Writers: who suffers from 'simpsons did it syndrome'?

[Danny]

So i am noticing more and more when working on scripts i seem to limit myself purely by thinking "oh twin peaks did this" or "well that happened in lost" or some other thing which only serves to conjure up the 'simpsons did it' episode of south park where everything is pointed out as having been done before. Lately this bugs me more and more when i write. I'll be working great on something and suddenly it will hit me that i can name a book or tv show or film that did the same plot point and feel like i ripping them off and lose all steam i had on the project because i strive to be original in what i write and do even though we all know the odds of something genuinely original nowadays is very rare. am i the only one who gets this? Its a lot like another flaw i used to have. Back when i had a little handycam before uni i would constantly give myself the writing handicap of "well you have no budget for that" mindset type irks from the get go and i had to teach myself to sit down and write the craziest stuff with the knowledge that every project is cut down to suit cost. - Hell rule one i say to younger mates who want to do the same thing is always 'a good writer/directors first draft is the craziest shit he can think of. post production is making it doable, not the other way around.

[MinionZombie]

I personally prefer the more pragmatic approach of Robert Rodriguez when he was starting out, the "I have this, this, and this - they're going in my movie" thing. You can write whatever you want, but if you just don't have the resources to achieve it in the first place, then it's wasted time unless you're going to animate it - and then finding an animator is a fucking nightmare, and fuck all people want to work for credit and exposure nowadays so it seems ... ... *wanders off into the wilderness, ranting* Back onto the main topic of "Simpson's Did It! Simpson's Did It!" syndrome, well, I always refer back to Orson Welles when Citizen Kane came out. People were, rightly, swooning over the picture - and on top of that they were saying how original it all was, to which Welles responded along the lines of 'everything has been done already', and that was 1941. Besides, even with shows like Lost - they're using endless references to things, oftentimes in Lost's case it's literature - so even these shows are inspired by other media, and it's been like that for decades. Indeed every generation is inspired by the generations that preceded it, so I wouldn't worry too much about it - it's all about finding a fine line where it's not a rip off, but it becomes its own thing. Countless films or TV shows or books will share, amongst this gargantuan melting pot of culture, elements that are the same - e.g. a whole bunch will feature a Sam Spade-like private detective, or a whole bunch will feature drug addicts on a council estate, or a whole bunch will feature people suffering from a severe and bizarre case of deja vu, which turns out to be some sort of Twilight Zone-ish occurrence. Things can inspire you, and that's totally okay - you've just got to spread the inspiration as wide as possible, and only pick certain elements that you want. I've been concerned about the same issue myself in coming up with my next feature length script, and some changes can bring you a touch closer to another character or plot point established elsewhere (a movie, TV show, videogame, etc) - but if it makes more sense, then that's better. For instance, in this new screenwriting project I'm working on now, I decided to changed something about the central protagonist - so the issue was less directly linked to me personally, but in-so-doing, it took a step closer to an established character in a piece of established content (a character type that will have been done, like pretty much all character types, plenty of times before) ... I refer back to Orson Welles during the release of Citizen Kane. My point being, I have found it best to be inspired by something initially - and then ignore that/those inspiration(s) as much as possible and just explore the world on your own, and you'll soon find different avenues opening up that warp the entire plot into different shapes and directions. In the end of the day, it's just about writing something that people will be interested in - something they'll like, and something that they can emotionally invest in. There are, essentially, only three, or four, or five, or seven (whomever you choose to believe) main plots in all storytelling, so every storyteller - be they a writer, filmmaker, musician, etc - are telling, essentially, similar stories. The key is telling them with numerous tweaks, differences, new angles, and from your own personal perspective - particularly that last one, that's the key.

[Arcades057]

Writing zombie fiction for years, yeah, I'd say I've felt that with nearly everything. "Hmm, you know what would be a great setting for a zombie thing?" I think, while walking through the food court of the Boynton Beach mall. "This mall is perfect to fend of some zomb... Shit, that was in Dawn of the Dead. OK, well there's that awesome house in the middle of nowhere on the way ho... Oh good Christ, that was Night of the Living Dead. Screw it, I'll put it in the Walmart across the street." In reality, if someone else has done something, but you can do it better, pull a George Lucas: Rip it off in a way that no one will ever be able to confront you about by doing it better, bigger, and bolder. Then when people nitpick, they'll just be revealing themselves as petty, Personally, I'd rather read a really awesome story with characters who fit like old shoes, a story which centers around a ragtag bunch of survivors fending off a zombie invasion while inside of a shopping mall, rather than something totally original with cookie cutter Mary Sues discovering their feelings, and communing with zombies. Sometimes things haven't been done because they suck, and everyone else knows it.

[MinionZombie]

True that. Characters are everything - if you don't give a stuff about them, their motivations, and their fate, then what's the point?

[clanglee]

What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun. Ecclesiastes 1:9

[Mitchified]

Back onto the main topic of "Simpson's Did It! Simpson's Did It!" syndrome, well, I always refer back to Orson Welles when Citizen Kane came out. People were, rightly, swooning over the picture - and on top of that they were saying how original it all was, to which Welles responded along the lines of 'everything has been done already', and that was 1941. Wells was wrong. Here's how I look at it. There are a finite number of pieces that can be used, but there are infinite ways of putting them together. Yes, to all you mathematicians out there that technically doesn't make any sense, but you get where I'm going with it. I know that you're a gamer, Hellsing, so I've got a prime example that I know that you'll understand. One of the best games ever produced was Uncharted 2: Among Thieves. The reason that it was so successful was that it had one of the best scripts ever written. The plot was top-notch, the characters were interesting and engaging, and it was able to completely immerse the player to a level that not many, if ANY, games ever had before it. The thing is, the parts that made up Uncharted 2 weren't original at all. The plot focused around the discovery of Shangrila (that spelling is probably off), which had been done in countless books and movies before. The main character, Drake, is betrayed by a fellow fortune hunter after being hired to retrieve an ancient artifact, a plot twist that has been done to death over the years. Even the characters aren't all that original. Hell, even Drake himself is a modernized Indiana Jones with a little bit of Jeff Goldblum's character from Jurassic Park thrown in. And come on, an evil warlord searching for a legendary treasure that will grant him immortality? Been there, done that. But the way the pieces were put together was completely original, giving the player an experience that he or she had never had before. The "what" isn't nearly as important as the "how" and "why" in the scheme of things. The current book I'm writing borrows heavily from years upon years of reading comic books. It's what I know best in terms of storytelling, so I'm sticking with my strong points. Some of the stuff that I've written so far has happened in other writings, sure, but it's not exactly the same and the events surrounding those parts are completely different. It's the same thing with screenplays.

[Trin]

Here's how I look at it. There are a finite number of pieces that can be used, but there are infinite ways of putting them together. Yes, to all you mathematicians out there that technically doesn't make any sense, but you get where I'm going with it. I am a mathematician and I approve this statement!! It's not all about being original. A good story told in a good way with good characters will entertain and engage the audience. Yes, people will make comparisons. That's what we do. It's how we put things in context. It doesn't mean the work is a failure. Just look at Night. Romero admits he drew from Matheson. Night was a loosely original take on another writer's idea. Romero made it great by writing a compelling story with good characters.

[Rancid Carcass]

Romero made it great by writing a compelling story with good characters. And Zombies!

[MinionZombie]

I don't agree with Welles' point whole-heartedly, but I can see a point within it. However, as has been said here today, it doesn't matter. You can, for instance, provide a handful of elements (sort of a writing/creativity exercise) and give them to ten writers, and I'd wager you'd come back with 20 to 30 different iterations of how those elements would be used. Perhaps what Welles meant was more along the lines of the classic three, or four, or seven (whichever theory you subscribe to) stories had long since been done already (e.g. man vs man, man vs nature, etc) ... but of course, it was how Welles told the story (both in terms of script and visually) that made Citizen Kane stand out - and that continues to this day all these decades later. And further from my point about 10 writers and 20/30 versions of a story from one handful of elements, each person has their own individual take on a story, with their own personal experiences to back it up. All you have to do is avoid referencing (or copying) someone else's work too much. However, being inspired by the work of other's is totally fine. There's nothing wrong with that at all, and that's the key. You might want to write your own version of a 'man vs nature' story, but it could potentially be anything - even if you bring in certain things you liked from other 'man vs nature' stories ... providing you aren't some copycat hack, and you have the talent, then what you'll write will be worthwhile and rewarding.