Wash and Book, resurrection wrongness
POSTED BY: Gilead
UPDATED: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 11:18
VIEWED: 17395
PAGE 1 of 5
So, we've established a couple of things:
1) Wash and Book are dead.
2) Any plot-device perceived as fan-born is a copyright risk, and thus also... dead.
I have had a plot-device related idea involving the future of Wash and Book. So, if you'd care to play a mind-game with me, here's what I propose: 'If' you see where I'm going with this idea, try to communicate that you get it back to me in this thread, without actually giving away the idea (and thus dooming it to non-canon obscurity).
My plot-device is twisted, it's wrong (not in a perverse way), but for the price of one plot device, you would get both characters back.
(that would be clue #1)
Remember, NO BLATANT GUESSING (don't be lame), just cryptic winks and nods, preferably in the form of allusions and metaphors, to let me know if you savvy.
I reward creativity with verbal affirmations. ;)
Night all.
Gilead
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The logical response would be Wash and Book in baggy pants, with fright wigs, red rubber noses, and big yellow shoes.
WAIT! WAIT! WAIT! I spelled that wrong-- Oh, never mind...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So, we've established that fashion is involved.
But how, man... HOW?!?!
Gilead
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
They could pull an Emporer Palpatine.
Fe'nos Tol
JOSSIS(Most Definitely)AGOD
Self appointed Forsaken! Been on the list for a while now!
98% of teens have smoked pot, if you are one of the 2% that haven't, copy this into your signature.
"Look at me, I'm STUPID!" The Doctor.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Gilead:
So, we've established a couple of things:
1) Wash and Book are dead.
2) Any plot-device perceived as fan-born is a copyright risk, and thus also... dead.
Just addressing your points...
1) Yeah , most folk seemed to have noticed the deadness thing .
2) Fallacious conclusion ! Anything fan-born is no copyright risk at all , because the fans do not hold the copyrights...The copyrights belong to the respective copyright holders , which would be Universal in the case of the BDM , and the F-network in the case of the Firefly series...And , of course , contractually , Joss Whedon , as the creator of the characters and situations...
It's Joss's 'Verse , he just lets us play in it !
Anything 'fan-born' is derivative , and not able to claim copyright as a result...And , because it doesn't originate with the creator or a copyright holder , is naturally non-canonical...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, I had my own theory, but apparently Joss has specifically said that Book was not an Operative. He may have been a "duplicate" though.
As far as Wash goes, two words: "Steering Column!"
And yes, I totally went there.
"We may experience some slight turbulence, and then... explode."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by out2theblack:
2) Fallacious conclusion ! Anything fan-born is no copyright risk at all , because the fans do not hold the copyrights...The copyrights belong to the respective copyright holders , which would be Universal in the case of the BDM , and the F-network in the case of the Firefly series...And , of course , contractually , Joss Whedon , as the creator of the characters and situations...
Perhaps we have a semantics issue here. But an interesting topic nonetheless. Of course the actual copyrights/rights reside with Joss (and/or various big wigs). What I meant is that, from what I've come to understand, if a fan comes up with an idea, concept, or plot device related to series and documents it (eg. with a posting), and a similar idea is later used in a similar context in the series in question... it can make lawyer-types get all queasy-like. There is at least an perception of burden of proving that the idea was not taken from the fan without just compensation. Therefore, fan ideas (and overt, habitual exposure to them by casual participation in online community environments) are treated with affection akin to a wet rat corpse.
Quote:
Anything 'fan-born' is derivative ... And , because it doesn't originate with the creator or a copyright holder , is naturally non-canonical...
And, naturally, that's what I'm trying to avoid.
Gilead
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by micjwelch:
Well, I had my own theory, but apparently Joss has specifically said that Book was not an Operative. He may have been a "duplicate" though.
I'm unfamiliar with the duplicate concept in Firefly, although it clearly implies a good return method for, if not necessarily Book, Ron Glass.
My thoughts were more along the lines of a way that the two of them - the originals - given their new situation, could find some way to make themselves more... useful.
Gilead
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Gilead:
Perhaps we have a semantics issue here. But an interesting topic nonetheless. Of course the actual copyrights/rights reside with Joss (and/or various big wigs). What I meant is that, from what I've come to understand, if a fan comes up with an idea, concept, or plot device related to series and documents it (eg. with a posting), and a similar idea is later used in a similar context in the series in question... it can make lawyer-types get all queasy-like. There is at least an perception of burden of proving that the idea was not taken from the fan without just compensation...
The only semantics applicable would be the legalese...A 'fan' has no contract , no vested interest in the property except as an entertainment 'consumer' , and no right to 'compensation' , 'just' or unjust...
No competent attorney would attempt a claim based on thin air , like this , and no court would entertain it for long before seeing it for being what it is : 'frivolous'...
No worries...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME