Artistic Integrity... Completely Gone?

[trekgeezer]

It's easy to criticise someone's aritistic integrity  when you don't have to make a living off your art. TV and movies are a cutthroat business, a hard place to make it and sometimes those who do make it are forced to compromise to do so.

Sure it's art, but it has to be commercial.



Post Edited (04-01-05 16:59)

[nobody]

I never tried to compare FG to Van Gogh or anything. Obviously it's low brow entertainment, but it took some intelligence and creativity to write the show, nonetheless.

[h.p. love]

It doesn't matter if a tv program is art or schlock, it's still delivered in 10-15 minute portions sandwiched between ads for mcdonald's, erection pills, and watery beer. Integrity is already compromised. 99% of the time, if it's on tv, in a major paper or magazine, or on the analog radio, it's already been edited, focused grouped, and geared for selling as much ad space as possible. The last time I went to a museum, good restaurant, or music venue in some gritty neighborhood, I wasn't bashed over the head with an advertisement. My point I guess is that you can find art (loosely defined) on tv way more easily than art combined with integrity. As far as integrity goes, I'll take the crayon drawing by my buddy's three-year-old over Family Guy or the Simpsons or whatever.  But I'll still catch the Simpsons now and again.

That said, I get your point. I always had a beef with the edited versions of movies on tv. Not only is the story interrupted by ads, which is worse than a spastic teenager sitting behind you in a theater (because you can turn around and stop that nastiness), but the dialogue changes used to be completely ridiculous. "Casino" on USA comes to mind. I used to think that Scorcese was probably p**sed about the distribution and the hacking of his film. However...

I was unfortunate enough to see "Aviator" for three bucks and now I'm pretty sure that he doesn't care about anything except probably money. "Aviator" makes me doubt that a film called "Taxi Driver" even exists. It must be some sort of far reaching false-memory hallucination like grey alien abductions.

Releasing something in two versions, PG and R, is frustrating for an audience but done all the time. The PG will be able to be shown earlier in the evening on the networks while the R can eventually show up on Comedy Central or something. It's no different than releasing an R and Unrated dvd. I was pretty frustrated when I wanted to see the R-rated version of Requiem for a Dream that appeared in theaters, only to find that most places (especially blockbuster and hollywood video) carried a weakened version known as edited-R.

In closing (ahem - I know knowbody read this far), don't despair. There are small or interesting details in the mainstream fray. I just saw that Robert Rodrigeuz had to officially resign his director's guild membership to share directoral billing with Frank Miller on Sin City since Miller isn't a properly ordained director. Even though this was small gesture involving nothing more than some light paperwork, it is something that not all directors would do. Sin City is supposed to be pretty kick ass, so it's just icing on the cake.

[ulthar]

renegadefury wrote:

>  If I start failing at my job, I'd get fired. And with
> entertainers too, if they start selling out, I'll stop giving
> into them, most likely cause the art would suck, not just
> because of the selling out in itself.

But I think you are confusing what 'their job' really is.  To FOX, it is Seth's job to make them money.  To put fannies on the couch in front of the tube so folks see the commercials paid for by their advertisers.  Nothing more.

The execs at FOX probably care very little (if at all) about how artistic a show is.  The Simple Life is ART?  Come on.  Temptation Island art?  Nah, I don't think they care one whit about art.

Your job is to perform a specific task, and if you stop doing that task you may get fired.  Likewise for Seth, but the task is not to produce art.  He could at this point produce the most overrated drek imaginable, and the show would still be very, very popular (for a while at least) due to the past popularity of FG and it's cult status.  It would take a while for the cult following to admit "hey, this ain't so good."

So, the 'art' sucking is, in my view, irrelevant to the bottom line.  There have been some very, very good shows that did not make it, and some totally horrible ones that seem to go on forever.  As long as FOX can show advertisers a certain demographic is tuning in in certain numbers, the advertisers will buy the time.

[renegadefury]

>"To FOX, it is Seth's job to make them money. "

whoops, I didn't mean Family Guy in particular, just movies/music in general, where you got bands like Metallica and movies like The Grudge, instead of another Dead Alive which did not compormise anything. Family Guy's comedy is heavily based on pop culture trivia so it's bound to be commercial.

Since tv shows are just billboards,  99% of it will  appeal to the lowest common denominator cause most of the stuff trying to be sold are products nobody needs (mostly stuff, like McDonalds, Beer, Movies, etc). And when was the last time you'd be able to persuade a genius to buy something he doesn't even need in the 1st place.

[trekgeezer]

I saw Robert Rodriguez on AMC's Sunday Morning Shootout and he acted like the directors guild was no big thing. He respects the rule they have about one director credit because they don't want it to become meaningless like some of the producer credits that are given. He is doing what he wants, he has a studio in Austin (actually some hangars that were abandoned when they moved the airport). I'm looking forward to Sin City.

I hate the way TNT and TBS can turn a two hour movie into 3.5 hour event. Hell most of the commercial breaks are longer than the movie segments. But that is the nature of TV.

[ulthar]

trek_geezer wrote:

>
> I hate the way TNT and TBS can turn a two hour movie into 3.5
> hour event. Hell most of the commercial breaks are longer than
> the movie segments. But that is the nature of TV.
>

Not like anyone needs evidence of this, but I was taping "Little House on the Prairie" last Saturday for my wife (off ABC) and editing the commercials as I went.  We ended up with just over an hour of tape.  Though I knew it was commercial heavy, I was a little surprised it was THAT lopsided.

[Fearless Freep]

Hmmmm.....Geaorge Lucas won't hire unionized directors..

Sounds like Robert Rodriguez is not in the union...

"El Jedi"
"Once Upon A Time In A Galaxy Far Far Away"
"From Dusk Til Clones"

..it could work...just get Antonio Banderas in there as a renegade Jedi out for revenge and find *some* place for Salma Hayak.



Post Edited (04-02-05 08:40)

[trekgeezer]

George Lucas quit the directors guild and the screenwriters guild after he was fined for not showing any credits at the beginning of The Empire Strikes Back.  Seems they had to get special permission on Ep. IV, but he didn't bother to ask the next time, so the DGA fined him $500,000.

People might not like what he does to his old movies, but he is one of the few people not beholding to a studio.

[h.p. love]

Just to add on the amount of commercials, have you ever watched an old rerun and it seemed different, like something was missing? It is because commercial breaks are longer, so more of the original show has to be removed. And on a related note, I heard that there is some sort of controversy over a dvd release of WKRP in Cincinatti. That was a really funny show with real music from the radio at the time. It gave it a really authentic feel. At that time, it was pretty new to actually hear current songs in the context of a show.

 Anyway, some WKRP episodes on a dvd release will not have certain songs in them. I'd be inclined to say all or nothing and keep the integrity of the show intact. But then again, a new generation may miss out on Less Nessman and turkeys being thrown from helicopters.

[odinn7]

ulthar wrote:

> Not like anyone needs evidence of this, but I was taping
> "Little House on the Prairie" last Saturday for my wife (off
> ABC) and editing the commercials as I went.  
>


OK, give it up...we're onto you. You were taping Little House for yourself,  weren't you?!?! C'mon, out with it. You're not fooling anyone here, mister.



Post Edited (04-02-05 11:28)

[Eirik]

"OK, give it up...we're onto you. You were taping Little House for yourself, weren't you?!?! C'mon, out with it. You're not fooling anyone here, mister."

Either that or he REALLY REALLY loves his wife!

I mean, I'd give my wife a kidney, move across the country for her, and you can't imagine some of the chores at odd hours I performed during her pregnancies... but Little House on the Prarie?  Uh-uh.

[ulthar]

Eirik wrote:

> and you can't imagine some of the chores at odd hours I
> performed during her pregnancies... but Little House on the
> Prarie?  Uh-uh.

It's interesting that you mention that...she's working about 80 hrs per week right now AND seven months pregnant.  She likes Little House, so I thought I'd do her a favor.

She hasn't watched it yet, so it remains in "theory" that I taped it for her.  I stick by my assertion.

;)

[trekgeezer]

I also heard about WKRP, but I thought they were probably not going to release it because there is so much music in it that would make it very hard and cost prohibitive to get the rights to all the songs.

A lot of other series released on DVD have this problem. If they can't get the rights to include a song that originally was in a scene they will substitute another, which make the scene lose it;s original feel.

[dean]

Speaking of rights for songs, a local show here called John Saffron's Music Jamboree came up with a good way of adjusting to not being able to get the rights to a song for the dvd release.

Over the end credits a band were supposed to be playing one of their songs, but on different instruments from around the world [eg. one week they have a punk band play a song on Indian instruments like sitars and stuff]

But because for some reason they couldn't get the rights to one of these particular groups [I think it was Faithless, or at least a Faithless song being redone, not sure though] for the dvd, although this scene appears intact on the TV show when it screens, John Saffron just started talking about some behind the scenes info over the end credits, which mainly was b***hing about copyright controls and some other stuff I can't remember.