Originality is Dead?
- Thread starter Tips_of_Fingers
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Every single thing, no matter what it is, shares similarities to something else. It's really unavoidable. It's like that episode of South Park where Butters is complaining that Simpsons did everything. It can't be helped; in fact many of their episodes were rip-offs from something else.
Dead Space shares the name of a movie where the exact same events occur. In the movie, an engineer goes to a mining ship, find it is filled with aliens, and tries to rescue his girlfriend. The movie is more than 40 years old.
Also, rehashes and the dumbing down of media for mainstream audiences has been happening since... well forever. Games have gotten cheaper, not more expensive, and there still are a lot of people that enjoy their jobs in the industry. These are the big four"problems" with modern games, but they've always existed.
Dead Space shares the name of a movie where the exact same events occur. In the movie, an engineer goes to a mining ship, find it is filled with aliens, and tries to rescue his girlfriend. The movie is more than 40 years old.
Also, rehashes and the dumbing down of media for mainstream audiences has been happening since... well forever. Games have gotten cheaper, not more expensive, and there still are a lot of people that enjoy their jobs in the industry. These are the big four"problems" with modern games, but they've always existed.
Originality can never die in my eyes. Somehow, someway the human brain will come up with something no-one ever thought up before. Whether it becomes a game, movie, story or comic book is all up to the person with the vision. I refuse to admit that we have really reached an impasse as a creative community, that we can only fall into stereotypes.
Well, the fantasy book im writing seems to follow certain themes of star wars, rise of hero, fall of hero. But at the end of mines, he doesn't realise his wrongs lol. And there is no I AM YOUR FATHER stuff.
ut i agree with OP, everything is based on something else, not original
ut i agree with OP, everything is based on something else, not original
I made a thread on this a while ago that failed to take off.
Copypasta inc:
Why do some people put such emphasis on originality. I swear, the word "original" in all its forms comes up in no less than half the threads about entertainment. I'm not saying I don't enjoy things which are original, but I don't think originality is something inherently good. Nor do I think being unoriginal is inherently bad, or that works based off of or similar to previous works are immediately "less than".
Do people just want an excuse to put on the Rose Tinted Glasses or is "I didn't like the execution" not catty enough or something?
TL; DR: Originality is overrated.
Copypasta inc:
Why do some people put such emphasis on originality. I swear, the word "original" in all its forms comes up in no less than half the threads about entertainment. I'm not saying I don't enjoy things which are original, but I don't think originality is something inherently good. Nor do I think being unoriginal is inherently bad, or that works based off of or similar to previous works are immediately "less than".
Do people just want an excuse to put on the Rose Tinted Glasses or is "I didn't like the execution" not catty enough or something?
TL; DR: Originality is overrated.
The minute you just write something or try to come up with something original for the sake of being original is where it loses its originality. Dead Space was a pretty original game, except for the whole 'I am dead oh wait I am not. Boo.' factor. Minecraft is definitely originality at its best. If you look hard enough or just do what you want you can come up with a pretty original form of gaming or art.
Take furries for example..
Take furries for example..
Some good replies here.
To the question of originality versus creativity, it does indeed come down to looking at the whole or it's parts, as Delock said above. One thing I would add is that from both perspectives, not only is it important to remember that originality or creativity is possible (respectively), but this originality or creativity can still be significantly new. If you want proof of this, take a look at the impact of people like Marx, Freud, and Darwin. One can say that these ideas were wholly new in the very fact that each thinker introduced terminology and language that made it possible to think these ideas - that the idea of evolution (for example) meant something very different before Darwin, and that the latter original idea resembles the prior idea little more than in name. Or one can also say that these ideas were displays of creative arrangements, aspects of which had been present for centuries. But either way you look at it, as original ideas or creative arrangements, one cannot deny the impact of these thinker's ideas. In short; don't underestimate the new any less than the potential for the new, there are indeed new things under the sun, and some of them are pretty big deals.
edit: in regards to writing, the advice for each perspective (whole or parts) is the same - keep working and keep trying. If you see things as original in themselves, keep creating, keep daydreaming, keep imagining, and keep building up your own ideas. If you see new things as a conglomeration of the elements of other stuff, then read, research, experiment, and keep trying at it. I've found that the best way to prove that novelty does exist in this world is to go ahead and make some for ones self.
To the question of originality versus creativity, it does indeed come down to looking at the whole or it's parts, as Delock said above. One thing I would add is that from both perspectives, not only is it important to remember that originality or creativity is possible (respectively), but this originality or creativity can still be significantly new. If you want proof of this, take a look at the impact of people like Marx, Freud, and Darwin. One can say that these ideas were wholly new in the very fact that each thinker introduced terminology and language that made it possible to think these ideas - that the idea of evolution (for example) meant something very different before Darwin, and that the latter original idea resembles the prior idea little more than in name. Or one can also say that these ideas were displays of creative arrangements, aspects of which had been present for centuries. But either way you look at it, as original ideas or creative arrangements, one cannot deny the impact of these thinker's ideas. In short; don't underestimate the new any less than the potential for the new, there are indeed new things under the sun, and some of them are pretty big deals.
edit: in regards to writing, the advice for each perspective (whole or parts) is the same - keep working and keep trying. If you see things as original in themselves, keep creating, keep daydreaming, keep imagining, and keep building up your own ideas. If you see new things as a conglomeration of the elements of other stuff, then read, research, experiment, and keep trying at it. I've found that the best way to prove that novelty does exist in this world is to go ahead and make some for ones self.
NO!There is always possibility of originality,but hey maybe originality is not your thing there is always homage,parody,satire,retorting and don't for get plagiarism.
Ever heard about the story about a transexual flute player who built a pc that couldn't be hacked?
My motto is and will always be "Originality isn't dead. It's just harder to make". This still apply to this thread.
this article seems to make the assumption that innovation refers to technology and nothing else.Hunde Des Krieg said:
I'm not so sure that that counts as an accurate measure here, there are many other ways to think about novelty than technology, and they may not always coincide.
Originality is as dead as it's always been. So lots of stuff that's been done before and also lots of at least somewhat innovative stuff.
Also, it's often forgotten around here that something does not need to be original to be good.
Also, it's often forgotten around here that something does not need to be original to be good.
In 3000 years nearly every idea has been explored, at least all the main themes of thought.
Of course they're gonna be minor variation and such but humans like similarity, either way, it doesn't matter much.
Just because originality is "dead" doesn't mean every person knows everything.
Of course they're gonna be minor variation and such but humans like similarity, either way, it doesn't matter much.
Just because originality is "dead" doesn't mean every person knows everything.
Originality is all about taking familiar elements, tools if you will, and using them to create something in a new way. Therefore, I would say that originality is not entirely dead, just a little harder to find thanks to the horrendous glut of generic ripoffs our constant connection to the internet exposes us to.
I think it is in music, I don't really listen to music as much as I should considering its all my friends do all day apart from hug each other. But most songs I would say purely revovle around lve and quite frankly, I hear one, I've heard most of them. Can we move on please. Maybe we should make music on better subjects like I don't know...cake? Cuz cake is good
Originality would really only be dead if we stopped developing as a species and a society.
Like there would be no facebook movie in 1956 you know? or a Nuclear war story before World War 2.
New subject matter means new stories and themes. SOME things get done to death because their predecessors were successful. the business side stunts creativity.
Like there would be no facebook movie in 1956 you know? or a Nuclear war story before World War 2.
New subject matter means new stories and themes. SOME things get done to death because their predecessors were successful. the business side stunts creativity.