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?
