Can we please stop complaining about Originality

[Fetzenfisch]

Don't take my word for it. Take that worldview into an interview for a government or academic job, and see how you go.

The only thing that counts for my job is a philologist's stance and for that the symbol "man" and the associated content of that symbol is clear.Go to the library, check the Oxford's, there you go.
Or to take a more modern linguistic approach, take a notepad and a pen, go out there and ask 10.000 people what definitions of "man" they know and you got a representative and empiric bit of data about the meanings the symbol contains at the moment. (like in "Children of Men" ""In the year 2525, If man is still alive" and whatever other pieces of literature to be found)
Everything beyond this is not science but politics, which is in only little connection to the truth.

 

[BonsaiK]

Don't take my word for it. Take that worldview into an interview for a government or academic job, and see how you go.

The only thing that counts for my job is a philologist's stance and for that the symbol "man" and the associated content of that symbol is clear.Go to the library, check the Oxford's, there you go.
Or to take a more modern linguistic approach, take a notepad and a pen, go out there and ask 10.000 people what definitions of "man" they know and you got a representative and empiric bit of data about the meanings the symbol contains at the moment.
Everything beyond this is not science but politics, which is in only little connection to the truth.

So what you're saying is that because your employer doesn't require you to think about these things, then you don't think about them?

I'm pretty sure that in the dictionary, when you look at "man", the idea of "man" representing a "male" comes up. Let's check:

1.
an adult male person, as distinguished from a boy or a woman.
2.
a member of the species Homo sapiens or all the members of this species collectively, without regard to sex: prehistoric man.

Note which definition is number 1 and which definition is number 2.

 

[Fetzenfisch]

Don't take my word for it. Take that worldview into an interview for a government or academic job, and see how you go.

The only thing that counts for my job is a philologist's stance and for that the symbol "man" and the associated content of that symbol is clear.Go to the library, check the Oxford's, there you go.
Or to take a more modern linguistic approach, take a notepad and a pen, go out there and ask 10.000 people what definitions of "man" they know and you got a representative and empiric bit of data about the meanings the symbol contains at the moment.
Everything beyond this is not science but politics, which is in only little connection to the truth.

So what you're saying is that because your employer doesn't require you to think about these things, then you don't think about them?

I'm pretty sure that in the dictionary, when you look at "man", the idea of "man" representing a "male" comes up. Let's check:

1.
an adult male person, as distinguished from a boy or a woman.
2.
a member of the species Homo sapiens or all the members of this species collectively, without regard to sex: prehistoric man.

Note which definition is number 1 and which definition is number 2.

The one that is used more often.
Like red is 1) a colour 2) a name.

But thanks for supporting my argument.

My employer needs me to be a philologist. A scholar of anglistics. And the methods used to define a symbol are very clear.
In mathematics you cant change a result just because superstitious people could be repelled by the number 13 either.
Language is a tool of politics, but they dont have the authority to change it however they want to.Language is changed solely by the people using it. So if we all agree that from now one man does not mean "mankind" anymore and dont use it like that and all forget that it can mean exactly that, then yes the meaning of the symbol changes. But not before this.

 

[Geekosaurus]

It's just a broad excuse that encompasses are variety of issues. Obviously each game or film is different, but that doesn't stop them from being similar to other superior games/films.

 

[Roganzar]

Well I'm glad to see you all realize that the word "man" and its various offensive implications was the whole point of this exercise. Quick lets raise George Carlin from the grave so he can add it to his list of "Words you can't say on TV."

That by the way is sarcasm, a dying art I know but I still maintain it.

To clarify my point:
1. Stop complaining about "originality."
2. Innovation and presentation are what we see when a new twist is put on one of the basic plots.

Additionally,

Here are the seven plots.
1. The Quest
2. Voyage and Return
3. Rebirth
4. Comedy
5. Tragedy
6. Overcoming the Monster
7. Rags to Riches

These are genres of storytelling not plots. Plot is what underpins the entire story, often involving some form of conflict(s). You can write/tell/present a story that is completely lacking in conflict, but it would probably be dreadfully boring and short. Mainly because its impossible to go through even a day with out some little conflict occuring.

And now I'm going to use our new swear, MAN!!! MAN!!! MAN!!!