|
|
Post by Waxer-n-boil on Nov 26, 2020 18:05:12 GMT
“The audience should shut up and has no say” argument. I keep hearing this as a popular defense anytime anyone has a complaint/criticism of a movie.
First of all, yes. A filmmaker should dominate the creative control of a movie. That’s what they’re hired for in some capacity. And that right and privilege goes with the title. However...
This argument about the audience’s expectations are meaningless and that they don’t have any say is stupid. If they don’t then why have focus study groups? Why bother marketing to them if their opinion or expectations don’t matter? Just put out video announcements so the audience knows the release date of the movie and tell them to show up. Why have trailer/teaser conventions? What do you think those are for other than to get audience feedback and to build up their expectations? Why have movie critics? Do you really think movie critics review a film with no framework of expectation or opinion? Why expect to have much of an audience at all if you completely disregard their options and expectations?
Every artist and filmmaker should expect that they have to strike a balance between their creative freedom and expression, and respecting the expectations and passions of their audience. If they don’t then they’re just being arrogant and stupid.
|
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Nov 27, 2020 21:53:52 GMT
The audience should be free to criticize a movie as much as they want.
Of course it should be constructive criticism.
And people have the right to complain as long as its constructive.
If the creators/filmmakers can`t handle criticism/complaining than they need t find a new job.
|
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Nov 28, 2020 21:02:28 GMT
The audience should be free to criticize a movie as much as they want. Of course it should be constructive criticism. And people have the right to complain as long as its constructive. If the creators/filmmakers can`t handle criticism/complaining than they need t find a new job. For the most part it's not about criticism. It's more about them wanting the filmmakers to redo a movie. Like I said in another thread: The Snyder Cut was a total mistake. Now audiences think they have more power over studios than they really do.
|
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Nov 28, 2020 21:05:19 GMT
The audience should be free to criticize a movie as much as they want. Of course it should be constructive criticism. And people have the right to complain as long as its constructive. If the creators/filmmakers can`t handle criticism/complaining than they need t find a new job. For the most part it's not about criticism. It's more about them wanting the filmmakers to redo a movie. Like I said in another thread: The Snyder Cut was a total mistake. Now audiences think they have more power over studios than they really do. I know.
|
|
|
|
Post by Waxer-n-boil on Nov 29, 2020 0:09:44 GMT
The audience should be free to criticize a movie as much as they want. Of course it should be constructive criticism. And people have the right to complain as long as its constructive. If the creators/filmmakers can`t handle criticism/complaining than they need t find a new job. For the most part it's not about criticism. It's more about them wanting the filmmakers to redo a movie. Like I said in another thread: The Snyder Cut was a total mistake. Now audiences think they have more power over studios than they really do. I think too big of a deal is being made over it. It’s a director’s cut, not a rebooted remake. And the Snyder cut is hardly the first director’s cut. When a director’s cut is released because the director smooth talked or twisted the arm of the studio, nobody says anything. But when it’s released because of fan request, there’s all of this polarizing drama about whether it should be allowed or not. And you know Warner Brothers is probably going to make a profit off of it anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Nov 29, 2020 23:35:13 GMT
For the most part it's not about criticism. It's more about them wanting the filmmakers to redo a movie. Like I said in another thread: The Snyder Cut was a total mistake. Now audiences think they have more power over studios than they really do. I think too big of a deal is being made over it. It’s a director’s cut, not a rebooted remake. And the Snyder cut is hardly the first director’s cut. When a director’s cut is released because the director smooth talked or twisted the arm of the studio, nobody says anything. But when it’s released because of fan request, there’s all of this polarizing drama about whether it should be allowed or not. And you know Warner Brothers is probably going to make a profit off of it anyway. When was the last time there was a director's cut where the fans petitioned for it and the studio refused to make it until it was bought out?
|
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Nov 30, 2020 0:40:40 GMT
I think too big of a deal is being made over it. It’s a director’s cut, not a rebooted remake. And the Snyder cut is hardly the first director’s cut. When a director’s cut is released because the director smooth talked or twisted the arm of the studio, nobody says anything. But when it’s released because of fan request, there’s all of this polarizing drama about whether it should be allowed or not. And you know Warner Brothers is probably going to make a profit off of it anyway. When was the last time there was a director's cut where the fans petitioned for it and the studio refused to make it until it was bought out? The Snyder Cut is getting released because AT&T is trying to get people to sign up for their streaming service. They saw that there was some demand for it, and so they’re trying to capitalize on it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Waxer-n-boil on Nov 30, 2020 0:56:21 GMT
I think too big of a deal is being made over it. It’s a director’s cut, not a rebooted remake. And the Snyder cut is hardly the first director’s cut. When a director’s cut is released because the director smooth talked or twisted the arm of the studio, nobody says anything. But when it’s released because of fan request, there’s all of this polarizing drama about whether it should be allowed or not. And you know Warner Brothers is probably going to make a profit off of it anyway. When was the last time there was a director's cut where the fans petitioned for it and the studio refused to make it until it was bought out? Does that really matter that much?... The reason why I say that is because it’s not the first director’s cut that was released by a studio that originally had no intention of releasing one. It really isn’t. It’s just that previous times it was usually at the behest of the director. And he had to fight the studio over it. Now you’re probably going to say he’s not a fan but has creative control and power over the film. It ultimately doesn’t matter because once the final cut is made and it’s set for release and distribution, it’s the property of the studio. Neither the director nor anyone else has say over it any longer. So if a director argues for a cut after that point (and it has happened) he has no more rights or say over whether that happens than a fan does. So what difference does it make whether a studio changes it’s mind over releasing a cut because a director pleaded over it or a fan base did? Both have zero leverage but what the studio allows after final cut and distribution. The studio has all of the say. So again, what difference does it make? |
|
|
|
Post by Waxer-n-boil on Nov 30, 2020 1:02:54 GMT
When was the last time there was a director's cut where the fans petitioned for it and the studio refused to make it until it was bought out? The Snyder Cut is getting released because AT&T is trying to get people to sign up for their streaming service. They saw that there was some demand for it, and so they’re trying to capitalize on it. Exactly. Does anyone really think that they are doing this and they don’t see any profit to be made? Why would they deny themselves profit when they see the Snyder cut could project a profit? To satisfy purist fans who oppose decisions being made that factor in fan feedback? |
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Dec 2, 2020 20:12:41 GMT
I would rephrase to say: Every artist and filmmaker should expect that they have to strike a balance between their creative freedom and expression, and respecting the expectations and passions of their audience when they are directing an installment in a franchise.
A franchise has a pre-established formula that A) works, or else it wouldn't have become a franchise, and B) that its fans expect more of, that's why they come back to every sequel. Its that simple.
|
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Dec 3, 2020 5:56:04 GMT
I would rephrase to say: Every artist and filmmaker should expect that they have to strike a balance between their creative freedom and expression, and respecting the expectations and passions of their audience when they are directing an installment in a franchise. A franchise has a pre-established formula that A) works, or else it wouldn't have become a franchise, and B) that its fans expect more of, that's why they come back to every sequel. Its that simple. I would say when making a continuation or adaptation of a property, franchise implies a greater body of work, where as if you adapt a standalone book you should still respect the expectations of the fans and even the original creator to a degree, it's a work you or someone else wants adapted for a reason, why adapt or continue on a property if you aren't going to? May as well create your own original IP then?
|
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Dec 3, 2020 19:52:43 GMT
I would rephrase to say: Every artist and filmmaker should expect that they have to strike a balance between their creative freedom and expression, and respecting the expectations and passions of their audience when they are directing an installment in a franchise. A franchise has a pre-established formula that A) works, or else it wouldn't have become a franchise, and B) that its fans expect more of, that's why they come back to every sequel. Its that simple. I would say when making a continuation or adaptation of a property, franchise implies a greater body of work, where as if you adapt a standalone book you should still respect the expectations of the fans and even the original creator to a degree, it's a work you or someone else wants adapted for a reason, why adapt or continue on a property if you aren't going to? May as well create your own original IP then? Exactly.
|
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Dec 4, 2020 11:37:46 GMT
I think too big of a deal is being made over it. It’s a director’s cut, not a rebooted remake. And the Snyder cut is hardly the first director’s cut. When a director’s cut is released because the director smooth talked or twisted the arm of the studio, nobody says anything. But when it’s released because of fan request, there’s all of this polarizing drama about whether it should be allowed or not. And you know Warner Brothers is probably going to make a profit off of it anyway. When was the last time there was a director's cut where the fans petitioned for it and the studio refused to make it until it was bought out? Well but to be fair, Zack Snyder and the cast fed into the frenzy. Snyder clearly implied that his vision was not realized in Justice League film over the years after the theatrical.
|
|
