Cleopatra 1963, Trek influences??

[Christopher]

Here's my theory: a producer, a director, and a big-name star are having drinks. Somehow the subject of the Loch Ness Monster comes up, everybody talks about how there hasn't been a good Loch Ness Monster movie in years, and, you know, maybe we should have a meeting about that or see if there are already any good Loch Ness Monster scripts floating around. Everybody goes home thinking about what kind of Loch Ness Monster movie they want to make.

Maybe there's some early talk about collaborating on the project, but, in the end, everybody has their own ideas and heads off to develop their own Loch Ness projects.

And, three years later, audiences are scratching their heads and wondering why there are suddenly two Loch Ness Monster movies coming out in the same year . . . .

(The third one got stuck in Development Hell, or lost Nessie in the fourth draft and is now about vampire mermaids.)

That makes a lot of sense. They're not intentionally copying each other, they're just exposed to similar memes because they're part of the same culture -- both in terms of the general public's culture and the specific culture of the film/TV industry. Nothing exists in a vacuum, and nothing has just one influence.

 

[erastus25]

So "way too similar to be a coincidence" is a myth. Yes, sometimes things are similar intentionally, but it constantly does happen by accident.

That makeup is way too similar to be a coincidence.

This is what we call "not getting it."

You are just randomly speculating on this topic based on your knowledge. Start supplying some actual evidence that support your assertions and we'll go with it. Until then your guess is quite literally just as good as mine. I think it's important to remember that "Not agreeing != wrong."

 

[Harvey]

Well, I found the word, cryptomnesia (forgetting that you know something that you really still do know) on Harvey's fine blog.

http://startrekfactcheck.blogspot.com/2014/12/fact-check-cbs-watch-magazine-star-trek.html

Ironically, I had read that before and forgotten I had seen it there.

I'd love to take all the credit, but the truth is I picked up the word from this very forum, and still managed to spell it incorrectly (before Christopher pointed out my mistake and I fixed it).

 

[Greg Cox]

Here's my theory: a producer, a director, and a big-name star are having drinks. Somehow the subject of the Loch Ness Monster comes up, everybody talks about how there hasn't been a good Loch Ness Monster movie in years, and, you know, maybe we should have a meeting about that or see if there are already any good Loch Ness Monster scripts floating around. Everybody goes home thinking about what kind of Loch Ness Monster movie they want to make.

Maybe there's some early talk about collaborating on the project, but, in the end, everybody has their own ideas and heads off to develop their own Loch Ness projects.

And, three years later, audiences are scratching their heads and wondering why there are suddenly two Loch Ness Monster movies coming out in the same year . . . .

(The third one got stuck in Development Hell, or lost Nessie in the fourth draft and is now about vampire mermaids.)

That makes a lot of sense. They're not intentionally copying each other, they're just exposed to similar memes because they're part of the same culture -- both in terms of the general public's culture and the specific culture of the film/TV industry. Nothing exists in a vacuum, and nothing has just one influence.

Heck, you've been at the bar at Shore Leave. We're all sitting around gabbing and throwing out ideas. "Hey, somebody ought to do a new steampunk version of Moby-Dick!" "And Ahab could have a clockwork leg and a steam-powered harpoon!" "Hey, what if Ishmael was actually a time-traveler from the future out to save the whales from extinction--like in Star Trek IV?"

The morning after, nobody can really remember who came up with what idea, but the notion is still bouncing around in several skulls.

Now imagine that we're Hollywood movers and shakers with the ability to get movies green-lit. Suddenly, there are competing steampunk whaling movies in the works . . . .

 

[Christopher]

You are just randomly speculating on this topic based on your knowledge. Start supplying some actual evidence that support your assertions and we'll go with it. Until then your guess is quite literally just as good as mine. I think it's important to remember that "Not agreeing != wrong."

You're misunderstanding me. I'm not saying anything about whether the makers of "The Cage" were actually influenced by Cleopatra or not. I'm just explaining that it's a common mistake among laypeople to assume that similarity can't be coincidental. The fact, as I've explained citing multiple examples, is that coincidental similarities between different works of fiction happen constantly and are a routine inconvenience for creators. So the mere fact of a similarity does not rule out the possibility of coincidence. That's all I'm saying: that the phrase "too similar to be coincidence" is a fallacy. Or at least that it would take far more exact and verbatim similarities before coincidence could legitimately be ruled out.

Heck, you've been at the bar at Shore Leave. We're all sitting around gabbing and throwing out ideas. "Hey, somebody ought to do a new steampunk version of Moby-Dick!" "And Ahab could have a clockwork leg and a steam-powered harpoon!" "Hey, what if Ishmael was actually a time-traveler from the future out to save the whales from extinction--like in Star Trek IV?"

The morning after, nobody can really remember who came up with what idea, but the notion is still bouncing around in several skulls.

Actually, that's the one part of the Shore Leave experience I've never really participated in, since I don't drink and I don't like staying up too late. Sometimes I think I should try it anyway and see what I'm missing.

 

[erastus25]

You are just randomly speculating on this topic based on your knowledge. Start supplying some actual evidence that support your assertions and we'll go with it. Until then your guess is quite literally just as good as mine. I think it's important to remember that "Not agreeing != wrong."

You're misunderstanding me. I'm not saying anything about whether the makers of "The Cage" were actually influenced by Cleopatra or not. I'm just explaining that it's a common mistake among laypeople to assume that similarity can't be coincidental. The fact, as I've explained citing multiple examples, is that coincidental similarities between different works of fiction happen constantly and are a routine inconvenience for creators. So the mere fact of a similarity does not rule out the possibility of coincidence. That's all I'm saying: that the phrase "too similar to be coincidence" is a fallacy. Or at least that it would take far more exact and verbatim similarities before coincidence could legitimately be ruled out.

No, I understand. Just saying that "where there's smoke, there's fire." It's pretty hard to ignore this fire in this case.

 

[Greg Cox]

But seriously . . . the point is that we're sometimes too quick to assume that, just because two things resemble each other, that one must have copied (or "ripped off") the other. Whereas people come up independently with the same ideas all the time, or, as Christopher suggested, were influenced by the same earlier sources, which were themselves inspired by earlier works and reference materials.

There's probably a fresco in Pompeii somewhere that predates all of this . . .

 

[erastus25]

But seriously . . . the point is that we're sometimes too quick to assume that, just because two things resemble each other, that one must have copied (or "ripped off") the other. Whereas people come up independently with the same ideas all the time, or, as Christopher suggested, were influenced by the same earlier sources, which were themselves inspired by earlier works and reference materials.

There's probably a fresco in Pompeii somewhere that predates all of this . . .

Oh, absolutely. And as has been pointed out already, sometime that imitation is even subconscious.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

But seriously . . . the point is that we're sometimes too quick to assume that, just because two things resemble each other, that one must have copied (or "ripped off") the other. Whereas people come up independently with the same ideas all the time, or, as Christopher suggested, were influenced by the same earlier sources, which were themselves inspired by earlier works and reference materials.

Some time ago, in the Fact-Checking Inside Star Trek: The Real Story thread, I posted the following design similarities between the 1701 bridge/saucer section & the ship rom This Island Earth--

From the half teardrop sections stationed on top of another, the windows lining the sides, all resting on a larger disc shape, I think it is not a stretch to say the 1701 design was more than influenced by the TIE ship.

One could argue that it was a ripoff, since This Island Earth only predated ST a little under a decade, and like Forbidden Planet (the other ST influence), set striking ship, costume and landscape imagery that helped define the genre on film / TV for years to come (ex. Forbidden Planet's underground Krell complex was swiped by The Time Tunnel's own underground, multi-story location).

In short, this can be a case where a significant ST creation did not come into existence independent of a direct influence...or artistic sticky fingers.

 

[Maurice]

People use the word "ripoff" too casually. Everything is a Remix.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

The Remix idea seems like a defensive posture assumed by those who cannot create anything new. I suggest that a work or product can be fairly called a rip, when it would not exist without the obvious, strong foundation and definitive heart of the original.

Just ask Chuck Berry about The Beach Boys' rip of Sweet Little Sixteen, or channel George Harrison about his rip from The Chiffons' He's So Fine. The two (among many) cases were won (in part) because it was clear the foundation of the swipes--that which made the songs distinctive--would not exist if not so heavily based on the original work.

Now, i'm not going to say the entire 1701 design was swiped from the This Island Earth ship, but I think few would argue that too many details from the Enterprise saucer section (along with the fact TIE was yet another known sci-fi film from an era Roddenberry & associates, were obviously aware of), were swiped, to the point where the 1701 cannot be said to be a wholly innovative, unheralded design.

 

[Forbin]

See also, I guess, all the times two similar movies come out at nearly the same time.

I suspect that often may be a case of the same people attending the same meetings and parties and throwing ideas around . . . .

Here's my theory: a producer, a director, and a big-name star are having drinks. Somehow the subject of the Loch Ness Monster comes up, everybody talks about how there hasn't been a good Loch Ness Monster movie in years, and, you know, maybe we should have a meeting about that or see if there are already any good Loch Ness Monster scripts floating around. Everybody goes home thinking about what kind of Loch Ness Monster movie they want to make.

Maybe there's some early talk about collaborating on the project, but, in the end, everybody has their own ideas and heads off to develop their own Loch Ness projects.

And, three years later, audiences are scratching their heads and wondering why there are suddenly two Loch Ness Monster movies coming out in the same year . . . .

(The third one got stuck in Development Hell, or lost Nessie in the fourth draft and is now about vampire mermaids.)

That's a pretty darn good theory. Plus it's much kinder than my personal theory that someone at Studio A heard that Studio B was doing a Loch Ness Monster movie, and decided to beat them to the punch with something quick and dirty and mass-market.

 

[BK613]

One could also argue that the B17, an aircraft that both GR and MJ were intimately acquainted with, provided that influence, since it has a raised superstructure on its fuselage similar to 1701's. Throw in the plexiglass gun turret as the bridge and BAM, you have your influence.

 

[Zaminhon]

With the portholes on the raised section, it cold also be influenced by submarines as well, (although I don't believe subs actually have portholes). Obviously Balance of Terror was a page out of submarine warfare.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

We all know the Forbidden Planet influence on Star Trek (section 1) or rip, but as noted above, Irwin Allen's The Time Tunnel also grabbed key designs (sections 2 - 3) that one can argue would not exist to any degree if FP, etc. were not produced--

 

[Maurice]

Ripoff colloquially means "fraud" or "inferior copy" The point of Everything Is A Remix is that everything is influenced by something else, and that there is basically almost no such thing as a wholly original thought. Everything is built up from what came before it.

 

[plynch]

I have been deliberately trying to write songs in a more contemporary vein and you better believe I have been brainwashing my ear so to speak, and studying radio hits for common chord progressions and melody patterns. When in Rome. Obviously you can't directly steal, but there are always current looks or sounds in entertainment and producers do watch and listen to other people's stuff. Those trying to be "popular" have to give some care to sounding similar. There's been a lot about this lately, esp the use of big data in analyzing successful music streams and movie plots. The seeming sameness is no illusion, and measurably increasing.

 

[Forbin]

Remember the "My Sweet Lord" / "He's So Fine" controversy?

 

[Nerys Myk]

Remember the "My Sweet Lord" / "He's So Fine" controversy?

Post 51 does.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Remember the "My Sweet Lord" / "He's So Fine" controversy?

I mentioned that in my earlier post; lawsuits such as that one existed for a reason, and whether one acknowledges it or not, the judgement did not say George Harrison was simply "remixing" based on an old song (which was only around 6 years old at the time Harrison "wrote" his version). My Sweet Lord would not exist at all if He's So Fine was not swiped in such a thorough manner.