In response to plexus above-
(1) I re-cut it b/c I think it's a good movie for its genre but I personally find it dragging and annoying to watch in places I think were added/extended due to Liv Tyler's presence in the film, and when I have people going through my movies and they ask me about Super, I have to tell them it's a good movie but drags in places and they probably won't like it; also I must admit to being motivated to a degree by sympathy to Miss Page and Mr. Wilson for staring in a movie that IS funny but in my opinion did poorly upon release due to editing. (Also several of Miss Page’s movies have done poorly despite being good films: Mouth to Mouth, The Tracey Fragments, An American Crime [though it did seem
to be a bit villainizing of Gertrude Baniszewski], Smart People)
(2) I consider it significantly different than going into a gallery, though I know what you are saying. I consider it more similar to buying a picture and cutting out pieces I don't like and rearranging the pieces I do like and then allowing anyone who wants a copy of the new image to have one; which then brings up the subject of detracting from the movie’s profit. The only thing to this I can say is that the movie did not do well, and I sincerely believe I will not be impacting their profits especially at this late date.
(3) For touching the work of another artist I must admit here to holding beliefs and tendencies that are rather broad and philosophically/ideologically too expansive to be posted here; however I will say I believe in no artistic sacredness that you seem to express belief in here. Have you ever seen parodies of the "Mona Lisa", or of the "Scream", perhaps you have and with disapproval; or have you ever seen a movie based on a book, these are rarely true to the book, again perhaps with disapproval. I in NO WAY imply similarity of my re-cutting of Super with the examples I am providing; I present them merely to dull the edge of your statement for my argument and also with the intent that you may reconsider your position and reinterpret a piece of art in your Shorts for the benefit of others; however I'm not condoning plagiarism.
(4) For example: the English Poet John Milton created the Christian mythological masterpiece
Paradise Lost in addition to re-writing psalm 136 in prose
and paraphrasing psalm 114. I find myself admiring John Milton for his mastery of prose and his nerve- “Yes that is a good psalm, God, but it could be better.”
(5) William Shakespeare’s masterpiece Romeo and Juliet is supposed (I do not know for certain myself) to be largely based upon The Tragical History of Romeus and Juliet
, written nearly 30 years before Romeo and Juliet, which was then re-interpreted AGAIN in the American “West Side Story” (which is popular in the USA). He is also accused of plagiarizing Plutarch in Antony and Cleopatra. Also read the second response on this page.
(6) T.S. Eliot's plagiarized Edmund Spenser in The Waste Land. Alex Haley plagiarized Harold Courlander's The African. James Cameron lost a legal suit of plagiarism by Harlan Ellison for the movie The Terminator.Here are 5 other examples of people who profited and contributed through plagiarism.
What I have done is entirely different than plagiarism, I'm not attempting to pass Super ReFragmented: The Unofficial Fan Cut off as my own creation for fame or profit, I'm simply providing a slightly different story.
(7) As regards continual re-edits, and editing in general. The 3 paragraphs above nicely addresses this though I would like to add that books and movies are often edited by the publisher and studio respectively; which gives rise to the Director’s Cut, however I have never seen a Writer’s Cut and who is more entitled a director or the writer.
(8) As regards Tracey Refragmented, I only used ReFragmented as homage to The Tracey Fragments, though relatively few outside the EP fan community would catch the reference. It IS ENTIRELY different than the situation with Tracey ReFragmented. I thought of using Redux in the sense of bringing back to the foreground a movie that did not do too well but after playing with the clips and moving them around ReFragmented won me over. I also am more than happy to supply the vpj file (editing file) i used to to cut the film and reference points so that anyone could take their own copy of Super cut it according to the reference points and then have the same working editing file I used to re-cut it, thus enabling them to cut their version in their language.
(9) As for re-editing the re-edit, I wouldn’t be bothered because it is just that, a re-edit for enjoyment, of which I am in no way invested in and as such the original message that is distorted/destroyed is not my own. However it’s not as though there is an epidemic of vigilantes dressing up and fighting crime on their own, as such this movie provides a moral in the absence of vice. However I know what you mean, and if one were to modify something of mine, and I’m thinking of a sociological paper I’ve been working on for a few years, I would have to say I wouldn’t like it; however that would be because the political message would be distorted. Yet as seen from paragraphs 4 & 5, such is the nature of the world, take for example the Communist Manifesto of Carl Marx re-interpreted by Lenin, and then by Mao; while I wouldn’t like it, due to it’s nature as a political message, the original would still be in circulation, and also, such is the nature of the world and civilization which the paper is apart. So too the original Super is in circulation, it’s not as if I have replaced Super with Super ReFragmented: The Unofficial Fan Cut.
(10) All of this is to a degree academic, there is a black and a white here. Is it of greater magnitude than hosting a picture on a website, I would say, in this black and white mentality it is a greater magnitude of black.
(11) As for your objection no apology is necessary. As is evident from above I have my own opinons, and civilization would be a sorry spectacle without objections. Constructive criticism and logical arguments are always welcomed and I must admit to diminishing respect for those who can handle neither nor provide them.