sometimes the status quo bites back
31 Mar 2010 12:39 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kaigouFirst, if you've not already heard, go see the lovely (yes, that's major sarcasm) news that bossymarmalade posted on the upcoming Avatar comic. Go ahead and see; I'll wait here. Feel free to take a few minutes (or more) to get your blood pressure back down to a reasonable level. Deep breaths. I'll wait.
Did you get a good look at the cover? Notice anything unusual about it? Well, other than the extreme case of whitewashing so phenomenally and bluntly in-your-face that it's almost breathtaking in its absolute chutzpah, that is. Like, say, the names.
See "Michael Dante DiMartino" or "Bryan Konietzko" anywhere on that cover?
Nope?
Me neither.
Just to be certain, let's double-check what few books Amazon will let you "look inside" on. We've got a wide choice, including a variety of novelizations, some prequels, and what looks like several retelling comic books, along with the ubiquitous ready-to-read versions. Names on the various covers include: Patrick Spaziante, Michael Teitelbaum, Tom Mason, Dan Danko, Shane L. Johnson, Sherry Gerstein, David Bergantino, Molly Reisner... and then there's the Golden Books series, which doesn't even list an author at all.
But lo, there is something with the names DiMartino and Konietzko. The series-to-comic chapters, printed in book form, and oddly, the only ones of all of them not printed by Simon/Nickelodeon, but by Tokyopop. Except the inside cover says the same thing as all the books and comics done with someone else's name on them:
Basically, DiMartino and Konietzko don't own the series. They don't own the characters, they don't own the storyline, they don't own the character designs, they don't own jack. It was work for hire, and the proof is in the fact that Nickelodeon has the copyright (and the trademark) all over the place.
Furthermore, on the Tokyopop version, it at least lists DiMartino and Konietzko as creators. None of the rest even mention them at all -- and now we're onto the comicified version of the movie, which has whots-his-face's name plastered there at the top... and again, no mention of DiMartino and Konietzko.
Of course, by this point, it's possible that this is fine by them, because it no longer looks anything like the Avatar they spent six years creating.
Thing is, I betcha pizza money there's not a damn thing they can do about it, anyway. Even if they wanted to -- and given the reports I've been reading from fans of Q&A sessions at some of the big cons, it seems fairly safe to say that where the story is going is not where DiMartino and Konietzko would've taken it, or would've wanted to see it taken. They've implied executive meddling with the Ursa storyline (nixing its resolution, whatever that might've been), displeasure from "some people" about the number of strong female characters, and some kind of intrusion into Toph's storyline. And the timing of some of their comments is rather pointed, with distinctly emphasized Asian features for Aang on artwork released right around the time the movie version announced its casting of some white kid in the lead role.
And now, sure looks to me (and more than a few others, given the comments on the post linked, above) that Nickelodeon is doing its utmost to erase the original series entirely, and replace it with an updated whitewashed version.
And I'd be willing to bet, as well, that the terms of the work-for-hire in creating the series also limit just how much DiMartino and Konietzko can criticize, publicly. I'd certainly be willing to bet several pizzas that they're required to promote to some degree, and that usually means not actually de-moting it. Even if this means watching their baby devolve into a complete parody of its original self, right down to getting all the respectfully accurate details in Katara absolutely wrong -- her hairstyle, the fold and overlap of her gown, the position of her hands. Because now the series is in the hands of a corporate giant who could really care less.
In other words, the status quo is striking back.
I don't see a damn thing to be done about it, either. Not in this case, at least, because Nickelodeon does own the copyright, and that's just the terms of service if DiMartino and Konietzko wanted that so-important financial backing to be able to make the series in the first place.
But it also seems to me to be a really precarious situation: if the remakes (movie, re-done comics) fail, then I'd be unsurprised if the blame is somehow shifted onto the non-American basis for the stories: that kids wouldn't really want to watch, or support long-term, a series about kids from somewhere else. And if the movie and its spin-offs succeed to any degree, then this'll become the basis for reinforcing the whitewashing, on the grounds that either "it doesn't matter" what color the characters are, or it'll be (at least implied) that see, here's proof that kids "like it better" when the characters are white, that no one would financially support a non-white cast.
In other words, either way, the status quo is going to find a way to shift blame elsewhere, take the credit for itself, and keep on keeping on.
Maybe, for those who loved Avatar (or at least admired it for striking out and being different in so many good ways), the best -- and maybe only -- thing to do is to find out what DiMartino and Konietzko have in store for their next project. Then bring all that fandom support that went ballistic over the movie casting, and throw it into convincing some other studio to back them for their next series, a studio that won't trample on their product and -- if we could be so lucky -- will split the copyright with them. Though that part, given the state of US copyright and trademark habits when it comes to animation and television (much like music), that part... I'm not holding my breath. But I can hope, all the same.
Incidentally, the biggest name in American animation is probably Matt Groening, right? Here's the copyright on his spin-off books. All are written by him, notably, and not someone else, but still:
That's got to suck. Your own creation, and you have to ask permission to use it.
[ETA: the title of this post is actually a riff on an older post.]
bossymarmalade posted on the upcoming Avatar comic. Go ahead and see; I'll wait here. Feel free to take a few minutes (or more) to get your blood pressure back down to a reasonable level. Deep breaths. I'll wait. Did you get a good look at the cover? Notice anything unusual about it? Well, other than the extreme case of whitewashing so phenomenally and bluntly in-your-face that it's almost breathtaking in its absolute chutzpah, that is. Like, say, the names.
See "Michael Dante DiMartino" or "Bryan Konietzko" anywhere on that cover?
Nope?
Me neither.
Just to be certain, let's double-check what few books Amazon will let you "look inside" on. We've got a wide choice, including a variety of novelizations, some prequels, and what looks like several retelling comic books, along with the ubiquitous ready-to-read versions. Names on the various covers include: Patrick Spaziante, Michael Teitelbaum, Tom Mason, Dan Danko, Shane L. Johnson, Sherry Gerstein, David Bergantino, Molly Reisner... and then there's the Golden Books series, which doesn't even list an author at all.
But lo, there is something with the names DiMartino and Konietzko. The series-to-comic chapters, printed in book form, and oddly, the only ones of all of them not printed by Simon/Nickelodeon, but by Tokyopop. Except the inside cover says the same thing as all the books and comics done with someone else's name on them:
© 2008 Viacom International Inc. All rights reserved. NICKELODEON, Nickelodeon Avatar: the Last Airbender, and all related titles, logos, and characters are trademarks of Viacom International Inc. All rights reserved, including the right of reproduction in whole or in part in any form.
Basically, DiMartino and Konietzko don't own the series. They don't own the characters, they don't own the storyline, they don't own the character designs, they don't own jack. It was work for hire, and the proof is in the fact that Nickelodeon has the copyright (and the trademark) all over the place.
Furthermore, on the Tokyopop version, it at least lists DiMartino and Konietzko as creators. None of the rest even mention them at all -- and now we're onto the comicified version of the movie, which has whots-his-face's name plastered there at the top... and again, no mention of DiMartino and Konietzko.
Of course, by this point, it's possible that this is fine by them, because it no longer looks anything like the Avatar they spent six years creating.
Thing is, I betcha pizza money there's not a damn thing they can do about it, anyway. Even if they wanted to -- and given the reports I've been reading from fans of Q&A sessions at some of the big cons, it seems fairly safe to say that where the story is going is not where DiMartino and Konietzko would've taken it, or would've wanted to see it taken. They've implied executive meddling with the Ursa storyline (nixing its resolution, whatever that might've been), displeasure from "some people" about the number of strong female characters, and some kind of intrusion into Toph's storyline. And the timing of some of their comments is rather pointed, with distinctly emphasized Asian features for Aang on artwork released right around the time the movie version announced its casting of some white kid in the lead role.
And now, sure looks to me (and more than a few others, given the comments on the post linked, above) that Nickelodeon is doing its utmost to erase the original series entirely, and replace it with an updated whitewashed version.
And I'd be willing to bet, as well, that the terms of the work-for-hire in creating the series also limit just how much DiMartino and Konietzko can criticize, publicly. I'd certainly be willing to bet several pizzas that they're required to promote to some degree, and that usually means not actually de-moting it. Even if this means watching their baby devolve into a complete parody of its original self, right down to getting all the respectfully accurate details in Katara absolutely wrong -- her hairstyle, the fold and overlap of her gown, the position of her hands. Because now the series is in the hands of a corporate giant who could really care less.
In other words, the status quo is striking back.
I don't see a damn thing to be done about it, either. Not in this case, at least, because Nickelodeon does own the copyright, and that's just the terms of service if DiMartino and Konietzko wanted that so-important financial backing to be able to make the series in the first place.
But it also seems to me to be a really precarious situation: if the remakes (movie, re-done comics) fail, then I'd be unsurprised if the blame is somehow shifted onto the non-American basis for the stories: that kids wouldn't really want to watch, or support long-term, a series about kids from somewhere else. And if the movie and its spin-offs succeed to any degree, then this'll become the basis for reinforcing the whitewashing, on the grounds that either "it doesn't matter" what color the characters are, or it'll be (at least implied) that see, here's proof that kids "like it better" when the characters are white, that no one would financially support a non-white cast.
In other words, either way, the status quo is going to find a way to shift blame elsewhere, take the credit for itself, and keep on keeping on.
Maybe, for those who loved Avatar (or at least admired it for striking out and being different in so many good ways), the best -- and maybe only -- thing to do is to find out what DiMartino and Konietzko have in store for their next project. Then bring all that fandom support that went ballistic over the movie casting, and throw it into convincing some other studio to back them for their next series, a studio that won't trample on their product and -- if we could be so lucky -- will split the copyright with them. Though that part, given the state of US copyright and trademark habits when it comes to animation and television (much like music), that part... I'm not holding my breath. But I can hope, all the same.
Incidentally, the biggest name in American animation is probably Matt Groening, right? Here's the copyright on his spin-off books. All are written by him, notably, and not someone else, but still:
The Simpsons(TM), created by Matt Groening, are the copyrighted and trademarked property of Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation. Used with permission. All rights reserved.
That's got to suck. Your own creation, and you have to ask permission to use it.
[ETA: the title of this post is actually a riff on an older post.]
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 31 Mar 2010 07:50 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 31 Mar 2010 05:46 pm (UTC)why do I not have my angry icon on this account
Date: 31 Mar 2010 08:21 am (UTC)Also, it just occurred to me that they even bleached out Aang's original bright orange outfit and made it this gruel-type gray. RAWR.
no subject
Date: 31 Mar 2010 05:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 1 Apr 2010 04:14 am (UTC)Not to mention that it completely ignores the part where Avatar the cartoon series is already set in a world that isn't ours but still has the authentic Chinese calligraphy in it.
no subject
Date: 1 Apr 2010 05:07 am (UTC)Which is part of my point about the fact that it's canon, that the effort was made to put it in, and now it's there -- and that to remove it requires considerable more effort to justify doing so, way more effort than it'd take just to leave it the hell alone. I can't see a valid reason -- not a positive, worthwhile valid reason, that is -- to go through that effort, let alone the inexplicable twisty non-logic required to justify the action. Okay, I can reason, if I'm willing to use logic that hinges on xenophobic racist intentions.
But since that's not a logic I can accept using and still respect myself as a human being... no. I see no reason for it.
All that said, it also pisses me the hell off because of all the times I've watched movies that purport to have japanese or chinese and it's some freaking made-up character, probably copied off those bedsheets that were so popular at Macy's a few years ago, that for some unknown reason said "snow," "rain", "television", and two other characters that could've been real but had radicals that didn't look like anything I learned in Mandarin. (Ignoring that why on earth would you have "snow", "rain" and "television" on your bedsheets, anyway?) Compared to the first time watching Avatar and the first episode that you can see Chinese characters and I nearly came out of my seat in shock. It felt like the animators waved at me personally, and said, "hey! we're paying attention!" and I started to relax, in a strange sense that I was -- for the first time in a long long time with american media -- in some good hands.
And I'm not even Chinese -- so I can only imagine how much more powerful it must've been for a child who is Chinese to have seen that!
no subject
Date: 1 Apr 2010 03:53 pm (UTC)Nickelodeon just keeps shooting themselves in the foot with this.
no subject
Date: 1 Apr 2010 06:56 pm (UTC)See the article Mikke linked to, in her reply... uhm, either above or below. [ETA: doh! it's the reply directly below this one.] Worthwhile reading, if inevitably teeth-gnashing. May also cause some hair-pulling and the sudden need for a stiff drink, and avoidance of firearms and other potential major weaponry, at least until the anger passes.
Which is to say: as far as Nickelodeon is concerned, they're not shooting themselves in the foot, they're certifying that the story will be a bestseller as best they can based on their understanding of bestseller -- that is to say, sticking to the formula, and the formula demands white-boy-at-center. Preferably with American accent.
A ridiculous position to take -- well, until you realize that admission of a lack of true formula for success means telling investors that their millions invested might as well get taken to Vegas for all the certainty the hollywood executives can really provide. And I can't really blame someone willing to hand over a million dollars for wanting just a little certainty of success. The problem is that with the amount of money we're talking, that "little certainty" has solidified into concrete-hard rules and deviations are anathema.
And even with my logical cap on, I still thought much of that (and the article's insight) had to be some level of exaggeration -- until I came across commentary from one of the big media outlets (I want to say Rolling Stone, but that's not right, but that level... maybe Greenwich Times? ugh, whatever) -- that Nickelodeon was "completely taken aback" and caught totally off-guard by what seemed to Nickelodeon to be an absolutely unprecedented amount of fan rage over the casting calls and decisions for the movie. They genuinely weren't expecting it, because it never occurred to them that what they were doing was wrong -- and it's that kind of fundamental privilege that makes it okay to remove the Chinese characters. They simply are pathologically incapable of even recognizing the existence of their xenophobic racism, let alone the extent of it. Utterly, completely blind.
no subject
Date: 2 Apr 2010 05:05 am (UTC)Yep, seen that article before. T_T Which is why being vocal with racebending.com is so important to me. WE ARE TELLING PARAMOUNT RIGHT OUT THAT THEY'RE WRONG AND THAT THEY'RE LOSING OUR MONEY FOR THAT REASON.
They're not listening/going to listen though. T_T
until I came across commentary from one of the big media outlets (I want to say Rolling Stone, but that's not right, but that level... maybe Greenwich Times? ugh, whatever) -- that Nickelodeon was "completely taken aback" and caught totally off-guard by what seemed to Nickelodeon to be an absolutely unprecedented amount of fan rage over the casting calls and decisions for the movie. They genuinely weren't expecting it, because it never occurred to them that what they were doing was wrong -- and it's that kind of fundamental privilege that makes it okay to remove the Chinese characters.
Paramount itself told racebending.com's partners that they had never seen a larger controversy than the one swirling around Aang.
no subject
Date: 2 Apr 2010 06:04 am (UTC)Ah. Must've been an article that quoted the site, then.
Re: why do I not have my angry icon on this account
Date: 31 Mar 2010 11:34 pm (UTC)Read this: http://thehathorlegacy.com/nobody-knows-anything-but-dont-tell-the-financiers/
Or if that's tl;dr for you -- why? Because preserving the status quo of what they believe they know audiences want is more important to them than making money, and far, far more important to them than making a good product.
no subject
Date: 1 Apr 2010 12:39 am (UTC)Almost makes "I wanna be a novelist" look like a positively sure thing, in comparison.
no subject
Date: 31 Mar 2010 01:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 31 Mar 2010 05:57 pm (UTC)Tangential to that, I also find it rather intriguing that when D&K did release comic-from-series books, they didn't do it through Nickelodeon's own publishing house (Simon) but through Tokyopop -- and that the book about to come out, of "art from the series" (that does have D&K listed as authors) is being released by Dark Horse. Again, not Nickelodeon's publishing house, and I suspect in part because that way Nickelodeon doesn't have to promote the book. Can, possibly, even ignore it completely -- because the official Avatar site is housed on Nickelodeon's servers, thus control of any merchandising is in the hands of Nickelodeon.
Seems to me that maybe another way to make it clear who gets the support is to push Avatar: The Last Airbender (The Art of the Animated Series) as much as possible, since at least then there's a better chance of some money for it going to D&K, as authors of the book itself.
no subject
Date: 31 Mar 2010 03:41 pm (UTC)This is ALSO typically how musicians get sweet fuck all and often end up OWING labels if they have the misfortune of getting on a RIAA-owned label--in many cases, the artists are forced to sign contracts that essentially remove the rights to their own songs or even stage names. It's not just new bands that suffer this--John Fogerty, of all folks, not only suffered this with Creedence Clearwater Revival, but ended up being sued by his own former record label because they thought his solo stuff was "too similar" to CCR. :P
no subject
Date: 31 Mar 2010 06:01 pm (UTC)Very different from series creators and writers, who can be, and are treated as, completely expendable.
no subject
Date: 31 Mar 2010 04:33 pm (UTC)One can only hope that, having made a mark, they can hold out for better terms on the next thing.
no subject
Date: 31 Mar 2010 06:01 pm (UTC)And seeing how that's the major frame of reference for most people on my flist, I figured I should bring attention to the fact that this ain't how it is for a lot of the rest of the creative world.
no subject
Date: 1 Apr 2010 04:32 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 1 Apr 2010 06:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 7 Apr 2010 05:09 pm (UTC)And possibly better-casted, although I know part of the problem with casting is money.
no subject
Date: 7 Apr 2010 05:50 pm (UTC)That depends. It's not like the names on a movie necessarily have to be Big Names -- that's just Hollywood hedging its bets on the notion that people will default to seeing Actor X or Y (and I'm using 'actor' as a sex-neutral term here) no matter what they're in (which empirically isn't always the case, but it is enough to make such an assumption reasonable). In this case Star Wars is really an excellent example: the primary characters were all played by relative unknowns, with only one or two anchor characters (like Obi Wan) who were Big Names, and those Big Names were not the story's foci characters.
So it can be done. And even more, there are instances of actors agreeing to be paid less in return for a percentage of the final intake. It's like the actor's version of sweat equity, and when it's a movie that an actor personally believes in, that can be of additional importance to the actor. It's not like we non-actors are the only ones allowed to take a job for reasons that have more to do with principles than with the actual paycheck; it's something plenty of people would do, given the opportunity, I think. That, too, can become a way to reduce a movie's immediate outlay, and IIRC is a way that some of the smaller art-house films have not only gotten made, but managed to do so with Big Names in the cast list.
Plus, there's also movies like Sita Sings the Blues to prove that the public will finance directly, before and after the movie's production. I do think as that kind of power grows into its own -- that is, we as the public get used to being able to support directly, much like a latter-day public broadcasting system (in that public broadcasting is really just publicly-funded broadcasting -- we may see more and more of Sita's ilk.
no subject
Date: 31 Mar 2010 05:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 31 Mar 2010 06:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 1 Apr 2010 04:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 31 Mar 2010 06:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 1 Apr 2010 12:33 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 31 Mar 2010 10:42 pm (UTC)(P.S. Would you mind if I posted a link to this post in
no subject
Date: 1 Apr 2010 12:36 am (UTC)And yeah, if I put six years of my life into such an epic piece that also was a massive hit with such a phenomenal fanbase -- I'd be having a very hard time not being bitter, right about now. It must feel like being gutted. Not to say one doesn't eventually accept it -- in the way one accepts oh, I don't know, having your heart stomped on thoroughly with a dash of humiliation for spice -- and then one moves on, but until that final acceptance, man, the denial and then the anger, it must be legendary.
no subject
Date: 1 Apr 2010 05:20 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 1 Apr 2010 06:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 1 Apr 2010 04:27 am (UTC)That's good extra evidence for the fact that Mike and Bryan really don't own ATLA, meaning that they don't have anything to do with the movie. (Which we can't get through a lot of people's heads because they're convinced Mike and Bryan would never have let this happen if they didn't agree with it. WRONG.) It was their first major project, they were young, etc. etc.
no subject
Date: 1 Apr 2010 04:51 am (UTC)The irony is that, feasibly, it could have been their twentieth project and they'd be in their sixties and they still probably would have no say in it. Ownership of the copyright going to the financial backers is, unfortunately, simply the way that television and media control their products. You would really have to be a Rowling or a King (or a Meyers) to have any say otherwise, and even then... I mean, look at what they did to LeGuin.
no subject
Date: 1 Apr 2010 04:45 am (UTC)They've implied executive meddling with the Ursa storyline (nixing its resolution, whatever that might've been), displeasure from "some people" about the number of strong female characters, and some kind of intrusion into Toph's storyline.
Can you give me some links or paraphrase? Because I felt the 3rd season felt so off kilter in a lot of ways that it felt like there was meddling going on and I'd like to know more.
no subject
Date: 1 Apr 2010 04:58 am (UTC)So, in essence: you gotta really dig, and then you gotta read between the lines. Ahhh, except for one instance, almost forgot -- there are hints and insinuations in the DVD commentaries. Try there, if you've got the series on DVD. (I don't, so I go by what I've seen quoted.) Apparently the "some people didn't like [the abundance of strong female characters]" gets a mumbled reaction from the other partner of being "an understatement". Uh-hunh. I can do math.
Then again, I admit I'm more likely to believe such implications, too, because I can see where the third season took a nosedive on certain things.
no subject
Date: 1 Apr 2010 05:06 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 1 Apr 2010 05:15 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 1 Apr 2010 05:02 am (UTC)However, I would mention that although the corporate machine may not care about ATLA and what it stands for, many of the people who are working within some aspect of that machine do.
Dave Roman, who co-wrote both of the Del Rey graphic novels, was a comics editor at Nickelodeon Magazine for a decade before it was shut down last year. He's been championing ATLA from the inside from the beginning, and was responsible both for the mere existence of the two all-ATLA issues of the magazine and the high quality of the comics content within them. He worked directly with artists and writers from the show's staff to make sure that the NickMag comics stayed within the show's continuity, and has been pushing for an anthology of show-inspired comics for ages, even after Nick Magazine closed its doors. It's hard to argue that he isn't invested.
In an ideal world, all of these companies would be interested in publishing books and graphic novels and such that continue to celebrate the original show, in addition to their efforts to promote the film adaptation. But given that that isn't how things have worked out....the people who care have to work within the system as it exists.
no subject
Date: 1 Apr 2010 05:15 am (UTC)My sole reason for pointing this out is because the majority of my flist/dwircle are familiar with copyright via fiction standards, in which the author does retain some basic control over their copyright. That is, you write a novel, it's not work-for-hire. So I've seen fussing here and there about how the original creators must agree with the direction the franchise is going -- and I wanted to explain that no, in fact, the way publishing works is not the same as the way the visual (and auditory arts) industry works.
no subject
Date: 1 Apr 2010 05:13 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 1 Apr 2010 06:44 pm (UTC)I always found it rather baffling, and frustrating, that RISD was so phenomenal in so many ways when it came to the artistic side, but didn't offer a single class (that I could see) that instructed students on legal rights per art, promoting their work, or the real-world issues of work-for-hire and consumer demands. Hell, if anyone'd asked me, I'd say those should be required classes, because an awful lot of the RISD students I met -- oh, wait, pretty much all of the students I met -- were sadly uninformed and misinformed about what they were facing once they left school.
no subject
Date: 2 Apr 2010 08:19 pm (UTC)I wish, so hard, that I got to have classes like that in my design program. Admittedly, I'm at a large private university and not an art school specifically, and most people don't even know our department exists, but still. Yes. Art majors especially need classes on the practical things relating to their work.
no subject
Date: 1 Apr 2010 05:50 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 1 Apr 2010 06:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 3 Apr 2010 01:50 am (UTC)