racketboy.com

There's been a lot written about how fans of the product of problematic creators (discovered after the fact) can continue to enjoy the things they enjoy while still calling out the creators, providing counter-narratives, and not supporting their ongoing and future works. If you can still read Lovecraft and his work's derivatives then you can still be a fan of Harry Potter and Buffy. You just have to make sure to be a fan with an active and critical eye and not simply a passive, uncritical consumer.

Honestly, as to whether something like Twilight needs redemption or not, time will tell. There were a lot of works that were slammed when they came out that turned into loved cult classics via the reassessment of time. I simply am not familiar enough with Twilight to know either way. I'd have to read it to have a firm opinion, and I simply don't have the time or fucks to give.

marurun wrote:I simply don't have the time or fucks to give.

It’s true. I audited his tax returns, and I noted that, in 2021, marurun did not take a deduction for f*cks donated to the Twilight series. This indicates that, in the previous year, he gave precisely zero f*cks about Twilight. Put another way, there were no f*cks given, or more simply, he didn’t give a f*ck, and I don’t expect him to give a f*ck about Twilight in 2022.

prfsnl_gmr wrote:

marurun wrote:I simply don't have the time or fucks to give.

It’s true. I audited his tax returns, and I noted that, in 2021, marurun did not take a deduction for f*cks donated to the Twilight series. This indicates that, in the previous year, he gave precisely zero f*cks about Twilight. Put another way, there were no f*cks given, or more simply, he didn’t give a f*ck, and I don’t expect him to give a f*ck about Twilight in 2022.

Thank you for that fantastic summary of my annual f*cknancials re: Twilight!

marurun wrote:There's been a lot written about how fans of the product of problematic creators (discovered after the fact) can continue to enjoy the things they enjoy while still calling out the creators, providing counter-narratives, and not supporting their ongoing and future works. If you can still read Lovecraft and his work's derivatives then you can still be a fan of Harry Potter and Buffy. You just have to make sure to be a fan with an active and critical eye and not simply a passive, uncritical consumer.

I feel like Lovecraft is a bit different than the others mentioned. You can watch Buffy the Vampire Slayer or Firefly and not have a clue that Joss Whedon is a creep. You can watch all the Ren & Stimpy you want and not get any sense that the creator was creeping on teen girls in his free time.

As far as I know, the primary personal criticism of Lovecraft is his racism, and that's pretty overt if you read many of his stories. You can't read his body of work without seeing it, both implicit and explicit.

Lovecraft is dead and his works are public domain so he doesn't get anything. But J.K. Rowling still gets royalties from books, movies and merch, and folks like her put their money towards their beliefs. She also has a platform to devalue the trans community without spending a cent. And it just seems like reading her books or wearing a HP shirt in public could be seen as me showing support with her instead of with the trans community.

Plus it's not just her transphobia, which could possibly be seen as early as Goblet of Fire with her describing Rita Skeeter as having big hands and masculine features, as well as finding out she transforms herself to spy on children. It's also projecting anti-Semitic tropes onto various characters, as well as depicting heavyset characters as bullies or wimps.

Just finished watching Hellraiser III: Hell on Earth. While not as nuanced as the first two, it's still an enjoyable piece of splatterpunk fiction, though much more commercial while trying to put Hell Priest on the same slasher shelf as Freddy and Jason. And before you say anything, Pinhead was a glorified nickname given by crew members on the set of Hellraiser 1 (or was it Hellraiser II?). He was referred initially as Lead Cenobite, but his proper name wasn't given until Clive Barker's "The Scarlet Gospels".

Personally, I think the work should be separated from the creator. You judge something for what it is, not by who made it. I saw the Shawshank Redemption, I have no idea who the director is, the movie is good. The director can be the worst human born in history, i have no idea.

Raging Justice wrote:So apparently anything starring a teenage girl can't appeal to anyone but teenage girls

You have an interesting perspective on things.

-------------

Well that would be the end of all entertainment then as EVERYTHING borrows ideas from something else. You said Dredd and The Raid are basically the same movies and that is completely untrue. There is a basic idea they both incorporate, but everything surrounding that is completely different. You see everything so black and white, most things in life are much more nuanced. Some people really do miss the forest for the trees

-you can like whatever you like, but usually work is done with a target in mind. I am sure Harry Potter was not meant for 70 year old men and Country Music is probably not marketed in South Korea.

-There is a difference between inspiration and replication. Taking an idea and giving it a different theme is not inspiration. I can't recall them now, but in the movie world there is a lot of this especially on the foreign (for you, assuming you are american) scene. I invite you to see the intro of this popular Turkish series and won't tell you it was "inspired" by which show

I have no problem with people being inspired by something else, I have no problem by people taking someone elses idea and building on it to make it something completely different, I do have a problem when someone steals and idea and make his own version of it and call it "his" work. There is a lot of this in business, whenever something succeeds and makes money all other business make their own "clone" of it. Waste of my time imo, I rather watch the original author/creator and give him credit, unless the author clearly says "I am copying X, this is my take on it" then i have no issue.

RCBH928 wrote:I have no problem with people being inspired by something else, I have no problem by people taking someone elses idea and building on it to make it something completely different, I do have a problem when someone steals and idea and make his own version of it and call it "his" work. There is a lot of this in business, whenever something succeeds and makes money all other business make their own "clone" of it. Waste of my time imo, I rather watch the original author/creator and give him credit, unless the author clearly says "I am copying X, this is my take on it" then i have no issue.

The problem is that there isn't a hard and fast line for that distinction. Maybe you've decided there is, but I think, broadly speaking, there's a LOT of room for interpretation. Sometimes someone will come along and "rip off" the original creator and end up making something that's just a crap ton better than the original. Some of the best works are more "stolen" than "inspiration", as you put it.

My last reboot of the month.....

Slumber Party Massacre



Twenty some odd years ago, all of Trish's friends were killed by a drill-wielding psycho who ambushed them at the lake house they were staying at, and Trish became the lone survivor of that fateful night, having successfully fended off the killer and tossing his ass in the lake. But she must not have hit him hard enough, because the creepy killer's body was never found. Trish has tried to move on, but now history seems doomed to repeat itself, as Trish's daughter Dana is now headed off for a few days to have her own graduation-related slumber party with her own friends. And wouldn't you know it, their car just so happens to break down right by the same lake where Trish had all those problems so many years ago. Gee, I hope that crazed killer isn't still loitering about....

I didn't even know they were doing a remake of this thing until I saw the advertisements in October. And I didn't have very high hopes because that damned SYFY logo was plastered all over it, so I held off on watching it for a couple of months. But, as it turns out, I shouldn't have been so worried. Instead of feeling like a cheap knock-off, the movie is actually more of a self-aware love letter to the original films and has lots of little Easter eggs referencing them hidden throughout. And the script's actually not too bad either, thanks to the comedy and the film's efforts to subvert your expectations. Unfortunately it falls apart a bit at the end, so the film's not perfect, but overall I was entertained.

Holy shit. TIL a lot. I knew many of these facts.