When is a Film a Fan Film?

Brothers, Sisters, comrades.

Saw an interesting discussion pop up (albeit off topic) in a thread recently. The question was "are any films that don't involve George simply fan films?"

Seemed not to matter that Lawrence Kasdan was involved. Still a fan film. Are all Trek films and shows just fan endeavours? Is Aliens an Alien fan film?

It looked like it was an interesting topic to discuss but (rightly, it was off piste) it got shut down.

So here's a thread for it.

I know my thoughts, but in the interests of fairness, I'll allow anyone who fancies it to posit theirs first.

Go nuts.

 

Huh... No nuts.

 

Well technically yeah. BUT any story (film, book, comic) is the combination of many people bringing their individual skills to a project and the resultant product they make depending on the state of each and constraints. (Budget, technology etc.)

Therefore it's just simply not possible to recreate a film and even doing it in that vein will still produce different results each time.

The thing is all stories are relative to the storycreator, the storyteller and the audience.

George's vision of SW now isn't the same as his in the early seventies, it's developed and changed both with him and with the world.
At what point is a story considered complete?

I'll take Tolkien as an example- their are people who not only discount the Peter Jackson films but they also discount the stuff produced after his death collected by his son because of "Interference" and it not being "pure". That too is the same problem because Tolkien's ideas changed over the years and so did the people who (intentionally and unintentionally) helped shape him.

I don't know where you draw the line but for me it doesn't matter provided the content stands on it's own and at least attempts to be something different whilst being consistent with that universe.

TFA for me isn't and to me is fan fiction. Sure Lawrence Kasden is involved but it just feels like a parody of SW rather than a continuation of the saga. It's debatable how much influence George had with the film and to me I can see some of the ideas being "George-like" but it's overshadowed by the humour and jokes. SW ANH had them but not to the degree of taking you out of the film like TFA.

 

To me, any film that doesn't involve the original artist (in this case, George Lucas) is a fan film (for example: TROOPS is a fan film. TFA is a licensed fan film). But the term is mostly used to separate official, licensed productions from everything else that comes from fandom.

 

No offense, but I fail to understand how this viewpoint makes sense. That's like saying any Marvel Comic made without the involvement of Jack Kirby or Stan Lee is just a licensed fan comic.

Anyways, my definition of a Star Wars fan film would be a film created without the involvement of Lucasfilm.

 

What exactly doesn't make sense?

 

Scott wasn't the mind behind Alien. That was O'Bannon (and Shusett). I'm not that versed in the making of that movie, but wasn't O'Bannon even meant to direct the film?

 

How about the later Star Trek films that didn't have Gene Roddenberry's involvement - that doesn't make them "fan films".

 

Films that blow hot air.

 

To whom?

 

Blatant plugging... I like it I the force awakens teeters quite close in feel to being a fan film. In that its reference heavy and nudge nudge wink wink, but it could never be labelled that as it is an official continuation. Alien and Aliens was probably a slightly inaccurate example. But then Resurrection might be one that could be thought of like that. Such a different tone to the originals....

 

Whatever makes a film a fan film, TFA isn't made a fan film by it or anything else for that matter.

I think the trend to start describing professional feature films, of a franchise, as fan films is symptomatic of the fan's anxiety over the fact that things aren't necessarily done purely in anticipation of what they will personally accept or enjoy (how could they ever be?). So the fan experience is always to varying degrees a precarious and a fragile one (like any artistic experience). Fans are good at intellectualising their emotional response to a movie by attributing certain standards and inferring an orthodoxy that must have been observed in order to achieve that response.

Once that bubble of security is punctured, by something they are not prepared or equipped to accept in the moment, it is often appealing to suspect that, since it's not what you expect or feel is deserved, then it must be aimed purely at other fans with other priorities and requirements. After which it is a small step to suspect that it is in fact, or at least might as well have been, created by a fan with those concerns.

 

I'm not aware of any trend, but the reason for why I call TFA, for example, a fan film it's not because of what I accept and enjoy as a fan. It's because it was made by fans to pander fans and (most important of all) without the creator's involvement. And a license stamp doesn't change that. Of course, for the industry and in regular conversations lack of licensing is the key factor that separates official works from "regular" fan fiction. But that was not my argument since I said that very same thing in my comment.

 

I agree that TFA is a more "Fan based" film. Thats not an insult.

The director is a fan, the actors are all giant fans, the designers are fans, Disney is a fan etc. The difference is that Lucas wasn't his own "fan" of his work. Thats kinda how it's always been.

 

That would encompass all literary adaptations from source material by deceased or not actively involved authors. I do not believe that movies made in those circumstances are automatically inferior to one which the author is actively involved in.

By employing the pejorative, "pandering to fans", you do imply that you are referring to aspects that you don't like and are attributing their inclusion to the desire to cater to what it is presumed fans should like. And since you are a fan an don't like them, yet the movie is well received in spite of this, then it is for other fans. And the person making it must be one of those other fans too. catering to his ideas of what should be in the film. which some other fans happen to agree with.

It is a growing trend. It's been transposed from sniffy comments about the quality of actual fan produced material of varying standards of unprofessional quality. It's a way to dismiss a film's undeniable appeal.

It comes from the increasingly popular "critique" to rationalise things that don't immediately work on us but which clearly entertained others as being "just" something. That whatever it is has no integrity in its conception and has shallow justification amidst whatever intellectualised preconditions we set for a movie succeeding.

I don't know how you conclude that Lucas is not a fan of his own work. He states several times over the commentaries to the complete saga that he tries to remain conscious of what the fans want and anticipates developments and gags that may represent a sort of wish fulfillment moment for them. And he also states how much he loved the movies.

 

Specially those that went against the author's intent regarding the fictional world and characters in order to pander their own wishes.

Well, I do.

I'm not employing anything. It's what they decided to do, and they said so themselves.

No, I'm referring to aspects that were used exclusively to pander fans and aspects that were against the author's intent.

Wether the movie is well received or not is irrelevant. Wether I like it or not is also irrelevant. I don't want a movie made for me, to pander my wishes or anybody else's. I want a movie that the creator decided to make, or in his absence, that follows the material that he left behind and was intended to be adapted.

It's prostitution. It's making something based on "what they want". Some of us care about authorship and authenticity (or at the very least, respect for those), not design by commitee.

 

Can you give an example, related to Star Wars, where the originator's specific wishes were ignored in favour of "pandering to the fans" instead.

Pandering is clearly meant in the pejorative sense. From that, I cannot imagine that things that you don't like or accept and things that you perceive to be pandering are exclusive of each other.

How does one determine what is "pandering"? Do you say to yourself "Well I like that as a fan so it therefore cannot be what the creator intended, otherwise it would not have had that effect on me."?


Who was it that stated that they decided to "pander" to fans?


You seem to exclude the possibility that the creator might want to make things for the fans. That they think the fans will like as well as them. You are correct in the sense that a filmmaker's job is to make something that they like and believe or hope the audience will too. Along the way though, they are very likely and more than entitled to recognise things that will no doubt go down well with the fans but which also satisfies their goals.

Only if the film-maker is doing things purely and cynically in anticipation of the audience's taste but which they personally don't care for. I have never heard an admission or seen any evidence of that in Star Wars.

The biggest giveaway, for me, when people invoke "pandering" as a critique of what's been written or depicted, is that the person using it has an alternate scenario that they reckon should have been depicted. "instead of pandering".

In the context of Star Wars it is academic because there is lots of evidence of George Lucas being conscious of the audience and changing things because of their reaction. Darth Vader is the prime example. He goes at great length to explain his misstep with Boba Fett and how he wished he'd anticipated his popularity better and given him a better death, but then later revised that to stating that he's probably not really dead anyway.

 

Holy smoke... This post encompasses almost everything I hate about psuedo-intellectual fandom. Prostitution? That is patently ridiclous. I mean, heaven forbid the film makers make a movie that actually entertains its target audience! Nope, it only counts if the maker disdains his audience.... FFS, save us from armchair literary critics....

 

Why? It's not my fault that you don't know the meaning of the word.

Try again.

 

Like your signature, by the way.

 

By your broad definition, I am a prostitute for going to work every day and doing what the people who pay me want me to do.

"pandering to the audience" Your words not mine.

 

Well of course you need to hold the audience in mind when you create a movie. Even more if it is a major one like TFA and even the ones in the prequels. You can´t create a blockbuster movie without knowing what the audience wants to see, that is almost suicide.