elepantsman

Yes I agree with you? I don't think it is likely that SG director used Luck as a reference but if he did, it would not be plagiarism but inspiration.

Ohhhhh, yes, sorry, you're right. I see the confusion. I meant what constitutes "original work." Not "fair use."Sorry I was not being precise with my language. English is not my first language. I was under the impression original work was "fair use" and fair use was "free use" which is what my country considers as fair use.

Yes... and the point is, if they have a good case to sue, why wouldn't they especially considering SG's massive success? The point about hypotheticals is yes, of course, anything is possible. I am not a god, I don't know what truly happened, I am talking about what is most probable. It is of my opinion, whether you compare SG with Kaiji or any of the films you've mentioned it would fall under fair use. Now, is it possible that it doesn't fall under fair use and the creators simply chose not to sue? Yes. Can we ever find out? No. Would it be a good idea for you to check whether SG falls under fair use by reading about what falls under copyright laws to form your own opinion? Yes.

1932*, and yes it's a classic! Then, dystopian sci-fi death games made its return in the late 70s and 80s. Then, Japan plays around with the genre two decades later.

I am sorry, but I'm not going to go back and forth with speculations. I think your best bet is to look at what falls under copyright and you will quickly realize SG does not fall under it.

No, that's not how it works... Whether you claim it's homage or not bears no meaning to whether if it falls under fair use or not. Please do your Googling...

Yes, use Google to find case studies. Why would I do the work for you?

Tarantino always claims it's an homage. Why would he not notify the audience that he bought the rights? As that would quench their anger.

You don't think Tarantino's lawyers aren't making clearance searches and registering copyrights? If they do and his films are cleared, then he either bought rights, his production company owns the rights, or it falls under fair use. I am willing to bet it's the latter.

Euphoria is a Han chauvinist who believes Korean culture is Chinese. He is crazy and argues in bad faith. Best not to waste your time talking to this fool.

Also Japan isn't even the originator of the genre. America already had Most Dangerous Game, The Running Man (most likely Kaiji's inspiration), Death Race 2000, Rollerball and Saw. Japan just popularized the genre with Battle Royale.

(For death game fans, I highly recommend watching The Running Man, Death Race 2000, and Rollerball. After watching all 3, you will not assume Kaiji or Battle Royale are entirely unique creations but will realize they are another two films along a line of many influences.)

Typically they would steal from hidden gems, not box office failures. Furthermore, this is Bollywood, not even Hollywood or Hallyu. So if we believe this is true, we believe SG director isn't watching classics or top rated movies, he's looking at foreign industries and not just any films from foreign industries, but the bottom of the barrel at that. Unless SG director has a weird penchant to torture himself with strange movies, wouldn't it be a lot more likely that either they both copied the same source or the director just came up with the idea on his own? The fact that this is even considered a possibility for some makes me laugh.

This isn't about historical accuracy, but Koreans' fear of cultural appropriation by China's Han nationalists due their recent revival of Han chauvinism. This is a battle against Chinese hegemony, not against proper topknots.
Whenever you guys see China, Korea, and historical accuracy consider it a political battle of soft powers, not Korean interest in history growing all of a sudden.

I am not going to go throw previous case studies just to prove the most obvious truth especially for a stranger online. Unless you're going to pay me for researching this for you, the general idea is that copyright protects your EXPRESSION of an idea, not the idea itself. For example, creator of Superman can't sue creator of Dragon Ball Z for copyright infringement regardless of whether he can prove Dragon Ball Z was inspired from Superman because the expression of the idea is completely and substantially different. I have given you Tarantino as a good example of someone who pushes the boundaries of copyright.

Because I have read copyright laws? If Kaiji artist won, that would mean A LOT of directors/artists will sue A LOT of creators. The courts will constantly be on demand for copyright infringement and creators would be too afraid to even making content in case there is a loose resemblance. Getting inspired by general concepts ism't good enough. Godzilla and The Phantom From 10000 Leagues is a good example. Tarantino is famous for ripping off many scenes from various movies.... Doesn't mean he'a getting sued; he is considered one of the best directors alive...

No problem, I apologize for jumping to conclusions. Have a good one.

Are you dumb??? We've been talking this long and you still don't understand? After the last HAN-led Ming dynasty, China was always MANCHU-led ever since the Qing dynasty. You have the Taiping Rebellion and brief ROC reign, but PRC quicky overthrows them. For the longest time, China was represented by MANCHU and MANCHU traditions, such as qipao or cheongsam. This is the case in H.K. and Taiwan. Only in the 21st century was Hanfu revitalized. Why must I repeat myself???????

No... Trust me it wouldn't count as plagiarism. The law is a lot more narrower than that. This is from someone who believes SG was clearly inspired by Kaiji.

You guys really think SG director looking at a 4.9 IMDB-rated Bollywood movies for reference to steal? 🤣🤣🤣🤣

@loladesu I was agreeing with you about it being possible and clarifying my position that it would be incredibly unusual. You thought I was arguing but I did read your first sentence... I thought you'd be on the same page?

Yeah, if you google it the term and click the "namu wiki" page, you get a list of dramas. Make sure you look at the lists under #2. You can use google translate to get an idea.

Ok, I will take a look.

Yes the fictional account is basically what historical epics are... I gave the example of Gladiator which is what I think this film will resemble.

My point is modern hanfu designs are a scam. Chinese traditional dresses were Manchu dresses, not Han dresses. When has the hanfu ever raised the waistline right below the underbreast before Hallyu wave? Never. But look, literally every modern "hanfu" has that feature. Then can you blame Koreans for claiming China is trying to culturally appropriate their culture? Look at any OLDER representation of hanfu, literally none look like what they do now. If they are HISTORICAL pieces, why are they constantly CHANGING in design every few months or years?

Idk what you mean by visually reliant lol. I enjoy older J-films from people like both Kurosawas (except Rashomon) or Imamura. If the acting is good, I am willing to watch. If they act like anime characters or overact, then I will not. It does not have to be visually impressive or even have any action sequence so long as the story is compelling.

Ok, you were just ignorant of Korea having accurate historicals then. I gave you the term, you can use google translate.

I don't harbor anything against Japanese people. I just don't think Japanese nationalists have a right to be upset. I mistook you for a nationalist because you assumed Korea's rich film industry doesn't produce anything accurate. Wouldn't you mistake that as an extremist view too if I said that about any other film industry? And look, one of your supporters is a Chinese nationalist, so you can't really blame me for that...