|
Post by Batflunkie on Dec 19, 2023 13:35:48 GMT -5
So a fella on the "Marvel Comics In The 70's" facebook group posted some cosplay photos taken from a convention held in the 70's. I thought the most impressive ones were of Nightcrawler and Man-Thing
|
|
Roquefort Raider
CCF Mod Squad
Modus omnibus in rebus
Posts: 17,179
Member is Online
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Dec 19, 2023 14:50:33 GMT -5
So a fella on the "Marvel Comics In The 70's" facebook group posted some cosplay photos taken from a convention held in the 70's. I thought the most impressive ones were of Nightcrawler and Man-Thing That's downright amazing!!! Wow!!!
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Dec 19, 2023 15:28:26 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. You said, "They’re denying the public any chance to see the work at all," which some would say is a belief born of an entitlement mentality about property or product owned and controlled by a corporation. Would-be customers or audiences do not dictate how, when or if a product is released, because there is no obligation any corporation has to would-be customers to release that which they are choosing to place on a shelf or dump.
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Dec 19, 2023 16:09:35 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. You said, "They’re denying the public any chance to see the work at all," which some would say is a belief born of an entitlement mentality about property or product owned and controlled by a corporation. Would-be customers or audiences do not dictate how, when or if a product is released, because there is no obligation any corporation has to would-be customers to release that which they are choosing to place on a shelf or dump. Yeah, but tark, I think you're inferring -- or the classic "some people" are inferring -- an entitlement that Hoosier hasn't expressed. He's just saying that denying someone the ability to see something, no matter the reason, means that the owner/creator/publisher/production company means that they are still not allowing anyone to see it. It's what "deny" means, that's all. It's an issue of semantics, not philosophy.
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Dec 19, 2023 16:10:20 GMT -5
Batgirl is not a finished film. Post production was not completed. No one has a right to see an incomplete movie the studio did not finish. Unless you paid them with the promise they would show it to you, you have not been denied a thing.
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Dec 19, 2023 16:50:45 GMT -5
To deny is "to refuse to give or grant (something requested or desired) to (someone)." Nothing there about having a right to it. In this instance, fans have requested, have been promised, but can't see it. So they're denied. To paraphrase William Munny, "Rights got nothin' to do with it." Now I'm exiting, Stage Left. Crucial things to think about, like whether I should swap tomorrow's entry for Thursday's.
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Dec 19, 2023 17:00:11 GMT -5
To deny is "to refuse to give or grant (something requested or desired) to (someone)." Nothing there about having a right to it. In this instance, fans have requested, have been promised, but can't see it. So they're denied. To paraphrase William Munny, "Rights got nothin' to do with it." Now I'm exiting, Stage Left. Crucial things to think about, like whether I should swap tomorrow's entry for Thursday's. Heavens to Murgatroyd.
|
|
|
Post by impulse on Dec 19, 2023 17:13:41 GMT -5
Yeah, this is a semantics issue. The studio is denying fans from seeing the movie. It's their right to do so, sure. But they're doing it. Nothing about entitlement. And yes, it is their right to not release despite teasing the audience and building anticipation. It's a dick move, but it's their right.
|
|
|
Post by tonebone on Dec 19, 2023 17:30:26 GMT -5
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. I keep reading over your side of the discussion, and I don't think tartanphantom is putting words in your mouth. I think he's perfectly summing up what you're saying, and saying you're wrong. If I went out and shot a movie, and then chose to not show it to anyone, that is indeed "denying" people from seeing it, but it is not wrong. If you PAID to see it, or were contractually entitled to see it and I wouldn't let you, then you would have a case. Maybe you are entitled to see Batgirl, and they are breaking a contract with you and you have a case to make... but I doubt it. Agreeing to disagree is great, but it does not in any way mean both people are correct.
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Dec 19, 2023 17:42:01 GMT -5
To deny is "to refuse to give or grant (something requested or desired) to (someone)." Nothing there about having a right to it. In this instance, fans have requested, have been promised, but can't see it. So they're denied. To paraphrase William Munny, "Rights got nothin' to do with it." Now I'm exiting, Stage Left. Crucial things to think about, like whether I should swap tomorrow's entry for Thursday's. Sure, by the very literal definition fans were denied the ability to see Batgirl. But that doesn't make it a legitimate gripe. This all goes back to Neil Gaiman's observation: "George R. R. Martin is not your bitch." Now, Warner Brothers isn't nearly as sympathetic as Martin, but the same sentiment applies; at the end of the day WB doesn't really owe fans anything. If they choose not to release a film for whatever reason then that's entirely their prerogative and that you(or anyone) might want to see it despite that means squat.
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Dec 19, 2023 17:53:49 GMT -5
Would somebody respond to something that I actually said? It would be very refreshing.
|
|
|
Post by Batflunkie on Dec 19, 2023 18:09:26 GMT -5
Sure, by the very literal definition fans were denied the ability to see Batgirl. But that doesn't make it a legitimate gripe. This all goes back to Neil Gaiman's observation: "George R. R. Martin is not your bitch." Now, Warner Brothers isn't nearly as sympathetic as Martin, but the same sentiment applies; at the end of the day WB doesn't really owe fans anything. If they choose not to release a film for whatever reason then that's entirely their prerogative and that you(or anyone) might want to see it despite that means squat. This reminds me a lot of the semi-recent leak of the 2001 version of Duke Nukem Forever, the game that subsequently bankrupted Apogee/3D Realms and was promised to be released by Randy Pitchford of Gearbox, but never done. If it saw the light of day when it was supposed to, it could have very well have been revolutionary in the FPS genre much like Half-Life When it's an actual person behind the work, I don't think people are owned anything. An artist creates, if people like the work, that's just frosting on the cake. I think it's different when it's a corporation because they just farm stuff out and produce stuff at the expense of everyone else
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Dec 19, 2023 18:28:44 GMT -5
Would somebody respond to something that I actually said? It would be very refreshing. I think we are? Maybe we're misunderstanding what you're saying. To me, saying that you feel that you're being "denied" an experience because WB decided not to release a film feels like entitlement. If that's not your point I apologize but that's what I got from your posts.
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Dec 19, 2023 18:31:34 GMT -5
Sure, by the very literal definition fans were denied the ability to see Batgirl. But that doesn't make it a legitimate gripe. This all goes back to Neil Gaiman's observation: "George R. R. Martin is not your bitch." Now, Warner Brothers isn't nearly as sympathetic as Martin, but the same sentiment applies; at the end of the day WB doesn't really owe fans anything. If they choose not to release a film for whatever reason then that's entirely their prerogative and that you(or anyone) might want to see it despite that means squat. This reminds me a lot of the semi-recent leak of the 2001 version of Duke Nukem Forever, the game that subsequently bankrupted Apogee/3D Realms and was promised to be released by Randy Pitchford of Gearbox, but never done. If it saw the light of day when it was supposed to, it could have very well have been revolutionary in the FPS genre much like Half-Life When it's an actual person behind the work, I don't think people are owned anything. An artist creates, if people like the work, that's just frosting on the cake. I think it's different when it's a corporation because they just farm stuff out and produce stuff at the expense of everyone else It's not different though, as I said a cooperation is certainly a far less sympathetic figure than a lone artist but at the end of the day it's exactly the same.
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Dec 19, 2023 18:58:51 GMT -5
Would somebody respond to something that I actually said? It would be very refreshing. I think we are? Maybe we're misunderstanding what you're saying. To me, saying that you feel that you're being "denied" an experience because WB decided not to release a film feels like entitlement. If that's not your point I apologize but that's what I got from your posts. Like I said, I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree about what English words mean.
|
|