I just don't think that 'cultural appropriation' is a useful concept per se. You talk about ownership, and people generally do, but i find that notion absurd. Some cultural ideas and behaviors come from certain people, but there is no ownership there. They have their meaning, and i honestly wish that they can keep it intact if they so desire (that is the biggest problem with the commodification of everything in a global consumerist society, criticism on that angle i can somewhat understand if it becomes too extreme), but the idea that wearing a kimono is disrespectful in itself if one doesn't take the time to 'appreciate' the culture it came from, that's inane to me.
Culture is always fluid and in exchange the moment two different 'cultures' interact in some way or form. People like some aspects, they adopt it, fuse it, do whatever. That's how it always was and it's how it always will be.

OP’s snapping at you is peak insecurity, holy shit. It reads exactly like a stereotype of Redditors.

Probably had something to do with Harvey Weinstein. She has always been a terrible actress

Ugh. To me this is profoundly limiting and I'd be ashamed if as a creative I hampered people's imaginations and value they derive from my work just because my fragile ego demands it.

> So, I assume you are a proponent of things like changing Ronald Dahl’s books, painting leaves on naked people in paintings, etc… because once the artist is done, fuck ‘em right?

I find it abhorrent thank you very much. Censorship has nothing to do with the theory. You're out of line. I actually like knowing what the author thinks! I just don't take it as gospel.

“Do you think intention is all there is to meaning?”

I believe creative intent is the real thing and everything else brought to the table takes secondary position. Asserting that applied “meaning”, which is interchangeable depending on a myriad of things, takes precedence is to passively assert control over creative works. Which is bullshit.

You can buy the gummie frogs and melt chocolate to do the chocolate frogs.

There’s jelly beans

butter beer recipe non alcoholic

Harry Potter crafts for kids

This film is LOADED with propaganda. Homosexuality, Religion, PC, adoption.

I don’t believe this had much to do with the orientation of the dudes. Idgaf what anyone is, man, woman, religious, agnostic, atheist, gay, straight, trans etc. Just be a good person. Just be kind and loving to others. Raise your children the same way. Stop the propaganda. Stop causing our children to grow in a world where skin color, and who people sleep with, is the end all to what their character is.

You move next to me, you’re getting a fucking pie and cookies. I could care less what holiday you celebrate most.

This could be bait. If you don't know the firestorm around this IP right now genuinely, even as someone who's upset about it, I recommend taking this to the harry potter sub because you'll get a lot less negative attention

I'd feel disrespectful if I wore a kimono and got it into my head it had any greater meaning to me than just wearing one. I don't agree you must be apart of the culture originally to partake, it will just never mean the same thing to you. That's what I mean by this.

Tom Hanks deserved the award from the scene…

SPOILERS…

where he’s in Jenny’s apartment and realizes he’s a father. His acting in that scene is breathtaking. “Is he smart or is he..?”

And “Shawshank” is my all-time favorite movie. Tim Robbins definitely deserved the best acting award. And in any other year he would’ve won.

Stuber was easily one of the dumbest movies I’ve ever seen in my life. Solid 9/10.

Not my cup of tea. I really enjoyed Snatch and Lock Stock though...the trailer for this movie suggested to me that it would be of a similar sort...

It might be a very good movie for a particular crowd, but it was clearly misadvertised. Had the trailer been honest, I would have not watched the movie and wouldn't be posting here.

“I guarantee you interpreted something into a story the author didn’t think of themselves or outright disagrees with (“

Sure. And if I read the author say that the interpretation was incorrect, I’d abandon it because that’s what you do when you acquire new knowledge that makes your previous position obsolete.

If the author says nothing, for example Tarantino in the briefcase in Pulp Fiction, they want the reader/viewer to speculate.

“Writers who don’t feel this way are selfish control freaks and have no business sharing their art with the world if their own interpretations are so much better and more interesting than the consumer’s.”

You are calling someone a control freak for not allowing others to control their work. Pot/kettle and all that.

So, I assume you are a proponent of things like changing Ronald Dahl’s books, painting leaves on naked people in paintings, etc… because once the artist is done, fuck ‘em right? If you personally like something, it belongs to you. Like Annie Wilkes in Misery, the story belongs to you.

Do you think intention is all there is to meaning? That doesn't seem to be true. If i write something which generally gets interpreted a certain way but i am unaware of it (some slang or whatever), then i might not have intended the meaning, but it still exists.
In the same way a piece of art can have meaning which is outside of the author's intent.

>you don’t realize that trailers are not made by the filmmakers. They are made by outside companies.

I fully realise that. I am saying that whoever made it clearly intended to mislead people about the sort of movie it is. At no point did I suggest that the filmmakers are the ones responsible for it.

>Guy Ritchie movies aren’t dark comedies.

I consider them to be dark comedies. Perhaps not the darkest there are but they are still dark.

[removed]

> Fiction doesn't belong to one person the way an entire culture's creations belong to that culture

I don't think culture belongs to anyone either. Culture is just shared behavior and even within a cultural group there will be differences based on region, etc.
With that being said, i agree with your idea regarding the death of the author anyway, i just do not agree with cultural appropriation very much as a concept (though i found op's read interesting anyway)

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

I consider movies like "Snatch" and "Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels" to be dark comedies. The trailer seemed to suggest that "In Bruges" would of the the same genre. I see a lot of people disagree with me on this.

Post this in r/harrypotter, you’ll get much more productive help and some great ideas

We watched it with my parents and it was good entertainment for an evening together

We aren’t arguing semantics. Guy Ritchie movies aren’t dark comedies. Monty Python has done darker shit that Guy Ritchie.

And, tbh, if you take are looking for a movies “tone” from a trailer, you don’t realize that trailers are not made by the filmmakers. They are made by outside companies.

I guarantee you interpreted something into a story the author didn't think of themselves or outright disagrees with (Maybe they just didn't express this publicly if you're in the habit of checking). If not, you have no sense of imagination whatsoever.

Plenty of creatives have said once their work is out into the world, it no longer belongs to them. I enjoy writing and if I ever publish anything I'd feel the same. Writers who don't feel this way are selfish control freaks and have no business sharing their art with the world if their own interpretations are so much better and more interesting than the consumer's.