Lots of people talking about "art", "perfection," "orginality" etc. Lots of people don't seem to understand what originality is or its source. Suggest you read the following book. It's very well known amongst stand-up comedians, actors, improvisers and one of the best books I've ever come across (applies to lots of other domains too).    

http://www.amazon.com/Impro-Im.....mp;tag=simplyscripts

Impro: Improvisation and the Theatre [Paperback]
Keith Johnstone

ISBN-10: 0878301178
ISBN-13: 978-0878301171

Improvisation (which I've both studied and taught btw)  is not about originality.  It's about spontaneity.  And while spontaneity may be useful for finding new paths, it's the luck of the draw whether that path is an original one or not.

So while it may help in developing plots or getting through blocks, only being critical of what you have written and rewriting will lead to to an original outcome.  Furthermore, while I think you can learn the concept of improvisation through a book, you will never truly understand it unless you have done it.  

And it usually is not a solo exercise.    

@mcornetto,

If you’re going to argue, please do so intelligently. There are strong links between originality, spontaneity, improvisation etc. Certainly, the book has some insightful passages that will be of use to writers, performers and those who manage performers (directors etc).

The McC don't need sticking up for.

But anyway I'll say this: he's right. And he's more intelligent than most.

You're out of order, Ralphy boy.

Every artist is a cannibal
Every poet is a thief

(c) Bongo, 19 something, er, years ago.

Quoted from Ralph @mcornetto, If you're going to argue, please do so intelligently. There are strong links between originality, spontaneity, improvisation etc. Certainly, the book has some insightful passages that will be of use to writers, performers and those who manage performers (directors etc).

If I'm going to argue, I will do so however I damn well please, thank you.  If I want to argue in complete gibberish, I will do so (and I'm sure there's a thread somewhere around here where I do exactly that).  

However, in this case I am arguing intelligently.  Your failure to notice that fact leads me to believe that you did not actually read my response.  Or perhaps, as you like to insinuate we are all unaware novices who can't write ourselves out of a paper bag and because of our inability to communicate,  you misunderstood what I wrote.

In actuality I am not arguing about Improvisation being a helpful tool.   However, I do not agree that it equals or always leads to Originality which is what you clearly implied at the beginning of this thread.  With your superior intellect you should have no difficulty grasping that common sense principle,  but if you need more of an explanation then feel free to continue pressing your point.  

Owned.

Hear hear.

I'm a bit deaf though. Yer what?

Oh, right. Yeah. Owned indeed.

R

I don’t believe you can find originality by reading somebody else’s thoughts on being original.

Originality is like talent it is invisible until somebody else sees it, in you.

Most spec screenplays that I read are anything but original. Normally they are a variation on a theme.

Have you read mine, Ron?

Mine are original as it gets.

Except of course, originality can longer really exist.

Somewhere down the line it's all been done before.

We've had film for over one hundred years. You think of something new, you can bet someone somewhere has already done it sometime.

But, as long as it can't be seen as plagarism, you may indeed be viewed as original.

Anyways, that Barbra Streisand song, it's reasonably original, however I can't decide if I love it or hate it.

If anything it proves originality of sorts is still to be had. Despite the past.

R xo