[abandoned]Iced Aged Discovery

[Lancaster of Wessex]

Iced Aged Discovery

[debate]While demolishing a derelict movie theatre in a frigid area of @@NAME@@, a curious discovery was made under the floorboards of the basement: dozens of canisters, each containing films from years gone by, frozen, but largely intact. News quickly spread, and a debate about what to do with this find, with both public and private individuals making their pitch. Lights. Cameras. DEBATE!

[option 1]"If I may direct your attention thusly, this discovery is unprecedented in @@DEMONYM@@ film history," opines film historian @@RANDOMNAME@@ of @@CAPITAL@@ University. "In these canisters could be the remains of dozens of lost silent movies, going back to the dawn of our cinema. In the name of Violet, give me the funding and let me restore these jewels back to the silver screen!"

VALIDITY: must have post-secondary institutions

[effect]hipstery teenagers are swooning over the long-dead celluloid visages of Douglas Valentino and Clara Pickford.

[option 2]"Wha? You wanna waste time and money on digging up old fossils for the sake of other old fossils?" sneers a popcorn chomping ruffian who looks awfully familiar. "The old theatre is on the site of a proposed new 50 screen mega-movie complex that's gotta open ASAP, especially before Star Battles Episode 17 comes out, so I can see it in Eye-Max! Just CUT it out, and move on!"

[effect]the nation's movie fans are thought to be the most boorish in @@REGION@@.

[option 3]"The discovery of these films is a sign from Above that I must return to the screen for my legions of fans who have never forgiven me for abandoning them," dramatizes centenarian former film legend Norma Swanson, wrapping herself in a feather boa with a wrinkled hand. "Remember. I am still big; it’s the PICTURES that got small. Just encourage more darlings my age to go into acting, and see true art blossom once more. Now…I'm ready for my close-up, Mr. DeVille…"

VALIDITY: must not have a senior citizen extermination policy

[effect]the latest Star Battles flick features a dramatic battle between cane-wielding warriors.

[option 4]A wealthy cinephile wearing tails and a top hat quietly approaches you from behind. "Obviously, @@LEADER@@, we cannot abandon these jewels of cinematic history, but leaving this in the University's hands means it will be done agonizingly inefficiently. This is a time for ACTION: just allow my corporation to go in, and we'll get the job done with half the time and cost, all I ask is that you let me keep a few select films for my private collection. I'm still doing this for the good of @@NAME@@, obviously…"

VALIDITY: must allow private enterprise/ownership

[effect]recovered long-lost cinematic treasures are now long-lost again in the collection of a wealthy individual.

[option 5]An angry email is brought to your attention by one of your trusty aides, from a movie mogul, Lasky Zukor, of Paramountain Pictures. "Dear @@LEADER@@: Just one damn minute," it abruptly begins. "Those films are OUR intellectual property, I mean, no matter what those ridiculous copyright laws say or how much time has elapsed! Even if the law says they're now in public demain, they shouldn't be! Change the law, respect the thousands of @@CURRENCY@@ we spent producing these films, and keep your hands off them! We'll dig them up ourselves and release them on our Paramountain streaming service (streaming live now at only a meagre 25 @@CURRENCY@@ a month)! Now bug off!"

[effect]seventh-generation Shakesword relatives are suing for massive royalties against the school system for reading his works publicly in class.

[Trotterdam]

Why is this a government issue?

Pretty much any sensible construction team is going to dig up the movies, sell them to whoever wants them (probably someone who plans to restore them), and be done with it. They're not difficult enough to move to justify destroying them as a "cost-saving" measure.

[Lelscrep]

Why is this a government issue?

Pretty much any sensible construction team is going to dig up the movies, sell them to whoever wants them (probably someone who plans to restore them), and be done with it. They're not difficult enough to move to justify destroying them as a "cost-saving" measure.

Yeah this is basically everything I had to say. It could strengthen this issues foundations to change what the demolition team has stumbled upon to something more important.

[Ko-oren]

You could raise the issue on who the films belong to, but then it turns into another copyright issue (which we already have a few of, including having/removing copyright laws, and several other choices on how long copyright is, to make validity a little more difficult).

Just on the face of it right now, it's hardly a government issue as remarked above.

[Chan Island]

Not really a fan of how all but one of the options has a validity. As it stands, it's theoretically possible for somebody to get this issue and only have a single choice - and that being the choice to destroy the old stuff for that matter.

[Lancaster of Wessex]

Thank you for all of the above.

I wrote this somewhat in the vein of Issue 143, "An Archaeological Altercation," but with a different spin, so, I do think personally it would merit being an issue, but, that's just me; issue editors may think otherwise, and I'm more than happy to tinker with it if needs be to make it viable.

I submit that it may be possible for nations that have policies that would void most of the options just wouldn't get this issue, which I doubt would be tooooooo many out of the 250,000+ nations currently active on NS; I'm not sure if that's possible but I'd hope so.

I could always add an option pertaining to copyright issues inherent and ownership, which would add another dimension.

[Australian rePublic]

I agree with Trott. This is not a government issue

[Lelscrep]

I agree with Trott. This is not a government issue

Unless the nation is socialist I'd assume.

[Lancaster of Wessex]

I agree with Trott. This is not a government issue

Dude, how is "Circus Clowns Cause Chaos!" or the issue about coffee making issues? Yet they are.

[Noahs Second Country]

I agree with Trott. This is not a government issue

Dude, how is "Circus Clowns Cause Chaos!" or the issue about coffee making issues? Yet they are.

At least with the clown one, it is an interesting dilemma because clowns are designed to entertain children, yet it seems like children are being scared of them rather than laughing.

I remember Halloween a while ago where everyone was afraid of being murdered by a clown, and there was also 'It.' It seems like our perception of clowns has been shifted from their original purpose, thus, creating an issue.

[Lancaster of Wessex]

At least with the clown one, it is an interesting dilemma because clowns are designed to entertain children, yet it seems like children are being scared of them rather than laughing.

I remember Halloween a while ago where everyone was afraid of being murdered by a clown, and there was also 'It.' It seems like our perception of clowns has been shifted from their original purpose, thus, creating an issue.

Yes, I get that it's an interesting dilemma, I was retorting aussie's protest that what I had written was not a "government issue," when in fact NS ABOUNDS with LOTS of issues that IRL would NOT be a "government issue," e.g. the clown one, the poorly made coffee issue, et al.

[Trotterdam]

That poorly-made issues slipped through the cracks before is not a reason to do so again.

[Lancaster of Wessex]

That poorly-made issues slipped through the cracks before is not a reason to do so again.

1). My issue is not, IMHO, "poorly-made";
2). Every issue is edited, so if you have qualms with the quality of what's been published, register your displeasure with the editors;
3). I never said the issues I mentioned were poorly-made, I only suggested they lack "real life" gravitas to be considered government issues;
4). What you or I or anyone consider to be sub-par issues is entirely subjective.

Thank you.

[Australian rePublic]

That poorly-made issues slipped through the cracks before is not a reason to do so again.

1). My issue is not, IMHO, "poorly-made";
2). Every issue is edited, so if you have qualms with the quality of what's been published, register your displeasure with the editors;
3). I never said the issues I mentioned were poorly-made, I only suggested they lack "real life" gravitas to be considered government issues;
4). What you or I or anyone consider to be sub-par issues is entirely subjective.

Thank you.

Mate, 3 experienced writers told you this ain't a government issue. If you don't wanna take our advice, why post here? That's not to say that it can't be a government issue, but at the moment, it ain't

[Lancaster of Wessex]

Mate, 3 experienced writers told you this ain't a government issue. If you don't wanna take our advice, why post here? That's not to say that it can't be a government issue, but at the moment, it ain't

Why post here? Because that's the process. Just because I receive advice doesn't mean I have to heed it; I just respectfully disagree. I'll let an issues editor submit their two cents if they care to, and go from there; I'm more than amenable to edit if needs be, as I said, to make it a tenable issue, which I believe it is/can be. That's all.