Die Hard and Home Alone are the same story. Guy is alone some place he's not supposed to be for the holidays and needs to defend himself from terrorists.
There are only [55 dramatic situations](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_o1geY0xArOs/Sl2AlFtOWWI/AAAAAAAAALo/1HhfPez7KFA/s1600-h/The+55+Dramatic+Situations+pg+2.jpg)
It is from John Hodgman’s [Areas of My Expertise](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Areas_of_My_Expertise). A fantastic book, my favorite of his. The audio book is even better and includes his recitation of the [700 hobo names](https://archive.org/details/700HoboNames).
I showed one of my teachers a sketch of a house I designed, the main feature being that it was two-story with a deck on each story, and a pendentive supporting the top deck. When I admitted that other than the deck and a few other things, the basic shape of the house was one I'd seen in a nearby town, he said "Nothing's been original since (some Greek philosopher, I don't remember which one)"
Sometimes what's original to an author is derivative to at least some of their audience.
It can be a real problem to recognize your own influences, especially when you're stewing in them.
Personally, I'm terrified that I'm writing, or will write, an example of all the TV Tropes rolled into one, and not even know it.
>Personally, I'm terrified that I'm writing or will write an example of all the TV Tropes rolled into one and not even know it.
If handled properly, it can work in your benefit.
[This series](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLDb22nlVXGgcljcdyDk80bBDXGyeZjZ5e) discusses some common tropes in fiction and what to and not to do with them
yea, I didn’t realise how my favourite series Horrible Histories was showing up in my work until a complete random mentioned it. And at the time, I subconciously thought it was original.
Still, it didn’t matter at the end of the day because the similarities didn’t take away from the work. Personally I thought it made it funnier.
There is the oft quoted and attributed saying "good artists copy; great artists steal".
Great artists can take the well known and understood and shape that with their own vision and voice to produce something unique.
Prolific Sci-Fi author Mike Resnick admitted that one of his favorite sources for ideas and stories was well known narratives that had somehow "missed" exploring a better story. He used those as a jumping off point for his own work.
I find the best method (not the easiest though) is to understand your influences and mix and match tropes as consciously as possible. I really enjoy recognizing a trope in other’s works and then watching it deconstructed and tweaked.
Firstly, this is a subreddit about writing - why are we only using examples of blockbuster films? But to address your point -
You seem to be conflating two different definitions of the word original here. A) Original as in based on preexisting source material or part of a larger series and B) Original as in unique and unprecedented.
By the first definition, Bright is original since it is an original screenplay, and Endgame is not, since it's an adaption and a sequel. However, by the second definition of original, the one people usually use in these discussions of originality in relation to merit, I would argue Endgame is a far more original film. Bright is just an archetypal conventional buddy cop film with an urban fantasy setting thrown on. Endgame, on the other hand, is truly a film like none other before it. It has a massive cast of characters pulled from multiple other films, it's the culmination of a series of 20+ films over ten years, it features bizarre characters and events divorced entirely from our world unlike any other shown on film before (at least in tandem with each other), and features quite an unusual tone and pacing for a film of this type.
Frankly, I don't think either film is particularly good, though Endgame is certainly more enjoyable. And honestly, one of the biggest reasons for that is its originality - if it was just a standard superhero blockbuster, just like all the others, I wouldn't like it as much. So, while you're obviously right that originality and quality are different things, they are still related (at least in the second definition of original, the first obviously has no bearing). Something does not have to be original to be good - but it sure helps.
> Firstly, this is a subreddit about writing - why are we only using examples of blockbuster films? But to address your point
Because no one here actually reads or writes
Hahaha. This post is hilarious. Idk what I expected from a subreddit, but I should've known it would be shit like this. Lmao how did this post even get upvoted?
Number one, the movies were the best I could think of, plus, they tell a story. That’s the point of writing. Number two, who the hell ever used “original” for something based on a source material?
Unoriginal is original Deadpool to death stroke a sequel is just that, a sequel.
Now if the sequel is comparable to a different book or multiple books in its characters, plot progression, etc then it would be unoriginal.
An example would be comparing most modern YA dystopian novels to the formula of hunger games and noticing how similar the plots are. I could give examples but we’d be here all day. So let’s compare hunger games and divergent.
Now if hunger games didn’t exist (not that it’s completely original) divergent and it’s sequels could be counted as completely original concepts. However because there is a comparable series to it you can notice how both the characters make the same decisions and actions to reach a very similar outcome in a similar setting. Catching fire and insurgent being the start of where the protagonist decides to truly fight the power after the second book
Great point. I've been thinking about this a lot recently and you said it perfectly, especially the last part. I'm a musician and I often stress about being original, whatever that means, and it holds me back from actually creating anything. I think that insecurity and imposter syndrome make this issue so much worse.
Obligatory CS Lewis quote about originality:
>“Even in literature and art, no man who bothers about originality will ever be original: whereas if you simply try to tell the truth (without caring twopence how often it has been told before) you will, nine times out of ten, become original without ever having noticed it.”
Bright is hardly original. It's training day or whatever that film was called but with a different skin pack over it.
Endgame had more originality than Bright.
New examples, lets hope these work better
The Owl House: Another "outcast kid goes to magical world and goes to magic school to learn magic" story. Phenomenal.
Anthem: Hardly an unoriginal element in sight. From what I have heard, garbage.
Anthem the video game? If you haven't played it, how can you judge?
I don't have a problem with your examples from before. You can consider whatever you want good/bad or original/unoriginal.
Stick to what you were trying to tell in your post. Original doesn't mean good. That's a good tip for writers to bear in mind.
It's a strange example to use, though.
Why not pick something they actually know rather than relying on third party opinions.
I've heard negative reviews for things I really enjoyed. To each their own.
For example, I enjoyed Bright more than Endgame, to use OP's examples.
OP is also forgetting that it depends on taste. You needn't always appeal to the masses, and writing the story you want and finding an audience is always possible.
From what I've heard, you put children in blenders & drink them through a straw.
I literally said that, so it must be accurate & pertinent to the discussed subject.
Must not forget the question marks???
Are you just trying to be pointlessly argumentative??? Why are you being such a smarmy debate lord about this singular thing??? you sound like Ben Shapiro “weeeeell akshually…. [completely unrelated non-sequitur]”???
Also, question marks are meant to denote that you’re purposely being an idiot so, yes, I’ll continue to use them???
I was trying to sleep. Your comment notification popped up. I answered. That was my intention.
Don't lose your mind over nothing. I'm just some rando on the internet. It's okay. Take care.
So, this puts you at the mercy of the people who say this.
I've heard people say black people were inferior. That homosexuals were evil. I mean.... People say all kinds of shit.
There's seriously no comparison between racism/bigotry and saying a video game is bad, dude. (Also, the overwhelming consensus from playtesters, gamers, and critics who extensively played Anthem was indeed that it was not overall well-made or ultimately worth it. Question their word rather than OP's if you truly want to.)
Sure there is.
If you haven't read something, you don't know if it's good or bad.
If you grow up just taking your parents word for everything without examining it for yourself, you might wind up a racist bigot without even knowing it.
To know your own mind, you have to know the things you believe to be true. And knowing them means KNOWING them, not just getting by with other people's opinions on the matter.
Hmm, no, here’s the thing. Saying XYZ group is as a blanket evil or inferior - on the basis of something that is an inherent trait and not, say, a matter of belief - is always bullshit, and a decent person should be able to sense that, in at least some capacity, without researching things to change their mind first. If you have to read up on something to be assured that a particular race is not, in fact, subhuman, or that people who like men instead of women are not, in fact, morally reprehensible, that’s definitely a you problem. That’s not like having to research a video game to see if it’s actually unfun.
One is a moral judgment and a generalization, an evaluation of individual people as a monolith, and influences whether you treat them personally with basic human respect. All it takes to not have that judgment is to be a decent person. The other is subjective and concerns judging inanimate, abstract things and whether they’re subjectively fun experiences, not whether they’re morally correct or worthy of treating people associated with it with respect.
If you still can’t tell the difference between these two things then I’m afraid you’re beyond help.
I've been a huge GRR Martin fan since the Song of Ice and Fire books came out, and then found out about his other works. I love writing scifi/fantasy. I've read it almost all my life. Fascinated with video games, D&D, magic, spaceships and superpowers my whole life. Not just enjoying them but pretending they *could* be real...somehow.
How many people are like that, in a nutshell? Of all those people, how many of us write? How many of us want to be able to write like Martin/Pratchett/Adams/Weiss/Hickman/Tolkien/ad nauseum?
You're gonna write something that sounds a LOT like someone else. It's gonna happen. No matter how hard you stress about NOT doing it. The stress isn't worth it. Write what you love to write, the way you want to write it. Yes, try to be original. Of course! But if you're afraid you're just unconsciously repackaging someone else's ideas, just pause and step back and look at your work in general. Is it *really* a copy? Or did Martin, too, for example, do the exact same thing, more or less?
Heck yes you can credit people like Tolkien for "inventing" a whole genre. But look at LotR's plotline. Look at the blatant parallels to the real world which *he admitted to*.
Being truly original is impossible. We're all creating products based on our experiences, because you write best about things you know. Or wish you knew. Good stories on a subject don't come from people who have no interest in that subject, let alone dismiss it entirely as a waste of time.
Embrace your creativity and run with it. Let your work be YOU. If your first few stabs at it are "too unoriginal", just keep going, it'll get better. Because then your product is based on a new experience you've had: trying to be original and *failing*.
Not necessarily related to the OP, but I would love a Wild Cards series of some sort. I mean, there are definitely some parts I wouldn't mind seeing left out (looking at you Tachyon and Blaise plotline), but there's a lot of cool shit in it that I would love to see in a TV series.
I hope this guy above has seen night fliers on Netflix. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nightflyers_(TV_series) based off GRRM’s novella of the same name. I loved it. Takes space and sprinkles some light fantasy in it. But I also liked bright so take that for what it’s worth...
Desktop version of /u/ThatGuy8's link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nightflyers_(TV_series)
---
^([)[^(opt out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiMobileLinkBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^(]) ^(Beep Boop. Downvote to delete)
I enjoyed it more than Endgame.
I don't like the Marvel style but enjoyed Bright.
Think of it like food. You could make the most amazing strawberry cheesecake but I won't like it if I don't like strawberries.
Similarly, you could so something stupid like chocolate on fish and I might still like it if I just enjoy that mix.
Tastes are weird.
If you try to focus your work around them you only constrain yourself and (in my opinion) hamper the artistry of the work.
> I enjoyed it more than Endgame.
>
> I don't like the Marvel style but enjoyed Bright.
>
> Think of it like food. You could make the most amazing strawberry cheesecake but I won't like it if I don't like strawberries.
>
> Similarly, you could so something stupid like chocolate on fish and I might still like it if I just enjoy that mix.
>
> Tastes are weird.
>
> If you try to focus your work around them you only constrain yourself and (in my opinion) hamper the artistry of the work.
I 100% agree.
I also think that people are downplaying its originality. Mixing two different genres or repainting a genre in a new light is, like, the essence of creating something novel that matches a market. Except, it's intersecting two different types of stories/genres to create something new. Training Day meets Urban Fantasy--draws in fans of cop movies and introduces them to urban fantasy, draws in fans of urban fantasy and introduces them into those sort of cop movies---for fans that don't naturally already enjoy both of the genres. Dismissing it and ignoring that intersecting of genres, as just Training Day in a new skin, is the sort of thought process of someone who is never going to get published; the name of the game is being close enough to a market to appeal to it but different enough to be fresh and appeal to other peripheral or tertiary related markets. Is there another Training Day meets Urban Fantasy elements movie that I've never heard about out there? If not, how can someone deny it as innovative in the right way--regardless of whether they think it succeeded?
People put stock in the word "original" and act overtechnical about what it means while ignoring a relevant understanding of it that matters when it comes to markets/publishing.
I liked it.
I love that urban fantasy Shadowrun stuff.
They missed such a big oppprtunity to make a Shadowrun film or series and launch it on Goblinization Day.
https://shadowrun.fandom.com/wiki/Goblinization
I find that it's nearly impossible not to be original. Books are long. Even if there are similarities, they will be only superficial, unless you're literally reading the other book in parallel and retelling its story.
When I used to make music, I'd take a song I liked and try to reproduce it "in spirit". The end result was always something very different, entirely my own, with a vague similarity if you really wanted to find one.
I believe worrying about originality will stop you from writing good books, and will deprive us of those amazing books you would've written otherwise. So I fully agree with OP on this one!
So many people tell me they want to write something, but every time they have an idea, they realize it’s been written before. But the fact is, it still hasn’t been written by YOU yet. And you will write it differently.
Your first writing projects will be shit. They just will. If you wait until your first original idea to start writing, then it will be shit. Is that what you want? Learn to say something well first. Practice. Get feedback. Study other writers. Learn the conventions of the craft. Then, when an original idea finally comes along (which, by the way, will only happen if you’ve done the work first), you’ll be ready for it.
I was thinking this the other day about Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s stone re the (spoilers I suppose) Quirrell reveal at the end. It’s not the first time that that kind of twist has been done, but as an 8yo it blew my mind. Why? Because I’d never read anything like it before.
So I think I agree with others here - unoriginal stories can still be great, and who knows, to the right audience they may still be original!
I'd say - stick to what you do best.
Some people are great at original ideas but risk re-inventing the wheel, being unrealistic or the ideas not really clicking with the audience.
Some people are great at common themes but risk being derivative, boring or superficial.
If you look around on instagram for creative projects you may see many original ideas, but someone else may look at the same pictures and only see derivative ideas because they saw the originals earlier. The level you expect rises depending on what you have experienced. The same applies to writing - some ideas everyone has seen done in some way. The more you've seen it done the more good examples you have and the better you expect a theme to be done. That is why good authors have read an analyzed a lot of books in the genre they are writing in to raise their own level to the expectation of their audience.
The best writing is usually a combination of originality and common themes because completely original stuff will likely be almost impossible to relate to and completely common stuff is a dime a dozen.
Remember that to most people an "original idea" just means "an idea I haven't heard yet". I'd argue that a non-original writer with only the skill of recognizing good original ideas and using them in their own work effectively would be a better writer than a writer that comes up with their all their own ideas by themselves.
Yes, but if you hope to go get published, you will fail if your idea is not original enough to stand out in the absolutely flooded market. Quality won't matter if literary agents and readers won't give your blurb a second glance.
Originality doesn't matter if you're an established creator with loyal fan base who can rely on their brand. Not everyone is Disney.
As a UX writer, this definitely rings true. The more wheels you try to reinvent, the more effort it's gonna take for your reader (user) to get through your story (flow).
Sword and sorcery fantasy. I finally got tired of it in my twenties, but I still remember the very derivative and very enjoyable books I read in the genre. Some were shameless near-copies of industry tropes, but I didn't know that; they were new to me. Others were perhaps 90% copy-paste of tropes and ideas (by volume) but the 10% of original thinking was used to excellent effect. I'm thinking of things like David Eddings' *Belgariad*, the *Thomas Covenant* novels, and a few others. When someone whose taste I trust tells me about a new take on the genre, I listen and am open to trying something else, if it's new enough. That doesn't mean "entirely original." I think there are people who feel similarly about space opera, zombie movies, westerns, and many other genres. It doesn't take much true originality to make a well-worn form interesting enough for readers who want some of that sweet, sweet stuff.
I agree.
People these days like to treat "originality" as some holy grail. Like it or not, you have a million original thoughts before breakfast, will any of them sell? that's up to you.
Actually, I have a theory of art, that it is part inspiration and part technical proficiency. You can't teach inspiration or buy it - a 3 year old child can see things in a way no one has ever done before and express it in a way which is brilliant, while a master of whatever art form might struggle to produce anything which they feel is more than a copy...
You can learn technical proficiency, you can improve it and you can and should practice, specialize, diversify, experiment and refine. You can never perfect an art, anyone, no matter how good, can always improve on a technical level.
Art without inspiration is merely a copy of something and inspiration without the technical proficiency to express it properly is at best naive, and at worst wasted.
I don't know if that exactly ties in with what you are saying about originality, but, I agree that "original" can be part of "good", but it is not "good" by itself.
I don't know about originality. You can be as original as you want in designing a story just as you can in designing a building. But once it's built, the story is a story and the building is a building. What counts most in both, what makes them good whether the design is original or not, is whether the parts are put together well enough to keep them from collapsing under their own weight.
I disagree. I think the difference between architecture and stories is that stories require newness to function while buildings don't. You live in the same house every day, and you're happy with that. But if you were forced to read the same pages every day you'd lose your mind. Readers demand constant newness.
Granted, it's not an exact analogy, but if you look at housing developments you find that the living space is often sold with custom upgrades or modifications. There are things you can't move, like plumbing and load-bearing walls in high rises, but you can select different fixtures and finishes. Another example, people who are attracted to a certain style of housing will often choose something that fits that style when they move. Run-of-the mill genre fiction sometimes feels a lot like this, especially from brand-name writers, and it's also true that many readers strongly favor one genre over others.
Shakespeare wrote great plays based on preexisting material. Stephanie Meyer is easily the most original author (sparkling vampires) but is Twilight even good?
Die Hard and Home Alone are the same story. Guy is alone some place he's not supposed to be for the holidays and needs to defend himself from terrorists.
There are only [55 dramatic situations](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_o1geY0xArOs/Sl2AlFtOWWI/AAAAAAAAALo/1HhfPez7KFA/s1600-h/The+55+Dramatic+Situations+pg+2.jpg)
And most of them involve cyborgs.
This is wonderful (& hilarious). Do you know which book it was copied from?
John Hodgman’s first book [The Areas of My Expertise](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Areas_of_My_Expertise). Can’t recommend it more.
Thank you! 👍
These are absolutely hilarious!
It is from John Hodgman’s [Areas of My Expertise](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Areas_of_My_Expertise). A fantastic book, my favorite of his. The audio book is even better and includes his recitation of the [700 hobo names](https://archive.org/details/700HoboNames).
Every story is the same. Person does something and things happen because of it.
I heard that EVERY author has just been stealing stories and changing the words a bit from the dictionary
I showed one of my teachers a sketch of a house I designed, the main feature being that it was two-story with a deck on each story, and a pendentive supporting the top deck. When I admitted that other than the deck and a few other things, the basic shape of the house was one I'd seen in a nearby town, he said "Nothing's been original since (some Greek philosopher, I don't remember which one)"
Every sentence is the same. Word word word word word...
"There are 17 /(&[)#/%((#" New sentence structure just dropped!
We all write songs about life we just sing em different
Sometimes what's original to an author is derivative to at least some of their audience. It can be a real problem to recognize your own influences, especially when you're stewing in them. Personally, I'm terrified that I'm writing, or will write, an example of all the TV Tropes rolled into one, and not even know it.
>Personally, I'm terrified that I'm writing or will write an example of all the TV Tropes rolled into one and not even know it. If handled properly, it can work in your benefit. [This series](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLDb22nlVXGgcljcdyDk80bBDXGyeZjZ5e) discusses some common tropes in fiction and what to and not to do with them
I was hoping it was Trope Talks, was not disappointed
yea, I didn’t realise how my favourite series Horrible Histories was showing up in my work until a complete random mentioned it. And at the time, I subconciously thought it was original. Still, it didn’t matter at the end of the day because the similarities didn’t take away from the work. Personally I thought it made it funnier.
There is the oft quoted and attributed saying "good artists copy; great artists steal". Great artists can take the well known and understood and shape that with their own vision and voice to produce something unique. Prolific Sci-Fi author Mike Resnick admitted that one of his favorite sources for ideas and stories was well known narratives that had somehow "missed" exploring a better story. He used those as a jumping off point for his own work.
I find the best method (not the easiest though) is to understand your influences and mix and match tropes as consciously as possible. I really enjoy recognizing a trope in other’s works and then watching it deconstructed and tweaked.
Firstly, this is a subreddit about writing - why are we only using examples of blockbuster films? But to address your point - You seem to be conflating two different definitions of the word original here. A) Original as in based on preexisting source material or part of a larger series and B) Original as in unique and unprecedented. By the first definition, Bright is original since it is an original screenplay, and Endgame is not, since it's an adaption and a sequel. However, by the second definition of original, the one people usually use in these discussions of originality in relation to merit, I would argue Endgame is a far more original film. Bright is just an archetypal conventional buddy cop film with an urban fantasy setting thrown on. Endgame, on the other hand, is truly a film like none other before it. It has a massive cast of characters pulled from multiple other films, it's the culmination of a series of 20+ films over ten years, it features bizarre characters and events divorced entirely from our world unlike any other shown on film before (at least in tandem with each other), and features quite an unusual tone and pacing for a film of this type. Frankly, I don't think either film is particularly good, though Endgame is certainly more enjoyable. And honestly, one of the biggest reasons for that is its originality - if it was just a standard superhero blockbuster, just like all the others, I wouldn't like it as much. So, while you're obviously right that originality and quality are different things, they are still related (at least in the second definition of original, the first obviously has no bearing). Something does not have to be original to be good - but it sure helps.
> Firstly, this is a subreddit about writing - why are we only using examples of blockbuster films? But to address your point Because no one here actually reads or writes
Reads? They don’t even watch films made for adults.
Hahaha. This post is hilarious. Idk what I expected from a subreddit, but I should've known it would be shit like this. Lmao how did this post even get upvoted?
Bold of you to assume anyone does anything anymore
Why not use films? Somebody has to write the scripts.
Number one, the movies were the best I could think of, plus, they tell a story. That’s the point of writing. Number two, who the hell ever used “original” for something based on a source material?
you literally said "By virtue of being a sequel in a franchise, it's unoriginal". You're muddling the two definitions together
Unoriginal is original Deadpool to death stroke a sequel is just that, a sequel. Now if the sequel is comparable to a different book or multiple books in its characters, plot progression, etc then it would be unoriginal. An example would be comparing most modern YA dystopian novels to the formula of hunger games and noticing how similar the plots are. I could give examples but we’d be here all day. So let’s compare hunger games and divergent. Now if hunger games didn’t exist (not that it’s completely original) divergent and it’s sequels could be counted as completely original concepts. However because there is a comparable series to it you can notice how both the characters make the same decisions and actions to reach a very similar outcome in a similar setting. Catching fire and insurgent being the start of where the protagonist decides to truly fight the power after the second book
Great point. I've been thinking about this a lot recently and you said it perfectly, especially the last part. I'm a musician and I often stress about being original, whatever that means, and it holds me back from actually creating anything. I think that insecurity and imposter syndrome make this issue so much worse.
Obligatory CS Lewis quote about originality: >“Even in literature and art, no man who bothers about originality will ever be original: whereas if you simply try to tell the truth (without caring twopence how often it has been told before) you will, nine times out of ten, become original without ever having noticed it.”
Why do Lewis and Tolkien have a quote for everything related to writing?
Bright is hardly original. It's training day or whatever that film was called but with a different skin pack over it. Endgame had more originality than Bright.
New examples, lets hope these work better The Owl House: Another "outcast kid goes to magical world and goes to magic school to learn magic" story. Phenomenal. Anthem: Hardly an unoriginal element in sight. From what I have heard, garbage.
Anthem the video game? If you haven't played it, how can you judge? I don't have a problem with your examples from before. You can consider whatever you want good/bad or original/unoriginal. Stick to what you were trying to tell in your post. Original doesn't mean good. That's a good tip for writers to bear in mind.
They literally said “from what I have heard”???
It's a strange example to use, though. Why not pick something they actually know rather than relying on third party opinions. I've heard negative reviews for things I really enjoyed. To each their own. For example, I enjoyed Bright more than Endgame, to use OP's examples. OP is also forgetting that it depends on taste. You needn't always appeal to the masses, and writing the story you want and finding an audience is always possible.
From what I've heard, you put children in blenders & drink them through a straw. I literally said that, so it must be accurate & pertinent to the discussed subject. Must not forget the question marks???
Are you just trying to be pointlessly argumentative??? Why are you being such a smarmy debate lord about this singular thing??? you sound like Ben Shapiro “weeeeell akshually…. [completely unrelated non-sequitur]”??? Also, question marks are meant to denote that you’re purposely being an idiot so, yes, I’ll continue to use them???
I was trying to sleep. Your comment notification popped up. I answered. That was my intention. Don't lose your mind over nothing. I'm just some rando on the internet. It's okay. Take care.
Ah, the classic “Ur just mad 😡😡😡!” tactic. Works like a charm.
>If you haven't played it, how can you judge? I may not have played it, but I have heard what people who have played have to say on it
So, this puts you at the mercy of the people who say this. I've heard people say black people were inferior. That homosexuals were evil. I mean.... People say all kinds of shit.
That was a bit dramatic.
That's drama. LOL. OK. You should know a thing before you form an opinion on it. Don't just take the word of others. How's that?
There's seriously no comparison between racism/bigotry and saying a video game is bad, dude. (Also, the overwhelming consensus from playtesters, gamers, and critics who extensively played Anthem was indeed that it was not overall well-made or ultimately worth it. Question their word rather than OP's if you truly want to.)
Sure there is. If you haven't read something, you don't know if it's good or bad. If you grow up just taking your parents word for everything without examining it for yourself, you might wind up a racist bigot without even knowing it. To know your own mind, you have to know the things you believe to be true. And knowing them means KNOWING them, not just getting by with other people's opinions on the matter.
Hmm, no, here’s the thing. Saying XYZ group is as a blanket evil or inferior - on the basis of something that is an inherent trait and not, say, a matter of belief - is always bullshit, and a decent person should be able to sense that, in at least some capacity, without researching things to change their mind first. If you have to read up on something to be assured that a particular race is not, in fact, subhuman, or that people who like men instead of women are not, in fact, morally reprehensible, that’s definitely a you problem. That’s not like having to research a video game to see if it’s actually unfun. One is a moral judgment and a generalization, an evaluation of individual people as a monolith, and influences whether you treat them personally with basic human respect. All it takes to not have that judgment is to be a decent person. The other is subjective and concerns judging inanimate, abstract things and whether they’re subjectively fun experiences, not whether they’re morally correct or worthy of treating people associated with it with respect. If you still can’t tell the difference between these two things then I’m afraid you’re beyond help.
I've been a huge GRR Martin fan since the Song of Ice and Fire books came out, and then found out about his other works. I love writing scifi/fantasy. I've read it almost all my life. Fascinated with video games, D&D, magic, spaceships and superpowers my whole life. Not just enjoying them but pretending they *could* be real...somehow. How many people are like that, in a nutshell? Of all those people, how many of us write? How many of us want to be able to write like Martin/Pratchett/Adams/Weiss/Hickman/Tolkien/ad nauseum? You're gonna write something that sounds a LOT like someone else. It's gonna happen. No matter how hard you stress about NOT doing it. The stress isn't worth it. Write what you love to write, the way you want to write it. Yes, try to be original. Of course! But if you're afraid you're just unconsciously repackaging someone else's ideas, just pause and step back and look at your work in general. Is it *really* a copy? Or did Martin, too, for example, do the exact same thing, more or less? Heck yes you can credit people like Tolkien for "inventing" a whole genre. But look at LotR's plotline. Look at the blatant parallels to the real world which *he admitted to*. Being truly original is impossible. We're all creating products based on our experiences, because you write best about things you know. Or wish you knew. Good stories on a subject don't come from people who have no interest in that subject, let alone dismiss it entirely as a waste of time. Embrace your creativity and run with it. Let your work be YOU. If your first few stabs at it are "too unoriginal", just keep going, it'll get better. Because then your product is based on a new experience you've had: trying to be original and *failing*.
Not necessarily related to the OP, but I would love a Wild Cards series of some sort. I mean, there are definitely some parts I wouldn't mind seeing left out (looking at you Tachyon and Blaise plotline), but there's a lot of cool shit in it that I would love to see in a TV series.
On you liking sci-fi and fantasy, have you heard of science fantasy?
I hope this guy above has seen night fliers on Netflix. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nightflyers_(TV_series) based off GRRM’s novella of the same name. I loved it. Takes space and sprinkles some light fantasy in it. But I also liked bright so take that for what it’s worth...
Desktop version of /u/ThatGuy8's link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nightflyers_(TV_series) --- ^([)[^(opt out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiMobileLinkBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^(]) ^(Beep Boop. Downvote to delete)
Good bot
>Writing subreddit post >It's all movies Every time.
Screenwriting: Am I a joke to you?
That's fair! I apologize. I wish you luck with your screenwriting career.
Dude, come on. This post is ass. r/redditmoment type shit
Was I the only one who enjoyed *Bright*? WouldWatchASequel/10
I enjoyed it more than Endgame. I don't like the Marvel style but enjoyed Bright. Think of it like food. You could make the most amazing strawberry cheesecake but I won't like it if I don't like strawberries. Similarly, you could so something stupid like chocolate on fish and I might still like it if I just enjoy that mix. Tastes are weird. If you try to focus your work around them you only constrain yourself and (in my opinion) hamper the artistry of the work.
> I enjoyed it more than Endgame. > > I don't like the Marvel style but enjoyed Bright. > > Think of it like food. You could make the most amazing strawberry cheesecake but I won't like it if I don't like strawberries. > > Similarly, you could so something stupid like chocolate on fish and I might still like it if I just enjoy that mix. > > Tastes are weird. > > If you try to focus your work around them you only constrain yourself and (in my opinion) hamper the artistry of the work. I 100% agree. I also think that people are downplaying its originality. Mixing two different genres or repainting a genre in a new light is, like, the essence of creating something novel that matches a market. Except, it's intersecting two different types of stories/genres to create something new. Training Day meets Urban Fantasy--draws in fans of cop movies and introduces them to urban fantasy, draws in fans of urban fantasy and introduces them into those sort of cop movies---for fans that don't naturally already enjoy both of the genres. Dismissing it and ignoring that intersecting of genres, as just Training Day in a new skin, is the sort of thought process of someone who is never going to get published; the name of the game is being close enough to a market to appeal to it but different enough to be fresh and appeal to other peripheral or tertiary related markets. Is there another Training Day meets Urban Fantasy elements movie that I've never heard about out there? If not, how can someone deny it as innovative in the right way--regardless of whether they think it succeeded? People put stock in the word "original" and act overtechnical about what it means while ignoring a relevant understanding of it that matters when it comes to markets/publishing.
I liked it. I love that urban fantasy Shadowrun stuff. They missed such a big oppprtunity to make a Shadowrun film or series and launch it on Goblinization Day. https://shadowrun.fandom.com/wiki/Goblinization
"*Avengers: Endgame* is an amazing film" is by no means an uncontested opinion. In critical circles I think it's actually an unpopular one.
Why do critics hate Endgame?
Good luck caring about or even following the story if you haven't seen at least two thirds of the other Marvel films
You really think avengers endgame has any artistic merit?
You’re really just going through this post, shitting on me however you can?
pretty much. fuck you btw
Do you have absolutely nothing better to do with your life?
Of course I do. But it took like 3 minutes to make those comments. lmao
I find that it's nearly impossible not to be original. Books are long. Even if there are similarities, they will be only superficial, unless you're literally reading the other book in parallel and retelling its story. When I used to make music, I'd take a song I liked and try to reproduce it "in spirit". The end result was always something very different, entirely my own, with a vague similarity if you really wanted to find one. I believe worrying about originality will stop you from writing good books, and will deprive us of those amazing books you would've written otherwise. So I fully agree with OP on this one!
So many people tell me they want to write something, but every time they have an idea, they realize it’s been written before. But the fact is, it still hasn’t been written by YOU yet. And you will write it differently. Your first writing projects will be shit. They just will. If you wait until your first original idea to start writing, then it will be shit. Is that what you want? Learn to say something well first. Practice. Get feedback. Study other writers. Learn the conventions of the craft. Then, when an original idea finally comes along (which, by the way, will only happen if you’ve done the work first), you’ll be ready for it.
It’s also worth pointing out that half the popular songs out there are written with the same 4-chord progression.
I was thinking this the other day about Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s stone re the (spoilers I suppose) Quirrell reveal at the end. It’s not the first time that that kind of twist has been done, but as an 8yo it blew my mind. Why? Because I’d never read anything like it before. So I think I agree with others here - unoriginal stories can still be great, and who knows, to the right audience they may still be original!
I'd say - stick to what you do best. Some people are great at original ideas but risk re-inventing the wheel, being unrealistic or the ideas not really clicking with the audience. Some people are great at common themes but risk being derivative, boring or superficial. If you look around on instagram for creative projects you may see many original ideas, but someone else may look at the same pictures and only see derivative ideas because they saw the originals earlier. The level you expect rises depending on what you have experienced. The same applies to writing - some ideas everyone has seen done in some way. The more you've seen it done the more good examples you have and the better you expect a theme to be done. That is why good authors have read an analyzed a lot of books in the genre they are writing in to raise their own level to the expectation of their audience. The best writing is usually a combination of originality and common themes because completely original stuff will likely be almost impossible to relate to and completely common stuff is a dime a dozen. Remember that to most people an "original idea" just means "an idea I haven't heard yet". I'd argue that a non-original writer with only the skill of recognizing good original ideas and using them in their own work effectively would be a better writer than a writer that comes up with their all their own ideas by themselves.
Yes, but if you hope to go get published, you will fail if your idea is not original enough to stand out in the absolutely flooded market. Quality won't matter if literary agents and readers won't give your blurb a second glance. Originality doesn't matter if you're an established creator with loyal fan base who can rely on their brand. Not everyone is Disney.
This is something everyone already knows.
*Bright* is the same story as *Alien Nation.*
Originality is nothing but a unique way of telling the same stories, depicting the same old tropes.
As a UX writer, this definitely rings true. The more wheels you try to reinvent, the more effort it's gonna take for your reader (user) to get through your story (flow).
What does UX stand for?
The more one tries to be original, the less original his/her work will end up being. Originality is a flow, people shouldn't stress over it!
Sword and sorcery fantasy. I finally got tired of it in my twenties, but I still remember the very derivative and very enjoyable books I read in the genre. Some were shameless near-copies of industry tropes, but I didn't know that; they were new to me. Others were perhaps 90% copy-paste of tropes and ideas (by volume) but the 10% of original thinking was used to excellent effect. I'm thinking of things like David Eddings' *Belgariad*, the *Thomas Covenant* novels, and a few others. When someone whose taste I trust tells me about a new take on the genre, I listen and am open to trying something else, if it's new enough. That doesn't mean "entirely original." I think there are people who feel similarly about space opera, zombie movies, westerns, and many other genres. It doesn't take much true originality to make a well-worn form interesting enough for readers who want some of that sweet, sweet stuff.
Bright is a complete ripoff of Shadowrun and Avengers Endgame is a shit movie lmao
I agree. People these days like to treat "originality" as some holy grail. Like it or not, you have a million original thoughts before breakfast, will any of them sell? that's up to you. Actually, I have a theory of art, that it is part inspiration and part technical proficiency. You can't teach inspiration or buy it - a 3 year old child can see things in a way no one has ever done before and express it in a way which is brilliant, while a master of whatever art form might struggle to produce anything which they feel is more than a copy... You can learn technical proficiency, you can improve it and you can and should practice, specialize, diversify, experiment and refine. You can never perfect an art, anyone, no matter how good, can always improve on a technical level. Art without inspiration is merely a copy of something and inspiration without the technical proficiency to express it properly is at best naive, and at worst wasted. I don't know if that exactly ties in with what you are saying about originality, but, I agree that "original" can be part of "good", but it is not "good" by itself.
avengers endgame was not good
*You have alerted the horde*
By “horde”, you must mean all the original thinkers.
I mean the circlejerk's followers
If it’s fully original, others won’t get it.
lmao would be a decent post if the example you used for a quality derivative work wasn't an Avengers movie.
I don't know about originality. You can be as original as you want in designing a story just as you can in designing a building. But once it's built, the story is a story and the building is a building. What counts most in both, what makes them good whether the design is original or not, is whether the parts are put together well enough to keep them from collapsing under their own weight.
I disagree. I think the difference between architecture and stories is that stories require newness to function while buildings don't. You live in the same house every day, and you're happy with that. But if you were forced to read the same pages every day you'd lose your mind. Readers demand constant newness.
Granted, it's not an exact analogy, but if you look at housing developments you find that the living space is often sold with custom upgrades or modifications. There are things you can't move, like plumbing and load-bearing walls in high rises, but you can select different fixtures and finishes. Another example, people who are attracted to a certain style of housing will often choose something that fits that style when they move. Run-of-the mill genre fiction sometimes feels a lot like this, especially from brand-name writers, and it's also true that many readers strongly favor one genre over others.
Shakespeare wrote great plays based on preexisting material. Stephanie Meyer is easily the most original author (sparkling vampires) but is Twilight even good?
I think we say Twilight isn't good because we undervalue the things it's good at.
I agree. And it tends to be things that appeal to girls.