DC Movies - To Infinity and Beyond
- Thread starter dahj
- Start date
Hiding/destroying a project is what I find morally wrong. I don't believe in any moral obligation to go along with the destruction or hiding of art in general , and that includes shitty TV projects like the Holiday Special. I have a clear conscience, even though I've watched the Star wars Holiday Special (despite being born 12 years after it aired), the Corman Fantastic Four, Wonder Woman TV pilot, etc. As for Lucas, he made the prequels, his opinion on the holiday special was invalid even when he owned Star Wars
If Batgirl leaked I'd be watching it as soon as I could get a hold of it. I doubt it will happen, its too high profile of a project, but anyone who is against losing films in general should at the very least accept leaking. Imagine having lost so many films to fire and decay, and whole portions of TV shows like Doctor Who to human caused destruction, but still getting on some high horse about leaking projects. If there is no legal way to get something (and overpriced OOP second hand stuff doesn't count, because the owners/creators don't see money from that anyway), then I see nothing morally wrong with experiencing projects how you can, this goes for all kinds of media.
Morality and legality are different things, and I'm obviously not condoning doing anything illegal, just stating my opinion in the moral argument.
https://news.yahoo.com/batgirl-directors-tried-pirate-movie-044849571.html
Wb foresaw that they'd try to steal it, but they're not as smooth as Snyder.
Wb foresaw that they'd try to steal it, but they're not as smooth as Snyder.
I beg to differ. There are definitely posts from earlier in this thread that either openly advocate for people to break NDAs and leak the Batgirl footage or else are worded in such a way that their intent is clear without being overt.
As curious as I was about the Bargirl movie, and saddened that it got axed, I really have no desire to see a leaked copy of what's out there now. It's basically a incomplete movie, with a partial score that was in the works, a lot of effects not done. I assume that the re-recording and editing of the dialogue (what's that word for it again) isn't that done so a lot of it will be hard to follow because of all the noise on set.
Nah, I'm good. If I want a cake, I want a cake. Not something that was taken out of the oven half way through and is just a weird half baked mess of what it should, and is going to leave a very bad taste in my mouth.
Nah, I'm good. If I want a cake, I want a cake. Not something that was taken out of the oven half way through and is just a weird half baked mess of what it should, and is going to leave a very bad taste in my mouth.
I don't know who watches Last Week Tonight here, but John Oliver has been really criticizing WBDisc on his show in recent weeks--he did that to AT&T too, but I wonder how long it will last under current management.
That seems like an overstatement to me. I mean, sure, it'd be illegal to broadcast such a tape publicly or sell copies of it for profit, since those would compete with the rightful owners' business. But what if you're just having some friends over for a watch party, or loaning it to a classmate? People shared videotapes with their friends and family all the time. Granted, uploading a video to YouTube or Dailymotion falls more into the "broadcast publicly" category than the "share with friends" category. But I think it's an overstatement to say that only the person who recorded the tape was allowed to watch it. That may have been the strict letter of the law, but it wasn't like they were throwing high school kids in jail for loaning tapes of Saved by the Bell to their friends.
As I said, some creators even tacitly or overtly encouraged wider non-profit sharing as a way to raise awareness, like the makers of MST3K did. And hey, look at the animated reconstructions of erased Doctor Who episodes that have come out on video in recent years. Those were based on audio recordings that viewers made directly off their televisions when the episodes aired -- technically illegal to distribute, but the BBC worked with their owners to obtain and restore them and use them as the basis for the animations. So it wasn't treated as some sleazy crime, but as a valuable act of film preservation.
I think it's given that all of us would prefer to see the movie properly completed and released. But some people feel that if a rough, incomplete form of the movie is our only chance to see the story and performances, they'd settle for it. Like how many Doctor Who fans over the years have settled for the off-air audio recordings and reconstructions mentioned above, or how silent movie fans have often had to settle for incomplete restorations of movies like Metropolis. Obviously everyone involved would prefer a complete, perfect version, but when that's impossible, many people are willing to settle for what they can get, because it's better than nothing.
Some more thoughts on this post:
1. You betray your own double standart here. It isn't really about letting the world see a director's artistic vision. You just wanted to see the Snyder Cut, while you for some reason don't want anybody to see Batgirl. If you were consistent, you'd recognize that both cases are about filmmakers having their work made available to an audience.
2. You refer to others telling themselves "whatever" about the merits of a film they know nothing about. Yet here you are, making your own judgment on a film you know no more than those you lament about.
3. The accusation again about people advocating for illegal actions. I'll come to that with the following:
And even if anybody here did not just imply but outright call for industry professionals who worked on the movie to break the law, what kind of sway do you think that would have? I doubt anybody who worked on the movie and has access to it even knows about this board, let alone read this particular thread and then tell themselves "You know, I wasn't going to do it, but this post from an anonymous person really makes me throw all caution in the wind". That is just silly.
@fireproof78 : I recommend the documentary "Doomed!: The Untold Story of Roger Corman's The Fantastic Four". It shows how the cast and crew really emotionally and career-wise suffered from the movie not being released, and how glad they were when it was leaked and found its cult following.
1. You betray your own double standart here. It isn't really about letting the world see a director's artistic vision. You just wanted to see the Snyder Cut, while you for some reason don't want anybody to see Batgirl. If you were consistent, you'd recognize that both cases are about filmmakers having their work made available to an audience.
2. You refer to others telling themselves "whatever" about the merits of a film they know nothing about. Yet here you are, making your own judgment on a film you know no more than those you lament about.
3. The accusation again about people advocating for illegal actions. I'll come to that with the following:
Oh, that's such a weasel way of getting out of having to proof your accusations. You may find one or two posts expressing the hope the movie would be leaked, but I seriously doubt you'll find someone aware that this would get the leaker into serious trouble doing so.
And even if anybody here did not just imply but outright call for industry professionals who worked on the movie to break the law, what kind of sway do you think that would have? I doubt anybody who worked on the movie and has access to it even knows about this board, let alone read this particular thread and then tell themselves "You know, I wasn't going to do it, but this post from an anonymous person really makes me throw all caution in the wind". That is just silly.
@fireproof78 : I recommend the documentary "Doomed!: The Untold Story of Roger Corman's The Fantastic Four". It shows how the cast and crew really emotionally and career-wise suffered from the movie not being released, and how glad they were when it was leaked and found its cult following.
Thanks for the recommendation. I'm good though. This clearly means more to people than it means to me.
I saw it when it originally aired. In Fact I recorded the audio on 8-track and listened to it many times after that.
There was public concern that VHS and copying albums on cassette was going to destroy the entertainment industry. It was consider to be illegal to copy and distribute. There really was no way to enforce that though.
Exactly. The concerns of harm were unfounded, and it was a normal practice that nobody really tried to crack down on. As with fanfiction, it's tolerated as long as people don't actually try to profit from the practice.
Doctor Who is not the best example to use when arguing for the preservation and/or public distribution of Batgirl footage because the reconstructions and animated episodes to which you refer were officially produced by the BBC directly using audio that they themselves had legally obtained from the private individuals who had preserved said audio, which is a different thing from advocating that Batgirl footage be bootlegged and distributed 'for the public good', which has, despite some posters' denials, been advocated for in this thread by some.
Yes, there's a wealth of evidence for WB production employees to break the law, and posts similar to:
Wrong again. Not once did I (or any) advocate a release of what would become the Snyder Cut by any illegal means, and sorry, but a grassroots campaign supporting Snyder to be allowed to complete the real version of Justice League is in no way similar to the Batgirl issue, where individuals are openly calling for WB production employees to violate the law by distributing IPs they do not own.
We have more, legitimate information about perceptions of Batgirl's quality from WB than anything from the advocates of theft (i.e., those acting as if the film was going to be some astounding revelation based on no information at all), so those not feeling any particular loss from the shelving of Batgirl are basing that on what its known (so far) from official sources.
Come on, read that again, and then think long and hard whether words to the effect of "Yo, WB employee, go and risk your career and financial future so I can watch this movie". Because it's not there. All that @kirk55555 expressed there was a moral argument on the side of the consumer, not the person making the product available. And an expression of personal morality is not the same as a call for illegal actions.
Let's leave the hypothetical of what you'd have done had the Snyder Cut been never released legally, but instead leaked, for now, because as is the nature of a hypothetical, as much as I (and probably others) may think I'm sure of what you'd do, it would still be pure speculation.
Instead, I'd like to reiterate that, while the film itself wasn't leaked, Snyder himself leaked lots of material on the movie, including movie stills, long before he was re-hired by HBO Max. And that's leaving out the accusations against Snyder of stealing physical harddrives from the studio lot.
We have jack shit. We have some early rumors about the movie being deemed unwatchable, we have a test screening score that's about as high as other DC films that are being released, and we have assurances from studio officials that the cancellation was not a judgement on the quality of the film. That's all contradictory information, meaning we know nothing.
There is no "moral" argument in favor of the consumer accessing (stealing) something that does not legally belong to him. None. There's no "gray area" to allow what some in this (and other) threads have advocated. You are arguing on crumbling grounds, Kai.
Try as you wish to make this entire conversation about me (not working), it is obvious that I would not seek an illegal copy of what Snyder and/or WB had not officially released. No form of entertainment compels a rational, moral person--to feel they have a "right" to see that which the IP's owners did not want you to see through the legal, official channels. Those who campaigned for the Snyder Cut wanted to see an official version of the completed film, not access anything by stealing it. However, your breathless defense of the kind of behavior in question leads one to believe you're being hyper-defensive because you have no issue receiving stolen property--thinking anyone has a "right" to see entertainment no matter if the IPs owners do not want you to see it.
Interesting.
That test screening (rather, the reaction to it) is actual evidence--unlike the theft advocates who are operating on fanatical dreams based on nothing.
Last edited:
There was something special about reliving a show just by the audio that was a distinct experience in itself. We could get one of the TV stations audio on the bottom of the FM dial and could get some ridiculously clear and high fidelity recordings for the time.
I'm trying to imagine the playback of The Holiday Special with just the audio cues, it's probably quite surreal not that the full experience isn't. Of course, that was half the fun, filling in the blanks with your imagination while soaking in the atmosphere.
Well put.