Jp12x wrote:

As for reasons, take The Hobbit. Jackson originally suggested something very different than what has gone to theater. He reasonable wanted a lower budget and 2 movies. A small couple of movies following closely to the book. For 'reasons', it is now a big budget trilogy of epic scale that has very little of the spirit of the book.

You know, it would be fun if Jackson himself made an edit. There's the example of the anime Macross Plus. The creators wanted to do a movie, but the studio funding it insisted on four hour long direct to video episodes, so they could make more money. However, the creators structured their scenes so that after the main job was done, they were able to re-edit things down to their original vision with only a few new bits. The two hour version is much better, although the 4 episodes are also good.

There are a lot of things being said in very general ways here.

bullet3 wrote:

I have a serious problem with it when you then post that online (often-times on piratebay), and start promoting it and making it about yourself, and stupid discussions start up about what the "best" fan-edit is for a particular movie, and whatnot.

Your hostility suggests you are not a member of this subculture and you are making assumptions. The best way to distribute a fanedit is by file-sharing (as opposed to post or whatever). There is also not a single illegal thing happening when you share such a file with a small group, not for profit (in the USA, at least). By it's very nature, a re-cut is a transformative act and protected. Discussions about a 'best' edit are a bit tiring but usually it is someone looking to see what an edit could do for a movie they enjoy and they want a recommendation for where to start. People who have seen several edits of a movie do not generally, in my experience, waste pages of forums debating which is superior.

bullet3 wrote:

I think that's very disrespectful to the filmmakers and editors who busted their asses to make the movie they made.

bullet3 wrote:

It's different because you're explicitly fucking with someone's art and redistributing it with your name attached against their will.

Listen to Trey more often. There are reasons for why decisions are made. They are not all good, but there are reasons. The 'art' doesn't always turn out as desired. A "Director's Cut' exists for many movies because the studio wanted one thing and the Director wanted something else. By your logic, future George Lucas is insulting past George Lucas by editing the movies he busted his ass to make. Spielberg too. Young George Lucas was fervently against colorizing movies and suggested legal action to protect movies from their creators. When the filmmakers themselves edit a movie years after the fact, after they have protested changing movies, I think it is ridiculous to claim it's disrespectful.

As for reasons, take The Hobbit. Jackson originally suggested something very different than what has gone to theater. He reasonable wanted a lower budget and 2 movies. A small couple of movies following closely to the book. For 'reasons', it is now a big budget trilogy of epic scale that has very little of the spirit of the book. Why not edit the trilogy into a couple or single movie? Why not cut the storylines that don't happen in the book? I say cut the dwarf-elf love story that completely negates the significance of the unique dwarf-elf friendship from LotR. Make the escape from the goblins quick instead of showing the highly improbable deaths of 150 goblins; and so on.

Since I don't enjoy the Hobbit movies as they are, maybe I will enjoy a fanedit. And, if a talented person already made one, I want to see it. I would really love to enjoy a Hobbit movie. If it isn't good, that's ok. I don't enjoy the originals, either.

redxavier wrote:

Not that I'm against fan edits, I'm already started on the Hobbit.

Good for you. I'm waiting for a good fanedit. As for me, I put the Star Wars prequels into about 2 hours. Not a polished, final cut but I like it anyway. Also, I think you mean "I've already". Careful you don't become the crap editor bullet3 expects.

http://savestarwars.com/lucasspeechagai … ition.html

I should clarify, I'm ok with fan-edits if they're done for your own personal enjoyment. If I wanna take my purchased blu-ray of a movie, take the time to make a custom edit that I like, and burn myself a copy to watch at home, I think that's fine.  I have a serious problem with it when you then post that online (often-times on piratebay), and start promoting it and making it about yourself, and stupid discussions start up about what the "best" fan-edit is for a particular movie, and whatnot.

It's different because you're explicitly fucking with someone's art and redistributing it with your name attached against their will. I kind of hate remix culture though so I'm the wrong guy to ask.

Talking about and critiquing a work academically and offering suggestions is very different.

It's pretty hard to approach the subject of whether fan edits are disrespectful with any sort of meaningful conclusion if you have never had a work of yours re-edited by a fan.

Invid wrote:

“Don’t be a whore!” Don’t write crap because they pay you well. Don’t put your name on something that you know will suck. Don’t sacrifice whatever integrity you have as a writer for a check.

Meh. 99.9999% of the world does stuff they don't like so they can get paid.

90% of stuff done by people who are trying not to suck still sucks. Nobody knows at the time which 10% is going to turn out well.

Joe Dante, Ron Howard, James Cameron, and Francis Ford Coppola never lost any sleep over how bad their early efforts under Roger Corman were. Commercial success buys plenty of opportunity to rehabilitate your artistic integrity.

Despite his devotion to artistic integrity, Harlan Ellison doesn't enjoy a sterling reputation.

Sam Dee wrote:

the Galifreians granted him another regeneration cycle. This has been done in classic who (not with The Doctor though)  with gallifrey giving The Master a new cycle

Why the hell did Moffat go so far out of his way to fix this minor continuity point from forty odd years ago only to set a new regeneration limit on the Doctor?

I really dislike Clara she is completely bland, like "Can we get Martha back?" bland.

fireproof78 wrote:

I don't agree with the assessment that CT, or any other nitpicker, is trying to take the fun out of films. I think they are deliberately fishing in the shallow end of the pool. Maybe they take themselves too seriously, I don't know. I just know that I enjoy it, but I also can enjoy deeper analysis (and frequently do) here, and other places.

Well, like I've said before, what they're "trying" to do and what they're actually doing can be two different things.

And if everything sucks, why care about movies at all?