Statatitions can provide such rueful premonitions. These same individuals (Neeeerds!) that conduct analysis on every myopic detail concerning a trailer, is a particularly coercive sentiment distributed by the fallacy of experience, that with enough insistent research can determine the precise nature of a games/movie/TV’s conceit. There maybe other tangents of interest or aberrations on an established format already compounded by years of abusive syndication, regurgitated premises that are bespoke amalgamation’s of better, more cohesive tales, but stories are largely formulaic principles of good and evil, to which these savants (Neeeerds!) take great pleasure in dissecting. But are these often vilified recitals as derivative as they’ve been attested? Can a conceit ever be profoundly subversive without leaving audiences confused? Are rhetorical questions ever stylistically merited? And is an original idea truly original? I’ve questioned this particular conception for some time. It was only just recently that I stated to a friend my admiration for the abstract originality depicted in John Carpenter’s “The Thing”. Only to be rebutted by a colleague that The Thing is actually a remake! “Oh yeah, sure. And I guess “Scarface” and “Cape Fear” are too?…….They are? Really?!” That loud combustible implosion you hear, is the sound of my mind being blown!
Recapitulated plots are often perceived as restrictive manacles of repressed imagination, when maybe their simply ideologies that necessitate further expansion. The entertainment community has a customary inertness to distinguish content via comparable equivalence. Validation of a game/films quality is almost always appraised by correlation; Guardians of the galaxy is compared to Star Wars, The Hobbit to Lord of the Rings, which is such a discriminatory way of determining whether something is good or bad. That’s like saying that substance abuse or the subverted manufacturing of illegal narcotics can’t be mentioned due to the association with Breaking Bad! Perhaps its a misguided conceit that new and original equates to better and progressive. Maybe accepting the extraneous threads and admiring the story or game-play elements we’ve seen before is the is a pre-requisite. Turning a familiar plot into a fresh yet familiar concept shouldn’t be a reflection of callow frivolity or precipitate a canonical inferiority. Lighten up Nerds! Nothing is ever really new, just rasping interpretation of resplendence and more expensive.
Our conscription of thinking our ideas are inventive aren’t necessary as we perceive. We are just another promenade of repetitive civilisation. The ancient Egyptians would document the historic affluence of kings through hieroglyphics etched onto sarcophagus of princes, that have had their brains extracted through their nose. Whereas gamers cherish the trophies and accomplishments they attained, while picking their nose. The Greeks would stand in unison, garbed in bed sheets or “toga’s” and discuss philosophy, unless Bill and Ted lied to me? Gamers sit in their underpants admonishing other gamers through headsets that have a distinct aversion to fair play. The Incas promoted peaceful assimilation, and the Mayans erected huge ceremonial edifices to honour the gods, or to get better look at ladies getting change, one of the two…..though probably neither. Gamers placate garrisoned loyalty to a specific console maker and exhort anyone that doesn’t share their myopic views. You can’t tell me that there wasn’t someone weaving the narrative of the bio-tapestry without someone behind him muttering “That’s a terrible idea. So unoriginal.” As long as there have been writers, there have cynics (Nerds). Wow! I kind of hate myself now.
