
so let's say that you're a publisher with a much-loved book series that's made you a ton of money, by a truly original voice that cannot be duplicated, but who is busy pushing up daisies. what to do?
you hire another writer, of course, to nail shut the coffin that disney built, chasing away not only potential new fans, but turning off all of the original fans, as well. of course! it's all so simple.
a little advice from elsewhen to del rey, gramercy publishing, etc.: don't pimp dent & company out. instead, spend some time and money & find someone else who can write a new, funny, and original franchise for you.
(like us. just a thought.)
this goes back to our debate about the true ownership of artistic works (and maybe artists, as well). once a given book, play, film, song, etc., is out in public, who does it belong to? legally, of course, it belongs to the copyright holder, but the folks that have spewed lame superhero movies (do you hear us, joel schumacher?), politically-corrected epics (a la steven spielberg, with the 'updated' e.t.), and pop stars that we have an extremely rigid idea of in our collective psyche (paul mccartney), or movie stars (eddie murphy and bill murray) likely have a better - or at least broader - appreciation of artistic ownership than that.
the fact is, if you produce any artistic work and then disappoint your audience via changing the original vision after the fact (midichlorians? really?), you often find that the well has run dry, and no one is interested in your work any more (molly ringwald). in effect, the market punishes pimps.
as content creators ourselves, we can't help but be bothered by this. especially since our artistic process is to recycle & reinterpret images, music, stories, and ideas in order to explore our work from several perspectives. we'd be royally ticked off if any monkey-minds told us that we couldn't do something with the brand that we've spent the better part of 10 years building (and that we are even now rebuilding).
what do you think?