Reply to Dan Shane

Daniel van Eijmeren dve at kabelfoon.nl
Wed Jun 23 22:00:13 CEST 2004


DAN SHANE to me, 14-06-2004:

>> Have many people do carefully read the credits after a movie is 
>> over? How many people do carefully read the detailed credits of 
>> a software programme?

> That is all of importance to some, perhaps, but not to all.  And 
> by your analogy Steven Spielberg did not make E.T.  Universal 
> Pictures did.  Universal did the special effects, wrote the 
> screenplay, directed the actors, and wrote the score.

Okay. But whether it was Steven Spielberg or Universal Pictures, I 
don't think it was just *one* person who did it. Still, one name is 
used to name them all. ("Steven Spielberg", or "Universal Pictures".)

> I agree there are probably no individuals outside of family members 
> who care who held the director's hat while he was mopping his brow, 
> but can you really claim that no one ever cared who Ray harryhausen 
> was, even though he never directed a major motion picture in his life?

I think that people who deserve credits, deserve to be credited. I'm 
just discussing the ways *how* it can be done, and the main audience's 
*interest* in credits.

> Software is a completely different animal from visual entertainment 
> except in the arena of video games.

Why would software be different? Most software interfaces need art, text, 
colour, and a structure, too. Just look at Microsoft's Windows operation 
system.

> And even there many titles are sought out specifically by the name 
> of the author.

Yes, but mostly only by a few expert users. Not by the main audience. The 
main audience thinks the words "Microsoft" or "Apple" are all they need 
to know.

> Now I'm beginning to get your dirft.  You seem to be looking at it 
> from a marketing standpoint rather than from the creators' or 
> readers' view. 

This is UNTRUE! I don't see why you would want to put me down as being 
so damned shortsighted.

> I learned a long time ago it is useless to try to get a marketeer 
> to understand how the real world works.

Too bad for your marketeer then. What do you expect me to do with such 
comments? And do YOU really think that YOU know how the "real world" 
works, Dan? That would be fun!

It's my personal religion that NO ONE knows how the "real world" works.
(Unless you're a god, or so.) The never-ending daily wars prove it every 
second again. So far my little pocket preech. :-)

>> There are even ADULTS who tend to think that Donald Duck and 
>> Mickey Mouse are actual living creatures, copmplete with 
>> life-story, family tree and traumas.

> Really?  I've never met one who thought they were anything but 
> realistic characters.  Could you introduce me to someone who 
> believes these critters are real people?

You can do that for yourself. There have been many discussions about 
that subject, here on DCML.

>> Full credits placed on every *other* children's book ever 
>> published? This is not true.

> Not literally, no.  Disney Little Golden Books often followed the 
> Disney comics model.  But you have chosen to interpret hyperbole 
> literally.  The rest of us probably understood what Don meant.

Yes, of course, even *if* your famous friend makes a mistake, he's 
*still* right! And I'm still wrong when I try to correct him! 

Is THAT the real world, according to you?

Hyperboles are very confusing in emails. When using a hyperbole, you 
can be sure that EVERYONE IN THIS UNIVERSE will misunderstand you. Or 
is that a hyperbole, too? See how confusing it is!

--- Daniël




More information about the DCML mailing list