That would mean that it can't be criticized.
post #51 of 248
8/22/08 at 10:04pm
Be a part of the community.
It's free, join today!
|
That's a kinda shitty assessment. I'm not sure, but it would seem to me that guys who are as skilled as some of the ones linked here are actually professionals who make these stills in their spare time. In fact I'll bet that plenty of them have a lot of original work under their belt that doesn't sell.
Seems like a bit of a strawman to me. |
| Unhappy the land that needs heroes,’ Galileo says in Brecht’s play of that name. Galileo wasn’t thinking of superheroes, of course, but Jonathan and Christopher Nolan, the writers of The Dark Knight, the new Batman movie, are certainly thinking along Galileo’s lines. What is Gotham City to do without a hero, since organised crime is always, it seems, far too much for the official institutions of law and order to handle? Yet what is it to do with a hero, when his sheer success with the old criminals attracts new ones, drawn to the challenge like gunslingers in the old West who have heard tell of the fastest gun alive? Actually, the hero’s success in this movie attracts only one new criminal, but that’s enough, since he is a brilliant and genuinely frightening incarnation of the Joker, the best psychopath in movies since Tarantino’s Reservoir Dogs, a man for whom crime is a gratuitous act, neither reward nor compensation but merely the playing out of a huge, perverse pleasure. At one point he climbs, slides down and then burns a mountain of banknotes, to the consternation of his supposed partners, the consolidated mobs of Gotham. It’s alright, he informs them with a cackle, he is burning only his half of the proceeds. The background to this event is an anecdote-cum-fable that Michael Caine, as the faithful servant Alfred, tells Christian Bale as Bruce Wayne. There was a bandit in Burma, apparently, who stole jewels at will from almost everyone and was never caught – because he didn’t want and didn’t keep the jewels, he just stole them because he could. Alfred understands, as Wayne doesn’t, even in his other life as Batman, that there are minds bereft of what anyone else would call a motive. |

|
It is pathetic. I feel the same way about people who game master role playing games. The use all this creativity that could be used to making up their own story. It might be terrible, but at least it would be theirs.
|
|
Professionals do not have time to waste making bogus Catwoman costumes unless they are being paid to do so
|
|
I do fan art some times. Does that mean I'm a cocksucker too?
Maybe it just means I'm bored. |
|
Great. I looked at those posters and now need to take a wet-nap to my eyes, and the Breakfast at Tiffany's thing is patently absurd. Now I hate the internet again.
EDIT: Yeah, I haven't heard any really interesting conversation about TDK. It's all been speculative fanwank, really. I even had to listen to a guy at the barbershop prattle on and on back-to-back to two different barbers about it - nothing in-depth and interesting, just arguing over whether or not Dent was dead and how he really liked Sharon Stone's turn as Catwoman in Batman Returns. They really shouldn't keep straight razors in such close proximity to annoying hipsters. |
|
Because the people who own the property are paying the people making the film.
|
|
Originally Posted by Devin
There's a hell of a lot happening in The Dark Knight, stuff that lends itself to analysis and dissection
|
|
Giving artistic integrity a solid legal basis? Spectacular! Now someone tell me how Rob Zombie's Halloween and the Daredevil film are better pieces of art than most fan fiction. Something besides "they got paid".
Yes, all fanfic is shit, but some fanfic is legally sanctioned. |
|
Those fan-made BATMAN 3 posters aren't really any worse than what the studios give us 3/4 of the time.
|
|
Since I'm new here as a forums member, can someone fill me in on this Alex Billington person and why he's a horrible cocksucker? I'm sure Devin would not call him that in an article without good cause, but so far all I get from this article is that he lives at home with his folks.
|
|
No, cash money does not equal artistic validation. But, if the trustees of a property choose you to tell a story with their valued property, that is a form of validation. And it will get out there in some form, people will be exposed to it, and some people will probably like it. Unless it is HALLOWEEN RESURRECTION.
|
|
The argument made earlier in the thread was that fan fic/art is pathetic because it's inherently non-creative and leeching off the work of others. I just don't see how this validation you speak of changes that. If I was paid to redo Halloween or Friday the 13th, I'm still co-opting the work done by others. Aren't I?
|
|
I never said fanfic was not creative. It's just misguided creativity. If you have a story to tell, and you populate that story with characters that you do not have permission to use, you are in effect, denying its full potential.
|
|
What potential exactly? Its artistic potential or its marketing potential?
And those people who write books, movies and comics...you know that they regularly use characters and worlds that they didn't create, right? Hell, look at the two movies in the title of this thread. Is their creativity misguided? According to this logic, the only real difference I'm seeing is that one group gets paid and the other doesn't. And suddenly "the world at large", that constant recipient of scorn for its taste in movies, and "fun toys", of which I'm sure CHUD favorites Shawn Levy and Paul WS Anderson have many, make attempts at creativity less pathetic. This is quite a bit of pseudo-intellectual bullshit just to rationalize yet another round of petty hate for lower-tier geeks. Might have been better if you'd posted up a pic of a cosplayer and written "LOL! FAG!" underneath. |

|
Jesus Christ did you ever miss the point. You know what's a waste of my creative energy? Dealing with you. Knock yourself out with the fanficking.
|
|
That's a cop out, and you're a better poster than that.
There is all kinds of putrid fan fiction (personal favorite? Scott Bakula's character quantum leaps into Starsky's body and fucks Hutch. Not kidding), but everyone keeps coming back to "getting paid" as the validation. By the definitions given so far, a spec script is fan fiction until it sells. So it's to be scorned until someone cuts a check. |
|
The thing is that playing with other people's toys is only worthwhile for money. It's always more satisfying as an artist to do your own thing. Again, you'd think it was weird if people spent their free time designing new Birdseye packaging.
|
|
I guess, but then you're singling out someone's passions as weird and, well, you've been singing that song for a good long while.
Most fanfic exists because it plays with situations that will never see the light of day, but 99% of what 99% of would-be writers write won't sell anyway. (Note: I made up those figures, but I think they're close enough.) So the realm of "fanfic" is one of motivation and intent - the exact same piece of output is sad and weird if it's a hobby, but it's legit if you want to sell it. Zach Snyder's entire filmic output is "only worthwhile for money"? |