When is a Film a Fan Film?

Ah, another strawman. Are we talking about work or about art? Art is not and never should be "what do they want" but "what do I want to do/express".

"I will never make a change in Star Trek because I think it will please the Trekkers. In that way lies prostitution. And you cannot be a good producer, writer or anything if the first thing you ask is ‘what do they want?’. That’s what prostitutes do. I write what I think they should have and what I think they’ll enjoy. And thank God I’ve been right ocasionally."

- Gene Roddenberry

So...? You still used a strawman.

 

Because, as we all know, George Lucas has never done things to appease fans!

 

No, to appease fans was never a driving force in his creative proccess. He never made a story or movie to appease fans. But please, carry on with your fallacy.

 

You're right, Lucas never did anything to appease fans. Well except for:

• Giving Boba Fett a few more scenes in the SE's of Empire and Jedi
• Revealing Boba's backstory in Clones
• Reviving Maul in TCW, something fans had constantly asked for
• Flat out saying he would have given Boba a more grand death in Jedi if he knew how popular the character was

AOTC in particular felt like it was made with a checklist of what Lucas thought fans would want to see, which would make sense after the mixed reception of TPM. "Fans love Boba Fett? Alright, I'll give them his backstory! Fans like lightsabers? I'll have Yoda go crazy with one and have an arena full of lightsabers! People love ESB too, so I'll have as many visual references to that film as possible!"

 

What about the things he definitely did do and has admitted to doing in the films for the fans?

 

When J.J. Abrams is directing them. But, in all seriousness, I agree with anakinfansince1983.

 

Correct. A fan film is a film made by a fan without licence. There's no guarantee that a fan film will even appeal to other fans. I believe that fan films are just as likely to be an expression of the film-making fan's own personally sensibilities as much as the originator of the source material. And just as likely to be rejected by other fans.

 

That's just pandering to fans.

 

"Fandering"?

 

It is always nice to hear people's wish that George Lucas remained directly involved in the continued success of his creation.

I think that the issue taken here is with the pejorative terminology that's been chosen to describe the supposed inherent worth, integrity and quality of the work done by people who are not George Lucas, but have the same desire to please the fans that he always had and, evidently, still has.

 

George Lucas was not giving his art away. He expects people to pay for it. So his art IS work. And in my job, I do a job that requires thinking. I am making creative decisions. I still get paid for it, and the people paying me expect to get something that pleases them. I think this line of thinking is insulting.

It's not a straw man if it was your argument.... which it was.

My problem lies in your outdated idea that Lucas was somehow the sole creative force that defined Star Wars. I simply do not subscribe to such simplistic notions. I believe art is a collaborative effort. It involves both the creator(s) AND the viewers. Many people of Lucas' and Rodenberry's generation had this idea of a film maker as sole creative force behind the film. An auteur. I think that notion is short-sighted, dismissive, and neglects the role of the reader/viewer/audience in making meaning of art. Star Wars ceased being solely George Lucas' as soon as he chose to share with us. And his sale of LFL (including Star Wars) to Disney acknowledges that he recognizes the "right" to create "real" Star Wars can be passed on as a commodity. I have my criticisms of George Lucas, but one thing is beyond doubt: he was a pretty savvy businessman. He understood the value of his IP as a commodity.

Edited to add: Some of the greatest works of art in history were commision pieces, where a patron paid an artist to produce a specific piece of art. Were people like Michelangelo, Holbein, and DaVinci prostitutes because they had to explicitly account for the tastes of their clients?

 

Roddenberry's vision of TNG was boring and had to be changed by other people. He envisioned a show where there were no internal conflicts and what not. That's dull. The fans wanted drama. Sometimes you gotta give the fans what they want. Unless its the theme tune to Enterprise. No-one wants that.

 

A film where George Lucas is not centrally involved. And yes, that means I consider TFA, Rogue One, etc to be fan films. Before I get blasted for saying that though, that does not mean I automatically think they are bad! - just different.

 

Is everything Star Trek since Rodenberry just fan fic? I think this fetishization of George Lucas is silly. That's not to say you can't prefer Star Wars with George Lucas at the center of it, but even Lucas was willing to pass the baton.... in exchange for $4 billion. Also, although you take pains to point out that you do not think that "fan films" are necessarily inferior, I think it's pretty obvious that it normally denotes an amateur product, even if it is relatively high quality for amateur work. In that sense, I think it is being used pejoratively.

Let me add: although I do not agree at all with this position, I think your position might be better expressed by saying non-Lucas Star Wars is apocryphal or non-canon, rather than fan fic.

 

If you're reading this - know that I've got your back, George, ignore the haters.
I love all the changes and all the prequels.
Enjoy spending those 4 billion dollars, you deserve it, bro.

 

I made a fan film. It was sobbing afterwards for hours.

 

I do feel that way about Star Trek - but that doesn't mean I don't see merit in the other stuff, for instance I love the Abrams Trek movies. It's just the way I look at it.

 

Well, there ya go, I guess. Personal opinions. We all have them. That makes no sense to me, but fair enough.

 

I don't think it's objectively correct though. There's no official definition of fan film, but it's fairly safe in assuming that when people say that they mean an unofficial film made by, well, fans. The films you are talking about are offical films made by the same organisation and indeed quite a few of the same people, and done so under the permission of the person who had the rights to and made the first six films. Just because the original creator wasn't deeply involved doesn't make it a 'fan film'. Was Empire not directed by Kershner and partly written by Kasdan? That doesn't make it 70% a fan film or anything. There's no reason deify Lucas like this. Other film franchises have gone with reduced or no involvement from their original creators and are accepted. It's not even the case of some small company getting the rights and making a dodgy sequel. Lucas left voluntarily, of his own accord, and officially handed over the company.

You are perfectly free to not like a film. It doesn't make it a 'fan film' with any degree of objectivity.

 

Is Ewoks: Caravan of Courage a fan film?

 

I don't think fan film is really the appropriate definition of what TFA, Rogue One etc is. even if it is convenient to make a distinction between the originator's work and films he is not directly ore actively involved in.

Fan film is intended to indicate an inherent lack of propriety or authority. Like a cheap, unauthorised autobiography. If a fan decides to produce something unashamedly and unambiguously without licence, they understand the distinction and don't mind the sentiment. (or they try to bury the unauthorized nature of their work by wrapping it up in copyrighted material and only a tiny indication of its origins in the small print - apparently "fm" somewhere in the description means that is "obviously" fan made)

But I don't believe someone given licence and full authority to proceed with the continued saga has not earned that distinction. Quite the opposite.

When George Lucas decided to retire from being the owner of the empire (sorry) that he created and built, which is primarily associated with Star Wars, and sell it to an established entertainment concern in the full knowledge that the Star Wars series would continue, I seriously doubt he himself would have ever considered "Well I can sell this now because the fans will settle for a bunch of Fan Films that they know are automatically inferior."

Whatever variant circumstances prompts the origin and continuation official series, the proof of the pudding is ultimately in the eating. Contentious propriety becomes a footnote to a successful and an overwhelmingly well received film.

Even it it happens to please the fans.

 

You have a job in order to make money and/or provide to your family. That's your job's main purpose. Art's main purpose is not money. It's expression. You can profit from art. You can work on your art. That doesn't make them equivalent.

Like I said, not my fault that you don't know the meaning of the word.

My argument was not the strawman you used.

That you false assumption. Lucas was the main/lead creative force. Everyone else was working for him to fullfill his vision.

Notions that you brought up. Not me.

Art is an artist's work, not the viewer's. The viewers are mere spectators.

No, because that's a job. None of those artists made non-commissioned works by asking themselves: "what do they want?"

What about them? Their insignificance only corroborates my point.

your opinion, not fact.

No, it didn't have to be changed. It ended up being changed, but it was not and never was a requirement.

 

What about them? Lucas never made a decision or a changed anything in order to please fans is what you claimed. But that isn't the case. The significance of the things which happen to please fans is not the issue. All your previous posts suggest that the motivation is the key issue in determining worth Not the perceived (by the fan, presumably) significance of the outcome.

When was their insignificance established anyway?