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

Precisely: if you loudly declare "I'll show you!" you have to come back and show them, even if there's nothing to show. Nevermind that there was absolutely no reason to throw down a meaningless gauntlet in the first place.

I just rewatched The Holdovers today.

I can honestly say it was the best film of 2023, possibly the best film of the last 5 years, and Paul Giamatti totally deserved to win the Oscar instead of Cillian Murphy.

This whole case is pointless.

__________________
“Let me tell you something you already know. The world ain't all sunshine and rainbows. It's a very mean and nasty place and I don't care how tough you are, it will beat you to your knees and keep you there permanently if you let it. You, me, or nobody is gonna hit as hard as life. But it ain't about how hard ya hit. It's about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward. How much you can take and keep moving forward. That's how winning is done!” ~ Rocky Balboa

Did I miss something? I don't recall this ever having been a case...

Such an overrated film. Decent Saturday night feel good film but best film of the last 5 years? Wow.

How about the smear campaigns that happened this season.


https://www.buzzfeed.com/larryfitzma...rdinator-anora


or the Brutalist using AI to get hungarian accents correctly


https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood...ersy-explained


Or Emilia Perez's tweets


https://variety.com/2025/film/news/k...ez-1236291448/


Isn't it funny how these small production companies always seem to these stories magically show up around awards time.


Can't wait to see the smear campaigns from next season that @Yoda will totally not believe happened. By the way it's been two years...any of you bother to point out the plagiarism.

Yes

Wow. Some more links to some more stuff. What a debate champ we've got here. Who cares if it's all at best tangentially related to what the argument is. It's stuff. It's about movies. You can click on it!


This doofus seems not to understand there is a difference between "I don't trust movie studios and all their award season skullduggery" and "look at all this lint I just pulled out of my pocket, what other proof do I need, throw out the case"


Seriously, give it a rest and take your Hollywood Reporter tarot card readings elsewhere. Im sick of being reminded of how useless everyone's ****ing brains are these days.

>Isn't it funny how these small production companies always seem to these stories magically show up around awards time.

Small production companies? Amelia Perez was championed by Netflix who paid for their entire campaign. This support led to it getting so many nominations. (But it still can't buy wins).

As for stories "magically showing up," it's absolutely stuff being leaked by the Oscar competition to try to take these movies down. This was a classic trick of Harvey Weinstein but it still goes on everywhere. It's not a coincidence that Anora, Brutalist, and Amelia Perez were the three front-runners in the Oscar race and suddenly had stories written on them. This is par for the course.

Also nothing made me roll my eyes at "No intimacy coordinator" being the worst dirt they could find about Anora...as though this is required and any movie that doesn't have it must be abusing women. Gimmie a break.

Hmmmmmmmm. The whole mess with Emilia Perez was largely the making of one of its actors. The controversy surrounding The Brutalist stemmed from comments that one of its crew members made in an interview. Likewise, with Anora the whole thing started with statements Mikey made in an interview with Variety.

Maybe there are times when nothing got "leaked" to the press, and the cast/crew of certain movies simply did or said things that the press couldn't ignore?

>Hmmmmmmmm. The whole mess with Emilia Perez was largely the making of one of its actors.

Yeah but the "They used AI!" article came out for Emilia Perez too. It seems like AI will be used a boogeyman concerning movies for the next few years.

>The controversy surrounding The Brutalist stemmed from comments that one of its crew members made in an interview.

Yes, and the interviewee had no idea that his innocent comments on minor use of AI would be blown up the way it was.

It's the Oscar competition that got their media contacts to only focus on that ONE line in the interview so they could run negative stuff on it. Do you really think this stuff just came out like this completely naturally and without anyone bias involved? It's as easy as ever to promote controversy since you can have some bottom-of-the-barrel entertainment site just retweet a story like crazy. You don't even need major media on board to get this done.

Again, this stuff goes on EVERY year. Barbie was snubbed because it's pro-women. Why's a white guy in Scorsese doing a Native movie while focusing on the white folks? Why are women so marginalized in Oppenheimer? Then you have this Holdovers nonsense. This stuff comes out every year and it's mostly garbage directed at the ultra-left Hollywood crowd.

Maybe we should all just say nothing next time Siddon makes a piss poor defense in this thread. He's committed to debunking the accusations for the past two years, so at this point, maybe we should just give the baby its candy, as the saying goes.

__________________
IMDb
Letterboxd

Show us where Stephenson touched you on this Oscar.
Go on, you’re in a safe place. He can’t hurt you anymore. Payne will come protect you, don’t worry.

What are the odds that we now get a link to the Anora plagarism thread as more of this supposed proof?

This would be a great retort to the fictional people who say there are no such things as smears or controversies. When you find those people, definitely make sure to shove your random assortment of links in their face.

No, it's what you'd expect whether the accusations were true or false, because...please stay with me here...you'd want attention just as much if your claim was true as you would if it were false.

I pointed this out immediately, and several more times after, and you never responded.

They'll be based on a case-by-case assessment of the evidence, like always. And the things you believe will be based on your purported superpowers of snap assessment, I expect.

It's also been two years since several of us explicitly said we wouldn't expect something like this to be proven either way. I'd say "go look" or link to it, but I've literally already done that earlier in the thread.

Maybe read (and try to remember) what people actually say, rather than clumsily attempting to dunk on things nobody said, or even said the literal opposite of.

>What are the odds that we now get a link to the Anora plagarism thread as more of this supposed proof?

That would be poor proof since it happened after the Oscars. At the same time, this thread is getting a little paranoid about this guy...

Why Not Productions produced the film, Netflix bought the film and put it on it's platform. Netflix is just really bad with it's film division they saw Perez as the Canne's winner and figured that would be enough.

You wish for me to respond to your theory, when you and really everyone in this thread has failed to articulate how Frisco/Holdovers are the same/film story. Something comes out which goes into how this was a false claim and you casually ignore it. Allow me to post a video from a source of someone who had their work stolen and when you actually bring the claim out.






Gee I wonder what would happen if I insulted you, the way you constantly insult me. Then again I lack the coterie of lickspittle. Although I guess it's nice that you've evolved from your original position that timing means nothing.



The case didn't go to court, because the case was very bad. And yet not a single one of you could articulate a basic summery of Frisco and Holdovers and how they are the same film/plagiarized. You people sit back and make personal digs and ofuscate the points and demand that your theories are addressed. You act like it doesn't matter because it couldn't be proven that this whole case was a scam...a dirty trick, a conspiracy. Any person who looked at this case saw it for being BS and yet you chose not to. Not only that when confronted with people telling you it's bs you revert to this ideology that well...we don't know for certain.

We just don't know what happened here. The claim could have failed to meet certain criteria, or the whole thing could have been settled out of court.

The whole point of setting things out of court is precisely so that the public doesn't hear any more about it, and reputations are protected to the best degree possible. And if it did get settled, we may never, ever hear anything about it, because those things usually come with ironclad NDAs.

There's no 'theory.' I made a simple point: that the timing is consistent with it being true or false, and you ignored it and repeated yourself. We went through this several times. The fact that you won't respond to such a simple, relevant point is essentially admitting you can't or won't have a discussion about this, and that you're just here to monologue.

Things like this are how I know you're not paying attention: I don't have an opinion on whether it's the same story, I just know the reasoning is bad. I told you this explicitly. You have demonstrably hallucinated people's positions.

I'm literally saying back to you what you said about yourself (about your "bs detector," remember?). It's telling how often I give you a straight description of something and you call it an insult, though.

I also think that, if you don't regard your own responses as insulting, you should probably reread those, too, because they frequently are. The tone in all of them is that everyone else is a gullible child who doesn't understand how the world works. They're smarmy, sarcastic, condescending, and demonstrate a lack of respect just through their obvious disregard for what other people actually said.

This is kinda rich, because to whatever degree they're a 'coterie' is a reflection of how many of them have had similar interactions and come to similar conclusions. So yeah, if you alienate several people via the same argumentative methods, eventually you'll need a fancy collective noun to hold them all.

Sorry, I don't follow the logic here. You're saying that if the timing of these accusations doesn't tell us anything, then the timing of how quickly you form conclusions can't matter, either...because they both involve the concept of 'timing'? Please explain.

People did do this, but you told them you couldn't be bothered to read it, and then argued back and forth for awhile about whether you should have to, expending just as much time in the argument as you would have reading primary sources. The same way you're now spending more time talking about other people than you would have spent responding to them meaningfully.

Are you actually trying to make the most basic component of disagreement--making points and having them responded to--sound demanding?

This is why I said it seems like you want to argue by the seat of your pants and/or monologue. Because you seem to resist things that require real effort: you don't want to verify things, you don't know or remember key interactions, and you seem scandalized that people expect responses to their arguments. The common thread being the desire for an extremely low-effort diffusion of opinion with little to no pushback. Otherwise known as a monologue.

"We don't know for certain" is often a very good posture for things not involving us for which we lack information. You're not on a jury, you're not required to render a verdict. You also don't get any points or clout for getting your guess in first.

Yet another post that should be the final nail in the coffin for this absurd discussion, but I'm sure just when we think the conversation is properly dead and buried, this dude is going to jump back up like Michael Myers with a bunch of rejuvenating Buzzfeed links that mean absolutely nothing. And all of Yoda's points will be conveniently ignored for more empty soapboxing.


As for his complaints that he is being unfairly insulted, all one need do is look at his atrocious behavior in some of those Hall of Fame threads to see why people might be annoyed with him, or unwilling to take a more civil tone. You get what you give.