Comments by "Andre Gon" (@andregon4366) on "The Rings of Power - War For A Fandom" video.

@adamgates1142 Being based on something isn't the same as an adaptation. If someone bases a story on another story, but adds their own twists, then it isn't the original story anymore.
7
@adamgates1142 That does nothing to address what I said. What I said was that you can create your own story and/or universe that's based on another one. You wouldn't be held accountable for being faithful to the universe you're adapting from. Meanwhile if you make a movie that's supposed to take place in an already established universe you'll be criticized for the inaccuracies that have been established in it. The law has nothing to do with it. Here's an example: Blizzard wanted to make a Warhammer based game, GW said no, Blizzard made its own game based on Warhammer called Warcraft. Even though Warcraft was based on Warhammer, it was never criticized for not being faithful to Warhammer. Because it wasn't Warhammer, it was its own thing, even though it was based on Warhammer. If Blizzard made a Warhammer based game, because GW allowed them, and then they made Warcraft with Warhammer name in it, they'd be criticized for their inaccuracies. It just so happens that a company by the name of Capcom did something like that, where they made games in which had nothing to do with the franchise they slapped the name in, like Resident Evil 5 and 6. Those were action games that had nothing to do with the names associated with them and Capcom got criticized for that. If they created a new franchise with those ganes they'd never be criticized for being inaccurate to a franchise they had nothing to do with. Even if they were based on them, I'll go further and say: they wouldn't get the criticism they got even if they were spinoffs and not part of the main series. You on the other hand seem to be resorting to avoidance to pretend to addressing other people's points in order to make your argument valid.
6
@bring-out Exactly. That's why I say: I'm yet to find an SJW who isn't the embodiment of everything they claim to fight and /or hate.
5
@sanelb1147 It's not diversity, Samuel Jackson is just a good actor. Good acting is more important than diversity.
4
@vforwombat9915 True, but that can be used by disingenuous people, like Adam, to use as an example of being ok with butchering a franchise "just because that guy over there also did it", even though that isn't true (I'm sure there's a name for that falacy). The better you can debunk their arguments, the faster you shut them up. And a quick debunk is better in order to avoid the undecided to take their side. This is not just a battle between you and them, you'll rarely manage to convince them, they're a cult, they'll never relent. The victory lies in the fact that you're exposing their buzzwords for what they are to everybody else to see, and preventing as many people as possible to take their side.
3
@chukyuniqul That doesn't work, slacktivists aren't movie fans, besides they're way less than the fanbase willing to get outside to watch a movie. So even if slacktivists cared to go out to watch a movie, they'd be too few for the movie to make a profit. Those companies are pandering to vocal minorities. And guess where most money lies? On the silent majority. That's why series get cancelled, because the vocal minority is not enough. Besides, a shit movie is still a shit movie, even though the vocal minority defends them, most of them wouldn't watch them because it's still shit. People don't like shit, even if they pretend to.
2
@chukyuniqul Most of the people that defend them tooth and nail don't even watch those movies.
1
@arachnabell I'm not disagreeing with you. But sometimes the writer can add his own twists to the story. But then it's no longer the original story anymore, and as such it can't have the same name. The example Adam gave about Akira Kurosawa fits with what I said. The problem is that Adam is being disingenuous and pretending as if Akira made the same as these cash grab second rate movie makers who take advantage of an established franchise to shoehorn an half arsed movie to make a quick buck at the expense of the franchise they destroy in the process.
1
@vforwombat9915 English is not my main language, so it's harder to express myself. I'm not limiting my example to the term "franchise", but everything that has a dedicated fanbase. I don't know if your definition of franchise is the same as mine. They're taking advantage of the fanbase, of its popularity, where they have the work cut out for them in releasing new products, instead of taking a risk with creating something new. The industries hate taking any sort of risks.
1
The professional activists also known as "journalists" are already in the third step.
1