Miscellaneous Movie Musings the Sequel

[Moonliner]

Originally Posted by Alex

An article I was reading lead me to another interesting blog post about "unoriginality" and Hollywood. And why Hollywood doesn't come up with original ideas.

I think it sheds light on why movie studios aren't so inclined to just sit people down at typewriters and come up with completely original stuff. Based on what we reward, why would they?

The top 40 grossing live action movies from 2000-2009:

1. The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King - Sequel, book adaptation (no more original than a TV show adaptation)
2. Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest - Sequel
.
.
.
40. Troy - Very old book adaptation

If Avatar tanks I would expect this list to grow longer....

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Aren't a large proportion of films book adaptations? When I began work at a public library I was surprised how many films were based on bestsellers (mostly because I don't read much in popular fiction).

It's hard for me to say that taking a new novel (like, say, The Bourne Identity) and making a movie out of it is derivative or somehow worthy of scorn. Making a movie out of an older book may be more lame but I Am Legend is a situation I'd again be ok with, as the original book isn't super-well-known and neither is the first movie adaptation (which I hear is for good reason). There are always exceptions.

Anyway, getting back to your point, you're 100% right. We reward retreads, for obvious reasons.

[Alex]

I Am Legend was actually the third time it had been made into a movie. And within certain circles it is a very well known book.

I'm not in any way saying that a book adaptation is worthy of scorn (and being an old book no more or less so), simply that adapting a book to screen is no more an act of originality than coming up with a sequel or comic book adaptation or turning a TV show into a movie.

Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor

Aren't a large proportion of films book adaptations?

As for this, that's an interesting. I'll look.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Alex

simply that adapting a book to screen is no more an act of originality than coming up with a sequel or comic book adaptation or turning a TV show into a movie.

Hmm, I disagree.

In some sense, all movies are book adaptations in that they're going from script to screen. Thus, to my mind, the art in movie making lies in the transition from written word to visual medium. So I consider films that don't have a visual world to start from more original than films that are derived from an already-created visual counterpart. Comic book adaptions I suppose fall somewhere in between, though I put them on the more creative side since there's still a pretty big gap from drawing to screen.

All that said, none of it matters if the end result is done well, whether it's entirely original or a sequel or whatever. But in terms of what receives more respect from me, it would be movies where most of the movie-specific components are new and not recycled.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

Hmm, I disagree.

In some sense, all movies are book adaptations in that they're going from script to screen. Thus, to my mind, the art in movie making lies in the transition from written word to visual medium.

While it is a valid point, and that is certainly more creative on the part of the director (assuming they didn't write the script) to have to create the visual world out of whole cloth since regardless of adapted script or not they start in the same place.

But I'm thinking more in terms of the creativity of the entire enterprise and in that view, I think your position significantly undervalues the script.

And it is certainly true that original script or not has little correlation to quality. Paul Blart was an original script and The Godfather is an adaptation and The Maltese Falcon was both a book adaptation as well as the third time it had been made into a movie.

[Not Afraid]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

Hmm, I disagree.

In some sense, all movies are book adaptations in that they're going from script to screen. Thus, to my mind, the art in movie making lies in the transition from written word to visual medium. So I consider films that don't have a visual world to start from more original than films that are derived from an already-created visual counterpart. Comic book adaptions I suppose fall somewhere in between, though I put them on the more creative side since there's still a pretty big gap from drawing to screen.

All that said, none of it matters if the end result is done well, whether it's entirely original or a sequel or whatever. But in terms of what receives more respect from me, it would be movies where most of the movie-specific components are new and not recycled.

I disagree that all movies are book adaptations. A script is VERY different from a novel. Personally, I don't read scripts for my lit fix (nor do I see movies for my lit fix - they usually leave much to be desired). With fiction, the author uses ONLY words to create a visual and then it is often non-specific and completely open to the interpretation of the reader. A script usually gives some very specific scene information and blocking in addition to dialog.

I don't have a lot of comic book knowledge, but I can see a shorter path between the two in this case. The writing is not THE most important thing in a comic and is aided quite heavily by illustrations - much in the same way the setting and blocking is provided in a script.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Not Afraid

I disagree that all movies are book adaptations. A script is VERY different from a novel.

Yes, and my intent wasn't to equate the two beyond the superficial commonality of the gap between words and visual. Like you said, a novel doesn't have the visual descriptors that a script does. Which is exactly my point.

Yes, script-writing is also a major creative component, arguably more important than the visual aspect as, with rare exception, a movie with a bad script can't be saved by a good visual translation of that bad script. But part of good script-writing is creating something that's going to translate to screen well. With source material that already exists in movie/picture form, that part of your work is already done for you.

There's a big difference between how a story is told on the page vs. how it's told on screen. That's why I never fell in love with the Harry Potter series of movies, they are too literal a translation from book to movie. When I see a movie adaptation of a book, I don't want a filmed version of a book, no more than I want a filmed version of a play. I want a movie. And I consider the creative effort that goes into that translation a bigger skill than the creative effort that goes into just writing a follow-on script from something that's already in that medium.

Of course, none of this is absolute. If done well, any movie, no matter the source, can be good, creative, and a demonstration of movie-making skill. But as a predictor of movies I will enjoy, book adaptation/original script are on par for me with the others a step below.

[Alex]

So, among the top 40 of the decade, 90% were "unoriginal." How does that compare to overall?

So far, there have been 94 live action, non-documentary movies that have earned at least $15 million dollars domestic in 2009. But original are much more common in the top tiers of this list than in the other list (note that this is domestic grosses where the other list was worldwide grosses; worldwide tends to filter out comedies).

Anyway, curiosity sated. Data in the spoiler.

In a nice bit of serendipity, exactly half (47 are original screenplays). There's room for quibbling on some.

Spoiler:

1. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen - Sequel, TV/comic book adaptation
2. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince - Sequel, book adaptation
3. The Hangover - Original
4. New Moon - Sequel, book adaptation
5. Star Trek - Sequel, TV adaptation
6. X-Men Origins: Wolverine - Sequel, TV adaptation
7. Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian - Sequel
8. The Proposal - Original
9. Fast and Furious - Sequel
10. 2012 - Original
11. G.I. Joe - The Rise of Cobra - TV/comic book adaptation
12. Paul Blart: Mall Cop - Original
13. Taken - Original
14. Angels & Demons - Sequel, book adaptation
15. The Blind Side - Book adaptation
16. Terminator Salvation - Sequel
17. Inglourious Basterds - Original
18. G-Force - Original
19. A Christmas Carol - Book adaptation
20. District 9 - Original
21. Watchmen - Graphic novel adaptation
22. Paranormal Activity - Original
23. Couples Retreat - Original
24. Public Enemies - Based on historical events (not sure how I would count these)
25. Julie & Julia - Book adaptation
26. He's Just Not That Into You - Book adaptation
27. Tyler Perry's Madea Goes to Jail - Original
28. The Ugly Truth - Original
29. Knowing
30. Hannah Montana The Movie - TV adaptation
31. Where the Wild Things Are - Book adaptation
32. Zombieland - Original
33. Hotel for Dogs - Book adaptation
34. Law Abiding Citizen - Original
35. I Love You, Man - Original
36. Obsessed - Original
37. Race to Witch Mountain - Remake, book adaptation
38. The Final Destination - Sequel
39. The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 - Sequel, book adaptation
40. Friday the 13th - Remake
41. 17 Again - Original
42. The Time Traveler's Wife - Book adaptation
43. Bruno - TV adaptation
44. Bride Wars - Original
45. The Haunting in Connecticut - Not sure how to categorize, based on silly claims of truth.
46. Ghosts of Girlfriends Past - Original take, but obviously inspired by off a book.
47. Funny People - Original
48. Tyler Perry's I Can Do Bad All By Myself - Original
49. My Bloody Valentine 3-D - Remake
50. Land of the Lost - TV adaptation
51. My Sister's Keeper - Book adaptation
52. Underworld: Rise of the Lycans - Sequel
53. Confessions of a Shopaholic - Book adaptation
54. Year One - Original
55. The Unborn - Original
56. Drag Me to Hell - Original
57. Orphan - Original
58. Duplicity - Original
59. Surrogates - Graphic novel adaptation
60. State of Play - BBC mini-series adaptation
61. Notorious - Biopic
62. Precious - Book adaptation
63. The Pink Panther 2 - Sequel
64. Old Dogs - Original
65. All About Steve - Original
66. Halloween II - Sequel, remake
67. The Informant! - Book adaptation
68. The Last House on the Left - Remake
69. (500) Days of Summer - Original
70. Push - Graphic novel adaptation
71. The Soloist - Book adaptation
72. The Men Who Stare at Goats - Book adaptation
73. Ninja Assasin - Original
74. The Stepfather - Remake
75. The Uninvited - Remake of South Korean film
76. Saw VI - Sequel
77. Dance Flick - Original
78. The International - Original
79. The Fourth Kind - Original
80. Observe and Report - Original
81. Fighting - Original
82. Love Happens - Original
83. Fame - Remake
84. Shorts - Original
85. Gamer - Original
86. The Invention of Lying - Original
87. Inkheart - Book adaptation
88. Fired Up - Original
89. New in Town - Original
90. Jennifer's Body - Original
91. Imagine That - Original
92. Adventureland - Original
93. A Perfect Getaway - Original
94. The Goods: Live Hard, Sell Hart

[Alex]

My review of The Princess and the Frog. Short version: It's not horrible but it didn't set my world on fire by any stretch of the imagination. Ok start, boring middle, really good end.

[cirquelover]

Originally Posted by Alex

My review of The Princess and the Frog. Short version: It's not horrible but it didn't set my world on fire by any stretch of the imagination. Ok start, boring middle, really good end.

Thanks Alex, I always look forward to your reviews! The boy and I hope to see it this weekend if we're not snowed in.