^ Ah. Well I have never seen any Trek credits that looked that way...when I used to watch VHS copies of the films, the credits were always squished to fit in a 4:3 frame but had no borders at all.
Will TMP DC (& II/VI) ever come to blu ray?
- Thread starter Khan 2.0
- Start date
If they didn't take OJ off the cover of Capricorn One, I really don't think Collins' inclusion for Trek will be a problem.
HA!
They didn't? Well, that's certainly something. I don't what that means exactly*, but that's certainly something.*But if I had to guess, I'd say that no one thought it was worth the time or the expense to redesign the cover art. Money is usually the reason for things like that.
And also, Roman Polanski films still have fans; that's another reason.
Well, c'mon, have you seen Chinatown? That's great stuff.
Well, here's an interesting question: do we retroactively hold people responsible for crimes the hadn't done at the time they made their works? If someone went wacko at age 40 do we just assume the person they were at 25 was exactly the same? I'm not defending OJ, Polanski or Collins, but I'm interested in people's thoughts on this.
Exactly. By blackbanning the DVDs of these people's work, we are also withholding royalties from all of their unwitting costars.
A certain contemporary program has been ommited from current DVD printings of a certain Doctor Who story from 1985, after it transpired (postumously) that somebody involved in the making of it was one of the UK's most notorious child molesters when he was still alive.
Personally, I think that's overkill. I don't sympathise with that person, and I absolutely empathise with his victims, but white-washing history is not the answer. What's done is done.
I feel the same way about Gary Glitter. The man was a vile piece of work, but that doesn't mean 'The Yeah Song' shouldn't be played at college football games. As an adult, I am of the mind that I can clearly seperate my disgust with the man himself from my enjoyment of his music. The same is true of Stephen Collins. I don't sit here watching The Motion Picture and seething when I see the actor on screen. No, what I see is a fictional character named Will Decker, second in command of the USS Enterprise. And that's all I see.
Personally, I think that's overkill. I don't sympathise with that person, and I absolutely empathise with his victims, but white-washing history is not the answer. What's done is done.
I feel the same way about Gary Glitter. The man was a vile piece of work, but that doesn't mean 'The Yeah Song' shouldn't be played at college football games. As an adult, I am of the mind that I can clearly seperate my disgust with the man himself from my enjoyment of his music. The same is true of Stephen Collins. I don't sit here watching The Motion Picture and seething when I see the actor on screen. No, what I see is a fictional character named Will Decker, second in command of the USS Enterprise. And that's all I see.
Of course, Collins' misdeeds (at least one of them) date from the mid-70s as I recall, so BEFORE TMP.
But your question is interesting, I agree. My feeling is... there needs to be a certain separation from the later actions of a person and their earlier work/life. This is particularly important when that earlier work is collaborative.
For example, I love the "Naked Gun" movies but of course, OJ's later actions do cast a shadow on his performances. The only way to continue enjoying the films is to divorce the man (and his actions) from the character.
It would be wrong, not to mention a real shame, to disregard an entire body of work, particularly if others had participated in it.
I feel sorry for the likes of the Cosby Show cast who have now lost all their royalties because the show has been dropped from repeats.
For me, you have to separate the art from the artist. I've enjoyed the work of several people who I've found to be jerks in life, and I've found some folks very nice when I've disliked their work. This is just a more extreme version of that.
