On 'Adult Wednesday Addams'

This may be a little unrelated to the video games or education that I tend to riff on, but I just want to take a minute to dissect a character. I really like the Addams family and after seeing the great Wednesday vs. Catcallers I finally sat down and watched the rest of the series so far. I think both the little progression in finding whats compelling about the character and where she seems to have settled are interesting, and while the ideas here may not be new I just want to try and articulate what I see happening.

Just a normal Monday morning? No?

Ok, so first we're definitely dealing with a version drawing more from the movie versions of Wednesday than the original show, where Wednesday was a happy little girl who happened to like creepy things. Going for the unflappable, super competent creepiness is fine, I liked the movies too.
In that first episode, there's the little bit of backstory and establishing the character and how she relates to others. Most of the humor here is just about how she's different and about misunderstandings;  the gag bickering with her dead gran, misinterpreting 'night owls', the one roommates' obliviousness to the 'shit where I eat' comment, etc. Its situational comedy it every sense.

Its the second episode with the job interview that it gets more interesting. I mean there's the mildly forced 'maggot gets the corpse' and the nice little touches like the unsettling in its mundanity 'I love being tested'. Handling the phone interview is the first taste of where things seem headed though; here's an interviewer in a nominal position of power over her and has a casual disdain and lack of respect, as most people are very familiar with. Theres that dismissive manner, questioning of abilities, and attempts to maintain control. Through it all, it slides off Wednesday and then, when the interviewer is at her most annoying and demanding, she firmly demonstrates she can do the job. Specifically, that she is unmoved by petty insults and concerns and is willing to address deeper issues its not polite to talk about as well as grounding them in her larger, morbid perspective.

Much of humor is about breaking expectations after all,
and hers are broken

This is where this recurring pattern starts; this situation of Wednesday being confronted by some mundane annoyance or unpleasant person and responding confidently and decisively in a way rooted in her unique perspective. I mean, sure her consistent triumphs could be a bit Mary Sue, but the manner in which she succeeds is what is interesting. Sure, she does use whistle ex machine to deal with the dog walker, but generally whether its someone actively hostile, like at planned parenthood, or she is trying to reassure someone, such as when babysitting or getting a haircut, we see her brooch unsettling topics, uncompromisingly stick to her principles, take a broad perspective, and, beyond drawing her own strength from certainty in that view, attempt to use that perspective to reassure others.

"Everyone is destined to die alone"

I think she's interesting as a character because her sense of empowerment isn't in just dealing with these issues, but in the way she is immediately clearly not 'normal' yet is sure of herself and succeeds on her terms. Wednesday isn't perfect (though perhaps super competent in certain areas) but a person with her own values, opinions, rules, and preferences like everyone else. Its just that hers a clearly different from what's considered normal, and this helps us identify with her and makes it satisfying when she does stick to her principles. She unapologetic in the ways she's different and uses it to solve her problems. She draws strength from her differences rather than questioning herself.

Even more so than the power fantasy of things like have the resources to respond to the catcallers, I think its this self assurance and insight and quick witted...ness that make her a satisfying protagonist to follow and project on to. You look at the immediate, clear way she deals with things like the internet date and see someone secure in themselves and pursuing their own goals an not putting up with other people's nonsense or flawed perceptions of her.

"I thought you were one of those...suicide girls."
"I'm not that kind of girl, Kyle; I don't take my life on the first date"

I think its this certainty and strength that more people wish they had.

A few final thoughts:
The continuing morbid flavor over everything is still great and adds to the humor, I don't want to dismiss that. Moreover, looking at what most people in this society consider the darkest, most depressing, and most uncomfortable to discuss topics and not only reveling in them but finding them reassuring only reinforces all of this.

Its nice to see the subversion of expectations more recently with the reality star.

The types of issues shes dealing with also says something about the demographic of the audience, so theres a discussion to be had over if this kind of confidence power fantasy is more or less appealing to them than other potential audiences...



Anyway, maybe I'm just projecting too much or other people find something else appealing here.
Let me know what you think in the comments.

Film Adaptation is like Science Communication

That's the thought I had this morning, catching up on reactions and commentary from various places to David Goyer's recent comments. I mean, I was also revisiting the ongoing story that the reason DC can't seem to make good DC movies (that aren't Batman) while Marvel is doing gangbusters is that they don't respect, know, or know what to do with the characters.
Its an unfortunately well developed narrative at this point, with a history.



"You want me to write a scene where Braniac is razzalin' polar bears?" (source, image)

But this particular iteration hit me differently, because the bits about Martian Manhunter being goofy or needing to (essentially) be a completely new character to be in their movie  actually reminded me some questions I get about educational games and approaches. Not just because I'm self-centered, but because of the premises.
People ask "how do you make science interesting?" or how you "slip in" "stealth learning" into a design. They ask these questions where there's this tacit, implicit assumption science isn't interesting, and you have to "hide the learning" to appeal to kids.

And that assumption is just friggin' wrong.
Like super, super  w  r  o  n  g.
(And I don't mean that in an insulting way; it super easy to see the stigma attached to educational games and the history of poor quality, and assume it is because they are educational, rather than other factors.)

And rejecting that premise affects my work.
I made a biology game, and I know biology is interesting because I'm surrounded by biologists.
I'm surrounded by people who think its so interesting, they want to spend their whole lives studying it. People who tell me cool things about it all the time, and talk to each other about how to find out even more cool things about it.

So to me its not "How do I make biology interesting?"
Its "How do I show people how interesting biology is?"

Specifically, its usually how do I show them quickly and clearly, since a) what they've been seeing so far hasn't grabbed them and b) I don't have the years to go into it that the biologist have spent seeing how neat it is.

To do that the place you have to start is finding the core of why is this cool, why it matters, why should you care. You have to find those hooks within the foundations of what you're actually looking at, find those things the audience can connect with, and bring those out. You make those clear and get them on board, and from there you can build out wherever complex or crazy place you want to go, be it evolutionary biology or:



...and now that you've got how hes a child trying to prove himself to his parents,
and learning to deal with problems more maturely, as most people can relate to,
let me tell you about how he's a space god in a distant galaxy
who flies and shoots lightning....

If I start from the premise there is nothing valuable or appealing to the audience in the subject at all, that I have to add something completely new to get them to care...why am I even trying to do this other than to make money? And why would I think it would work, even then?
(Also; nothing the audience can relate to at all?
Is the story about friggin' Varelse? Try harder.)

Its self-defeating. If you don't think theres a reason to care the subject, even if there is one, you won't be trying to show it to the audience. And whatever you are getting them to care about isn't from the subject, so even if you do get the audience engaged, they're not engaging with that subject.
Even if its name is in the title, its gonna feel tacked on, arbitrary, and unimportant, because that's what you've communicated.
Its like games where you do the crappy "learning" bit to be allowed the reward of paying the "fun part". It communicates the enduring the learning part is work that you get rewarded for.



The term in some academic literature for this is "chocolate covered broccoli".
That being in peer reviewed journals makes me happy inside. image

Similarly, treating the title character as something you have to shoehorn into the movie you actually wanted to make (or think will sell) both tells new people the character is not interesting and tells fans you don't want their money; whatever they saw in the character is not what you're interested in, so they can just crawl back into their basements or whatever (because being fans makes them socially awkward and their dollars worth less than sex-having 'real people' dollars...somehow).

So yeah, to me the problem that a lot of educational games have is kind of the same problem DC has, and its why Marvel is kicking their ass.

And it comes to the forefront in comments like these where the people at DC explicitly don't think characters that have been around for 60+ years can be appealing. I highlight that number not because  history makes it good, but if a character has been around that long there's probably something distinct there to work with or people would have just forgotten about him. It also means theres a lot of work to draw on to find something you can use, before throwing up your hands that's its not doable.
I'm saying just looking at the surface of it and throwing it out as ridiculous is the easy (and stupid and less profitable) way out.

Yes, I may have just called the convoluted 2003 Hulk the easy way out
compared to the more straightforward 2008 model.
The irony's not lost on me. image

If you don't see anything appealing about the character other than recognition their name has and the spectacle they provide, those are going to be the truest parts of the movie, and thats usually not a good thing. Even if you try to give it depth beyond that, the fact you feel you need to make up deeper stuff means it won't "feel" like its that character to the people who are familiar with it. And that's the best case, assuming it works and isn't just terrible.

Of course if you make a story people can connect with
you don't even need name and spectacle.
And if you want to see how far characters and spectacle can get you,
just look at almost any Pixar film. image

Just to be clear, I'm not saying reboots, reimaginings, new ideas, and so on are bad or you need to be slavishly loyal to source material. I thought the Mandarin was great in Iron Man 3 and even in educational games there tends to be some tradeoffs in accuracy for vastly better gameplay. I'm saying, as other have said before, you have to be loyal to the concept. If you get the core of what a character is about, what they do, and why people connect to them, you can put them anywhere, anytime, and make it work. If you don't get it, it can look as awesome and iconic as ever and still be an existentially depressing level of bad. (Look DC, other people screw up, too!)

You can make money with a spectacle and a name. But you can build a beloved franchise with an actual character that people care about.
The same way you can make an "educational game" slapping quizzes into something fun, and try to sell it. But if you make a concept playable, and show students why they should care, they may actually learn something rather than just memorizing it.


So what do you think?
Now that its written out, I'm  aware how gloriously nerdy it is to see the parallel between how to explain science effectively to the person-on-the-street and how to translate a superhero (or sci-fi or other fantastical tale) into a movie that same hypothetical person-on-the-street would enjoy. Yet currently, both are huge opportunities, and still often mishandled.
Do you think its this failure to respect the subject behind the failures? Some other issue?
Something else behind the successes? (cause we've seen skilled, engaged people with lots of talent and resources hit and miss =P )
Let me know in the comments.

The ....Adventures of Walter Mitty?

Lets get literary for a this week (and a bit cinematic). Recently I saw the trailer for the new film adaptation of "The Secret Life of Walter Mitty" and want to talk about it. Now if you haven't heard of the original work, its a very prominent and influential short story about a unimpressive man doing errands for a nagging wife, but imagining himself as a dramatic hero in various ways. It was first published in 1939 and, perhaps closer to home, its clearly influenced things from Doug to Calvin and Hobbes to Scrubs.



Sort of the ur-escapist, daydreaming slacker.
(Pic is from the first movie version in 1947)

You can find the full text here (its only 2000 words, has aged well, and it'll only take a few minutes to read).

Actually I first heard of it years ago as a reference to Doug, which I was a big fan of growing up, when someone said he was "a young Walter Mitty" but I only finally read the actual Walter Mitty this year. I was impressed by how it very quickly and clearly painted the characters and Mitty's behavior, the transitions between fantasy and reality, and the variety of fantasies. Outside of the story though, its amazing how well it holds up today, and just how much its influenced things. In addition to the three listed, it has so many references (and feel free to point out more in comments)  and "mittyesque" is even in the dictionary.

Now why is that? What has this story touched on for years that still makes it relevant and relatable? This is an average guy, doing average things, feeling set upon by the world, but using fantasy to feel important, and even help with doing those mundane tasks (it does help him remember the puppy biscuits after all, even if he gets teased for it).

Importantly, he isn't the usual wish-fulfillment protagonist; its us wishing we were them.

That's a situation pretty much everyone has been in at some point, and arguably the mindset some people live in. Heck, I'd be remiss if I didn't point out more recent discussions of how much video games fall back on wish-fulfillment/power fantasies, for better or worse. I'm sure if were set today, Mitty could picture himself as a space marine.

I have no words.

So this is a really cool story from a themes and execution perspective. And actually its a great opportunity for a movie, because one of the tensions in making a movie is between having exciting, high stakes, over-the-top action, and having an intimate, small relatable human drama, right? Like one reason people said they liked the Avengers, was that you had big epic fights, but also small moments between characters. It tends to be hard to do both those things well, as many, many movies will tell you.



So allot focus on one or the other...

But Walter Mitty is tailormade for this. The whole point of the story is that he is an average guy dealing with mundane tasks, but in his mind hes doing big showy dramatic things that film loves, from air battles to court cases to doctoring (ok, maybe tv loves doctoring more than movies, but still).

This is a premise and hook designed  to let you tell a story of small, mundane triumphs and setbacks in a way that is big and showy and eyecatching: its easy-mode for making a drama accessible and pulling in people who don't normally care for them. Now, it is a short story, so you have to draw it out somehow, maybe a bit more plot and a bit more character development. But you have to be careful how you do it.

"Have you met us?"

Ok, so with all that  lead up, lets look at the trailer I saw. Lots of people are saying this is a great or stunning trailer and they're right. The visuals are amazing, and the current trend of telling almost the whole story of the movie in the trailer is in full force, showing his dull life, call to adventure, and shift from dreaming about the world to going out and living in it. And that is a compelling message and story.

But I think its a waste of potential.

Oh come on! We didn't give him a gun or anything!

Ok, yes, I'm sure it will be good, and the message is good and the way is plays up the wonder of nature and power to change yourself are great. One of the contenders for my favorite film is American Beauty, because I am really into stories about reflecting on your life and trying to be who you want to be, so I'm into that. And getting out of your head and out doing things is a good message, too. But not everyone can go climb the Himalayas...which makes me feel like Mitty shouldn't either. Not in real life.

Here's where I see the wasted potential: Walter Mitty's whole story, originally, is about him using fantasy to escape his kinda depressing life. He clearly wanted to be bigger and more important than being nagged by his wife, running errands, buying puppy biscuits, and generally looked down on. The movie, as shown in this trailer, is taking that as a staring point of his life, and making the story of him stopping dreaming a going out and living it. They even have allusions to him having been  an exciting photographer (or partnered with someone who became one), and now is in a boring spot (or choose to be boring while his buddy went out "to live life!").

Hollywood loves that kind of story, but they've done that story before and they could've done something much rarer here. They could've taken Mitty on a journey, but reduced the scale of his real life triumphs and setbacks, of what he turns around to something much more common and less remarkable, but still made it feel epic, and still kept him dreaming. Rather than sending the message that you should get out of your head and living life, which is not bad, but has been done before, you could have the message that fantasy is fine, but you can use those fantasies to actually be better. You, sitting there right now. There's even a kernel of this in the original story; like I said, it helps him remember the puppy biscuits. So what would it look like if we developed that to expand the story?



I know adding space battles is the obvious choice, but I'm going somewhere with this.

Ok, so new story: even if we leave out a job, and focus on home life, taking away some common dramatic stakes, and putting it squarely outside what action audiences generally care about, there is still so much you can do, and with humor and action and relatability. You can even start directly from the story, where they're going on errands, hes completely disengaged with his wife, and hes bored and made fun of. Even at that low point of his arc, with the fast paced action and shifting perspective, you can take that boring trip and  make it exciting and funny (particularly with the transitions). 

But from there you can go to a different end point; we're not aiming for Mitty not having dreams and going to the greatest places on Earth, where few can ever go, but  to him having them less, and using them to help him stay in engaged in his life, and be a better person in normal day-to-day life. We can even take the same regular errands form that first scene, and revisit it later, but redo the fantasies:

• Driving is an ambulance, rather than a plane, and hes trying to go fast while not harming the patient.
• The gloves prompt him to be a spy, readying himself while carefully driving past sentries and blending in, obeying the foreign signs to not give himself away.
• Again, the courtroom could actually be later in the same case from the court fantasy in the first scene, and again he could use it to remember something
• During his bored stretch we could either show him more engaged and less resigned, such as actually talking to people, maybe talking to people pretending to be a schmoozing millionaire at a fancy party, or if not being social, maybe hes a brilliant general planning movements while in real life planning his day or work for later. Or it could show a closer connection to his wife, painting him as lover about to be reunited.
• And this time when his wife forgets something he could've gotten it while he was waiting, and they go.

See, that way you can have a character doing mundane crap that people do everyday, (doing it twice even), and not only would it be engaging and exciting and entertaining both times, but it would even show character development and possibly be instructive. You'd of course want the real life people to react to Mitty differently too, to emphasize how hes changed; different body language responses, not making fun of him, his wife praising how better he is about little things, etc. But the point is you could take a very small scale story of personal improvement and make it a spectacle to draw in audiences; you can have the types of changes most people could actually make in their lives, and portray them in a very engaging way. In fact, portray them in the way they're used to getting all kinds of less helpful or realistic messages.



"You seem upset about something..."

Now, I'm not a film critic or literature buff, so why do I care so much about this adaptation?
Well, what I am is more of an educational designer, someone who tries to figure out how to make media or interactive systems that are fun and change the user for the better, through teaching skills or facts or mindsets. And that's why this adaptation  gets me: the version I outlined, contrasting the one they're going with, actually has  research to suggest just how helpful it can be in life.

Let me tell you about the Marshmallow Test.



Mmm, ok a film based on research almost lost me, but I'm back

The marshmallow test is a simple experiment that you may have heard of because it also produced some of the cutest videos of children to grace youtube. The way the original test works is this: you place a child in a room with a marshmallow on a plate. You tell them you're going to leave, and they can choose to eat the marshmallow, but if  they can wait until you come back without eating it, they can have 2 marshmallows. Those videos are adorable as you watch kids try everything they can to not eat that marshmallow.  But what exciting to a developmentalist is how performance on this test correlates to life success.

Bwah?

At its core, this is a task about delayed gratification; can you give up benefits now for greater benefits later.  Followups to the original marshmallow tests at Stanford found that kids who couldn't wait had lower SAT scores, higher BMI, more problems with drugs, and trouble paying attention. This makes perfect sense; If a kid has difficulty delaying gratification, or choosing long term benefits over short terms pleasure, you would expect them to have trouble doing unpleasant things (like studying) or inhibiting desires (like doing drugs). It also makes this a really exciting task to developmentalists, because its an early assessment of something that can impact so many areas over a person's life. (Which is why its also been covered by The New Yorker, Time, and Smithsonian). It even points to the importance of teaching children self control.

And that brings us back to Walter Mitty, because despite the state hes in in the short story, he might've been excellent at the marshmallow test. Let me explain: If you do versions of the test with different  time limits, or unending ones and see how long kids last, you can identify which kids are best at this task; which kids can really hold back and control themselves. You would think these kids have some kind of  "inner discipline" or "strong willpower" but when you ask them what kinds of strategies they used to not eat the marshmallow, to delay gratification, its appears something different is happening. You don't get things like "I tried really hard", you get responses like "I tried to pretend it wasn't there", "I told myself it was poison". What you get is kids using their imagination to make the task easier. Reframing the situation so its less demanding to delay gratification, to inhibit a response, to not eat the tasty, tasty marshmallow.

These kids are trying to use their imaginations, their fantasy worlds to help them achieve their real world goals. And research says the kids who are doing this, at least at this age, are fairing better later in life than those who aren't.

That is the kind of skill would be amazing to teach people, because of the potential benefits.
Conveying that kind of concept, in an engaging entertaining way, tends to be a monumental task.
But Walter Mitty, our man, seems tailormade for it.

He's just as surprised as you are.

And that's why it pains me to see him lumped in with all the "follow your dreams" stuff out there, rather than pioneering a new "use your dreams to achieve them" kind of message. Because when I say it seems like a waste, I'm not just saying I think this story and/or message would be more entertaining or unique take on the material; I'm saying I think there's a chance to try to make a piece of rich entertainment and artistry AND  maybe teach people something that could actually improve their lives.

And they're not doing that.

"What was that? I couldn't hear you over all this money and praise"

So what do you think:
Am I being too hard on Ben Stiller's new vehicle?
Is this message really needed or is there an even more interesting one I didn't think of?
Are you interested in hearing more about the marshmallow test?
Let me know your thoughts in the comments.

photo credit: Wikipedia, gratuitous space battles
(PS there is another marshmallow test, where teams of children tend to do better than teams of MBAs, so I hope I didn't confuse anyone, and maybe we can talk about that one another time)