CP3S said:
twooffour said:
Oh, don't get your panties in a bunch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKd35EmCIx8#t=75My panties aren't in a bunch; while I am not a huge fan of the term, my question mark is because you used it COMPLETELY wrong. Presumably just so you could use the word "nigger" and sound cool.
Not really.
The term has multiple meanings all centered around the general "flavor" of being rich and douchey/stupid in some way, shape or form.
It may be "acting up your wealth", or "being rich, and pretentious about it", or "showing off by buying useless stuff", generally being wasteful with the money, having more or less suddenly and/or undeservedly received a lot of money and now acting otherwise, etc.
So that last one doesn't REALLY apply to Lucasfilm, but it SORTA does if you consider that they've basically been milking the SW franchise with an overload of "commercial" merchandise (that probably helped devalue the actual new movies) and mediocre-bad entertainment material.
Plus if you think about how Lucas (and his companions) often "kinda" take the credit for other people's work (Lucas doesn't claim to have directed what he hasn't, or designed what he hasn't, but we all know how it is don't we), and now kinda "acting up" by suing people who've done certain work, in order to get yet more money out of... selling the costumes.
So yea, I thought using that term was perfectly legitimate in that context.
Now, that doesn't mean I think TOO one-sidedly about this issue. Sure, it does go the other way round - namely in the designer trying to cash in on the hype.
Would anyone buy his design if it was from some obscure art collection? No, people want it because the filmmakers using that design made damn fuckin' popular movies with it and given the design a big name.
Still, when you consider all of the above (not so much the formalities, but the common sense), you kinda do stop to think that maybe, just maybe, the "copyright laws" are now extending beyond the area where they make perfect legitimate sense.