Some of the stuff that goes through my mind:

Last night my wife and I watched the Amy Schumer film Trainwreck.  Actually, I sorta watched it, getting halfway through it before taking a shower. I returned to see the rest of the film (probably missed only ten or so minutes as my wife had to pause it for some phone calls that happened to come while I was showering).

The reason I’m not writing a (mildly) belated review on the film, however, is because I didn’t see the film all the way through and feel it isn’t right to give an in depth review of something you didn’t see completely, even if you did wind up seeing close to 90% of it.

I will say this, however: What I saw was a fun, though at times gleefully vulgar (I didn’t mind!) romantic-comedy featuring an appealing turn by Amy Schumer as the titular character (in other people’s hands she might have come across as a terrible person.  Such was not the case here) and a very charismatic performance by Bill Hader as the romantic interest.  Also worth pointing out is Tilda Swinton, completely unrecognizable yet hilarious as “Amy’s” boss.  Even though I didn’t see the entire film, I recommend it to anyone who likes romantic comedies and doesn’t mind if the comedy is at times quite crude.

Having said that, what I found most fascinating while watching the film was that despite certain differences, the film nonetheless hewed closely to the tried and true “romantic comedy” formula.

To my mind the formula roughly goes like this:

1. Usually your romantic comedy starts with a woman/man who are either in a loveless relationship or single and (possibly) looking.  In the case of Trainwreck, “Amy” is dating a muscular jock but hooks up with many, many others on the side.  She’s promiscuous and this is explained as the influence her father’s life has on her.
2. The next step is to introduce the woman to the man.  Romantic comedies will vary this step depending on the story being told.  Sometimes the man/woman hate each other for any number of reasons.  Equally often, the woman and man seem to have absolutely nothing in common.  In Trainwreck, though they don’t “hate” each other upon first meeting, the concept opposites attract is employed.  Promiscuous, “trainwreck” Amy falls for much more conservative/down to earth Doctor.
3. This third part of your romantic comedy film finds the main characters falling in love with each other.  There are cute/romantic/humorous scenarios sprinkled about along and all seems so very well.  However, a good romantic comedy sprinkles the seeds of discontent within this part, hinting things may fall apart because…
4. Things fall apart.  The woman/man break up over any number of circumstances.  There may be a misunderstanding, there may be a “screwball” situation (ie s/he sees him/her with another wo/man and misinterprets what s/he sees and thinks the worst, etc. etc.).  In Trainwreck’s case, the pull of so many years of “bad choices” by “Amy” makes her think there is no way the relationship with her sweet companion can last.  A family tragedy causes her to disintegrate and self-destruct.  But fear not, romantic comedy fans, because after the fall comes the inevitable…
5. …rousing climax, wherein our character(s) realize they are made for each other and one/both of them create a situation where they show their love and reconnect.  The better the movie, the more funny/touching this re-connection climax is.  In the case of Trainwreck, it was indeed clever and touching and tied in to some disparaging comments “Amy” made earlier in the film regarding women involved in a certain career.

Now, I’ve stated this before and I’ll say it again: I’m not a particularly big fan of Romantic Comedies.  So you may be wondering: Why have I devoted so much thought into the elements that make up a Romantic Comedy?

Because as a writer, I feel that in order to create works that you feel are as unique as possible, you should have an understanding of the various genres out there and the beats they follow.

Western films, for example, often carry certain elements beyond the obvious visual ones (ie, horses, trains, Indians, small towns, Sheriffs, gunplay, etc.).  More often than not westerns are morality tales which involve a good guy confronting a bad guy while dealing with a love interest.  This is why so many people note that movies in other genres are essentially “westerns” as well.

Dirty Harry, set in then modern San Francisco, was essentially a pseudo western with your Sheriff (Clint Eastwood’s Harry Callahan) dealing with a dangerous psychopath while also dealing with regulations and bureaucracy.  Similarly, Die Hard could be viewed as a typical “siege” story, wherein the evil Indians have taken over a military fort and it is up to our resourceful hero to outwit and defeat them as the cavalry approaches.  Star Wars (the original film) is likewise essentially a sci-fi western.  It features a “green” gunslinger meeting up with a veteran, though over the hill, gunslinger and along with his friends going up against the evil railroad company (ie, the Empire) which is determined to ravage his homestead.

What should be clear about these examples (and my more elaborate rundown of the romantic film) is that while you can create something very entertaining in your writings, there is little chance you’re going to create a story that is soooo totally unique and original as to be unrecognizable from anything that came beforehand.  But if you do, it’ll probably be so alien as to be hard for others to appreciate.

And it is here that the sliding scale regarding originality comes in.

While I may admire a Dirty Harry and Die Hard and, yes, Trainwreck even though many of the tropes present in these features can be found in other genre works, it is in how the people who made each film tell their story where a work succeeds…or not.

I’ve talked before about hating Guardians of the Galaxy.  To me, the film felt a little to much, again in my opinion, like a beat for beat remake of the original Star Wars.  (I haven’t seen The Force Awakens but, based on some of the criticism some have expressed that the film was essentially a remake of the original Star Wars, I suspect I won’t like that film either)  I also felt disappointed with Kill Bill 1 and 2 because, to my mind, it felt like Quentin Tarantino was trying to do a Kung Fu version of The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly.

Why would I want to watch either films when I can just go watch the far better originals?

The ultimate point is this: As a writer, it pays to develop a strong grasp of the underlying tropes found in various genres, whether they be comedy, action, western, science fiction, etc. etc. etc.

If nothing else, it gives you a firm foundation upon which you can write your own works.  But beware…Using common foundations is one thing.

Ripping off a story is quite another.