TheBoost

zombie84 said:

This reminds me of a very interesting interview with Coppola I read this week.

"How does an aspiring artist bridge the gap between distribution and commerce?
We have to be very clever about those things. You have to remember that it’s only a few hundred years, if that much, that artists are working with money. Artists never got money. Artists had a patron, either the leader of the state or the duke of Weimar or somewhere, or the church, the pope. Or they had another job. I have another job. I make films. No one tells me what to do. But I make the money in the wine industry. You work another job and get up at five in the morning and write your script.

This idea of Metallica or some rock n’ roll singer being rich, that’s not necessarily going to happen anymore. Because, as we enter into a new age, maybe art will be free. Maybe the students are right. They should be able to download music and movies. I’m going to be shot for saying this. But who said art has to cost money? And therefore, who says artists have to make money?

Interesting. I imagine it's easy to have deep Bohemian thoughts sitting in one's mansion drinking your own vanity wine label though.

I just can't shake the feeling that if someone labors to create something that is then enjoyed by a great many people, that person is owed something.

zombie84 said:

TheBoost said:

Mithrandir said:

One of the most interesting things I've read about piracy and copyright was strangely in the words of Liam Gallagher:

“I hate all these big, silly rock stars who moan – at least they’re fuckin’ downloading your music, you cunt, and paying attention, know what I mean? You should fuckin’ appreciate that – what are you moaning about? You’ve got fuckin’ five big houses, so shut up,”

 

"Interesting." Yeah, that's one word for it.

 At what point does someone not deserve to get compensated for their labor? What's the exact dollar ammount where it's now 'enough' and it's ok to steal from them? Is it the same for civil engineers or financial planners as it is for musicians? If I develope a cure for a disease and people steal if from me, should I just be happy people are enjoying my cure?

 I think a lot of people would put art in a different category than medicine or engineering or any other "job." But there is also a very good point Quackula made that most musicians that are semi-famous, have deals and fans, are on the radio, etc., don't make a whole lot of money and struggle to enjoy a middle-class lifestyle. The flipside, of course, is that downloading doesn't make much of a dent in their income because most of it comes from concerts and merchandising. If musicians had to rely only on CD sales they'd have to give up and get a real job.

I think that defending downloads/theft because it's a small part of an artists income anyways is a very different argument that Mithrandir's/Lliam Gallagher's argument that it's valid to rob someone if that person is successful.

And doesn't it show a certain contempt for an artist to say it's alright to steal the fruits of their years of practice, struggle, and hard work without compensating them because they're "artists" but its not okay to do the same to any other craft?

Mithrandir said:

One of the most interesting things I've read about piracy and copyright was strangely in the words of Liam Gallagher:

“I hate all these big, silly rock stars who moan – at least they’re fuckin’ downloading your music, you cunt, and paying attention, know what I mean? You should fuckin’ appreciate that – what are you moaning about? You’ve got fuckin’ five big houses, so shut up,”

 

"Interesting." Yeah, that's one word for it.

 At what point does someone not deserve to get compensated for their labor? What's the exact dollar ammount where it's now 'enough' and it's ok to steal from them?

Is it the same for civil engineers or financial planners as it is for musicians?

If I develope a cure for a disease and people steal if from me, should I just be happy people are enjoying my cure?

TV's Frink said:

TheBoost said:

Halp?

 DR. WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGNNNNNNNER!!!!!!!! Jr!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(Why a Mexican pro wrestler is both a Doctor and apparently German I don't know)

How come no one on 'Star Trek' ever says, "F**k the Prime Directive. Perhaps it is US who can learn something from this other culture we just discovered."

Buncha racist elitist bastards.

I think Williams work on the Prequals are some of those films redeeming virtues.  The love theme in AOTC was the only reason I was able to understand those characters were supposed to be in love.

Bingowings said:

Not to mention The Life Of Brian.

But he's not the Messiah. He's just a very naughty boy.

Quackula said:

TheBoost said:

For people who are so opposed to a "PT Free" environment, let me ask: Why does a kid need to see the PT? Why, of the thousands of entertainments that xhonzi's, mine, or any kid, might enjoy and yet will never see, does the PT hold some important rank?

In reality I wouldn't be going out of my way to show my children the PT, but I certainly won't lose any sleep over it if they see it on TV, at a friend's house, or even notice it at the store or something and decide they want to see it. Doesn't sound all that different from your viewpoint does it?

The thing with the lightsaber dremeling, is that it seems that he's not doing it so much to give his kids a "cooler toy" as it is that he's doing it to prevent his kids from being aware that somewhere somehow Yoda has a lightsaber. I doubt the kid asked him to dremel off that lightsaber. (See here I go assuming again.)

Perhaps our viewpoints are closer than we think. However, I just don't see anything Xhonzi has said or done to be somehow shocking, or in need of 'perspective.'

And we'll have to agree to disagree about the toy. Because you're wrong and it's teh awesome!

Gaffer Tape said:

With the complete nosedive this conversation has taken over the past few days, it's beginning to make me glad that I don't have kids and don't intend to have any...

But isn't your biological clock ticking?

zombie84 said:

The Boost, no disrespect to you, but I don't believe you when you say you won't allow your kids to see "crap." This is the exact sort of thing I am talking about. You let your kids see crap every day, probably. If they watch kids films or kids TV shows, they will mostly see crap, because most of them are dumb. And that's okay.

My kids 20 months old. He doesn't see anything except Elmo. I never said I'm going to somehow shield him from all crap in the world. But during the age he's basically provided entertainment by me (probably until early grade-school) I won't be providing him the PT. As I said in my first post in this thread, he can see them when he's old enough to watch them at a friends house.

But tooling a Yoda toy to remove the lightsaber is cool. Even seeing the PT Yoda's a cooler toy without it.

And why is no one jumping to defend "Darkman 3: Die Darkman Die"?

Just had a pudding cup.

Warbler said:

who's suppressing anything?  I simply asked a question.  Since the others don't seem to mind this thread too much,  I'll say nothing more except one last thing.    I am little bothered by the comparison of Robocop to to Jesus Christ.   I personally do not think image of the cross is something to be made fun of.    That said, I will bow out and say no more.  Everyone do as you wish.

Yeah but Warb, while that photo is probably a bit irreverent, Christ imagery is very common in movies. Did the Jesus parallelism in "The Green Mile" bother you? How about "Superman Returns?"

Harmy said:

Xhonzi and TheBoost, I'm on your side on this issue. I think kids can't always make smart decisions for themselves and when I have kids, they're definitely gonna see the OT first and then they can watch the PT, when they're old enough to arrange it for themselves, I'm not gonna show it to them. And I would totally remove the lightsabre from the Yoda figure.

I dont even think its about "smart choices." In the myriad world of diversions my kid might watch, why intentionally expose him to what I think is crap?

When he's old enough to say "Pop, I heard some skuttlebutt that there are these other Star Wars movies" he's old enough to see them. He's also old enough to see "Darkman 3" if he can find a copy. It's not my job to show him any crap.

ps. Twobyfour

If any of your posts are addressed at me, please know that I've had you on ignore for a couple days. Perhaps I'll unignore someday if, with coaching by Frink and others, you learn how people talk at the grown-up table.

For people who are so opposed to a "PT Free" environment, let me ask: Why does a kid need to see the PT? Why, of the thousands of entertainments that xhonzi's, mine, or any kid, might enjoy and yet will never see, does the PT hold some important rank?

If someone said "I will never show my kid the animated 3 Stooges cartoons!" would there be this outcry?

Quackula said:

But when you go to such lengths as dremeling off the lightsaber on a Republic Heroes Yoda toy, I think it's worth taking a moment to step back and get some perspective.

That's awesome! Are you on crack? The kid likes Republic Heroes toys, doesn't see the PT. Makes sense to me. What great lengths do you think that is? 45 seconds work, and that's if you use a vise and safety goggles. When he's done with the exhausting task, should he 'get some perspective' drop to his knees and scream 'What have I become???!?"

When I was a lad my dad spray painted a C3PO silver so I'd have the Cloud City robot. Xhonzi's actions strike me as similarly awesome.

I LIVED in a red one with Vader on it when I was little. Wore it until it litterally rotted off me.

luke.the.darkside.is.fun said:

 

 there my views, i knew i would get shit for them but its ok

I think the Robocop/Christ parallells in the first one are very plain and shirley intentional on the part of the director (how seriously they're meant to be taken is up for debate).

I think you might be stretching it for Robocop 2, and I've never seen 3.

Akwat Kbrana said:

If anyone else (that is to say, anyone who makes a habit of sensible posting) wants to continue to discuss this issue, I stand by my earlier comments. If I have strongly negative preferences regarding a particular film, I see no reason to go out of my way to secure a copy so my child can watch it. And I certainly don't think regulating what movies I do or don't show my children constitutes manipulation.

I'm not certain that a child needs to see any piece of entertainment. I don't plan to show my son "AOTC" "Nine and Half Weeks" "Dragon Ball Z" "Starship Troopers" or season two of "Duck Tales" all for different reasons. He might enjoy any of these, but there's no obligation. 

My son won't watch "Barney the Dinosaur" because it annoys me. I don't see how someone using their personal film prefrences asa  guide is somehow sinister.

Gee, looks like twooffour wrote a couple of his trademark novel-length posts in response to something I said. I hope you weren't planning on a response; in case you didn't notice, I put you on my ignore list a long time ago due to the condescending, conceited tone of every post of yours I've ever observed.

It's for the best.

Peter Ustinov as Hercule Poirot in "Appointment With DEATH!"

The last VHS I keep on my shelf, since this excellent film (co starring Carrie Fisher!) has never been on DVD.

doubleofive said:

I assumed for years that "Solo" was a name he gave himself. Some quote from one of the Han Solo Adventures or original novelizations mentioned something about "though his name was Solo, he was truly alone now".

 That makes sense in ENGLISH, but in Correllian "Solo" actually translates as "Mudhouse Sea Dog."

Riddle me this...

How is the USS Enterprise like a roll of toilet paper?

TMBTM said:

I think Han Solo is a kind of reference to Lancelot.

 Wow.

In all my years of loving Star Wars AND being a rabid Arthurian that has never ever occured to me. It really makes a lot of since.

It now asks the question, do you suppose Lucas did that intentionally?

twooffour said:

 

That's not even the right picture, you smart alec.

If any, THAT is the approach to go with that includes "not showing the star wars prequels", NOT the "I want him to love the OT and never have heard the prequels existed, as it would've been in an ideal world". I mean, you know, good luck with that - your son has great chances of growing up to be a religious nutcase seducing millions of people all over the globe to severe their attachment to films, in promise of a final state of being where no movies exist and no movies are shown.

 Responding to that with a lame still completely detached from its caption, after having decided to respond at all (and it's your own thread, for all it matters) doesn't do anything to support your position, all it does is... making you look like a carebear!

 You're a thoroughly unlikable person, do you know that?

TV's Frink said:

(15 hrs/season) x 6 seasons = 90 hrs / (12 hrs/dozen) = 7.5 dozens

I stand by my statement.

 I doubt your math.