I'm reading the book CHARACTER: THE ART OF ROLE AND CAST DESIGN FOR PAGE, STAGE, AND SCREEN by Robert McKee. Here is an excerpt on originality that I found worthy of discussion:
More often than not, what’s mistaken for originality is simply the recycling of a forgotten influence. The notion of “This has never been done before” is rarely true. Rather, it’s a symptom of the writer’s ignorance of everything other writers have done before she decided to try it herself. Too often the urge to do something different results in a difference that’s not only trivial, but worsens the telling. Most stabs at innovation fail because they have in fact been tried before and found hackneyed.
That's interesting. I've found that to be true. Willa Cather said, "There are only two or three human stories, and they go on repeating themselves as fiercely as if they had never happened." So what does McKee suggest?
2 people like this
The way I read it Judith Grace Bassat is that he's saying creative originality comes from insight. Telling something that has been done from a different point of view. But you have to have an idea of what's been done and how it's been done. For example, ALIEN was a haunted house movie in space. There were tons of haunted house movies, but none (at the time) done from that angle and still there were influences from others such as the film IT: TERROR FROM BEYOND SPACE, and even the novel THE VOYAGE OF THE BEAGLE (where one of the chapters had an alien that laid eggs in one of the crew members) by A.E. Van Vogt.
3 people like this
Although most producers say they are looking for "pitch ferfect original" ideasI I could imagine writers should not try to be original but go for a solid idea. And about SF-writers,;"The Matrix" its millions and millions of PODS in Earth's atmosphere-- see the PODS in outer space in the book "Riverworld" from Philip José Farmer. You wouldn't believe how many movie ideas are (partly) nicked from SF-writers of the fifties/sixties/seventies.
You are spot on Rutger Oosterhoff 2. Never let a good idea go unnicked. LOL!
1 person likes this
I recently saw a post where one of the more experienced writers recommended Aristotle's Poetics as a good text for beginning screenwriters. I thought his recommendation was outstanding. Just goes to show how old the tricks of the trade really are. But, the audiences keep coming back over and over. Our job is to convince them that old is new again.
1 person likes this
True Mike Romoth. How many times has Shakespeare's plays been adapted?
3 people like this
Since we have a mostly shared human experience that is fundamentally unchanged for a few centuries, our stories are going to be similar. This is because the ingredients to a story are based on this experience. But like cooking you can combine them in new ways.
I think the point being made is about change for change sake. I see it all the time in comments. Someone will say “My character feels boring”. It will get a response “why not make them gay”. I know boring gay people.
That is what I see as the point some arbitrary change that the author sees as new, but it has the effect of weakening the story. Secondly, there is nothing new.
1 person likes this
There has to be scenes that no one has done before. If not and you can't be original, at least be entertaining.
"If we're free from the burden of trying to be completely original, we can stop trying to make something out of nothing, and we can embrace influence instead of running from it." -Austin Kleon (Steal Like An Artist)