Yeah, I noticed some "jaggies" to when seeing AOTC in the digital theater... though except for these few exceptions, thought the digital picture was far superior...
Do you believe that, as a creative professional, you have any sort of ethical duty to resist these sorts of changes?
I am not sure such decisions are bound by an ethical duty so much as, I would like to think, a desire to maintain the artistic integrity of the original piece.
Is there a line to be drawn between merely cleaning up the original effects and replacing them entirely (as in the Star Wars special edition), or between effects-patchup and all-out content alteration (aka, the wussification of Han Solo by having Greedo shoot first)? Do you feel that old films should be left alone, or do you consider them more as ongoing acts of creation?
There is a line to be drawn, though I think it is a grey line and hence is left open to interpretation. Though I am not crazy about the idea, I really had no issue with Lucas going back and fixing up some of the effects of the original trilogy... (removing green boxes around TIE fighters, etc) However, I feel it is an absolute tragedy if the actual content of the film in changed retroactively. In many ways it is sad that we will not be able to buy a DVD of the *original* films because, as you said, the updated versions are the only ones sold.
I do not think films should be "ongoing acts of creation" as I think they are, among other things, testiments to the time period from which they were created.... As such I really hope "Greedo shoots first" does not become a common trend.
Movies like Final Fantasy probably will become increasingly popular - as is the case with all SFX-driven movies. That is just a trend of modern Hollywood for better or for worse... (BTW, the correct answer is "worse")
As for SFX characters overtaking human actors - not a chance. They aren't even close to replicating the performance and believability of a talented human actor... (did you even see Final Fantasy? *cringes*) On the contrary, I think if they "over-use" CG-characters there will be a backlash... People will long for the good ole days when movies were more "real"... Such is the problem with the most recent Star Wars films... Everything seems so artificial it is hard to care, or even believe the action is really taking place. I personally think the SFX in in SW4-5 were far more effective.... There is such a thing as "too much of a good thing."
SFX characters will always have their place (Toy Story, Shrek, etc) but I think you will find that there is more than enough room for us humans as well.
This is turning out to be somewhat interesting... I google-searched for the quote, and found many fan-pages quoting it as "merry" and just as many others as "married." Also, I saw another instance of this exact same discussion on a different messageboard.
I still stand by my original take on the matter - "merry" makes a lot more sense (though with Milton, I suppose anything is possible)
Those who would take away our liberty for a little temporary safety are just fine by us! - the American majority.
Not sure I can speak for the majority, but I certainly do not feel that my liberty has been taken away...
Making it easier to approve wiretaps, etc is perfectly acceptable IMHO given the challenges imposed by our enemies... If you disagree, then you are thankfully also provided for - A new administration could easily "undo" said changes in the future should they not be needed anymore.
I must confess I have very little knowledge about Ani DiFranco - either her music or her financial situation... But if she has tens of thousands of fans I would suspect that she *should* be more than able to live comfortably... If she got even five bucks a pop from only 20,000 fans , thats already 100,000 bucks... (and I suspect she has a lot more than 20,000 fans willing to give her 5 bucks)... Add to this profits from live shows, t-shirts sales, etc and you more than cover the production costs (which cost my co-worker a paltry 3 grand for a quality recording!)
Then again, MC Hammer made millions and is now broke - How they spend/manage their money is not my concern.
Also, keep in mind that any struggles Ani DiFranco has to contend with is not entirely relevant to my argument, given that she is operating in a still-RIAA controlled music industry, and hence I am sure it is much harder for her... My argument is, for whatever its worth or lack thereof, based on a musical industry sans the RIAA.
The 1% are not the only ones who might suffer. Those major labels who aren't paying Janis Ian any royalties? They paid for her to make her albums in the first place. They bought her studio time, paid her producers, and probably even paid her a royalty advance.
I am aware of this argument, but do not think it even comes close to justifying the RIAA's existence. The guy sitting next to me (a network engineer for a small business) has made two CDs for his band... They covered the expenses of recording and printing themselves, and I can honestly say the quality of both the sound and the print is as good as an industry-backed CD. It simply isn't that expensive anymore - hell, computers are even allowing people to do a lot of this right from home! Not to mention that the distribution costs of electronic files (once created) is virtually nill...
I just don't believe music-sharing is going to lead any kind of populist revolution.
I agree, and as a general rule I do not throw the word "revolution" around lightly... But I will smile if I no longer have to pay a greedy industry any more of my hard-earned dollars and can instead give it to the artist themselves.
... but very few of the musicians working in them will make livings that way. It that bad? Is it OK if music turns into an entirely amateur/semi-pro enterprise pursued by people whose livelihoods come from other jobs? Perhaps not, but that's a different debate.
Ok, we are just not going to see eye to eye on this... What I am proposing would give equal, if not more money to the artist... I do not want to take a cent away from them - just the coporate industry.
Other branches of the art world do not operate in this manner... Painters, for instance, create a portfolio of work and then attempt to get noticed... perhaps by a gallery-owner who would agree to split profits, or something as simple as designing a menu for a local resturant, etc... You don't see corporate backed painters with sky-high production costs and producers, do you? Does this mean the world of "painting" is suffering because it is some kid with a copy of Photoshop versus some corporate-backed Yanni-look-a-like with a paintbrush?
Any artist worth their weight in salt would and should be able to make a comfortable living doing what they do - My sole argument is that the RIAA need not be part of the equation, at least not any longer.
I'm just observing that it's very entrenched and very hard to fight. I don't listen to the radio, either, and you'll be hard-pressed to find anybody who knows and supports more commercially-obscure bands than I do.
Glad to hear about your tastes in music - but I disagree that the industry is difficult to fight.... On the contrary, you are "fighting" just by doing what you are already doing - not buying into industry crap. Ill go one further and say not only is the industry very easy to fight, but its already losing! Average radio-listening times have fallen an estimated 10% in just a few years... People are getting sick of the industry, and rightly so... I think their days are certainly numbered.
But very few of them stand to make a professional career out of producing music.
This is probably true - but in what other types of art is it not? Most of humanity's best painters died penniless... Have you ever heard of the term "starving artist?" While I certainly do not think artists should be made to starve - quite on the contrary.:) But I would certainly hope that the artist enjoys what they are doing enough to warrant the effort, while at the same time making an adequate living. Keep in mind that I am not saying take money out of music altogether - I am simply saying lets give a smaller amount to the artists themselves, instead of a larger amount to some big fat corporation.
Make a list of all the successful professional musicians who have succeeded without any major-label help.
Already responded to this in other post...
So yes, until there's a viable promotion infrastructure outside of the current major labels (and efforts at this are underway), downloading can hurt the Janis Ians, and the aspiring Janis Ians, despite her simplistic observation that incremental downloads aren't currently costing her anything.
But what other "infrastructure" is required, other than being a fan of a particular genre? Say, as a generic example, I liked techno music... By sharing music with other fans of the genre, I would quickly and easily be introducted to a myriad of techno artists - all of which I can virtually guarantee would NEVER have been played on the radio, or otherwise "exposed" by the industry. By then attending shows and concerts, I would be contributing to the artist and helping them earn a living. Not sure if you are aware of this, but most artists get their money from fans attending shows - not from buying albums.
I find it absurd that you are arguing against music-sharing on the basis of artist exposure - when music-sharing is virtually the only exposure 99% of artists get! The entire industry could easily revolve around file-sharing and fans going to concerts - the RIAA and the rest of the industry no longer serves a point! What about this is eluding you?
The ONLY ones who would suffer under this new system would be the 1% of artists who would have been selected and propped up by the industry (e.g. Britney)... Under this new system, she would be forced to get by on the merits of her music - in other words, no more Britney... Sounds great to me.
So go ahead, give me a list of musicians who have built viable professional recording careers without the major label help you say they don't need.
You dont seem to understand... Those artists you hear on the radio are propped up by the recording industry... They are simply "selected" based on marketing decisions... They are constructs.
So naturally - You could listen to the radio/MTV for the rest of your life and never hear an artist who has "built a viable professional recording career without the major labels help" - because it is the recording industry which is choosing to play these particular artists. Your point is... well... pointless.
This article was about the Internet, and how it has a chance to change all of that... Whether you think this is a "Good" thing, or whether it will actually happen is not my concern... I for one would absolutely love to see the day where a band that I like comes out with a new album online, but "suggests" you electronically give them 3-5 bucks via credit-card over the web... That is 3 dollars profit that they would not have seen while enslaved to the industry. It would go directly to the artist.
As for the "exposure" that the industry gives artists... You are correct - but only with regard to about 1% of the LUCKY ones... Artists like Limp Bizkit, Britney Spears, etc, are given massive exposure and are force-fed to the public, thereby creating a "successful" career almost by default. Again, they are constructs. But don't hold the rest of the music world at gunpoint so the industry can prop up a few contructs and sell at top-dollar.
Finally, for what its worth, virtually all of the music I now listen to was introduced to me online. I am at the point that I cannot even imagine the days when I used to listen to the radio/MTV crap... I thought I liked and appreciated music then - now I realize I had no idea what real music was, or how wonderful it could be... and I am scared to death of the day that I will no longer have access to them.
I thought AI was a good movie. Admittedly an appreciation of it requires an IQ higher than the temperature outside, but since when was that a bad thing? Shakespeare isn't for bozo's either.
I am so sick of people linking one's IQ to their appreciation (or lack of) for A.I.
Believe it or not, many of us just didn't like the damn movie... Admittedly for many it was probably too cerebral (then again, any movie requiring half a brain is too cerebral for people nowadays) but just because I did not like A.I. does not mean I am incapable of understanding an intelligent movie.
There are entirely other reasons to not like A.I... I, for one, think the movie sucked because Speilberg tried to mimick Kubrick's style, and failed to do so successfully... He would have been better off just making it in his own style (which kills me to say - Kubrick is my fav director)... Throw in a cheesy cameo from Chris Rock and you got a nice average movie. Do us all a favor and get off your pedestal.
Yes, I accuse "OBL" of being a sick fuck - just as I would accuse anyone who kills peasants with buttons... They are both twisted, as I am sure 99.9% of my fellow Americans would agree. But please keep in mind that there is a big difference between posting something on a messageboard (morons on slashdot) and actualling doing something (OBL).
Please post your overtly over-generalized statements about Americans elsewhere. You are free to go now - your services are no longer required.
But elephants cause tremendous damage to forests and other ecosystems in Africa. Imagine having them loose in Canada, uprooting trees, wandering near cities, smashing people...
Sounds great to me!;)
No but in all seriousness, I think the mammoth/thylacine comparison is a bit like apples and oranges...
The mammoth was a food item for another species (in this case, humans), and therefore were hunted by said species. Unfortuantely for the mammoth, they were unable to replenish their numbers fast enough, and hence lost out in the face of new competition... Such is the way of nature.
The thylacine was not "replaced," nor did it "lose out" in the face of new competition. It was simply chosen to be taken away for arbitrary reasons. They were wiped out because they were considered "pests" - their existence was contrary to the convienance of the local human population, and they were eliminated.
A similar fate was dealt to the wolves of America... They too were simply chosen to be eliminated. It had nothing to do with dwindling food supply or stiff competition - they were pests. Now of course we are strategically re-introducing wolves back into various parts of the U.S. - are you against this practice as well?
If an animal goes extinct, for whatever reason, it is unfit. If it comes back, in any manner, it is by definition fit again. It's really that simple.
I have to disagree with you here... The thylacine was never deemed unfit for anything - it simply "was"... The reason why it was hunted to extinction was arbitrary. Humans decided they did not like them running around, and therefore they killed them... Its *that* simple.
Also, the fact that we are bringing them back, again says nothing about how "fit" the animal is for survival... again, arbitrary - though this time we might get back some karma points that we lost 100 years ago;)
I agree with you that not every animal should be brought back... However, the thylacine is only extinct because of massive over-hunting by humans... Without human involvement, they would still be alive.
They should most definitely bring the thylacine back - but just as important they must give the animal some domain of its own if it is going to thrive again.
Slashdot Mirror
I have to contend with sword-fights at all the local bars... now I get to do the same on my computer.
*twirls finger in air*
Zug zug.
NAME: Linus Torvalds
ACCOMPLISHMENTS: Linux
Yeah, I noticed some "jaggies" to when seeing AOTC in the digital theater... though except for these few exceptions, thought the digital picture was far superior...
Great post!
Do you believe that, as a creative professional, you have any sort of ethical duty to resist these sorts of changes?
I am not sure such decisions are bound by an ethical duty so much as, I would like to think, a desire to maintain the artistic integrity of the original piece.
Is there a line to be drawn between merely cleaning up the original effects and replacing them entirely (as in the Star Wars special edition), or between effects-patchup and all-out content alteration (aka, the wussification of Han Solo by having Greedo shoot first)? Do you feel that old films should be left alone, or do you consider them more as ongoing acts of creation?
There is a line to be drawn, though I think it is a grey line and hence is left open to interpretation. Though I am not crazy about the idea, I really had no issue with Lucas going back and fixing up some of the effects of the original trilogy... (removing green boxes around TIE fighters, etc) However, I feel it is an absolute tragedy if the actual content of the film in changed retroactively. In many ways it is sad that we will not be able to buy a DVD of the *original* films because, as you said, the updated versions are the only ones sold.
I do not think films should be "ongoing acts of creation" as I think they are, among other things, testiments to the time period from which they were created.... As such I really hope "Greedo shoots first" does not become a common trend.
Movies like Final Fantasy probably will become increasingly popular - as is the case with all SFX-driven movies. That is just a trend of modern Hollywood for better or for worse... (BTW, the correct answer is "worse")
As for SFX characters overtaking human actors - not a chance. They aren't even close to replicating the performance and believability of a talented human actor... (did you even see Final Fantasy? *cringes*) On the contrary, I think if they "over-use" CG-characters there will be a backlash... People will long for the good ole days when movies were more "real"... Such is the problem with the most recent Star Wars films... Everything seems so artificial it is hard to care, or even believe the action is really taking place. I personally think the SFX in in SW4-5 were far more effective.... There is such a thing as "too much of a good thing."
SFX characters will always have their place (Toy Story, Shrek, etc) but I think you will find that there is more than enough room for us humans as well.
.Milton(on phone):'...and I could see the squirrels and they were married.
;)
boy is my face red! i stand corrected. thanks for the final clarification
This is turning out to be somewhat interesting... I google-searched for the quote, and found many fan-pages quoting it as "merry" and just as many others as "married." Also, I saw another instance of this exact same discussion on a different messageboard.
I still stand by my original take on the matter - "merry" makes a lot more sense (though with Milton, I suppose anything is possible)
I used to sit by the window, and there were these squirrels, and they were married.
... "merry" ... you know, with an "erry"
Im going to go out on a limb here - I think he said the squirrels were "merry"
Those who would take away our liberty for a little temporary safety are just fine by us! - the American majority.
Not sure I can speak for the majority, but I certainly do not feel that my liberty has been taken away...
Making it easier to approve wiretaps, etc is perfectly acceptable IMHO given the challenges imposed by our enemies... If you disagree, then you are thankfully also provided for - A new administration could easily "undo" said changes in the future should they not be needed anymore.
You first....
In light of this new information, I was obviously wrong... I stand corrected.
"Jules per corpse" - Is this an industry-standard unit ratio?
I must confess I have very little knowledge about Ani DiFranco - either her music or her financial situation... But if she has tens of thousands of fans I would suspect that she *should* be more than able to live comfortably... If she got even five bucks a pop from only 20,000 fans , thats already 100,000 bucks... (and I suspect she has a lot more than 20,000 fans willing to give her 5 bucks) ... Add to this profits from live shows, t-shirts sales, etc and you more than cover the production costs (which cost my co-worker a paltry 3 grand for a quality recording!)
Then again, MC Hammer made millions and is now broke - How they spend/manage their money is not my concern.
Also, keep in mind that any struggles Ani DiFranco has to contend with is not entirely relevant to my argument, given that she is operating in a still-RIAA controlled music industry, and hence I am sure it is much harder for her... My argument is, for whatever its worth or lack thereof, based on a musical industry sans the RIAA.
The 1% are not the only ones who might suffer. Those major labels who aren't paying Janis Ian any royalties? They paid for her to make her albums in the first place. They bought her studio time, paid her producers, and probably even paid her a royalty advance.
... but very few of the musicians working in them will make livings that way. It that bad? Is it OK if music turns into an entirely amateur/semi-pro enterprise pursued by people whose livelihoods come from other jobs? Perhaps not, but that's a different debate.
I am aware of this argument, but do not think it even comes close to justifying the RIAA's existence. The guy sitting next to me (a network engineer for a small business) has made two CDs for his band... They covered the expenses of recording and printing themselves, and I can honestly say the quality of both the sound and the print is as good as an industry-backed CD. It simply isn't that expensive anymore - hell, computers are even allowing people to do a lot of this right from home! Not to mention that the distribution costs of electronic files (once created) is virtually nill...
I just don't believe music-sharing is going to lead any kind of populist revolution.
I agree, and as a general rule I do not throw the word "revolution" around lightly... But I will smile if I no longer have to pay a greedy industry any more of my hard-earned dollars and can instead give it to the artist themselves.
Ok, we are just not going to see eye to eye on this... What I am proposing would give equal, if not more money to the artist... I do not want to take a cent away from them - just the coporate industry.
Other branches of the art world do not operate in this manner... Painters, for instance, create a portfolio of work and then attempt to get noticed... perhaps by a gallery-owner who would agree to split profits, or something as simple as designing a menu for a local resturant, etc... You don't see corporate backed painters with sky-high production costs and producers, do you? Does this mean the world of "painting" is suffering because it is some kid with a copy of Photoshop versus some corporate-backed Yanni-look-a-like with a paintbrush?
Any artist worth their weight in salt would and should be able to make a comfortable living doing what they do - My sole argument is that the RIAA need not be part of the equation, at least not any longer.
I'm just observing that it's very entrenched and very hard to fight. I don't listen to the radio, either, and you'll be hard-pressed to find anybody who knows and supports more commercially-obscure bands than I do.
Glad to hear about your tastes in music - but I disagree that the industry is difficult to fight.... On the contrary, you are "fighting" just by doing what you are already doing - not buying into industry crap. Ill go one further and say not only is the industry very easy to fight, but its already losing! Average radio-listening times have fallen an estimated 10% in just a few years... People are getting sick of the industry, and rightly so... I think their days are certainly numbered.
But very few of them stand to make a professional career out of producing music.
This is probably true - but in what other types of art is it not? Most of humanity's best painters died penniless... Have you ever heard of the term "starving artist?" While I certainly do not think artists should be made to starve - quite on the contrary.
Make a list of all the successful professional musicians who have succeeded without any major-label help.
Already responded to this in other post...
So yes, until there's a viable promotion infrastructure outside of the current major labels (and efforts at this are underway), downloading can hurt the Janis Ians, and the aspiring Janis Ians, despite her simplistic observation that incremental downloads aren't currently costing her anything.
But what other "infrastructure" is required, other than being a fan of a particular genre? Say, as a generic example, I liked techno music... By sharing music with other fans of the genre, I would quickly and easily be introducted to a myriad of techno artists - all of which I can virtually guarantee would NEVER have been played on the radio, or otherwise "exposed" by the industry. By then attending shows and concerts, I would be contributing to the artist and helping them earn a living. Not sure if you are aware of this, but most artists get their money from fans attending shows - not from buying albums.
I find it absurd that you are arguing against music-sharing on the basis of artist exposure - when music-sharing is virtually the only exposure 99% of artists get! The entire industry could easily revolve around file-sharing and fans going to concerts - the RIAA and the rest of the industry no longer serves a point! What about this is eluding you?
The ONLY ones who would suffer under this new system would be the 1% of artists who would have been selected and propped up by the industry (e.g. Britney)... Under this new system, she would be forced to get by on the merits of her music - in other words, no more Britney... Sounds great to me.
So go ahead, give me a list of musicians who have built viable professional recording careers without the major label help you say they don't need.
You dont seem to understand... Those artists you hear on the radio are propped up by the recording industry... They are simply "selected" based on marketing decisions... They are constructs.
So naturally - You could listen to the radio/MTV for the rest of your life and never hear an artist who has "built a viable professional recording career without the major labels help" - because it is the recording industry which is choosing to play these particular artists. Your point is... well... pointless.
This article was about the Internet, and how it has a chance to change all of that... Whether you think this is a "Good" thing, or whether it will actually happen is not my concern... I for one would absolutely love to see the day where a band that I like comes out with a new album online, but "suggests" you electronically give them 3-5 bucks via credit-card over the web... That is 3 dollars profit that they would not have seen while enslaved to the industry. It would go directly to the artist.
As for the "exposure" that the industry gives artists... You are correct - but only with regard to about 1% of the LUCKY ones... Artists like Limp Bizkit, Britney Spears, etc, are given massive exposure and are force-fed to the public, thereby creating a "successful" career almost by default. Again, they are constructs. But don't hold the rest of the music world at gunpoint so the industry can prop up a few contructs and sell at top-dollar.
Finally, for what its worth, virtually all of the music I now listen to was introduced to me online. I am at the point that I cannot even imagine the days when I used to listen to the radio/MTV crap... I thought I liked and appreciated music then - now I realize I had no idea what real music was, or how wonderful it could be... and I am scared to death of the day that I will no longer have access to them.
I thought AI was a good movie. Admittedly an appreciation of it requires an IQ higher than the temperature outside, but since when was that a bad thing? Shakespeare isn't for bozo's either.
I am so sick of people linking one's IQ to their appreciation (or lack of) for A.I.
Believe it or not, many of us just didn't like the damn movie... Admittedly for many it was probably too cerebral (then again, any movie requiring half a brain is too cerebral for people nowadays) but just because I did not like A.I. does not mean I am incapable of understanding an intelligent movie.
There are entirely other reasons to not like A.I... I, for one, think the movie sucked because Speilberg tried to mimick Kubrick's style, and failed to do so successfully... He would have been better off just making it in his own style (which kills me to say - Kubrick is my fav director)... Throw in a cheesy cameo from Chris Rock and you got a nice average movie. Do us all a favor and get off your pedestal.
Yes, I accuse "OBL" of being a sick fuck - just as I would accuse anyone who kills peasants with buttons... They are both twisted, as I am sure 99.9% of my fellow Americans would agree. But please keep in mind that there is a big difference between posting something on a messageboard (morons on slashdot) and actualling doing something (OBL).
Please post your overtly over-generalized statements about Americans elsewhere. You are free to go now - your services are no longer required.
I definitely over-expanded the scope of your post with interpretation... - I apologize if I put words into your mouth that you did not intend.
But elephants cause tremendous damage to forests and other ecosystems in Africa. Imagine having them loose in Canada, uprooting trees, wandering near cities, smashing people...
Sounds great to me!
No but in all seriousness, I think the mammoth/thylacine comparison is a bit like apples and oranges...
The mammoth was a food item for another species (in this case, humans), and therefore were hunted by said species. Unfortuantely for the mammoth, they were unable to replenish their numbers fast enough, and hence lost out in the face of new competition... Such is the way of nature.
The thylacine was not "replaced," nor did it "lose out" in the face of new competition. It was simply chosen to be taken away for arbitrary reasons. They were wiped out because they were considered "pests" - their existence was contrary to the convienance of the local human population, and they were eliminated.
A similar fate was dealt to the wolves of America... They too were simply chosen to be eliminated. It had nothing to do with dwindling food supply or stiff competition - they were pests. Now of course we are strategically re-introducing wolves back into various parts of the U.S. - are you against this practice as well?
If an animal goes extinct, for whatever reason, it is unfit. If it comes back, in any manner, it is by definition fit again. It's really that simple.
I have to disagree with you here... The thylacine was never deemed unfit for anything - it simply "was"
Also, the fact that we are bringing them back, again says nothing about how "fit" the animal is for survival... again, arbitrary - though this time we might get back some karma points that we lost 100 years ago
I agree with you that not every animal should be brought back... However, the thylacine is only extinct because of massive over-hunting by humans... Without human involvement, they would still be alive.
They should most definitely bring the thylacine back - but just as important they must give the animal some domain of its own if it is going to thrive again.
On second though, nevermind... That wouldn't go over well at all with campus security....
Obi Wan: "Your clones are very impressive."
*Amidala slaps him in face and storms off*
*Obi Wan turns to Anakin*
Obi Wan: "What are you looking at?"