Tarnicus: Such is the nature of creation. It is impossible to create without inspiration, and inspiration comes from other creative works and life experience. Life experiences have similarities with other lives, no matter how unique the experience is or feels. Plagiarism occurs when someone directly rips off another creation without permission or giving credit.
Exactly :)
Tarnicus: With current copyright laws, some claims have become absolutely ridiculous.
One of the most ridiculous copyright claims I read about, was one involving a fellow forager who received a copyright infringement notice for
a bird whistle in the background of a YouTube video! This trend has also affected
video game reviewers. Long subject, but I think the actual copyright system has lead to so many... stupid and "creation-destroying" situations. Using references, like I said before, if it's not plagiarism, it's ok for me. Even a "fair use" (using only a part, crediting it if possible with author acceptation, etc...) of something else is ok.
There is of course a difference in using references (or using "part of" something) and plagiarizing (at least for me).
It makes me think about two things I heard.
First, from a french teacher I had : "Is new only what have been forgotten."
Second, is from Victor Hugo (I'm French after all, I HAVE to put a quote from him ;)) "Le livre, comme livre, appartient à l’auteur, mais comme pensée, il appartient -le mot n’est pas trop vaste- au genre humain." in a bad translation : "The book, as a book, is the property of the author, but as a thought, it belongs -the word isn't too wide- to the human race."
Tarnicus: I'm surprised that Hollywood hasn't attempted to copyright the boring plot concept of: 1/ Man gets slighted 2/ Uses violence to overcome adversity 3/ Gets the girl and saves the day. That covers the majority of mundane garbage released in cinemas. I find it rather saddening that ideas can actually be copyrighted. That differs from someone using a creation ad verbatim without permission or credit.
Exactly ! (again :D) That's what I was trying to say :)
For this kind of spirit, I love the work of
Peter Watkins (go take a look at his website and to at least one or two movies from him if you have time, it's very smart and interesting), who tries to make "different" movies (and smart movies). They're always very interesting, and I especially advise : "The War Game", "Privilege", "Gladiators", "Punishment Park" and "La Commune" (who is really great).
This kind of uniformed concept plot you're talking about is really boring and annoying. It's bad because we learn to not expect novelty (and to not have a lot to think), which is a very bad/worrying thing. The few times I can watch a "real" foreigner movie (I mean not an "art movie" : I mean a movie that the people of the country who made it may want to see), I'm surprised and pleased to see how much some things may be so different. The last one I saw was
"Metegol" who was really good (if you like animated movies of course ;)).
stg83: Thanks, hopefully I didn't go overboard with my thoughts on the movie with the lengthy review as I guess its probably not the short consensus that Splatsch was expecting when he asked for my opinion. :P
Ahah ^^ Don't worry, sure I wasn't expecting that "much", but it was a big pleasure to read it, and now I know almost precisely what to expect from the movie :) So thanks for it !
stg83: It definitely always pays off to manage one's expectations and I similarly had a really good time watching Kingsman not having high expectations from it. Sometimes movies do exceed lofty expectations as well though like you mentioned which was the case for me when I saw Dawn of the Planet of the Apes last year. :)
I'm a little bit curious about Kingsman and have low expectations. So it sounds not that bad *put it on the "to-see-one-day-list*"
Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, and all the recent Planet of the Apes, didn't appealed me at all XD Am I missing something ?