congratulations!
Tonight, the 93rd Academy Awards announced the list of nominations for "Best International Film", a total of five films.
"Young You" was successfully shortlisted.
What is the significance of its shortlisting?
Previously, the historical achievements of Chinese films in the Olympic Games were mentioned in seven mentions and one middle school.
The only time to win the award was Ang Lee's Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon in 2001 (the other shortlisted films are "Ju Dou", "The Big Red Lantern Hangs High", "Hero", "Wedding Feast", "Eating Men and Women", "Overlord Farewell").
It's been 17 years since the last time it was finalisted.
Why was it shortlisted?
Frankly, "Young You" is certainly less artistic than many unnomined candidates (such as another Chinese-language film, "Sunshine").
But the Oscar jury came from a variety of positions in the film industry, and the result was a synthesis of multifaceted judgments.
Regarding "Young You", Sir has written film reviews, acting skills, and reviewed hidden details in the movie.
If you've ever tried to get close to it, you'll find that it deserves it.
If you have doubts, Sir understands.
Since the initial shortlist for the Oscar for Best International Film was chosen by various countries and regions, "Young You" may not represent the best level of Chinese films of the whole year.
But it must be admitted that it represents Chinese film and has truly gained an affirmation of international vision.
It's a good thing, it's going out, it's cultural self-confidence.
However, when Sir rushed to open Weibo with excitement, he checked the good news.
Didn't expect that.
The first to enter the field of public opinion is not a fan of Yi Qianxi, not a fan of Zhou Dongyu, and even less a fan of the film.
It's them.
They.
And them.
"Melting stems", "plagiarism", "shame"...
Less than 8 minutes after the award was announced, sir's "going out" became a "disgrace".
It seems that the re-entry seventeen years later is to unveil the fig leaf of Chinese films to the world.
The more you win, the more humiliating you are?
That careful calculation, "Young You" in recent years "lost people" really a lot.
In China, the Golden Statue, golden rooster and Hundred Flowers have their own gains;
Overseas, nominated for the Berlin (Youth Unit), the Best of the Asian Film Awards, Zhou Dongyu won the Asian Film Awards...
You will say that foreigners do not know the truth of melting stems.
this......
The Asian Film Awards are awarded in Osaka, Japan.
Keigo Higashino, the author of the original book who was accused of plagiarism, is a native of Osaka.
So.
Did "Young You" pay for all of the above awards, or "How can japanese people know Keigo Higashino better than Chinese"?
That would be weird.
"Young You" unsentified plagiarism charges.
Oscar didn't care, the Japanese didn't care, Keigo Higashino didn't respond.
Turning around, only we cared the most.
No way, the words of blessing have to be put back.
Sir must again clarify two issues:
Did "Young You" copy it?
What is plagiarism, and what is "melting stems"?
After three years, Sir did not dare to say that we would be more rational and calm today than we were in the beginning.
But Sir affirmed, a real shame.
It must not be "Young You".
Where is the hammer?
No intention of pulling and stepping.
At that time, too many people pulled out a sitcom to compare - why did you say that "Love Apartment" was plagiarized, and "Young You" was not said?
They speak in unison, you "double standard".
Double standard?
"Young You" and "Love Apartment" are the same thing?
Before saying "double standard", it is necessary to clarify a concept - what is the evidence that we scold plagiarism?
Sir thought.
First look at the verdict (legal decision).
For example, Yu Zheng's "Palace Locks the City" copied Qiong Yao's "Plum Blossom Branding", and Guo Jingming's "How Much Do You Know About Flowers Falling in Your Dreams" copied Zhuang Yu's "Inside and Outside the Circle".
Clinches.
No one can wash it.
There is no conclusion, at least look at the public theory (industry consensus).
For example, "Love Apartment", although it has not been judged plagiarism by law, the views of the industry and authoritative media are basically the same.
Time, with words like theft and stealing, is used to describe it.
The Daily Mail criticized the entire scene, the entire dialogue, word for word, ripping off, the sitcoms that were all the rage in the 1990s, as well as some other American dramas.
Chinese media is even more desperate.
Smash it with "pixel-level" plagiarism.
——Because it not only collides with the stem, but also fine to the storyboard, camera position, lines, props, all of them collide.
△ From the former "Love Apartment" plagiarism door special website cpartment
But "Young You"?
Many people say "plagiarism" of the real hammer, forgive Sir stupidity, where is the real hammer?
This is sir's backstage message that ""Young You" wants to say but dare not say, I have helped you dig up".
This is the broadcast that Sir swiped on the Douban account.
This is the "Young You" commented by Teacher Yi Zhongtian at that time.
You could say sir is "selectively presented", but at the same time, so many people who are unlikely to collect money collectively double standard, is it at least proof that plagiarism is controversial?
If there is a dispute, there is no real hammer.
Good.
Plagiarism is not counted, but the original novel "Young You, So Beautiful" "melting stems" can not escape it.
Sorry, Sir can't answer this.
Because "melting stems" is an Internet term, it does not have a legal basis for identifying the plagiarism of novels.
"It is not a legal concept, and there is no such definition in copyright law."
The same goes for the palette.
Baidu Encyclopedia shows:
"A palette is a table that compares a plagiarized text with the original text, a useful tool for explaining whether an article is plagiarized, and is named because it is similar in some sense to a real-life palette."
But this explanation is followed by the next sentence:
"But it's worth noting that a novel can't simply be judged by the palette, and there's an anti-palette opposite the palette."
To put it bluntly, determining whether a work is plagiarized or not requires a series of complex and meticulous "professional work".
Non-ordinary people can do it.
At that time, the verdict of "Yu Zheng plagiarized Qiong Yao's case" contained various substantially similar enumerations:
With regard to the plaintiff Chen Zhe's claim that the script "Palace Locks the City" was adapted from the 21 plots of the script "Plum Blossom Branding" (the novel "Plum Blossom Branding" advocated 17 plots), the court determined that plot 1 "stealing the dragon and turning the phoenix", plot 5 "The second son sued, the cronies suffered", plot 7 "Bully robbed, the adopted relatives died", plot 8 "Juvenile help, the daughter burys relatives on behalf of the daughter, abandons the female courtyard to accommodate herself", plot 9 "Love gifts, private lifelong, the first impression", plot 10 "Fu Jin small courtyard will abandon the woman, find the abandoned woman like Fu Jin", plot 18 " Taoist practice of catching demons", plot 19 "Princess peace is misunderstood", and plot 21 "Whistleblowing" are original plots in the plaintiff's works, and the corresponding plot arrangements in the script "Palace Locked city" constitute a substantial similarity with the plaintiff's works.
In the Splendid Weiyang plagiarism case, the court also carefully compared the infringing parts of the two works.
"Among them, there are 116 statements in articles 1, 3, 5-8, 10-14, 16, 36, 38-63, 65-98, 100, 102-107, 109-114, 116-120, 122-127, a total of 116 sentences are identical or substantially similar, which are divided into the following three cases: First, the specific expressions of unique metaphors or descriptions are used... The second is to use the same or similar details to portray people or things... Third, they all use a large number of similar combinations of commonly used languages. ”
All kinds of research, by no means just rely on a palette.
It is not to deprive netizens of the right to question.
What Sir wants to say is that netizens can of course "I think it is plagiarized", but for the media, it is not such a light thing.
Among the many voices, Sir agreed with this sentence:
Just for "be careful".
Sir has a different understanding – in the case of his own inability to judge accurately, you must be cautious and cautious.
On the one hand, it is natural to avoid lawsuits.
On the other hand, the media, as a social instrument, should be careful to use the power in its hands.
The crime of plagiarism, for a work, is equivalent to the death penalty. If you make a mistake, even if you correct it in the future, the damage caused is irreparable.
With a sharp blade in hand, how can you not be careful?
So you ask Sir, is "Young You" (including the original) plagiarized?
Sir can only say that there is suspicion.
At present, there is neither conclusive nor public opinion.
but.
Arguable.
This brings us to another battlefield of public opinion.
Does Yi Qianxi need to apologize?
If the first storm Sir does not comment.
That's the second one.
Sir was firm.
No, you don't.
It is the job of a publishing house to determine whether a novel is plagiarized.
If the real novel is convicted of plagiarism and causes practical damage to the film, "Young You" can also ask the publisher for compensation.
Not to mention whether the original novel "Young You, So Beautiful" is plagiarism or a question mark.
Even if the dust settles and the plagiarism is done later, the apology should be what the novel author Jiu Yuexi should do.
No one needs to plead guilty to an "alleged" crime.
Is this not the consensus of our civilization today?
Of course, you could argue that it would have been better if the creative team had chosen an innocent work with no suspicion of plagiarism at the outset?
Yes.
But they chose, and that's right.
There are three scenarios.
First, they are unaware (suspected of plagiarism).
——As the director once said.
"Admit that the novel has only been read once and put aside. The entire creative team has always insisted on not sticking too much to the original work, and only retaining the ingredients that are suitable for the film. People have been talking about how to adapt, how to build. The director said, 'We want to give ourselves a little more space to do addition, to make changes.' ’
In fact, the original has always been controversial. As for the claim that the relationship between the protagonists is similar to Keigo Higashino's "White Night", the director confessed: "I know, but I really haven't read that (novel)." ’”
△ Phoenix Entertainment
Second, they knew about it, but they thought it wasn't plagiarism.
Third, they think it's plagiarism, but they still want to take the risk of adapting it.
The third, of course, is immoral.
At the very least, it hurts the feelings of the majority of serious original authors.
But, Sir, that's the same thing — no one needs to plead guilty to "alleged" charges.
Today, who can stand up convincingly and say that the director and the creator are for their own selfish interests and insist on adapting plagiarized works without hesitation?
I'm afraid that no one but themselves can represent them.
that.
We might as well imagine the human heart as good.
This is not weakness.
This is to not let yourself be so entangled and painful.
This, too, is a kind of "fairness".
What is fairness, fairness is not to ask the motive, only the standard.
The law is the quantifiable standard on which we have reached a consensus.
Why we say that "Young You" does not constitute plagiarism at this time.
You said that "Young You" "melted the stem" constituted plagiarism.
So what is the standard of "melting stems"?
Melt one?
Melt ten?
When "A Good Drama" was released, it was pointed out that it "copied" "Lord of the Flies".
But what many people don't know is that "Lord of the Flies" is more obvious.
Born from Coral Island:
Take the setting: a group of children are stranded on a desert island, and then they establish a social order on their own. Even the names of the two children were used.
What about other forms of "fusion"?
For example, "Peerless" is to "Very Suspect"; for example, "Detective Chinatown" is to "Double Pupil"; for example, "Riding the Wind and Waves" is to "New Difficult Brothers"...
Don't get me wrong, Sir isn't saying they're not "plagiarized."
Sir means, who defines.
Not you, not me.
Not one person, not a hundred, ten thousand people.
It's the law.
Remember that joke Sir said?
Today, the top ten Chinese film history works at the box office almost all have a black history accused of plagiarism.
Wolf Warrior 2.
Some say it copied Tears of the Sun because the plot contained the rescue of many refugees.
Some people say that it copied "Waiting for the Wind to Come" because there are bridges that raise the Chinese flag abroad.
Others say Wolf Warrior 2 plagiarizes the novel Bullet Marks.
——It was later discovered that Dong Qun, the screenwriter of "Wolf Warrior 2", is the author of "Bullet Marks".
The Wandering Earth.
Some people say that "The Wandering Earth" copied the Japanese movie "Demon Star Gorath", because both planets may collide with the earth, and humans have built a jet to push the earth away.
Some say The Wandering Earth copied 2001: A Space Odyssey.
Some anime fans say it copied the anime Leap Topped 2.
Because the animation has a plot that also pushes the earth.
But it was later confirmed that the anime was 5 years later than the original The Wandering Earth.
Operation Red Sea is even more exaggerated.
Some people directly said that Operation Red Sea copied Wolf Warrior 2 because they were all evacuated.
But isn't that because both films are based on the "Yemeni Evacuation" incident?
It has also been said that Operation Red Sea copied Saving Private Ryan.
Because both films send a squad to save a person, the casualties are heavy.
The most ridiculous thing is that some people say that "Operation Red Sea" copied "eat chicken" because the weapons and equipment inside are very similar.
Of course, there are also "Hello, Li Huanying" and "Nezha's Demon Boy Descending" that came to the list later.
Do you see the absurdity in it?
When we swing the stick of plagiarism at every creator, the real plagiarists will not feel pain.
Because everybody has been copied.
That's why Sir has stressed time and again that it calls for rationalization and questions plagiarism in a standardized way, not encourages plagiarism.
It is precisely the protection of originality.
This, again, is what Sir thought was really frightening about the incident.
A message from a user.
His last words were, to put it bluntly, works suspected of plagiarism should not have been published.
Seriously, this made Sir sweat profusely.
"Those works suspected of plagiarism should not be published."
So, asking or not only depends on "suspected"?
To put it a little closer to us – those suspected of committing crimes should go to jail (and be shot).
you.
Think it makes sense?
This is precisely the biggest problem with our network today – prematurely treating personal justice as unquestionable justice.
In terms of public opinion, the party is different.
The system of sitting-ins on the issue of "conviction" has been vigorously pursued.
In the face of the existing standards, without thinking, rushing to action.
For example, people who praise the movie "Young You" or self-media are also included in the "public support for plagiarism" camp.
For example, it is believed that all participants are accomplices.
Concomitantly, the creators and actors of "Young You" are also "not clean".
Who is the arbiter of this dispute?
This is where the danger lies.
Thinking that plagiarism is only an opinion, but some people have already regarded their own opinion as an unquestionable truth.
Whoever disagrees must be tarted.
To borrow the words of the drug friend @Qiqi:
"If there is no final judgment by the judicial circles of literature in accordance with the Copyright Law, then according to the principle of judicial presumption of innocence, it can only be regarded as plagiarism, in which case both 'lawyers' have the right to defend."
But unfortunately, when many people discuss this matter, they do not play the role of a lawyer, but the role of a judge, and only rely on their own subjective judgment or listen to the opinions of one party to characterize this matter.
Calm down, counter-copyists, and you'll find that the people who applaud Young You are not enemies of the originals.
Of course we want to preserve originality, but the problem is that we should find a good standard to protect originality and also to protect reasonable creations.
We also have zero tolerance for plagiarism, provided that plagiarism is conclusive.
Everyone's desire to protect originality is definitely the same, but in the choice of what criteria to use, in order to better protect originality.
And now the question is.
When the most radical voices demand that all people must use the same set of crude standards when it comes to plagiarism.
It can easily turn into a self-deprecation on the moral high ground.
Not only useless.
And harmful.
For example, the bandit I Sicun, who was stolen by "The Biography of Zhen Huan", called on Weibo for everyone to pursue plagiarism, but not to personally attack the actors.
Such gentle and well-intentioned advice was also denounced as a "white lotus."
Could it be that an infringed author is also condoning plagiarism?
Under Yi Zhongtian's article, people who heard another voice opened their mouths to "be bought and manipulated by capital."
Teacher Li Yinhe, who praised "Young You", was also included in the list of "Cha Rice Literati".
Someone sent a honey blessing – "I hope you will be plagiarized one day".
Could it be that intellectuals who have insisted on self-integrity for decades have all been bought off by plagiarized authors?
So today's amway "Young You" two foreign movie stars, should also be listed as "suspects".
Edgar Wright: "I'm really excited to see the awesome [Teenage You] nominated for the International Film Section because I don't see too many people talking about it, please take a look. ”
Oscar Winner for Best Supporting Actress Lupita Nyong'o: This is the most memorable love story I've ever seen...
When the problem of plagiarism needs to be discussed and defined.
Some have begun to dispel voices that do not approve of them through the theory of the heart, and even those who do not approve of them warmly enough.
This, is the protection of originality?
We have to use the film's creators as accomplices in plagiarism.
The general audience is an accomplice to plagiarism.
The mainstream media is an accomplice to plagiarism.
The original author is an accomplice to plagiarism.
Scholars with social reputations are also accomplices in plagiarism.
So in the end, in the anti-plagiarism camp, who else can be left?
And an ordinary person sees all this, who should he believe - is it the vast group of "accomplices", or the anonymous netizens on the other side who shout anti-plagiarism slogans?
Don't make enemies of the whole world.
Don't think easily, "Everybody is drunk and I'm awake."
Don't drive the fish for the sake of the bush, and force the mainstream centrists in society who originally supported the original to be driven away from the ranks of anti-plagiarism.
If so.
Are we defending the originals?
What do we maintain?
The picture in this article comes from the network