View Single Post
Old January 30 2013, 08:20 PM   #576
Vice Admiral
Location: La Belle Province or The Green Mountain State (depends on the day of the week)
Re: Abrams Directing Star Wars

YARN wrote: View Post
Ovation wrote: View Post
So what? Really. So what? It's not like either Paramount or Disney owes the movie-going public anything by a specific date.In fact, neither of them owes us anything at all.
Nor do we owe anything to them. We don't owe them our time our attention or our hard earned dollars. We could simply take a pass on both franchises and they couldn't do a thing about it.
Exactly my point.

Seeing as how, however, they do want our money, and seeing as how Nemesis (and how many other failed films?) proved that not just anything will get our support, they do owe us.... ...something. It's not a moral imperative, but an economic imperative.
Nope. They still owe us nothing. They can ask for our money in return for their product, but we are not owed anything prior to the handing over of the money--and even after that, we are not owed satisfaction.
And seeing as how millions of dollars, careers, and even the health studios themselves are at stake, it turns out they owe us quite a bit.
Nope. They only owe us an entertainment experience IF we choose to fork over the money. They are not required to satisfy us in any way. It is, of course, in their interest to satisfy as many people as possible, if they wish to stay in business, but they most certainly do NOT have to satisfy any one person in particular.
They need to keep our interest, our good will, and most importantly our hope and faith.
Judging by their past track record, collectively, they've already done this many times and will very likely do so again.

Ovation wrote: View Post
They are entirely free to produce a film and release it when they damn well please.
Not really. As corporations, studios have a legal responsibility to their shareholders to make money. Studios cannot simply do anything they please, but must actively seek to turn a profit. They could not, therefore, push a release date to 2065, spend millions in development, and claim to be acting in good faith to their shareholders.
Well, if you're going to parse technicalities to this degree in a causal discussion board, ok. They are beholden to their shareholders. Technically, as long as they convince the shareholders that a profit will be made, in some fashion or another, even with a release date of 2065, then they are free to do so. Of course, you knew perfectly well that I meant the "when they damn well please" in relation to the general public. I forgot I was responding to the kind of pedant who looks for technical exceptions to make tangential points in order to avoid conceding the larger, more obvious point. Won't happen again.

Since their legal charge and (apparent) self-interest is to maximize profit, they must, in fact, focus their efforts on the best strategies for exploiting their properties. They cannot simply do anything they please. If they did, they will not be in business for very long.
How they choose to act in order to remain in business is entirely up to them. Even whether they choose to remain in business is entirely up to them. There would be consequences to bad choices, of course, but they are still free to make them.

And what makes money? Making the public happy. Turns out we matter after all.
I'd say they're quite skilled at doing so, given the very high degree of happiness they have, collectively, engendered among the public (measured by the only criterion that matters--the number of people who paid to see the work).

When lobbyists finally gain enough power to force congress to pass a law requiring us to buy movie tickets, perhaps it won't matter (we already have film copyright being protected and investigated by the Dept. of Homeland Security, as if video piracy makes one a homegrown terrorist), but until then, their fates depend on our tastes.
In that case, their fates seem rather promising, given the evidence available. But they remain free to offer what they want, when they want (subject, of course, to shareholder approval--don't want to forget the technicalities).

Ovation wrote: View Post
We are entitled to like, dislike or be indifferent to whatever they release--that is the extent of our rights.
And what else do you think happens on an anonymous internet forum (the few that are left now that Reddit and Facebook are ascendant)?

We are not only entitled to like and dislike, but to speak of our likes and dislikes and to express how we feel things ought to be. There is absolutely nothing improper about this and no amount of railing about the private property of filmmakers will make it otherwise.

Our talk here is not hurting their property. It does absolutely nothing, at least not directly, to impel or impede their plans or profits. Our talk here is just talk.
Certainly. People are free to talk all they like--whether they like Abrams' work, hate it or are unmoved by it. Never have I said otherwise. However, I will continue to say, as I am entirely correct in the matter, that no artistic producer (in the broadest sense, encompassing all manner of formats) owes anything in particular to the audience prior to receiving compensation of some sort and, subsequent to that compensation, owes ONLY an artistic product. NEVER does such a producer owe anyone whatsoever any form of satisfaction.
Ovation is offline   Reply With Quote