You appear to be the one confusing the analogy and being unable to understand what I've been saying. You are trying mightily to blur the distinction between playing a cover of a song and somehow playing the recording itself, by which you really mean playing a cover
No, I'm MAKING the distinction, you're the one blurring it.
Playing around with something already recorded is like playing around with a movie already made - see Fan Edits forum.
That was in response to me explicitely talking about performing and recording, BASED ON RECORDINGS.
NOT remixing.
So I try to clear it up:
Fan Edits = equivalent of remixing a recording.
Remakes = equivalent of transcribing a recording, and recording it again. I.e. cover.
I'm not blurring anything.
And when you say things like "NO, WRONG." and "no, dismissed" I just wonder who the hell do you think you are.
Someone who understands that, if we're going to make analogies between music and film, then
re-editing a movie > re-editing a recording, and
re-producing a movie > re-producing a recording?
Without chiasms?
I know you've convinced yourself. But an idea cannot be absolutely dismissed or declared wrong unless it is a factual issue.
It can if it's illogical.
There is no factual issue in contrasting remakes with edits. I'm arguing that they are fundamentally different. You believe that they exist on a scale of creativity.
No - if anything, remaking scripts and remaking plays are on a "scale of creativity".
Edits are a different thing altogether, all I said was that you could BLAME THEM FOR ALL THE THINGS YOU BLAME REMAKES FOR, aswell.
No idea why you brought up edits.
Oh wait, it was because you thought they were the cinematic analogy to playing after a recording. /facepalm
It's official because you say so?
No, I say because it's official :p
Why wouldn't it be very easy? Bringing a book to life on the screen is infinitely more creative than bringing a movie to life on the screen again.
Not sure what one has to do with the other, but I said was that if ecranizing a play, it would still be feasible to "blend out" other previous renditions of it and focus on your own version, while with remaking a movie, it's both virtually impossible, and pretty absurd.
All the while being influenced by a previous (famous) movie version, is still (as you said) very much a possibility.
If it's just about putting fingerprints on it, it is minimally creative, as I already argued.
It all depends on how big those fingerprints are.
Small, subtle differences and ideas are also often very appreciated (like with many recordings of classical music).
Having that said, if you look at King Kong and all the things that were altered, changed etc., I'd say it's a pretty huge fucking difference, and it was ANYTHING but "minimally creative".
So if you had previously thought that basing a movie on a movie was so incredibly limited, well, look at King Kong and see how it CAN get done.
And just for the record, yes, one exception DOES rebut your "maxim" (or is it maxime)?
The fact that it CAN be done creatively, means that the uncreative or lame examples are such due to poor ideas and execution, not the format (which is capable of so much more, and better).
You say I said, "all they can do is imprint their own fingers...doing the same with different fingerprints." This is about the 5th time you've made up a quote I didn't say. It is evidence that you do not understand what I'm saying because you feel the need to invent quotes. Those invented quotes do not represent what I've argued.
If something is already made and made well, why copy it just to put one's own fingerprints on it?
Heh. :)
See what a silly and rude thing it is to respond to an idea in that fashion?
I really don't mind.
I think the room for creativity is a major factor in whether a project is worthwhile.
Yea, but plain imitation with subtle fingerprints can already be worthwhile (to the artist, and consumer), as you see, for example, with a great bulk of classical music recordings, or amateur re-enactments of movie scenes.
And it goes a long way uphill from there.
I suspect you'd be in a distinct minority of people who would find it "cheesy."
Or maybe it was "campy", I honestly don't remember anymore.
But yea, landing in a magic village full of cute midgets, following some yellow path, lots of kitschy songs, an OTT green witch... pretty damn "cheesy".
Your views on violence against women
It was a RedLetterMedia reference, silly.
Even without that, you couldn't POSSIBLY have taken my remark about "slitting your wife's wrists" as a honest "view on violence against women", or... could you?
You either have the driest deadpan humor I've ever witnessed, or you're an unimaginably boring person.
I could make an educated guess based on the tone of the rest of your post, but I rather wouldn't.
I think it best to "agree to disagree"
Agreed.