From my oppinion James Cameron has stolen whole scenes from this movie for his "Aliens" movie. Especially the scene when Ripley threats the AlienQueen to destroy the eggs!
shareHe also took alot from the movie, "Them" about giant ants.
Space is Big, let's dump our crap there!
Name me one completely original film where everything is new and has never been seen before.
You think this is the first film ever to use ants as the monsters/baddies?
2001: A Space Odyssey?
shareThe Grandmother?
Synecdoche, New York?
I'd never heard of The Grandmother, but I'm not surprised. A 34 minute quickie from an egomaniacal delusionary director may well be original but who cares, basically?
As for Synecdoche, New York, more self-indulgent tosh. I've seen it likened (unfavourably) to 8 1/2 so how far that originality goes is open to dispute.
My point really is that in any form of art it is just about impossible to be completely original - it's all been done before. What I never understand is that when a film director sees something he likes he can either include it as an homage, or if he thinks he can do better he'll make his own version.
It's the same with literature, with painting, sculpture, poetry - any form of art. Supposedly there are only six jokes, but look at how many we have.
Unless someone has reshot a film without permission scene for scene it is completely unreasonable to insist that that person has 'ripped off' such and such which preceded him. You have only to look at the number of people posting the same crap on these boards, for film after film after film, to understand that.
Besides, with the American love of litigation how many people do you think actually get away with direct plagiarism? Even J K Rowling got sued for Harry Potter because some twat reckoned he had the idea first.
Harry Potter is a terrible example! I don't think Rowling even bothered to inject any of her own ideas, EVERYTHING in harry potter is unoriginal and ripped from some other, book, film, TV series etc.
The 'Worst Witch' books were no doubt her starting point, then she proceeded to snowball her ripping off rampage from there on!
It's a pity your parents didn't use that open storage to deposit a few brain cells for you.
Given the amount of cash that everyone from JKR through Scholastic/Bloomsbury to Warners has made from Harry Potter, do you seriously imagine that if there was the faintest chance of the books having been ripped off there would not have been lawsuits flying?
I hope you're trying to be funny. Because if you're serious you deserve the Broomstick of the Week Award. And you know where you can put it.
ripping off something in a way that can be lible in a court of law is very different from not coming up with an original idea.
there is reason why we have words like cliche.
intelectual property laws are both overly restrictive and occasionaly lax.
if I did a story about a ghost possessed car I could be considered to be ripping off Stephen King's Christine BUT a court of law COULD be convinced that he doesnt own the rights to the entire world's content on ghost possessed car literture.
well known quote (so well known I cant remember where its from)that there is only seven storys in all of the world. all else are variations.
You can't patent ideas in that way; everything has elements of previously-told stories contained within it. Jean-Luc Godard said "It's not where you take things from - it's where you take them to." and I think it's sensible to bear that in mind.
shareif I did a story about a ghost possessed car I could be considered to be ripping off Stephen King's Christine BUT a court of law COULD be convinced that he doesnt own the rights to the entire world's content on ghost possessed car literture.
lol....the car was fantastically terrible.
shareHoly crap! I never thought anyone would argue the Harry Potter series was original and not a total rip off of a few child fantasy books. Someone needs to read more. There is absolutely NOTHING original in Harry Potter, not any charactrs, settings, spells or story.
Even my 11 year old nitwit nephew found the connection to Neil Gaiman's graphic novel "The Books of Magic." There are huge lists of rip offs in those books. I still have trouble discerning story elements from THE WORST WITCH series and HARRY POTTER.
JKR is as inspirational as pudding.
As for original movies, I see them all the time. Today I watched IDAHO TRANSFER & VALHALLA RISING. Yesterday was PONTYPOOL & WRISTCUTTERS - A LOVE STORY. I thought they were all extremely original. The first thing I thought of was BEGOTTEN. Originality is very much alive and well in art.
People who think its 'all been done before' are narrow-minded individuals, fooled by their own delusion that life is so simple because their brains dont comprehend true existence from the inferior perspective of their own myiopic lenses.
You need to learn the difference between using an idea as a source and 'ripping off'. In law that's a very big difference.
A treatment of subject matter can certainly be original; the subject matter itself rarely is. Of the films you quote I've only seen Valhalla Rising, and although I liked Nicolas Refn Winding's treatment of that story it couldn't really be said to be totally original. He wanted to get away from the whole Viking thing, and in so doing brought it more into focus.
Referring to your redundant and gratuitous rudeness, it has all been done before, in the same way that all jokes have been done before. The difference is in the treatment and that's what counts.
There's a world of difference between interpretaion and plagiarism and ripping off, and if you and your fellow oiks can't see that then we're not talking on level ground, just arguing about subjective points of view. What's the point of that?
You are missing the point. Lawsuits result from plagiarism - stealing whole paragraphs. Rowling is not an original writer, but she isn't stupid. She takes ideas, not words (pity actually, as she isn't a literate writer). I agree that most of the ideas in the Harry Potter books have been borrowed from elsewhere. Even the idea of a Wizard world existing in parallel to our own is not new. For an original children's writer, go to any of the classics, or even Richard Adams.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
"My point really is that in any form of art it is just about impossible to be completely original - it's all been done before."
Yet you didn't disagree with the statements that The Grandmother and Synecdoche are original other than that you've seen Synecdoche likened to 8 1/2. You simply stated your distaste for them. Whether you opine something to be high quality or not is irrelevant to whether or not they're original and don't take ideas from previous films.
Oh dear. You really learn to understand what you are reading. I didn't disagree with your statements because I've seen neither of these two films, so I can't comment on their actual content.
What I did say was that I had distaste for the idea of them, which is completely different.
I don't understand the point of your last sentence. Perhaps you could rearrange the words and letters into comprehensible English for me.
Or maybe not; who cares? My point is that people who say "so and so ripped off so and so" in films are idiots. The same kind of people who start up threads saying "this is the worst film ever" or people who are so anally retentive that they must spend all their time whilst watching a film looking for a continuity error.
There are only so many ideas around, what's left is different appreciations of those ideas. You only have to look at a long-running TV series for this. Star Trek and all its derivatives didn't have that much in the way of truly original ideas, they looked at all aspects of our emotions and experiences with a space theme as a backdrop. Which is why, properly, they are not science fiction.
You can keep going if that turns your paddle; I've had it with a third-rate film that I watched a long time ago and found uninspiring then, let alone now.
You said Synecdoche, New York was "self-indulgent tosh". You said that as if it were your own opinion, (unintentionally, apparently) implying you've seen it.
You didn't say that you had distaste for the ideas of those films. You said Synecdoche, New York was self-indulgent tosh, not that the idea of the film was self-indulgent tosh. Furthermore, what IS the difference between disliking a film and disliking the idea of the film?
The last sentence of my previous post has perfect grammar and syntax and should make sense to anyone who knows the definitions of all the words I used. In that sense, it's comprehensible English. If you're incapable of comprehending what I said, that's your own fault.
Oh dear. Someone else with delusions of adequacy. Refer to my fourth paragraph above; it's the only relevant thing.
No doubt I shall be hearing from you in another four months time but please, save us both the trouble. The idea of it is tedious.
You didn't respond to anything I said.
shareyou, sir, are an excruciatingly pompous turd for the ages.
shareIf you insist on jumping into a conversation to which you have not been party and then attempt to be dismissive, at least make an effort to write in English, not some random collection of words that you think sound coherent.
shareBut he's dead on. 5 years later your douchy turdness still feels completely fresh.
shareHarry Potter original? Try reading the Books of Magic.
Dictated, but not read.
Blue Sunshine?
www.thecultofhorror.blogspot.com
Completely original films are these from early cinema period. The actual idea may have been yet borrow from other media. Metropolis (1927) is a mother of all Sci-Fi movies for instance.
But if you go to "art" cinema genre - there is full of completely original films.
Hadaka no shima (1960)
Au hasard Balthazar (1966) what a distinguish acting!
El topo (1970) one mind trip overall
Koyaanisqatsi (1982)
Werner Herzog make really original semi-documentary films - go watch Lektionen in Finsternis (1992) documentary so surreal in moments that the director say it is Sci-Fi.
Ingmar Bergman's films, Persona(1966), Wild Strawberries(1957) and so on
Matthew Barney Cremaster series... what a *beep* but its a original one.
Die werckmeisterschen Harmonien (2000)
Irréversible (2002)
Thats small list I can go more if you like :)
Melies trip to the moon?
shareNosferatu, anything by laurel and hardy, abbot & Costello, Ma and pa kettle, and Charley Chaplin. The list goes on and on.
shareAnything from David Lynch?
shareWell, one thing you can guarantee is James Cameron didn't direct any of them.
"No matter where you go, there you are."
Have to disagree. He did use the birth process and social behavior of ants in "Aliens", but he got that idea from ants, not "Phase IV". It's sort of like saying that "Free Willy" is based on John Huston's film version of "Moby Dick" because both films contain whales.
shareWELL THIS I GUESS CLOVERFIELD WAS A RIP OFF OF GODZILLA... Think about it...a giant monster attacking a large city.. OMG thay are ripping off godzilla
my point is nothing is origional anymore they have all been done
........-Jason Voorhees
I can't see any connection between Phase IV and James Cameron (absolutely none) but I agree Aliens is on par with Them.
share[deleted]
James Cameron is always making classic stories and that's one of his strenght. All his stories are archetypal and I love it. There are so many stories taking from other stories structure although it takes a craftsman or a great storyteller to make it personal. It takes originality to create Aliens or else it wouldn't be the film it is. And Jim does it personal because he's a fantastic director and storyteller. That's what it means to make a story. There are no movies like James Cameron movies.
share[deleted]
If by master thief you mean someone who's able to study someon's thechnique then make it better, I would agree. I really believe that it comes down to that, some people can just put their attention to something and make it result in something better than everyone else. It's everywhere like that. In that sense yes he's a master thief. But it's not really thievery in the sens of copycat, or stealing, Cameron has a very clear hand on things, a James Cameron etiquette, that doesn't look like any one else, with elements coming back, and themes. Briefly, he was just born to do what he's doing :)
share[deleted]
i actually rememeber seeing the film and thinking congo ripped of aliens thinking it came out later, but its fairly obvious quite a big part . pretty obvious cameron was a big fan of this movie too hense why he was keen on the dp, but there was so many other original ideas in Aliens and the direction was so good and it was so well executed who cares... lets not forget wasnt he writing this, Rambo 2, and Terminator all at the same time!!!
shareAnd you're right.
James camoron is a ripp off artist and most of all, a plagiarist.
Other known ripp off artists: ridley scott, quentin tarantino, jean luc besson.
To OP. What didn't he rip off making his movies? Some of the lines and scenes in Titanic were ripped straight off "A Night to Remember". And when he does come up with something of his own he names it "unobtainium". Unbelievable.
shareI think Titanic was based upon a real life tragedy apart from the love story!
It's that man again!!