Posts by Daniel Ramirez3

David Richardson67 said:I think 28 Days Later is a much better movie, and it isn't nearly as cheesy.

And then there's Leaving Vietnam... I guess Americans just couldn't handle the criticism regarding their actions in Vietnam, which is probably why the rating is so ridiculously low.

I just finished watching Somewhere, such a great movie.

goldenhound32 said:I think we should just forget this movie ever happened. I generally can't stand remakes of great classics, so I guess The Beguiled is no exception.

I guess I agree that The Beguiled wasn't great, but it makes me wonder—what about actually good remakes of classic movies? Do you just hate all of them, or do you think decent ones just don't exist?

goldenhound32 said:Look, I'll be honest. I think Sofia Coppola is basically a one-hit wonder.
To me, she feels like an artist who would have been totally forgotten by now if she didn't happen to have the "Coppola" name. 👎

I don't know, I guess she has more than just one good movie, since she did The Virgin Suicides and Marie Antoinette, which were pretty decent too. So, maybe she isn't a total one-hit wonder after all.

goldenhound32 said:I guess that’s just one more reason why it might be better to wait.

I guess he really thought he could take down two prisoners like that and somehow force them one by one onto a rope attached to a helicopter. Maybe he just didn't realize how impossible that was. 😕

The plan was to jump onto the locomotive and bring the whole thing to a halt. That way, we could just send them straight back to prison. Once they reach the engine, the train can be stopped, so I guess there wouldn't even be a need to make them climb back up to the helicopter using a rope.

goldenhound32 said:I honestly don't get it. I mean, what was that manager even thinking, climbing down a rope onto a moving train? I guess he thought he could pull it off, but maybe it was just a bad call.

I guess we all know that the tracks are about to disappear under that Unstoppable train, but he just doesn't seem to realize it.

I guess, maybe, why couldn't he just follow the train and wait for it to come to a full stop before trying to arrest his prisoners?

I guess the manager knew the tracks were going to vanish or that he’d end up crashing right into that factory. Maybe he was part of their inner circle or whatever they call it—he definitely had to be in the loop about what was happening.

It was a fun movie, honestly a pretty pleasant surprise. And all those complaints about authenticity regarding the setting and stuff? I think they're just ridiculous for a film like this. It was clearly made for an American audience, and frankly, they don't know much more about us than we do about Turkmenistan. It's totally irrelevant.

bluenomad2 said:It’s all subjective. Honestly, nothing annoys me more than reading people claim British humor is genius while American comedy is trash. That's just wrong. Both sides have produced absolute gems. Personally, I lean toward British wit, but that doesn't mean I think everything coming out of the States is garbage, even if modern US comedies aren't hitting the mark for me lately.

But look, MASH, Cheers, and Seinfeld are masterpieces—way better than anything being made today. And Arrested Development, obviously.😁

Then you've got The Mućak, The Hole, Monty Python, Fawlty Towers🤣 and Spaced.

I totally agree. It really doesn't make sense to generalize; both Americans and the British have top-tier comedy series, it’s just a matter of what fits your vibe better.

If I had to list my all-time favorites, most would probably be British, but that definitely doesn't mean Americans are bad at it.
Along with the ones you mentioned, I'd definitely add Curb Your Enthusiasm to the list. I get the feeling it's pretty underrated (at least around here), but for me, it's right at the top of the pile.

Bradley Wood43 said:And what exactly are we talking about here? 🤦Community
I actually forced myself through three episodes and I genuinely couldn't figure out what was supposed to be funny about it 😁. Someone suggested Blue Mountain State... watched one episode and hated it. Parks and Recreation... watched an episode and didn't laugh once.
Rules of Engagement... I caught bits of it on TV when I had nothing better to do, but there is absolutely no way I'm sitting down specifically to watch that.
How I Met Your Mother... same story as Rules. I'd watch it if it happened to be on, but that's it.

Aside from those, we have decent shows like Two and a Half Men (and thank God it stars Charlie Sheen instead of that new idiot 😢) and The Big Bang Theory, which is my favorite at the moment, even though the quality has fluctuated quite a bit in the later seasons.
So, what else is out there? Give me some recommendations. 😁

From the newer stuff, I think Arrested Development is great, and especially It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia if you're into that kind of politically incorrect, darker humor.

Curb Your Enthusiasm is also top-tier—maybe even on par with Seinfeld for me—though it’s a bit older than the others, so you might want to check it out if you haven't. I mean, it's Larry David, after all. 🙂

James Garcia50 said:It’s not just ideas being stolen.

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

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.

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

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:

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.

I agree. Honestly, whole movies get stolen all the time too, I guess.

James Garcia50 said:It’s not just ideas being stolen.

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

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.

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

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:

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.

I mean, I guess why would he even bother suing if he already sold the rights? It doesn't really make sense to me.

I guess since Walter Hill bought the rights, he isn't being cheated.
Since it wasn't Leone, I guess Kurosawa ended up getting the compensation.

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

👍

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.

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

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.

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."

James Garcia50 said:Not a single sci-fi movie is.

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.

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.

James Garcia50 said:Not a single sci-fi movie is.

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.

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.

James Garcia50 said: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.

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?

I guess Alien is actually a perfect example.

James Garcia50 said: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.

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?

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.

James Garcia50 said: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.

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?

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.

,

James Garcia50 said: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.

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?

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

James Garcia50 said: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.

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.

James Garcia50 said: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.

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.

James Garcia50 said:Figures. 😉

About what?

That’s probably why they ended up in court.

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

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.

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.

James Garcia50 said:Figures. 😉

About what?

That’s probably why they ended up in court.

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

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.

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

James Garcia50 said: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?

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.

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.

James Garcia50 said: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?

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.

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.

James Garcia50 said: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?

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.

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. 🙏

James Garcia50 said: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.

I generally really enjoy British movies and shows, so I doubt I'll be disappointed.
The acting in True Detective was just incredible, and while I'm not exactly sold on Spider-Man, I noticed Paddy Considine is in this too. He totally won me over back in Dead Man's Shoes, so I'm really hoping he brings that same energy here.

James Garcia50 said:Worth checking out, even if it's got its flaws...

Honestly, I think it's a win-win for me.
If it turns out to be worse than True Detective, then I guess I'll just be happy they laid the groundwork for one of the best shows we've seen in years. But if it's actually better... 🙂

James Garcia50 said: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

Yeah, you can "get your hands on" the other two parts too.

I really hope it's any good... I guess I just don't really trust Spider-Man.😛