tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22073066.post114281149570151671..comments2023-06-03T06:16:38.027-04:00Comments on Estoreal: Bounty hunters followupRichardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01714171897239398438noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22073066.post-1142919115788894642006-03-21T00:31:00.000-05:002006-03-21T00:31:00.000-05:00Further thought, on the no-monkey-business clause:...Further thought, on the no-monkey-business clause:<BR/><BR/>Herge, creator, writer and artist of the wonderful Tintin books, had just such a statement in his own will. That's the reason you never see new Tintin stories these days, as he stated that no one else could write for him.Rodneyliveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03476187929555342435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22073066.post-1142918909960167972006-03-21T00:28:00.000-05:002006-03-21T00:28:00.000-05:00M. Shelly's cool, no question there.You know what ...M. Shelly's cool, no question there.<BR/><BR/>You know what this is more like? Christopher Tolkien going and publishing his father's notes as The Silmarillion. Or Audrey Geisel producing Daisy-Head Mayzie from a script found in a drawer after Dr. Seuss' death.<BR/><BR/>Maybe even (in a way) almost the entire output of Emily Dickenson, the great majority of which she had stuffed in various drawers, and never saw print until long after her demise. (Although those weren't elaborated upon.)<BR/><BR/>Gimmie more time and I'm sure I could come up with more examples. All I know is, when it comes time to make out the will, I'm gonna have to put a "No monkey-business wit' da IP" clause in there. Solid.Rodneyliveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03476187929555342435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22073066.post-1142887855242312582006-03-20T15:50:00.000-05:002006-03-20T15:50:00.000-05:00Sorry, Brian, but that counterexample doesn't real...Sorry, Brian, but that counterexample doesn't really work.<BR/><BR/>Mary Shelley of course <I>did</I> write the novel <I>Frankenstein</I>, and the Kenneth Branagh film was an attempt to be more faithful to that original work than previous cinematic versions had been -- the same logic that led to a film called <I>Bram Stoker's Dracula</I>. Personally, I don't think either film succeeded artistically in capturing the spirit of the original source material, but that wasn't for lack of good intentions. In both cases, the makers were using the title as a way of saying "don't be misled -- we're going back to the original source material here" rather than as a means of enhancing the box office receipts. <BR/><BR/>The thing is, the names of Mary Shelley and Bram Stoker are not in and of themselves selling points with the general public. No one who wasn't already a fan would ever say "Wow, gotta go see that new film by Mary Shelley!" Those writers are each best known for those single creations, Frankenstein's creature and Dracula...and even then, the original novels are not so widely read; people know those characters from previous movie versions.<BR/><BR/>(If the comic <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y_the_last_man" REL="nofollow">Y: The Last Man</A> were being published under the title <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Man" REL="nofollow">Mary Shelley's The Last Man</A> it <I>might</I> be a closer analogy...but still not quite.)<BR/><BR/>And too, there's the whole point that film versions of novels are translations from one medium to another, and we all understand this: no one would ever think that Mary Shelley had written a screenplay or directed the film. Not so with a Marvel comic book that expressly presents itself as being the creation of the most prolific creator in American comics! To have comic books that Jack Kirby did not write or draw bearing the words "Jack Kirby's" in the title while comic books he <I>did</I> write and draw do <I>not</I> have his name in the title can only cause confusion with the general public. All the worse if these misidentified works are poor in comparison to his actual work, because this could harm his professional reputation. <BR/><BR/>Mary Shelley is one of my all-time favorite historical figures -- she was a genius who single-handedly invented the entire genre of science fiction in one stroke -- so in that sense I definitely rank her up there with Jack Kirby. Although, in this particular context, it might be more apt to compare her, or Bram Stoker, with Jerry Siegel, who had that one big successful creation better known to the public through later interpretations by other writers.Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01714171897239398438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22073066.post-1142845820645221362006-03-20T04:10:00.000-05:002006-03-20T04:10:00.000-05:00I dunno...I don't think people felt that Shelly's ...I dunno...I don't think people felt that Shelly's estate had anything to do with Mary Shelly's Frankenstein, did they?<BR/><BR/>I honestly do not mind it as a matter of identification/attention-getting.<BR/><BR/>You know, like, "Hey, look! Over here! These characters were created by the KING!"Brian Croninhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06223181857448999287noreply@blogger.com