[urgeok]

There has been a lot of chit chat in the movie forums about who is ripping off who. (Rob Zombie ripping off TCM, etc)

I have seen examples where it seemed clear to me that someone was ripping off someone elses work to make up for a lack of creative vision but i also see some film makers who are huge fans and are really paying homage to the films that came before.

I dont know what exactly is the subtle nuance for me that seperates the two but let me give some examples.

Rob Zombie. Horror is the biggest motivating driver in this guys life. I believe that he wanted to bring a lot of the elements from the 70's horror films he dug and pump them into a new film. This was done out of love for the genre. Definately an homage, not a rip off.

Wes Craven. Scream was an homage to the 80's slasher films.
I didnt think he was ripping anyone off but himself. He wanted a movie to reward long time fanss of the genre by throwing a lot of in-jokes into the mix. If it hadnt become such a commercial and critical success people here would be going on about its genius ad-infinitum.

Brian DePalma. This guy has been ripping off Hitchcock over and over again. He's a brilliant filmmaker but he is constantly reworking the best Hitchcock films.
If you do it once its an homage, if you do it endlessly then you are ripping off.
(dressed to kill = psycho/body double = vertigo/blowout = blow up (ok thats not hitchcock but you get the drift)
I dont think Sisters was a very origional idea either.

I think its the spirit behind the film. Is it done with love and respect or is it done to capture a prepackaged audience so there is minimal financial risk.

Whats the consensus on this ? Anone concur or disagree - or know any other examples ?