Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 8705734" data-attributes="member: 4937">Ok, maybe.&nbsp; I'd like to believe that is true, I'm just not seeing that born out in how the word is used.&nbsp; I'm just not seeing that discussion actually happening.Let me switch gears again to keep subverting the narrow ruts this conversation falls into.&nbsp; Disney catches a lot of a flack as a company, some deserved and some less so but one thing I think that they deserve praise for is how well they've managed the Winnie the Pooh intellectual property when it was in their care.&nbsp; I think Disney was hugely respectful to the original intellectual creator and his vision and they only released things that I think A.A. Milne would have been proud of.&nbsp; The art the used was always respectful of the classic art.&nbsp; The characters were always treated respectfully.&nbsp; And even when Disney kind of went out on some limbs with projects like &quot;Pooh's Heffalump Adventure&quot; I think they achieved artistic success of great merit.&nbsp; I think everyone involved with &quot;Pooh's Heffalump Adventure&quot; should be proud of that work and proud of how well they treated A.A. Milne's creation and property.&nbsp; It's like they handed it back to Milne with interest earned and hard labor added value.&nbsp; And I think that's what all people who work with other people's intellectual property should be aiming for.And then by contrast as soon as the property is available for any to use, the first dumb thing someone wants to do with it is make a &quot;subversive' horror movie out of the property as if that was in any fashion creative or necessary.&nbsp; Are the fans here the ones that are being toxic or is the person making the Winnie the Pooh horror movie being toxic?&nbsp; (Or neither or both, if you prefer to explain that.)&nbsp; So yes, how you do something does matter, but it's not just a onus I think on the consumers and the critics.&nbsp; And it doesn't have to be &quot;problematic&quot; to earn a just complaint.&nbsp; It just can be bad, lazy, crappy art.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 8705734, member: 4937"] Ok, maybe. I'd like to believe that is true, I'm just not seeing that born out in how the word is used. I'm just not seeing that discussion actually happening. Let me switch gears again to keep subverting the narrow ruts this conversation falls into. Disney catches a lot of a flack as a company, some deserved and some less so but one thing I think that they deserve praise for is how well they've managed the Winnie the Pooh intellectual property when it was in their care. I think Disney was hugely respectful to the original intellectual creator and his vision and they only released things that I think A.A. Milne would have been proud of. The art the used was always respectful of the classic art. The characters were always treated respectfully. And even when Disney kind of went out on some limbs with projects like "Pooh's Heffalump Adventure" I think they achieved artistic success of great merit. I think everyone involved with "Pooh's Heffalump Adventure" should be proud of that work and proud of how well they treated A.A. Milne's creation and property. It's like they handed it back to Milne with interest earned and hard labor added value. And I think that's what all people who work with other people's intellectual property should be aiming for. And then by contrast as soon as the property is available for any to use, the first dumb thing someone wants to do with it is make a "subversive' horror movie out of the property as if that was in any fashion creative or necessary. Are the fans here the ones that are being toxic or is the person making the Winnie the Pooh horror movie being toxic? (Or neither or both, if you prefer to explain that.) So yes, how you do something does matter, but it's not just a onus I think on the consumers and the critics. And it doesn't have to be "problematic" to earn a just complaint. It just can be bad, lazy, crappy art. [/QUOTE]

Verification