Season Three: could use some serious fan editing

[sonak]

If they owned a legitimately purchased copy of the work, and wanted to modify the copy hanging on their living room wall? Absolutely, I'd support that. Why not?

they'd have the legal right to do that of course, I just think it's silly.
As Horatio83 above put it, art is a take it or leave it thing. Unless it's deliberately DESIGNED to be fan participatory, I think it should be accepted or rejected on its merits.

Well, it's a good thing not everyone has the same narrow-minded opinion.

Most fan edits i have seen are not my cup of tea, many of them are out-right bad... but that's different than calling the whole idea "dumb" or "silly". There have certainly been some good ones. It's not that much different than a director's cut, just without the added benefit (or burden) of the director's allegedly original "vision". Most of these directors cuts come out years and years later, effectively being created by a very different person even if its technically the same creator.

There are plenty of movies that could have been good if they were edited with more care. Some fan edits simply trim the fat, or re-arrange some things, and the final product is better for it.

it's very narrow-minded of you to call my opinion narrow-minded.

I'm merely expressing my opinion. Fan edits are silly. You guys are stuck on the idea that with movies it's "different" somehow, but it's not. They're still art. Are you going to try a "fan-edit" of Charles Dickens' works to make them less wordy?

Director's cuts are a different animal. It's the same artist going back and revising his own work, not someone with no connection to the film coming in and changing stuff.

 

[lurok]

Are you going to try a "fan-edit" of Charles Dickens' works to make them less wordy?.

Why not ? But I don't have time or inclination and not a fan. But if anyone else wants to... As long as the original artwork exists and is not replaced, I don't see a problem.

 

[horatio83]

There are already edited version of classical literature. Usually they are done to simplify the original work. Interestingly the recently deceased Bradbury predicted this very thing from happening decades ago. Silly would be a euphemism to describe such travesties.

About fan cuts, once I see a decent fan cut that is a) done by a professional, b) done by somebody who actually understands the movie and c) done by somebody who actually thought about why the director and editor might have left scenes in the movie he personally considers redundant or bad, once I see such a marvellous piece of work I will gladly admit that I am wrong and that we need more fan cuts.
Until then I call them utter crap.

 

[sonak]

There are already edited version of classical literature. Usually they are done to simplify the original work. Interestingly the recently deceased Bradbury predicted this very thing from happening decades ago. Silly would be a euphemism to describe such travesties.

About fan cuts, once I see a decent fan cut that is a) done by a professional, b) done by somebody who actually understands the movie and c) done by somebody who actually thought about why the director and editor might have left scenes in the movie he personally considers redundant or bad, once I see such a marvellous piece of work I will gladly admit that I am wrong and that we need more fan cuts.
Until then I call them utter crap.

I figured somebody would bring up the classic literature edits. As you point out though, those are done to increase understanding of the work because of changes in language, they're not done with the intention of "improving" on an artist's work.

 

[Mr_Homn]

they'd have the legal right to do that of course, I just think it's silly.
As Horatio83 above put it, art is a take it or leave it thing. Unless it's deliberately DESIGNED to be fan participatory, I think it should be accepted or rejected on its merits.

Well, it's a good thing not everyone has the same narrow-minded opinion.

Most fan edits i have seen are not my cup of tea, many of them are out-right bad... but that's different than calling the whole idea "dumb" or "silly". There have certainly been some good ones. It's not that much different than a director's cut, just without the added benefit (or burden) of the director's allegedly original "vision". Most of these directors cuts come out years and years later, effectively being created by a very different person even if its technically the same creator.

There are plenty of movies that could have been good if they were edited with more care. Some fan edits simply trim the fat, or re-arrange some things, and the final product is better for it.

it's very narrow-minded of you to call my opinion narrow-minded.

Oh, cool. We're back in kindergarten.

"I know you are but what am I?"

 

[sonak]

Well, it's a good thing not everyone has the same narrow-minded opinion.

Most fan edits i have seen are not my cup of tea, many of them are out-right bad... but that's different than calling the whole idea "dumb" or "silly". There have certainly been some good ones. It's not that much different than a director's cut, just without the added benefit (or burden) of the director's allegedly original "vision". Most of these directors cuts come out years and years later, effectively being created by a very different person even if its technically the same creator.

There are plenty of movies that could have been good if they were edited with more care. Some fan edits simply trim the fat, or re-arrange some things, and the final product is better for it.

it's very narrow-minded of you to call my opinion narrow-minded.

Oh, cool. We're back in kindergarten.

"I know you are but what am I?"

A rather ironic response coming from the guy who, out of nowhere, called me narrow-minded.

People who live in glass houses...

pot calling kettle... etc.

 

[bluedana]

it's very narrow-minded of you to call my opinion narrow-minded.

Oh, cool. We're back in kindergarten.

"I know you are but what am I?"

A rather ironic response coming from the guy who, out of nowhere, called me narrow-minded.

People who live in glass houses...

pot calling kettle... etc.

We are neither in kindergarten, nor in any other cliched environment. Stop it. Now.

 

[Sindatur]

I happen to side with "Most Fan Edits do not consider the intended effect of certain scenes". IE: Some would want to fan edit a slow moving scene by competely removing it, when it might be better served by simply rearranging or snipping a line or two, and by stripping out the scene, you lose everything that was trying to be told with that scene, rather than improving the way it was told.

Having said all that, though, to each his own, as long as the original still exists, edit to your hearts content, you are doing the edit to please yourself, not me, so no harm done.

 

[Mr_Homn]

A rather ironic response coming from the guy who, out of nowhere, called me narrow-minded.

People who live in glass houses...

pot calling kettle... etc.

I didn't call you narrow minded. I called your opinion narrow minded. I have no idea about you as a person, and open-minded people are just as guilty as anyone else as being narrow-minded about something from time to time. I was focusing on the post, not the poster.

And sorry, but I just can't see how blanketing all fan edits as silly or dumb, absolutely, with no exception, isn't narrow-minded. Seems to fit the very definition of the word to me. (and being narrow-minded doesn't necessarily mean being wrong about something.. just inflexible or not open to a different take on something.. That seems to be the case here.)

But you're obviously not going to change your mind so there isn't any point in me trying to convince you.

It's funny, because I actually agree that the majority of fan edits (the ones I have seen, anyway) are total crap, and never would have suspected I'd be defending the idea of fan-editing, but I would never say that ALL fan edits are silly,dumb,etc. It's such an over the top and puzzling sentiment in my opinion. I just don't understand why someone would feel so strongly that ALL fan edits, or even the very IDEA of fan editing, is crap, no matter what. But this is a silly argument anyway. C'est la vie.

 

[sonak]

A rather ironic response coming from the guy who, out of nowhere, called me narrow-minded.

People who live in glass houses...

pot calling kettle... etc.

I didn't call you narrow minded. I called your opinion narrow minded. I have no idea about you as a person, and open-minded people are just as guilty as anyone else as being narrow-minded about something from time to time. I was focusing on the post, not the poster.

And sorry, but I just can't see how blanketing all fan edits as silly or dumb, absolutely, with no exception, isn't narrow-minded. Seems to fit the very definition of the word to me. (and being narrow-minded doesn't necessarily mean being wrong about something.. just inflexible or not open to a different take on something.. That seems to be the case here.)

But you're obviously not going to change your mind so there isn't any point in me trying to convince you.

It's funny, because I actually agree that the majority of fan edits (the ones I have seen, anyway) are total crap, and never would have suspected I'd be defending the idea of fan-editing, but I would never say that ALL fan edits are silly,dumb,etc. It's such an over the top and puzzling sentiment in my opinion. I just don't understand why someone would feel so strongly that ALL fan edits, or even the very IDEA of fan editing, is crap, no matter what. But this is a silly argument anyway. C'est la vie.

Ok, I'll try again with more civility. As you write, it's the IDEA of fan edits that I find silly, and that's not necessarily an opinion on the quality of the result. And that's because they are an attempt by someone who has no connection to the film coming along in an attempt to "improve" things. A film is a work that is a product of its time and the creative vision of one person or a team of people. If you make a "fan edit," you are changing the entire work, not making an "edit."

It's like taking Jar Jar out of TPM in that famous fan edit. Like him or hate him, he was a part of TPM, and put in there for a reason by GL.

So I'm not saying they're "crap" in a quality sense, they're just inherently pointless. Because either (a) I'll like the film and wouldn't want parts of it changed, or (b) I won't like the film, in which case, why bother seeing heavily modified "versions" of something I didn't like in the first place?

Have you ever walked out of a theater thinking "well you know, I didn't like that movie, but with 30-45 minutes of edits, maybe I would have?" I suppose you could, again it's just my view that it's silly.


However, I would not stop anyone from doing their own or enjoying others' fan edits, so that doesn't strike me as "narrow-minded." Narrow-minded would be if I said "I think they're dumb, and you should too." I'm just expressing my view.

 

[horatio83]

I think Jarjar is a good example. Of course he is an annoying character but one point of The Phantom Menace was to show the variety of life and innocence of the Old Republic.

I have yet to see any fan editor who can ignore his own stupid personal preferences and empathize, think about why the director did what he did. Yet the very people who have this ability have no desire to edit the respective movie. They understand why scenes they personally find annoying are in it so they do not wanna change the movie.
So we got a selection effect and the folks who do fan edits end up being the ones who do not understand the piece of art they mess with.

 

[Gaith]

You'd probably cut an episode like Similtude all together because it does not contribute anything to the Xindi weapon story arc.

That would certainly be enough to leave it out of a fan-edited season, aye, but unlike the similarly disposable "North Star", which I enjoyed the heck out of, I have other reasons for disliking that ep: horrendous sci-fi (memory DNA?!), and the fact that it's yet another missed chance to get to know a doomed non-senior staff crewman.

 

[sonak]

You'd probably cut an episode like Similtude all together because it does not contribute anything to the Xindi weapon story arc.

That would certainly be enough to leave it out of a fan-edited season, aye, but unlike the similarly disposable "North Star", which I enjoyed the heck out of, I have other reasons for disliking that ep: horrendous sci-fi (memory DNA?!), and the fact that it's yet another missed chance to get to know a doomed non-senior staff crewman.

"memory DNA" may be silly sci-fi, but it was hardly introduced into Trek for that episode. I think it's in Trek so much that it would be hard to cite all the times.

 

[horatio83]

You'd probably cut an episode like Similtude all together because it does not contribute anything to the Xindi weapon story arc.

That would certainly be enough to leave it out of a fan-edited season, aye, but unlike the similarly disposable "North Star", which I enjoyed the heck out of, I have other reasons for disliking that ep: horrendous sci-fi (memory DNA?!), and the fact that it's yet another missed chance to get to know a doomed non-senior staff crewman.

Let me assure you that nobody would watch a third season without its best episode. About nitpicking stupid made-up-science details while that totally missing what the episode was about, well, thanks for proving my point that the people who wanna do fan cuts are the ones who do not understand the stories they intend to mess with.

 

[Mr_Homn]

A rather ironic response coming from the guy who, out of nowhere, called me narrow-minded.

People who live in glass houses...

pot calling kettle... etc.

I didn't call you narrow minded. I called your opinion narrow minded. I have no idea about you as a person, and open-minded people are just as guilty as anyone else as being narrow-minded about something from time to time. I was focusing on the post, not the poster.

And sorry, but I just can't see how blanketing all fan edits as silly or dumb, absolutely, with no exception, isn't narrow-minded. Seems to fit the very definition of the word to me. (and being narrow-minded doesn't necessarily mean being wrong about something.. just inflexible or not open to a different take on something.. That seems to be the case here.)

But you're obviously not going to change your mind so there isn't any point in me trying to convince you.

It's funny, because I actually agree that the majority of fan edits (the ones I have seen, anyway) are total crap, and never would have suspected I'd be defending the idea of fan-editing, but I would never say that ALL fan edits are silly,dumb,etc. It's such an over the top and puzzling sentiment in my opinion. I just don't understand why someone would feel so strongly that ALL fan edits, or even the very IDEA of fan editing, is crap, no matter what. But this is a silly argument anyway. C'est la vie.

Ok, I'll try again with more civility. As you write, it's the IDEA of fan edits that I find silly, and that's not necessarily an opinion on the quality of the result. And that's because they are an attempt by someone who has no connection to the film coming along in an attempt to "improve" things. A film is a work that is a product of its time and the creative vision of one person or a team of people. If you make a "fan edit," you are changing the entire work, not making an "edit."

It's like taking Jar Jar out of TPM in that famous fan edit. Like him or hate him, he was a part of TPM, and put in there for a reason by GL.

So I'm not saying they're "crap" in a quality sense, they're just inherently pointless. Because either (a) I'll like the film and wouldn't want parts of it changed, or (b) I won't like the film, in which case, why bother seeing heavily modified "versions" of something I didn't like in the first place?

Have you ever walked out of a theater thinking "well you know, I didn't like that movie, but with 30-45 minutes of edits, maybe I would have?" I suppose you could, again it's just my view that it's silly.


However, I would not stop anyone from doing their own or enjoying others' fan edits, so that doesn't strike me as "narrow-minded." Narrow-minded would be if I said "I think they're dumb, and you should too." I'm just expressing my view.

I think you are making a mistake in assuming that all fan-edits are an effort to "improve" the original work. That's not always the case.

Sometimes they are just using the original work to churn out something new, something purposefully different from the original work, and therefore thy aren't trying to improve anything. They wouldn't need to "understand" the original creator's thought process, because they are trying to take components of the original film to create a new piece of art, something that is going for something different, structurally and thematically.

Sometimes they are just trying to put a different spin on things, just for fun and entertainment. For example, this one guy took original six star trek movies, and tried to give them the vibe of TOS, utilizing more of the tv series music/sound/pacing. He even put in dramatic commercial breaks for emphasis, with the classic "Dun dun dunnnn" style music from the original series. He did a lot of other stuff like trying to put more of an emphasis on the relationship between Kirk/Spock/Mccoy. It seemed like a fun project and a tribute to the original series. It didn't seem to take itself terribly seriously, and it wasn't trying to "improve" anything. Just putting a fun spin on things, to put it more in line with the original series 60s TV style.

Now, I think it's obvious that the original idea of this thread WAS to fan edit the season to improve it. If you think that's silly, well, okay. I can see some value in it, but I can also understand your point. But not ALL fan edits are trying to accomplish that goal. The goal of "improving" the original work seems to be the basis for your dislike of the idea, so I wanted to try and clear up what I think is a misconception.

 

[lurok]

For example, this one guy took original six star trek movies, and tried to give them the vibe of TOS.

That sounds fun. Wouldn't mind seeing that. And you make some very good points

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Now, I'm not generally a fan of the idea of merging episodes or movies...

Coincidentally I'm not a fan of "fan edits," unless they're humorous or for the purpose of someone teaching themselves how to edit. Fans generally have no insight to bring to a piece that's superior to the work of the professionals who created it.

 

[Mr_Homn]

Now, I'm not generally a fan of the idea of merging episodes or movies...

Coincidentally I'm not a fan of "fan edits," unless they're humorous or for the purpose of someone teaching themselves how to edit. Fans generally have no insight to bring to a piece that's superior to the work of the professionals who created it.

Again, it's a misconception that all fan edits are aiming to be superior to the original work.

 

[R. Star]

The first thing I'd do is remove that horrible Nazi alien scene in Zero Hour. What were they thinking there? Did they just actively think up a way to ruin what was an otherwise climatic episode? If they just had to do that ridiculous Storm Front they could have put it off until season 4 and just left Archer missing/being dead be the cliffhanger.

Really the main problem with season 3 was it drug out too long. I know they wanted to set a new dynamic for the show, but dragging it out all season really led to way too many filler episodes. Obviously it was an attempt to capture DS9's Dominion War arc, but what made DS9 succesful wasn't the battles themselves, which actually didn't show that many, but the character interaction in the war. They managed to capture the war in how it effected the said characters on an emotional level more than just showing them fight.

Granted Enterprise did do a bit of this with Trip, but the rest of them really just seemed business as usual. Hoshi, Reed, Mayweather and Phlox all stayed in the background, and T'Pol and Archer acted pretty normal for the most part. Save T'pol's addiction with whatever that stuff was. That was kinda out there.

The MACO's really were an uncessisary element. What did they add that security didn't except a bit of artifical conflict? And really how arrogant is it to assume a united earth army unit would be using US insignia. Trek was WAY too westernized. I did like the actual use of things like grenades, heavy rifles and body armor... but the security units could have done all that. Reed was more a heavy weapons specialist being he disarmed mines and manufactured torpedoes and the such. They could have just brought in a new tactical combat specialist or something.

One moment I did enjoy was Archer being forced to hijack that alien ship in Damage. Not so much the act as that he made a hard choice given the circumstances. Sure it was morally wrong, but what was his alternative? Let the Xindi blow up Earth? Not to mention that Enterprise actually sustained damage that wasn't handwaved away the next episode. They even looked like they were doing down and dirty repairs instead of just waving glowing rods at the damage and it being magically fixed or something.

Honestly, though the best thing that could have been done with the Xindi arc was to cut it in half. Introduce them midseason or have the crisis resolved midseason. It just drug on too long that it was hard to stay interested.

 

[SFRabid]

Fan edits? Isn't that the purpose of the skip button on the remote? There are certain episodes I skip when I re-watch any season of any series of Enterprise. For Enterprise season 3 it is simple for me to skip Hatchery and the end of the last episode. Otherwise, it is one of my favorite seasons in Trek. If I was going to edit something it would be S1 or S2 of Ent, S3 of TOS, S1 or S2 of TNG, or much of VOY.