I am glad to find that we are in agreement.
Nope. They still owe us nothing.
It's a hypothetical imperative. If you want "X," you should do "Y." In our case, the hypothetical is economic:
If you wish to make money with a film franchise, then you should be attentive to tastes of your audience.
If they wish to make money (trust me, they do), then they should be attentive to the tastes of their audience. If they wish to make money, they owe us something attuned to our tastes, so that the bills will flow freely from our pockets.
we are not owed satisfaction.
If they wish to make money (past opening day), we are owed satisfaction.
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.
We should note that the "economic" and "property" defenses of these franchises we find on these boards assert a creative, even arbitrary license enjoyed by the studio.
Hence we find statements like,
"Their only job is to make money. They have no responsibility to please hard core fans."
"They own it. They paid for it. They can do whatever they wish!"
I have participated in making statements like these myself, but we should note that these comments have limits. More importantly we should note that the warrants of economy and property implicate us in discussions of both.
If we are to deprecate artistic/thematic concerns in light of the ruthless demands of business, then it is only sensible to consider not only what demands studios make of films, but what demands stakeholders make of studios. If we are to play the economic Darwinism card, then we will find that it is Darwinism all the way down, and that even our puffed up studio chiefs are themselves just scrambling for a piece of the action in the great circle of life (if you can excuse a Disney reference and Trek reference in the same sentence).
In short, this is not mere pedantry, but a natural implication of swimming into these waters.
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).
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).
You're still not quite grasping the economic imperative. The shareholder is only one aspect of this relationship. To the extent that the simply wish to succeed, they must respect the tastes of their audience.
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.
Well, if we are speaking of "artists," then we are speaking of individuals who may not wish to profit and who are not beholden to make profits for anyone else. Artists may simply wish make art for art's sake and have no (or a very limited) desire to even exhibit their artwork.
Producers and studios, however, are not artists, but people seek profit through entertainment. And those who promise entertainment in exchange for payment (e.g., musicians, jugglers, singers, hypnotists, magicians, popular writers) are indeed obligated to deliver what they promise. Should they fail to meet that obligation, their mandate of profit will not be met. Pure and simple.
