Why is everyone into series more than movies these days?

James Garcia50 is worse than any politician.

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

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

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.

👍

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

shadowangler50 said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

shadowangler50 said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

shadowangler50 said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

shadowangler50 said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What kinds of plagiarism are there even supposed to be?

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

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

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

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

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

Quote : shadow dancer

James Garcia50 said:What's the deal with Gor?aHey, Zachary Nguyen2. 😳

So you're admitting it. 😁
I have one rule for the internet: Everyone is a man until proven otherwise.

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

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

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

Quote : shadow dancer

shadowangler50 said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What kinds of plagiarism are there even supposed to be?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote : shadow dancer

shadowangler50 said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What kinds of plagiarism are there even supposed to be?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote : shadow dancer

shadowangler50 said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What kinds of plagiarism are there even supposed to be?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote : shadow dancer

shadowangler50 said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What kinds of plagiarism are there even supposed to be?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IMDb True Detective

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

shadowangler50 said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

shadowangler50 said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

shadowangler50 said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you say so.

shadowangler50 said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote : shadow dancer

I honestly couldn't care less about whatever backroom deals they made. I love the original just as much as the remake.

It isn’t even a remake. It’s blatant plagiarism. How can you call it anything else under your own definition of what a remake actually is?

Quote : shadow dancer

I’m not going to explain myself. If you haven't figured it out by now, you simply don't get it.

Obviously nobody, since everyone already told you that you were wrong.

Quote : shadow dancer

You can say that again.

Think whatever you want, but clearly, nothing you touch turns to gold.

Quote : shadow dancer

No. There are endless ways to rip off someone’s work or just strip away pieces of it. Is anything actually original anymore? You have a logic problem. I don't.

No.
Theft is theft. Whether you steal the entire work or just a piece of it, it’s still stealing. Is there even a distinction?
If you knew—or should have known—that you were stealing from someone else, the method doesn't matter. Does the "how" really change the fact that it was wrong?

Quote : shadow dancer

shadowangler50 said:Quote : shadow dancer

I honestly couldn't care less about whatever backroom deals they made. I love the original just as much as the remake.

It isn’t even a remake. It’s blatant plagiarism. How can you call it anything else under your own definition of what a remake actually is?

Quote : shadow dancer

I’m not going to explain myself. If you haven't figured it out by now, you simply don't get it.

Obviously nobody, since everyone already told you that you were wrong.

Quote : shadow dancer

You can say that again.

Think whatever you want, but clearly, nothing you touch turns to gold.

Quote : shadow dancer

No. There are endless ways to rip off someone’s work or just strip away pieces of it. Is anything actually original anymore? You have a logic problem. I don't.

No.
Theft is theft. Whether you steal the entire work or just a piece of it, it’s still stealing. Is there even a distinction?
If you knew—or should have known—that you were stealing from someone else, the method doesn't matter. Does the "how" really change the fact that it was wrong?

You’re the one obsessed with sticking to the dictionary; I guess I’ll just keep doing my own thing.

Quote : shadow dancer

shadowangler50 said:Quote : shadow dancer

I honestly couldn't care less about whatever backroom deals they made. I love the original just as much as the remake.

It isn’t even a remake. It’s blatant plagiarism. How can you call it anything else under your own definition of what a remake actually is?

Quote : shadow dancer

I’m not going to explain myself. If you haven't figured it out by now, you simply don't get it.

Obviously nobody, since everyone already told you that you were wrong.

Quote : shadow dancer

You can say that again.

Think whatever you want, but clearly, nothing you touch turns to gold.

Quote : shadow dancer

No. There are endless ways to rip off someone’s work or just strip away pieces of it. Is anything actually original anymore? You have a logic problem. I don't.

No.
Theft is theft. Whether you steal the entire work or just a piece of it, it’s still stealing. Is there even a distinction?
If you knew—or should have known—that you were stealing from someone else, the method doesn't matter. Does the "how" really change the fact that it was wrong?

What am I even doing with this? Everyone? Reminds me of those imaginary sixty thousand people who are automatically on your side.

Quote : shadow dancer

shadowangler50 said:Quote : shadow dancer

I honestly couldn't care less about whatever backroom deals they made. I love the original just as much as the remake.

It isn’t even a remake. It’s blatant plagiarism. How can you call it anything else under your own definition of what a remake actually is?

Quote : shadow dancer

I’m not going to explain myself. If you haven't figured it out by now, you simply don't get it.

Obviously nobody, since everyone already told you that you were wrong.

Quote : shadow dancer

You can say that again.

Think whatever you want, but clearly, nothing you touch turns to gold.

Quote : shadow dancer

No. There are endless ways to rip off someone’s work or just strip away pieces of it. Is anything actually original anymore? You have a logic problem. I don't.

No.
Theft is theft. Whether you steal the entire work or just a piece of it, it’s still stealing. Is there even a distinction?
If you knew—or should have known—that you were stealing from someone else, the method doesn't matter. Does the "how" really change the fact that it was wrong?

You've got nothing left to say. These are just the final death rattles.

Quote : shadow dancer

shadowangler50 said:Quote : shadow dancer

I honestly couldn't care less about whatever backroom deals they made. I love the original just as much as the remake.

It isn’t even a remake. It’s blatant plagiarism. How can you call it anything else under your own definition of what a remake actually is?

Quote : shadow dancer

I’m not going to explain myself. If you haven't figured it out by now, you simply don't get it.

Obviously nobody, since everyone already told you that you were wrong.

Quote : shadow dancer

You can say that again.

Think whatever you want, but clearly, nothing you touch turns to gold.

Quote : shadow dancer

No. There are endless ways to rip off someone’s work or just strip away pieces of it. Is anything actually original anymore? You have a logic problem. I don't.

No.
Theft is theft. Whether you steal the entire work or just a piece of it, it’s still stealing. Is there even a distinction?
If you knew—or should have known—that you were stealing from someone else, the method doesn't matter. Does the "how" really change the fact that it was wrong?

Maybe for you, sure. For me? There are a million different ways to look at it.

James Garcia50 said:Quote : shadow dancer

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

Quote : shadow dancer

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

Quote : shadow dancer

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

Quote : shadow dancer

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

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

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

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

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

IMDb True Detective

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

🤣

🙏

James Garcia50 is pretty persistent, you have to give him that. 😁

Zachary Nguyen2 said:James Garcia50 is pretty persistent, you have to give him that. 😁

That's just how he is! 🙏

Zachary Nguyen2 said:James Garcia50 is pretty persistent, you have to give him that. 😁

Brian Ross7 said:That's just how he is! 🙏

As for me, I'm pretty damn sure there are more of them. Honestly, I just can't seem to get on the same page with anyone about certain things. 😬

Brian Ross7 said:That's just how he is! 🙏

It's hard to take someone seriously when they contradict themselves from one post to the next. 🤣

Jesse Thomas7 said:As for me, I'm pretty damn sure there are more of them. Honestly, I just can't seem to get on the same page with anyone about certain things. 😬

Yeah, there's more of us. Between me and shadowangler50, we're practically an entire army. 🤣

I caught the season premiere of The Walking Dead yesterday—look, I’ll be the first to admit I’m a fan of the series, no shame there. 🙂 But man, that was absolutely depraved. The sheer sickness of some of those characters in this new episode... it was beyond the pale. Honestly, it was so visceral I actually felt physically ill.