MCM Expo: The Good and the Bad

I've been going to MCM London for about 6 years now. It's a biannual comic, video game and manga/anime convention in the heart of London's docklands. I've worked there as a member of staff on stalls and attended as a regular fan, amateur photographer and cosplayer. It's a couple of bright spots in my year, and one of the few times I really make the effort to get out there and be sociable.

In terms of sheer size, it's the biggest convention in the UK in the number of attendees - and it keeps growing every year! The last con in October 2015 boasted 130,560 con goers, in comparison to May 2015's 122,600. This growth in numbers is fairly typical of MCM, and as the expo expands in terms of contributors, stall holders and guests, it's draw only increases.

 

With such a large community, some of whom have been attending year after year, you are always bound to find someone with similar interests to you. Cosplay has always been an integral part of the event, from amateurs simply displaying their love of a franchise or character to professional cosplayers competing in EuroCosplay. It's common to see people travel to the event in cosplay over the weekend, sometimes leading to very amusing sights on public transport. It's not uncommon to see zombies on the Tube, trolls on the buses and Stormtroopers on the DLR!

 

Of course, the draw of MCM isn't wholly about community, although that is a large part of it. Stalls boast hard to obtain collectors items and geeky goods, signings with celebrities are always available, and panels from television's most popular shows run throughout the weekend. 

However, as MCM has grown larger, a couple of issues have come up, and chief amongst those is one of communication. I understand that running a convention of this size and scale is never easy, however important announcements of guests and attractions are left until the last minute. This is difficult for those who have to travel great distances to attend, and makes buying tickets difficult as when it is so close to the event, online tickets are limited, if they are indeed even still available.

The rising cost of attending is also becoming prohibitive. In May 2014, an early entry/priority entry weekend ticket cost £29.50. In October 2014, that rose to £35. In May 2015 it became £45, and October 2015 is the highest yet, with £50. Over one and a half years, a price increase of 69.49% seems pretty steep. On the one hand, people can obviously still afford it, if the increase in attendees is anything to go by, and the extra money does appear to be going to more floor space inside, more time within the center and more events and signings over the weekends. However, the cost of attending is making me question how frequently I'll be able to attend in the future. I'm sure I'm not the only long-term attendee facing that choice, either. In addition to the event itself, availability and cost of hotel rooms, the cost of travel and food, and a spending fund for any merchandise you might want to buy and MCM expo starts looking very expensive indeed.

There is often an issue with communication within the event itself. Many of the staff working at MCM are volunteers, and the security bought in for the event are an external company. In the past, this has lead to unscrupulous security staff 'confiscating' attendee's personal items, general misinformation over how to enter and renter the venue, where to go for specific events and what tickets you need to access them. In my experience working on a stall, stall holders are given very short set up and take down times in comparison to other similar events, and admin errors regarding staff passes issued aren't uncommon either.



Outside space - a boon for everyone in hot costumes or needing some air - has become increasingly limited over the last couple of expos. In October 2015, this was due to temporary railings to keep only those with wristbands inside and keep people who hadn't bought tickets outside. While there are people every year who do not buy tickets and enjoy the atmosphere from the outside, it seems suspect that this system was implemented the year when ticket prices became £50 for the weekend.

Despite all this, I have a soft spot for MCM Expo. They do try and fix issues, even if not always in effective ways. Every time attending over the past few years has resulted in a different method of obtaining wristbands, a different queueing system each day, a different door to renter by (often using three different doors on the same day). After the fiasco with the security firm, MCM hired a different firm. MCM has diversified and invited more guests over a wide range of fandoms. MCM is certainly improving, and on balance, I will probably wind up attending as long as I am able to afford to. At the end of the day, I've made and kept more friends through the event than any other single source in my life. So, despite all its flaws, I'll keep coming back to MCM for the community.

MCM London Comiccon's tickets and event info can be found here. 
Pictures © Amelia Springett

Digital Revolutions

I'm always irrationally angry every time I see an article about a 'new media' killing a more traditional form of media. Partially because it's usually just another way of the writer saying "the world is changing and I don't like it" and partly because it's simply untrue, and their argument is based on a very shallow understanding of the media in question.

Back in the 1950s and 60s, the increasing popularity of television began to scare the film industry - if people have access to entertainment in their own homes, why would they pay to see a film in theatres? Later, in the 70s and 80s, Betamax and Videocassette Recorders meant that people could record television to watch and rewatch at any time - including films that had been broadcast. Again, the film industry were concerned that people would simply record films off the television and would not buy a copy for themselves.

Why am I mentioning this? Well, six decades after their initial concerns, the film industry is still alive and producing content. Thriving, even. Now, however, their big concerns are over digital streaming, downloads and pirating media.

Digital streaming will not kill television or film. In fact, Netflix and Amazon have gone beyond simply being a content streamer, and have become substantial producers of new content. Pirating won't even kill media, despite the scaremongering. Figures used to show massive losses to the film and television industry work under the impression that every pirated copy is a loss of one legitimate sale. Yet many people pirate things they have no intention of buying, or intend to buy at a later date but cannot currently afford. Many people also pirate media that is unavailable for a legal purchase in their own country.

A small example using the long-running CW show, Supernatural. At the time of writing, the 11th season has just begun to air in the US. In the UK, season 9 has been airing on Freeview television stations (stations that require no additional subscription service, such as cable or satellite to view), and season 10 will be made available at roughly the same time for Brits as season 11 will be for Americans. Previously, it was only televised by Sky, requiring an additional costly subscription to view. Season 9 was only made available in the UK on DVD and Blu-Ray in June 2015, and there is no release date for season 10, despite being released in the US on DVD and Blu-Ray. In short, there has not been a legal way to catch up to the current season of the show in the UK, unless you have an extremely expensive subscription to satellite television. This is just one of many television programmes, from the perspective of just one country.

In a similar way, eBooks will not kill physical books and even if they did, stories would still be told. Authors will still write, novels will still be published and people will still read it. Digital music isn't killing the music industry, either - if anything, the ability to buy single tracks instead of entire albums has boosted music sales, not diminished them.

Essentially, my argument is that new technology will never change the media being created, only the way of consuming that media. Digital downloads don't require physical space, and are easily portable. I can carry a library of books, a few dozen films and many hours of music in my pocket, and entertain myself literally anywhere - how is that a bad thing? It's an amazing sign of how quickly we've developed technology; twenty years ago, we could only just send short text messages from phone to phone; now we can stream media from anywhere with a semi-decent signal or internet access.

If anything, digital media of all forms is diversifying media as a whole. Digital publishing has made self-publishing obtainable for the vast majority of writers; streaming services have made it possible for musicians to record and release music independently of a recording label; film makers can release their work on video streaming sites. If anything, the digital revolution has cut out the middle man - the producers, the distributors, the publishing houses and the record labels. This is what large companies should be more afraid of; technology giving artists the tools to produce and distribute their own work on their own terms. As more and more independent success stories happen, how long will traditional media cling to their current business models? Will they adapt with the times or become relics of the past?

The truth is, things are always going to change. Technology doesn't remain stagnant for long, and with technological advances come cultural shifts. People and companies need to adapt to and embrace these developments, not shun them simply because they are new.

How Not To Adapt Books to Films: The Golden Compass

I may have mentioned a few posts ago that I prefer to focus on positives over negatives in media. But every once in a while, there comes a film so terrible, so badly thought out and so insulting to its viewers that it sends me into a frothing rage just thinking about what could have been, yet sadly wasn't. So, with that in mind, let's talk about The Golden Compass.

In 2007, New Line Cinema took a stab at adapting Phillip Pullman's epic children's fantasy 'The Northern Lights' for cinema. What it achieved, like so many book-to-film adaptations, was a mediocre family blockbuster. It lacks the controversial and darker tones of the books in order to maintain both funding and a PG rating. That's not to say there weren't things I enjoyed in the film.

Dæmons were handled particularly well, both in the way actors reacted/didn't react to them and the meticulous CGI used throughout - in fact, the film's only Oscar was for Best Achievement in Visual Effects. My only nitpick is the occasional use of real animals, presumably to cut down costs, which jarred me out of the world a little bit. I'd prefer one method or the other, not a mixture.

Dakota Blue Richards as an actress deserves high praise, and indeed many of the awards the film has received have been specifically for her. She is a pitch perfect Lyra; gifted liar, often proud, yet selfless and brave despite being convincingly terrified. Given how difficult it is to find gifted child actors and to work with them around schooling and ethical concerns, this was no easy feat, and they deserve the credit that is due for this.

What a shame it is, then, to contrast that with Nicole Kidman's bland performance. Every single line she delivered felt obviously 'acted' and lacked all the subtlety of her character. Since when can you get Nicole Kidman to fail at being a simmering, manipulative seductress? She was, however, let down by some of the scripting, but I felt as though she almost anticipated how the film was go and was distancing herself from it as soon as she could.

I winced every time a character said 'Golden Compass' as an obvious name drop, usually immediately before or after the device's real name - alethiometer. I was all ready to go into a rant about American publishers/producers changing names to make it simpler for American audiences, too (like Harry Potter's Philosopher's/Sorcerer's Stone), but apparently it's a very subtle reference to Paradise Lost (let's not argue that it refers to 'golden compasses' as in the geometric tool instead of the navigation one). The fact that it just happens to be easier to remember than alethiometer is a coincidence...anyway, in this particular case, I am willing to give them a pass. This is the only one they're getting.

I'm aware that this is such a minor thing to be irritated over, but the music is so bland I've already forgotten it. I love collecting and recognizing various movie soundtracks, but if you were to play me any part of that soundtrack, I wouldn't be able to remember where it was from. It doesn't have anything instantly recognizable about it, in the same way that The Lord Of The Ring's score would instantly link you to Middleearth, or Harry Potter's score takes you to Hogwarts. This is a shame, mostly because a lot of care has been taken to give Lyra's world a very distinct visual feel which is so different to our world, but it's not supported by the music. It's just incredibly generic and of no consequence, good or bad.

The small exposition scene with Lord Asriel in the Arctic honestly adds nothing to the plot, and only serves to show off Daniel Craig's action movie credentials. The book didn't need it, so I'd have preferred the screentime and budget to have been spent on...almost literally anything else.

There's one line: "the alethiometer says they'll hurt Roger" added purely to add suspense. Apart from being very lazy writing, if it was asked about anything in relation to Roger, the whole 'being sacrificed to form a gateway between worlds' would definitely have come up, even in vague terms. Of course, in the film, they never actually get to that point, which makes me wonder how they were planning to tackle the second and third books without covering Roger's death. Or, indeed, any of the darker themes of the books in general.

There is exactly no mention of Stannislaus Grumman (AKA Jopari, AKA John Parry, AKA Will's father) at all, most notably in the retiring room. I can understand why they wouldn't want to whip out a frozen decapitated head in the opening sequence of a family film, but not even hinting at his existence would have made things problematic come the second film. It would have made things seem far more coincidental than they already were. "Oh, so Will's father was missing because he was in Lyra's world? Didn't see that coming. And Lee Scoresby just happens to be bringing him to the right place to be reunited with his son? Pft."

All the complex characters who had complex motivations or situations had them changed to either paint them as wholly good or wholly evil. Iorek gets his own section below, but off the top of my head: Lord Asriel does terrible things in the books, but here he's painted as a heroic adventurer capable of no wrong. Similarly, the Master at Jordan College no longer has any part in Asriel's attempted poisoning, blackmailed or otherwise. Mrs. Coulter is just a straight up villain, now, whereas the book portrayed her in more shades of grey - doing villainous things, certainly, but there are some hints about more complex reasons as to why. Her motivations are something that is completely glossed over in the film.

Oh, Iorek. Poor, proud warrior king, what did they do to you? You were exiled for being beaten by another bear? (for non-book readers, or those in need of the refresher, he was exiled because he killed another bear by accident - while fights are common to establish hierarchy, murder is against their laws. More specifically, Iofur drugged the other bear, so he didn't give in where he would have done normally. Resulting in Iorek – the rightful ruler of Svalbard, but that got glossed over in the movie – being exiled and Iofur taking control) Aside from being an insult to his very character, it makes no logical sense. If 50% of all bears who have ever been in a fight get exiled, why aren't more of them wandering lonely around the Arctic? How is Svalbard still populated, what with them being a proud warrior race where fights are fairly frequent? And of course, it makes armored talking bears a lot less cool. All this, presumably for the sake of the PG rating. Again, I wonder how they would have handled such themes as death, all out war between worlds, killing God, original sin, etc. in the later films...it's almost lucky this film was as bad as it was, because the films could only diverge more from the books from here on out.

In the vein of panserbjørne, how did Iofur (now name changed to Ragnar) gain power as a bear king? By poisoning the previous king. Let's not think about the fact that panserbjørne cannot be tricked unless they're acting like a human. Between this and the way the circumstances behind the exile changed, Iorek has no more claim to rule the bears than any of the nameless bears of Svalbard.

Many things have been sacrificed in order to keep the PG rating as low as it is. Here's some things that weren't: Iorek punching off Iofur's/Ragnar's lower jaw, Iorek ripping Iofur's/Ragnar's throat out, Lyra almost having her soul cut away, Mrs Coulter being violent and abusive, and Lyra's dæmon being touched without consent. Oh, and the massive fight with the gyptians, witches, bears and kids verses the Bolvangar guards.

Changing the order of events in the plot isn't necessarily a bad thing. When done well, it's seemless. This was decidedly not. Essentially, when Lyra is kidnapped, she is taken to Svalbard instead of Bolvangar (which makes no sense; at Bolvangar, they would have been greatly rewarded, whereas at Svalbard, she's merely 'a gift for the king'), the events happen sort of similarly to the book, then Iorek takes Lyra over to Bolvangar. This means the bears get involved in Bolvangar in a way they didn't in the book, and weren't holding Asriel captive as per Iofur's agreement with Coulter, and so, essentially, the bears aren't part of the film's plot in any meaningful way. They could have been removed entirely, if they weren't the best selling point of the film.

The whole thing is a mess, really. It boils down a thoughtful, intricate children's series with layers of complex themes, imagery and symbolism to the most basic of storylines, relying on beautiful imagery over a well-thought out script. It's nothing short of an insult to the books and the people who love them. I can't help but be thankful that they never got around to butchering the entire trilogy.

Fanfiction and Fanart: What is 'Real' Art, Anyway?

Every fan-artist or fanfiction writer has heard a variation of this at least once: "Why don't you do real art instead?" Sometimes it's phrased more like concern: "You're really talented, and you'd be successful if you only stopped drawing/writing 'x'" or "You'll never make a career out of fanworks".

I don't like this at all. It devalues not only creative endeavours, but the people who create them. It's a a social problem, and it needs to stop. You probably think I'm overreacting, and right now, that's fine. Just read on a bit before you make up your mind completely.

Fanart is seen as 'lesser' because it draws on existing work and doesn't require the artist's own imagination or creativity.

If anything, people are more critical of fanfiction and fanart because it draws from an existing work, one that people admire enough to find and read fanworks of. Characters are judged against the standard of the original - if they are too different, works easily become out of character and unappealing to fans.

It takes a lot of close analysis to truly understand complex characters - to not only understand what they do, but why. This 'why' is essential to fanworks, to understand how a character may react in circumstances they aren't shown in in the original media.

Original art and writing has the privilege of being judged on it's own merit, outside of a pre-existing idea of setting, tone and character. It's far easier to work out the motivations of your characters - you should know them intimately, having created them - than the motivations of another's characters, where you only have what limited knowledge the creator has made public about them.

If fanart was somehow a 'lesser' art form, you would be writing off a vast proportion of art through the ages. Every biblical and mythological painting would be inferior, because it's just fanart (often commissioned fanart) of the Bible and classical myths. Not to mention the wealth of literature you'd be passing up. Tolkien was inspired by Shakespeare, Shakespeare was inspired by Chaucer and Plutarch. All classical literature were inspired by word of mouth tales, embellished over years of oral storytelling tradition, before writing and reading were commonplace.

The Arthurian tales are a good example of this: Celtic folkstories were passed down by word of mouth over hundreds of years, finally being written down in the Mabinogion. These tales were later embellished by Geoffrey of Monmouth, and framed in a way to be more appealing to French audiences. These chivalrous tales became reinterpreted time and time again - Thomas Malory, Alfred Lord Tennyson, Mark Twain, Marion Zimmer Bradley - they've all had a hand, big or small in changing the way we perceive the Arthurian legends. This is of course, without mentioning the many film and television adaptations of the myths; from Disney to Monty Python, so many people have reworked and re-imagined the tales. It is a truly successful fanwork, in it's current state. It bears little resemblance to the original Celtic myths, barring a few recognisable details, and yet it's known internationally.

Of course, delve a little deeper, and you'd see that there aren't many 'original' works of art, anyway, even in modern media. Films are predominantly sequels and adaptations of other media. Any long running television show has to employ writers to carry on the existing story, as it is too much work for one writer to do alone. Long running comics and graphics novels are in a constant cycle of renewing artists and writers to carry on the story as previous artists and writers move on to different projects. Even games are often sequels or remakes of existing games. In fact, if you wanted to eschew any unoriginal ideas, you'd have to search for obscure content creators - independent film festivals, small press books, small art shows - it'd be a huge boost for independent media, until you noticed the reoccurring tropes in all these things, even as original as they are.

The thing is, art doesn't exist in a vacuum. It's meant to ask questions, to be explored and responded to. The problem is, the people who are against fanworks aren't really against the idea of fanworks. They want their favourite series to continue, and they want to keep enjoying film adaptations even if they aren't aware of the original media it came from. If they were against the idea of fanworks, these logical arguments would have won out against them a long time ago - I'm certainly not the first to make these points. The world would also be much poorer for the amount of art that got spurned as they rejected anything that could be feasibly termed a fanwork.

No, they're really against the people who make fanworks. Fanfiction and fanart is primarily a term applied to female artists within fandoms. It's certainly not to say that male don't create fanworks - they do, and face a lot of the same criticisms, but the problem is caused by the way society sees and codes fandom as female. There is a long history of bias towards work that is coded as 'feminine' as being valued less than work coded as 'masculine'. Fandom creators become seen as amateurs, creating work for free - ignoring the fact that some creators are professionals, and dabble in fanworks as exercise, for publicity or even just because it's fun - and further devaluing the idea of fanart in capitalism (the argument being that if creators are so talented, why aren't they making money from it, which implies that money is the materialistic end goal for all creative endeavours).

When a caricaturist draws a celebrity, it's not fanart, it's just art. When a woman does the same, it's fanart. When a screenwriter writes the script for the latest book adaptation, it's not fanfiction, it's just a script. When a storyboard artist or a concept artist or a digital painter is doing the work that makes any movie possible, often referencing earlier designs or movies or media, they are creating art, not fanart. All of these positions are male-dominated, where female artists are the exception, not the norm. There are social, economic and cultural barriers in order to limit the amount of women in these jobs (and this is not limited to the art world and creative jobs, either). It's not the fault of any one person, but a system of exclusion that is upheld to maintain the status quo as much as possible. Disregarding fandom and fanworks as 'not real' art helps maintain that status quo.

While I have many issues with '50 Shades of Grey', it's undeniable that it is an example of fanwork that has become successful. It's far from an isolated incident, either; many authors have been discovered through fanfiction, many fanartists have gained work through their fanart. I only hope this becomes more usual, and that the stigma around fanworks ceases for good. It helps no one to put down fanworks - not the artist creating them, nor the established artists making a name for themselves through 'original' works.