I guess I'm missing something here. I think this post itself is taking no risks, because it doesn't specify which popular entertainment I'm supposed to dislike. It was written back in 2017, so it...
I guess I'm missing something here. I think this post itself is taking no risks, because it doesn't specify which popular entertainment I'm supposed to dislike. It was written back in 2017, so it isn't talking about live-action Ahsoka for example.
Let's guess what exactly it is praising and what it is criticizing. It implies that The Hobbit was good. And Don Quixote was good.
Maybe there's too much Star Wars. Ok, so I guess Andor wasn't good after all.
Was The Wizard of Oz good? Maybe Frank Baum's books were ok. Was the 1930's movie ok? Maybe the sequel with Mila Kunis was bad because of capitalism.
I mean, I'm just not understanding the post. Yes, a lot of art isn't good. A lot of entertainment isn't good. But I'm going to say that maybe it's because a lot of artists aren't very talented, not because it's mass produced or something. You know what else was mass produced for money? Music by Bach and art by Da Vinci.
It's not – Ursula K. Le Guin was an author who died in 2018 (see Wikipedia). The criticism is essentially of the Disney model – for whom it is all about intellectual property. In their model, once...
It's not – Ursula K. Le Guin was an author who died in 2018 (see Wikipedia). The criticism is essentially of the Disney model – for whom it is all about intellectual property. In their model, once you have the IP, it will produce on-demand, and artistic considerations, creativity, etc. are subjugated to the business model. Whereas if you try to make new things you have to rely on good storytelling, artistic merit, creativity to sell them to a much greater extent.
Off topic, but the About You section from that site deserves its own post. Absolute ridiculousness. And a quick edit to add something on topic, but this article reminds me of why I first...
Off topic, but the About You section from that site deserves its own post. Absolute ridiculousness.
And a quick edit to add something on topic, but this article reminds me of why I first gravitated towards fan-fiction and freely published original works, namely, the deliberate lack of commodification. It is amazing to see what people will do without monetary incentive — they just want to tell a story, and some of them are damn good at it. Pure passion projects with a lot more room to breathe, to take that risk and make that mistake, to discover and refine their own pattern. It’s good stuff.
The original copywright was supposed to support the creation of fan-fiction and remakes once a reasonable timeframe had passed. Think of how many movies, shows, plays and other entertainment are...
The original copywright was supposed to support the creation of fan-fiction and remakes once a reasonable timeframe had passed. Think of how many movies, shows, plays and other entertainment are reworks, fanfic tales or "what if" scenarios based off of Romeo and Juliet for example.
THAT is what is getting robbed by perpetual copywrights--even if it is the good, the bad and the ugly.
I guess I'm missing something here. I think this post itself is taking no risks, because it doesn't specify which popular entertainment I'm supposed to dislike. It was written back in 2017, so it isn't talking about live-action Ahsoka for example.
Let's guess what exactly it is praising and what it is criticizing. It implies that The Hobbit was good. And Don Quixote was good.
Maybe there's too much Star Wars. Ok, so I guess Andor wasn't good after all.
Was The Wizard of Oz good? Maybe Frank Baum's books were ok. Was the 1930's movie ok? Maybe the sequel with Mila Kunis was bad because of capitalism.
I mean, I'm just not understanding the post. Yes, a lot of art isn't good. A lot of entertainment isn't good. But I'm going to say that maybe it's because a lot of artists aren't very talented, not because it's mass produced or something. You know what else was mass produced for money? Music by Bach and art by Da Vinci.
It's not – Ursula K. Le Guin was an author who died in 2018 (see Wikipedia). The criticism is essentially of the Disney model – for whom it is all about intellectual property. In their model, once you have the IP, it will produce on-demand, and artistic considerations, creativity, etc. are subjugated to the business model. Whereas if you try to make new things you have to rely on good storytelling, artistic merit, creativity to sell them to a much greater extent.
Does it have to criticise something specific? I assume it's about fantasy in general.
Also,
Related to the recent diatribe on Star Wars in The Guardian.
Off topic, but the About You section from that site deserves its own post. Absolute ridiculousness.
And a quick edit to add something on topic, but this article reminds me of why I first gravitated towards fan-fiction and freely published original works, namely, the deliberate lack of commodification. It is amazing to see what people will do without monetary incentive — they just want to tell a story, and some of them are damn good at it. Pure passion projects with a lot more room to breathe, to take that risk and make that mistake, to discover and refine their own pattern. It’s good stuff.
(Some of it is actually quite terrible, though.)
The original copywright was supposed to support the creation of fan-fiction and remakes once a reasonable timeframe had passed. Think of how many movies, shows, plays and other entertainment are reworks, fanfic tales or "what if" scenarios based off of Romeo and Juliet for example.
THAT is what is getting robbed by perpetual copywrights--even if it is the good, the bad and the ugly.