Executive Meddlers are torturous little beasts

[TheArsenal]

98% of the time, execuive meddling will royaly screw over a show. Stuff like Jimmy two shoes could have been this awseome dark story yet now its about fart jokes

But the 2% of the time they dont, they create masterpieces. I dont like Jhonnen Vaquez. And I dont like his other works. The same restraints that kill other shows made his show awesome.

They exist to torture us. They ruin so much.....But we cant get rid of them =(.

Written from iphone.

[The_Admiral]

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ExecutiveMeddling I think your biased:smallbiggrin:

[Dvandemon]

I think it should be debated what makes executive meddling good instead of bad. I'll submit that if the executive ignores his "gut feelings" (I assume that's what makes it such an err) and tries to make changes based on actual insight into the show, it could work well for all

[Don Julio Anejo]

The problem with executive meddling is that all too often they take what works and completely change or add a character that "increases interest in the show for 18-49 single mothers" or somesuch BS like that. Ignoring, of course, that the show is almost exclusively aimed for and watched by young nerds who like space battles. Or something else like that.

In effect, giving a big "screw you" to people who actually like the show.

[Mina Kobold]

My problem with it is thatthere is nothing stopping an executive from just talking to the writer and finding a solution.

In fact, that's how most professional work is edited. :smallsmile:

But sometimes the editors just assume that the writer can change the entire story every five minutes or add characters for no reason and still make a good show, book, or comic.

[Lord Seth]

98% of the time, execuive meddling will royaly screw over a show.On what do you base this statistic?

[Mewtarthio]

The problem with executive meddling is that all too often they take what works and completely change or add a character that "increases interest in the show for 18-49 single mothers" or somesuch BS like that. Ignoring, of course, that the show is almost exclusively aimed for and watched by young nerds who like space battles. Or something else like that.

The executive's the one paying the writer's bills. If the executive wants a show that appeals to 18-49 single mothers, it's the writers job to write a show that appeals to 18-49 single mothers. I only have a problem with that if the writer was hired with the understanding that the show would target some other demographic.

Imagine if a steakhouse hired a chef, and the chef suddenly stopped preparing steak and instead tried to make lobster bisque. I'm certain the lobster bisque would be a very lovely meal, but that's not what he was hired to make. Executive Meddling's only a problem if the chef works at a seafood restaurant when his superiors decide that everyone's going to make hamburgers instead.

[Don Julio Anejo]

The executive's the one paying the writer's bills. If the executive wants a show that appeals to 18-49 single mothers, it's the writers job to write a show that appeals to 18-49 single mothers. I only have a problem with that if the writer was hired with the understanding that the show would target some other demographic.

Imagine if a steakhouse hired a chef, and the chef suddenly stopped preparing steak and instead tried to make lobster bisque. I'm certain the lobster bisque would be a very lovely meal, but that's not what he was hired to make. Executive Meddling's only a problem if the chef works at a seafood restaurant when his superiors decide that everyone's going to make hamburgers instead.
If it's a show about single mothers, I have absolutely nothing against it. I might even watch it if it's a good show. I sometimes watch The Secret Life of the American Teenager and honestly find it pretty interesting (even if it's not something I get all giddy over a new episode, like HIMYM).

On the other hand, if it's a show about space battles and suddenly, two seasons in a character has a baby. Then half the screen time is spent dealing with complicated issues of raising the baby on a battlecruiser and being a single mother at the same time... That's screen time not spent on space battles and alien politics and instead spent on personal drama viewers may not even want to see.

It's like that saying... "A bird in hand is worth two in the bush." In an attempt to bring in new viewers, execs can easily alienate core viewers.

Kinda why Stargate Universe sucked so much (okay, more like producer meddling, and on a franchise rather than single series level, but still). Stargate was never about wangst, sex and personal drama. It was about kicking alien butt using proper tactics and figuring out ancient mysteries, with some gratuitous archaeology thrown in.

[Ravens_cry]

Yeah, Universe lacked the snark and wit that I found so entertaining about Stargate, when very human humans looked at creatures that called themselves gods and said "Yeah, pull the other one, it's got bells on."
However, there is another trope that can be just as bad as this, Protection From Editors. So remember kids, Tropes Are Not Bad.

[Otogi]

98% of the time, execuive meddling will royaly screw over a show. Stuff like Jimmy two shoes could have been this awseome dark story yet now its about fart jokes

But the 2% of the time they dont, they create masterpieces. I dont like Jhonnen Vaquez. And I dont like his other works. The same restraints that kill other shows made his show awesome.

They exist to torture us. They ruin so much.....But we cant get rid of them =(.

Written from iphone.

Are you saying that the restraints that corporate figures impose ruin shows, but that same constraint makes a fraction of those shows better, maybe?

[Mina Kobold]

Are you saying that the restraints that corporate figures impose ruin shows, but that same constraint makes a fraction of those shows better, maybe?

I think it's more the changes that some executives demand no matter how the story will be affected, especially bad if they only choose to do so at the last minute. :smallsmile:

It's true anyway, some changes are good ones that the writer either didn't think of or concerns something the writer didn't see as bad but most executive meddling is bad since... Well, executives are not writers and their changes may impose plot holes or the like. v_v

They could just stop by and ask "Say, mr. Writer, we think this may be a good idea. Could it work?" and many do, but a lot don't.

[Dienekes]

Ehh, I've never gotten a lot of the chagrin against Executive Meddling. Sure, a lot of times they can mess something up. Also, a lot of times an artist can make a pile of crap that needs editing to make it coherent.

The Godfather, was apparently originally much longer and at times didn't seem to be going anywhere. Executives got involved, and now it's considered one of the greatest movies of all time.

My point being, most everything has editors and executives. The great movies and the crappy ones. Saying 98% of the time the meddling is bad, is about equal to saying 98% of movies/tv shows are bad. So Sturgeon's Law acts up again apparently. The problem being, you don't hear too many stories of those times when an editor was needed for some reason. Probably because the more direct creators generally make a more interesting story, and "it would have been great but ___ messed me up" is an easy cop out.

[TheArsenal]

Ehh, I've never gotten a lot of the chagrin against Executive Meddling. Sure, a lot of times they can mess something up. Also, a lot of times an artist can make a pile of crap that needs editing to make it coherent.

The Godfather, was apparently originally much longer and at times didn't seem to be going anywhere. Executives got involved, and now it's considered one of the greatest movies of all time.

My point being, most everything has editors and executives. The great movies and the crappy ones. Saying 98% of the time the meddling is bad, is about equal to saying 98% of movies/tv shows are bad. So Sturgeon's Law acts up again apparently. The problem being, you don't hear too many stories of those times when an editor was needed for some reason. Probably because the more direct creators generally make a more interesting story, and "it would have been great but ___ messed me up" is an easy cop out.

I realized that I was angry at censorship, and that executives simply follow the set rules.

[Xefas]

The problem being, you don't hear too many stories of those times when an editor was needed for some reason.

Yeah, I'm guessing there's some confirmation bias involved. Writers/creators love to complain if their show was ruined by executive meddlers, because it alleviates some responsibility from them. If their show was completely fixed and made awesome by executive meddling, then of course they're not going to say anything; they'll just say they made an awesome show because they're awesome.

[Trixie]

I absolutely hate Executive Meddling.

But, mostly in one case - when it makes show appealing 'for kids'. This means dumber down plots, idiotic protagonists and antagonists, lack of realism, and immature plots.

Sometimes, the writer creates something great despite of it - MLP FiM is one such thing, though dragged down by apparently being changed in production to appeal to kids aged 1-3. Wakfu, while has most of the jokes cut, and sometimes cringeworthy action scenes (due to anyone not being allowed to draw blood with swords, arrows and guns), is great for virtually anyone.

Note that I don't mind executives meddling in real kids shows - when something is obviously made for kids, let's them have it, there is something for everyone. But, when a show appeals mainly to older demographics, why castrate it to add kiddy elements? :smallsigh:

Yes, Jar Jar, I'm looking at you.

Note that executive meddling in some form must exist, and outside of making shows 'for kids' :smallsigh: is actually pretty beneficial. See here (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ProtectionFromEditors).

[Mina Kobold]

Note that executive meddling in some form must exist, and outside of making shows 'for kids' :smallsigh: is actually pretty beneficial. See here (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ProtectionFromEditors).

Am I missing something or couldn't they just talk to the writers?

The problem comes when the changes are kerfuffly out of place and badly executed, most of which is caused by the executives simply ordering the writer to change it or the show won't be made.

Sounds to me like they could just ask if the writer could find away to make it more kid-friendly in context instead of just ordering them to make it the opposite but remove the blood.

I'm probably wrong, but still. :smallsmile:

[snoopy13a]

Discussion on editing tends to be one-sided. The creator will complain if producers have his or her work edited in a way that they perceive to be negative but will not give the producers and editors credit if the editing process improves the work.

Overall, when the editors do a good job, you hardly ever hear about it. And editing is a necessary aspect. Quite often, creators have great ideas but can get bogged down on details that will appear boring to the future audience. Editors act as overseers and can channel the creator's vision more effectively.

[Starbuck_II]

Note that I don't mind executives meddling in real kids shows - when something is obviously made for kids, let's them have it, there is something for everyone. But, when a show appeals mainly to older demographics, why castrate it to add kiddy elements? :smallsigh:

Yes, Jar Jar, I'm looking at you.

Note that executive meddling in some form must exist, and outside of making shows 'for kids' :smallsigh: is actually pretty beneficial. See here (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ProtectionFromEditors).

Jar Jar is awesome. He has a case of the "winning" (he learned from Charlie Sheen) and you sound jealous. :smallbiggrin:

[snoopy13a]

I absolutely hate Executive Meddling.

But, mostly in one case - when it makes show appealing 'for kids'. This means dumber down plots, idiotic protagonists and antagonists, lack of realism, and immature plots.

Sometimes, the writer creates something great despite of it - MLP FiM is one such thing, though dragged down by apparently being changed in production to appeal to kids aged 1-3. Wakfu, while has most of the jokes cut, and sometimes cringeworthy action scenes (due to anyone not being allowed to draw blood with swords, arrows and guns), is great for virtually anyone.

Note that I don't mind executives meddling in real kids shows - when something is obviously made for kids, let's them have it, there is something for everyone. But, when a show appeals mainly to older demographics, why castrate it to add kiddy elements? :smallsigh:

Yes, Jar Jar, I'm looking at you.

Note that executive meddling in some form must exist, and outside of making shows 'for kids' :smallsigh: is actually pretty beneficial. See here (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ProtectionFromEditors).

What about the opposite? Basically, adding snarky humor and sarcasm to children's movies (e.g. Shrek) in order to appeal to an older audience.

[Philistine]

Yes, Jar Jar, I'm looking at you.
It's kinda hilarious that you'd cite Jar Jar there. As I'm sure you know, Lucas had full creative control over the prequel trilogy - meaning that Jar Jar is NOT an example of Executive Meddling. (Speaking of which - if ever there was a movie or series of movies that was desperately in need of some attention from Meddling Executives...)

[Mina Kobold]

What about the opposite? Basically, adding snarky humor and sarcasm to children's movies (e.g. Shrek) in order to appeal to an older audience.

They broaden the humour the writers can use and actually treat kids as if they can stand *Gasp* sarcasm?

I liked Shrek as a kid and because it isn't just Dora teh Explorer in fantasy land I still like it.

Kids won't hate a movie for making jokes more advanced than someone tripping on a banana peel but if they're old enough to follow the plot of Shrek then they probably won't like it dumbed down.

At least, that's how it look to me. But my past self is perhaps not the best example of normality. :smalltongue:

[Trixie]

Am I missing something or couldn't they just talk to the writers?

The problem comes when the changes are kerfuffly out of place and badly executed, most of which is caused by the executives simply ordering the writer to change it or the show won't be made.

Sounds to me like they could just ask if the writer could find away to make it more kid-friendly in context instead of just ordering them to make it the opposite but remove the blood.

Usually, the side with money and publishing means has a lot more leverage. Discussion needs partners.


What about the opposite? Basically, adding snarky humor and sarcasm to children's movies (e.g. Shrek) in order to appeal to an older audience.

It's sort of like adding alloy wheels to Yugo. It will make it better, but it will not be a sport car despite this. It might be a very nice Yugo, but I prefer something that started as Ferrari from the start.


It's kinda hilarious that you'd cite Jar Jar there. As I'm sure you know, Lucas had full creative control over the prequel trilogy - meaning that Jar Jar is NOT an example of Executive Meddling.

Yes, he is. Lucas was the executive in this case, others, like script writer, assistant directors, and actors were simply silenced when they tried to improve their work. It's doubly sad when you remember Ford's "I know" was improvisation by the actor.

[Dienekes]

Yes, he is. Lucas was the executive in this case, others, like script writer, assistant directors, and actors were simply silenced when they tried to improve their work. It's doubly sad when you remember Ford's "I know" was improvisation by the actor.

That is an interesting distinction since Lucas was also credited as the head writer and director. I think most would then label Jar-Jar as part of the insane author's vision, and one who really needed an editor to tell him no.

[Lord Seth]

Yes, he is. Lucas was the executive in this case, others, like script writer,Lucas was the script writer for The Phantom Menace.


assistant directors, and actors were simply silenced when they tried to improve their work.That was due to Lucas being the director, that's largely unrelated to him being the producer. A director is supposed to be the one who decides how to do a particular scene. Are you saying that a head writer for a TV series "meddles" if they overrule a regular writer on something? Because that seems to really be expanding the definition of executive meddling.

[thubby]

executive meddling gave us cruel angel thesis (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A62011nyXNI), so it's not always bad. it's just that execs have to realize their changes have boundaries after which the work breaks down.

[Yora]

Rowan Atkinson and Hugh Laurie on the Executive Meddling in Hamlet (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwbB6B0cQs4).

I once read that in the original SW trilogy, Lucas' wife had a lot of influence on him regarding changes to the skript. But they got divorced and she wasn't there when he wrote the scripts for the new movies.

[Philistine]

Well, there's that. Also, Lucas didn't have the money to produce the OT all on his own hook, or the prestige to wrest full creative control from the studio. By the time he got ready to begin work on the PT, he was in a much stronger bargaining position - hence the triple writer/director/producer credit, and the total lack of anyone with the power to tell him "no" on the new project.

[Yora]

I also think that it's a very easy way for writers and directors to cover up mistakes by claiming that others made them to do that. Not that all of them are outright lying, but I think in most cases there's still a lot of room for them how they implement something.
Maybe they didn't want to add a kid to the cast, but that doesn't excuse it when they make it a plucky kid that saves the day all the time.

[Gnoman]

What about the opposite? Basically, adding snarky humor and sarcasm to children's movies (e.g. Shrek) in order to appeal to an older audience.

Shrek isn't a "children's movie." It's designed to appeal to mutltiple demographic groups from the ground up. One group sees a big green ogre making fart jokes, one gets all the innuendo, and another group is amused by the subversion of classic fairy-tale tropes.

[PhantomFox]

As an example when meddling is good, Gary Larson (The Far Side) says he drew several strips that were rejected by his editor for very good reasons, and his career would have tanked if they had been published.

Example shown in a collection book: Python in a crib with a large bulge in the center that can no longer fit through the bars.

Note from the book: No, you did not see this. Turn the page.

[Evil DM Mark3]

Thunderbirds is a good example of positive meddling that we know about. The show went from a 30 to 60 min format, which allowed the plots to become more involved and the characters to get development.