Just another money-maker/fame-seeker or an artist?

I think Palahniuk was the guy that said -
 
"I don't care what they do with my book so long as the fucking check clears."

One thing we have to understand is that in order to get an idea introduced to people, it must be packaged and distributed.I hope Chuck makes bank off his books, and I think they're great and worth the price his publishers charge. But you're being a little shallow to assume that because his product is marketed that he by default 'sells out'. Consider that going to see his readings on tour cost usually $2 per ticket, that he showers his fans in gifts constantly, stays at book signings until there are no more people to meet, etc.

 

And I believe he did say the quote labelleza posted.

 

"to get an idea introduced to people, it must be packaged and distributed" - that's one of the biggest problems with the Western civilization and every second it's goes even deeper and deeper. What happened to ideas being valued because of their values?!
However, let's stick to the subject and to CP.
and as for his quote above, does anyone know what the context was? A sentence on its own can mean a million things...

Don't get disillusioned. If he was really an FTW kinda guy, he wouldn't have bothered seeking a major publisher for his work or signing multiple-book contracts. He'd be in his basement, furiously printing out zines to hand out on street corners. Both can be effective tools for reaching the people. Sellout? Nah.

 

The instant an "idea is valued because of [its] value" it will be marketed and sold to as many people as possible. There's no escaping it.

In my humble opinion if someone is driven to create and they can make money, which in turn allows the creator to expand his knowledge through before unavailable avenues, then the fans of one creators creations will benefit as well as the creator. I honestly don't think Chuck is a sell out n I can only wish him further luck in expandin his bank account. As you read more of his work you will become aware of the humour he see's in life. If you can't see a funny side to "fight club" the musical, then pherhaps you are strugglin in some elemental way with the futility that is every day existance. If you believe you are important to the universe I wish you luck with that cos it must be a great way to wake up each n every mornin. I had the chance to see a lot of Van Goughs work ten tears ago and was truly stunned. The sad thing was that he only ever sold one painting while he was alive and that was to his brother inlaw, I think. So on the subject of a true artist gettin his hands on some of this planets wealth I say"HELL YEH!" A fter all it keeps some of the said wealth out of the hands of tom cruise n his scientoligy buddies.

 

Any way welcome to the cult fly n good luck in all future ventures.

About the context of that quote, I believe it was right after Fight Club got sold, and he was asked in an interview how he feels about what Hollywood might do to his book. I don't mean to put words in his mouth, but the meaning I got from it was that he's accepted that selling to Hollywood is not a means of furthering your idea, but rather a great way to make money off of your idea. That fact that Fight Club was properly crafted into the modern masterpiece of film that it is was just a hyperbole, if that word works there. He's also said Fight Club was the most important book to him because it got him off the assembly line at freightliner. At that time, he was buying his freedom from 9-5 employment.

he has also discussed, in recent "choke" interviews, i believem his belief that art is not static.  Just because his art is on a ptinted page does not mean that is the only life it will take.  While he obviously has an interest in his art doing well in other mediums, he also recognizes that it is no longer his art, it is a new, different version of it, and to try and stifle that growth and development, even if it goes in directions he personally would not go, is in fact destructive.  He has made his piece, and if his work inspires others he is willing to let them take his art and make something new and different shiny and complete in different ways, from it.  Of course he wants a paycheck, in recognition of the blood, sweat and tears he put into crafting his art, without which there would be no inspiration for further art.  With that said, I am not under the impression that he expects exceedingly high royalties when allowing others to use his work.  He will cash the paycheck, but he isnt, I dont believe (though I dont think I have facts to back this up, just intuition, which could be wholly wrong,) asking for a paycheck that is ridiculously large.

 

And Giggan brings up a good point.  Unfortunately, in current society, you need money.  If he wants to pursue his craft full time, he needed cash.  The film rights to Fight Club gave him that cash.  Was that selling out?  Without it, he very likely would not have written some of his other novels....

 Hey Fly... just wondering, why does it matter to you?  If you enjoy his books, read them, and enjoy them.  If you're not interested in a Fight Club musical, then don't go see the Fight Club musical.  Chuck Palahniuk is not in a position to single-handedly bring down the  consumerist behemoth or anything, I mean, what exactly do you want from the guy?

I tend to agree about art not being static, and I tend to enjoy watching what other people do to add or detract from someone else's work. But I still hate what george Lucas did with the whole Star Wars "special edition" crap!

I think a Fight Club musical is a bad idea but say what you will...it can't be any worse that the Fight Club video game.

Adding on to the money thing, when I wrote him during the last fanmail window, he concluded his letter to me saying that he feels good about leaving his family an income, ending the letter stating, "That's important." In that case, he's not in it for his own material growth, but feels best about retaining security for those closest to him.

 I'd love to try that one out, even though I heard it was dirt.

 

I liked the special editions. it kept all six parts feeling relatively the same. I think the negative reaction is weird. It's a movie essentially for kids. It's sci-fi, it was always about cutting edge cinema tech, and Lucas kept the old in line with the new as he completed the story.

When kids see it now, they don't even notice it, and many tend to think the new one looks better. Should we yell at them, "Back in my day, these special effects looked mostly like crap! The Death star explosion wasn't all that impressive, and all the aliens looked like static lumps of rubber! The rancor was just Mark Hammill spazzing out in front of a blue screen. That's right, BLUE! We couldn't afford green back then.  And we liked it!" It's Lucas's movie to do with as he chooses. It doesn't bother me, mainly because it's sci-fi and everything already looks fake. (But Greedo shooting first is a blatant violation of this rule, and should not have been done.)

On the other hand Indy is getting CGI treatment in the new movie. Doesn't fit the timeline or genre at all, so I hope they do a lot of post-production to stop that car chase scene from looking so fake.

I think they only use green now because more pieces of the set are blue and can't be removed by the effect. I have a guerilla filmmaking book and they say if you're gonna do it cheap, blue turns out better. I don't know why.

i remember the context of that pretty well:

he didnt care who did what with his intellectual property after he was done with the book: his involvement ended with the book. once the property transfers to another medium, he's no longer involved but rather then it becomes someone else's art

so when he said, "I don't care as long as the check clears", he means, he doesn't even try to have a say in the matter: he just thinks it's fun
-kabol

.

..

the musical has me.. [i]curious[/i]
but that video game blew dog, the first game i've ever in my life returned on account of poor gameplay

I don't think he should have tinkered with them because they were/are pretty much works of art. I don't like the idea of adding on brush strokes decades later just because he can. I understand that he probably wanted all this stuff to begin with but just couldn't either afford it or it wasn't technically even possible at the time. But that's what always gave it that special feel, that even without all that, it still stood out. Same thing with Speilberg switching the guns for walkie-talkies in ET. It's just stupid and insulting to kids to do that and it takes away from your art in the process. I don't mind em using CGI in the new indy flick because they'll be doing it from the beginning all along. I just hope they don't go overboard to where it makes it look shitty. Anyways....what were we talking about?

. .

all of that depends on the artist

baer made slight changes to the beginning of penny dreadful when it was released by MAC, and some of the parts of kiss me, judas were changed in hell's half acre because, as he called it, "I changed my mind"

henry james, at the end of his life, re-revised his entire library

joyce went the other way: due to his prefer, typos werent changed in later printings of his works because [i]typos are a part of art[/i]

as for me, i cant read something i've written even on the five hundredth reading and not change [i]something[/i]

so.. i guess it depends on the artist
and the only director i've ever heard to suggest that he'd never make changes to his work is quentin tarantino, because he [i]got it right the first time[/i]

and the star wars collection is available in all formats and i have nephews who would probably have never seen it if it was as grainy as it was originally, with poor lighting and coloring. i prefer the early editions of the collection myself, but i can understand his directoral gravitation toward the newer, shinier version for contemporary viewers

is that what we're talkin 'bout ?
-kabol

..

as for me, i cant read something i've written even on the five hundredth reading and not change something

--------------------------------

I can't agree more with this. an artist should always want to keep improving on his work. But once it's done, it's done, ya know? That was the best you could do at the time you put it out there and it should reflect that, warts and all. When you see where you got it wrong in older work you should just apply that knowledge to your newer work. I just don't like the idea of forever chipping away and adding to something and never having a finished piece.

Altering classics is like playing catch with an expensive vase. While throwing it around may make for a great experience and thrill, the risk is often too great for one to attempt it. I'm fine with them editing the film in a way of studying how other generations could rediscover it, but in a sense, one little addition makes it a different film.

 

When I saw the extended cut of T2, the first new scene I saw, I was like, 'wtf...this is not T2'. While originally those scenes may have contributed to the film, in my head, they will never belong. Maybe another audience seeing the new version will generally like it more. I'm fine with the changes occuring as long as it's identified that they are different versions. The problem you run into is a million versions, like how Blade Runner was released like, 4 times. Most people who passively saw the film don't know which Blade Runner they saw. Each version is really its own film.

Aside from what people in other businesses do with their pieces, to respond to the original mention of Chuck as a "sell-out" or whathaveyou-- I say pshaw.

I applaud the fact that he can take his works and transfer them to other mediums. I would say that's more artsy than being merely an author, correct? I mean, if someone's making a movie based on a Palahniuk book, you can bet Chuck's going to be on that set at some point. He's in cahoots with all who are re-creating his works. That's truly inspired work there. A renaissance man among mere apprentices.

Aside from that, he also has great stories to tell. So why not let them be told in multiple ways? Especially in this day and age when we truly have the capacity to do it.

Well, actually Chuck has no hand in his works being transfered, he just allows it to be done by selling rights. He actually said he has in mind as he's writing that there's no way they'll make x novel into a film.

While yes, he allows it to be done by selling the rights, I was recalling an article I'd read about him actually being on the set of 'Choke'. And last night, I heard from Chuck himself that he had a great correspondence with Clark Gregg about adapting Choke into film. It's not as though he doesn't offer his insight into the project when invoked.

The thing is that Chuck is not a non-fiction writer (well, ok, he has written a lot of NF, but bear with me for the purpose of this example.)

I don't think that he intends to imply that he believes everything that he writes about. What matters is that the things he writes speak TRUE to the people that read them.

Fight Club was not about DOING the things that Tyler does. In fact, for all purposes it renounces those things. The message is that any of US could do those things, if we wanted to. Each of us posseses the ability to empower our own lives and to create meaning, which is an idea that most people had forgotten, and that is why the book is so capitvating to so many people because they are reminded of that.

Sure, Chuck is no anarcho-primitivist fighting to bring down "the system", but he's not a bad guy either. He certainly isn't just some asshole that just wants to make a buck and doesn't care about creating art or having an emotional connection with people.

He's just a guy that's lucky and talented enough to be able to make a living doing what he loves, and share that with people. Aint nothing wrong with that.

 

Good post Tyler. And yeah, about Chuck on the set, he's not going to deny the project, and I'm sure it interests him as it is his work, but I think his point is he's not stressing over it, since it no longer belongs to him at that point. I don't think the films should necessarily be associated with Chuck from a cinematic standpoint anyways. Fight Club wasn't a great film because the book was that good as well, it was great because Fincher knew how to translate the text to screen.