New Kind of Super Hero Movie-A New Kind of Training?

Thank you to over 16,000 wonderful folks who have subscribed to L&D Easter Eggs. Why don't you join them and become one of the first to know when a new post is available, subscribe to L&D Easter Eggs by clicking on the link here: https://www.dhirubhai.net/build-relation/newsletter-follow?entityUrn=6599686641453977600 Or send to a friend who might be interested, they will thank you for it.

WARNING: Deadpool and Wolverine SPOILER's AHEAD

Introduction

I am a comic book fan; Batman, The Avengers, The West Coast Avengers, even The Swamp Thing, read them all when I was in my formative years. Also, a big fan of Mad Magazine which would regularly parody comics. I was okay with that because it was from outside the superhero universe and was really funny (as was Spy vs. Spy).

However, back-in-the-day, I wasn't too thrilled with Deadpool. I was so bought into the superhero universe that I didn't want a superhero from that universe breaking the fourth wall and shattering the illusion for me. The superhero universe was special. An untouched place that didn't need to be "ruined" by pointing out the absurdities, inconsistencies, and silliness of it all. It was a place I could escape where I knew everyone. I knew the back stories, who was dating or married to who, who could beat who, and how the Vision got the brain pattern of Wonder Man which caused a conflict over The Scarlett Witch.

Over time, I grew up and matured (arguably) and have come to understand, appreciate, and genuinely enjoy the Deadpool take on comics. It's satire within satire for a genre that has been around for a long, long time. We know all the tropes and breaking those well-known tropes now becomes entertainment in and of itself.

A Movie About Nothing

But does breaking the tropes and calling attention to the genre's weaknesses negate the fact that this is a movie? A critique of the film by Louis Chilton of the Independent raises some interesting questions and ideas. Chilton's reasoning resonated with me even though I think he comes to the wrong conclusion. He opens his piece called "Deadpool and Wolverine isn’t just a bad movie – it’s changing the definition of what a ‘movie’ is " with the question "What is a movie?"

Chilton argues that "Deadpool and Wolverine" is not a movie but something else. Chilton calls it a "watershed" moment in a bad way and the death of cinema. Because it's simply a tribute to itself and the corporatization of movies. There is some truth to that. The movie is uber-self aware to the point of even referencing the actors who have played superhero characters. Where's the story, the elegance, the romance of old-time movies Chilton argues.

But what if it's not the death of cinema but the beginning of something else. What if it's a redirection or a new perspective or approach. A new way of thinking about a movie or thinking about presenting content. Chilton derides that fact that "it is a film that is about absolutely nothing – a film with no discernable purpose or artistic ambitions, beyond the perpetuation of its own corporate myth." Maybe that's not such a bad thing when the audience has matured with the genre.

Where's the Story?

This movie is not alone in it's nothingness. There have been other ventures about nothing. Just look across the syndication landscape to the nine seasons of Seinfeld. Yes, Deadpool and Wolverine is bereft of story but we still love it. The plot line is thin as thin can be. Same with Sienfield. Neither the movie or the TV series are about what's happening, it's about who the events are happening to.

It's a character focus, not a story focus. This approach is liked (maybe loved) by audiences as the Deadpool and Wolverine movie grossed a ton of money and Sienfield was a hugely popular show (still is in many corners). Two entertainment vehicles about "nothing." They aren't trying to tell a comprehensive story.

Join the Experience

Audience members care less about the story and more about the characters but it's a little deeper than that, it's also asking the audience to be part of the experience. To be in on the joke(s). Everyone knew Kramer would make a huge entrance sliding into Jerry's apartment. It was expected and applauded. Deadpool and Wolverine definitely take the "in on it" to an even higher level. It's as participatory as a one-way medium can be.

Take for example the appearance of Chris Evans. The build up to his big reveal makes you think he is playing the famous Capitan America character but then the joke is... it's the Johnny Storm version of Chris Evans. If you don't know, you don't know. My wife still said she enjoyed seeing the cameo of Captain American in the move....that's the joke. It's knowing the backstory of not just the characters but of the actors (glancing over toward Chatum Tanning). It's meta upon meta.

Training Should Change

Now what does this have to do with Training?

We've collectively exhausted every single training trope. Again and again and again and again. It doesn't seem to be working like it use to. We've all matured (perhaps). We are bored with "traditional" training just like people became bored with traditional superhero movies and tropes.

In the learning space, we've done the "click next to continue", we've done the branching scenarios, we've experienced the multiple select questions. We've all watched the "serious as a heart attack" instructional videos, the cartoon characters telling us about safety, and the drag and drop exercises not to mention the 10-point quizzes and the introduction by the plant manager or CEO (if you are lucky).

What if we turned those tropes upside down? Like they did in the Deadpool and Wolverine movie. Maybe the death of traditional training is the way to go. Maybe we need to hold our tropes up to the light and make fun of them. Maybe we need to approach our tropes from the opposite direction.

What if the characters (animated, AI-generated, or live person) in the instructional video knew they were in an instructional video or an eLearning course. What if they were in on it?

What if our training designs referenced elements of required corporate policies that are a bit onerous or obtuse? What if they joked about the instructional video itself? What if characters in the course told you that they know that knowing the answer to this question is not the same as applying the knowledge on-the-job? What if the characters in our learning modules were one of the learners along for the ride, a character like you and I (or you and me or both of us or whatever?)

Alternatively, what if we did away with the storytelling in training. This might be an unpopular opinion given the industry's current focus on storytelling but what if our instructional videos and eLearning courses didn't have a story, instead, what if the sudden appearance of a "Peter" solved all the conflicts? What if the instruction consisted of disjointed segues that made the point but didn't tell a story?

Now before you scream at your screen about how you can't compare training to movies or TV and develop 17 reasons why it won't work...and claim that what we do is too serious. Stop and think for a minute. Consider the sheer popularity of alternative approaches of entertainment--non-story telling experiences, the Konami Code, Easter Eggs, and fourth wall breaks. People love being in on the joke, they love the Easter Eggs, cameos, and acknowledgement that this is just a movie.

Maybe, just maybe we should focus more on characters. People like our trainees who, to put it bluntly, don't want to be trainees. They want to be employees, they want to be treated like adults, they do not want to be spoon fed the same compliance course they've taken every year for the past 10 years with no acknowledgement that it is the same common sense crap they've had every year.

Epilogue

Why not create training with references to previous courses, frequent breaking of the fourth wall, storyless presentations, and the inclusion of Easter Eggs in our eLearning and microlearning. Why don't we adopt a more "puckish" approach? We don't need the R-rated language of Deadpool but we just might need his perspective that what we are doing is sometimes absurd, inconsistent, and silly.

You're still here. It's over. Go home. Go.

Bio

Karl Kapp is a professor at Commonwealth?University (formerly Bloomsburg University). He spends is academic and consulting time helping individuals and organizations effectively implement game-based learning and gamification. He literally wrote the book on the "Gamification of Learning." He works internationally helping organizations accelerate expertise using an evidence-based approach.

Karl teaches a graduate courses on game-based learning, gamification, and game-thinking. He is passionate about helping others and thus is the co-founder of the L&D Mentor Academy , a members only group that explores the technology, business acumen and concepts required to take L&D professional's careers to the next level. Apply to Join today.

Karl is writing his 9th or 10th book (depending on how you count) titled "Action-First Learning" which will be available in 2025. Look for it at the ATD bookstore next year. In the meantime, let me know if you might like an advanced copy in exchange for some co-marketing efforts.