|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GoBlue
The Shire
Feb 26 2015, 4:13am
Post #1 of 86
(1908 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Creative work and editing/adaptations
|
Can't Post
|
|
Hi everyone, I have not posted in a while/that much-- checked in late after the threads on fan edits have been closed. I know this is a sensitive subject, so we'll see if the mods are okay with me asking this. This point jumped out at me overwhelmingly, and I did not see it posted anywhere. In reading through, I was surprised at the strong opposition to fan edits, especially on the grounds that it was tampering with someone else's creative work. My question is: How are fan edits--adaptations, if you will, of Peter Jackson's work--any different than Peter Jackson's adaptation (with changes, obviously) of Tolkien's?
In other words, if you're going to defend PJ's adapting and somewhat changing of Tolkien as fine, why would you be against someone doing that with PJ's work.
Or, if you like, if you think it's silly to consider Tolkien's exact words "gospel" why do we consider PJ's work gospel?
I'm a musician, and having trouble finding exact parallels in my field. The closest I can think of is that: composers create and compose music. Usually, they specify certain things they want in the interpretation of the music, but there is a lot open to interpretation, and they know that their music will live on to be performed/interpreted my many others, in different ways. That's okay with most of them-- music is a creative process. You don't want a musician being a robot only doing what's dictated to him or her. Now, I don't think words on paper are open to quite as much interpretation (I think you leave them intact, and you still have plenty of room for creativity in something like a film-- In my mind I consider musical interpretation alike to reading the text with different inflection and emotion, but the same text), but I feel like some of you maybe look at Tolkien's work that way…. but view PJ's as untouchable. This is puzzling to me-- remember that middle earth was Tolkien's life's work.
Anyway, thank you, and discuss (hopefully!)
(This post was edited by GoBlue on Feb 26 2015, 4:16am)
|
|
|
Aragorn the Elfstone
Tol Eressea
Feb 26 2015, 4:36am
Post #2 of 86
(1536 views)
Shortcut
|
|
PJ has not cut pages out of Tolkien's actual book and paraded it around as a better version of the novel.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
He made a film adaptation. A work unto its own. It is not subservient to the novel.
PJ has not altered The Hobbit. He made three Peter Jackson films based upon Tolkien's tale.
"Editing" his existing film because it didn't adhere to your wishes for a film based on the book is not "doing what he did". He made a film. Fan Edits are merely cutting up HIS film in order to make it something that it was never intended to be. The only artistic creation that will or should ever have the name of "J.R.R. Tolkien's The Hobbit" is the one that sits on our book shelves.
It's quite good as well.
"The danger with any movie that does as well as this one does is that the amount of money it's making and the number of awards that it's got becomes almost more important than the movie itself in people's minds. I look at that as, in a sense, being very much like the Ring, and its effect on people. You know, you can kind of forget what we were doing, if you get too wrapped up in that."
- Viggo Mortensen
|
|
|
GoBlue
The Shire
Feb 26 2015, 4:51am
Post #3 of 86
(1527 views)
Shortcut
|
He made a film adaptation. A work unto its own. It is not subservient to the novel.
You lost me with this. So the film adaptation is totally separate, and could have existed without the source material?
Jackson't movies obviously bear the titles "The Hobbit" and he did indeed make major changes to "the hobbit"
You say, "he made a film," don't change it
but you won't say, "Tolkien wrote a book," you can't change it
So are you okay if I switch mediums? So if I write a book based on PJ's movies, and change the plot?
|
|
|
Aragorn the Elfstone
Tol Eressea
Feb 26 2015, 4:54am
Post #4 of 86
(1542 views)
Shortcut
|
Write your heart out (whether you can get it published is another matter  ). Heck, you don't even have to "switch mediums". Remake the films. So long as they are your films, and not HIS films just cut up.
And, again, PJ didn't "change Tolkien's book". The book is just the same as its always been.
"The danger with any movie that does as well as this one does is that the amount of money it's making and the number of awards that it's got becomes almost more important than the movie itself in people's minds. I look at that as, in a sense, being very much like the Ring, and its effect on people. You know, you can kind of forget what we were doing, if you get too wrapped up in that."
- Viggo Mortensen
(This post was edited by Aragorn the Elfstone on Feb 26 2015, 4:55am)
|
|
|
Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor
Feb 26 2015, 5:08am
Post #5 of 86
(1510 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I've got no interest in fan edits
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
In fact, I think it's ironic to call them a "fan" edit when most people are basically cutting out the stuff they weren't fans of. Chopping up and re-arranging this trilogy is (to me) like chopping up and re-arranging a photograph - I just don't see how it can be better than, or even as good as, the original. To be honest, there are parts I tend to fast-forward through because they are (again, to me) boring and/or don't move the story along, but that takes no real brains or talent to do. And for someone to do that with video copies of this trilogy and then to expect ME to watch it, well, forget about it! And yeah, I think it's entirely different. PJ & Phillipa bought the rights to Tolkein's work so they COULD adapt it for a movie, putting years into the story alone. Then there's the development of the character's looks when in the book you had so little to go by, then set design, location scouting, props & weapons, fight choreography, etc. Sorry, a so-called fan edit just isn't in the same league as what PJ did.
Why yes, I DO look like Anna Friel!
|
|
|
Bishop
Gondor
Feb 26 2015, 5:24am
Post #6 of 86
(1525 views)
Shortcut
|
Fan edits and other types of media manipulation are hot button topics because there's an unprecedented availability to the public of consumer products designed to negotiate such media. It's a new phenomenon, so it's easy to understand why people are so heated on either side. It is inevitable that we will continue to see more fan interaction with the product, and I would imagine it will soon be expected and capitalized on by all major stakeholders. Case in point, major studios don't prosecute people for posting their copywritten material in manipulated form on youtube anymore, and instead simply allow it while simultaneously claiming ownership over that manipulated content. This gives them the ad dollars that accrue from the millions of views fan videos generate. There is a quickly developing synergy between product and consumer and what emerges on the other side of their interaction.
How are fan edits different from Jackson adapting Tolkien? There are a million ways, spanning the legal to the political to the artistry on display. Surely you can understand the many, many differences. And first and foremost, Jackson's films are a sanctioned product made from scratch. Fan edits are starting from no such place. Mind you I still believe fan edits to be an artistic expression.
Drawing comparisons to composers and performances is a bit faulty. For example, a film is not a blue print that is "performed" repeatedly by other people professionally or otherwise interpreting this source. A film is a singular product, a stamp in time. The integrity of that thing is either on display or not, but the medium is not built for repeated artistic interpretation and performance.
|
|
|
AshNazg
Gondor
Feb 26 2015, 5:50am
Post #7 of 86
(1496 views)
Shortcut
|
I've seen a lot of people giving valid reasons why these edits are created and enjoyed, but the only reason not to do it seems to be "it's wrong" with no explanation why.  "But I prefer the film without Legolas" "Okay, but just don't... it's not intended to be seen without Legolas, deal with it. Also don't close your eyes when he's on screen, that's cheating"
You know lots of film-makers make fan edits? Peter Jackson edited the 1933 King Kong to include a spider-pit sequence that the director did not intend. And Topher Grace has famously edited the Star Wars prequels into one film. Why? Because they enjoy editing or they were curious about an alternative version or they weren't happy with the original version. What's wrong with that? The originals are still perfectly untouched and readily available and nobody's making or losing any money from it.
At least it's not like George Lucas, who edits the film and then refuses to release the original version so we're all forced to endure his weird alterations.
(This post was edited by AshNazg on Feb 26 2015, 5:55am)
|
|
|
Bishop
Gondor
Feb 26 2015, 5:57am
Post #8 of 86
(1496 views)
Shortcut
|
But you do know that you're on a forum that strongly supports the films, right? 
Sometimes I think the people here defending the fan edits are the most bat-sh^$ crazy, including me.
|
|
|
Aragorn the Elfstone
Tol Eressea
Feb 26 2015, 5:58am
Post #9 of 86
(1493 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I don't care what anybody does in their own privacy...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
One can edit to their heart's content. But distributing it and waving it around as a so-called superior version of PJ's own film is disrespectful - not to mention illegal.
"The danger with any movie that does as well as this one does is that the amount of money it's making and the number of awards that it's got becomes almost more important than the movie itself in people's minds. I look at that as, in a sense, being very much like the Ring, and its effect on people. You know, you can kind of forget what we were doing, if you get too wrapped up in that."
- Viggo Mortensen
(This post was edited by Aragorn the Elfstone on Feb 26 2015, 5:59am)
|
|
|
seelbach
The Shire
Feb 26 2015, 7:53am
Post #10 of 86
(1451 views)
Shortcut
|
I was happy they made 3 movies, just for more time in Middle Earth. However, I recently found out about a single-film edit of the trilogy that was made, removing everything not in the book. That has an appeal to me. Not to say I would take this edit over the trilogy, but I think it is interesting and worth checking out for sure. The movies have several nods to the LOTR movies, which is kinda unnecessary. The book works fine without all of that. Also as fun as all the roller coaster action was the first time, it gets kinda tiresome after a few views, and I didn't miss it in the edit.
Another thing I think is notable is the way these movies(and LOTR) were edited - LAST MINUTE. It's not like Kubrick who'd work on one movie for 5 years, and the theatrical release was, without a doubt, the full realization of the artist's vision, after which no alternate versions need exist. If they hadn't been so busy adding sequences right up to the release of these movies, or rather, if they'd had more time, who knows what we would have seen. I think they are the product of a lot of external factors, pressures, constraints, higher powers in the movie studios, etc. So I don't see the final movie necessarily as the ultimate version, it's just what they could do in the time they had.
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
Feb 26 2015, 8:50am
Post #11 of 86
(1436 views)
Shortcut
|
Peter Jackson is a professional and he works by the rules. He made his films with the permission of the copyright holder. He had to ask for that permission and if the answer had been 'no' the films would never have been made.
Just as the books are still in copyright, so his films are also copyright, but the people who make fan edits don't ask for permission. It doesn't even seem to occur to them that they should. If they're just experimenting with the films at home for their own amusement that's not a problem. The problems start when someone tries to promote 'their' version and share it with other people or distribute it - or even, as in that last thread, talk about putting it out with their own choice of title.
I'm not a musician, but if you record music written by someone else (living or of recent memory), or perform their work in public, then surely you have to have permission to do it, or to pay for the rights, don't you?
As I see it, this isn't about faithfulness to the original or about interpretation, it's about entitlement. If you're using someone else's work in public you should have their permission.
|
|
|
BlackFox
Half-elven
Feb 26 2015, 10:25am
Post #12 of 86
(1421 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Like I said in the other thread...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
... it may be considered morally wrong to use someone else's (intellectual) property without first acquiring their permission.
|
|
|
Glorfindela
Valinor
Feb 26 2015, 11:34am
Post #13 of 86
(1399 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Quoting from my posts on the subject from the other thread
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
'It's absolutely fine if the creator of an original work gives you permission to chop his work about. It is not, however, fine to hack someone's creative work without their consent (unless, of course, you do it purely for yourself and don't publicise your efforts to all and sundry, which is unfortunately all too easy to do these days on the Internet). If you cannot obtain such permission, you don't tamper with a creator's work. It's as simple as that.'
and I don't 'consider PJ's work gospel', but (slightly editing my own message):
'…working professionally in publishing, and having two siblings and a brother-in-law who are fine artists, and a sister-in-law who is a many-times published author, I certainly do know about breaches of copyright… I know what other creatives think about those who engage in tinkering with other people's creative work without their permission – and it's certainly not flattering.'
|
|
|
Mr. Arkenstone (isaac)
Tol Eressea
Feb 26 2015, 1:22pm
Post #14 of 86
(1378 views)
Shortcut
|
|
i think the debate here is of the notion of a fan edit, it is clear its no legal without his permission
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
The flagon with the dragon has the brew that is true
Survivor to the battle for the fifth trailer
Hobbit Cinema Marathon Hero
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
Feb 26 2015, 1:24pm
Post #15 of 86
(1393 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Spot on - that is the difference.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Whilst I make no suggestion that people shouldn't create fan edits the difference between editing something and creating a new work seems very stark to me.
If you write a new book based on the story, or paint a new picture, or write a new album, or indeed film a new film then you are engaged in a totally different activity to simply editing someone else's products, without creating any additional material.
Incidentally I am more than happy to say, "Tolkien wrote a book -don't change it" Reading a fan edit book of the text wouldn't hold any appeal for me, I shouldn't think.
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
Feb 26 2015, 2:21pm
Post #16 of 86
(1380 views)
Shortcut
|
|
OK - here's another question - for you, for anyone here....
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
How does fan editing differ from censorship? Or does it?
People who argue for fan edits, either because they want to watch them or they want to make them, almost always seem to take the line that they are improving Peter Jackson's films by cutting out things they don't like. It may be the prologue or Frodo, or Tauriel and Kili, or 'the bloat' - whatever that might be. I haven't identified it yet. The only fan editors who seem to be exempt from the longing to cut material out are the ones who enjoy the films and just want to experiment with them - rearranging the story lines or whatever. Otherwise the common thread seems to be the removal of something disapproved of. And that is censorship, isn't it?
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
Feb 26 2015, 2:33pm
Post #17 of 86
(1360 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Hmmm - is personal censorship what we mean by censorship, though?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I'm not sure that quite works. Censorship is usally a process of controlling what everyone sees not just what one sees oneself.
If fan edits were the only version available then we might have some read across but as it stands I wouldn't say so.
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
Feb 26 2015, 2:40pm
Post #18 of 86
(1343 views)
Shortcut
|
It's certainly a difference of scale. But I think perhaps the impulse to do it comes from the same place...
|
|
|
Bishop
Gondor
Feb 26 2015, 2:55pm
Post #19 of 86
(1342 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Editing is one step in a process
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Whether it's the editor doing the final version of the Hobbit, or a fan editor. You wouldn't have the same complaint about the editor of the film itself right? Because that person didn't "make the film" either.
It's a bit of a straw man here. There is no fan editor even claiming they are making an entirely new work from scratch. That's way they're called fan edits.
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
Feb 26 2015, 3:03pm
Post #20 of 86
(1350 views)
Shortcut
|
|
But surely the editor who works on the film itself .....
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
... is a completely different case, because he/she is working for and with the director. Editing films or books isn't about making the creative decisions, it's about facilitating the decisions of the person creating the work.
A fan editor is imposing his or her own decisions on someone else's work - but judging from the comments made here, some of them do seem to think they've creating something of their own even with the existing film as their raw material.
|
|
|
Elarie
Grey Havens
Feb 26 2015, 3:05pm
Post #21 of 86
(1345 views)
Shortcut
|
|
In terms of artistic expression there are precedents
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
The first one that always comes to mind is "Erased de Kooning" by Robert Rauschenberg (for which he got permission from de Kooning). But the idea that Rauschenberg "created" a work of art by erasing de Kooning's work still makes for some very lively discussions. It currently belongs to the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art.
A couple of weeks ago I was at our local art museum, and came across three photographs in their collection which had each been created by overlaying 80 photos of 80 different portraits by a famous artist - for example 80 Rembrandt portraits had been photographed and combined into a single image. The results were very nice abstract images of light and dark. Of course, no one will ever know how Rembrandt would have felt about it, but Altered Art and Intervention Art seem to be pretty well accepted in the fine arts community (not to mention those YouTube fan videos) so assuming copyrights aren't being violated for financial gain, Fan Edits of movies seem to be part of a broader trend throughout contemporary art.
__________________
Gold is the strife of kinsmen,
and fire of the flood-tide,
and the path of the serpent.
(Old Icelandic Fe rune poem)
|
|
|
Bishop
Gondor
Feb 26 2015, 3:16pm
Post #22 of 86
(1334 views)
Shortcut
|
That editors of any kind don't make claims that they are creating a work from scratch.
But besides that, you seem to have an idea of an editor as a skill that is mechanical in nature. Editors DO make creative decisions, all the time. They are part of the creation, not just facilitating it.
And the only thing I think fan edits claim to make is a new edit of the film. Which it is.
(This post was edited by Bishop on Feb 26 2015, 3:16pm)
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
Feb 26 2015, 3:26pm
Post #23 of 86
(1326 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I'm not denying the skill involved....
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
.. editing - good editing - is a real skill. But it's still the director who makes the final decision. It's still the director who is credited with creating the film - and blamed if it's a failure.
Same as in the world I know, which is writing. A really good editor is immensely valuable. But the editor isn't the author and doesn't claim to be. The editor suggests, asks questions, the author decides. The author creates the work, the editor facilitates. And with books the editor usually gets no credit at all, unless they turn up in the acknowledgements.
|
|
|
Macfeast
Rohan
Feb 26 2015, 3:29pm
Post #24 of 86
(1315 views)
Shortcut
|
|
They might come from the same place, but... I'm not sure that that actually means anything.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
The impulse that leads one to exercise censorship, and the impulse that leads one to do a fan-edit, might both come from a place of "I don't like it and I want it removed", but... I think that's a very generic and not guaranteed to be offensive mindset. I display the same mindset when I ask a chef to leave a certain ingredient out of the meal I'm ordering.
For one to arrive at censorship, I think there are more impulses than merely the desire to see something removed that comes into play, impulses that aren't necessarily displayed by fan-editors. The "removal of something disapproved of" might be a common thread in both censorship, and fan-edits, but... I don't think that that is a common thread that tells us very much.
(This post was edited by Macfeast on Feb 26 2015, 3:29pm)
|
|
|
burrahobbit
Rohan
Feb 26 2015, 3:30pm
Post #25 of 86
(1333 views)
Shortcut
|
I'm not one of these people who dislikes fan editing in particular- it's an interesting trend with some similarities to fan fiction and various other fan activities.
But I think it's important to make the distinction between the full process of film editing and making a cut. I believe editors have to work with all the original takes, the dialogue, the music, to make sequences and scenes. It's a process that can take years.
Fan edits are like an additional cut after the final cut (which comes after the editors cut and the directors cut). It's really only changing the final step of a very long process. They can be interesting experiments, but it's not surprising that many people are going to be dismissive about their artistic merit.
|
|
|
|
|
1
