Hello everyone. I've had this question in my mind for a long time and I couldn't find the answer to it anywhere on the internet, so here it is:
Why is it that most movies that have been adapted from somewhere else usually do well at the box office and the original screenplay-movies don't?
Now I know that the answer will probably be, "Because adapted movies already have a fan following."
I understand that but, I believe that it has something to do with the way the original screenplay-movies are made. I've noticed that such movies usually have a different tone and pacing than the average Hollywood movie and I think most audiences are not used to this.
Example: The Grand Budapest Hotel is said to be a great movie (I haven't seen it), but when I began watching it, the pacing got me and I got bored quickly.
Example: Sam Raimi's Spider Man (2002) is also said to be a great movie. When I first saw that movie I was so hooked to spider man and let me be clear that before this movie I had only heard that there's a superhero named 'Spider Man', I hadn't read any of his comics or watched any other shows or cartoons related to it.
Clearly Sam Raimi's Spiderman was not an original screenplay-movie but the story and the pacing of the movie were so amazing.
So the ultimate question is: Why do movies based on other media are so compelling while some of the original-screenplay movies are not?
Are there any original-screenplay movies out there that have done well at the box office? (except Pixar's).
I also believe that it has nothing to do with the marketing (I might be wrong). This is because if you've heard of shows like Money Heist and Peaky Blinders you probably know what I'm talking about.
Thank you for your input. (I'm sorry that this turned out to be so long).
I'd also like to ask if you've ever felt that it's difficult for writers to write original stories as a screenwriter (for features) as opposed to writing a graphic novel or a book?
5 people like this
Mad Max
Training Day
Terminator
Predator
E.T.
Before the Rain
Funny Games (AT or US version)
...and I can go pretty much forever... all were made on original ideas, no pre-existing work and did a blast at box office or made lifetime achievement in cinematic value...
So, what makes them stand outta your conclusion? Well, go and see...
3 people like this
I do find the current focus on IP a bit odd. An established "brand" with a following makes sense, of course, but the industry seems to like IP even when it is relatively unknown.
I'm guessing one advantage for producers with the latter is that they can hire a journeyman writer for the script.
5 people like this
It cuts through the noise. It's as simple as that. Movies aren't the biggest thing happening anymore. The mainstream press aren't going to write stories about new concepts. Consumers don't have the time to learn about new concepts. You work with established IP and people talk about it with a degree of understanding.
IP based movies can move fast because they typically don't have to go through as much world building and character development. The audience are primed. They also tend to be action heavy movies aimed at a young audience which are developed to give the rollercoaster feel that demographic is looking for.
What the studios do tends to trickle down to the indies and works the same at a micro-scale. Existing IP, even with a relatively tiny audience, can secure funding and attract distributors.
The reason it doesn't feel like many original ideas are being made into fast paced action movies is because you're unaware most of them exist for the reasons I've stated above.
2 people like this
If I were a salary executive, I'd go all-in on known works/IP, famous books, and successful writers from other fields. Ideas with established audiences. Gamble on sure things than underdogs.
There is a writer in my zip code who has won multiple Hugo Awards for Sci-Fi, and after about 8 or 9 books, a studio bankrolled writer's idea for multiple movies. They (corporate) are even investing in theme parks based on writer's imagination.
Would "The Goldfinch" qualify as a sure thing?
Already established fanbase...Know your market
1 person likes this
Vanshdeep Singh Vansh, is your sample wide enough? At least I've never heard of this correlation, however existing IPs are said to move faster, for the advantage mentioned above, and then if someone spends money on an IP, counterpart of Christiane Lange Christiane's point, they're also going to hand it to a seasoned writer. That said, I'd say look at your data to see if your hypothesis has a sound basis. It will be insightful for all of us.
2 people like this
I don’t know if movies based on other media are more compelling while some original-screenplay movies are not because I don’t watch that many movies. A lot of studio projects are adaptation because they have a built-in audience which makes them less risky.
Two your second question and this is just my own opinion based on my own personal experience. I've adapted over a dozen novels and I find them easier to adapt but of course that depends on the book and how it was written. Some are more difficult than others. I did two this year for hire. One was grueling because I had to almost add a first act to make it work. The second one was much easier to do.
The two loglines and pitch decks I posted here are two I novels I adapted with Judy Norton.
1 person likes this
While I acknowledge and appreciate the fact that violence, crime and CGI are the most popular, adaptations of books driven by hope, love, change and inspiration have won Oscars, or received festival awards at the least. Personally I'm deeply disappointed in studios who fail to realize the negative impact violent films have on the viewer. Isn't there enough division and violence now? Do we really need to illuminate shooting, chase scenes, death and terrorism? Hmmm
4 people like this
I would say it is because no adapts a crap property. So if you start with quality, the end result has a great chance of being quality.