The Paradox of Wider Appeal
“No matter what you do, someone somewhere will dislike you somehow.”
-
a seemingly absurd or self-contradictory statement or proposition that when investigated or explained may prove to be well founded or true.
There is a thing I get annoyed by every so often when it comes to certain things (namely entertainment things). My annoyance is when certain people decide that a perfectly-fine-as-it-is thing could be better if it had wider appeal. That on its own seems nice and respectable. Why not have more people enjoy something? Well, widening the appeal of something tends to have drawbacks. From the perspective of one who already liked a thing, if the thing is changed in such a way that diminishes what previously made it likable (for me), it has less appeal. Hence, why I consider ideas to widen appeal to paradoxically restrict appeal.
As the above meme explains, I don’t disagree with more people enjoying something. I do disagree with people changing it—in the sense that change affects others’ enjoyment and isn’t approved of or welcomed by others partaking of the thing. I want to be specific here that others changing the thing for themselves and without changing it for others is completely fine in my book. I think it’s silly to get upset if someone played chess with the ruleset of Connect 4 and used mancala beads in their own milieu; if they were to bring that same playstyle to a chess tournament, though, that’s another thing. That’s what I consider “changing the hobby” is.
I’ve been thinking about this “wider appeal paradox” when it comes to several things. Anime is one of those things. There was contention recently regarding English voice actors changing dialogue because the original material didn’t match the VA’s sensibilities. There are natural changes that come with translations between languages, however these changes were more than misinterpretations or substitutions—they changed the work’s meaning. As a writer, this in particular riles me up. If someone were to take something I wrote and change its meaning, I’d be miffed. As a viewer, this also riles me up. I don’t trust anyone but the creator to know what’s best for the thing they created. That some self-important rando thinks they can decide such things… again, it riles me up. As an example of changed dialogue from a show called Miss Kobayashi’s Dragon Maid, there’s a scene where a character (Lucoa) changes clothes and another character (Tohru) comments on it:
“Look at these clothes. I made sure to tone down the body exposure,” Lucoa says in the original manga.
“It would be nice if you could change the body next time,” Tohru responds.
And then there’s the English VA version:
“Oh, those pesky patriarchal societal demands were getting on my nerves, so I changed my clothes,” Lucoa says.
“Give it a week; they’ll be begging you to change back,” Tohru replies.
There was also a more egregious case in which a guy admitted to hating the original work and script of a show he had been hired to work on called Lovely Complex and changing the script—the studios he was with later fired him and stated the script that aired didn’t include the guy’s changes. The unfortunate consequence of such simpletons (a euphemism for morons) changing things from what they originally or actually are is that I along with many others who enjoy anime are less likely to trust the authenticity of it. Personally, it’s off-putting if not out-of-character for a scandalous, seductive, flirtatious ex-goddess to speak with the sensibilities of a collegiate feminist. Should personal agendas and patronizing attitudes persist (a quote from the aforementioned guy: “…large swaths of the anime community are racist/sexist/transphobic/etc…”), the entertainment value diminishes and the overall pastime—anime—has less appeal. But the appeal is “widened,” or at least reallocated to the sensibilities of some other group of people that are likely morally conceited and politically obsessed. As one Redditor put it, “Imagine if painting restorators would say ‘the original drawing was ugly and sucked anyway, so i made it better’.”
Botched restoration of ecce homo fresco
There is another thing that wrinkles my nose, ruffles my feathers, boils my blood, and burns my steak. Sometimes creators of a thing, rather than those partaking of the thing, decide to attempt wider appeal in an effort to, simply, make more money. And so they change the thing they made. There are several films, shows, and video games that do this, but there is at least one thing in particular I’m thinking of. Okay, the thing I’m thinking of is Paper Mario.
Imagine, if you will, being an enjoyer of a certain dessert—let’s say Ghirardelli’s dark chocolate bars. Then let’s say Ghirardelli decided to discontinue all its dark chocolate bars and replace them with bars of honey under the same name; that is, “dark chocolate” that was really some formula of honey. Something you may not have to imagine as it really happened and that is in the similar vein of sweets is that in 2013 Skittles changed the flavor of its lime Skittles to green apple. Granted, lime Skittles returned after around eight years, but fans of the original lime flavor certainly were thrown into a tizzy (me included). Over those years it resulted in me not buying Skittles. Likewise, I didn’t buy any games from the Paper Mario franchise for around two decades—until May 23, 2024 (Thousand-Year Door hype!).
Nintendo and Intelligent Systems decided to change the core identity of Paper Mario several times after the first two games; with Super Paper Mario, the gameplay changed from a turn-based system with role-playing elements to an action-based system with less role-playing elements; with Sticker Star, the gameplay returned to a turn-based system with even less role-playing elements and additional stupid ones (i.e., stickers); with Color Splash, it was more of the same but with alternative stupid elements to stickers (i.e., paint and cards); and with Origami King, it was more or less more of the same. Contention between the franchise’s original fans and newer fans has been ongoing, and all in all it’s quite exemplary of this “wider appeal paradox.”
From my perspective, I think it’s lame that the games I originally liked pretty much changed genres. I enjoyed detailed, interwoven stories and characters alongside turn-based strategizing and experience points and skill trees that made leveling, exploration, and overall progression meaningful. Removing and dumbing down these elements (i.e., changing the genre from RPG to action-adventure) in subsequent games wasn’t as appealing, and if I wanted simple (a euphemism for braindead) gameplay of moving across a ‘level’ and jumping on enemies I’d easily pick up any of the mainstream Mario games that are already available. But, I am just a person among others, and both Nintendo and Intelligent Systems likely had some cost-benefit analyses done that likely showed the benefit of the games’ appeal being wider (but at the cost of their appeal to some original fans like me).
Speaking of removing and dumbing or watering down elements that made things different from what they were, I think another and final example of this paradox I’ll discuss is social media. I don’t use Facebook for much other than infrequently checking meme pages and posting updates about stories and music (and these blog posts) I make. Since I started using Facebook in 2008 I’ve seen a few changes to its features: the ‘poke’ feature faded away; messaging became separated to its own app called Facebook Messenger; Facebook Marketplace was added as its own tab; a dedicated video tab was added; stories like the ones on Snapchat or Instagram were added; and Facebook Dating was added. Personally, I liked the poke feature; I also liked the convenience of messaging through the same app and not needing to go through the trouble of opening a completely separate app; and I also didn’t care to attempt shopping or dating through my social media accounts. From a business perspective, all these changes make sense: “What better way can we target consumers than through their personal profiles and online activity that we have been monitoring and tracking data and trends on for decades?” Huh… writing that actually made me a little scared of how far things have come and how far things will go…
Anyway, the idea of an “everything app” is something Elon Musk has commented on as it’s apparently his goal for X, formerly Twitter (though I still call it Twitter). I think Twitter’s rebrand was dumb, and I think all the aforementioned ways social media apps have widened the way they’re used are unsavory. But again, of course, they make sense from a business perspective. But but, I am less inclined to use them with all the services they provide. At least, I’m not using Facebook for shopping and dating. Things having a niche service or function are more appealing to me. And I don’t think they need to be more than what they are.
I don’t know how to conclude this blog post, so here is a picture of some saury.
