I'm always impressed by the effort that goes into these discussions - I get as annoyed as anyone here by Cody's obnoxious style of conversation-baiting, but I enjoy the ensuing thought.

Which is probably good, because I thought the Law of the Jungle was neat.

As for my meager contribution to the thread: I also thought the trailer was super neato.

2) It appears to me that Cody is the only professional editor in this thread. Am I mistaken?

Of film, maybe. I've spent many years editing and evaluating texts, mostly technical now, but I spent a lot more time with creative work in the past. That may be why I agree 99% with this statement from Cody:

When the only reason for including something is that 'it's neat', then it does not really have much creative merit, because if it did, then it could be justified by a better reason.

Why 99%? Because there are times when something is included that can't be easily justified. For that scene at the motel, why did the night clerk have a pet Capuchin monkey? It can't always be pinned down, even though the monkey is inexplicably what makes the scene work.

Regarding the issue at hand, Bungie's use of Kipling established several things about this new universe:

- This is our world.
- Stories matter here--past, present, and yet to be written.
- Our hero has been raised to understand the value of the individual and the value of the group.

When an element serves several functions in a creative work, that's a sign of quality by my lights.

Kermit

The part about trying to appear smart. Why quote other people's work? What does it add to yours? It's plagiarism in the strictest legal definition.

Watch Kirby Ferguson's documentary series ‘Everything Is A Remix’. Then we'll talk.

I haven't seen this, but this post seems like the place to say this: my years of playing music showed me something. Folks can hoot and holler and crow about how original their idea is, but in the end, their just blowing smoke up my bum. Truthfully, we're all in a giant jam session, riffing off each other. The universe is made of tiny particles, what makes it interesting is always how they're put together.

Perhaps I could have phrased it better.

Quote. Of. The. Day.

In my opinion, we should all have that as a stickie note on our monitors. Thank the Claude for DBO's edit button.

1) You just appealed to narcogen's authority. I'm sure, like everyone, there's plenty he's ignorant on. Maybe I'm being a bit semantic... but that's what I understood from what you wrote.

2) It appears to me that Cody is the only professional editor in this thread. Am I mistaken? I'd like to see more explain why they know what they know, like Cody has (if only a little bit). If we were discussing automobile insurance, my opinion would be objectively better than any non-professional (pending any other insurance professionals here, I may be the best authority on the board). That shouldn't be insulting - what's wrong with professional and expert opinion? Their value, skeptically considered, is immense.

Perhaps I could have phrased it better.

Quote. Of. The. Day.

I also disagree about this. Many things that I like, I like simply because they are 'neat.' Sometimes it's good enough for me.

See there's your problem. You are equating 'things you like' with 'putting together a creative work'.

I like things because they are neat too.

Nah, he's just ignorant of how the collaborative process between director and editor works. Every single good editor will say the exact same thing I just said. Many actually have. It's not an appeal to authority with me as an authority. It's an appeal to common sense and actuality.

I can't even hold "he's just ignorant" and "narcogen" in my mind at the same time. Sorry, but I think you're wrong about that. Perhaps it's your perception of common sense that is the problem.

What I said is fairly uncontroversial.

Perhaps I could have phrased it better. When the only reason for including something is that 'it's neat', then it does not really have much creative merit, because if it did, then it could be justified by a better reason.

I also disagree about this. Many things that I like, I like simply because they are 'neat.' Sometimes it's good enough for me.

Holy crap. Literally.

Who is projecting now?

Still just you.

Nah, he's just ignorant of how the collaborative process between director and editor works. Every single good editor will say the exact same thing I just said. Many actually have. It's not an appeal to authority with me as an authority. It's an appeal to common sense and actuality.

What I said is fairly uncontroversial.

Perhaps I could have phrased it better. When the only reason for including something is that 'it's neat', then it does not really have much creative merit, because if it did, then it could be justified by a better reason.

Holy crap. Literally.

Who is projecting now?

Still just you.

"This idea which I have in this area, which is correct, is correct because it's similar to this other situation in which I have ideas, in which I was proved to be correct, according to me. And no, you can't ask who or what ideas because that's deleterious to the creative process of these Hollywood directors whose films I am saving from stuff that they think is neat, but I think is crap."

Holy crap. Literally.

Who is projecting now?

Why quote other works? Because they exist. Because nothing is original. Because stories are shared experiences, and like those experiences, are meant to be shared, borrowed, changed, adapted, and stolen. Most of Shakespeare's plays were basically rewrites of other works. Some very entertaining modern works are adaptations of Shakespeare-- Rosencrantz And Guildenstern Are Dead leaps immediately to mind. (That work certainly extends and enhances the original in ways that this trailer does not, but then again, it's a feature length play and film and a work in its own right, not a 90 second TV spot.

I would also point out that they are setting up a fictional world here that shares history with our own. Having the father read the Jungle Book to his son is bringing home the idea that this is not an alternate history or a different galaxy far far away, it's here, on our planet. I appreciate that kind of setup, especially when they only have around 60 seconds to do it. Creating an original piece of fiction for a 60 second commercial would not setup that idea of sharing our world AND get across the idea of teamwork that they were striving for. Taking away one or the other takes away from the message, so technically in this setting (IMHO) it would be taking AWAY from a short 60 second production to make up a piece instead of using a well established (and respected) one.

The part about trying to appear smart. Why quote other people's work? What does it add to yours? It's plagiarism in the strictest legal definition.

No, it's not. If you think so, you misunderstand the strict (or even the loose, to be honest) definition of plagiarism.

If Bungie were passing off the work as their own, it would be plagiarism. However, since the quotation is well-known, and the title of the video is drawn from the original work directly, and even the pages are the book are shown, I don't think anyone can seriously accuse Bungie of plagiarism here.

One might have considered it infringement, if Kipling's works were not i the public domain, which they are, because they were published in the US before 1923. Even when the author's life + 75 year rule is applied, they are STILL in the public domain.

I really don't think you can substantiate an allegation of plagiarism on the idea that people who don't recognize the reference would assume it is Bungie's original creation. And after all, it would be hard to appear smart in front of an audience that didn't get the reference.

Why quote other works? Because they exist. Because nothing is original. Because stories are shared experiences, and like those experiences, are meant to be shared, borrowed, changed, adapted, and stolen. Most of Shakespeare's plays were basically rewrites of other works. Some very entertaining modern works are adaptations of Shakespeare-- Rosencrantz And Guildenstern Are Dead leaps immediately to mind. (That work certainly extends and enhances the original in ways that this trailer does not, but then again, it's a feature length play and film and a work in its own right, not a 90 second TV spot.

I'm always impressed by the effort that goes into these discussions - I get as annoyed as anyone here by Cody's obnoxious style of conversation-baiting, but I enjoy the ensuing thought.

Which is probably good, because I thought the Law of the Jungle was neat.

I see what you did there :)

This is not true and you are missing the point. If your work ADDS something to the original it's worthwhile, either by extending the original with your own insight, applying it in a new way, or negating it.

That is ONE way to employ a reference. It is not the one, true way. The use of this reference in this context achieves a lot of goals. It connects this fictional universe to our real one by marking a point of commonality. It says that children in that world are read the same bedtime stories as people in our world in the past have been told, and that the lessons are applicable in that world-- not just within the fictional world those characters inhabit, but within the gameplay context that players will experience within that world.

So what are we talking about again? You brought up the casting. But now you're not going to criticize it? Which is it? Maybe they thought he was right for the part? Equal amounts threatening and avuncular? Someone with a distinctive voice? I'm still really not sure what you're getting at, except to say that if they wanted somebody like him, they should have just cast somebody like him, but not actually him, because of course to hire an A list TV actor is putting on airs.

I like his casting… he does have a good voice for reading this. That's awesome. I'm talking about Jon Favreau.

You're being a snob, pure and simple. You're essentially saying that Bungie is casting talent out of its pay grade by hiring a good actor and a good director to do a TV commercial for a game that you don't think is worthy. Which is ridiculous, since Favreau is best known for pop entertainment: two out of three good Iron Man flicks, Zathura, which I liked, and Cowboys and Aliens, which was dreck.

Isn't that validating my point, where even the name they could get is in your opinion only capable of pop entertainment and dreck?

No, it's completely undermining your point. Your point was that Bungie is overreaching. You cited the reputation of Jon Favreau as evidence of that overreaching. I pointed out that both Bungie and Favreau basically produce popular commercial art. I see no overreaching.

Also let me remind you of the shitty job Laura Prepon did in Halo 2 as a marine.

I disagree completely and wholeheartedly.

http://halo.bungie.org/misc/h2dialogue/marine_sassy/marinesassy01_20070724.mp3

That's your idea of not bad?

That might not be the best line reading I've ever heard, but no, within the context of the game I did not have any problem with that reading. Did you? If so, what was it? The thread keeps getting vaguer and vaguer.

That the industry is itself going through certain transitions, and has individuals in it who aspire for their creations to be classified more as high art than commercial art, is one thing. To come to the conclusion that an increase in budgets and production values amounts to delusions of grandeur is quite another, and I would say is unsubstantiated, especially when you try and lump in Bungie's literary references as well, which is a trend that has been going on for far, far longer.

Where exactly did I say that more production value and budgets is delusions of grandeur? Properly applied, that's actually how you get a better game.

Where above do I attribute any of that to you? That is what I am saying. The accusations of delusions of grandeur are what you are alleging, and one does not substantiate the other. Neither does the employment of Jon Favreau or a quote from Kipling.

Bungie's old references were fine, since the focus was on the game and the story was a fun backdrop to play around in. The fun was deciphering the story, and in that regard references can be fun because it's like a clue of sorts. The marathon story was not a masterpiece of literature, but it was a masterpiece of video game fiction, and that comes from deciphering and discovering its secrets. I can't remember Bungie ever hyping up Marathon through literary references or by hiring a name to direct a commercial. In fact most of Bungie's ads for marathon were pretty crass Actually.

Bungie was pretty small and had limited resources. Advertising on television or even Internet videos were basically out of the question. Marathon's story was text only because it had to be. Later games have employed audiovisuals in the telling of the story. On what basis would anyone expect or desire Bungie to maintain some kind of artificial wall where references to one work should remain completely within the work itself, and not within promotional materials when possible?

I really don't think you've got a point here at all. You're railing at something, and I'm still not sure what, and every time I've asked or speculated about it in the thread, you've avoided it completely.

At any rate, I don't think I have any more to say on it.

"It's neat."

In all my years as a film editor, whenever I ask a director justify his vision when I disagree, and he comes back with this, then that's a guarantee that the idea is bad.

I honestly don't know what's more jaw-dropping, the fact that you just said that, or that nobody else has called you out on it.

Why would anybody call me out on it? That's what you're supposed to do as an editor. You are supposed to draw out the director's vision and make the best thing you can. By posing it as a question of that sort is actually helpful to them, and it's helpful to the editor to understand that vision. The good directors appreciate this. The bad ones hate it. The best editors do this well. The not so good ones don't.

I'm calling you out on it because you're employing an appeal to authority-- with yourself as the authority.

"This idea which I have in this area, which is correct, is correct because it's similar to this other situation in which I have ideas, in which I was proved to be correct, according to me. And no, you can't ask who or what ideas because that's deleterious to the creative process of these Hollywood directors whose films I am saving from stuff that they think is neat, but I think is crap."

Holy crap. Literally.