Operation Rainfall

[Azisien]

We could list anecdotes all day. I think in the end, most works are just going to fall at an average. I think people get too prissy about average works touching their masterful ones in any way.

I mean it's not like Avatar: The Last Airbender got rui---.................................................. ffffSDFSD

[Fifthfiend]

Originally Posted by Azisien

I mean it's not like Avatar: The Last Airbender got rui---.................................................. ffffSDFSD

This actually is a pretty excellent example of a work getting trashed fully legally with the full blessings of the owners of the intellectual property in question.

[BitVyper]

Continuing something the creator abandoned is how we got Dragonball GT

It's also how we got the Invisible Woman as anything more than a designated damsel in distress.

[Krylo]

Originally Posted by BitVyper

It's also how we got the Invisible Woman as anything more than a designated damsel in distress.

Wait... we got what now?

[Aerozord]

As Azisien said, we could list anecdotes all day about good and bad examples, but here is the bottomline.

an artist should have the right to ensure their vision remains as they intended if they so wish it. Not to say they cant forsake this right, but if they dont want it changed we should respect that.

[Lumenskir]

an artist should have the right to ensure their vision remains as they intended if they so wish it. Not to say they cant forsake this right, but if they dont want it changed we should respect that.

Well, yeah, but shouldn't that only apply to 'visions' that they've actually written/produced? The guy who wrote a 'sequel' to Catcher in the Rye is not overwriting or changing Salinger's words, he's creating a new story based off of old characters, for example.

[Fifthfiend]

Originally Posted by Aerozord

but if they dont want it changed we should respect that.

I absolutely agree that anyone going back in time and rewriting authors' original manuscripts is an awful person indeed.

I still haven't seen an explanation for what this has to do with the creators of new works, however.

edit:

Originally Posted by Lumenskir

Well, yeah, but shouldn't that only apply to 'visions' that they've actually written/produced? The guy who wrote a 'sequel' to Catcher in the Rye is not overwriting or changing Salinger's words, he's creating a new story based off of old characters, for example.

Which is to say basically this.

[Aerozord]

Originally Posted by Lumenskir

Well, yeah, but shouldn't that only apply to 'visions' that they've actually written/produced? The guy who wrote a 'sequel' to Catcher in the Rye is not overwriting or changing Salinger's words, he's creating a new story based off of old characters, for example.

because a good story, has an ending. Or to be more exact a point in which the storyteller shuts up. Stopping is an aspect of storytelling, it says this story is complete and its up to all of you to imagine what happens next. Problem is by writing a "sequel" and saying this is what happens canonically, it invalidates all those other possible interpretations. Giving it legitimacy says that this persons interpretation of the original work is the correct one and if you have another one its wrong.

Thats the difference between harmless fanfiction and ripping off someone elses story.

Stories are not something you can just add onto. A story is a completed telling of events fictional or otherwise, adding to it alters it.

Lets talk about a form of art besides writing. Lets say music, you cant tack on an 5 extra minutes onto mozart and claim you haven't altered the song.

Things left unsaid, for better or worse, are part of an artists work.

[Lumenskir]

Giving it legitimacy says that this persons interpretation of the original work is the correct one and if you have another one its wrong.

Thats the difference between harmless fanfiction and ripping off someone elses story.

Wait, so this is about 'legitimacy' now? Legitimacy derived from where?

Lets talk about a form of art besides writing. Lets say music, you cant tack on an 5 extra minutes onto mozart and claim you haven't altered the song.

Uhm, as long as the guy hasn't actually altered any of Mozart's original notes/isn't claiming he came up with the original notes, and created the five extra minutes all on his own, you could totally say that. People can still listen to the original Mozart.

I mean, unless there are legitimacy police going around enforcing which interpretations of things people have to acknowledge?

[Aerozord]

but you are altering the original work. You are taking the characters and setting and adding events that weren't there, you are changing them.