Feedback is such an elemental ingredient of nearly any human activity — consider the importance of coaching and teaching in particular, but also think about the creative arts — and yet there is huge variance on how much feedback a given person may get, or choose to accept.
The web is probably the grandest (or at least the noisiest) feedback loop ever created.
In an interesting essay in The Washington Post, Hank Stuever wonders about the impact of fan feedback — specifically, “quibbling” — on the movie versions of beloved books, comic books, TV shows, etc. The latest instance, of course, is Star Trek:
Has our quibbling worked? Yes, if you believe in the collective force of fans and the “wiki” social ideal — that group input only improves the result, guiding by peer pressure if nothing else. No, if you think filmmakers are too beholden to fans. Quibbling does not produce a Heath Ledger-style Joker; that is the result of an actor and a writer and a director coming unhinged from the original material. Quibbling produces a Watchmen movie, which tenderly reproduced the 1988 graphic novel panel-for-panel and still failed — pleasing fans, perhaps, but excluding newcomers.
It’s an interesting and timeless point that Stuever raises. Creators who wish to honor the fans’ concerns may wring out the originality that can make art compelling; and creators who ignore the fans’ concerns risk alienating them.
I just read an early copy of Hell Is Other Parents, by Deb Kogan, whose 13-year-old son Jacob plays young Spock in the new Star Trek film. In one essay, she describes the extreme secrecy measures that director J.J. Abrams took to ensure that no outsiders could read even a line of the script or catch even a glimpse of the filming. It seems that Abrams wanted a tight and closed feedback loop — and it seems to have worked.
and 
. You can also watch it on 
Csikszentmihalyi notes that creative individuals generally alternate between open and closed modes of operating — i.e., between extreme openness to feedback and extreme focus and concentration without feedback.
Stephen, you bring up an interesting dynamic about feedback regarding whether much or little is best.
I’ve always thought of feedback as a good thing, as in when Ken Blanchard mentioned years ago in one of his books about having a sheet in front of the bowling balls when throwing the ball down the isle. The point was to take the sheet off in various measures in business, etc., to make the results that much more clear.
But when it comes to feedback with people, it’s a whole different thing, and maybe what counts most is whether one is coming from a place of pleasing people, or being true to their own creative endeavor first and foremost as in the case of J.J. Abrams.
Perhaps there are no iron-clad rules here, and one has to choose when to listen to the input of others when that is considerate, and when to be true to one’s own creativity when that is what’s at stake. Thanks for making us think.
Tim http://leavethejobbehind.com
I would include ‘Jack Sparrow’ as one that would never never have committee muster.
When I pay to see a film, I am paying to see the vision of an artist or small group of artists. Same thing when I buy music or visual art or any other type of creative output. What’s the last great novel you read that was written by committee? Even collaboratively produced works like films usually represent the spark of one or a just a few minds. The “wiki ideal” is fun and democratic and revolutionary for many things, but when it comes to art, I don’t want democracy. I want to glimpse one person’s vision, and I’ll pay good money for it.
I agree with The _UTP, I pay to see the vision of an artist, not the compromises of a committee. And excellent quote from Micheal F. Martin on Csikszentmihalyi; his ‘Finding Flow’ and ‘Creativity’ are great resources.
Having just been through the feedback phase of my latest creative endeavour, I can completely agree with the focus/closed-feedback/open cycle as being a necessary approach.
Nick http://nickrobinson.org
The problem with trying to please fans is that fans don’t like change (at least in sci-fi and comics). They will eventually compare the final product to what has come before. I know I did when seeing Watchmen. The thing is I would rather just experience the original than an exact copy of the original in another medium. I would much rather see an original take on a story that may or may not please fans solely because it is something new.
i wish there was more quibbling on Wolverine- the movie was prematurely leaked to the web (sans special effects), but no adjustments were made to account for the gross violation of the Xmen canon- sigh- freddy versus jason, here we come…
Actually, Watchmen succeeded beyond what it should have. Its writer, Alan Moore, never wanted it to be made into a movie. The graphic novel has a tremendously complex plot and a wealth of detail. The movie industry has tried many times to depict Moore’s works, but it’s basically impossible.
There are only two approaches:
(1) Either bowdlerize it and try to make it “accessible” — creating a caricature of his material (e.g., The League of Extraordinary Gentleman, which was unrecognizable to those of us who’ve read the source) or
(2) As Watchmen director Zack Snyder wisely did, slavishly reproduce the work as best as you can on film. Watchmen was unquestionably a success, as the complex plot in the novel managed to make it virtually intact into the film. V for Vendetta also followed this path.
Had Snyder taken license with the material a la “League”, NOBODY would have watched the film. Buzz from fanboys determines the financial success of sci-fi and comic book movies. Without that support, the movie will fail, both financially and artistically. The recent movies of Daredevil and Ghost Rider come to mind…