems to want to pay attention to or research the original intentions and inspirations behind Sonic, and thats why we have something that looks so different than the original for no real reason.

Art is not just one big subjective mess. Of course subjectivity is always a part of it, but there is a method to the madness. I guess I'd close off my argument here by asking you to imagine how you would feel if, against your wishes and against your word of god, people took your creation and spun it to their whim without even considering the person who labored to make it or what their thoughts were. I don't really think the case you presented is an extreme example of such happenings, but still it's an example. You are always allowed to interpret and view things in any way you please, but that doesn't make it just as valid as the canon. And that canon needs a good reason to exist; creator's word or not.

BONUS: I also think its a bit disingenuous to view male friendships in such ways automatically. I have a similar case where I want to have two young boys in a story I'm writing becoming really close friends, and to be honest, if it were seen in another way, I would be upset. That's simply not what I intended and goes against a core message I'm trying to spread. Basically, would be nice to see close masculine friendships without assuming romance. Men should be able to form close bonds without such assumptions, and it holds men back from developing close bonds when these assumptions are made. Not that, of course, there is even anything wrong with romance being there, but it shouldn't be assumed. Just as you wouldn't assume it for any other two people in a close friendship. And please don't spin this paragraph in a different way. You know what you're doing if you do. 

 

On 2/4/2022 at 7:32 AM, batson said:

Of course, another way to interpret the concept of ownership is in terms of "canon". That is, thinking in terms as if the fictional story was real and deciding what "actually" happened, and likewise thinking as if the characters were real and deciding what they're "actually" like. Is the canon that exist in the actual work the only true canon? Are statements by the author canon even if they're never actually shown in the work? If George Lucas suddenly came out today and said "Oh and by the way Chewbacca had AIDS", do have have to accept this as canon? This to me is when any attempt at objectivty must be thrown out the window; there is simply no right or wrong answer to this.

This is why I think considering the original intent and existing material is important. We have a lot of stupid things being said about Sonic canon right now, and its ridiculous to me that we even CONSIDER them, just because it comes from corporate. The people that decide these things are not educated on the material as much as you would like to believe; not to mention, a lot of Iizuka's statements are just stupid blurted out ideas during interviews. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@charmsb Good points, good points. That reminds me.

Han shoot second.

(Not saying you're wrong. Just pointing out it's not that simple).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, MetalSkulkBane said:

@charmsb Good points, good points. That reminds me.

Han shoot second.

(Not saying you're wrong. Just pointing out it's not that simple).

I mean, sure it may get a bit nuanced, but its pretty arguable that Han shooting second (a change made by George Lucas himself) is either somewhat detrimental to Solo's arc or just doesn't really have an impact. I did mention that canon, even if from the creator's mouth, needs to have a good reason to exist. If I went bonkers and made a sudden and stupid change to a piece of art I made (just for emphasis, I can't say Im that bothered by the Solo scene) it would be dishonest of me to expect people to accept it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, charmsb said:

 

 

This is why I think considering the original intent and existing material is important. We have a lot of stupid things being said about Sonic canon right now, and its ridiculous to me that we even CONSIDER them, just because it comes from corporate. The people that decide these things are not educated on the material as much as you would like to believe; not to mention, a lot of Iizuka's statements are just stupid blurted out ideas during interviews. 

A lot of these statements are from people who MADE the original material though. Like, they were in the room when key things were decided. You can't just go on an entire spiel about author intent and how important it is and then decide it doesn't count when they step on your toes.

And that's the point I'm getting at: everyone cares about author intent until they don't. If the author's wishes align with yours people will ride their words until the end of time, but the second someone like Toriyama says Goku isn't actually the upstanding guy that the Dragon Ball dub lead people to believe existed, or that George Lucas tied the mythic force to a biological concept, or indeed when Sonic's world functions like the movie/the anime series they supervised and not the way we imagined, it goes out the window. "It's yours unless you fuck up too badly, then it belongs to me."
 

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the thing about fandoms, and this is any fandom of any nerd hobby or whatever. They're fickle as all fucking hell, something that was once loved will be hated overnight for whatever reason. People reevaluating opinions, maybe the work did something that was universally panned or what have you, I dunno. The more popular and well know a franchise is, the more likely this is to be. 

Like, the only reason fans have any sort of power over the creator at all is because they simply outnumber them, and creators obviously want to avoid their work getting any type of controversy, so they kind of have to kotow to fan demand a lot of the time even if they really don't agree with them. It becomes a series for fans only as opposed to general audiences or whatever the author intended.

Sonic content creators probably have it the fucking worst about this; because most Sonic fans only care about Sonic content, and literally nothing else. If your channel develops a large gathering for Sonic fans, sooner or later you'll find your entire work revolves around Sonic and you'll find it difficult to branch out into anything else. 

I think its important for creators to establish boundaries from the outset, otherwise you'll find your work more dependent on fan input than the creator's own.  And like I said, fans are fickle. Most fans of anything aren't really professional and have no experience in that field, and are mostly interested in ideas that appeal specifically to them personally as opposed to something that can cater to all ages. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I kinda wish I was the author of a popular work of fiction just so that I could mess with fans of the thing by making sensational statements about the work way after the fact. Like if I were Lauren Faust, I would go online now in 2022 and be like "Twilight actually had a sister as a kid but she accidentally killed her". That would be so fuckin funny, I swear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's what JK Rowling and Ken Penders are doing and I don't really think that you want to emulate those people at all. 

  • Absolutely 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, but they probably do it because they're either insane and honestly believes in the crap they're spouting (Penders) or for some kind of pandering semi-political reasons (Rowling). I'd do it for the lulz, and I'd choose the most weird trivia I could think of. Nothing overtly offensive or even really political, just nonsense, but nonsense that forces you to re-evaluate entire characters.

If I were Dan Povenmire I'd say "Perry the Platypus is and always has been a dwarf in a suit".

If I were Matt Groening I'd say "Homer actually hates Lisa and wouldn't be sad if she died".

If I were Bill Watterson I'd say "No no no you've got it all wrong. It's not that Hobes only exists in the mind of Calvin; it's Calvin who only exists in the mind of Hobes".

If I were Yuji Naka I'd say "Eggman is a feminist".

Okay that last one is already sorta canon, but still it's the kinda stuff I'd say. I imagine I'd already be rich anyway, and thus my only concern would be to lenghten my own life, and there is a saying here in Sweden that goes "Nothing lengthens the life as much as good laughs".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, batson said:

If I were Matt Groening I'd say "Homer actually hates Lisa and wouldn't be sad if she died".
(...)

 I imagine I'd already be rich anyway, and thus my only concern would be to lenghten my own life, and there is a saying here in Sweden that goes "Nothing lengthens the life as much as good laughs".

Honestly, I don't see the comedy in that. It's just troll behavior, from someone who should be above it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Wraith said:

A lot of these statements are from people who MADE the original material though. Like, they were in the room when key things were decided. You can't just go on an entire spiel about author intent and how important it is and then decide it doesn't count when they step on your toes.

And that's the point I'm getting at: everyone cares about author intent until they don't. If the author's wishes align with yours people will ride their words until the end of time, but the second someone like Toriyama says Goku isn't actually the upstanding guy that the Dragon Ball dub lead people to believe existed, or that George Lucas tied the mythic force to a biological concept, or indeed when Sonic's world functions like the movie/the anime series they supervised and not the way we imagined, it goes out the window. "It's yours unless you fuck up too badly, then it belongs to me."
 

I addressed that even if it comes from the creator, it needs a justifiable reason to exist. Not familiar with the examples you pointed out though. 

Other than that, what statements and by who? If you mean Iizuka, not only does he blurt out a lot of dumb canon on the spot, making it worthless, but he also only started on Sonic with Sonic 3 as a designer. He wasn't there in the primordial times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, charmsb said:

I addressed that even if it comes from the creator, it needs a justifiable reason to exist. Not familiar with the examples you pointed out though. 

Other than that, what statements and by who? If you mean Iizuka, not only does he blurt out a lot of dumb canon on the spot, making it worthless, but he also only started on Sonic with Sonic 3 as a designer. He wasn't there in the primordial times.

I think its kind of important that he's been there since literally the 3rd game.

 

And you're kind of proving the point; you don't agree with what Iizuka says, despite him being the oldest member of the original team, because he makes statements that you don't personally agree with so therefore his word isn't valid.

 

And if you can just pick and choose which creators whose word you hang onto and whose you disregard, then how valuable is the creator's word?

 

They're only considered so as long as their opinions fall in with what the fanbase wants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing I actually missed addressing: commissioning people for your work.

It not really any different than what I said, but it’s still worth pointing out—let’s say you have an interesting or awesome idea…but your skills in making it suck.

You don’t know how to write with flowing prose, to paint a picture with words, but you want to make a story. Or you’re average at best at drawing (or worse, nobody’s perfect), and want a professional to take your attempt and perfect it. Or you have an awesome tune or beat in your head, but you don’t have the music programs needed to make the track; or you do have the music program, but either don’t have the sounds you’re trying to make, or the quality samples on the level you like.

Point is, you have an idea, you know how you want it, but you feel lacking and disappointed in you attempt.

You can commission or hire someone to help you perfect it, and when you get what you wanted, the final product is yours—yes, you paid someone to do it for you, but that by default means what you paid for belongs to you. 

Obviously (because I have met people who don’t seem to understand this), you should at least give credit to whoever you paid to help you accomplish this, but beyond that, what I said before still applies in that you can do whatever you want with what you paid for and the person you commissioned has no right to it despite drawing it. You’re essentially a smaller version of a company that hires workers to work for them.

Mind you, I’m only speaking in regards to how this works in the US. I’d assume much the same generally applies in other countries, but I’m positive there are some tricky differences here and there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Kuzu said:

I think its kind of important that he's been there since literally the 3rd game.

 

And you're kind of proving the point; you don't agree with what Iizuka says, despite him being the oldest member of the original team, because he makes statements that you don't personally agree with so therefore his word isn't valid.

 

And if you can just pick and choose which creators whose word you hang onto and whose you disregard, then how valuable is the creator's word?

 

They're only considered so as long as their opinions fall in with what the fanbase wants.

Nope, it's not just me "personally disagreeing" with Iizuka. Again, EVEN IF it comes from word of god, which is an extremely debatable precedent to give Iizuka, it still needs to be coherent and make sense.

For one most of everything he has claimed has contradicted previous statements and lore that was created by people who have more authority than him. He is retconning things made by people who were WAY more involved than him.

Secondly, again, he literally just spits these things out in interviews to give an answer. Its all malarkey made up on the spot that doesn't actually consider its consequences or what came before. Sure, Iizuka is the current head of Sonic Team, but he sure as hell didn't make Sonic, and seems to know very little about its origins and inspirations... should we really just go with what he says because he has legal precedent? 

Imagine if you create something, lets just call it Thing, and years later you leave the company that was creating Thing with you. You are the figurative father of Thing; you know absolutely everything about it and know your intentions for Thing. But now some guy who, while still an important team member in the past, has assumed your role as the head of the company that makes Thing. He starts saying absolutely bonkers things that don't at all agree with what you wanted or intended, and none of what he says actually considers much of the existing material. Maybe you don't care about Thing much anymore, but can we really all collectively say that this new guy should be trusted with Thing? That his word is important and valid, just because he's the new head of the company?

Art is not created and persisted with legality and company politics. It is with creators who truly value what they've made or what they've been given.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

You must read and accept our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy to continue using this website. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.