1. FAST6191

    OP FAST6191 Techromancer
    Reporter

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2005
    Messages:
    30,870
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    I found myself watching


    Short version. It appears the so called Synder cut of the Justice League film after a bit of a spit and polish is going to air as TV miniseries. Now directors have had studios (which are the ones paying the bills most of the time and thus tend to reserve a right to put out what will make them the most money) interfere... basically since the creation of the studio system long before anybody ever likely to comment on this post was born (see Alan Smithee for a later reaction from the 1960s to an ongoing problem). Sometimes for DVD sales or whatever they are also given the option to release a director's cut, unrated cut, director's son's cut, international cut and so on. Here one sometimes beloved but also not uncontroversial director was booted off a film quite far into production to be replaced with another also sometimes beloved but equally not uncontroversial director (though one with a radically different style and outlook on the world). Rumours of a cut from the earlier director appeared early on with the studio itself generally holding to the line that it was lost and would never see the light of day, oh what a difference a few years makes.

    It has been in discussion for a while now and here is another video from 2019 from what might be something of the opposite perspective to the video started out with


    However it seems that some in the industry, and either some sycophants or sock puppets in various blogs, are not a fan of fans nowadays having something of a voice with which they can "bully" studios. See some more in the first video, most of those are not exactly some random on tumblr/twitter with a stupid take either (most being professional or nominally professional sites covering the spaces in question).

    Now I do have a mixed history with this sort of thing -- the whole Mass Effect 3 ending lawsuit for false advertising I thought was ridiculous on its face (I played the first, have not got around to the rest yet so no idea what I would have made of the supposedly weak ending). By all means slate it in reviews, tell others you thought the ending sucked, discuss why... but a lawsuit for what I saw there was weak. Likewise I was less than positive about the Operation Rainfall thing that sought to bring a few Japanese games (some of which had seen releases in Europe) to North America.
    I was probably equally dubious about the Left 4 Dead 2 being too soon boycott/controversy (though I did get a giggle at the eventual purchase stats -- https://techcrunch.com/2009/11/17/and-the-left-4-dead-2-boycott-hows-that-going/ ) but that was more because I did not agree with the premise (was not too soon; I wanted more and map packs was probably not going to cut it).
    At the same time I have always been of the big companies and small companies exist to please me. Depending upon how much I like their product in turn goes to when and how much of my money they get. If they can live without my money or want to do it for the love of the art, or even as some kind of propaganda, then may it work for them. That said "dance monkey dance", even if said monkey happens to be king kong and could squash me and not even notice, is the short version there; if King Kong can't get enough food because it is unbearable then no worries if they starve either. The existence of test screenings, market research and all the rest surely also attesting to the companies wanting to give fans what they want (or at least will pay for which is more or less the same thing).

    I don't imagine I am too unique in my approach there but some discussion anyway. What do you think of fans telling studios what they want, trying to incite popular movements and whatever else?
    While most of the arguments against giving into fans were generally non arguments do you have any that might stand up to scrutiny? While fans might know what they want there is also merit to having someone more able to articulate why they want something, not to mention the statement often (though some find some scope for debate) attributed to Henry Ford (of Ford motor company fame) of "If I had asked my customers what they wanted they would have said a faster horse.". In games we have seen this too -- the earlier attempts to make a DOTA/MOBA clone saw players asked what they wanted and they responded with all the dodgy mechanics that existed (last hitting to deny experience, bunching your AI troops to increase their effective initial damage/damage concentration...) because it was built of the back of another game as a mod rather than the game itself. Some might genuinely have wanted the obscure mechanics that nobody would likely intuit but history favoured the devs that asked how to make this play style fun rather than replicating the mods (also why in my opinion most mario kart clones fail but that is a different discussion). The history of the Tribes sequels is also somewhat forgotten at this point outside of those that played them but can serve too... short version of that one is don't let the inmates run the asylum.
    Around here I have however run into people that accuse me to being overly negative and saying that I should be nicer, more accepting of their failures and other such things so there are alternative opinions on how to play things.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted
Loading...

Hide similar threads Similar threads with keywords - companies, opinions, desires