‘The Holdovers’ Accused of Plagiarism by ‘Luca’ Screenwriter

What if Siddon is Alexander Payne mad about the accusations?

__________________
Look, I'm not judging you - after all, I'm posting here myself, but maybe, just maybe, if you spent less time here and more time watching films, maybe, and I stress, maybe your taste would be of some value. Just a thought, ya know.

I'm very sensitive to BS...also Payne plagiarized a script he didn't write for a film he didn't produce with a plot which...five pages in nobody seems to able to get into specifics.

But the conga line of people showing their asses in this thread will not be forgotten

Aye, I have "refused" to do the random thing that has no relationship to what I'm saying to you. Ya' got me. By this standard your mailman is also refusing to do it.

If you read my posts carefully, for once, you'll notice that all I've done is point out the obvious problems with your reasoning. All of which you have ignored, and continue to ignore, while ironically accusing others of ignoring things, nonetheless.

So, we'll try once more: the timing cannot be suspicious if it makes sense coming from both a legitimate or illegitimate claim. Notice this point has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of the underlying claim. Because I have this antiquated, pre-Internet notion that I should understand a topic fairly well before I start issuing opinions about it.

A lot of people think this, the same way more than half the people think they're above-average drivers. They think they have a good BS detector. Some think they're so good at it they can read a headline or skim something and know if it's true.

Of course, if someone is not actually that good at detecting BS, that wrongness will often manifest in ways that stop them from realizing it, too. I'd suggest Googling "confirmation bias" or "Dunning-Kruger" but both of those things, if they are applicable here, would be the very things that would stop someone from doing so (or at least, stop the self-reflection to take it on board).

Pretty good example of confirmation bias right here, actually, yeah. All the bits about busted reasoning or ignored counterarguments will presumably be forgotten. All that will be remembered is the post-hoc jury-rigged standard of "did this result in a prosecution?" followed by the belief that, if not, then clearly everyone else was wrong, even the people who noted basic logical errors unconnected to the case.

Funny how asking for the specific details of how the films are similar is just a random thing. Who could even tell the difference between a cloud and a butterfly as both are in the air only the wind knows.

Give me a break, the collective mute-ism is deafening. I mean really the guy that made multiple road trip movies got a script about a road trip and ten years later made a road trip movie (that somebody else wrote the screenplay).

Hey here's a question...seeing as how so many of you are convinced that this isn't BS. Anybody want to put money on it?

gaslight:
verb
gerund or present participle: gaslighting

The employment of psychological methods of coercion in instances where the person in question just won't read the damn thing they are making bold pronouncements upon. "Hey, how about you do a little more than skim that", the gaslighter might possibly dare suggest.

Also a word favoured by those who are getting repeatedly swatted around in debates like a dead mouse. "I'm being gaslit", they will often scream between tears of rage.

Well shit, what a bummer. I loved The Holdovers.

__________________

If the script was in fact plagiarized, they should be held accountable, but as an aside, for me the script was probably the weakest part of that whole film. I'll still be able to appreciate the retro vibe Payne nailed with this one, regardless of how nefarious the genesis of the project turns out to be.

I'm curious how this will effect my opinion of the film in the long run. Technically speaking, the quality of the film hasn't changed with this insight, but it might be hard to watch it without this news lingering on the back of my mind.

__________________
IMDb
Letterboxd

Funny how you keep ignoring the information that just happens to have been right there in the OP since the thread was posted.

Right I'm ignoring the"plagiarism" care to post those examples in your own words not just cut and paste from an accusation.



You seem to not know the difference between ignoring something and having contempt for it. Give this "case" a couple months don't worry I'll make sure to tag you.

It shows just how much attention you've been paying that you don't even know that I did precisely that several posts ago.

Mr Magoo could see things more clearly than you, evidently.

The Holdovers? More like the Traceovers. Hiyo!

__________________
"Don't be so gloomy. After all it's not that awful. Like the fella says, in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock."

Even if it was plagiarized, it wouldn’t affect how I feel about the movie, that is, whether it’s good or not. ET has also long been accused of allegedly plagiarizing a script that Satyajit Ray had wrote a decade before or so. And I still love ET!
I think the issue is Siddon is taking it more personally then he should because he was perhaps a fan of the movie, and even the director, so feels compelled to defend him, however weird and misinformed he is in doing so.

That would explain SO MUCH...

It's only funny if you have no idea how arguments work. Which I am genuinely beginning to think is the most likely explanation.

I'll make it simpler: if your alibi for a crime is that you were at the store, and I note the store would have been closed, that's a problem with your reasoning, whether you're innocent or not. Your reasoning can be wrong whether or not your conclusion is.

Why does that distinction matter? Because I don't know if your conclusion is right or not. And despite your bluster, neither do you. So we're left to critique the reasoning, since that's the canary in the coal mine; correct conclusions with faulty reasoning are mere happenstance, like the proverbial stopped clock that's right twice a day. And your reasoning is frequently incoherent, and you've now spent several replies dodging that, now to the point of claiming not to understand this relatively simple concept.

Is the script for Frisco available to read on the internet? I see the script for The Holdovers is available to read but I couldn't find the script for Frisco....Without reading both scripts none of us can say anything of certain regarding the claims of plagiarism.

Exactly. And it's embarrassing that someone could possibly think if it turns out they are ultimately correct about where this case eventually goes, that it somehow absolves the astonishingly dreadful logic used to come to this conclusion, and the doubling down when called out on things they are clearly incorrect on, and having a tantrum when they are asked to actually read something they are responding to, not to mention the childish inability to admit to themselves or anyone else that they might be getting outclassed in their debating skills, or just simply recognize how ridiculous they are coming across as.


Logic is clearly something some people clearly can't do. And if you don't have logic what have you actually got when it comes to an argument?


Oh, right, a BS detector. How convenient for the person who doesn't like to read. Or listen. Or learn.

I am going to program a "happy" tag for this forum to placate those for whom certain statements are too painful or difficult to accept. Regardless of the outcome of these Holdovers accusations, the truth hurts. The "happy" tag will allow those for whom it is especially painful to remain in their own realities.

Examples:

The screenplay for The Holdovers was plaigarized.
(happy)The screenplay for The Holdovers was not plaigarized.(/happy)

You placed 7th in the Hall of Fame.
(happy)You placed 1st in the Hall of Fame!(/happy)

Cinema still hasn't peaked as an art form.
(happy)Cinema peaked in the decade of my youth.(/happy)

I agree with [User ID of poster I dislike].
(happy)I disagree with [User ID of poster I dislike].(/happy)

Speaking of, it's not clear what this ominous threat of tagging is supposed to represent. Tag them when...what? I don't see a single person in this thread claiming this will result in anything. It's just a discussion about whether it's likely to be true or not, which would not in any way be disproven by any (or any lack of) resolution.

This seems like some made up some win condition where, if we don't get a prosecution or public admission, it'll be treated as some kind of definitive conclusion. Which is of course nonsense: it's plausible (likely, even) that nothing formal will come of this whether it's true or not, for a bunch of reasons.