Posts by James Garcia50

Smooth, tender, yet rugged and sexy to the core—Marcello Mastroianni 😍

The acting is solid enough.

True Detective had a killer start, then just completely lost the plot. What was with that dragging pace, those endless monologues, staring blankly into space, and all that mindless fidgeting with beer cans... just to have the mystery end without a resolution while Matthew basically delivers some zombie-like lecture about looking on the bright side? 🤦

I prefer it, but just like True Detective, if the ending falls flat, it’s a total wash. Curious to see how it plays out for you.

Worth checking out, even if it's got its flaws...

That's it, a three-season run.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Riding

Quote : 1.1 red Riding 1974 1.2 red Riding 1980 1.3 red Riding 1983
1.2 red Riding 1980
1.3 red Riding 1983

Daniel Ramirez3 said:I don't think this is really about whether True Detective is high quality or not; it’s more about whether taking an idea from another movie actually makes it less valuable.

I have to admit, I haven't seen that British film yet, but maybe I'll check it out tomorrow. If you don't mind, could you briefly let me know which specific elements True Detective took from it?

I never said it takes away its value—regardless of that, it isn't much to begin with.

It’s a mini-series, not a movie; just watch it and you'll see what I mean.

Daniel Ramirez3 said:Well, yeah, if you just cherry-pick facts to fit whatever narrative you want, I guess.👍

What facts? Everyone's got an opinion.
To you, True Detective is some flawless masterpiece, but to me, it’s just alright. 🙄

Daniel Ramirez3 said:Top-tier trolling, honestly. 🙏

Since when does having a different opinion count as trolling? 🤦

Daniel Ramirez3 said:In Fistful of Dollars Leon and the screenwriters signed the film as their own,and nowhere are Kurosawa and Kikush mentioned. Nowhere!
By your logic, that would be theft in the case of True Detective, but in Fistful of Dollars, it's just a remake, I guess.🤦

Anyway, Leone is one of my favorite directors, and I honestly don't have an issue with him taking someone else's idea and making it his own—it doesn't diminish his talent at all.
And I don't really get why that would take away from True Detective
which is such a great series.

For example, Alien was heavily inspired by the movie IT! The Terror Beyond Space (1958), but nobody thinks that makes the movie any less good.
Or even The Magnificent Seven; we know which movie it was based on, but since Kurosawa & co aren't in the credits, nobody claims the movie is garbage.

But hey, feel free to keep using those double standards.👍

It's simple: the True Detective writers used existing material, and Leone filmed a remake.

I said True Detective isn't a good show—that's my stance—and I just happened to mention the writers borrowed from a British series. Even with those "borrowed" parts, TD still has plenty of flaws and weak spots; if it didn't, I might actually value it less because of the borrowing.

As for Alien: some people are inspired, others are just plagiarists.

Zachary Nguyen2 said:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Fistful_of_Dollars

The film Has been identified as an unofficial remake of The Akira Kurosaw film Yojimbo, which led to a successful lawsuit by Toho.

Kurosaw insisted that Leon Had made "a fine movie, but it was MY movie."[25] Leone ignored the lawsuit at first, but they eventually settled out of court. He reportedly paid 15% of the worldwide receipts of a Fistful of Dollars and over $100,000.

It was a total rip-off.

That’s a legal headache involving both of them.
Even as a creator, I wouldn't touch it, but for the audience, the movie is just a remake of a kurosawin film—no smoke and mirrors, just some rights being pushed too far.

Daniel Ramirez3 said:Wait a second, Shadow Dancer is saying it doesn't matter if it's a remake or plagiarism, and then you're telling them it *does* matter because they legally bought the rights and signed everything, so there's a massive distinction.Those were your exact words.
But now you're saying the rights aren't important and that it's just a remake to you. 👏

If you don't care about the legal side of things, why did you even bring it up in the first place???

I don't see what part of this is confusing.

Like I said before, I couldn't care less about the legal standing of someone making a remake of a famous movie without getting the author's blessing.

Let them sue each other all they want; what matters to us viewers is knowing that what X. X filmed is actually a remake of the original film by author Y. Y.
That's different from a plagiarist who steals half of someone else's work and puts their own name on it (which didn't happen with Leone).

Directed by Sergio Leone
Produced by Arrigo Colombo
Giorgio papa
Screenplay by Victor Andrés Catena
Jamie Comas Gil
Sergio Leone
Story by A. Bonzzoni
Victor Andrés Catena
Sergio Leone
Based on Yojimbo
by Akira Kurosawa
Ryuzo Kikushima (uncredited)

Daniel Ramirez3 said:I guess you're saying it isn't technically a remake if they didn't officially buy the rights. You really gotta pick a side there!

I guess what really makes people say Leone is just a plagiarist and that A Fistful of Dollars isn't actually worth much.

I didn't say that. I'm not talking about legalities; I'm just pointing out the difference between straight-up stealing and making your own spin on a classic movie.
Like I said before, the legal status doesn't interest me.

Daniel Ramirez3 said:I guess you're saying it isn't technically a remake if they didn't officially buy the rights. You really gotta pick a side there!

I guess what really makes people say Leone is just a plagiarist and that A Fistful of Dollars isn't actually worth much.

Maybe that leads you there, but not me.
A plagiarist isn't a creator, and Leone isn't a plagiarist.
No remake is plagiarism; sure, maybe it's unnecessary or trash, but it's not plagiarism.

Daniel Ramirez3 said:Since Leone didn't actually have the rights to remake Yojimbo—and I think Kurosawa even sued him over it—it's basically straight-up plagiarism. So, I guess I'm wondering, does that make Leone a worthless director?

As far as I'm concerned, Leone made a remake, regardless of the legal mess.
There's a massive difference between petty theft and creating your own take on someone else's story (I get that from an author's perspective he shouldn't have done it and probably faced the music, but that's beside the point).

Daniel Ramirez3 said:But what does that even have to do with the actual quality of True Detective?

By that logic, is A Fistful of Dollars just a worthless rip-off, and is Leone some amateur plagiarist?

I won't even get started on John Carpenter, David Cronenberg, Brian De Palma, the Coen Brothers, or the huge list of others who weren't afraid to make a really solid remake...

Look, we aren't talking about that. True Detective isn't a remake... and honestly, the Coen Brothers' remakes? It’d be better if they just didn't exist. 🤦

shadowangler50 said:

No, you're the one getting it wrong.
Both the series and the movie are works of art.
According to you, quality doesn't matter, whether it's a rip-off doesn't matter—nothing matters as long as people watch it. Sorry, but if that's your logic, you might as well watch paint dry on a wall.

Aside from the fact that I've lost count of how many times I've pointed out that these shows have been embraced by both audiences and critics as high quality. High viewership is just another fact that confirms this. Viewership alone doesn't guarantee quality, but it isn't meaningless either. To you, popularity is absolutely negligible.

We judge the value of a work based on the creator's talent.
A plagiarist isn't a creator.
The original has value; the imitation is worthless.

As if every movie is an original; half of them are stolen. I recently read that The Matrix was accused of plagiarism, that they'd sue James Cameron. Well, everyone will become worthless if that actually proves true.
If The Matrix hadn't been made by the people who made it, if James Cameron hadn't done what he did for those films, they wouldn't be what they are. Those people created something valuable; they are talented.

Everything has been seen before, but someone calling themselves an artist must present what has been seen in an unseen way.
In art, it isn't about what but rather how.

And wasn't True Detective presented in an unseen way? It’s precisely because of how it was presented that the series is such a success.

You're just guessing because you're judging a work you haven't even watched.
Save your "legal fundamentals" for a courtroom; we're discussing art here.

I didn't watch it, and even if I had, it isn't my place (nor yours) to decide that. I'm not guessing; I'm simply saying that's an assumption you can't present as a fact.
The one who decides that is a court. You see, even the law can dictate art.

I am the one saying the authors of TD leaned heavily on a British series. However, their show has much more serious issues than just minorly lifting from another author. A good series needs more than just great actors. Not to mention the catastrophic finale and the fact that the series essentially has no ending.

What about the cinematography? What about the style?

The series is good because of the pervasive atmosphere of pessimism and nihilism; it's quite
dark, which draws people in and makes them think. The last episode isn't on par with the rest, but I don't think that's enough to ruin the whole series. The show provided something new, and it was recognized as quality by both audiences and critics.

The cinematography affects the atmosphere of the series. I don't know if it's original, but it is masterfully executed.

Critics and audiences almost never agree on anything.
Viewership doesn't add anything to the actual merit of a work.

shadowangler50 said:

No, you're the one getting it wrong.
Both the series and the movie are works of art.
According to you, quality doesn't matter, whether it's a rip-off doesn't matter—nothing matters as long as people watch it. Sorry, but if that's your logic, you might as well watch paint dry on a wall.

Aside from the fact that I've lost count of how many times I've pointed out that these shows have been embraced by both audiences and critics as high quality. High viewership is just another fact that confirms this. Viewership alone doesn't guarantee quality, but it isn't meaningless either. To you, popularity is absolutely negligible.

We judge the value of a work based on the creator's talent.
A plagiarist isn't a creator.
The original has value; the imitation is worthless.

As if every movie is an original; half of them are stolen. I recently read that The Matrix was accused of plagiarism, that they'd sue James Cameron. Well, everyone will become worthless if that actually proves true.
If The Matrix hadn't been made by the people who made it, if James Cameron hadn't done what he did for those films, they wouldn't be what they are. Those people created something valuable; they are talented.

Everything has been seen before, but someone calling themselves an artist must present what has been seen in an unseen way.
In art, it isn't about what but rather how.

And wasn't True Detective presented in an unseen way? It’s precisely because of how it was presented that the series is such a success.

You're just guessing because you're judging a work you haven't even watched.
Save your "legal fundamentals" for a courtroom; we're discussing art here.

I didn't watch it, and even if I had, it isn't my place (nor yours) to decide that. I'm not guessing; I'm simply saying that's an assumption you can't present as a fact.
The one who decides that is a court. You see, even the law can dictate art.

I am the one saying the authors of TD leaned heavily on a British series. However, their show has much more serious issues than just minorly lifting from another author. A good series needs more than just great actors. Not to mention the catastrophic finale and the fact that the series essentially has no ending.

What about the cinematography? What about the style?

The series is good because of the pervasive atmosphere of pessimism and nihilism; it's quite
dark, which draws people in and makes them think. The last episode isn't on par with the rest, but I don't think that's enough to ruin the whole series. The show provided something new, and it was recognized as quality by both audiences and critics.

The cinematography affects the atmosphere of the series. I don't know if it's original, but it is masterfully executed.

I’m not talking about the legal side or potential lawsuits—I don't care about that. I just value originality and authorship.
A plagiarist doesn't create anything worthwhile; they lack talent (if they had any, they wouldn't be stealing from the ones who do).

shadowangler50 said:

No, you're the one getting it wrong.
Both the series and the movie are works of art.
According to you, quality doesn't matter, whether it's a rip-off doesn't matter—nothing matters as long as people watch it. Sorry, but if that's your logic, you might as well watch paint dry on a wall.

Aside from the fact that I've lost count of how many times I've pointed out that these shows have been embraced by both audiences and critics as high quality. High viewership is just another fact that confirms this. Viewership alone doesn't guarantee quality, but it isn't meaningless either. To you, popularity is absolutely negligible.

We judge the value of a work based on the creator's talent.
A plagiarist isn't a creator.
The original has value; the imitation is worthless.

As if every movie is an original; half of them are stolen. I recently read that The Matrix was accused of plagiarism, that they'd sue James Cameron. Well, everyone will become worthless if that actually proves true.
If The Matrix hadn't been made by the people who made it, if James Cameron hadn't done what he did for those films, they wouldn't be what they are. Those people created something valuable; they are talented.

Everything has been seen before, but someone calling themselves an artist must present what has been seen in an unseen way.
In art, it isn't about what but rather how.

And wasn't True Detective presented in an unseen way? It’s precisely because of how it was presented that the series is such a success.

You're just guessing because you're judging a work you haven't even watched.
Save your "legal fundamentals" for a courtroom; we're discussing art here.

I didn't watch it, and even if I had, it isn't my place (nor yours) to decide that. I'm not guessing; I'm simply saying that's an assumption you can't present as a fact.
The one who decides that is a court. You see, even the law can dictate art.

I am the one saying the authors of TD leaned heavily on a British series. However, their show has much more serious issues than just minorly lifting from another author. A good series needs more than just great actors. Not to mention the catastrophic finale and the fact that the series essentially has no ending.

What about the cinematography? What about the style?

The series is good because of the pervasive atmosphere of pessimism and nihilism; it's quite
dark, which draws people in and makes them think. The last episode isn't on par with the rest, but I don't think that's enough to ruin the whole series. The show provided something new, and it was recognized as quality by both audiences and critics.

The cinematography affects the atmosphere of the series. I don't know if it's original, but it is masterfully executed.

What do you mean, it's not our place? Whose is it, then?
These series and movies were made for us; we're the ones judging their quality.

The fact is, the creators of True Detective borrowed heavily from the British series Red Riding Hood, summer of '74/'80/'83. Anyone who’s watched them can see it without needing an expert opinion or deep analysis.
The law has nothing to do with this; we're discussing art here.

vivideagle7 said:👍 Brigitte Bardot is just stunning in that one. Then again, she’s always 😁

The Truth, 1960

vivideagle7 said:A little off-topic here. I've got this one on my watchlist... I absolutely adore Jean Gabin. What's the verdict on this movie?

It was solid for me, but then again, I pretty much love everything he does, even his weaker stuff, like In Case of Misfortune.

The Leopard, 1952

He’s one of those actors who can pull off any transformation, from a rugged cowboy to his role in The Leopard..

Can't remember if we ever brought up Burt Lancaster...





..and rocking those sweats with Tony Curtis