Posted by Hostage Cow on October 01, 2002 at 19:35:53:
In Reply to: Re: "It's not nice to confuse muggles..." posted by Dave on September 18, 2002 at 12:48:12:
: You're just so blinded by, I don't know, love, respect, admiration, whatever, for Rowling, that you remain absolutely oblivious to the fact that she flat out stole some ideas from a prior work. And the reason Rawlings stole from an obscure author is because if she plagiarized a Stephen King or a Tom Clancy, everyone would have noticed it immediately. She thought she was being sly, and now she has a team of high priced Time-Warner lawyers at her disposal, so the person who originated the ideas that Rowling used in her books will never see a penny of the profits she deserves. Chalk another one up for the Corporate World screwing the honest little guy when there's a dollar to be made.
: Oh, and I realize I'm replying to a year old post, but better late than never.
I completely have to agree here. The “Larry Potter” debate mirrors the “Kimba the White Lion” debate. Thieving ideas and concepts from something less well known and popular then repackaging and polishing them up so they can be marketed to a new generation. Just like Disney stole Osamu Tezuka’s “Kimba the White Lion” and “Leo Jungle Emperor” from the 1960’s and repackaged them as “The Lion King” in 1999, Rowling has stolen “Larry Potter” and “The Legend of Rah and Muggles” from the 1980’s and repackaged them as “Harry Potter” in 1997.
Because “Harry Potter” and “The Lion King” stand on the shoulders of corporate giants and look “so much better” than their predecessors STILL doesn’t discount them from being blatant ripoffs. Unfortunately money always seems to speak loudest...
Post a Followup