Comments | brihana25: Random question time

brihana25

Random question time

Apr 08, 2006 04:58

I'm just gonna say this, going in... I am not going to express my personal opinions on any of the things I'm about to mention, one way or the other, so don't anyone go giving me any "motives" in asking this question ( Read more... )

rant: fandom

Comments 10

(The comment has been removed)

brihana25 April 8 2006, 18:38:37 UTC

Actually, yes. It makes perfect sense to me.

I make wallpapers of Daniel Jackson. I read and write stories about Daniel Jackson. I have a crush on Daniel Jackson. I have dear friends and family members who like to read about/look at Daniel Jackson and Jack O'Neill in some seriously "compromising" positions.

But I've come across some manips that clearly aren't Daniel Jackson and Jack O'Neill, but rather Michael Shanks and Richard Dean Anderson - not cast shots of them in character, but headshots and promotional photos of the actors themselves ( ... )

= unacceptable alyburns April 8 2006, 19:31:43 UTC

Did I win?

Re: = unacceptable brihana25 April 8 2006, 21:29:40 UTC

It's not a contest, aly. It's a talking point. I've encountered something I don't understand, and I'm asking for more information, clarification, and varying opinions on the subject ( ... )

midnighta April 9 2006, 04:15:44 UTC

Unacceptable. But they seem to be growing in number :/

brihana25 April 9 2006, 21:09:16 UTC

Would you say that the number of people using headshots of the actors for the manips is growing, or is it just that the same people are creating more of them?

midnighta April 9 2006, 22:52:34 UTC

The first one. There are more people making manips with the actors heads pasted on someone else's body. A rare few are done in good taste, for laughs, etc - There's a site that puts David Krumholtz's face on famous works of art. DK acknowledged it once on a tv interview and even contacted the artist to request a few :)

crazymadjo April 9 2006, 04:50:04 UTC

Are the manips intended by the maniper to be "in character", even if the source photos were not? Other words, are they using some actor pics to create a more unique J/D manip?

brihana25 April 9 2006, 21:07:34 UTC

Oh, I'm sure the creators mean them to be Jack and Daniel. I mean, I can't think of a single person I know (or even know of) who honestly thinks or wants to think that Michael Shanks and Richard Dean Anderson are... well... doing what Jack and Daniel are usually doing. :)

But, does the artist's intent really matter here, or is it all in the eye of the beholder, so to speak?

crazymadjo April 10 2006, 01:48:54 UTC

I'm not asking about artists intent, I just wasn't sure what kinds of manips you were talking about.

Honestly I think the distinction between pictures where the actors are posing as the characters and pictures where the actors are not in character is a fuzzy one at best. The actors faces and bodies don't cease to be theirs just because they're in character. If an individual feels that manips are okay, than IMHO any pic is game. If not, than not. Claiming that in character pics are okay but not in character pics isn't is just drawing an imaginary line in the moral sand. Rationalizing using somebody's likeness in a way that they themselves did not intend for it to be used.

That being said, I enjoy looking at manips, which just shows what a total hypocrite I am. *g*

brihana25 April 10 2006, 13:05:12 UTC

>That being said, I enjoy looking at manips, which just shows what a total hypocrite I am. *g*<

LOL! Hey, if you've got it, flaunt it, right? ;)

>Claiming that in character pics are okay but not in character pics isn't is just drawing an imaginary line in the moral sand.This is a very good point. And if applied literally, it would mean that all fan art that's created using pics is fuzzy. Including mine, because MS and CB probably didn't intend for me to take random shots of them out of context and put them together to imply anything romantic either ( ... )