[HN Gopher] Flanderization ___________________________________________________________________ Flanderization Author : egfx Score : 203 points Date : 2022-09-09 03:54 UTC (1 days ago) (HTM) web link (en.wikipedia.org) (TXT) w3m dump (en.wikipedia.org) | kadoban wrote: | For topics like this, TV tropes is great: | https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Flanderization | shusaku wrote: | https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Flanderization | | ^ for anyone who wants to go on a deep dive! | AdrianoKF wrote: | Well there went an hour of my life.. Thanks for sharing the | link! | endymi0n wrote: | I've noticed this happening not just with characters, but with | narratives as well. | | Mythbusters used to be my all time favorite TV show for almost a | decade. They had such interesting myths (lead balloon!), | authentic characters and real builds that also went wrong at | times, with some pretty random occurrences. | | And then someone from Discovery's analytics department figured | out they got the best ratings on some of their explosions. | | Which lead to this incredibly thought-diverse show jumping the | shark by pivoting to basically ,,let's find yet another excuse to | blow stuff up" in the last seasons. Yawn. | | I guess it's really due to catering to the mainstream. Who said | it so well again: A one-size-fits-all solution barely fits | anybody. | [deleted] | pavlov wrote: | My first guess was that Flanderization might mean the process | where a region's capital city outgrows the region and becomes | culturally an entirely separate entity, as in the Belgian region | of Flanders whose capital is Brussels and its inhabitants mostly | don't identify as Flemish. | | Usage example: "London is undergoing strong Flanderization | accelerated by Brexit." | | Turns out the Wikipedia definition is something pretty different! | [deleted] | oblak wrote: | > Some works have consciously attempted to avoid flanderization, | such as Rick and Morty. | | I am not sure to phrase my disagreement with such a statement | because Rick oscillates between a few crazy states but Jerry has | been pretty one-dimensional for most of the show's life. | watwut wrote: | Well, you can't fladerize if you start in final flanderized | state | AlbertCory wrote: | I liked this a lot. | | As someone who's writing a series of increasingly-fictional books | (see https://www.albertcory.io), I can see how easy it would be | to flanderize the characters. Fortunately, I haven't had _too_ | much reader feedback about them, but I can imagine that if a | whole lot of people said "Oh, I love Janet, she's so <trait>!" | I'd be SO tempted to make sure that <trait> appeared every time | she did. Give the people what they want. | | At the same time, you know that if Janet ever displays <anti- | trait> you'll get complaints that "Janet wouldn't do that." It's | gotta be tough for a TV writer. | | In the end, she has to make sense to you the writer, and if you | have readers who only want <trait>, well... they'll have to come | along with you, or leave. | matt-attack wrote: | This applies to more than just cartoons. Look at Seinfeld. First | 3 seasons, the characters were real, each w/ their own | personalties, quirks, etc. By the final season, each character | became so extreme, so one-dimentional in it's characterization | and personalities it was entirely unwatchable (at the time) for | me. | dilyevsky wrote: | Many shows seem to fall into this. Silicon Valley is another | example where it happened to almost all characters except | erlich and jian yang who were already extreme caricatures | bluedino wrote: | Today's sitcoms just jump straight to it. _The Neighborhood_ , | for example. | leephillips wrote: | After Larry David left the show it went into a depressing | tailspin. At least J. Seinfeld had the sense to mercifully kill | it off before too long. | User23 wrote: | A real life example from Computing Science is Edsger Dijkstra. | His contributions to the field were extensive, but from talking | to people and Google search results he's now just the minimum | spanning tree guy. | klyrs wrote: | I'd say he's the cranky hot takes guy, because outside of | academic writing, that's what people quote the most. | Bakary wrote: | In the case of Von Neumann, his contributions are so extensive | that he ends up flanderized even though the flanderization in | question still pegs him as a multifaceted person | bee_rider wrote: | Collapsing multi-faceted contributors to a single algorithm | considered harmful? | thenerdhead wrote: | I never knew this had a word to it, but it is definitely a | strange phenomena itself. | | Especially with content creation. People become the X person. The | writing person. The growth hacker person. The data science | person. | | It almost pigeonholes you into being a one-trick pony. Platforms | like TikTok and LinkedIn especially push flanderization in this | light and good luck getting out to diversify yourself without a | new account. | | The more obvious example is politics though. There are certain | exaggerated traits you associate with the most popular candidates | because of how often you are exposed to them. | mc32 wrote: | In some contexts this another expression of positive feedback | loops and where there are few negative feedback loops, or they | are ignored because they are annoying (like dismissing the high | pitched alarm) | | Whether induced by the audience (external) or by the creator(s) | internal. | PKop wrote: | It's almost like "specialization" or some sort of natural | selection process. Characters accentuate specific unique aspects | of themselves because otherwise they would have no reason to | exist; the show could have anyone stand in to express generic | qualities. Their quirks are what at first works with audiences, | then writers keep going back to the well. The common aspects get | selected out over time. A/B testing taken to it's logical | conclusion. | ehsankia wrote: | I also don't think this is necessarily a bad thing. It feels | like many of the examples given are the more extreme cases | where it goes too far, but looking at the pilots of most TV | shows (especially sitcoms), the characters are fairly generic | and uninteresting, and they slowly build up their personas over | time as writers write to the actor and to what works. | | Community is a good example of that, all the characters | definitely developed a lot, though some maybe went too far like | Britta. Parks & Recreation is another one, some of the | characters were actually just background extras like Retta and | Jerry. The whole woodworking part of Ron also came from Nick's | own background and built into the character. | PKop wrote: | The tropes page mentions there's a bit of distinction between | writer's figuring out the character; flanderization is | addressing the point after the character is basically fleshed | out, then accentuating whatever they are, often past the | point of caricature as time goes on. So more of a long term | process. I agree it doesn't have to be bad thing, I'd go so | far as to say it is inevitable to large degree. It is writers | jobs simply to manage this natural/inevitable dynamic, be | careful with it, and eventually end the show before it loses | it's appeal. Sort of a lifecycle of "success" of writing | interesting characters especially in sitcoms where | personality/humor dominates story, and there will be | diminishing returns as character evolves to self parody. | petesergeant wrote: | Still annoyed that Runkle in Californication went from a quirky | but excellent publicist into just a generic loser | moralestapia wrote: | It's interesting how this happens IRL as well, particularly on | newcomers to an already established group of people. | | Said newcomer is expected to behave in a certain way to fit into | a particular spot that the group needs/allows, so it could become | molded to that; while other (valuable) personality traits are | just ignored/lost in the dynamic. | sbf501 wrote: | There aren't enough examples for this to be considered a | meaningful progression. Even the wikipedia page is struggling to | prove its worth. | tylerhou wrote: | https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Flanderization | adamgordonbell wrote: | There is a tendency for this to happen in real life with | influencers. Certain aspects resonate with an audience and so | they overemphasize them. | | https://gurwinder.substack.com/p/the-perils-of-audience-capt... | rockbruno wrote: | I watch an youtuber that makes videos about life in Japan and | he mentioned recently about how this drives the direction of | his videos against his will. Despite producing extremely high- | quality videos, every video is accompanied by clickbait titles | and the classic "=O" idiotic face thumbnail. The quality | contrast between the cover and the video is immediately clear | once you start watching the content. | | He mentioned that he despises this with every inch of his | being, but is forced to do so because YouTube's algorithm would | dump the video otherwise. | corysama wrote: | Linus Tech Talks has a whole video explaining that they hate | making YouTube Face thumbnails, but their numbers are | dramatically worse when they don't. | AndrewDucker wrote: | Lots of UK tech magazines used to use scantily clad women | on the cover (holding up some piece of tech). | | When challenged on it they responded that when they didn't | their sales went down by a significant percentage. | phist_mcgee wrote: | As another commenter on HN said yesterday, sell people what | they want, but give them what they need. | | If it's abroad in Japan, I would say he's found a great way | to hit mass appeal but still maintain his authentic and | snarky takes on the country. | | If it's Paolo from Tokyo, I'd say he's defensively changed | over the years and has become much more focused on clicks | over real substance. | | If it's neither of them, then still give those two channels a | watch, especially the stuff from several years ago. | LeoPanthera wrote: | I feel sorry for him, and I even think I know which channel | you mean, but I've never clicked on one of his videos because | I absolutely refuse to click on any video with a clickbait | title or a clickbait thumbnail. | | I'm sure that I'm not the only one. | hitekker wrote: | The article starts out interesting but the author lacks | courage. | | > I knew there were limits to my desired independence, because, | whether we like it or not, we all become like the people we | surround ourselves with. So I surrounded myself with the people | I wanted to be like. On Twitter I cultivated a reasonable, | open-minded audience by posting reasonable, open-minded tweets | | Every influencer sees their audience as reasonable & open- | minded, every influencer thinks they only speak reasonable and | open-minded thoughts. Meanwhile his pinned tweet is | https://twitter.com/G_S_Bhogal/status/1545510413982474253, a | smorgasbord of insight porn that's addressed to "his friends". | | The article focuses on an extreme & obvious failure in weak | authors and audiences; it's telling that he did not use his | insight to dissect the relationship between he and his own | audience. | ZeroGravitas wrote: | Interesting post, though two of the examples have always been | oddities. | | Louise Mench was leading anti-bullying campaigns on Twitter and | bullying people on Twitter for example. | | And Quilliam are the ex-extremist Muslims who did a 180 and | parroted whatever the weird anti-islam movement after 9/11 | wanted to hear. | | These were not sober thinkers led down a path by their | audience. | themanmaran wrote: | While we see this a lot with influencers (and I think Joe Rogan | is another great example). The phenomenon isn't exactly new. | | News anchors, writers, country singers, etc. have all been | doing the exact same thing for decades. Doubling down on simple | characteristics that resonate with their target audience. | DaedPsyker wrote: | I wonder how this differs though from refinement. | Particularly for real people such as musicians, an element of | it is also surely removing cruft that just wasn't | interesting. | MonkeyMalarky wrote: | I think the difference is that refinement is when the core | aspect improves through effort and in Flanderization the | core stagnates or degrades through lazyness. | WilTimSon wrote: | Yeah, people seem to forget that a ton of their favorite | celebs didn't start out the way they are today. Most people | in the spotlight get distilled into a singular image - the | weed-loving country singer, the "hated by many" frontman who | most people don't even really care about, the horror writer | whose adherence to Maine is a meme at this point. This type | of stuff isn't necessarily bad as long as it doesn't | completely overtake the character/person. Playing up a part | of yourself to become more interesting is a viable marketing | strat. | RC_ITR wrote: | Here's something crazy. | | Rewatching early Simpsons episodes as someone who first saw | Flanders post Flanderization: He's a less compelling satire | because it's so nuanced, complex, and narrow. | | He's not the obvious bad person that Marcy D'Arcy is, but | he's also not the aspirational zen master that Wilson from | Home Improvement is either. He's just kind of a normal-ish OK | guy who's not a compelling foil to Homer. | | Take his funniest characteristic (calling reverend Lovejoy at | night) and make him a broad vehicle to satirize American | Protestantism, and he's actually a compelling character. | | On the other hand, Lisa's evolution kind of sucks. | Bakary wrote: | Early Simpsons did satirize Christianity a bit but didn't | go full blast with it because they already had their hands | full with just satirizing the idea of a "normal", wholesome | American family that ironically corresponded less and less | to the way people were living their lives at the time. We | now see satire of American Protestantism as a desirable | thing, but it wasn't as desirable as it is now in the early | 90's even though people obviously wanted to see some of it. | | Flanders looks like a poor foil because we no longer see | Homer's family as scandalous. He is indeed a good 'straight | man' (in the comedic sense) but early Homer is no longer as | goofy so we fail to see it. | RC_ITR wrote: | I would disagree. Both of the examples of other | characters that I gave were coincident with the Simpsons | original run, and those characters feel more relevant | today than the Ned does in Dead Putters Society. | | He still is shitty to Tod, so it's not like he's a | satirically perfect dad; he lives in a roughly equally | sized home to Homer, so it's not like some inequality | comment. Everything is just _a little_ off all in. Even | within the context of Bush's America. | vlunkr wrote: | > He's just kind of a normal-ish OK guy who's not a | compelling foil to Homer. | | I've heard that the idea behind Flanders was to invert the | "wacky neighbor" trope (think Kramer) that was prevalent in | sitcoms at the time. | | Being a normal and competent father is what makes him a | foil to homer. I think both versions of the character are | good. | RC_ITR wrote: | But he's not that good of a father. Dead Putters Society | Ned is a _villain_ for doing the exact same thing to Tod | as Homer does to Bart. | | I'm not saying it's bad, it's just _a little off_ and | somewhat muddy, _because_ the character is still so | undeveloped. | kzrdude wrote: | That seems very, very sad. | nkozyra wrote: | Well, it's a sad part of culture in 2022 - an enormous | abandonment of creativity or authenticity for clicks. | | Even sadder that it works. | Bakary wrote: | Authentic people exist and always will; you just have to | work to find them and support them. | | If all you see are the click-optimized, by definition you | are looking in the clicking arena where they will be the | most present. | Multicomp wrote: | It reminds me of the ancient concept of patronage. If you | were a patron, you housed and fed your client, and in | return, they were expected to act the part out. So if you | had a garden hermit, they needed to act their part out, and | act grateful and glad to you. If you treated them badly, | say, giving them a crappy house to hermit about in, they | were expected to still act grateful to your face, but | damage your reputation behind your back. | | Somewhere today the concept of cultural patronage is still | a thing. We the audience give you clicks and attention and | see the ads that make you dollars, you the influencer play | the role of an entertainer that gives us enjoyment for | giving you our entertainment. We've identified what parts | of you entertain us, so play your part, client. | | And thus the influencer is in some ways the influenced. | kashunstva wrote: | > Even sadder that it works. | | As B.F. Skinner might have predicted. | [deleted] | sircastor wrote: | There's a YouTuber I like whose early work included a lot of | genuine excitement and enthusiasm when he'd get a project | working. Recently it feels like the energy is a little | manufactured, for the audience. I still like his stuff, but | sometimes it feels a little off. | dansl wrote: | Almost sounds like a form of Stockholm syndrome... the audience | is their captor. | xwdv wrote: | Part of why I could never really get around to starting a blog is | because I have too many topics I'd want to talk about from so | many different interests that there wouldn't be much of an | audience for it except for people who just want to know about my | life, which is no one. You either flanderize or talk to the void. | | Instead, I write comments everywhere across several different | threads in many forums. I am an expert in many topics. I find it | more satisfying, and I have small micro audiences within each | thread. | kirse wrote: | I don't know about TV Tropes "coining" the concept, I had already | discussed this 5+ years ago wrt to computers and we even had a | pitch for the "Flanders Threshold" | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13353106 | | I'd accept that Flanders Computing is an offshoot of the overall | much-later-coined flanderization process. | hackingthelema wrote: | 'Flanderization' as a term was on TV Tropes as early as 2006: | | https://web.archive.org/web/20060512061148/https://tvtropes.... | kirse wrote: | Well then, I would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for | you meddling kids. | motohagiography wrote: | Is Flanderization just synecdoche - where one attribute becomes | the reference for the whole, or is it a new co-oridnate on the | spectrum of metonymy and simile? | | The comment about Rick and Morty actively avoiding the | flanderizing of their characters seems a bit off, as the whole | season 5 finale was the flanderization of Morty, where he (a | version of him) self actualizes as blandly malevolent, likely | acting on urges that Rick identifies a few episodes prior in | Morty's weak dad (Jerry) as not nice, but predatory: | | > _" You act like prey, but you're a predator! You use pity to | lure in your victims! That's how you survive! I survive because I | know everything. That snake survives because children wander off, | and you survive because people think, "Oh, this poor piece of | shit."_ | | If they were avoiding flanderizing Morty, they would seem to have | just backed right into it. | A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: | To the best of my understanding, no. Part for whole thing is | like an extended symbol and as a poetic device short lived at | that, while flanderization is appears to be characterized as a | longer term process that effectively focuses on a specific part | without excluding the rest ( its importance is just | progressively diminished ). | | <<If they were avoiding flanderizing Morty, they would seem to | have just backed right into it. | | I am not sure if I agree. The show is not even. Some episodes | are absolutely brilliant and some are very forgettable at best, | but I can't really cast Morty as being flanderized since it is | not main protagonist's sidekick, but 'evil morty'. And even | then, it is not Umbrella Corporation level of evil, where it is | apparently written somewhere down in the business plan, mission | and strategy to be evil. He is evil based on the goals he chose | for himself and what it takes to get him to those goals. | mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote: | Rick And Morty really took a nosedive for me the last couple | seasons. It's always just been a fun-when-high recycling of | Star Trek episodes and well-known sci-fi ideas to me, but it | always had its own style, clever writing and great | acting(especially Sarah Chalke). | | Lately the writing has felt a lot lazier, and I guess they ran | out of good Star Trek episodes(understandable since none have | been made for almost 20 years now...) to "steal" because a lot | of the episodes felt like gimmicks based on some action anime I | never heard of, fucking Ocean's 11, superheroes, | dragons(seriously?), etc. | jaimebuelta wrote: | Also Rick and Morty is an incredibly nihilistic show. The | character dynamics are terrible (to each other), and that | limits the long term capacity for stories. | | They were able to pull a good few seasons, but it starts | looking as the same destructive jokes over and over. | | I still watch it and enjoy it, but I feel a bit empty inside, | it's such a bleak view inside humanity... | Bakary wrote: | I don't think they ran out of sci-fi tropes so much as they | ran out on the core idea of the show. They took two | established characters (Marty and Doc Brown) and | explored/deconstructed the inherent absurdity and great | dynamic between those two that was never fully exploited by | the original films. | | The decline started once they had done what they could with | it. | mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote: | Right, that makes sense. I honestly wasn't aware of the | Back to the Future inspiration, I watched it as a kid and | it was never really my type of movie. | shanusmagnus wrote: | This is one of those moments that makes me fall in love with the | internet all over again. | | I've thought about this idea (without knowing there was a term | for it!) wrt aging in real life. So many people seem to become | increasingly caricature as they get older. The guy who likes | woodworking and European travel becomes the embodiment of | woodworking and European travel. It's all he talks about. His | kids roll their eyes at Thanksgiving -- there dad goes again. | Etc. | | I've been playing around with metaphors, trying to get the flavor | of this. I like the one about multiplying two vectors together, | where small vector elements shrink, larger vector elements get | (relatively) bigger. The vector becomes a more exaggerated | version of what it was. And it makes intuitive sense: he spends | more time wordworking, wordworking activities crowd out non- | wordworking activities, his social engagements intersect | wordworking, more of his friends become woodworking friends, and | slowly the gravity of his internal world pulls everything in that | direction. Nothing sinister about it. | | I thought: how would you prevent such a thing? And should you? | | Anyway, I'm rambling. But I would welcome any further pointers | that could enrich my thinking about this idea. | racl101 wrote: | > I've thought about this idea (without knowing there was a | term for it!) | | I used to call it the "Kramer Effect", much like you, without | knowing it was called Flanderization and was using it in the | early 2000s to describe my displeasure with the character Joey | from Friends. | | Joey went from kind of low intellect to full retard by the end | of the show and very inexplicably. | rzzzt wrote: | So why didn't you call it Joey Effect? Did Kramer also go | through the exaggeration process throughout the series? | blowski wrote: | Ross also became more and more neurotic. | matsemann wrote: | Do you need to prevent it? I think it's related to optimal | stopping / the secretary problem. | | In the beginning, you explore. Later, you exploit by doing more | of the things you found fruitful. | galangalalgol wrote: | Of you want to generalize a medel you need smaller batch | sizes with more varied nature. Maybe that applies somehow to | people? | shanusmagnus wrote: | It's a good question. My take is that the quote from one of | the sibling comments -- where someone's dad talks about aging | as 'boiling down to your own true essence' -- is actually | wrong. I think there's a lot less 'true essence' and a lot | more path dependency. In my example, is woodworking and | European travel true essence? I suppose it's possible, but I | don't think so. I think it could have just as easily been | something completely different. | | If all else were equal, it might be fine to pick something | you like and just exploit the hell out of it till death. But | I don't think all else is equal. Perspectives on the world, | skills, knowledge, versatility, resilience -- an anti- | caricature penalty on all this stuff seems good in a whole | bunch of ways, even if I concede that you might be leaving | some unexploited fun on the table. | | Like I said, I am open to being argued out of this opinion; | but that's where I am so far. | chasd00 wrote: | The stopping problem is a big part of it but I think also the | older you get the less concerned you are about social | conformity. You just do the things that make you happy | regardless of what the young people think. | KaoruAoiShiho wrote: | Just spend a week on tvtropes.org and you'll instantly become a | better writer I think. | | It's not to say that tropes are bad but it's important to use | it as a repository of easily accessible writing mistakes so you | can quickly learn from the past and contextualize them for your | own synthesis. | katamarimambo wrote: | tvtropes is fun, but it's the cultural analysis equivalent of | overfitting a model. | messe wrote: | > Just spend a week on tvtropes.org and you'll instantly | become a better writer I think. | | Maybe, but from my experience I find the more time I spend on | browsing through tvtropes in a certain week, the more I | overthink my writing and get absolutely fuck all done. | | Don't get me wrong, it's worthwhile to understand tropes, but | its not going to make you a better writer instantly. And | repeated exposure to an attention-sucking site like tv-tropes | doesn't help. It'll maybe make you a slower more methodical | writer, but that's not necessarily a good thing. You can | always fix quite a bit in editing. | derefr wrote: | Don't go there for the tropes; go there for the examples. | Look up the things you're thinking of doing, and then | consume the media where people are saying that thing was | done well. It's like reading highly-cited journal papers, | for fiction. | ALittleLight wrote: | I don't think tropes are mistakes. In fact, looking at | tvtropes you see lots of examples from the most popular and | successful movies, TV shows, books, etc. | | If you're a writer you should be trying to say something new, | but you shouldn't try to make _everything_ new. People would | be confused and put off by something that was violating and | subverting every trope in fiction, but they would be amused | by something that subverts one or two tropes in an | interesting way. And subversion isn 't even necessary to be | good fiction, you could imagine a well executed work that | isn't pioneering, but is still quite satisfying. | tehf0x wrote: | There's a trope for that! https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwik | i.php/Administrivia/TropesA... | dllthomas wrote: | Just spend an hour on TV Tropes and you'll realize you spent | a week on TV Tropes. | paulmd wrote: | is there a trope for this? | krapp wrote: | https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/JustForFun/TVTrope | sWi... | Bakary wrote: | As you age, the rewards you get from social conformity become | less and less important because your social role starts to be | squeezed in general. Pop culture stops catering to you as much, | you are less likely to multiply intimate partners or discover | new friends or change your circle to a great extent, though | obviously this is a vague trend and there are tons of | exceptions to this. | | From your own perspective, you have less of an interest in | pursuing entirely new projects because the horizon of good | experiences from those gets shorter, and as you have said you | also gravitate more experience towards the things you have | pursued, which unlocks other experiences on its own. | | Orson Scott Card once said that Asimov was one of the few | writers who kept improving in old age, because most others | would fall into the trap of indulging in their eccentricity and | assuming that the image people had of them was already set in | stone. | | I'd say it's helpful to always keep a slight distance, even | from things that become increasingly foundational to your life. | True bitterness comes when you cease to believe that new | generations are actually capable of enjoying their things the | same way you did yours in your youth. As long as you don't lose | your capacity for theory of mind or refuse to believe that time | goes on, you'll be fine. | r3trohack3r wrote: | > you are less likely to have multiple intimate partners | | Fun fact: STDs are common in young adults and in 55+ | communities - the reason behind this is left as an exercise | for the reader. | | https://www.aarp.org/health/conditions- | treatments/news-05-20... | smegger001 wrote: | simple 55+ no longer have children at home (if they ever | had them), menopause has removed the fear of unexpected | pregnancy, divorces have already happened if they were | going to and death has started claiming partners from | devoted couple meaning you have a large number of | financially secure single people with time on their hands. | iancmceachern wrote: | I can confirm, my sister manages a retirement home. | irrational wrote: | reaperducer wrote: | _STDs are common in young adults and in 55+ communities - | the reason behind this is left as an exercise for the | reader._ | | According to my mother, is because nobody in her retirement | village is afraid of getting pregnant anymore. | thematrixturtle wrote: | > Orson Scott Card once said that Asimov was one of the few | writers who kept improving in old age | | I'd like to believe this was true, but much of Asimov's late | works, particularly the final "Gaia" sequels to Foundation, | were terrible. | | The sheer breadth of his output (which went _way_ beyond | robot scifi) is impressive though. | Bakary wrote: | Sadly, I don't recall the exact words or source, but it was | 'improving' in the sense of continually experimenting. | | I agree that a lot of late Asimov isn't as great as some of | his foundational (heh) works. | julianeon wrote: | Here is a simpler explanation: | | When you are younger, you have a community of people and | friends who push, pull, and otherwise shape you. | | When you are older, there is no community. That's an | oversimplification, but it's close enough. | | So there's no pushback about "hey man, that's enough about | your hobby." There's no influence to curb any parts of your | personality. It's just you, instead of being in a health | community, living in a kind of void, in between your | interactions w others. | | Now it's true there are people (say, your parents) who | continue to exert influence. But it's like the number of | people actively involved w you falls from 100, to like 5. In | terms of true peers who are your age - they number may very | well fall to 0. So the amount of eccentricity, or really | indulgence of personal preference above every other | consideration, skyrockets. | kcplate wrote: | My father in law used to describe this as "the older you get, | the more you are boiled down to your true essence" | frodetb wrote: | Years ago, I was talking to a friend about IASIP, South Park, and | Arrested Development, and why they had held up so well. I argued | that it partly had to do with the fact that the characters were | already so extreme, they were resistant to Flanderization. | oaththrowaway wrote: | IASIP dived deep into Flanderization. Mac being gay, Dennis | being a psychopath, Charlie being an idiot, etc. They have all | gotten more pigeon holed as the show has gone along. | phist_mcgee wrote: | Wouldn't you still call that character development? | | I mean Charlie was always an idiot, except for maybe season | 1. | Waterluvian wrote: | My sense is that this, along with a lot of other writing | decisions in shows like The Simpsons, is a form of "cashing in" | on the investment of developing a character. | | By Flanderizing a character after eight or nine seasons, you | unlock a whole new set of jokes and plot points for writing | another thousand shows. | Frost1x wrote: | >My sense is that this, along with a lot of other writing | decisions in shows like The Simpsons, is a form of "cashing in" | on the investment of developing a character. | | I wouldn't even quote cashing in, the effect is just an | artifact of chasing demand signal to improve revenue. It's the | same as iterative agile development that chases short term | demand signals and over time tries to optimize the aspects that | bring in money. The underlying driver for all these effects is | capitalism. | | You see characters take on bigger or smaller roles over time | depending on audience response often. Jar Jar was cut back | drastically Star Wars 2 and 3 compared to 1. Some characters | even get spin off shows, like Young Sheldon from Big Bang | Theory. | Waterluvian wrote: | Yeah that's a strong point. I think I'm revising my mental | model of this phenomenon along those lines. | immigrantheart wrote: | Like that guy, Khalid Lame. | unnamed76ri wrote: | I feel like most of the characters on Big Bang Theory were | Flanderized pretty quickly. | senorrib wrote: | I think the opposite happened in this show. Penny was a dumb | midwestern actress wannabe and evolved into a complex | character, for example. | | In essence, they were all conceived as extremely flanderized | and acquired complex traits over time. | BlargMcLarg wrote: | Penny is an obvious case of reverse-flanderization because | she was the opposite of the typical nerds. When the show | started appealing more to the common crowd and had to go | beyond its original plot, it was obvious Penny had to be more | than just a plot device centered around looks. Same happened | to the guys. | | Most of the later episodes where the focus isn't on Leonard | and Penny, they are mostly about sex, or Penny asking Leonard | whether something Sheldon said was a burn. | | Howard is another obvious case. Goes from stereotypical creep | to a more complex character and gets a crazy amount of screen | time to deal with his issues. Then later on, he's mostly a | whipped husband (largely caused by Bernadette being | flanderized), but they give him some screen time where he's | more than just a doormat for wife and a snark to every other | male character except Leonard. | | Most of the other main/recurring cast members have similar | cases or go straight from A to C and skip B. | kibwen wrote: | Not to be confused with bowdlerization: | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expurgation | lekevicius wrote: | I found one particular example of the opposite change quite | annoying. In the TV Show "Suits", the premise is that a character | Mike has incredible photographic memory, can to read books and | evidence at unbelievable speeds. As the show went on, this unique | trait was almost completely removed. I think by season 3 it was | just gone completely, turning the show into a regular law drama. | alexmolas wrote: | just like what happened with Hulk | themanmaran wrote: | Also a very common fictional theme. The "Forgot about his | powers" trope. | | https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ForgotAboutHisPo... | vagrantJin wrote: | Too many shows go on for too long and end up "killing" the | writers. When the juices arent flowing, best to fall back on | tried and trusted. | willis936 wrote: | I argue that this is closely related to superdeformed versions of | more serious contemporaries (SD Gundam and Teen Titans Go as | popular examples in the West). | | You could draw a line from chibi in the 80s to flanderization. Of | course flanderization ties in with a lot of other concepts | related to positive feedback loops that others here mention. I | just think it's interesting that there is a history of the | cartoonization of cartoons and that character features are chosen | to match appearance/vice versa. | 4pkjai wrote: | Another example is Luanne from King of the Hill | oblak wrote: | Can you provide an example? She didn't end up all that | different from when she stared. Just matured a bit thanks to | her man. | philipkglass wrote: | In the first season she wasn't book-smart but wasn't dumb. In | season 1, episode 8 she fixes a problem with Cotton Hill's | car on her own in a way that implies she is mechanically | inclined and competent. She got dumber as the seasons went | on. So did Peggy Hill. So did Dale and Bill. Hank didn't | really become dumb but he was seriously Flanderized by way of | his love affair with propane. | | I have seen many characters in different comedies get dumber | over subsequent seasons. Presumably this is because it's | easier to wring comedy from people making bad decisions. Even | Malcolm in the Middle -- a series centered around a boy with | an in-show IQ of 165 -- had Malcolm making absolutely stupid | decisions in the later seasons. | 6stringmerc wrote: | Sounds a lot like in music when dealing with RIAA labels and | their business model: | | "YES! That was a massive hit! Now do it again!" | | ...and Sir-Mix-a-Lot has said routinely in interviews the more of | the novel element but turned up wasn't the best idea as a follow | up to "Baby Got Back" the legit smash. | | Let's just say his next album's lead single became a punchline in | Aqua Teen Hunger Force as spoken by the Moonenites. | bitwize wrote: | I first came across Mix-A-Lot by winning a single of his at a | school dance before "Baby Got Back" dropped. It was called "One | Time's Got No Case" and was about being harassed by the police. | | Such a talented fellow doesn't deserve to be an effective one- | hit wonder. | | I think PSY suffered from the same problem: the world (outside | South Korea) wanted another Gangnam Style. | 6stringmerc wrote: | Thankfully I've got great news! | | He moved into production and I learned he's pretty close with | the two main guys of Presidents of the United States of | America (band - "Peaches" - "Lump") and they make a living | that way as studio cats & hired producers. | | Too much talent for pop stars and touring! | [deleted] ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-09-10 23:00 UTC)