Posts by James Garcia50

Patrick Martin said:Look, I’ve sat through plenty of John Wayne flicks, but the guy just never clicked for me.
Just your standard, cookie-cutter Hollywood product. All that affectation—especially the way he walks—it feels like a parody to me. I don't fall for those cheap gimmicks.

John Wayne is a bigger icon to me than Eastwood ever was. Duke had this unique vibe; he was never forced to act "cool" in that over-the-top way Eastwood does when he's trying too hard.☕

Clint is the total opposite—the man is a straight-up legend.

Oh look, someone threw Arnold Schwarzenegger into the mix too. Honestly, Arnie is a bigger deal than Eastwood in any of his roles. Sure, Eastwood’s movies are great and all, but when you see Arnie dropping the best one-liners in cinematic history, there's no contest. He's the king.

Now you're just reaching.🤦

The whole "one-liner" thing is basically Dirty Harry's trademark.☕

10-of-the-best-dirty-harry-one-liners

But those are different categories. There are different flavors of cool. You've got the style icons like Cooper or Grant, and then you've got the action heroes from the 70s and 80s. Bruce Willis definitely belongs in that second group, especially when he's rocking a white undershirt.☕

He's way too sarcastic to actually be considered cool.☕

Please...
give me a break 🤣.

shadowangler50 said:

You're the only one making a mistake here by treating a movie like a game of tennis or football.
In art, nothing is ever crystal clear to everyone. Opinions are like manure; everybody’s got one.
To you, this film is a classic; to me, it's a remake.
You cite me, I cite you. It's even.

I am citing Akira Kurosawa's lawsuit and Sergio Leone's settlement to Akira Kurosawa of the South.
I'm not citing you; I'm citing facts.

You can wait until Judgment Day, or you can go back and actually read my posts with some understanding.

If that post about Hamlet and the play is your big explanation, then I guess I'll be waiting until Judgment Day.

I don't have anything better to do than quote you. You know what you wrote.

I know, but clearly you don't. I could easily dump your own sentences back at you, but I can't be bothered.
I don't have time to waste.

There are just as many exceptions as there are instances of plagiarism.
I don't particularly care for Leone's films, but I respect—meaning me, not your imaginary 60,000 fans—that he didn't steal anything, he just filmed a remake.
But he violated Akira Kurosawa's copyrights and ended up in court, and rightfully so.
Whether you agree with me or not is up to you.

Plagiarism is plagiarism, and an original is an original. There is no such thing as "half-plagiarized" or "half-original."

You can respect it all you want, but if he didn't acquire the rights to make the film, it means he stole it.
If someone steals your wallet and you claim they didn't steal it, just because they didn't ask permission first, what kind of logic is that?

Honestly, I don't care how they settled the deal. I dig the original and the remake just the same.

shadowangler50 said:

You're the only one making a mistake here by treating a movie like a game of tennis or football.
In art, nothing is ever crystal clear to everyone. Opinions are like manure; everybody’s got one.
To you, this film is a classic; to me, it's a remake.
You cite me, I cite you. It's even.

I am citing Akira Kurosawa's lawsuit and Sergio Leone's settlement to Akira Kurosawa of the South.
I'm not citing you; I'm citing facts.

You can wait until Judgment Day, or you can go back and actually read my posts with some understanding.

If that post about Hamlet and the play is your big explanation, then I guess I'll be waiting until Judgment Day.

I don't have anything better to do than quote you. You know what you wrote.

I know, but clearly you don't. I could easily dump your own sentences back at you, but I can't be bothered.
I don't have time to waste.

There are just as many exceptions as there are instances of plagiarism.
I don't particularly care for Leone's films, but I respect—meaning me, not your imaginary 60,000 fans—that he didn't steal anything, he just filmed a remake.
But he violated Akira Kurosawa's copyrights and ended up in court, and rightfully so.
Whether you agree with me or not is up to you.

Plagiarism is plagiarism, and an original is an original. There is no such thing as "half-plagiarized" or "half-original."

You can respect it all you want, but if he didn't acquire the rights to make the film, it means he stole it.
If someone steals your wallet and you claim they didn't steal it, just because they didn't ask permission first, what kind of logic is that?

I don't explain things; if you get it, you get it.

shadowangler50 said:

You're the only one making a mistake here by treating a movie like a game of tennis or football.
In art, nothing is ever crystal clear to everyone. Opinions are like manure; everybody’s got one.
To you, this film is a classic; to me, it's a remake.
You cite me, I cite you. It's even.

I am citing Akira Kurosawa's lawsuit and Sergio Leone's settlement to Akira Kurosawa of the South.
I'm not citing you; I'm citing facts.

You can wait until Judgment Day, or you can go back and actually read my posts with some understanding.

If that post about Hamlet and the play is your big explanation, then I guess I'll be waiting until Judgment Day.

I don't have anything better to do than quote you. You know what you wrote.

I know, but clearly you don't. I could easily dump your own sentences back at you, but I can't be bothered.
I don't have time to waste.

There are just as many exceptions as there are instances of plagiarism.
I don't particularly care for Leone's films, but I respect—meaning me, not your imaginary 60,000 fans—that he didn't steal anything, he just filmed a remake.
But he violated Akira Kurosawa's copyrights and ended up in court, and rightfully so.
Whether you agree with me or not is up to you.

Plagiarism is plagiarism, and an original is an original. There is no such thing as "half-plagiarized" or "half-original."

You can respect it all you want, but if he didn't acquire the rights to make the film, it means he stole it.
If someone steals your wallet and you claim they didn't steal it, just because they didn't ask permission first, what kind of logic is that?

If you say so.

shadowangler50 said:

You're the only one making a mistake here by treating a movie like a game of tennis or football.
In art, nothing is ever crystal clear to everyone. Opinions are like manure; everybody’s got one.
To you, this film is a classic; to me, it's a remake.
You cite me, I cite you. It's even.

I am citing Akira Kurosawa's lawsuit and Sergio Leone's settlement to Akira Kurosawa of the South.
I'm not citing you; I'm citing facts.

You can wait until Judgment Day, or you can go back and actually read my posts with some understanding.

If that post about Hamlet and the play is your big explanation, then I guess I'll be waiting until Judgment Day.

I don't have anything better to do than quote you. You know what you wrote.

I know, but clearly you don't. I could easily dump your own sentences back at you, but I can't be bothered.
I don't have time to waste.

There are just as many exceptions as there are instances of plagiarism.
I don't particularly care for Leone's films, but I respect—meaning me, not your imaginary 60,000 fans—that he didn't steal anything, he just filmed a remake.
But he violated Akira Kurosawa's copyrights and ended up in court, and rightfully so.
Whether you agree with me or not is up to you.

Plagiarism is plagiarism, and an original is an original. There is no such thing as "half-plagiarized" or "half-original."

You can respect it all you want, but if he didn't acquire the rights to make the film, it means he stole it.
If someone steals your wallet and you claim they didn't steal it, just because they didn't ask permission first, what kind of logic is that?

No.
There are plenty of ways to steal a work or parts of it.
You're the one struggling with logic here, not me.

Quote : shadow dancer

shadowangler50 said:

Ask him how he worked; I'm just an observer.

You can repeat my posts as often as you want, but to me, this is a Sergio Leone remake of Akira Kurosawa style. That’s my personal take, not some appeal to the invisible 60,000 people you love to cite.

Is it really that hard to admit you were wrong?
Sergio Leone films it, fails to buy the rights from Akira Kurosawa, doesn't sign with Akira Kurosawa, and then gets sued. Eventually, everything is settled out of court when Leone agrees to hand over 15% of the profits and $100,000.
The facts are crystal clear. Leone is a plagiarist, and A Fistful of Dollars is a plagiarism. It can't be a "remake" for you when Leone himself admitted—directly or indirectly—that it was stolen.
And don't try to drag me into this or dodge the point. You can have whatever opinion you want about whether the movie is good or bad, but it is a plagiarism, and that is a fact. You don't get to have an "opinion" on a fact.

I don't care if it's a plagiarism or not; I care about the value of the film, and A Fistful of Dollars is a classic.

A plagiarist doesn't just take an idea; they steal someone else's work.

Like Leone.
You haven't explained the difference, so I'm still waiting for an answer. And leave the legalities out of it; we are talking about art.

Yes, plagiarism is worthless (for example, that American film directed by Marković).
No, True Detective isn't that kind of plagiarism.
You clearly haven't watched Red Riding, nor do you care; all you want to do is split hairs.

I will call anything a plagiarism if it is one, and I will call something a masterpiece only if it deserves the title.

Two different authors won't plagiarize the same work in the same way, which explains why our stances differ.

Don't lecture me or tell me how I should behave.

What kinds of plagiarism are there even supposed to be?

Only if you actually knew the difference between what is a plagiarism and what is original.
To you, a plagiarism you like isn't a plagiarism, but one you dislike is.

I have nothing to twist; it's right there in the thread.
You said they aren't better, just good, but people think they're better than they are because Hollywood production glosses them over. But they are boring because they deal with themes that nobody cares about.

Just show me where I used those exact words: nobody cares.
I said they are watched far less because people generally—most people, anyway—aren't attracted to the themes they cover, since people watch primarily for entertainment and relaxation.

None of us are making official claims; we aren't in court, we're discussing art.
Everything we write is just our impression. My views on plagiarism change from film to film (or series); no two cases are ever the same.

Exactly. That’s my point. If you like it, it’s "inspiration." If you don't, suddenly it's plagiarism.
Plagiarism is plagiarism, and an original is an original. There are no exceptions.

You're the only one getting this wrong, treating a movie like it’s some tennis match or a football game.
In art, nothing is ever crystal clear to everyone. Opinions are like trash—everyone’s got one.
To you, that movie is a classic. To me? It's just a remake.
You're throwing my words back at me, and I'm doing the same to you. Whatever.

Quote : shadow dancer

shadowangler50 said:

Ask him how he worked; I'm just an observer.

You can repeat my posts as often as you want, but to me, this is a Sergio Leone remake of Akira Kurosawa style. That’s my personal take, not some appeal to the invisible 60,000 people you love to cite.

Is it really that hard to admit you were wrong?
Sergio Leone films it, fails to buy the rights from Akira Kurosawa, doesn't sign with Akira Kurosawa, and then gets sued. Eventually, everything is settled out of court when Leone agrees to hand over 15% of the profits and $100,000.
The facts are crystal clear. Leone is a plagiarist, and A Fistful of Dollars is a plagiarism. It can't be a "remake" for you when Leone himself admitted—directly or indirectly—that it was stolen.
And don't try to drag me into this or dodge the point. You can have whatever opinion you want about whether the movie is good or bad, but it is a plagiarism, and that is a fact. You don't get to have an "opinion" on a fact.

I don't care if it's a plagiarism or not; I care about the value of the film, and A Fistful of Dollars is a classic.

A plagiarist doesn't just take an idea; they steal someone else's work.

Like Leone.
You haven't explained the difference, so I'm still waiting for an answer. And leave the legalities out of it; we are talking about art.

Yes, plagiarism is worthless (for example, that American film directed by Marković).
No, True Detective isn't that kind of plagiarism.
You clearly haven't watched Red Riding, nor do you care; all you want to do is split hairs.

I will call anything a plagiarism if it is one, and I will call something a masterpiece only if it deserves the title.

Two different authors won't plagiarize the same work in the same way, which explains why our stances differ.

Don't lecture me or tell me how I should behave.

What kinds of plagiarism are there even supposed to be?

Only if you actually knew the difference between what is a plagiarism and what is original.
To you, a plagiarism you like isn't a plagiarism, but one you dislike is.

I have nothing to twist; it's right there in the thread.
You said they aren't better, just good, but people think they're better than they are because Hollywood production glosses them over. But they are boring because they deal with themes that nobody cares about.

Just show me where I used those exact words: nobody cares.
I said they are watched far less because people generally—most people, anyway—aren't attracted to the themes they cover, since people watch primarily for entertainment and relaxation.

None of us are making official claims; we aren't in court, we're discussing art.
Everything we write is just our impression. My views on plagiarism change from film to film (or series); no two cases are ever the same.

Exactly. That’s my point. If you like it, it’s "inspiration." If you don't, suddenly it's plagiarism.
Plagiarism is plagiarism, and an original is an original. There are no exceptions.

You can wait until Judgment Day, or you could just go back and actually read my posts with some common sense.

Quote : shadow dancer

shadowangler50 said:

Ask him how he worked; I'm just an observer.

You can repeat my posts as often as you want, but to me, this is a Sergio Leone remake of Akira Kurosawa style. That’s my personal take, not some appeal to the invisible 60,000 people you love to cite.

Is it really that hard to admit you were wrong?
Sergio Leone films it, fails to buy the rights from Akira Kurosawa, doesn't sign with Akira Kurosawa, and then gets sued. Eventually, everything is settled out of court when Leone agrees to hand over 15% of the profits and $100,000.
The facts are crystal clear. Leone is a plagiarist, and A Fistful of Dollars is a plagiarism. It can't be a "remake" for you when Leone himself admitted—directly or indirectly—that it was stolen.
And don't try to drag me into this or dodge the point. You can have whatever opinion you want about whether the movie is good or bad, but it is a plagiarism, and that is a fact. You don't get to have an "opinion" on a fact.

I don't care if it's a plagiarism or not; I care about the value of the film, and A Fistful of Dollars is a classic.

A plagiarist doesn't just take an idea; they steal someone else's work.

Like Leone.
You haven't explained the difference, so I'm still waiting for an answer. And leave the legalities out of it; we are talking about art.

Yes, plagiarism is worthless (for example, that American film directed by Marković).
No, True Detective isn't that kind of plagiarism.
You clearly haven't watched Red Riding, nor do you care; all you want to do is split hairs.

I will call anything a plagiarism if it is one, and I will call something a masterpiece only if it deserves the title.

Two different authors won't plagiarize the same work in the same way, which explains why our stances differ.

Don't lecture me or tell me how I should behave.

What kinds of plagiarism are there even supposed to be?

Only if you actually knew the difference between what is a plagiarism and what is original.
To you, a plagiarism you like isn't a plagiarism, but one you dislike is.

I have nothing to twist; it's right there in the thread.
You said they aren't better, just good, but people think they're better than they are because Hollywood production glosses them over. But they are boring because they deal with themes that nobody cares about.

Just show me where I used those exact words: nobody cares.
I said they are watched far less because people generally—most people, anyway—aren't attracted to the themes they cover, since people watch primarily for entertainment and relaxation.

None of us are making official claims; we aren't in court, we're discussing art.
Everything we write is just our impression. My views on plagiarism change from film to film (or series); no two cases are ever the same.

Exactly. That’s my point. If you like it, it’s "inspiration." If you don't, suddenly it's plagiarism.
Plagiarism is plagiarism, and an original is an original. There are no exceptions.

I don't have anything better to do than just quote you back to yourself. You already know exactly what you wrote.

Quote : shadow dancer

shadowangler50 said:

Ask him how he worked; I'm just an observer.

You can repeat my posts as often as you want, but to me, this is a Sergio Leone remake of Akira Kurosawa style. That’s my personal take, not some appeal to the invisible 60,000 people you love to cite.

Is it really that hard to admit you were wrong?
Sergio Leone films it, fails to buy the rights from Akira Kurosawa, doesn't sign with Akira Kurosawa, and then gets sued. Eventually, everything is settled out of court when Leone agrees to hand over 15% of the profits and $100,000.
The facts are crystal clear. Leone is a plagiarist, and A Fistful of Dollars is a plagiarism. It can't be a "remake" for you when Leone himself admitted—directly or indirectly—that it was stolen.
And don't try to drag me into this or dodge the point. You can have whatever opinion you want about whether the movie is good or bad, but it is a plagiarism, and that is a fact. You don't get to have an "opinion" on a fact.

I don't care if it's a plagiarism or not; I care about the value of the film, and A Fistful of Dollars is a classic.

A plagiarist doesn't just take an idea; they steal someone else's work.

Like Leone.
You haven't explained the difference, so I'm still waiting for an answer. And leave the legalities out of it; we are talking about art.

Yes, plagiarism is worthless (for example, that American film directed by Marković).
No, True Detective isn't that kind of plagiarism.
You clearly haven't watched Red Riding, nor do you care; all you want to do is split hairs.

I will call anything a plagiarism if it is one, and I will call something a masterpiece only if it deserves the title.

Two different authors won't plagiarize the same work in the same way, which explains why our stances differ.

Don't lecture me or tell me how I should behave.

What kinds of plagiarism are there even supposed to be?

Only if you actually knew the difference between what is a plagiarism and what is original.
To you, a plagiarism you like isn't a plagiarism, but one you dislike is.

I have nothing to twist; it's right there in the thread.
You said they aren't better, just good, but people think they're better than they are because Hollywood production glosses them over. But they are boring because they deal with themes that nobody cares about.

Just show me where I used those exact words: nobody cares.
I said they are watched far less because people generally—most people, anyway—aren't attracted to the themes they cover, since people watch primarily for entertainment and relaxation.

None of us are making official claims; we aren't in court, we're discussing art.
Everything we write is just our impression. My views on plagiarism change from film to film (or series); no two cases are ever the same.

Exactly. That’s my point. If you like it, it’s "inspiration." If you don't, suddenly it's plagiarism.
Plagiarism is plagiarism, and an original is an original. There are no exceptions.

Plagiarism is a sliding scale, isn't it?
I’m not even a huge fan of Sergio Leone's work, but I respect the hustle—meaning me (not your imaginary 60,000 critics)—that he didn't just steal it; he made a legitimate remake.
Still, he stepped all over Akira Kurosawa's rights and ended up in court, and honestly, he deserved it.
Take it or leave it.

Nicholas Watson said:Can someone drop a link for that movie? Or even just the full title? I can't seem to find anything under "TD" when I search for it.

True Detective Red Riding, the trilogy from '74, '80, and '83.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1259574/

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1260581/

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1259573/

IMDb True Detective

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2356777/

shadowangler50 said:

Sergio Leone isn't some plagiarist who just "stole" ideas. He was making remakes. Is that really such a crime?
If the original author didn't sign off on it, we're looking at a legal nightmare. Lawsuits and damages are inevitable, aren't they?
Maybe Akira Kurosawa would have sued him if he had even signed his name to this. If I were in his shoes, I’d be doing the exact same thing.

I’m talking about... Art? Please. It’s nothing more than pretension wrapped in a fancy package. Is anyone actually creating anything meaningful anymore? And what about the artists? When an artist's intellectual property is under fire, that’s where the real trouble begins. What is there to say? It’s just more of the same. Is anyone actually surprised?.

How did they even make the remake if he didn't legally secure the rights to film it? How can you just go ahead without a signed agreement from Akira Kurosawa?
Did you seriously just claim that wasn't plagiarism? Do I really need to repeat myself?
If he had actually secured the rights and signed on with Akira Kurosawa, we’d be calling this a remake. But according to your logic, since he didn't, it's just plain old plagiarism?
If a woman had those parts, she’d be a man. Simple as that.

So, we're supposed to believe that justice is tied to art rather than the law? Is that really how this works?👍

Robbing banks requires having a clear vision of that stolen cash sitting right in your own pocket. Is that too much to ask?

Pick a side and stick to it. Are you going to be consistent or what?
A remake creator takes someone else's concept legally and refines it through their own lens. A plagiarist just steals an idea illegally and tries to pass it off as their own. Is there really any difference?
So, if we strip away copyright and their legal protections—meaning the actual rights themselves—what is even left to distinguish them?

Has anyone actually addressed the lawsuit against the creators of True Detective? Seriously?
I’m telling you, parts of this were ripped straight from an old British series. Is anyone actually surprised?
I’m not saying the series is worthless, nor am I claiming those specific parts make it so. The show suffers from a litany of issues, and a lack of originality is certainly high on that list. To avoid repeating myself, here is my take:

So, you’re claiming that plagiarism doesn't matter, yet you argue that True Detective is a fraud? Since you think elements taken from Red Riding Hood constitute plagiarism, does that mean you find True Detective completely worthless as well?

If you’re going to throw around the word "plagiarism," then have the backbone to be consistent about it. Why be so selective?
You constantly post contradictory nonsense. Am I the only one who’s noticed? Because I know for a fact I'm not.
When multiple people tell you the exact same thing, shouldn't you stop and actually listen? Why ignore the consensus?

It all started with your claim that anything filmed outside the USA is worthless and boring. You argued people only watch it because Hollywood has brainwashed them, rather than it actually being any good. Is that really how you see things?

Don't twist my words. I never said everything filmed outside the US is worthless or boring. My point was simple: foreign films are just better than American ones.
And that’s my position on the matter.
I said it myself: people are ditching American cinema because the quality has completely tanked. Why settle for mediocrity? I have my doubts.Look, I wasn't making a claim. I was simply offering a hypothesis—something that isn't a fact and isn't even relevant here. Isn't it just my own personal impression?

Go ask him how he did it; I'm just an observer.

Feel free to quote me all you want, but to me, this is a Sergio Leone remake of Akira Kurosawa's work. That's my take, personally—not for those invisible 60,000 people you love citing.

shadowangler50 said:

Sergio Leone isn't some plagiarist who just "stole" ideas. He was making remakes. Is that really such a crime?
If the original author didn't sign off on it, we're looking at a legal nightmare. Lawsuits and damages are inevitable, aren't they?
Maybe Akira Kurosawa would have sued him if he had even signed his name to this. If I were in his shoes, I’d be doing the exact same thing.

I’m talking about... Art? Please. It’s nothing more than pretension wrapped in a fancy package. Is anyone actually creating anything meaningful anymore? And what about the artists? When an artist's intellectual property is under fire, that’s where the real trouble begins. What is there to say? It’s just more of the same. Is anyone actually surprised?.

How did they even make the remake if he didn't legally secure the rights to film it? How can you just go ahead without a signed agreement from Akira Kurosawa?
Did you seriously just claim that wasn't plagiarism? Do I really need to repeat myself?
If he had actually secured the rights and signed on with Akira Kurosawa, we’d be calling this a remake. But according to your logic, since he didn't, it's just plain old plagiarism?
If a woman had those parts, she’d be a man. Simple as that.

So, we're supposed to believe that justice is tied to art rather than the law? Is that really how this works?👍

Robbing banks requires having a clear vision of that stolen cash sitting right in your own pocket. Is that too much to ask?

Pick a side and stick to it. Are you going to be consistent or what?
A remake creator takes someone else's concept legally and refines it through their own lens. A plagiarist just steals an idea illegally and tries to pass it off as their own. Is there really any difference?
So, if we strip away copyright and their legal protections—meaning the actual rights themselves—what is even left to distinguish them?

Has anyone actually addressed the lawsuit against the creators of True Detective? Seriously?
I’m telling you, parts of this were ripped straight from an old British series. Is anyone actually surprised?
I’m not saying the series is worthless, nor am I claiming those specific parts make it so. The show suffers from a litany of issues, and a lack of originality is certainly high on that list. To avoid repeating myself, here is my take:

So, you’re claiming that plagiarism doesn't matter, yet you argue that True Detective is a fraud? Since you think elements taken from Red Riding Hood constitute plagiarism, does that mean you find True Detective completely worthless as well?

If you’re going to throw around the word "plagiarism," then have the backbone to be consistent about it. Why be so selective?
You constantly post contradictory nonsense. Am I the only one who’s noticed? Because I know for a fact I'm not.
When multiple people tell you the exact same thing, shouldn't you stop and actually listen? Why ignore the consensus?

It all started with your claim that anything filmed outside the USA is worthless and boring. You argued people only watch it because Hollywood has brainwashed them, rather than it actually being any good. Is that really how you see things?

Don't twist my words. I never said everything filmed outside the US is worthless or boring. My point was simple: foreign films are just better than American ones.
And that’s my position on the matter.
I said it myself: people are ditching American cinema because the quality has completely tanked. Why settle for mediocrity? I have my doubts.Look, I wasn't making a claim. I was simply offering a hypothesis—something that isn't a fact and isn't even relevant here. Isn't it just my own personal impression?

A plagiarist doesn't just take an idea; they steal someone else's actual work.

shadowangler50 said:

Sergio Leone isn't some plagiarist who just "stole" ideas. He was making remakes. Is that really such a crime?
If the original author didn't sign off on it, we're looking at a legal nightmare. Lawsuits and damages are inevitable, aren't they?
Maybe Akira Kurosawa would have sued him if he had even signed his name to this. If I were in his shoes, I’d be doing the exact same thing.

I’m talking about... Art? Please. It’s nothing more than pretension wrapped in a fancy package. Is anyone actually creating anything meaningful anymore? And what about the artists? When an artist's intellectual property is under fire, that’s where the real trouble begins. What is there to say? It’s just more of the same. Is anyone actually surprised?.

How did they even make the remake if he didn't legally secure the rights to film it? How can you just go ahead without a signed agreement from Akira Kurosawa?
Did you seriously just claim that wasn't plagiarism? Do I really need to repeat myself?
If he had actually secured the rights and signed on with Akira Kurosawa, we’d be calling this a remake. But according to your logic, since he didn't, it's just plain old plagiarism?
If a woman had those parts, she’d be a man. Simple as that.

So, we're supposed to believe that justice is tied to art rather than the law? Is that really how this works?👍

Robbing banks requires having a clear vision of that stolen cash sitting right in your own pocket. Is that too much to ask?

Pick a side and stick to it. Are you going to be consistent or what?
A remake creator takes someone else's concept legally and refines it through their own lens. A plagiarist just steals an idea illegally and tries to pass it off as their own. Is there really any difference?
So, if we strip away copyright and their legal protections—meaning the actual rights themselves—what is even left to distinguish them?

Has anyone actually addressed the lawsuit against the creators of True Detective? Seriously?
I’m telling you, parts of this were ripped straight from an old British series. Is anyone actually surprised?
I’m not saying the series is worthless, nor am I claiming those specific parts make it so. The show suffers from a litany of issues, and a lack of originality is certainly high on that list. To avoid repeating myself, here is my take:

So, you’re claiming that plagiarism doesn't matter, yet you argue that True Detective is a fraud? Since you think elements taken from Red Riding Hood constitute plagiarism, does that mean you find True Detective completely worthless as well?

If you’re going to throw around the word "plagiarism," then have the backbone to be consistent about it. Why be so selective?
You constantly post contradictory nonsense. Am I the only one who’s noticed? Because I know for a fact I'm not.
When multiple people tell you the exact same thing, shouldn't you stop and actually listen? Why ignore the consensus?

It all started with your claim that anything filmed outside the USA is worthless and boring. You argued people only watch it because Hollywood has brainwashed them, rather than it actually being any good. Is that really how you see things?

Don't twist my words. I never said everything filmed outside the US is worthless or boring. My point was simple: foreign films are just better than American ones.
And that’s my position on the matter.
I said it myself: people are ditching American cinema because the quality has completely tanked. Why settle for mediocrity? I have my doubts.Look, I wasn't making a claim. I was simply offering a hypothesis—something that isn't a fact and isn't even relevant here. Isn't it just my own personal impression?

Yeah, plagiarism is worthless (like that director tour movie by Marković).
But no, True Detective isn't that kind of plagiarism.
You haven't seen Red Riding and you don't care to; you just enjoy splitting hairs.

I'll call anything plagiarism if it is, and I'll call something a masterpiece if it deserves it.

Two different authors won't plagiarize the same work in the exact same way, which is why my stance varies.

Don't try to lecture me or tell me how I should act.

shadowangler50 said:

Sergio Leone isn't some plagiarist who just "stole" ideas. He was making remakes. Is that really such a crime?
If the original author didn't sign off on it, we're looking at a legal nightmare. Lawsuits and damages are inevitable, aren't they?
Maybe Akira Kurosawa would have sued him if he had even signed his name to this. If I were in his shoes, I’d be doing the exact same thing.

I’m talking about... Art? Please. It’s nothing more than pretension wrapped in a fancy package. Is anyone actually creating anything meaningful anymore? And what about the artists? When an artist's intellectual property is under fire, that’s where the real trouble begins. What is there to say? It’s just more of the same. Is anyone actually surprised?.

How did they even make the remake if he didn't legally secure the rights to film it? How can you just go ahead without a signed agreement from Akira Kurosawa?
Did you seriously just claim that wasn't plagiarism? Do I really need to repeat myself?
If he had actually secured the rights and signed on with Akira Kurosawa, we’d be calling this a remake. But according to your logic, since he didn't, it's just plain old plagiarism?
If a woman had those parts, she’d be a man. Simple as that.

So, we're supposed to believe that justice is tied to art rather than the law? Is that really how this works?👍

Robbing banks requires having a clear vision of that stolen cash sitting right in your own pocket. Is that too much to ask?

Pick a side and stick to it. Are you going to be consistent or what?
A remake creator takes someone else's concept legally and refines it through their own lens. A plagiarist just steals an idea illegally and tries to pass it off as their own. Is there really any difference?
So, if we strip away copyright and their legal protections—meaning the actual rights themselves—what is even left to distinguish them?

Has anyone actually addressed the lawsuit against the creators of True Detective? Seriously?
I’m telling you, parts of this were ripped straight from an old British series. Is anyone actually surprised?
I’m not saying the series is worthless, nor am I claiming those specific parts make it so. The show suffers from a litany of issues, and a lack of originality is certainly high on that list. To avoid repeating myself, here is my take:

So, you’re claiming that plagiarism doesn't matter, yet you argue that True Detective is a fraud? Since you think elements taken from Red Riding Hood constitute plagiarism, does that mean you find True Detective completely worthless as well?

If you’re going to throw around the word "plagiarism," then have the backbone to be consistent about it. Why be so selective?
You constantly post contradictory nonsense. Am I the only one who’s noticed? Because I know for a fact I'm not.
When multiple people tell you the exact same thing, shouldn't you stop and actually listen? Why ignore the consensus?

It all started with your claim that anything filmed outside the USA is worthless and boring. You argued people only watch it because Hollywood has brainwashed them, rather than it actually being any good. Is that really how you see things?

Don't twist my words. I never said everything filmed outside the US is worthless or boring. My point was simple: foreign films are just better than American ones.
And that’s my position on the matter.
I said it myself: people are ditching American cinema because the quality has completely tanked. Why settle for mediocrity? I have my doubts.Look, I wasn't making a claim. I was simply offering a hypothesis—something that isn't a fact and isn't even relevant here. Isn't it just my own personal impression?

There's nothing to twist; it's right there in the thread.
You mentioned they aren't necessarily "better," just good, but that people overrate them because Hollywood production has become so bloated. Plus, they can be dull since they tackle themes that nobody actually cares about.

None of us are making definitive declarations here; we aren't in court, we're just talking about art.
Everything we write is just an impression. My views on plagiarism shift from one movie to the next (or series); no two cases are ever the same.

Zachary Nguyen2 said:James Garcia50 is worse than any politician.

What's the deal with Gor?aHey, Zachary Nguyen2. 😳

Daniel Ramirez3 said:I mean, an idea is just an idea; the genre shouldn't really matter.

I'm just quoting your point about the difference between plagiarism and a remake again.

"Stealing is stealing, but a remake involves rights that were legally purchased and signed under contract. There's a huge difference."

It’s not just ideas being stolen.

Daniel Ramirez3 said:I mean, an idea is just an idea; the genre shouldn't really matter.

I'm just quoting your point about the difference between plagiarism and a remake again.

"Stealing is stealing, but a remake involves rights that were legally purchased and signed under contract. There's a huge difference."

Massive difference. Would Akira Kurosawa have sued Sergio Leone if he had signed off on it? Or would he?

shadowangler50 said:

No.
Whether you call it art or whatever excuse they want to use, a plagiarist is just a thief. They snatch pieces of someone else's work, shove them into their own worthless content, and then have the nerve to sign it all as if they created it themselves. How is that anything but fraud?
A director remaking someone else's work is in the exact same position as a theater director. We've seen hundreds of productions of Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet, or King Lear, yet every single director brings their own unique vision to the same literary source material. It’s the same principle. Even Ivo Brešan drew inspiration from Hamlet when he penned his successful stage drama and screenplay. Is anyone actually surprised by that? The Hamlet play in that tiny town outside of Blatuša? Give me a break. Who actually thought this was a good idea?Is this anything more than just some cheap remake?
There is no such thing as a "legal nature" in art. Why even bother pretending?

So, it turns out A Fistful of Dollars is nothing more than mindless filler. Is anyone actually surprised?
Sergio Leone is nothing more than a thief. He rips off pieces of other people's work just to pad out his own worthless trash like A Fistful of Dollars, then has the nerve to sign his name as if he created it all himself. How does he get away with it?
Is this really your logic? Is this truly what you think?

Did Sergio Leone actually have his own vision for Yojimbo?

You're absolutely right to point out that line. "Theft is theft, regardless of whether a remake was legally purchased." Isn't that just the plain truth? Rights? What rights? It was signed right at the top. There’s a massive difference.
You jump between art and the law whenever it suits you. Is there any consistency at all?

An author who decides to tackle a remake isn't just buying someone else's idea. They have their own vision for that existing work and want to present it through their own lens—just look at how a theater director handles a classic play.
Just because he does a remake doesn't mean it actually has to be any good. Does anyone really care? Scorsese already swept the Academy Award 2007 anyway.

A plagiarist thinks they can just take someone else's vision and claim it's their own masterpiece? How does that even work?
If it turns out The Matrix is actually a plagiarism, then by your logic, Lana and Andy Wachowski would have copied it exactly the way the original creator did. Is that really how you see it?

You couldn't be more wrong.
That’s a matter for a courtroom, not a movie forum. Here, everyone is entitled to their own opinion and the right to defend it. Even a forum user who claims that... French cinema is garbage globally because they only cast ugly people. Why bother watching? 😁

My opinion on someone's plagiarism isn't a legal matter, nor is it mere speculation.
Can you seriously not see that European films have such incredibly dull themes? Is it any wonder they fail to land? Does anyone actually like this? No one does.Well, you went ahead and wrote it anyway.
Get it? That’s your opinion, and others aren't obligated to agree with you.
We aren't in a courtroom; we're discussing art.

No lawsuit has even been filed against the creators of True Detective, yet you’re already claiming it's a total rip-off and therefore worthless. How can you be so sure?
My opinion on this matter carries zero weight. Why even bother?
And nobody even agreed with you.
Until a court actually rules that it's plagiarism, it isn't. Why should we jump to conclusions before then?

We didn't even start this debate based on my supposed claim that Scandinavian shows are worthless—which I never actually said. No, we started it because of your argument that Americans can't produce a decent series to save their lives. Are you seriously suggesting they just steal every good idea from European shows and Korean films?

To me, Sergio Leone isn't a plagiarist and didn't "shove" anything anywhere; he made a remake.
Whether he credited the original author is a matter for the courts, lawsuits, and damages.
Maybe Akira Kurosawa would've sued him even if he had signed the papers (personally, I would).

I'm talking about art and artists; when an artist's copyrights are violated, that's what the legal system is for.

shadowangler50 said:

No.
Whether you call it art or whatever excuse they want to use, a plagiarist is just a thief. They snatch pieces of someone else's work, shove them into their own worthless content, and then have the nerve to sign it all as if they created it themselves. How is that anything but fraud?
A director remaking someone else's work is in the exact same position as a theater director. We've seen hundreds of productions of Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet, or King Lear, yet every single director brings their own unique vision to the same literary source material. It’s the same principle. Even Ivo Brešan drew inspiration from Hamlet when he penned his successful stage drama and screenplay. Is anyone actually surprised by that? The Hamlet play in that tiny town outside of Blatuša? Give me a break. Who actually thought this was a good idea?Is this anything more than just some cheap remake?
There is no such thing as a "legal nature" in art. Why even bother pretending?

So, it turns out A Fistful of Dollars is nothing more than mindless filler. Is anyone actually surprised?
Sergio Leone is nothing more than a thief. He rips off pieces of other people's work just to pad out his own worthless trash like A Fistful of Dollars, then has the nerve to sign his name as if he created it all himself. How does he get away with it?
Is this really your logic? Is this truly what you think?

Did Sergio Leone actually have his own vision for Yojimbo?

You're absolutely right to point out that line. "Theft is theft, regardless of whether a remake was legally purchased." Isn't that just the plain truth? Rights? What rights? It was signed right at the top. There’s a massive difference.
You jump between art and the law whenever it suits you. Is there any consistency at all?

An author who decides to tackle a remake isn't just buying someone else's idea. They have their own vision for that existing work and want to present it through their own lens—just look at how a theater director handles a classic play.
Just because he does a remake doesn't mean it actually has to be any good. Does anyone really care? Scorsese already swept the Academy Award 2007 anyway.

A plagiarist thinks they can just take someone else's vision and claim it's their own masterpiece? How does that even work?
If it turns out The Matrix is actually a plagiarism, then by your logic, Lana and Andy Wachowski would have copied it exactly the way the original creator did. Is that really how you see it?

You couldn't be more wrong.
That’s a matter for a courtroom, not a movie forum. Here, everyone is entitled to their own opinion and the right to defend it. Even a forum user who claims that... French cinema is garbage globally because they only cast ugly people. Why bother watching? 😁

My opinion on someone's plagiarism isn't a legal matter, nor is it mere speculation.
Can you seriously not see that European films have such incredibly dull themes? Is it any wonder they fail to land? Does anyone actually like this? No one does.Well, you went ahead and wrote it anyway.
Get it? That’s your opinion, and others aren't obligated to agree with you.
We aren't in a courtroom; we're discussing art.

No lawsuit has even been filed against the creators of True Detective, yet you’re already claiming it's a total rip-off and therefore worthless. How can you be so sure?
My opinion on this matter carries zero weight. Why even bother?
And nobody even agreed with you.
Until a court actually rules that it's plagiarism, it isn't. Why should we jump to conclusions before then?

We didn't even start this debate based on my supposed claim that Scandinavian shows are worthless—which I never actually said. No, we started it because of your argument that Americans can't produce a decent series to save their lives. Are you seriously suggesting they just steal every good idea from European shows and Korean films?

And a bank robber has his own vision for the stolen cash sitting in his pocket.

shadowangler50 said:

No.
Whether you call it art or whatever excuse they want to use, a plagiarist is just a thief. They snatch pieces of someone else's work, shove them into their own worthless content, and then have the nerve to sign it all as if they created it themselves. How is that anything but fraud?
A director remaking someone else's work is in the exact same position as a theater director. We've seen hundreds of productions of Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet, or King Lear, yet every single director brings their own unique vision to the same literary source material. It’s the same principle. Even Ivo Brešan drew inspiration from Hamlet when he penned his successful stage drama and screenplay. Is anyone actually surprised by that? The Hamlet play in that tiny town outside of Blatuša? Give me a break. Who actually thought this was a good idea?Is this anything more than just some cheap remake?
There is no such thing as a "legal nature" in art. Why even bother pretending?

So, it turns out A Fistful of Dollars is nothing more than mindless filler. Is anyone actually surprised?
Sergio Leone is nothing more than a thief. He rips off pieces of other people's work just to pad out his own worthless trash like A Fistful of Dollars, then has the nerve to sign his name as if he created it all himself. How does he get away with it?
Is this really your logic? Is this truly what you think?

Did Sergio Leone actually have his own vision for Yojimbo?

You're absolutely right to point out that line. "Theft is theft, regardless of whether a remake was legally purchased." Isn't that just the plain truth? Rights? What rights? It was signed right at the top. There’s a massive difference.
You jump between art and the law whenever it suits you. Is there any consistency at all?

An author who decides to tackle a remake isn't just buying someone else's idea. They have their own vision for that existing work and want to present it through their own lens—just look at how a theater director handles a classic play.
Just because he does a remake doesn't mean it actually has to be any good. Does anyone really care? Scorsese already swept the Academy Award 2007 anyway.

A plagiarist thinks they can just take someone else's vision and claim it's their own masterpiece? How does that even work?
If it turns out The Matrix is actually a plagiarism, then by your logic, Lana and Andy Wachowski would have copied it exactly the way the original creator did. Is that really how you see it?

You couldn't be more wrong.
That’s a matter for a courtroom, not a movie forum. Here, everyone is entitled to their own opinion and the right to defend it. Even a forum user who claims that... French cinema is garbage globally because they only cast ugly people. Why bother watching? 😁

My opinion on someone's plagiarism isn't a legal matter, nor is it mere speculation.
Can you seriously not see that European films have such incredibly dull themes? Is it any wonder they fail to land? Does anyone actually like this? No one does.Well, you went ahead and wrote it anyway.
Get it? That’s your opinion, and others aren't obligated to agree with you.
We aren't in a courtroom; we're discussing art.

No lawsuit has even been filed against the creators of True Detective, yet you’re already claiming it's a total rip-off and therefore worthless. How can you be so sure?
My opinion on this matter carries zero weight. Why even bother?
And nobody even agreed with you.
Until a court actually rules that it's plagiarism, it isn't. Why should we jump to conclusions before then?

We didn't even start this debate based on my supposed claim that Scandinavian shows are worthless—which I never actually said. No, we started it because of your argument that Americans can't produce a decent series to save their lives. Are you seriously suggesting they just steal every good idea from European shows and Korean films?

Nobody is even talking about a lawsuit against the people behind True Detective.
My point is simply that certain parts feel lifted from an older British series.
I never said the show was worthless, nor did I say those borrowed bits made it so. The series has plenty of issues, and a lack of originality isn't even at the top of the list. To save us all some time, here's my actual take:

James Garcia50 said:Not when we're talking sci-fi.

You're twisting my words on purpose. Why even bother?
I never said I didn't like True Detective. It’s just that the lack of originality gets under my skin. When I watch a Sergio Leone film, I see him remaking the classics, but as a viewer, I don't mind—even if it would drive me crazy as a writer.

I don't really have any "arguments" against the show. I just have what everyone on these forums has—the right to my own opinion on a piece of art. It feels unfinished, half-baked, and frankly, the originality is questionable since it leans so heavily on that old British series.

shadowangler50 said:

No.
Whether you call it art or whatever excuse they want to use, a plagiarist is just a thief. They snatch pieces of someone else's work, shove them into their own worthless content, and then have the nerve to sign it all as if they created it themselves. How is that anything but fraud?
A director remaking someone else's work is in the exact same position as a theater director. We've seen hundreds of productions of Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet, or King Lear, yet every single director brings their own unique vision to the same literary source material. It’s the same principle. Even Ivo Brešan drew inspiration from Hamlet when he penned his successful stage drama and screenplay. Is anyone actually surprised by that? The Hamlet play in that tiny town outside of Blatuša? Give me a break. Who actually thought this was a good idea?Is this anything more than just some cheap remake?
There is no such thing as a "legal nature" in art. Why even bother pretending?

So, it turns out A Fistful of Dollars is nothing more than mindless filler. Is anyone actually surprised?
Sergio Leone is nothing more than a thief. He rips off pieces of other people's work just to pad out his own worthless trash like A Fistful of Dollars, then has the nerve to sign his name as if he created it all himself. How does he get away with it?
Is this really your logic? Is this truly what you think?

Did Sergio Leone actually have his own vision for Yojimbo?

You're absolutely right to point out that line. "Theft is theft, regardless of whether a remake was legally purchased." Isn't that just the plain truth? Rights? What rights? It was signed right at the top. There’s a massive difference.
You jump between art and the law whenever it suits you. Is there any consistency at all?

An author who decides to tackle a remake isn't just buying someone else's idea. They have their own vision for that existing work and want to present it through their own lens—just look at how a theater director handles a classic play.
Just because he does a remake doesn't mean it actually has to be any good. Does anyone really care? Scorsese already swept the Academy Award 2007 anyway.

A plagiarist thinks they can just take someone else's vision and claim it's their own masterpiece? How does that even work?
If it turns out The Matrix is actually a plagiarism, then by your logic, Lana and Andy Wachowski would have copied it exactly the way the original creator did. Is that really how you see it?

You couldn't be more wrong.
That’s a matter for a courtroom, not a movie forum. Here, everyone is entitled to their own opinion and the right to defend it. Even a forum user who claims that... French cinema is garbage globally because they only cast ugly people. Why bother watching? 😁

My opinion on someone's plagiarism isn't a legal matter, nor is it mere speculation.
Can you seriously not see that European films have such incredibly dull themes? Is it any wonder they fail to land? Does anyone actually like this? No one does.Well, you went ahead and wrote it anyway.
Get it? That’s your opinion, and others aren't obligated to agree with you.
We aren't in a courtroom; we're discussing art.

No lawsuit has even been filed against the creators of True Detective, yet you’re already claiming it's a total rip-off and therefore worthless. How can you be so sure?
My opinion on this matter carries zero weight. Why even bother?
And nobody even agreed with you.
Until a court actually rules that it's plagiarism, it isn't. Why should we jump to conclusions before then?

We didn't even start this debate based on my supposed claim that Scandinavian shows are worthless—which I never actually said. No, we started it because of your argument that Americans can't produce a decent series to save their lives. Are you seriously suggesting they just steal every good idea from European shows and Korean films?

This all kicked off because of your stance that anything filmed outside the US is mindless trash, and that people only watch it because Hollywood pushed it, not because it's actually good.

Daniel Ramirez3 said:I guess the genre doesn't really matter when you're just ripping off someone else's ideas. It could be a thriller, a drama, or even sci-fi—it's all the same.

I guess I’m just pointing out some inconsistencies in how you're looking at this.

Look, if you aren't a fan of True Detective, that’s totally fine—everyone’s entitled to their own taste. But I guess it feels a bit unfair when you use things you normally don't mind as an argument against it.

Not when we're talking sci-fi.

Daniel Ramirez3 said:I guess the genre doesn't really matter when you're just ripping off someone else's ideas. It could be a thriller, a drama, or even sci-fi—it's all the same.

I guess I’m just pointing out some inconsistencies in how you're looking at this.

Look, if you aren't a fan of True Detective, that’s totally fine—everyone’s entitled to their own taste. But I guess it feels a bit unfair when you use things you normally don't mind as an argument against it.

You're twisting my words on purpose. Why even bother?
I never said I didn't like True Detective. It’s just that the lack of originality gets under my skin. When I watch a Sergio Leone film, I see him remaking the classics, but as a viewer, I don't mind—even if it would drive me crazy as a writer.

I don't really have any "arguments" against the show. I just have what everyone on these forums has—the right to my own opinion on a piece of art. It feels unfinished, half-baked, and frankly, the originality is questionable since it leans so heavily on that old British series.

Daniel Ramirez3 said:I guess Alien is actually a perfect example.

Stealing is stealing, but when you've legally bought the rights and signed everything in ink for a remake, that's a totally different story. I guess there's a massive difference there.

I guess I also have to mention what you said about how plagiarism works—that an artist just steals pieces of someone else's work, shoves them into their own worthless content, and then signs the whole thing as if they were the sole creator.

If you're going to apply that logic to True Detective, then I guess you should probably do the same for Alien and A Fistful of Dollars too. Just be consistent!

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the world of film—and honestly, art in general—is just one big collection of different influences. It feels like most things have already been done, so maybe we're really just seeing old ideas being built upon.

Not a single sci-fi movie is.

Daniel Ramirez3 said:I guess Alien is actually a perfect example.

Stealing is stealing, but when you've legally bought the rights and signed everything in ink for a remake, that's a totally different story. I guess there's a massive difference there.

I guess I also have to mention what you said about how plagiarism works—that an artist just steals pieces of someone else's work, shoves them into their own worthless content, and then signs the whole thing as if they were the sole creator.

If you're going to apply that logic to True Detective, then I guess you should probably do the same for Alien and A Fistful of Dollars too. Just be consistent!

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the world of film—and honestly, art in general—is just one big collection of different influences. It feels like most things have already been done, so maybe we're really just seeing old ideas being built upon.

Quote me all you want.
Art isn't football; it's judged case by case. It’s incredibly hard to rule on in a lawsuit because expert panels are rarely objective—they're usually just groups of people biased toward one creator or the other.

I'm never going to be "consistent" in the wrong way. Every case is its own thing.
What I said about True Detective applies specifically to True Detective.

Influences are one thing, but stealing an entire work or its core components is something else entirely.

I've said it before, but I'll say it again: everything in this world has been done; it's up to the artist to present that old content in a way we haven't seen yet.

12-year-old thread 🤦

I’ll take Uma over her any day... she's just got more soul.

Daniel Ramirez3 said:Well, the original author actually did weigh in. I guess Kurosawa sent a letter to Sergio Leone basically saying that while A Fistful of Dollars was a great movie, it was still his story, and he wanted compensation. Sergio Leone pretty much ignored him, which led to a plagiarism lawsuit and eventually a settlement.

And yeah, I totally agree that authorship is such a gray area, so I guess we shouldn't make sweeping accusations without thinking them through.

Take Alien, for example—another absolute classic. Like I mentioned, that movie definitely borrows elements from It! The Terror from Beyond Space from 1958 and Planet of the Vampires from 1965.

In Planet of the Vampires, a spaceship crew is forced to land on an unknown planet, where they stumble upon the wreckage of a crashed vessel and the body of a dead alien.

Then in It! The Terror from Beyond Space, a crew returning from a mission to Mars finds a dead crew member after their exploration. On the way home, they realize some unknown creature has snuck onto the ship and is killing everyone. They end up trapping it in the airlock so it suffocates.

But I mean, nobody sane is going to claim Alien is worthless or just a rip-off just because it picked up ideas from two older movies.

,

So, do you still believe that the only difference between a remake and plagiarism is whether the rights were paid for?

Neither you nor I get to decide what's "normal" for an audience. Everyone's got their own thing, right?

Comparing *Alien* to anything else isn't even a fair fight. Most sci-fi movies share the same DNA, and some tropes are just unavoidable. You can't call it plagiarism when everyone is using the same toolkit, right?
Looking for a movie recommendation? What exactly are we talking about here? Just your typical, run-of-the-mill Earthly drama.Thriller, drama, whatever. Who cares?
Something like Starred up.

Daniel Ramirez3 said:Well, the original author actually did weigh in. I guess Kurosawa sent a letter to Sergio Leone basically saying that while A Fistful of Dollars was a great movie, it was still his story, and he wanted compensation. Sergio Leone pretty much ignored him, which led to a plagiarism lawsuit and eventually a settlement.

And yeah, I totally agree that authorship is such a gray area, so I guess we shouldn't make sweeping accusations without thinking them through.

Take Alien, for example—another absolute classic. Like I mentioned, that movie definitely borrows elements from It! The Terror from Beyond Space from 1958 and Planet of the Vampires from 1965.

In Planet of the Vampires, a spaceship crew is forced to land on an unknown planet, where they stumble upon the wreckage of a crashed vessel and the body of a dead alien.

Then in It! The Terror from Beyond Space, a crew returning from a mission to Mars finds a dead crew member after their exploration. On the way home, they realize some unknown creature has snuck onto the ship and is killing everyone. They end up trapping it in the airlock so it suffocates.

But I mean, nobody sane is going to claim Alien is worthless or just a rip-off just because it picked up ideas from two older movies.

,

So, do you still believe that the only difference between a remake and plagiarism is whether the rights were paid for?

I've never dealt with anyone like that. Claims? Really?In art, you don't just make declarations, do you?
Regarding those rights to remakes, titles, and author credits—I actually posted about that earlier under my old handle, shadowangler50. I was talking about how American studios have been snatching up the rights to Danish crime series before the originals even hit the air. Isn't that just typical?

Daniel Ramirez3 said:I guess I don't see how everyone knowing the original matters here?
You were making the point that it counts as a remake if the rights are paid for and the original creator gets credit.
But now you're saying that doesn't apply to Fistfull of dollars.

But you're the one who brought up that specific rule as an argument—that a remake is defined by having the rights and crediting the original author.

We're just talking about authorship here. I'm not making any grand claims—just sharing my take on a seriously slippery area of film and art in general. Who really owns an idea anyway?

I’m telling you, Leone wasn't hiding anything; anyone with an eye for detail would've spotted his influence. Does it even matter? Only the original creator could really say.

Daniel Ramirez3 said:I guess I don't see how everyone knowing the original matters here?
You were making the point that it counts as a remake if the rights are paid for and the original creator gets credit.
But now you're saying that doesn't apply to Fistfull of dollars.

But you're the one who brought up that specific rule as an argument—that a remake is defined by having the rights and crediting the original author.

I didn't bring anything up. I was just posting under my old handle about those Danish crime shows that US networks snap up for remakes before the originals even air. This guy was claiming American series are absolute masterpieces while acting like everything from Denmark isn't worth the watch. Who actually believes that?

Daniel Ramirez3 said:Leone actually signed his name to this work as if it were his own. So, you're basically just describing the gap between plagiarism and a remake.
Honestly, that's your definition, not mine, so I guess it doesn't really matter to me.

I agree, it seems pretty obvious that you're being inconsistent.

He signed off on it, sure, but we all know the original, and Leone barely changed anything. A real plagiarist? The director of Starred up, 2013 didn't make a remake; he straight up robbed an American author.

We're on a forum, not in a courtroom. You don't have to agree with me.

Zachary Nguyen2 said:That post makes zero sense. 🤣

Figures. 😉

Karen Smith9 said:

James Garcia50 Asks:
No.
Whether you look at it from an artistic perspective or just judge it by common sense—a plagiarist is essentially stealing chunks of someone else's hard work and stuffing them into their own worthless content—all while shamelessly signing their name as the sole creator. It’s just dishonest.
A director working on a remake of an existing masterpiece is essentially in the same position as a theater director—we have seen hundreds of productions of Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet, or King Lear, yet every single director brings their own unique vision to that same literary foundation. It’s a fascinating challenge, really. Even Arthur Miller found inspiration in Hamlet when he penned his successful stage drama and screenplay. The Hamlet play in Small town USA—specifically within the district of Small town USA.. Is this anything more than just some kind of remake?There is simply no such thing as a "legal nature" within the realm of art.

Look, I have to say—you’ve actually missed the mark this time. You really got it wrong.

About what?

Daniel Ramirez3 said:It seems like they still credit Leone and the screenwriters as the only authors, even to this day. I guess that's just how it stays.

I guess they either just buy it outright or hire the original screenwriter to handle the remake themselves.
I guess Walter Hill actually bought the rights from Kurosawa when he was making Last Man Standing. Since both Kurosawa and Kikush are credited, it’s basically a remake.

Regarding The Departed, I guess the original writers of Internal Affairs are actually credited as the original screenwriters.

I think you’re the one who mentioned there's a massive difference between plagiarism and a remake, and honestly, I guess the real distinction is just that people actually support remakes. I guess they were bought legally, maybe?

You said it yourself earlier. Now you're claiming it doesn't matter, even after I gave you that example.

I guess there’s just some weird logic behind how these machines work. Maybe I'm missing something, but it feels totally random sometimes. 🙏

That’s probably why they ended up in court.

Daniel Ramirez3 said:It seems like they still credit Leone and the screenwriters as the only authors, even to this day. I guess that's just how it stays.

I guess they either just buy it outright or hire the original screenwriter to handle the remake themselves.
I guess Walter Hill actually bought the rights from Kurosawa when he was making Last Man Standing. Since both Kurosawa and Kikush are credited, it’s basically a remake.

Regarding The Departed, I guess the original writers of Internal Affairs are actually credited as the original screenwriters.

I think you’re the one who mentioned there's a massive difference between plagiarism and a remake, and honestly, I guess the real distinction is just that people actually support remakes. I guess they were bought legally, maybe?

You said it yourself earlier. Now you're claiming it doesn't matter, even after I gave you that example.

I guess there’s just some weird logic behind how these machines work. Maybe I'm missing something, but it feels totally random sometimes. 🙏

So? What's the big deal?
Everything you said is spot on.

Zachary Nguyen2 said:That post makes zero sense. 🤣

I said it once, and I’m happy to say it again.
There’s a massive difference between straight-up stealing someone's work and actually making a remake. Even when someone like Leone doesn't give the original creator credit, most people—especially the real cinephiles—are going to recognize it's just a remake of a classic. Of course, that doesn't change the fact that the original author still gets screwed over and has to take them to court to get what's theirs.

I mean, I think we all get the point and there's really no need to keep circling back, but whatever.

shadowangler50 said:

Critics and audiences are never on the same page. Why should they be?
Viewership doesn't equate to quality. Why should we care?

Hold on a second. How can you possibly claim that critics and audiences have never been in agreement?
Take Breaking Bad, for instance. It’s sitting at a massive 9.6/10 on IMDb with over 500,000 votes—a level of engagement most shows can only dream of. Even the critics are calling it one of the greatest series ever made. How could anyone argue otherwise?
I won't even bother bringing up other movies or series right now.

I'm not interested in the legal side of things or whether someone ends up in court. That's not my concern. What I care about is the integrity of the work and the importance of authorship. Why does that matter so little to people?
A plagiarist produces nothing of value. They lack actual talent—because if they actually had any, why would they need to steal from those who do?

You need to learn how to distinguish art from the law. They are two separate domains, even if they overlap because art relies on legal protections to exist. I assume you’re at least familiar with the concept of copyright and intellectual property.
Copyright laws exist to protect creators, sure, but they don't get to decide what actually qualifies as art. Who decides that? The people. Art is defined by the audience it’s intended for. So, while legal frameworks might dictate the formal rules, they have zero control over the substance. And at the end of the day, art is all about the substance.

Secondly, we need to draw a clear line between blatant plagiarism and a legitimate remake.
Legally speaking, plagiarism is an illegal act—it’s something done through unauthorized means. A remake, on the other hand, is perfectly legal. It’s done by the book. Why is there even a debate?
From an artistic standpoint, isn't a plagiarist just a remake artist? They take someone else's concept and reshape it to fit their own vision.
So, the distinction between plagiarism and a remake is strictly a legal one. Is it really that complicated?

You claimed earlier that you value originality above all else. You said a plagiarist creates nothing of substance because they lack the talent to do anything but steal from others. Is that not so?
So, according to your logic, the creator of a remake lacks any shred of originality? You’re essentially claiming they have zero talent because they’re just buying someone else's idea instead of creating something of actual value. Is that really how you see it?
The only real difference here is that one person actually pays for their work, while the other just steals someone else's idea.
Do you honestly believe originality can be bought? Can money somehow compensate for a total lack of creative soul?

Daniel Ramirez3 hit the nail on the head. He actually explained what this is all about.
And if you could explain to me, what exactly constitutes an abuse of power?

What exactly do you mean by that? Is it not mine or yours? Then whose is it?
These shows and movies are made for us. We're the ones who decide if they actually hold any water.

The fact is, the creators really blew it. Is anyone actually going to talk about True Detective? Or are we just pretending that first season wasn't a masterpiece? It was used to prop up that British series. Why even bother? Red Riding, summer of '74, '80, and '83.So, anyone who watched them without being some supposed expert or overanalyzing every single frame can see it. Is it really that complicated?
Justice has absolutely nothing to do with this. We are here to discuss art, not morality.

.

It isn't our job to play judge and jury on whether something counts as plagiarism; that’s a legal matter. That decision rests solely with the courts once the copyright holders for Red Riding file a lawsuit.
You can't just throw legal issues into a story and hide behind "artistic license" to justify it. Is that really how we're doing things now?
Anyone can see that the creators of True Detective clearly drew inspiration from Red Riding. That’s just your own speculation; you have no way of knowing how others perceive it. And yet, you keep acting like theorizing is some irrelevant distraction?

Nah.
Whether you call it art or whatever else, a plagiarist is just someone stealing pieces of someone else's work to pad out their own garbage, then having the nerve to sign it all as their own. Is there even any integrity left?
A director remaking someone else's work is basically just like a theater director. We've seen hundreds of versions of Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet, or King Lear, yet every single director brings their own spin to the same source material. It’s all about that vision. Even Arthur Miller took inspiration from Hamlet to craft his own successful stage plays and screenplays. Putting on a Hamlet play in Small town USA? Who even does that?So, what is this even supposed to be? Just another remake?
Art doesn't have any "legal nature." Does anyone actually believe that?

shadowangler50 Asks:
So you're saying you're big on originality? That a hack only steals because they've got zero talent of their own?
So the remake guy lacks originality too? By your logic, he’s got zero talent because... what, exactly? Stealing someone else's idea? Is that all there is to it now? And just like that, they aren't actually producing anything worth a damn.
The only real difference is that one guy’s buying, while the other... what? Stealing someone else's idea? Really?.
You really think you can just buy originality and call it even for having none?

When an author decides to tackle a remake, they aren't exactly buying someone else's vision. They’ve got their own take on the original work and they want to do it their way—kind of like how a theater director handles a script, right?
Sure, he can do a remake, but that doesn't mean it'll actually be any good. I mean, does anyone really think it’ll live up to what Scorsese did when he swept the Academy Award 2007?

shadowangler50 said:

Critics and audiences are never on the same page. Why should they be?
Viewership doesn't equate to quality. Why should we care?

Hold on a second. How can you possibly claim that critics and audiences have never been in agreement?
Take Breaking Bad, for instance. It’s sitting at a massive 9.6/10 on IMDb with over 500,000 votes—a level of engagement most shows can only dream of. Even the critics are calling it one of the greatest series ever made. How could anyone argue otherwise?
I won't even bother bringing up other movies or series right now.

I'm not interested in the legal side of things or whether someone ends up in court. That's not my concern. What I care about is the integrity of the work and the importance of authorship. Why does that matter so little to people?
A plagiarist produces nothing of value. They lack actual talent—because if they actually had any, why would they need to steal from those who do?

You need to learn how to distinguish art from the law. They are two separate domains, even if they overlap because art relies on legal protections to exist. I assume you’re at least familiar with the concept of copyright and intellectual property.
Copyright laws exist to protect creators, sure, but they don't get to decide what actually qualifies as art. Who decides that? The people. Art is defined by the audience it’s intended for. So, while legal frameworks might dictate the formal rules, they have zero control over the substance. And at the end of the day, art is all about the substance.

Secondly, we need to draw a clear line between blatant plagiarism and a legitimate remake.
Legally speaking, plagiarism is an illegal act—it’s something done through unauthorized means. A remake, on the other hand, is perfectly legal. It’s done by the book. Why is there even a debate?
From an artistic standpoint, isn't a plagiarist just a remake artist? They take someone else's concept and reshape it to fit their own vision.
So, the distinction between plagiarism and a remake is strictly a legal one. Is it really that complicated?

You claimed earlier that you value originality above all else. You said a plagiarist creates nothing of substance because they lack the talent to do anything but steal from others. Is that not so?
So, according to your logic, the creator of a remake lacks any shred of originality? You’re essentially claiming they have zero talent because they’re just buying someone else's idea instead of creating something of actual value. Is that really how you see it?
The only real difference here is that one person actually pays for their work, while the other just steals someone else's idea.
Do you honestly believe originality can be bought? Can money somehow compensate for a total lack of creative soul?

Daniel Ramirez3 hit the nail on the head. He actually explained what this is all about.
And if you could explain to me, what exactly constitutes an abuse of power?

What exactly do you mean by that? Is it not mine or yours? Then whose is it?
These shows and movies are made for us. We're the ones who decide if they actually hold any water.

The fact is, the creators really blew it. Is anyone actually going to talk about True Detective? Or are we just pretending that first season wasn't a masterpiece? It was used to prop up that British series. Why even bother? Red Riding, summer of '74, '80, and '83.So, anyone who watched them without being some supposed expert or overanalyzing every single frame can see it. Is it really that complicated?
Justice has absolutely nothing to do with this. We are here to discuss art, not morality.

.

It isn't our job to play judge and jury on whether something counts as plagiarism; that’s a legal matter. That decision rests solely with the courts once the copyright holders for Red Riding file a lawsuit.
You can't just throw legal issues into a story and hide behind "artistic license" to justify it. Is that really how we're doing things now?
Anyone can see that the creators of True Detective clearly drew inspiration from Red Riding. That’s just your own speculation; you have no way of knowing how others perceive it. And yet, you keep acting like theorizing is some irrelevant distraction?

You're dead wrong.
That’s more of a legal question for a courtroom, isn't it? On a film forum like this, everyone’s entitled to their own opinion and the right to defend it. Even that one user who claims she's... French cinema is a joke globally because they just cast ugly people. Why bother? 😁

My take on whether someone ripped off a script isn't a legal verdict or some random guess.
You can't just claim European cinema is boring and that's why nobody likes it, yet you wrote it anyway.
Get it? That’s just your opinion, and nobody is forced to agree with you.
We aren't in a courtroom; we're just talking about art.

briskhound2 said:That's fine. For you. Not for everyone else. Just look at my avatar. Miles Matheson. Billy Burka. It's basically Kulerčina squared—but just because I love him doesn't mean I'm gonna post him here...😉

You can find action heroes everywhere—Arnold Schwarzenegger, Stallone, Clint Eastwood, Mel Gibson... but there's only one Macon.

What does being an action hero even have to do with this? Arnold and half that whole crew aren't even "cool," they're just straight-up macho guys. Half of them don't even belong in this conversation, including Macon, and especially not Dourif.

Chow Yun-fat, though... now he's a legend in every single movie he's in.



He might be practically unrecognizable by now, but honestly, nobody holds a candle to R. J. MacReady...

You won't, but I would. 😉

bluenomad2 said:Oh yeah. 🙏

Is it Jack Torrance or Nicholson's Joker cool? Good question. They're psychopaths. As for being cool... 🤣maybe only the Joker when he spits.



The latter is especially cool here.



Perhaps even the most charismatic actor.

Same goes for Dourif—to some, yes, to others, no.

Cut it out, don't even bother putting that in. 🙂
I still remember him as a total heartthrob...

Moving on, let's look at Prizzi's Honor:

Please, give me a break. He's just pre-cool to me, end of story. 🍿
Action stars are everywhere—Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sylvester Stallone, Clint Eastwood, Mel Gibson... but there's only one Macon.

Now for something completely different...





Brad Dourif

Macon is chill, I don't find this Deckard guy all that intense 👎he looks like he was born clutching a gun, whereas Macon actually went through a transformation 👍

briskhound2 said:What's actually cool about that guy? 🤔

Everything 😍

Macon Blair, looks like just another average Joe at first glance... 😍