Talk:Fan edit

Superman II

I updated this entry. It must be pretty obvious that this movie is the most complete fan-edited movie of all time. In terms of alternate TV cuts/official versions and the sheer amount of versions that has appeared on the net. What's the argument here? If someone wants to argue this then they should come up with an alternative? I have yet to see it...

I would disagree, as I am betting each individual episode of Star Wars except the most recent EPIII, has as many edits released as any Superman film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by He-guy (talk • contribs) 08:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed cleanup tag

Well, obviously no one looks at this page, but I'll be polite and post a message anyway: I am removing the "needs copyedit" tag because I think the article is suitably copy-edited. Also, I removed some POV a while ago, but forgot to post a talk thing about it.

I updated the entry with some references and external links, so I removed the cleanup tag.

I remeoved Superman The Junkyard Cut, because it is neither finished nor available, so no one cares.

It was finished, it just became something else entirely.

Notable?

I'm not sure what criteria we're looking at for 'notable' but I removed three, two because a google searched turned up nothing, and one becuase it's not even finished.

I think more of these should be cut as I don't see any criteria that makes the 'notable' except "The Phantom Edit" which is notbale as being one of the first. BoosterBronze (talk) 19:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I googled all of the names of the supposed 'notable' fan edits, and they all came up with almost identical results- Fan-edit message boards, youtube trailers, and reviews on superhero movie sites. But if you google any fanedit NOT on this list you come up with basically identical results. We need some sort of criteria if we want to keep that section. It reads like a vanity article. BoosterBronze (talk) 22:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed Superman II the "Fan Cuts" from the 'Notable' section. At the very least the fanedits listed have a description that carries some information about what the film is, and what fanedits try and acheive. The "Fan Cuts" description said it 'addressed criticisms many fans had" which is both vague and weasel-worded. BoosterBronze (talk) 15:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek: Phase II

Star Trek: Phase II is described here as a fan edit series. The Phase II series (formerly known as Star Trek: New Voyages) is actually a fan-made production, using entirely new footage, and has a comprehensive Wiki page. The fan edit ("In Thy Image") is a version of Star Trek V: The Final Frontier, created by the same man as the fan series, and also sometimes referred to as "Phase II" because it was edited to resemble a TV pilot for the aborted series of the same name which was originally intended to be a follow-up series to ST: The Original Series and eventually became Star Trek: The Motion Picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.206.146.123 (talk) 13:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Respect the MPAA

Removed the ridiculous comment that a recent MPAA action "backfired" because it increased traffic to the offending website. The MPAA is concerned with protecting copyrights, not controlling your website's hit counter. The comment is contentious and conveys a form of arrogance that does not benefit the fanedit community. Do you really want to challenge and piss off studio laywers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.86.46.203 (talk) 10:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do. Fuck it... come at me, lawyers. Let's see what you got.

Tunnel Vision

The website fanedit.org is mentioned in text, and is listed as an external site. This article is not about fanedit.org. Thus, the removal of other legitimate websites from the links section is evidence of bias. I've already corrected one case of source arrogance in this entry. The next time someone wishes to delete a link to a legitimate fanedit website, I'd like to see that person also provide a convincing rationale. There is no need to censor websites that have been online for 12+ months and show up immediately on relevant search listings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.8.72.192 (talk) 13:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Interest

There is a conflict of interest here, because the earlier version of this article was heavily biased to promote a particular website, rather than cover the topic. Some of that questionable writing has been corrected, which gives us a much improved article. But the plot thickens, because now we have two users associated with the fanedit.org and originaltrilogy.com websites deleting the link the digital-fanedits.com website. Tsk tsk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.8.111.84 (talk) 20:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for the other user, but I am in no way associated with either fanedit.org or originaltrilogy.com, and I challenge the SPA editor to prove otherwise - it's a baseless accusation made by a single purpose account to disguise their attempt at self-promotion. The users from these IP addresses, however (124.8.111.84, 124.8.72.177, and 124.8.72.192), appear to be either alternate accounts or collaborators of LoganPublishing, who just might be Logan-5, a moderator of the boards at digital-fanedits.com (something easily noted by looking at open threads in that forum).

So - why is this digital-fanedits.com so important? It certainly doesn't appear to be that notable to the casual observer, as I am. I did a quick Google search on the term "fan edit", and digital-fanedits.com doesn't even show up in the first 30 pages of results, which is where I stopped looking. The site doesn't even show up within the first 10 results on "fan edit" digital, which I find extremely interesting. Furthermore, a search on "digital-fanedits.com" came up with only 12 unique returns.

Looking at the site's forum, I find that it only has 36 members, compared to 1432 at originaltrilogy.com and 3661 at fanedit.org. Now then, I'll ask again. Why is this website so important? What does it offer that the others don't? Looking at this purely by the numbers, I don't see it as relevant, and I will be removing it. LoganPublishing and his IPs have already been reported to the conflict of interest noticeboard, so hopefully this will be the end of it. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 21:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LoganPublishing has been blocked by administrators, who have also reverted his edits and semi-protected the article. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 22:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In what I'm sure is an amazing coincidence, it seems that the links to the forums at digital-fanedits.com (where Logan-5 had already started a thread portraying himself as a victim in this dispute) disappeared behind a registration wall today. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is too easy to show that TheRealFennShysa's numbers representation is grossly misleading. A search on Yahoo! for "fanedit," "digital fan edit" and "digital fanedit" shows the website on page #2, RESULT #1 and RESULT #1, respectively. A search on Google for "fanedits" and "fan edits" shows the website on RESULT #5 and page #2, respectively. If someone were to search for "digital-fanedits" on google, they would be see over 5,000 hits. At what point does reason prevail?

Separately, I do not understand what appears to be a case of double standards. Boon32 is the owner and operator of fanedit.org, but see [1], for example. Also, the recent MPAA material first appeared on the fanedit.org website as news content. How is it that contributions by individuals from fanedit.org are not conflicts of interest, but my re-insertion of a link to a different website is unanimously challenged? Much of what has transpired here doesn't add up, and I am fully capable of following a logical line. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LoganPublishing (talk • contribs) 00:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A search for "digital-fanedits" on Google only shows 1030 results, and going only 3 pages in they narrow that down to only 29 unique results. Searching "fan edits" on Google doesn't actually show digital-fanedits.com until the fifth page. I'll provide screenshots to any interested parties, since Logan thinks I'm being misleading, and I can easily disprove that. However, searches for "digital fan edit" and "digital fanedit" shouldn't have any bearing here, as the article is not called Digital Fan Edits - go start that one if you want - but with the lack of coverage of digital-fanedits.com from reliable independent sources, I doubt such an article would last.

Also, I fail to see how all these "contributions by individuals from fanedit.org" show some kind of bias towards that site - it's mentioned once in the text, due to a news event with more than one citation from reliable news sources. It's apparently commonly seen as the major site for these types of edits, and it's not given any kind of undue weight or promotion. You have yet to explain or even show why digital-fanedits.com is so important that a link to it is necessary, except for what appears to be simple promotion of the site on your part. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 01:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Separately, I do not understand what appears to be a case of double standards. Boon32 is the owner and operator of fanedit.org, but see [2], for example. Also, the recent MPAA material first appeared on the fanedit.org website as news content. How is it that contributions by individuals from fanedit.org are not conflicts of interest, but my re-insertion of a link to a different website is unanimously challenged?" - I can answer that question. Boon32, as the owner and operator of fanedit.org does have a conflict of interest when it comes to fanedit.org. Therefore, if he were to post links to his site, or in any way attempt to promote his site on Wikipedia that would be a problem. But I looked at every one of his contributions to Wikipedia (there aren't very many) and not once did he do so. You might actually consider his activity as good examples of proper behavior. You have just as much a right to edit Wikipedia, and this article, as he does, as long as you allow consensus to rule in disputes, and don't make edits that could be potentially beneficial to the web site you are involved with. Thanks! -- Atama ^chat 08:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

STAR WARS Fan Edits

Since 1997/1998 I am working on my personal STAR WARS - A NEW HOPE Fan Edit (remember the cut Luke/Biggs scenes first shown on the 1997 San Diego Comic Con and then 1998 officially released on CD-ROM), so I am really a fan edit dinosaur, starting to insert these scenes from Comic Con fan recordings into the official STAR WARS - A New Hope version, fan editing it up to date. There never was a mention in the mass media about my fan edits (I never released it for public, this was my first aim when thinking about showing it other fans). Still some VHS of older versions are there. So, for sure, not only the "Phantom Editor" was first. But my fan edits may be one of the best documented versions.

Here are my "documents" to find: http://www.starwars-union.de/sw/bdfc/

Two of my major STAR WARS fan edits are:

Star Wars: Episode 1 - Bernd Dötzers Final Cut (BDFC) – is a more serious and compact fan edit version of The Phantom Menace, running 127 minutes; shortened original material is combined with cut scenes and restored scenes; in addition this edit shows a massive changed montage of selected scenes and sequences.

Star Wars - Episode 4 - Bernd Dötzers Final Cut (BDFC) – is a fan cut vision being as close as possible to the original 1976 Star Wars conception, before decisions in the editing room were made. Including cut scenes, restored and selfmade scenes. Some new scenes created by the fan editor are not part of the original 1976 Star Wars concept, they are either substitudes in order to circumscribe scenes never filmed / not available but part of the original Star Wars concepts and script variations or they carry on subplots of the Star Wars saga; running time 150 minutes.

Some years ago I posted these informations at wikipedia more than twice, but someone always deleted my detailled information. I don't know why someone wants to delete these facts. My STAR WARS fan edits are not for the public, I only give them to original STAR WARS cast and crew members and the few friends who helped me. But from time to time I make screenings for small groups of interested fans. All this is to give some of the fun and excitement back that I received all the years since 1978. It's my way to say "Thank you, George Lucas, for all your work and the inspiration you gave me".

About fan edits in general: Of course, a long time before THE PHANTOM EDIT there were fan editors! In times of Super-8, you could buy mostly shortened versions of motion pictures. For example some releases of STAR WARS in the USA from Ken films (from 60 meters (ca. 8 mins running time) up to 2x 120m available) included some scenes that were not included in the German versions of Marketing Film (120m + 60m) and Ufa (120m). So fans who did not get a complete Super-8 version of STAR WARS (very rare and very expensive copies from Derann) combined the German and US versions and - if possible for them - dubbed the foreign material with the German or English soundtrack. Once even I have made such a version and it runs ca. 47 mins (24fps). Watch the covers and review of the German originals: http://www.super-8-hobby.de/rezent161.htm (Marketing Film version) http://www.super-8-hobby.de/rezent162.htm (Ufa version + also including some Ken films covers)

But of course, we know from Steven Spielberg and others that they in their childhood and youth fan edited Super-8 or 16mm motion picture copies...