Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

40K was and is a giant rip-off. Just not of one single novel, but of loads of details, themes and what-have-you from lots of scifi sources all smashed together, gothified and with the fascism dialed up to eleven.

From Dune:
Emperor
Navigators
Warp ships
Deathworlds
Other stuff as mentioned

From Moorcock:
Chaos
Eight-pointed Star

Heinlein:
Space Marines
Nids (slightly modified; also draw on Alien franchise a lot)

Judge Dredd:
Hive Cities
Arbites

Stealing from multiple sources does not make the 40K universe less derivative. Not when so little of it is not blatantly ported from somewhere else.

I also dispute that science fiction is by necessity highly derivative and that there is no room for original works (insofar as that is possible in literature altogether, anyway), and that Dune is to scifi what LoTR is to fantasy. People claiming as much vastly underestimate the influence of LoTR and greatly exaggerate the influence of Dune.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
I'd say when it comes down to who inspired what, what came first is pretty crucial!

My point was that who inspired what doesn't really matter. I know that we all want to get up in arms and defend our favourite stuff as original and accuse everyone else of ripping it off but at the end of the day something is cool depending on a variety of factors that have nothing to do with what it ripped off.

(One could make the argument that Dragon Age lifted its entire magic system from Warhammer, does that make the game not cool?)

Oh no, I'm with you in that I honestly couldn't give a gak where ideas came from, as long as I find the end product fun and intriguing.

The original 40K team (or was it just Rick who was credited with RT? I can't remember) had one stroke of genius, whether deliberate or no, and that was they drew from so many influences, some of which can overlap quite substantially, that it is almost impossible to pin down where one influence stops and another begins. Trying to spot the exact origins of all of the various elements is like trying to identify the eggs in a cake.

morgoth wrote:

For me, what lessens the 40K is the complete lack of depth or science in the fiction.

Ironically, this is what I love about 40k. There is no science in its fiction. It is an utterly silly proposition of the galaxy in the 41st millennium, and the mode of battle is ridiculous. By the same reason, the whole 'ripoff of dune/moorcock' is by far an overestimation of the depth and seriousness of 40k.

40k was just an excuse to put humans, orcs, elves, dwarves (once upon a time) and demons into power armor and big guns. All the other stuff came later, and was just an excuse to make other, cool looking models.

And I totally love the universe for that, because what do I want? A good reason to put fantasy races in futuristic armor a reason to shoot at each other.

morgoth wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
RT especially had a heavy Dune and 2000AD influence. The warp travel is a mixture of Dune and H.P. Lovecraft's "Dream Quest of Unknown Kadath." Check it out, it's got a lot of the same terminology with the empyriam and strange creatures scratching at the hulls. Etc etc etc.
Yes, 40k borrowed a great deal, but it is highly unique in the way that they put everything together. Almost brilliant at times.
Drawing from other sources doesn't lessen the 40k universe. Every sci-fi story borrows from something else.
What lessens the 40k fluff is the writing of the last ten years. That Ward GK codex...wow!

For me, what lessens the 40K is the complete lack of depth or science in the fiction.

And that every character has the same one dimensional emotions. "Death to the___! For the ____!"

 MWHistorian wrote:

And that every character has the same one dimensional emotions. "Death to the___! For the ____!"

And They Shall Know No Fear.

40k is not meant to be Hemmingway Bolter porn is good for the soul.

I'd prefer poorly written bolted porn to Crap like "catcher in the Rye"

Don't get me wrong I love Frank Herbert, 1984, farenheit 451, space odyssy and other literary classics.

Just not "catcher in the rye."

 Bronzefists42 wrote:
I'd prefer poorly written bolted porn to Crap like "catcher in the Rye"

Don't get me wrong I love Frank Herbert, 1984, farenheit 451, space odyssy and other literary classics.

Just not "catcher in the rye."

That sounds like a student who has been made to read a set text outside of a very narrow window of their own interest.

You're allowed not to like stuff, but if you don't like something that is very highly regarded by many others, it is probably best to assume that it is simply not to your taste, rather than "crap."

Yeah that was phrased poorly.

I did not enjoy "catcher in the rye" but my statement was aggressive and poorly conceived.

Also catcher in the rye I could finish (unlike "battle for the abyss.)

I'm all for pulp. Heck, I write it. But even in pulp you can have characters that have more than one unifying motivation.

 Bronzefists42 wrote:
Yeah that was phrased poorly.

I did not enjoy "catcher in the rye" but my statement was aggressive and poorly conceived.

Also catcher in the rye I could finish (unlike "battle for the abyss.)

I dunno. I am perfectly ok with saying that something is crap, because it's implied that this is their taste.

Talys wrote:

 Bronzefists42 wrote:
Yeah that was phrased poorly.

I did not enjoy "catcher in the rye" but my statement was aggressive and poorly conceived.

Also catcher in the rye I could finish (unlike "battle for the abyss.)

I dunno. I am perfectly ok with saying that something is crap, because it's implied that this is their taste.

But it is then also entirely more appropriate to say "I hated x" rather than "x is crap."

It tonally shifts the whole statement, explicitly, rather than implicitly, states it as an opinion and doesn't imply that the commenter is disparaging the opinion of many other more knowledgeable, better qualified or more experienced people.

But hey, it's the Internet, we don't need any sort of writing standards amiright?

 Azreal13 wrote:

Talys wrote:

 Bronzefists42 wrote:
Yeah that was phrased poorly.

I did not enjoy "catcher in the rye" but my statement was aggressive and poorly conceived.

Also catcher in the rye I could finish (unlike "battle for the abyss.)

I dunno. I am perfectly ok with saying that something is crap, because it's implied that this is their taste.

But it is then also entirely more appropriate to say "I hated x" rather than "x is crap."

It tonally shifts the whole statement, explicitly, rather than implicitly, states it as an opinion and doesn't imply that the commenter is disparaging the opinion of many other more knowledgeable, better qualified or more experienced people.

But hey, it's the Internet, we don't need any sort of writing standards amiright?

And I call myself a writer

But to go into detail I thought that the main character was not nearly developed enough, the themes were both unclear and not well developed and the events felt loosely held together, almost non sequitur in nature.

Remember, GW actually had model lines and all for some of these other sources. This helps lend credence to them stealing ideas from those sources.
Remember their DR Who models, their Judge Dredd models and their Moorecock models (some of which which were later just renamed high elves).

 Bookwrack wrote:
So you're arguing from ignorance.

Gotcha.

Or have you seriously not considered that your personal experience does not encompass the the scope of fiction?

I see personal attacks, i don't see an older reference for lasguns.

pelicaniforce wrote:

I don't know very much about either of these things, but I think the status of ripoff/copying that 40k has is the same as the novel and film series His Dark Materials having copied the novel and film series Chronicles of Narnia. A lot of people say that the first is a deliberate recasting of the second and borrowed most of its themes, but nobody says it's a ripoff, because they say the author of His Dark Materials was referencing Chronicles of Narnia on purpose to dispute what it says.

HDM was published between '95 and '00.

The first Narnia flick was released in '05 so I'd say that Pullman wasn't even remotely inspired by that series of movies!

Further to that, CoN has many allusions to Christianity without being overtly religious (as far as I can recall - only read TLTWATW), whereas HDM is very anti-religion, and doesn't beat around the bush in proving it.

Sorry to derail slightly, but I love the Pullman series! My wife cried when and fell out with me for letting her read it

I'm reasonably sure the Narnia books are quite a bit older than that though.

Also, laser and other energy rifles have been a staple of science fiction pulp since at least the Golden Age of the genre. I very much doubt Herbert came up with them.

Bran Dawri wrote:
I'm reasonably sure the Narnia books are quite a bit older than that though.

Also, laser and other energy rifles have been a staple of science fiction pulp since at least the Golden Age of the genre. I very much doubt Herbert came up with them.

They're talking about the term "Las gun." That was a Herbert invention.