Franchises: A Controversial Conclusion

Apparently destroying the offending movie was the way it worked in that time and place. We're more about money today. I wonder if that would have satisfied the Stoker relatives.

My general thinking is that once the thing is out in the wild it belongs in the wild. Before that moment, I grant absolute right to the artist. If the artist doesn't want a draft published posthumously, you don't do it (e.g., Wallace, Kafka). Once, however, a work is in the hands of the collective, it is cultural property. It is part of a larger conversation. It cannot really be taken back and it damages the larger cultural conversation to try. So no, I would not destroy Nosferatu either.

That stated, even my avowed position might be sorely tested. Suppose, for example, that a pornographic work of art were made with the deepfaked or private images of Taylor Swift (and we can rotate candidate victims to raise and lower the temperature). Suppose, for the sake of argument, that we're speaking of a legitimate work of art here (in both the categorical and valorific sense of the term) and not a cheap smut reel. Suppose further that Swift didn't want a cut of the profits, but rather desired that the distribution and display of this artwork desist, and for extant copies of it be destroyed. Would you grant her wish?

I doubt laws have yet caught up with things like Deep Fakes, since it's a new technology, but I'm relatively sure at some point they will be illegal and so the question (at least eventually) will be moot.


If no laws are passed on this, what are you going to do? As I stated above, something can be art, even if it's illegal. And if it's not illegal, it's not up to the artists to be enforcing what can or cannot be done. Of course Taylor Swift wouldn't have any recourse, even if she should. The laws are what failed here, as well as the morality of any particular artist who would do this....but certainly not the idea of art itself, or its obligation to test boundaries. Maybe it will in fact be the arts testing of new waters of what is acceptable or not which will get the law to step in.

Quick question... how did my thread about franchises being terrible turn into a convo about burning books and graffitiing gravestones?

__________________

^LOL. Yeah, I was all ready to comment on the subject (I agree, most franchises suck after two movies) but then I saw the last post and was scared off.

The law is variable, true. Suppose, however, that you were in a unique position to grant Taylor Swift her wish (e.g., imagine a pre-internet situation such as that of Noseferatu in which it was possible, in principle, to destroy all existing prints of a film). What would you do? Would you destroy a work of art which had value (as art) and was already partially public (beginning to circulate)? Or would you preserve the art on the grounds of conservation? This is a moral question, not a legal one. I ask it not to judge your morality, but to invite your perspective. Myself, I can understand one would be sympathetic to Swift and destroy the artwork.

It goes like this


Sequels--intellectual property --copyright laws--Bram Stoker--whore mothers--Deep Fake porn-- Taylor Swift


Everything eventually always comes back to Taylor Swift

I can understand why people would want to destroy all kinds of art work. Which would include many things that might use a Deep Fake.


I just don't think it should be done everytime someone feels that should happen. Especially if the artwork in question can be demonstrated not to be causing clear harm to an individual (which an easy argument could be made regarding Deep Fakes, and why there should be a law against them being made in the first place, let alone created for profit...and it's not an argument I'd have a lot of time for in regards to the Nosferatu case)

Don't be afraid. Go on hotel, post it. Oh, you want to. Of course, you do. And there's cotton candy and rides, and all sorts of surprises down here. And balloons too, all colors. Oh yes, folks post about franchises here. They post… and when you're down here with me, you'll post too!

Anyway...
Amma throw out another franchise.

Mission: Impossible.

I can remember the first 3... because they're different movies.

But, MI4, MI4, MI4... MI4: Part 1 and the upcoming new one called MI4: Title Continuity...
Using memory only, I actually can't pick out details that differentiate the movies that came out after MI3.

Was Mission Impossible ever a good franchise?

I definitely think it had potential. But eventually Cruise's ego outgrew everything else around him, and the studio didn't really have much of a choice but to indulge him.

I continue to love the films. I love the whole cinematic philosophy behind them. I love the set pieces. There are so few film series' where I simultaneously know what I'm getting, but can still be surprised by how I get it.

What I've learned from this thread: Rodent thinks most franchises were never good. Rodent watches all franchises

To quote Yoda... "Do or do not..."

Oh wait...

"That is why..."

Wait, nope... that's not it.

Oh!
I got it...

"If you were to ask anyone on our boards who's the member who loves fun, pulpy, schlocky, action films the most, there's a pretty good chance they'd name you, Rodent"

We see the franchise an immersive world we can enter and revisit. They see the franchise as a slop-pump. "What are they buying? OK, well pump more of that into their troughs."

I didn't get a chance to respond to this or have time, but I agree with the whole Piss Christ thing and even though I find it to be morally repugnant and on a basic level to be just plain disgusting, foul, and vomit inducing not to mention shamelessly promoting based on shock value, from a legal standpoint... I guess... I could consider it to be art.

However that's a different discussion altogether from the 5Pointz Graffiti Mecca and spray painting whore on a person's gravestone. Despite the fact the judge, Frederic Block, side with the artist's outrageous lawsuit - which actually went to jury trial, and award the artist a preposterous amount of money, that still doesn't make it right... or really even legal. Judicial activism is sadly a real thing, and so is private property and no one has the right to destroy, vandalize, or "art-up" private property without the owner's consent... public property there could be a case for more leniency especially when it comes to street art. So yeah, I would have loved to see the jury selection on that specific case you linked.

I do think street art can be beautiful and rise about simple labels such as graffiti or vandalism, however, that's beside the point. Property rights are a real thing and if I own a building or what have you, unless we get into imminent domain or right of use/easement laws, I have a right to choose what happens to it.

Personally I think that 5Pointz mural was spectacular, but what I think in terms of my preference or admiration for an artist's work, doesn't supersede on what I know to be right and ethical. Was the guy an ******* for painting over it? Yeah... maybe, that's hardly the discussion. Also that's a bit of a stretch too as a counter example to the claim that spray painting whore on a person's gave IS vandalism.

__________________
"A candy colored clown!"
Member since Fall 2002
Top 100 Films, clicky below

http://www.movieforums.com/community...ad.php?t=26201

I love stream of consciousness.

Also, who's tailor Smith? It IS refreshing to see tailors in a modern world of throw away textiles and not fitted clothing and single serving use apparel. If everything always come back to tailor Smith does that mean he's doing well to be in such great demand?

Not sure how Piss Christ got lumped in with spray painting someone's tombstone....but whatever.

I liked the first one but honestly it underperformed my expectations. I might feel differently if I saw it now I haven't bothered with it in 20 years. The second one pretty much turned me away and then I thought Mission Impossible III was so silly I quit watching them and never went back.
That's all I can add, I guess, thought I might have more.

Isn't that everything?