Someone
And that statement is still incorrect.

No. you just disagree there is a difference.

The tutorial was talking about one aspect of making a story, I could see that right away so why can't you? Most of your points are at least semi valid but you seem to ignore that point that what the OP was making.

isukun
The problem with the entertainment industry is that their version of originality is basically the same as yours.

Sometimes I wonder why you even bother to reply Isukun. That is completely fatuous and pointless. Not only is it untrue, it doesn't even apply in this case.

isukun
Rather than offer new stories, they simply change the setting and use the same tired character archetypes and scenarios. And from what I've learned about writing, people who use the setting for the underlying base of their story are poor writers. Stories are about people, not places. When you start writing your characters around the setting and scenario, you tend to end up with poorly realized characters and a story that doesn't hold up.

I begin to pity you Isukun.
Your conception of the world is mostly limited to some imagined binary ideal: something is either right or wrong, this way or that way, black or white.

You have very little grasp of the full variety of story types out there. It sounds to me if all you really know about are things like porn or TV soaps. Perhaps you need to get out and read more?

Genejoke

Isukun
And that statement is still incorrect.

No. you just disagree there is a difference.

There is no difference in this case:
Disagree with Isukun == you are wrong.

Not only is it untrue, it doesn't even apply in this case.

It does apply in this case. Hollywood isn't willing to take a chance on original concepts, so they simply do what the tutorial proposes and change the setting, but keep the core story elements. Movies and TV are still derivitive and people are still getting sick of it. Changing the setting doesn't save a project from having an unoriginal story.

You have very little grasp of the full variety of story types out there. It sounds to me if all you really know about are things like porn or TV soaps. Perhaps you need to get out and read more?

I have a farily good grasp of the full variety of story types out there and I read quite often. Every book and successful comic that I've read, almost every TV show and movie that I've watched, all center around the characters. Every creative writing class that I've taken has taught that the characters drive the story. Every scripting class I've taken has taught that it is vital to have well defined and thought out characters who drive the action. They've all said that the setting is essential for adding flavor, but that the story itself is defined by the decisions made by the characters. Relying heavily on the setting to drive the action is poor writing and I have seen many examples in writing and film that show that to be true (like the various deus ex machina in Avatar, for example). So far NONE of you have said ANYTHING to prove otherwise.

It isn't about setting over characters it isn't about characters at all. The OP and tutorial are about setting alone all your ranting is a separate aspect of story telling. yes they do tie in, yes the characters are the window to the story, but that doesn't make setting just window dressing. How characters relate to the setting can be very significant and a well conceived original setting can be very helpful to how the characters act in regards to it.
I do appreciate what you are saying it just isn't the point that has been made and you seem to be dismissing other parts out of hand.


Read the ends and tell me the setting doesn't matter.

You need to reread the tutorial. Newway12 states specifically that the setting determines the character archetypes and that's why the fantasy genre has become stale. That's what I take issue with. Character archetypes are not restricted to specific settings. Simply changing the setting does not "instantly change the kind of characters that you need to populate your story" as the tutorial claims. If an author cannot come up with an original story, it's because they are too attached to common character archetypes and scenarios. Moving the story to India won't change that. Even the examples Newway12 listed in the tutorial were nothing more than cosmetic changes.

Given that modern psychology credits both nature and nurture in shaping a person's individuality, I don't see how a story can have definitive characters without the setting (or "nurture" ) portion considered.

A lazy person can be a lazy person on Mars or Michigan. A person can be greedy whether in ancient Phoenicia or modern day Brazil. But a certain sympathy or antipathy can be achieved just by identifying the setting. The setting, such as Park Avenue, Manhattan or a village in Ethiopia instantly becomes itself a character of the story. The setting can overshadow every motive a character might have. A confidence plot in a rich setting could be a lark; in a poor environment, it may be a struggle to survive. Would the reverse work without re-defining the characters?

Without the environment defined, I don't think it's possible to create fully-3D characters.

You're right it does say that, I kind of glossed over that and read the meat of it where it says about not being restricted to common fantasy elements. And as mentioned fantasy does tend to have a lot of the weak archetypes, the lone warrior , the eccentric mage, the sly but charming thief and so on. true they are restricted to fantasy but it does have assloads of them. Anything that encourages writers to think outside of convention can only be good, if they start with the setting and then look at characters... that can be good, it means they are thinking more about the characters.
Also I took the changes the type of characters in the broadest sense, different setting can mean different culture, a well though out and rigid culture can make a big difference to a character, it may (or may not) define them.

I think the key point comes at the end though...

Someone
This isn’t an article telling you how or what to write or draw. It’s a written suggestion asking you to question the clichés and tropes of a genre and perhaps think outside the box. The Comic world is filled with Fantasy stories and I firmly believe that changing the setting of a story can make your story stand out in a very crowded market. This is what I set out to do with my own work, and it’s something a wish more creators would do as well.

I entirely agree with Newway12's advice, and I don't see what Isukun's problem is. You can reduce any story to the point where it becomes derivative. Every story has a beginning, an end, and stuff that happens in between. So what. Even if something can be, at the most rudimentary of levels, the "same story" when you move it to a new locale, it can still make a significant difference in how the story is experienced, which is the main point. "Avatar" may well be "Pocahontas In Space," but watching it is not the same as watching Disney's "Pocahontas," or Terrence Malick's "The New World." Moving your run-of-the-mill Tolkienesque fairytale to a feudal Japan-based world will drastically change virtually every aspect of how it is experienced by your audience, and I consider that perfectly sound advice. It's not the ONLY thing to take into consideration, but it's no small thing either.

You know, when you think about it, and the point being to create a popular story, originality is probably the worst thing to have :-) It's a fairly well-known secret that readers usually feel more comfortable with storylines they're at least vaguely familiar with.

As for Star Wars, it was a common B-western plot... I've seen a dozen old 1950's movies with that plot... the setting changed the story and made it popular, but the story is practically public domain.

So, I think the key is to have a familiar story in an unfamiliar setting. And by unfamiliar, I mean unfamiliar to your target audience. For U.S. readers, stories taking place in Japan, feudal or modern, are 'fantasy'. It doesn't matter if people in Japan know that ninja's were never *really* like they're portrayed in western culture, it becomes fantasy for western readers.

So, if you want to create a popular comic, forget about being original... take a tried and true plotline and put it in a fantasy world. The familiarity of the story puts your readers right into the story and the fantasy world entertains them.

One thing Modest Medusa does is reverse that... the storyline is the typical 'fish out of water' idea, but Jake takes a fantasy world character and puts her in the common world. It still works the same... the audience has something to 'ride' on and still enjoy a fantasy.

Tim Wellman
...So, if you want to create a popular comic, forget about being original... take a tried and true plotline and put it in a fantasy world. The familiarity of the story puts your readers right into the story and the fantasy world entertains them...

I agree with the first part of that, sort of. It's true that originality is waaaaaaaaay overrated. In fact I'd say that originality in and of itself has virtually no value at all. Much better to be entertaining than original.

...But that doesn't make being original a BAD thing, either, and people do appreciate innovative writing when it's done well. If you have an idea that's original, and it's a good story that people can relate to and enjoy, then you should definitely go for it. Don't try to be original just for the sake of being original, but also don't be mainstream just for the sake of being mainstream. Do what works for you.

So what. Even if something can be, at the most rudimentary of levels, the "same story" when you move it to a new locale, it can still make a significant difference in how the story is experienced, which is the main point.

Except that readers tend to connect more to the characters in a story than they do the setting. Everything is experienced through the characters and their interactions.

"Avatar" may well be "Pocahontas In Space," but watching it is not the same as watching Disney's "Pocahontas,"

People can easily draw comparisons to Pocahontas and Dances With Wolves with Avatar precisely BECAUSE the experiences are so similar. People who are familiar with both stories immediately make that connection, it doesn't matter that one takes place in Colonial America/the Old West and the other takes place on an alien world in the future. The stories and characters are so similar that they do in fact offer up very similar experiences for the audience. One of the biggest complaints about the movie was how derivitive it was. Considering the tutorial is supposed to show how changing the setting makes something more original, you've picked a very poor example to try and prove that point.

Actually, if you'd been paying attention instead of just trying to argue with people, you'd notice I chose those examples specifically because they used the same derivative plot/characters, yet still managed to offer up a unique viewing experience for audiences. Yes, people who just want to throw stones will forever be able to point out that there were a great many similarities between Avatar and Pocahontas. This is trivia. In terms of how the movies are experienced, these observations are inconsequential in every conceivable way. The experience of exploring Pandora's soaring computer-generated vistas is a far cry from the animated New World of Disney's Pocahontas. The musical whimsy of Pocahontas is nothing like the thumping fast-paced action of Avatar. The experience of watching the two movies could not be any more different.

I also chose Avatar for another reason. Avatar is a shining example of exactly the type of derivative filmmaking you claim everyone is so tired of, and yet it was one of the most successful movies of all time. There couldn't be be any more irrefutable evidence that you don't know what you're talking about. Deep down underneath all that very inspired and very original "window dressing," Avatar may well have been structurally, invisibly the same as Pocahontas, but that doesn't actually mean anything to anyone. This is a manufactured issue that people are always being told they should care about, but no one really cares. They know a good movie when they see one.

The box office returns for Avatar prove nothing apart from the fact that people are willing to go see a movie based on hype and aesthetics, neither of which has ANYTHING to do with the originality of the story, which if YOU had been paying attention, you would realize was the original topic (how to make your STORY LESS GENERIC, not whether or not it mattered to audiences) and what I've been taking about all along.

Regarding your topic, however, Avatar has no lasting appeal. The only reason it did as well as it did was due to the breakthroughs made in visual effects and physical presentation (i.e. it was the big showcase title for the new wave of 3D movies). While you can usually pull off a rare success with these elements, not every director can get an unlimited budget to make the next visual effects breakout title and declining box office sales really don't support this notion that superficial visual elements are enough for audiences, anymore.

bravo1102
A great way to create a fantasy world would be to come up with a character and then create the world that made her the way she is.

That's pretty much how I do it. Most of my work tends to be for anthologies, so you don't have time to make a complex world and detail it. So I opt to create the characters, their motivations and so forth...then bring the world around them to life. It's an interesting process and seems to sit well with most editors and publishers.

isukun
The box office returns for Avatar prove nothing apart from the fact that people are willing to go see a movie based on hype and aesthetics, neither of which has ANYTHING to do with the originality of the story, which if YOU had been paying attention, you would realize was the original topic (how to make your STORY LESS GENERIC, not whether or not it mattered to audiences) and what I've been taking about all along.

So apparently none of that advice had anything to do with making your comic more appealing to audiences? Ha ha! Do you realize how ridiculous you sound? Oh wait, I forgot who I was talking to, of course you don't!

What you've been doing throughout this thread is denigrate perfectly sound advice, which is that choosing a unique non-traditional setting for your fantasy comic can make it stand out. And it can. You don't get that, fine. You've been led to the water, but we can't force you to drink it.

It's good to see your debate tactics haven't changed a bit El Cid. You still can't argue your way out of a paper bag, so you just deflect and change the subject while mocking the other person rather than actually backing up what you say with anything of substance. You claim I'm the argumentative one, but I'm not the one who derailed the conversation just to keep things going. Have fun with that.