|
Post by Hoosier X on Dec 20, 2023 12:52:41 GMT -5
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". The people who worked on the film might disagree with you.
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Dec 20, 2023 12:57:06 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. "...always in print" is a commercial concern, and no company needs to continue to earn a cent from the perpetuation of racist propaganda which played a significant role in the divisive chaos of most societies. No one is "owed" that.
If someone is so interested in racist propaganda created by studios and publishers of the past, they have the ability to locate the material on the secondary market, but no should not have an expectation that a current studio or publisher is under any nonexistent obligation (in reference to "owes") to unearth and/or continue to commercially produce offensive, destructive content.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Dec 20, 2023 13:01:26 GMT -5
I do know HBO denied me a good ending to Game of Thrones. Well, considering that George RR Martin can't seem to end it, be thankful for what you got.
|
|
|
Post by MDG on Dec 20, 2023 13:24:34 GMT -5
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. Spare us your legal mumbo-jumbo!
One thing that's hitting me is that unlike other works that were shelved/cancelled late in the game--Veitch's Swamp Thing meets Jesus story, the original end of Dark Phoenix, and Corman's FF movie come to mind--is that the main arguments seem to be around what fan's want and deserve, rather than fairness to the creatives who made the Batgirl movie.
As I approach middle age ( ) I'm kinda shocked at how much people are wrapped up in "entertainment".
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Dec 20, 2023 13:44:15 GMT -5
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. Spare us your legal mumbo-jumbo!
One thing that's hitting me is that unlike other works that were shelved/cancelled late in the game--Veitch's Swamp Thing meets Jesus story, the original end of Dark Phoenix, and Corman's FF movie come to mind--is that the main arguments seem to be around what fan's want and deserve, rather than fairness to the creatives who made the Batgirl movie.
As I approach middle age ( ) I'm kinda shocked at how much people are wrapped up in "entertainment". There's certainly a bit of "I was led to expect this so where is it" happening that yields that sense of entitlement. The interesting thing about Veitch's Swamp Thing is that it not only denied Veitch the chance to finish his story (for bullshit reasons) but also Neil Gaiman not writing for Swamp Thing in solidarity with Veitch.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Dec 20, 2023 18:04:19 GMT -5
Spare us your legal mumbo-jumbo!
One thing that's hitting me is that unlike other works that were shelved/cancelled late in the game--Veitch's Swamp Thing meets Jesus story, the original end of Dark Phoenix, and Corman's FF movie come to mind--is that the main arguments seem to be around what fan's want and deserve, rather than fairness to the creatives who made the Batgirl movie.
As I approach middle age ( ) I'm kinda shocked at how much people are wrapped up in "entertainment". There's certainly a bit of "I was led to expect this so where is it" happening that yields that sense of entitlement. The interesting thing about Veitch's Swamp Thing is that it not only denied Veitch the chance to finish his story (for bullshit reasons) but also Neil Gaiman not writing for Swamp Thing in solidarity with Veitch. And then his artwork was stolen from the DC offices, allegedly (or has that been debunked and I missed it?)
|
|
|
Post by Batflunkie on Dec 20, 2023 20:47:29 GMT -5
I do know HBO denied me a good ending to Game of Thrones. You know, while I'm all for the people who work on things getting fair wages, I'm still mad that the writer's strike of 2006 ruined Heroes. It was just so sad to see something with so much promise fall flat on it's face
|
|
|
Post by Duragizer on Dec 20, 2023 21:25:40 GMT -5
I do know HBO denied me a good ending to Game of Thrones. You know, while I'm all for the people who work on things getting fair wages, I'm still mad that the writer's strike of 2006 ruined Heroes. It was just so sad to see something with so much promise fall flat on it's face I believe the writer's strike only compounded a problem that was already there. Tim Kring would've shit the bed eventually regardless.
|
|
|
Post by Rags on Dec 20, 2023 21:45:41 GMT -5
I wish they would stop calling certain comics 'rare' when you see 3-5 copies in assorted grades being listed on Ebay every week, throughout the year. There's certainly not a shortage of them even if Chuckles at Mile High doesn't have a copy in stock.
|
|
|
Post by tonebone on Dec 20, 2023 21:53:07 GMT -5
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". The people who worked on the film might disagree with you. Still doesn't mean anyone is entitled to see it. I can't even count the number of video/computer game projects I have worked on, sometimes almost to completion, that never made it to the public. That's just the way it goes. It wasn't my money that paid for them, so I can't even show them to anyone. Just the occupational hazard of working on projects for an employer who holds all the cards and money.
|
|
|
Post by tonebone on Dec 20, 2023 21:54:08 GMT -5
I wish they would stop calling certain comics 'rare' when you see 3-5 copies in assorted grades being listed on Ebay every week, throughout the year. There's certainly not a shortage of them even if Chuckles at Mile High doesn't have a copy in stock. EVERYTHING on Ebay is vintage, rare and like new.
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Dec 20, 2023 22:01:58 GMT -5
The people who worked on the film might disagree with you. Still doesn't mean anyone is entitled to see it. I can't even count the number of video/computer game projects I have worked on, sometimes almost to completion, that never made it to the public. That's just the way it goes. It wasn't my money that paid for them, so I can't even show them to anyone. Just the occupational hazard of working on projects for an employer who holds all the cards and money. And I’m sure you were always perfectly happy with it! It’s wonderful that you’re so content and happy that those people have complete control over so many of your artistic efforts!
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Dec 20, 2023 23:05:40 GMT -5
Still doesn't mean anyone is entitled to see it. Precisely. Agreed. The majority of people who worked on a film or TV series were paid for their labor, which is the central expectation in the employer/employee relationship. Whether or not a project is released has no bearing on that contract which guaranteed the worker would be paid for services rendered. The argument that somehow those who worked on a project are somehow hurt /shortchanged by a product never seeing release just sounds like cover for the fan to still make an argument laced in entitlement. *shrugs*
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Dec 21, 2023 0:32:17 GMT -5
Still doesn't mean anyone is entitled to see it. Precisely. Agreed. The majority of people who worked on a film or TV series were paid for their labor, which is the central expectation in the employer/employee relationship. Whether or not a project is released has no bearing on that contract which guaranteed the worker would be paid for services rendered. The argument that somehow those who worked on a project are somehow hurt /shortchanged by a product never seeing release just sounds like cover for the fan to still make an argument laced in entitlement. *shrugs* I get that if you are paid for the work you did, the contract has been fulfilled. However, if the final product is never released, the possibility certainly does exist that he or she is hurt /shortchanged because no potential future employer can see what the worker did, how well it was done and so forth. Claiming that you did fine work on the script or the CGI or the costumes or the fight choreography for "Ratgirl" doesn't mean bupkis if you can't show it as proof.
|
|
|
Post by MRPs_Missives on Dec 21, 2023 1:40:57 GMT -5
Precisely. Agreed. The majority of people who worked on a film or TV series were paid for their labor, which is the central expectation in the employer/employee relationship. Whether or not a project is released has no bearing on that contract which guaranteed the worker would be paid for services rendered. The argument that somehow those who worked on a project are somehow hurt /shortchanged by a product never seeing release just sounds like cover for the fan to still make an argument laced in entitlement. *shrugs* I get that if you are paid for the work you did, the contract has been fulfilled. However, if the final product is never released, the possibility certainly does exist that he or she is hurt /shortchanged because no potential future employer can see what the worker did, how well it was done and so forth. Claiming that you did fine work on the script or the CGI or the costumes or the fight choreography for "Ratgirl" doesn't mean bupkis if you can't show it as proof. When I was freelancing in the rpg industry, I had 2 projects canned after I had written them-one because Gygax's widow pulled the license from the publisher shortly after Gary died and one because the art director embezzled close to $20K in money he was supposed to use to hire artists to produce art for the project and disappeared to parts unknown. In the first case, the contract was pay upon publication and since it was never published, I never got paid for the 100K work manuscript. The other was pay upon delivery, so I got paid my agreed upon fee, but did not have a completed project to add to my resume, as you noted. I also had 2 projects cancelled as I was in the midst of writing them (60K words into one, only about 10K into the other) both because WotC had announced they were making a new edition of D&D and these were projects with 3rd party publishers for the previous edition and would not make it to market in time to have any shelf life to even potentially be profitable for the publisher. All of them were business decisions but in only one of them was someone actively denying someone something (Gary's widow, who thought the deal Gary had negotiated with the publisher wasn't lucrative enough and demanded a renegotiation or she would deny the rights for his IP to the publisher, which is what ended up happening). Sure it was rough, but you know what your contract says, and you go in with your eyes open knowing that any project can fall through at any time for any reason even after it has been green lit, gone into production, or is even completed and waiting release. It's the nature of the beast in any creative industry where the creator is not the one securing access to the market for the created product. And most of the time (and there are exceptions like in the case of the Gygax widow), the intent behind the decision is not to deny someone access to something, it's some fiscal matter only accountants or PR/brand managers know or care about where there have been changes in the market and revenue projections that make the product far less attractive to someone concerned about the bottom line or the "health" of the brand. The end result is potential customers don't get the product, the thing is, there are thousands upon thousands of potential products that never make it to market each year, and potential customers (and/or fans) never say a peep because they never know about them and don't set unrealistic expectations about them. If the Batgirl movie had been pitched, approved, gone into production, gotten filmed, gotten previewed by the studio and then shelved/canned without there having been panels and such as San Diego/NYC and other comic events, and had casting announcements, etc, to build hype and customer awareness, no one would have said a peep about it being shelved. But those things cause people to set unrealistic expectations about its actual release, unrealistic because most are unaware of the reality of the plethora of things that can get in the way of a project before the product is released that prevent that from happening, and that until it is actually released, nothing about that project is guaranteed. But like many things, disappointment stems from unrealistic expectations not being met (even if the person is unaware their expectations are unrealistic) because they don't consider or choose to ignore the nature of the beast I mentioned above about such creative endeavors in a capitalist society where the bottom line is the deciding factor in all such projects, especially those by companies that have to answer to shareholders. And potential customers are not the only ones who have unrealistic expectations, many times the creatives do as well, who don't have their eyes wide open when thy sign contracts to sign on to such projects, or think that those kind of things can't happen to this project because "reasons" or what not. It absolutely sucks to be a creator on the wrong end of such occurrences, I can tell you from personal experiences-it's one of the major reasons I stopped doing freelance work in the rpg industry over 15 years ago. It sucks to be on the wrong side of it as a fan as well. But again it's the nature of the beast and its going to happen whether people like it or not, and for myriads of reasons that usually have little to do with those put out by the press, disgruntled/disappointed creators and fans, etc. and only on the very rarest of occasions does it have anything to do with anyone denying something to someone else. That feeling usually stems from unrealistic expectations not being met, and its understandable, but it doesn't make it an accurate assessment of the situation. Unfortunately I have been burned enough times, I had to learn how to manage my expectations better in this area. If you are setting expectations based on hype at any point before the product actually reaches the market, you've forgotten the basic tenet of "Never believe the hype until it produces something that is in the wild and you can see it/experience it and judge it for yourself." -M
|
|