Does anyone else feel that much of the DB fandom enforces low standards?

[ABED]

Nolan also encourages people to go to theaters during a pandemic, sooooo....

I personally try to avoid public places as much as possible, so I won't be going any time soon, but I don't think there's an issue with theaters only allowing 25% of the normal capacity. With such a small number of people, it can't be any more riskier than going to a supermarket.

It's not just about exposure, it's also about dosage.

What does artistic integrity have to do with the issue of knowing when to end the story? He made his reputation making Batman movies.

[Matches Malone]

What does artistic integrity have to do with the issue of knowing when to end the story?

Nolan could've easily made at least another Batman trilogy, but he instead decided to end things on a high note and move on. A lot of franchises dig themselves into the ground and only stop when the money stops, but Nolan didn't do that with Batman.

[ABED]

What does artistic integrity have to do with the issue of knowing when to end the story?

Nolan could've easily made at least another Batman trilogy, but he instead decided to end things on a high note and move on. A lot of franchises dig themselves into the ground and only stop when the money stops, but Nolan didn't do that with Batman.

I wouldn't call that a high note but regardless I don't think it shows integrity to end a story. I love a great ending and think more stories should but it's not a matter of artistic "integrity".

[Matches Malone]

I don't think it shows integrity to end a story.

If you end your story because it's the right place to end it creatively, despite knowing you're going to miss out on a truck of $$$ if you don't keep going, I think it shows a lot of integrity for both your work and your reputation as an artist.

[ABED]

I don't think it shows integrity to end a story.

If you end your story because it's the right place to end it creatively, despite knowing you're going to miss out on a truck of $$$ if you don't keep going, I think it shows a lot of integrity for both your work and your reputation as an artist.

Why does that show integrity?

I don't blame Toei for keeping it all going past the point the story should've ended but I do roll my eyes that fans can't seem to let stories go. Toei, Disney, and all these other companies are just responding to demand.

[Matches Malone]

Why does that show integrity?

What else would you call an artist willing to leave $$$ behind in favor of not running their property into the ground ?

[ABED]

Why does that show integrity?

What else would you call an artist willing to leave $$$ behind in favor of not running their property into the ground ?

Disinterested.

Integrity is about sticking to your principles.

[Matches Malone]

Integrity is about sticking to your principles.

This is what I've been saying, an artist who's willing to stick to his plans, regardless of the $$$ being left behind is showing artistic integrity.

[ABED]

Integrity is about sticking to your principles.

This is what I've been saying, an artist who's willing to stick to his plans, regardless of the $$$ being left behind is showing artistic integrity.

Only if the assumption is that money is a bad motivation.

[Planetnamek]

Nolan also encourages people to go to theaters during a pandemic, sooooo....

I personally try to avoid public places as much as possible, so I won't be going any time soon, but I don't think there's an issue with theaters only allowing 25% of the normal capacity. With such a small number of people, it can't be any more riskier than going to a supermarket.

For countries besides the USA sure, but here it's definitely a risk and one i'm not comfortable with as unlike with a supermarket you're not moving around, you're sitting in one room for a couple of hours, not to mention the loophole where you can take your mask off to eat is ripe for abuse. I already wasn't going to theaters much before COVID, now i've got even less reason to go. I won't judge others for doing it, but i'm personally not going to feel right taking that risk.

[Skar]

I don't blame Toei for keeping it all going past the point the story should've ended but I do roll my eyes that fans can't seem to let stories go. Toei, Disney, and all these other companies are just responding to demand.

I agree that most studios are running a business and only care to meet demand (or what they think is in demand) but I think what he means by artistic integrity is the creator not wanting to cash in more after their stories have ended. For example, Alan Moore not supporting film adaptations of his comics and Bill Watterson refusing to license Calvin & Hobbes. Both had their reasons for these decisions and that mattered more to them than the opportunity to make as much money as possible with their work. There are also some studios that are willing to move on once a series ends even though there's still demand and they could easily continue a while longer.

[ABED]

But those were the personal choices of those men based on their beliefs. Not every creator holds to the same ideas. Plenty are fine with continuing as long as they're still interested.

Moore's reasons for not endorsing adaptations of his work make him come off like an insufferable douche bag. God what an overrated writer. Watchmen is just okay. It's incredibly douchy considering his work is derivative and he worked in superhero comics for years.

I think what he means by artistic integrity is the creator not wanting to cash in more after their stories have ended.

That's not a principle. In Waterson's case he wanted complete control over his creation. I get that wholehearted.

[Skar]

But those were the personal choices of those men based on their beliefs. Not every creator holds to the same ideas. Plenty are fine with continuing as long as they're still interested.

I agree not everyone holds that belief but I was giving an example of artistic integrity based on the definitions I've seen. An author can continue if they're still interested but I think his point was that there's a difference between an author deciding to end when they feel it's a good conclusion and nothing worthwhile to add vs continuing until it stops making money.

[ABED]

I got his point; I simply disagree.

[Skar]

I got his point; I simply disagree.

Oh ok it just sounded like you were both arguing different points. What part did you disagree with? I think it counts as sticking to their principles at least in Watterson's case. It wasn't only about retaining creative control and he also didn't want his characters to become a commodity and lose the integrity of the comics because he even refused merchandise licensing. Not everyone has the same beliefs but I think it still counts as artistic integrity when they're willing to end the story if they feel there's nothing worthwhile to add. You can usually when that happens vs a series exhausting every possible idea they think might sell.

[WittyUsername]

But those were the personal choices of those men based on their beliefs. Not every creator holds to the same ideas. Plenty are fine with continuing as long as they're still interested.

Moore's reasons for not endorsing adaptations of his work make him come off like an insufferable douche bag. God what an overrated writer. Watchmen is just okay. It's incredibly douchy considering his work is derivative and he worked in superhero comics for years.

Again, every work of fiction is derivative. It’s impossible to make something wholly original, because virtually everything ever imaginable has already been done. In terms of why Alan Moore doesn’t like adaptations of his work, that’s not surprising. Something like Watchmen was never made with the intention of being a studio cash cow. It was meant to be a one-off story that served to deconstruct the superhero genre. He didn’t write it with the intention of making someone like Rorschach the next Batman.

[ABED]

It all depends on what they consider their principles to be. In Watterson's case it's clear cut.

Again, every work of fiction is derivative. It’s impossible to make something wholly original

Iwas thinking more along the lines of League of Extraordinary Gentleman where he just used characters in the public domain. If you listen to interviews he knows his view on adaptations of his own work are hypocritical so at least he's honest.

My biggest point of contention in all of this is the idea that the profit motive is somehow inherently wrong and antithetical to art.

[JulieYBM]

Technically, all works of fiction are derivative, including Dragon Ball itself. Still, I certainly don’t see how there’d be much of a benefit to having the franchise be public domain. As Skar pointed out, that would basically just mean that other big corporations besides Toei and Bandai would get to profit off the brand.

They already do profit off of DB, though, they simply do so while funneling a portion of the profits back to Shueisha and then Shueisha back to Toriyama. Consumer money is going into the hands of people who won't spend it back into the economy like a poor creator would. With a public domain that is more open consumer attention will be split away from the usual suspects (Shueisha, Toei and Bandai) and the profits will go to independent creators or smaller companies. It's a better system not just for labor and but for consumers, too.

There's simply no proof of that other than an utopic wish.

Open source stuff like this gets beat to the ground because everyone does their own take on it, most of the time being a poor/shitty take on it, the public gets saturated and people move on from that franchise/IP for a decade or two until it comes back and the cycle repeats itself.

Sherlock Holmes and Robin Hood are proof of it. Copyright laws are garbage, but to think that freeing everything for everyone to do whatever they want won't change the system. People that want already do DB fan work without issues, only big companies that can throw truckloads of money on marketing would profit from this

I thought it was obviously I don't care about quality? Like, quality is subjective and there will doubtlessly be shit I think sucks but why should that effect my principled stance on dismantling corporate hold on IP and preventing the endless accumulation of wealth by a few or an individual, especially when that accumulation is built off of the backs of regular people?

Oh well, at least we're talking about DB again...

[WittyUsername]

Chances are that corporations would continue to profit off Dragon Ball, even if it were in the public domain.

[MyVisionity]

Integrity is about sticking to your principles.

This is what I've been saying, an artist who's willing to stick to his plans, regardless of the $$$ being left behind is showing artistic integrity.

Only if the assumption is that money is a bad motivation.

It is if the price for that money is the work itself. You would rather the story and series be disrespected if it means making more money? Should companies only exist to respond to demand and make a profit, even if it means tossing morality and standards aside?

Sure there are some creators who end their works simply out of disinterest. There are others however that stop because they think it's what's best for the series.

Are you arguing that the value of making money somehow outweighs the value of the story?