|
Post by Hoosier X on Dec 18, 2023 14:18:56 GMT -5
Right. So it’s even worse than making minor changes. They’re denying the public any chance to see the work at all. which is any creator or patron who sponsored the creation's right. The public has no right to see a creator or a company's work unless the creator/company chooses to put it out in the public or the public is the one paying for its creation. Neither is the case for the Batgirl movie. The public is not being denied anything they already had, they're just not getting something new, and they are not owed anything new. It's pure entitlement to think the studio owed the public that movie. There are hundreds of possible reasons why they might not have wanted the movie released, and all we have are rumors and innuendo as to those reasons, but the reasons are irrelevant. They don't have to release anything they don't want to and that's not infringing on anyone's rights or taking away something they are owed. I still think it was the wrong choice by WB, but it was their choice to make even if I don't like it. -M I really didn’t say anything about rights or not. I’m just saying that denying access, any access at all, to a work, is far worse than making a few minor changes. I’m not calling it censorship, I’m not seeing a business doesn’t have the right to do that. But in terms of “censorship,” it’s an ultimate act of power that denies the public the ability to see it, and the creators the ability to have people see their work. By any reasonable standard, it is far worse than making minor changes to make any work a little less racist.
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Dec 18, 2023 14:19:50 GMT -5
Right. So it’s even worse than making minor changes. They’re denying the public any chance to see the work at all. which is any creator or patron who sponsored the creation's right. The public has no right to see a creator or a company's work unless the creator/company chooses to put it out in the public or the public is the one paying for its creation. Neither is the case for the Batgirl movie. The public is not being denied anything they already had, they're just not getting something new, and they are not owed anything new. It's pure entitlement to think the studio owed the public that movie. There are hundreds of possible reasons why they might not have wanted the movie released, and all we have are rumors and innuendo as to those reasons, but the reasons are irrelevant. They don't have to release anything they don't want to and that's not infringing on anyone's rights or taking away something they are owed. I still think it was the wrong choice by WB, but it was their choice to make even if I don't like it. -M My understanding, and I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong, is that the pulling of Batgirl had as much to do with tax write-offs and dick-waving by a new CEO as it had to do with the quality of the work. I do think there some interesting issues here. It also gets in to who exactly the "creators" are in a medium that is as collaborative as film. It kind of seques in to the issues of "lost manuscripts," i.e. stuff that the author thought was too bad to publish, and whether that work should be published after their deaths.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,761
|
Post by shaxper on Dec 18, 2023 14:53:09 GMT -5
It's pure entitlement to think the studio owed the public that movie. I wholeheartedly disagree. Whether it is within WB's legal rights and whether or not it is right are two very different questions. The movie industry of today has made the building of anticipation for fans the core of their marketing strategy. They teased fans, built up the anticipation, and then pulled the plug against the wishes of literally everyone involved in the production. That's legal, but it's not right, and calling fans entitled for wanting to see what they were effectively promised isn't helpful in the slightest. The filmmakers wanted to to show fans the film, and fans wanted to see the film, but those holding the money bags decided to serve themselves. I personally had no desire to see the film. I think it looked disappointing. But anyone who bought into Warner's hype was done wrong, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by MDG on Dec 18, 2023 16:16:15 GMT -5
It's pure entitlement to think the studio owed the public that movie. I wholeheartedly disagree. Whether it is within WB's legal rights and whether or not it is right are two very different questions. The movie industry of today has made the building of anticipation for fans the core of their marketing strategy. They teased fans, built up the anticipation, and then pulled the plug against the wishes of literally everyone involved in the production. That's legal, but it's not right, and calling fans entitled for wanting to see what they were effectively promised isn't helpful in the slightest. The filmmakers wanted to to show fans the film, and fans wanted to see the film, but those holding the money bags decided to serve themselves. I personally had no desire to see the film. I think it looked disappointing. But anyone who bought into Warner's hype was done wrong, IMO. You're still mad about Sonic Disruptors, aren't you?
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Dec 18, 2023 18:37:57 GMT -5
It's pure entitlement to think the studio owed the public that movie. I wholeheartedly disagree. Whether it is within WB's legal rights and whether or not it is right are two very different questions. The movie industry of today has made the building of anticipation for fans the core of their marketing strategy. They teased fans, built up the anticipation, and then pulled the plug against the wishes of literally everyone involved in the production. That's legal, but it's not right, and calling fans entitled for wanting to see what they were effectively promised isn't helpful in the slightest. The filmmakers wanted to to show fans the film, and fans wanted to see the film, but those holding the money bags decided to serve themselves. I personally had no desire to see the film. I think it looked disappointing. But anyone who bought into Warner's hype was done wrong, IMO. Put not your trust in corporations, in artificial men, who cannot care.
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Dec 18, 2023 23:01:53 GMT -5
I guess the Spirit stories should be burned as well. What’s next , stories that say we never had slavery in America ? We learn from past events no matter how ugly they might be. My personal opinion is generally 'those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it'... if we deny the wrongs of the past, we're in trouble. One could argue if more Americans were students of history the current political climate would be a bit different. That said, Disney and any other company has the right to publish/re-publish whatever they think will sell, and I'm sure the bad press of re-printing anything that is objectionable outweighs the profits. That said, The Uncle Scrooge collections I've bought all have a warning about such content in them... I wonder why they was no longer deemed sufficient?
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Dec 18, 2023 23:11:02 GMT -5
About the Batgirl movie.... at least it exists. I'm sure some day it will see the light of day, either on purpose or by accident. Maybe after Warner can't get audited for the tax write off anymore.
At least it exists. (stupid George rr Martin and Patrick rothfuss)
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Dec 18, 2023 23:43:02 GMT -5
I guess the Spirit stories should be burned as well. What’s next , stories that say we never had slavery in America ? We learn from past events no matter how ugly they might be. My personal opinion is generally 'those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it'... if we deny the wrongs of the past, we're in trouble. One could argue if more Americans were students of history the current political climate would be a bit different. That said, Disney and any other company has the right to publish/re-publish whatever they think will sell, and I'm sure the bad press of re-printing anything that is objectionable outweighs the profits. That said, The Uncle Scrooge collections I've bought all have a warning about such content in them... I wonder why they was no longer deemed sufficient? Not reprinting is not erasing from history or denying scholars access. Not reprinting is exactly acknowledging a racists past and not repeating it.
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Dec 18, 2023 23:46:46 GMT -5
I don’t think it’s that hard to come up with ways to learn about the past if racist images aren’t reprinted. Just sayin’.
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Dec 19, 2023 9:32:54 GMT -5
There's an undeniably distinct difference between a commercial entity with a right to promote or remove its content at will for any reason and the act of revisionist history. Similarly, ceasing promotion and/or access to material having nothing to do with some accurate historical perspective, but the active promotion of astoundingly false racial propaganda (e.g., characters in comics such as Our Gang, The Spirit, etc.), is not removing or altering real world historical events.
Additionally, where racist material was concerned, black people (and others with a conscience) always found comic book stereotypes deplorable, but their complaints fell on often willfully deaf ears (the equivalent of a "fuck off"), as some comic book creators were never going to see black people as anything other than subservient, garish picaninnies and Sambos. That kind of material was--obviously--never a reflection of or account of real history, so to reiterate, its removal is not some suppression of history.
I won't argue that, but where does it end? We should have access to ALL materials , even if it's only to see how far we've come. I remember reading comics with less than flattering depictions of gay people or fat people. Should those books be pulled was well? It's enough that those types of stories aren't being produced today. I don't believe in suppression of speech. Having access to materials does not mean a company distributes it for exposure as a commercial interest (e.g., collections, reissues, etc, in any medium), as that means the racist material is actively being promoted, and any modern-day disclaimers about its content does not give it the "protection" of being distributed as a historical reference.
One has the ask himself if the work of Eisner, Barks, or any other creator who actively used racist propaganda is so important that it must be commercially distributed / promoted. I say it is not (Oh, the horror), and if anything people behind that content need to become the subjects of a new, in-depth account about this kind of agenda in comics, and let history (and the reaction from those who opposed their work at the time it was published).
|
|
|
Post by Batflunkie on Dec 19, 2023 11:20:08 GMT -5
It's pure entitlement to think the studio owed the public that movie. There are hundreds of possible reasons why they might not have wanted the movie released, and all we have are rumors and innuendo as to those reasons, but the reasons are irrelevant. They don't have to release anything they don't want to and that's not infringing on anyone's rights or taking away something they are owed. The fact that they canned the movie purely for a tax write off negates any kind of ownership entitlement from the studio. Especially when they decided to go ahead with the Flash even after Miller's souring reputation. WB, especially after the Discovery buyout, is a shiftless conglomerate who cares about nothing but the bottom line (though this is not something unique to WB, but capitalism in general. And let me say that I have nothing against capitalism, but rather the people who abuse it for their own personal gain/s) This is a big part of why I continue to purchase DVDs and Blu Rays instead of relying on streaming Well come on down to Goodwill Jeff, we have DVDs and Blu-Rays for 99 cents and TV show boxsets for 5.99! I've already got an entire three tier plastic pull out shelf full of them
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Dec 19, 2023 12:08:07 GMT -5
Right, the creators were contracted by the studio, and since they were and delivered it, it is the studio's decision whether they want to release it to the public or not. That's their decision, not the public's, and not the creators since they were contracted to deliver it to the studio, which they did. The difference between the Batgirl movie and everything else we are talking about, and it's a major difference, is the other works were already released to the public and the decision the publishers/studios are making is whether they should keep it in print. The movie was never released to the public, so it is still within their rights to decide whether it is something they wanted to give out or not. They're not denying access to something that was once available, they're deciding something made upon their impetus was not something they wanted to release to the public. That is in no way censorship or analogous to trying to remove something already out in the public. -M Right. So it’s even worse than making minor changes. They’re denying the public any chance to see the work at all. Denying? Film, books, music and other creations are products either owed by an individual, a partnership (small or large), or a company. In the case of the Batgirl movie, WB--a company--owns it (and all DC properties) outright and has no obligation to release it the public, no matter the motivation. The public is not entitled to see any production at all, and the idea that said public holds any kind of position of entitlement illustrates how the "fan" fan culture has come to believe they hold some unbreakable connection and hold over products they happen to have an interest in.
For example, for all of the gnashing of teeth and cries of "burying history" aimed at George Lucas for not preserving / restoring the negative to the original Star Wars (at one time, I participated on those arguments) and having no intention of ever releasing it (making the "Special Editions" and their numerous changes the official version), he is not obliged to do a single thing fans want regarding that film, yet many of the "restore the 1977 version" crowd (not satisfied with those muddy fan compositions such as Project 4K1977, Harmy's Despecialized Edition, etc.) believe that something sold to the public means they own it or are entitled to control it in some way. They are not.
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Dec 19, 2023 12:28:10 GMT -5
Right. So it’s even worse than making minor changes. They’re denying the public any chance to see the work at all. Denying? Film, books, music and other creations are products either owed by an individual, a partnership (small or large), or a company. In the case of the Batgirl movie, WB--a company--owns it (and all DC properties) outright and has no obligation to release it the public, no matter the motivation. The public is not entitled to see any production at all, and the idea that said public holds any kind of position of entitlement illustrates how the "fan" fan culture has come to believe they hold some unbreakable connection and hold over products they happen to have an interest in.
For example, for all of the gnashing of teeth and cries of "burying history" aimed at George Lucas for not preserving / restoring the negative to the original Star Wars (at one time, I participated on those arguments) and having no intention of ever releasing it (making the "Special Editions" and their numerous changes the official version), he is not obliged to do a single thing fans want regarding that film, yet many of the "restore the 1977 version" crowd (not satisfied with those muddy fan compositions such as Project 4K1977, Harmy's Despecialized Edition, etc.) believe that something sold to the public means they own it or are entitled to control it in some way. They are not.
OK. I guess you can make words mean whatever you want them to mean. The studio is definitely denying the public the ability to see Batgirl. That is the meaning of the word.
|
|
|
Post by tartanphantom on Dec 19, 2023 13:08:53 GMT -5
Denying? Film, books, music and other creations are products either owed by an individual, a partnership (small or large), or a company. In the case of the Batgirl movie, WB--a company--owns it (and all DC properties) outright and has no obligation to release it the public, no matter the motivation. The public is not entitled to see any production at all, and the idea that said public holds any kind of position of entitlement illustrates how the "fan" fan culture has come to believe they hold some unbreakable connection and hold over products they happen to have an interest in.
For example, for all of the gnashing of teeth and cries of "burying history" aimed at George Lucas for not preserving / restoring the negative to the original Star Wars (at one time, I participated on those arguments) and having no intention of ever releasing it (making the "Special Editions" and their numerous changes the official version), he is not obliged to do a single thing fans want regarding that film, yet many of the "restore the 1977 version" crowd (not satisfied with those muddy fan compositions such as Project 4K1977, Harmy's Despecialized Edition, etc.) believe that something sold to the public means they own it or are entitled to control it in some way. They are not.
OK. I guess you can make words mean whatever you want them to mean. The studio is definitely denying the public the ability to see Batgirl. That is the meaning of the word.
I'll have to disagree. A creator, whether an individual or a corporation, is under no obligation whatsoever to release its creative work publicly.
As a songwriter, I have many songs that have never been recorded, released, or even performed live. The simple fact that they exist does not entitle anyone to hear them. If I, as the creator, don't believe that they meet my own criteria for successful release, then you, as the audience have no right to hear them.
The same standards apply to any creative media-- prose, poetry, song, visual arts, film, etc. I'm not speaking specifically for the studio in this case, but the creative process is often a cathartic process. Sometimes, you reach the end and realize that it wasn't meant to be, or that your creation cannot fulfill the role for which you originally intended. Sometimes you get lightning in a bottle, and sometimes you get a dung pile. In many of these cases, that creation will never see the light of day.
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Dec 19, 2023 13:18:49 GMT -5
OK. I guess you can make words mean whatever you want them to mean. The studio is definitely denying the public the ability to see Batgirl. That is the meaning of the word.
I'll have to disagree. A creator, whether an individual or a corporation, is under no obligation whatsoever to release its creative work publicly.
As a songwriter, I have many songs that have never been recorded, released, or even performed live. The simple fact that they exist does not entitle anyone to hear them. If I, as the creator, don't believe that they meet my own criteria for successful release, then you, as the audience have no right to hear them.
The same standards apply to any creative media-- prose, poetry, song, visual arts, film, etc. I'm not speaking specifically for the studio in this case, but the creative process is often a cathartic process. Sometimes, you reach the end and realize that it wasn't meant to be, or that your creation cannot fulfill the role for which you originally intended. Sometimes you get lightning in a bottle, and sometimes you get a dung pile. In many of these cases, that creation will never see the light of day.
You can deny the meaning of words all you want. And you can keep putting words in my mouth all you want. But you can’t change the meaning of “deny.” I guess we’ll all just have to agree to disagree on the meaning of English words.
|
|