|
Post by Hoosier X on Dec 19, 2023 19:06:43 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. So I’m very curious. This question is open to everybody. What word do you use if someone tells you “no” when you don’t have any right to what you’re requesting? To me, “deny” works fine. But apparently there’s some other word that I’m not aware of. Anybody?
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,761
|
Post by shaxper on Dec 19, 2023 21:40:00 GMT -5
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.
I think this ventures into a different conversation than the one about Batgirl because Star Wars is effectively American Mythology at this point. In fact, I'm teaching a unit in my Mythology class right now on this, so I'm willing to call myself a semi-expert here. When we want to write a book about Zeus, Osiris, or Beowulf, you don't have to get the rights from someone, but if you want to write about Superman or Luke Skywalker, oh boy. At this point, they are a critical part of our cultural history, and there's nothing wrong with those who created them (or at least funded/bought them) continuing to profit from their creation, but the idea that they can then go back and change those stories or delete them all together is wrong. It's legally right, but it's morally wrong. It is our heritage. Thank God no one copyrighted The Bible. Of course, none of this has anything to do with the Batgirl film. 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. I think I hear you, Hoosier X. I'll return to the point I made earlier that modern day film studios create a a culture of hype and teasing in order to promote their films. They dangle bits and pieces in front of the fan base with the explicit intention of making the fans demand to see more. It's like teasing a starving wolf by dangling meat in front of it. If you don't eventually deliver the meat, you're going to get bit. The studios condition the fans to demand and expect to to see these works; they try their best to make fans believe their lives will be incomplete if they don't see these films. If fans torture themselves for long months waiting for opening night, that's a big win for the studios. They effectively made a promise to the fans and then bailed on it. It's legally within their right, but it's also morally wrong. No one hacked into WB's computers, found footage from an unfinished film, and then demanded to see the rest. They are demanding because WB baited them with the explicit intent of creating demand. And, as a final point, I think everyone defending WB here is a whole lot more concerned about the fans' outrage on this matter than WB is, itself. And that's exactly the point.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Dec 20, 2023 1:08:18 GMT -5
All I know is that I wish the studio had denied me Superman IV...
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Dec 20, 2023 1:51:25 GMT -5
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.
I think this ventures into a different conversation than the one about Batgirl because Star Wars is effectively American Mythology at this point. In fact, I'm teaching a unit in my Mythology class right now on this, so I'm willing to call myself a semi-expert here. When we want to write a book about Zeus, Osiris, or Beowulf, you don't have to get the rights from someone, but if you want to write about Superman or Luke Skywalker, oh boy. At this point, they are a critical part of our cultural history, and there's nothing wrong with those who created them (or at least funded/bought them) continuing to profit from their creation, but the idea that they can then go back and change those stories or delete them all together is wrong. It's legally right, but it's morally wrong. It is our heritage. Thank God no one copyrighted The Bible. Of course, none of this has anything to do with the Batgirl film. 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. I think I hear you, Hoosier X . I'll return to the point I made earlier that modern day film studios create a a culture of hype and teasing in order to promote their films. They dangle bits and pieces in front of the fan base with the explicit intention of making the fans demand to see more. It's like teasing a starving wolf by dangling meat in front of it. If you don't eventually deliver the meat, you're going to get bit. The studios condition the fans to demand and expect to to see these works; they try their best to make fans believe their lives will be incomplete if they don't see these films. If fans torture themselves for long months waiting for opening night, that's a big win for the studios. They effectively made a promise to the fans and then bailed on it. It's legally within their right, but it's also morally wrong. No one hacked into WB's computers, found footage from an unfinished film, and then demanded to see the rest. They are demanding because WB baited them with the explicit intent of creating demand. And, as a final point, I think everyone defending WB here is a whole lot more concerned about the fans' outrage on this matter than WB is, itself. And that's exactly the point. I'm not sure I buy the comparison of Star Wars as American Myth and the tales of the Greek or Egyptian gods, or folktales like Beowulf. The latter are parts of oral traditions handed down through generations by the community at large, whereas George Lucas is the creator of Star Wars and everyone else who has worked within that universe was invited to do so by Lucas or his representatives. We may share the experience of Star Wars with later generations; but, other than our own fan fiction, we are not adding to the storytelling traditions. I think a level of artistic ownership exists within Star Wars that does not in the Greek pantheon, regardless of the copyright laws. In the same way, the Arthurian legends are a communal thing; but, Thomas Mallory's specific telling, via Le Morte d' Arthur, is not a communal thing; though it has become so, with the passage of time. I also don't see anything morally wrong with the creator wanting to go back and make changes. I think it demonstrates an insecurity with the work's legacy or perception to the audience and they will likely find it is a hollow effort; but, it is their work to enhance or ruin. In regards to the WB and Batgirl situation, I have no idea in what finished state the movie was; but, they cancelled the project. It was their money financing it. I haven't paid a thing for it, so I have no rights. Had they pre-sold tickets and I purchased one, then I might feel some sense of entitlement; at least my money back. When studios and networks cancel a tv series, I don't have a sense that I should get to see any remaining episodes, in whatever stage they were in, for broadcast. It is just, "Well, that's that. What else is on?" Now, if it was a serialized story, ending on a cliffhanger (like, say, the Alien Nation tv series) I might want closure, in some form (such as the tie-in novel that was done, that picked up the story and resolved the cliffhanger). When NBC cancelled Kenneth Johnson's Cliffhangers, two of the 3 segments were unfinished and the final episode did not air in the US. I was okay with that, as, quite frankly, the part that was finished (Dracula) was the only really good segment (though I enjoyed The Secret Empire). Later, I got my hands on a bootleg and watched the final episode and was somewhat underwhelmed. You could see why they only let Dracula go to a finish, before pulling the plug. By the same token, I was a bit unhappy that the various home video versions of Escape From New York did not include the opening bank robbery, which establishes why Snake Plisken is being sent to the New York prison. I had read the novelization and it seemed important to the story. It was included on laser disc and a later special edition dvd, complete with commentary, but not integrated into the film. After watching it, i understood why it was cut as it was kind of slow, and losing it and starting with the President's plane going down and Hauk summarizing Plisken's military background and crimes did the job much better. The reason it worked in the book was because it got inside Snake's head, the way a movie couldn't. All that is to say, I wasn't owed any of that, no matter how I felt and there was no moral obligation to preserve that material. As a bookseller for 20 years, and as a former naval; officer, who took an oath to defend the Constitution, against all enemies, foreign and domestic, I take the First Amendment quite seriously. It gives the Freedom to express one's ideas and views, through speech or whatever method. It does not give the audience any right to force the person to speak (or express) if they don't want to (leaving aside a subpoena for testimony, in a court of law). For that reason, I don't see where a rightsholder withholding future publication of what they consider a past mistake is a stifling of speech. It is imposed from within, not without. I sold many things I found morally reprehensible; but, the publishers felt there was an audience; and, in a free society, that audience has the right to experience that work. Some of those, like Mein Kampf, deserved to be studied so that people could see, in Hitler's own words, the vile things that led to the deaths of millions of people. There is a legitimate historical purpose there. There is not in an Uncle Scrooge story that was a minor segment of a larger body and one that has been considered problematic for some time. At Barnes & Noble, we had copies of Little Black Sambo, a book I would gladly see gone; but, in choosing to take a stance to defend the First Amendment, we had an obligation to make it available to the public, from the publisher who felt it was worthy to remain in print. had said publisher decided to withdraw it, we would have been quite happy and the bulk of the audience would applaud, aside from a small few, with an unrelated agenda, who would use it for political grounds. I think it is a good thing for a society to take a step back and examine its past and say, you know, we made mistakes and should not perpetuate them. Not publishing Bombi doesn't erase slavery from history or even the fact that highly popular commercial properties used negative and racist imagery any more than not making Coal Black and de Sebbin Dwarves available for home video erased the fact that Warner Bros made some racist cartoons. Prints still exist of it for academic and cultural discussion, but it is not available for commercial gain. The same is true for Bombi. The original printings exist and are housed in libraries and private homes, available for study and discourse and nothing says Disney couldn't make available copies of the work for such purpose, while making some requirements that they not be redistributed beyond excerpts to illustrate discussion. Living peacefully within a society means making compromises and not all such situations are equal. Some require an explicit adherence to the letter and spirit of the law and others require a further examination to determine what is the consensus of the majority and best for society to move ahead. Compromise is never fully satisfying, but it sure beats open warfare. (that's compromise, not appeasement...they are two different things).
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Dec 20, 2023 1:52:02 GMT -5
All I know is that I wish the studio had denied me Superman IV... I deny it for myself.
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Dec 20, 2023 7:45:32 GMT -5
I do know HBO denied me a good ending to Game of Thrones.
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Dec 20, 2023 9:07:43 GMT -5
I do know HBO denied me a good ending to Game of Thrones. The only thing a media company owes anybody is to keep its racist imagery always in print without ever tampering with it.
|
|
|
Post by impulse on Dec 20, 2023 9:39:37 GMT -5
I don't understand all of the comments calling people entitled or suggesting anyone here is saying they have a right to the Batgirl movie. Unless I missed a post, literally nobody here is saying that, so it seems like an argument against a point no one is actually making.
Obviously WB has the right to shelve the movie. Nobody is saying they don't. The public and fans of the character who were looking forward to it (because WB promoted it) have a right to be disappointed or annoyed, especially if the rumors are true and it was shelved because a huge company wanted a tax break. I don't see what the problem is.
Also, while it is their right, it super extremely mega sucks for the dozens/hundreds of VFX workers, audio folks, costumers, etc, because this effectively screws them over. A couple of years of their lives went to creating something, but since it is canned and WB refuses to release it any capacity, that is potentially a couple years of work experience lost they can't use on their reel, etc. It takes a few points off their resumes and their ability to get future work, in any case.
None of this is to say WB is not within their rights to pull the plug on a highly-anticipated movie featuring a popular character that they had a hand in generating fan investment in and in the process kind of dicking over potentially hundreds of industry employees. They are certainly entitled to do so.
And people are absolutely perfectly entitled to think that's shitty, even if they are allowed to do it.
|
|
|
Post by impulse on Dec 20, 2023 9:41:21 GMT -5
I do know HBO denied me a good ending to Game of Thrones. Oooh! Ooh! I get to "well, ACTUALLY" this one, even though I know you were just making a joke. From what I understand, HBO was all but begging the creators to stay and were willing to give them as much time and money as they needed. The creators were just checked out and over it, so they rushed through it despite this because they got their deal at Netflix (and maybe Star Wars, I forget), but after shitting the bed so spectacularly, I believe both were cancelled. I wish HBO had denied me that ending. Ugh...
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on Dec 20, 2023 9:44:52 GMT -5
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. So I’m very curious. This question is open to everybody. What word do you use if someone tells you “no” when you don’t have any right to what you’re requesting? To me, “deny” works fine. But apparently there’s some other word that I’m not aware of. Anybody? In personal context, as I had no idea there was even a Batgirl movie being made at any point, if I ask my wife for something, from closing the bedroom door to going to run an errand, neither of either of those or anything in between, is her obligation, if she replies "no" (and gives me a reason why it's "no") I would call it noncompliance. Because for the most part, most requests I make of her are not permanent to my continued contentment. Her: "I am cramping, maybe tomorrow." "I have a migraine I can't drive now." I would personally associate "deny" with something that is quite expected (for whatever reason) but not given. Me: "Sugar I am feeling a pain in my abdomen (my appendicitis when I had it) would you take me to the ER?"
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Dec 20, 2023 10:49:14 GMT -5
I do know HBO denied me a good ending to Game of Thrones. Oooh! Ooh! I get to "well, ACTUALLY" this one, even though I know you were just making a joke. From what I understand, HBO was all but begging the creators to stay and were willing to give them as much time and money as they needed. The creators were just checked out and over it, so they rushed through it despite this because they got their deal at Netflix (and maybe Star Wars, I forget), but after shitting the bed so spectacularly, I believe both were cancelled. I wish HBO had denied me that ending. Ugh... Never watched more than five minutes of GOT, but inquiring minds are intrigued. Did the GOT people end their series the same way Combat Kelly and the Deadly Dozen wrapped up their series?
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Dec 20, 2023 11:05:26 GMT -5
If you just look at the dictionary definition of denied; "refuse to give or grant (something requested or desired) to (someone)" then, yeah, it fits. But, to me, there is some implication in there that you have some claim on or right to access to that thing. Maybe that's just me reading too much in to it, but I think that's what is happening here...a lot of people are seeing that sense of entitlement. Hoosier says that's not what he means and I believe him. So I think that people are talking past each other.
I'm all for slagging corporations and David Zaslav, the head of Warner's, is a jack-wagon of the highest order and has no business overseeing anything creative after he absolutely destroyed The Discovery Channel. But that's America.
As to the Ducks issue...Well it appears it isn't the Barks story, Voodoo Hoodoo, which has been censored almost every time it has been reprinted in the past, but two Don Rosa stories with Bombie the Zombie. But...here's the rub. As best I can find there is a CBR story that cites another CBR story that cites a tweet that cites to a Facebook group post about an email to Don Rosa telling him that they would no longer be published. No sign of the actual e-mail. Or of any actual news release. That's a hell of a game of telephone tag. If there's something less tenuous out there than that, I can't find it.
Ultimately, copyright holders get to decide if stuff is published or not. If you don't like it, lobby Congress for shorter copyrights.
|
|
|
Post by impulse on Dec 20, 2023 11:22:33 GMT -5
If you just look at the dictionary definition of denied; "refuse to give or grant (something requested or desired) to (someone)" then, yeah, it fits. But, to me, there is some implication in the that you have some claim on or right to access to that thing. Maybe that's just me reading too much in to it, but I think that's what is happening here...a lot of people are seeing that sense of entitlement. Hoosier says that's not what he means and I believe him. So I think that people are talking past each other. I'm all for slagging corporations and David Zaslav, the head of Warner's, is a jack-wagon of the highest order and has no business overseeing anything creative after he absolutely destroyed The Discovery Channel. But that's America. As to the Ducks issue...Well it appears it isn't the Barks story, Voodoo Hoodoo, which has been censored almost every time it has been reprinted in the past, but two Don Rosa stories with Bombie the Zombie. But...here's the rub. As best I can find there is a CBR story that cites another CBR story that cites a tweet that to a Facebook group post about an email to Don Rosa telling him that they would no longer be published. No sign of the actual e-mail. Or of any actual news release. That's a hell of a game of telephone tag. If there's something less tenuous out there than that, I can't find it. Ultimately, copyright holders get to decide if stuff is published or not. If you don't like it, lobby Congress for shorter copyrights. This is a good observation and well said. I do think there is a discussion to be had about some level of expectation (but not obligation) existing. It would be one thing if someone asked WB to make a Batgirl movie and they just said no. In this case, random audience person was minding their own business and WB said hey we're going to give you this! And teased and promoted it and got audience invested, and then went ehhh you know what, never mind. They are worse off than if WB had just done nothing. Totally within their rights, absolutely, but the random audience person wasn't just expecting a Batgirl movie for no reason out of the clear blue sky. If someone offers to do something for you, gets you invested and then blows it off, I feel like being annoyed about that is reasonable while not obligating anyone to anything. Did the GOT people end their series the same way Combat Kelly and the Deadly Dozen wrapped up their series? I haven't read that series, so I'm not sure, but if it looked anything like two adults absolutely shitting the bed, then, yes!
|
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,082
|
Post by Confessor on Dec 20, 2023 12:08:54 GMT -5
I liked the ending of Game of Thrones. It made a lot of sense to me.
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Dec 20, 2023 12:41:45 GMT -5
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. That's the point--it is not "wrong" in any way for the owner of a product to choose not to sell or present their property, as the owner has no obligation to would-be customers, yet the tone of some posts leans in the direction of judging the owner's actions as "wrong".
|
|