sin_eater82

I'm not quite sure how to explain my thoughts on this, it's a combination of a few things.

More and more people see the original every year. Its not going to suddenly blow up and be seen by a million people in a couple of weeks, but a number of people see the original each year and really like it for various reasons.

A lot of people will see spike's version because of the money put into promoting it and his (earned) reputation.

Now those people will always view that version as "oldboy". They'll never be able to experience the original in the same way as someone who has not seen either.

Whether spike's version is good, bad, or great, the experience of seeing the original will be forever distorted for anyone who has seen Spike's version. Just like i will not be able to view spike's version the same as someone who has never seen the original. Its literally impossible. That information is there and no matter what anyone says, you can't ignore it 100%.

So with all of that in mind, if Spike's is not as good, he's simply ruined the experience for people who may have ended up seeing it.

If its good, but simply different in a few ways (plot or style), the experience of the original is still distorted.

It's got to be really fucking good and stand out from the original (which was really good) to not do that.

Plus, let's be honest and acknowledge that there was no need artistically to remake the film. It was already well made. This is being made because they know they have a story that will do well and they have an audience that would prefer to watch the English speaking, big name director version rather than the original.

If it's really fucking good, all is well enough. Anything less than great, and it's nothing but shameless, money grabbing shit that had ruined what could have been a great film experience for many (just not as many) people.

So here's what I've gathered:

You're a Ph.D student who is still working on their dissertation. You took a spot that covers your tuition, but you don't get any other funding. To most people who aren't familiar with academia, calling that "unfunded" is a bit misleading.

As an adjunct lecturer, you teach 6 classes. Is this 6 separate courses, or 6 classes (maybe 2 sections of 3 courses or some other combination)? That is important as it changes the actual amount of planning for the week.

You get paid $60/hr for each instructional hour and 1 office hour each week (is that 1 office hour total, or one office hour per class?). But you claim to be working 72-90 hrs/week (12-15 hours for each class.. I multiplied by 6). 72 - 90 hours... is that really true? Edit Note -- that was based on the idea that you were teaching 6 classes in a single semester. It's obviously much less than that if it's 6 classes through the entire year.

Multiple times, you've claimed to be doing the same work as a professor. As an adjunct, are you expected to publish? Bring money into the university/college? Advise students? Are do you really just teach classes like most lecturers at most universities/colleges?

Professors are often expected to do those things. Your job is not the same. You're a lecturer. The distinction does not solely exist so you can be paid less.

Is lecturing part of your position as a doctoral student, or is it something extra? If it's part of the position, it's a little misleading to not include the fact that your tuition is covered. So you're really making $12-15/hour (the numbers you used) on top of your tuition.

Your ultimate goal is to work in academia, correct? I'm assuming so, because people don't typically pursue a Ph.D. in languages or literature to go work in the private industry. No offense meant by that, but just calling a spade a spade. That means that this work experience will be directly related to what you intend to pursue as a career. Some may describe it as a paid internship even. As a candidate for a tenure-track position or just non-tenure track position, you'd have good work experience due to this, right>

You took an "unfunded" position. Why would you do that? That's on you. Honestly, you're doing a job with less than stellar credentials (no Ph.D.) that will be a resume builder for later work in academia, while having your tuition covered for completing your Ph.D.

And it's pretty well known that adjuncts don't make much money in general.

What am I missing here? You didn't directly say it, but the phrasing of your title suggests you're very under compensated. But it really leaves out A LOT of context. Honestly, I appreciate that you probably work hard (I'm not sure I buy that you're working 90hours a week regularly. It's not impossible, but I have doubts). But I'm not sure I really have a problem with what you're being paid (when considering you're getting a Ph.D. that is paid for, and you're getting extremely relevant work experiences), the fact that you don't do the work of a full professor in most cases, and the choices you made leading you to the situation.

Edit: Shit, you said six courses a YEAR, not semester. Is that right? You teach 6 courses over a year (3 per semester)?

Edit 2: You did clarify that it's 5 courses, 6 sections. So that should drop your hours some. Granted, you have to grade for each and what not, but planning and writing assignments/exams should overlap a great deal for two of the sections.

Right. I think the way the other person wrote it made it sound like she was threatening to sue because of the "she's fucked" comment. -- Because of the "i heard everything you said and I'm going to sue you" part.

But that seems kind of stupid. Suing for not being completely under on the other hand, that's pretty solid.

What made you want to remove it? Just to get the stuff it of the park? A reason to go back up?

It actually makes perfect sense once you realize that the market is pretty much the same for all three (adult males who aren't getting any)..... It's a one-stop shop.