Taboo-XX wrote...
Atakuma wrote...
Taboo-XX wrote...
Jsxdf wrote...
bioware owes no apologies or explainations
Then they are not artists.
The Cannes film festival allows this and they are far, far better artists.
No artist is required to explain or apologize for their work, they can, but saying you can't be considered an artist if you don't is rediculous.
Were you at the Cannes film festival for the Lars von Trier Antichrist debacle? Were you there for the madness that that caused? Do you have ANY idea what the ramifications of von Trier saying "I don't have to explain anything to you" were?
The artist has a responsibility. THAT is why they have these Q and A screenings. They exist for the SOLE purpose of allowing people to ask questions.
People are always entitled to ask.
They have accepted and listened to criticism; they're just not bending to the whims of angry naysayers who wish to alter their creative vision. It's also very, very rare that a film picked apart at a festival as big as Cannes will be changed
simply because that particular audience raged over it. Antichrist, in its unedited and intended form (there were two cuts that floated around, one neutered that simply didn't sell), ultimately wasn't changed at the behest of controversy. Oh, and by the way, you're allowed to ask questions at those Q&A sessions just like people are on Twitter, at PAX, and on here, but just like those venues, they're not required to answer and, even more, they're not required to answer to the profuse degree that many think they're entitled to. It's their prerogative.
Look at
The Tree of Life, too: booed profusely at Cannes, but it continued to show in its entirety in the United States exactly as Terrence Malick intended. You can even extend that example further: people were demanding refunds because of its cinematic properties, much like the Mass Effect 3 fans. It wasn't what people expected of a Brad Pitt film, or, I suppose, of a film in general, and folks demanded compensation for their perceived time wasted. It doesn't mean it's a bad film,
in the slightest, or that it's devoid of artistic merit,
which it's assuredly not. Only that those people didn't process the piece of work that was put in front of them in the way that the creator intended, and "consumers" felt that they deserved their money back because of it.
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
