![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Sep. 24th, 2002 07:13 pmJust to give you a flavour of the combination of stupidity and inspiration that makes up my work at the moment...
( Computer Problems Ahoy )
( Computer Problems Ahoy )
Sep. 24th, 2002
Disillusionment
Sep. 24th, 2002 07:14 pmWhy is disillusionment considered to be a terrible thing? It's got connotations of giving up, losing your will to live, not caring, etc., when all it really means is that you see things as they actually are.
To stop believing the comfortable illusions (that somewhere there is a perfect partner, that the world owes you a living, that supernatural entities watch over you, that your country is better than all the other ones, that people that do bad things are qualitatively different to people that don't do bad things, that this lottery ticket will</> be the one, and so on) surely means that you can then actually see what your problems are, what your opportunities are. It should allow you to see what mark you can hit, so that you can aim for what's possible. It doesn't stop you aiming for the improbable, but if you know how improbable it is so that you can make a rational decision.
I've lost a fair number of illusions, but there's almost certainly ones left hovering over me, waiting to bite me in the ass. I'm not saying that losing them made me necessarily any more comfortable (some of them occasionally depress me), but overall I'd say that I'm much more free without them.
To stop believing the comfortable illusions (that somewhere there is a perfect partner, that the world owes you a living, that supernatural entities watch over you, that your country is better than all the other ones, that people that do bad things are qualitatively different to people that don't do bad things, that this lottery ticket will</> be the one, and so on) surely means that you can then actually see what your problems are, what your opportunities are. It should allow you to see what mark you can hit, so that you can aim for what's possible. It doesn't stop you aiming for the improbable, but if you know how improbable it is so that you can make a rational decision.
I've lost a fair number of illusions, but there's almost certainly ones left hovering over me, waiting to bite me in the ass. I'm not saying that losing them made me necessarily any more comfortable (some of them occasionally depress me), but overall I'd say that I'm much more free without them.
Clean Flicks
Sep. 24th, 2002 07:14 pmI don't know if you've heard about the Clean Flicks debacle, where various film directors are suing a company that will take your copy of Titanic (or Die Hard or Saving Private Ryan) and edit out the swearing, nudity and extreme violence in order to give you a version you can watch with your whole family. It shouldn't surprise you to know that the company started in Utah. It shouldn't surprise you to know that they are being sued by a group of directors, furious at having their films cut up. It probably does surprise you to know that I'm on the side of Clean Flicks.
Not, to be clear, that I'd ever want to buy a film from them. And I'm certainly in favour of free speech. But this, to me, seems like a fairly clear case of freedom to do what you want with your property. Let's use a book analogy, as it's a bit clearer with books, and we're more familiar with the ability to edit books.
Let's say I buy a book with swearing in it. Do I have the right to go through my copy of the book and tippex out the word "fuck" everywhere it appears? I think we can all agree that it's my book and I can paint on it if I so choose. Do I have the right to hand it to my friend Bob and ask him to paint out the word "fuck" wherever it appears. Again, it seems fairly clear that this is perfectly legal. Can I pay Bob to do so? Well, if it's legal, then I can't see why I can't pay Bob to de-fuck my books. Could I ask Bob to buy the book for me, de-fuck it and then give it to me? Well, again, this seems a simple progression from the previous two, so it must be ok, musn't it? Now, if many people are asking Bob to do this, then he's going to find it easier to buy the books in bulk, prepare them ahead of time and then sell them on when people ask for them, isn't he? And this is merely mass producing what we've already agreed is reasonable.
And this is what Clean Flicks are doing, only with movies rather than books. I may not like the fact that people feel the need to whitewash their films. I may never want to avail myself of that service. But I do think that if they want to deface their own property then it's their right to do so.
Of course, I wouldn't want people mistaking these films for the originals, so some kind of warning seems reasonable, but as long as people realise they aren't seeing the film the way the director wanted them to, then I really don't see how it's any of my business. Or the director's.
Not, to be clear, that I'd ever want to buy a film from them. And I'm certainly in favour of free speech. But this, to me, seems like a fairly clear case of freedom to do what you want with your property. Let's use a book analogy, as it's a bit clearer with books, and we're more familiar with the ability to edit books.
Let's say I buy a book with swearing in it. Do I have the right to go through my copy of the book and tippex out the word "fuck" everywhere it appears? I think we can all agree that it's my book and I can paint on it if I so choose. Do I have the right to hand it to my friend Bob and ask him to paint out the word "fuck" wherever it appears. Again, it seems fairly clear that this is perfectly legal. Can I pay Bob to do so? Well, if it's legal, then I can't see why I can't pay Bob to de-fuck my books. Could I ask Bob to buy the book for me, de-fuck it and then give it to me? Well, again, this seems a simple progression from the previous two, so it must be ok, musn't it? Now, if many people are asking Bob to do this, then he's going to find it easier to buy the books in bulk, prepare them ahead of time and then sell them on when people ask for them, isn't he? And this is merely mass producing what we've already agreed is reasonable.
And this is what Clean Flicks are doing, only with movies rather than books. I may not like the fact that people feel the need to whitewash their films. I may never want to avail myself of that service. But I do think that if they want to deface their own property then it's their right to do so.
Of course, I wouldn't want people mistaking these films for the originals, so some kind of warning seems reasonable, but as long as people realise they aren't seeing the film the way the director wanted them to, then I really don't see how it's any of my business. Or the director's.
I saw the trailer for Ballistic: Ecks vs Sever, the new action movie with Antonio Banderas and Lucy Liu. Being a fan of action movies, and specifically action movies with Antonio Banderas in them (see Desperado, for instance), I was quite excited. The trailer looked pretty cool.
However, I then saw this.
Damn.
Snippet from the Ebert review:
The movie ends in a stock movie location I thought had been retired: A Steam and Flame Factory, where the combatants stalk each other on catwalks and from behind steel pillars, while the otherwise deserted factory supplies vast quantities of flame and steam.
However, I then saw this.
Damn.
Snippet from the Ebert review:
The movie ends in a stock movie location I thought had been retired: A Steam and Flame Factory, where the combatants stalk each other on catwalks and from behind steel pillars, while the otherwise deserted factory supplies vast quantities of flame and steam.