This comment is off topic and is not really directed at its parent's author, per se, though the parent comment inspired the question.
"Disney's movie is basically a rip-off of the..."
This is an interesting statement that not only includes the statement that the Disney movie is based on earlier works, but also a value judgement at the same time. At what point do we declare something a "rip-off" vs. an "homage" or simply be content saying it was "based on" or "inspired by" some earlier, original work?
Take for example the musical "West Side Story": it was based on "Romeo & Juliet", but I never hear it said that it ripped off Romeo & Juliet... never mind that Romeo & Juliet, itself, was based on an earlier story. Looking at some of the old posters and album covers (etc) for West Side Story, I see it was "Based on a conception of Jerome Robbins", but there's no mention of Shakespeare. The link was never disclaimed or represented as being otherwise, but apparently not really advertised either.
So how does the judgement aspect of this enter? Is it simply a way to emphasize a viewpoint that's really not so connected to the statement directly, but perhaps at the parties involved? Is the judgement more about who acted rather than the act being described itself?
Note that if someone were trying to remake earlier material while disclaiming that the earlier material existed, then I'd get the "rip-off" statement... but I don't think Disney tries to claim that kind of credit for many of its films.
I guess I just find it curious that we take such opportunities to inject our opinions where seemingly a more neutral statement of fact would suffice and be more informative.
> This is an interesting statement that not only includes the statement that the Disney movie is based on earlier works, but also a value judgement at the same time. At what point do we declare something a "rip-off" vs. an "homage" or simply be content saying it was "based on" or "inspired by" some earlier, original work?
Interesting you should mention this.
My guess is that there are possibly 'bad' factors in play. For example, these 2 I can think of (there might be more):
1) The newer version might not contain enough original quality content. So it took the good parts from the original, and did not add anything substantive to it.
2) Or the newer version isn't referring to the original at all, pretending being the original.
I suppose we can simply translate the terms "rip-off" and "homage" to "based on" or "inspired by" instead (for lack of better term). This allows everyone to draw their own judgement. In that sense, calling something a "rip-off" is akin to name calling.
(The irony being here that my comment is largely based on yours. I'm reusing the definitions you mentioned, word for word.)
> At what point do we declare something a "rip-off" vs. an "homage" or simply be content saying it was "based on" or "inspired by" some earlier, original work?
When it's done by a copyright hoarding, litigious company like Disney.
I believe the judgement is against Disney as they are the ones that have pushed copyright to the extreme it is today yet they are the ones that profited from copies.
Up until recently Disney had very very few, if any, original works, and yet they are the most extreme in their pursuit of copyright and its enforcement.
"Disney's movie is basically a rip-off of the..."
This is an interesting statement that not only includes the statement that the Disney movie is based on earlier works, but also a value judgement at the same time. At what point do we declare something a "rip-off" vs. an "homage" or simply be content saying it was "based on" or "inspired by" some earlier, original work?
Take for example the musical "West Side Story": it was based on "Romeo & Juliet", but I never hear it said that it ripped off Romeo & Juliet... never mind that Romeo & Juliet, itself, was based on an earlier story. Looking at some of the old posters and album covers (etc) for West Side Story, I see it was "Based on a conception of Jerome Robbins", but there's no mention of Shakespeare. The link was never disclaimed or represented as being otherwise, but apparently not really advertised either.
So how does the judgement aspect of this enter? Is it simply a way to emphasize a viewpoint that's really not so connected to the statement directly, but perhaps at the parties involved? Is the judgement more about who acted rather than the act being described itself?
Note that if someone were trying to remake earlier material while disclaiming that the earlier material existed, then I'd get the "rip-off" statement... but I don't think Disney tries to claim that kind of credit for many of its films.
I guess I just find it curious that we take such opportunities to inject our opinions where seemingly a more neutral statement of fact would suffice and be more informative.