Invasion of the Script Snatchers

http://horrornews.net/117198/plagiarism-hollywood-films-invasion-screenplay-snatchers-part-1/

I would start out with arguing whether or not this two part piece is even an opinion piece. It's not truly trying to prove anything, but just to throw a few pointers that Horror News Net writer Bill Burke finds in horror cinema. An important word in filmmaker is 'rip-off', which usually implies plagiarism. And that is exactly what this piece covers, starting with its wacky title; Invasion of the Script Snatchers. This entire topic is present throughout the entire piece.
There somethings in this article that maybe common knowledge among horror fans, such as Nosferatu just being a giant legal cover for them to make a Dracula movie when they really weren't allowed to. However, when one moves onto part two of the piece it gets more interesting. When it is brought up that Alien (1979) may actually might have been plagiarized from an A.E. Van Vogt's novel Black Destroyer. When it comes to evidence, it's mainly visual, which is why I found it so easy to read this piece in the first place. Throughout the piece, there are many pictures from movie scenes and posters; demonstrating a visual pattern in similarities. Once you see them, it is a bit hard to deny that the writer may be on to something. There's not a whole lot of variety of sources, none really, it's all visual. But it does kind of provoke a call to action. As if the writer wants you to see the movies and see for yourself.
The kicker itself is in the title. In my opinion, plagiarism (the word alone) is an indicator of drama and that is what people like to read about. In America. it's all about protecting your property and plagiarism is the wanted criminal. So, it is interesting to see the films and sources who somehow got away with it by passing it off as original....then you settle down, give said films a watch and then undermine everything the movie was meant to be. Again like our last one, I don't think it matters how they start and end here because all the good stuff is the middle with the visual evidence. However, it ends nicely by mentioning a Jaws rip off, Jaws being arguably the number one copied off movie. Burke kind of settles back and lets the pictures speak for him and let everything come full circle.
The problem when I read this was that I was putting way too much faith in the pictures guiding me through that sometimes I lost interest in what Burke was righting. When you're discussing something as plagiarism, you're going to want show visuals of it. Anyone could accuse someone of copying by just saying they did. So more often then not, I found myself looking through the pictures then actually reading. I think the only time I got back into the text itself was when I came across a picture that needed an explanation. The Vogt and Alien part in part two had me reading it since the pictures didn't have a whole lot of context.
For a piece with little or no argument to pursue, it is a little difficult for a non horror or movie fan to stay engaged. Sure it's fun to say, "oh, I get it," at the pictures, but that's not enough to keep the reader drawn in, However, Burke writes humorously and in good taste. By the end of reading, you may want to check out one of these rip off films for yourself. Maybe go to a few forums about the subject, or maybe even find some other instances of plagiarism in movies for yourself.

Remember the Oscar Nominated Horror Film?

https://litreactor.com/columns/what-ever-happened-to-the-oscar-nominated-horror-film

For our first opinion piece critiquing, we'll be looking at a topic I've been itching to scratch; the Oscars and the horror genre. Now, those two words are barely used together in the same sentence. And this column by Christopher Shultz gives its two cents on why that is. Specifically, what happened to the Oscar nominated horror film? As it is clearly written as the title. 
Now when researching this topic, one needs to only search up a list of Oscar nominated horror films. Every category applies; best film, best actor, supporting actor, etc. Usually Oscars and horror are reflected back to the 60s with Carrie, The Exorcist, or The Omen. But Shultz goes all the way back to the root, the 1930 version of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. But how credible is Shultz? Well, as much as any guy who took a peak at a wiki page. Horror and the Oscars is a subject based more so on common knowledge of film rather then research, so naturally we're not going to get a lot of source citations....well, none actually. To his credit, the article does do a great job of organizing and structuring itself. Taking itself through the history of horror from its beginning in the 30s and its something that anyone familiar in the genre can follow. 
It's a very linear piece, going from point a to point b without stumbling, only bothering to stop the flow should a disclaimer have to be made. It does start of with a question of what happened with the Academy Awards and horror which may draw readers in because that's a very valid question; its something that movie goers or people in general will sometimes stop and ask themselves.
As I said before, the piece does its job in creating a coherent timeline. It let's you know where it starts and where it ends. It asks the question in the beginning, it gives it's opinions in the middle, then asks for yours in the end. There may have been a couple segments where I did feel a tad bit bored, but never wanted to stop reading. This is a topic I have a passion for, you see. But then Shultz drops this gem on the table, "I had a theory that the September 11th attacks was the cause, with the Academy acting as an agent of escapism in a time awash with terror. And it's true, our society has watered down significantly since that awful day in 2001, but at the same time, the Academy has always been an agent of escapism and champion of the feel-good movie's cause, dodging controversy at every turn..." (Shultz). Once you mention September 11th on American soil, there's a sudden change in atmosphere and there's almost no going back. Now, it seems that it may be directly responsible for why horror films don't win Oscars anymore. It's a really bold claim with no research put into it, but for some reason it is the ultimate kicker in this piece and it would've been much better had it been put somewhere in the beginning, but that would also mean the structure of  the chronological years that it is organized be compromised. So, it's bit hard to tell where it would be better off. There's other theories about the manner of course; the Academy favoring the bigger studios or the rules of what applies for a winner may have changed over the years,But the one we really don't want to believe takes the cake. 
With it's linear style and highly opinionated claims with little or no research to back it up, it's unclear how qualified the writer was to be presenting them but it is still a do-able read. The points are interesting, the facts are common knowledge for every horror fan or movie goer to recall, Nothing too powerful, but something to nod your head in thought to.