>>124124
>The real antagonists of the story were the Ottomans who were fucking over Wallachia and that one vampire who made Vlad into one.
That's in real life. Telling a story of how a hero who fought those forces could become the Prince of Darkness could be interesting. The real guy had an incredibly interesting life, but also one that could be used as a great villain origin, since he certainly had plenty of reason to be pissed the fuck off. But you shouldn't forget that we're talking about Dracula, a guy whose MO is to kill people so he can turn them into his undead minions that feed on blood and babies, all so he can make himself immortal and find better and better ways to enhance his serial killer lifestyle. Yes, it might be insulting to the real guy, but that's what Dracula is. Now, if someone wanted to make a Vlad Tepes movie where the intent was to show something closer to the real story, and show how he very much was not the literal monster that is Dracula, that would be cool. But Dracula Untold was supposed to be Dracula's origin story more than a biography of Vlad Tepes. And it fucked up at doing that. It also wasn't a very interesting biography, since it sanitized so much of it.
>>124124
>Batman vs Donkey Kong
Naw, Donkey Kong isn't nearly as close. Donkey Kong is clearly inspired by, but if you hadn't heard it elsewhere, all it would really have in common is the archetypes of a big brute kidnapping a woman and a working class hero saving her. All generic enough that it's hard to say it's really the same thing. The Case of the Chemical Syndicate is literally the same story as Partners of Peril, but Partners of Peril is a prose story, and Case of the Chemical Syndicate is a comic adaptation, not unlike how Nosferatu is just Dracula, or how They Live is Nada which is Eight O'Clock in the Morning. Batman became an original character later. In that first story he is literally just The Shadow in a bat costume.
>>124126
>You're very naive to think that big companies won't fuck over the little guy.
Wait what? Why do you say this and then act like you're arguing against me. Big companies fucking over the little guy is what copyright is for. It wasn't invented by artists, it was invented by publishing houses. And they've been fucking over the little guy ever since. Or I suppose poor little Disney was getting fucked over by those daycare centers that were infringing their copyrights by painting Mickey Mouse on their walls.
>Some obscure creator creates something that becomes really popular and profitable. What's stopping a big corp from simply stealing his work and passing it off as their own?
Well in your example, the fact that it was already really popular and profitable would stop that. But I understand your point. What you don't understand is that they already do this. They already just sue the little guy for ideas that are already original, or claim copyright on things that they shouldn't have the rights to, or just rip things off and act like they didn't. Because good luck beating them in court when they can outlast you until your money is drained and they don't even feel it.
>many plagiarists will also flood the market with unoriginal stolen IPs.
I don't care if bad works exist. I just want more good ones to exist. I can ignore the bad ones.
>Why be creative or original when you can make money by doing nothing.
That's my point. What do you think copyright is for? WB doesn't need to be original when they can just keep milking the same properties for decades. If they didn't have a monopoly on, say, Batman, then they wouldn't be able to do so as easily. If they couldn't just keep charging licensing fees and things like that for works whose creators died decades ago, they might have to actually make some new stuff.
>>124127
What the fuck are you even talking about? Are you a literal shill? Make an actual argument, faggot. At least the guy above you did that. You're so desperate to shut down a completely normal conversation that it comes off like you must be getting paid for it.
>>124141
Star Wars. Alice in Wonderland. Ancient public domain things like Robin Hood, Hercules, or other tales of gods and stuff. I also think the distinction between fantasy and sci-fi is stupid in most cases and only matters in the most autistic of discussions, so things like John Carter, Flash Gordon, and Buck Rogers might as well be the same genre for most intents and purposes. There were also superhero things like the original Green Lantern, Hawkman, and Doctor Fate (and that's discounting my argument that sci-fi might as well count as well. These ones were all magic based). Even things like The Phantom or Tarzan have a lot of fantasy elements.