Why is everyone into series more than movies these days?

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.

James Garcia50 said: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.

That post makes zero sense. 🤣

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.

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. 🙏

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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?

I honestly can't decide if I'm more tired of the industry or just tired of my own expectations. It’s getting harder to find anything that actually lands. Everything feels recycled lately. Just another day in the grind. James Garcia50 says:
I’m making a bit of a generalization here, but it’s pretty obvious to me. Most of my friends in that twenty-to-thirty age bracket have completely given up on movies. They just binge series exclusively now. Watching a full-length film? That almost never happens anymore.

If they’re going to watch movies at all, it’s strictly the recent stuff. It has to be an American production, obviously, and it needs to have over 100,000 votes on IMDb to count. God forbid they actually sit through a French or Korean film that only has a few thousand ratings.

The same logic applies to TV shows. Just take the top 50 series—stuff like Breaking Bad or Game of Thrones—and sort them by vote count.

What’s actually going on here? Is it just mindless consumerism, a total lack of willpower to actually dig deeper, or are we all just swallowing whatever top-tier garbage is shoved down our throats by the algorithms?

Maybe it just comes down to a lack of time. Honestly, most people would rather binge a couple of series a week that don't demand a massive time commitment but still deliver that hit of enjoyment. Not everyone has the patience or the spare two hours to just sit down and focus on a full-length movie.

People binge the biggest shows and movies just to stay in the loop with friends and because they're being advertised everywhere you look.

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.