TedKeller
Active Member
Am I the only one who thought that while watching a Vietnamish drama played out with the Naavi?
And Call Me Joe, by Poul Anderson, and Midworld, by Alan Dean Foster, and Delgo...
Avatar has its own thread - have a look: Avatar - 2009
Am I the only one who thought that while watching a Vietnamish drama played out with the Naavi?
As I've noted before, this isn't unusual with Cameron (and, for that matter, Hollywood in general)*, who takes a lot of elements in his films from sff he read and mashes them together. I wouldn't have that much of a problem with it if: a) he tended to give credit to the influence of these writers by name; b) the stories weren't promoted as so "fresh" and "original"; and c) the "borrowed" elements were less blatant. All writers, directors, artists, etc., are influenced by the things they've read and seen to one degree or another; it is just the lack of respect for the original writers which bugs me....
Those are good points but isn't there a necessary hypocrisy for "a"? You have to be very careful how you acknowledge your sources or you risk being effectively sued (or, if up front, of having to license dozens of works at exorbitant prices). I think the lack of acknowledgement may fall under "plausible denial".
"b" would be a problem - I don't read a whole lot of movie people interviews so I don't know how he talks about them - I'd give them passes if it was just the promotional departments/studios but I know Lucas likes to act like he created the entire universe. Whereas Tarantino does risk violating "a" by acknowledging some of his influences (though maybe only after he gets caught - I dunno).
For "c", it'd depend on the frequency/proximity. For instance, I wouldn't mind Cameron swiping "liquid robot" from a van Vogt story - I don't see trying to "disguise" that ripoff by itself because it's a pretty atomic idea. But there's a lot more lifted from the same story for T2 and I will admit that gets pretty gratuitously blatant. But, as a reader/viewer rather than a pilfered author, it at least made for a great story and a great movie. But, yeah, fundamentally, speaking of "liquid", a creative person should do a better job of melting down their influences and recasting them rather than just breaking them into blocks and piling them up.
Not really. The note acknowledging the influence of Ellison's work on Terminator is a good example; it gives credit for the inspiration, without naming specific works, which could pose a problem.
Not to disagree with anything else in your post but that credit was actually the result of one of Ellison's many lawsuits. If they'd put it in as "Thanks for your stuff, Harlan!" beforehand, I don't think Ellison would've stopped with the out-of-court settlement.
That said, I'm not familiar with the animated Ghostbusters method - though that might fall under the "Hey, it's just a joke" protection that satirical works can get.
people who respected the writers they were inspired by, and who had no problem acknowleding their indebtedness; not relegating it to the tiny print in the end credits, but actually having the characters mention them by name.