Is it really original if....?

[Rebel]

MacGruber is a parody and as such, is meant to resemble MacGyver.

Never said it wasn't. Just that it's the same basic story/idea. It's not an original idea, neither is the practice of parodying previously told stories.

I've never seen Thirteen or the Virgin Suicides, but I still don't think they're that similar to be considered the same as Juno.

Just because something is, "About a certain life milestone or hurdle or tragedy..." does not mean they're unoriginal.

Every thing that has happened to you has already happened to someone else at some point. And those examples I made had to deal with obstacles or tragedies one might experience in life (puberty, peer pressure, unexpected/unwanted pregnancy, suicide). It's original in that it could be the first time it's happening to that particular person, but it is no way an original or unique event.

In that vein, would you consider Saving Private Ryan the same as Blackhawk Down? They're both war movies about American Rangers surrounded by the enemy right?

Both war movies that cover search/rescue type missions. They just have different motivations (searching for a last surviving family member and escaping a mission gone wrong). The war and your American Rangers are just the characters used to tell a story, you could easily change it to the Roman army and still tell the same general story.

Just because a situation or story is original to one person, does not mean the story is original to another.

[blas87]

I have to agree. Scary Movie 4's version was better than The Village.

M Night just really disappoints me in general.

I wanted to oft myself watching The Happening, it was so bad. Thankfully, I played it safe and just fell asleep.

[Red Panda]

The Village is a horrible movie with a horrible story and a horrible twist and none of it makes any sense. Thats all I have to say on the subject

[jackfaire]

Though, to be fair, M. Night could have heard the story as a child, forgotten about it, remembered snippets of it, wrote it down, created his 'new' story.

(Were you as unimpressed and unsurprised about the 'twist' in the Village as I was? And I hadn't even read the book)

Incredibly so and the book came out in the mid to late 90s actually.


And I know all that about original stories and such the thing is having to listen to sheep applaud something as if it is the most original thing in the world or being a writer yourself and being told that you will never be as good as (insert hack writer name here)

LJ Smith has started writing again or at the very least publishing again she has probably been writing for the last 10 years and I overheard someone say about "Vampire Diaries" (which the newer trilogy is a sequel to one she wrote years ago) "It's so cool that so many vampire books are being inspired by Twilight"

[Hobbs]

MacGruber is a parody and as such, is meant to resemble MacGyver.

I've never seen Thirteen or the Virgin Suicides, but I still don't think they're that similar to be considered the same as Juno.

Just because something is, "About a certain life milestone or hurdle or tragedy..." does not mean they're unoriginal.

In that vein, would you consider Saving Private Ryan the same as Blackhawk Down? They're both war movies about American Rangers surrounded by the enemy right?

[Rebel]

There is no such thing as an original story. The idea is that every story that can be written, has already been written. Every 'new' story is just the writers interpretation of a previously told story.

It's actually a fun game to work out which story all the 'new' and 'original' movies and books are derived from.

Twilight=Romeo and Juliet
MacGruber=MacGyver (if you didn't know that already, then please slap yourself)
Killers=True Lies

Or the stories are about a certain life milestone or hurdle or tragedy (Thirteen/Juno/Virgin Suicides).
There can be nearly an infinite amount of versions of the same story.

Though, to be fair, M. Night could have heard the story as a child, forgotten about it, remembered snippets of it, wrote it down, created his 'new' story.

(Were you as unimpressed and unsurprised about the 'twist' in the Village as I was? And I hadn't even read the book)

[jackfaire]

I was looking forward to watching the Village a few years back when I finally got around to watching it. I was excited and expected it to be original as that is what M. Night is famous for. Hell everyone was crowing about the original story he thought up how unique it was etc.

After I watched it I wondered if movie critics never read books or ever talk to their fellow critics in the book world.

This book http://www.amazon.com/Running-Time-M...5153839&sr=8-1


Which came out before The Village was even a twinkling in M's eye has almost the same plot with differences

SPOILER ALERT BELOW





First difference the village in the book was a tourist exhibit young couples agreed to go and live in this village pretending it was 1840.

Like in the movie the children were raised to believe it was real. The company in charge of this tourist attraction would send in "traders" now and then with supplies. Tourists would watch through cameras to see what the villagers were up to.

The tourists are told that as the children get old enough to understand they are told the truth and always have the option to leave. Really though they are kept as prisoners no one is allowed to leave the village and the children are not allowed to be told the truth.

Finally an illness resulting from no access to modern medicine starts it's course through the village and a woman helps her daughter sneak out. The daughter goes for help to bring the modern world with it's medicine to her village to save the lives of her friends.

I can allow that he told an original story but I don't consider the concept he used to be at all original. Nor have any of his concepts really been original.