response to jen's comment
I also understand what point your trying to get across Jen...But do u think historical writters, song makers, producers or anyone of that sort want to be changed? or revised? They set out these plays,scripts or whatever for the soul purpose of their thoughts, opinions, and passions at that specific time period are expressed not becuase they want others to find out what it means, translate it and restructure it in the present. History is history. For Example: Do you think there should be cartoons about the World Trade Center? So that children in our day in age can relate or recognize what people went through and carry it on to their children? It simple really, We didnt live in this particular time period or encounter what these people did at their time. So why cant they have what they experienced and we have what weve experienced? Most Importantly, if people encourage or discourage one another to make new developed ideas from past ones and branch them into present tense, then whats the point in having history at all? it will just be replaced or mis-interperated and made completely different for what? to help satisfy its viewers?
P.S. I LOVE YOU JEN!!!! :) lmao
posted by Joldman629 @ 1:05 p.m.
3 Comments:
Well Jackie in response to your question again…. Ya, I’m sure that some writers don’t mind their work being rewritten.. In my opinion I don’t look at it as something to looked down upon as it is just allowing for the first writers work to be shared with even more people….
And yes “history is history”…. We all grew up and went through school learning about things from the past.. so yes obviously the children of today should also be taught, passing history down from generation to generation is something that has always went on,,, so why would it change now? It’s the way society works, and if making a movie or something else interesting for young children that will be easier for them to relate to, then why not do it? Its still getting the same point across isn’t it? … just in a way that is easier for them to comprehend.
For example for the people of our age, going back a few years….. who actually new that much about the Titanic, ummm it was a ship that sank? Before the movie came I’m sure that for the most part a lot of us didn’t know as much about it as we do now, by watching the movie, something of interest, and something that we can relate to today it is made easier for us to learn about and understand.
Articles of history are always going to be of interest whether it be a song, story, new fact, or what have you,,,, and I think that there is nothing wrong with alternating it in a way that is made more presentable for the people of today. Nope not at all
Well if things shouldn't be redone may it be re-written or randitioned then should they be translated? Because isn't that in some way or form similar to a randition? The meaning is still the same but presented a little different is it not?
oooo example of someone who likes being renditioned... Stephen King (I don't know if that's a good example or not) And I don't know if this right or wrong... but isn't that the job of the editor? to correct and "rewrite" the writers work?
Post a Comment
<< Home