Greg Cox wrote:
Why assume some crass commerical motive?
Because it's a business. The money is controlled by people with crass commercial motives.
Well, yes, but that doesn't mean the people they hire to do the creating aren't genuinely inspired. Hell, Greg and I get paid to write Star Trek
novels, which is all a commercial enterprise where the studio is concerned, but I can assure you that we both love Star Trek
deeply as fans and are motivated by the love of the work and the concepts. Yes, we do it for money, but you do your job for money too, so you're being a hypocrite if you condemn others for doing the same. Everyone needs to earn money to pay their rent and put food on the table, but that doesn't mean you can't truly love your job and be inspired by other factors as well..
Exactly. I was just harping about this in another thread recently. There's this weird mentality one runs into, where movies and tv and books are concerned, that insists that motives are either purely artistic OR "just about the money." Instead of, say, creative people trying to do what they love while also trying to make a living.
Seriously, does anyone really
think that all artistic decisions made on any TV show are driven entirely by commercial concerns? Why would people even get into that business if they didn't enjoy the creative end of things? Why not just become a stock broker or orthodontist if you just want to make money?
Why not give Fuller the benefit of the doubt and assume he just wanted to include the Creature because he thought it would be cool or funny or entertaining or whatever?
Lord knows when I'm struggling with a scene or a funny bit of dialogue I'm not thinking, "Hmm. Which plot twist will make the publisher the most money? Will this fight scene hurt my royalties?"
(I wrote a book once in which Frankenstein fought Wonder Woman. Did I get paid for that book? Sure. Did the publisher hope to make money by printing it? Sure. But did my inner ten-year-old get a ball out of writing that scene? Of course!)