Subject:
|
Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 22 Dec 2001 12:53:02 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1077 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.mediawatch, John Neal writes:
> In lugnet.mediawatch, Jason Rowoldt writes:
> > Hello folks,
> >
> > Some of you may know me, others may not. I'm Jason Rowoldt, the founder and
> > webmaster of the site www.brickfilms.com.
> >
> > Someone posted this article and the associate press frenzy in the Danish
> > media on the forum of Brickfilms.com. We have had several translations
> > already and been discussing this very issue.
> >
> > First, it looks like the discussion here has dengenerated into a
> > gay/anti-gay or rather freedom of gender/sexual orientation portrayal of
> > minifigs. I'll try to stay away from that whole topic and focus more on the
> > relavant issue at hand, which is really at the core of this group and what
> > we are.
>
> No, to me the issue at hand is the lack of responsibility and common sense on
> your part. Creating "adult" movies out of LEGO MFs is just plain stupid and
> tasteless.
> >
> > To me, LEGO bricks are a hobby. They are a really fun thing to collect and
> > to to build with for many of us. I know that some of us have started
> > reselling LEGO bricks via Brickbay, some of us have done commissioned works
> > for LEGO sculptures, and some of us have made movies. I'm one of the ones
> > that makes movies.
>
> Oh, really Jason? Are all LEGO hobbies that equal? I sell bricks on • Brickbay,
> you display LEGO porn-- sorry, I don't buy it.
> >
> > Brickfilms.com has grown over the past year (I launched it on Dec. 16th,
> > 2000) and has caught the attention of a lot of media. The NY Times, the
> > London Guardian, various TV shows including ZD Tech TV, UK Channel 4, and
> > internet outlets such as Salon.com, Plastic.com, and on and on.
> >
> > I'm glad it's been getting so much attention, because the sole purpose of
> > the site is to promote quality film-making from LEGO enthusiasts.
>
> So why sully a good thing by allowing such filth? Or is it *that* which is
> getting you all of the attention? The only people whom I can envision • enjoying
> your LEGO porn are Beavis and Butthead types. If the "sole" purpose of your
> site is to promote "quality film-making", then why the hell are you displaying
> this type of material???!!! Sorry to break the news to you since you seem not
> to have already heard: porn *isn't* quality.
>
> > There is a huge difference, and I mean a HUGE difference, between LEGO
> > saying "We don't approve of this movie that was made" and "We are taking
> > legal means to shut down production and/or ban distribution of this movie".
> >
> > I wholeheartedly agree with The Lego Company's right to say the former. I
> > even think that LEGO should "officially" stay as far away from violent /
> > abusive / non-family movies as possible.
>
> What I can't understand is why *you* don't think this is a good idea, too.
>
> They can deny association all they
> > want. They can say "We do not endorse or approve of" a particular movie all
> > they want. They can even go as far as saying "This is not in line with our
> > corporate values", and even ask you politely to stop.
> >
> > They can also endorse whatever they want. They have already endorsed,
> > supported, promoted, and financed one of the film-makers who used to
> > frequent this site, Spite Your Face. Good for them.
> >
> > But I would not want to see "Girl", "Heart of Darkness", or "Catharsis,
> > Texas" on LEGO.com. That is not in line with children's tastes or a
> > children's audience.
> >
> > But we are all more or less mature here
>
> You moron! What an ignorant thing to say! *Anybody* can read LUGNET! • *Anybody*
> can download your trash!
>
> (I'm looking at you, OCAP *grin*)
> > and can take some more adult themed movies. In fact I'd love to see more
> > movies like "Girl". The NY Times just recently did a story on us FOR more
> > adult movies. That reporter was asking me for directors who have done
> > serious stuff and I pointed her in the right direction.
>
> Unbelievable. What a patsy you are.
> >
> > There is room for serious, gritty movies and children's fantasy. There is
> > room for serious brick animations and whimsical comedies. There is room for
> > all kinds of movies here.
>
> Really? Maybe there isn't. Maybe you should do what adult sites do and • require
> some adult ID check before people can enter your site. That would be the
> responsible thing to do.
>
> > There is my general take on the matter. I hope everyone here can understand
> > my intentions and slight frustration at what LEGO has recently been quoted
> > as saying. I'd like to remain on good terms with TLC. I'd even like to
> > have them sponsor some prizes for our current contest.
>
> Dude, how clueless can you be? They are talking about trying to shut down • your
> filth-- you have some serious disconnect going on.
>
>
> But I cannot in good
> > concious distrance myself from some of these controversial films and not
> > defend them with every fiber of my artistic integrity.
>
> Artistic integrity? You have no integrity.
>
> It does not matter
> > whether I like a particular movie at all.
>
> Of course it matters! It's your site! Take a stand, clean up your act, or
> crawl back under the rock from which you came.
>
> As Voltaire said "I make not like
> > what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
>
> Just because you *can* doesn't mean you *should*. With freedom comes
> responsibility. *You* are irresponsible.
>
> -John
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
101 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
