Yeah it's good...maybe expand on it with a few more poses so the characters are a little more expressive. But it was edited well so it's not like we're staring at a static image. This is my first video watching your channel so good job I'll subscribe.
Oh my friend thank you so much for the feedback! And the subscribe both mean a lot. That is absolutely the plan if people like it we can invest some more time in making it better. More poses and a bit more detail in the face maybe 🤔 Thanks again! J
Yep fair enough. Still, I found it very interesting when hearing about the similarities between City on Fire and Reservoir Dogs. And there is clearly a point when it goes to far, just hard to work out where that is... Fred
"Trying to pass of someone else's work as your own." Oxford dictionary Tarintino wrote the whole movie and directed it. So how can you credit someone else ? I think you mistake taking inspiration from someone's work and plagiarism.
@@ayderla789 That's and overly simplistic definition. Here's a better one (directly from the University of Oxford's webpage): "Presenting work or *ideas* from another source as your own, with or without consent of the original author, by incorporating it into your work without full acknowledgement."
Yeah gotta say happy to be wrong but not sure I agree with you here. I think it even fits the simplistic definition. City on fire isn’t in the credits of reservoir dogs and the core plot of the movie is taken directly from it. It’s not speculation, QT has openly said it. That literally is trying to pass someone else’s work off as your own. For the record if you missed it in the video, we both love his work and take no issue with what he does. But I think it probably is still a form of soft plagiarism. J
Make your own movie first, let people critique it, then talk smack about well established directors / writers. You're not anywhere close to RLMedia's level, and they've already done a full length feature film. Good luck.
I mean, do you think that only people who make films should be able to critique them? No smack talk intended on QT, the guy's incredible. I was more interested in understanding at what point the line is crossed... Fred
Tarantino is my favorite director and writer but come on dude……..stop lol. In order to critique films you gotta be established? If you know QT you know when he doesn’t like a film or actor or genre he is VERY outspoken about it and he doesn’t hide his opinions……so it’s ok for him to discuss but not others? Reservoir dogs is my all time favorite film but he absolutely straight up ripped off city on fire lol
What do you think of the “cartoon” style video?
Yeah it's good...maybe expand on it with a few more poses so the characters are a little more expressive.
But it was edited well so it's not like we're staring at a static image.
This is my first video watching your channel so good job I'll subscribe.
Oh my friend thank you so much for the feedback! And the subscribe both mean a lot.
That is absolutely the plan if people like it we can invest some more time in making it better. More poses and a bit more detail in the face maybe 🤔
Thanks again!
J
Well, he’s not a thief at Amy Schumer level hahaha😂
You got that right - he doesn't make the shit he steals worse lol
Fred
The line between plagiarism and inspiration is blurry also he is really talented so who cares
Yep fair enough.
Still, I found it very interesting when hearing about the similarities between City on Fire and Reservoir Dogs. And there is clearly a point when it goes to far, just hard to work out where that is...
Fred
Not remotely what plagiarism means
How do you define it?
"Trying to pass of someone else's work as your own."
Oxford dictionary
Tarintino wrote the whole movie and directed it. So how can you credit someone else ?
I think you mistake taking inspiration from someone's work and plagiarism.
@@ayderla789 That's and overly simplistic definition. Here's a better one (directly from the University of Oxford's webpage): "Presenting work or *ideas* from another source as your own, with or without consent of the original author, by incorporating it into your work without full acknowledgement."
Yeah gotta say happy to be wrong but not sure I agree with you here. I think it even fits the simplistic definition. City on fire isn’t in the credits of reservoir dogs and the core plot of the movie is taken directly from it. It’s not speculation, QT has openly said it. That literally is trying to pass someone else’s work off as your own.
For the record if you missed it in the video, we both love his work and take no issue with what he does. But I think it probably is still a form of soft plagiarism.
J
this is stupid
Not really
Aha maybe you’ll like the next one you see 👍
J
Make your own movie first, let people critique it, then talk smack about well established directors / writers.
You're not anywhere close to RLMedia's level, and they've already done a full length feature film. Good luck.
I mean, do you think that only people who make films should be able to critique them?
No smack talk intended on QT, the guy's incredible. I was more interested in understanding at what point the line is crossed...
Fred
Tarantino is my favorite director and writer but come on dude……..stop lol. In order to critique films you gotta be established? If you know QT you know when he doesn’t like a film or actor or genre he is VERY outspoken about it and he doesn’t hide his opinions……so it’s ok for him to discuss but not others? Reservoir dogs is my all time favorite film but he absolutely straight up ripped off city on fire lol
Appreciate it crowz 🫡
think it does seem a little strong “you can’t comment on a film until youve made a full feature length”😅
J