I have no firm position on the matter but I am nevertheless intrigued by the debate so I’ll posit a question: let’s grant the originality is certainly important. Hypothetically: Hitchcock releases his first masterful suspense film. It rightfully gets and deserves all praise. His compatriot releases a “knock off” and Hitchcock simultaneously releases a second film along the lines of his first. How do you measure originality here in the context of these latter two movies, neither of which was “the first” in its niche?
I'd further tighten the scenario a bit before opining, while hopefully staying true to what you're asking.
Let's imagine Hitchcock's compatriot releases a film that is Hitchcock-esque in every way it can be (camera, lighting, themes, sound... the whole package), while featuring a novel plot.
Then let's say Hitchcock also releases an equally-equivalent film to his first work.
There is no non-plot innovation in either work, and the plot is as similar as can be while remaining distinct.
What are the values these works could likely command?
To me... I think the Hitchcock work would be more valuable, by virtue of his name, which in turn originated its value from his first masterful and original work.
His compatriot's film would be valuable. After all, Hitchcock's original work was acclaimed, appreciated, and popular, so it stands to a reason an extremely similar work would be as well.
But I can't see it approaching the value of Hitchcock's second, despite them being functionally identical artistic works. It's instead discounted by the lack of Hitchcock's name, itself valuable from the link to his first, original work.
Interesting thought exercise!
The follow-up would be what would happen if the market were flooded with first-alike films, either from Hitchcock or his compatriot!
Thanks for playing! I’m pretty sure I feel the same way, but it is always good (and fun!) to stop and challenge yourself to see if there’s a good reason for the way you feel about something or not.
