tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post1682293343385575532..comments2024-03-28T21:56:51.675-04:00Comments on Face to Face: Is this a second era of spin-off movies?agnostichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-84134797988805826772012-07-22T05:22:46.182-04:002012-07-22T05:22:46.182-04:00Yeah, movies have become so blatantly unoriginal. ...Yeah, movies have become so blatantly unoriginal. They're just remaking every damn movie from 1960-1990, but remaking them as bland and pompous.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-7004280034821708712012-07-20T18:40:21.450-04:002012-07-20T18:40:21.450-04:00Well the best way is to measure each year, but tha...Well the best way is to measure each year, but that's more time-consuming. In any case, 1955 is not atypical for having lots of plays / musicals and novel adaptations during the '50s. Nor was 1984 unusual for introducing new worlds in the later '70s and most of the '80s (although there were more sequels toward the end).<br /><br />You also want to study a comparable set over time. Using the top 10 at the box office keeps it from being a cherry-picking exercise, and also ensures that we're seeing what people really flocked to in that year. That would exclude Blade Runner and Conan, cool as they are.<br /><br />Indiana Jones may have been born of thoughts about the pulp serials, but they're not like those at all. The differences are as stark as between the old and new Star Wars movies. Also, a lot of the supernatural is missing in the pulpy action hero serials, and that's such a huge part of the appeal in what Indiana Jones is searching for.<br /><br />Star Wars (the original ones) weren't a rip-off either. They don't look, sound, or feel like the Flash Gordon serials, etc., from the mid-century, which are goofy and schlocky like the comic book movies of the past 10-15 years.<br /><br />There are degrees of originality. Homages, inspirations, etc., would count as fully original, since there are only a finite number of themes, character types, and so on. If the source material is long-ago mythology, like Greek mythology, the Bible, or whatever, that would count as mostly original.<br /><br />If it were based off another identifiable work, itself based on the Bible, it would be an adaptation. For example, movies based on the novel Ben-Hur would be adaptations, but the novel would be mostly original.<br /><br />Movies adapted from identifiable literary sources would be one step down. They fill in the basic narrative, but nothing else that a movie includes in its medium.<br /><br />Adaptations of plays would be another step down, since the performances, staging, even the actors themselves could be filled in at the start of the movie. Musical plays would get docked another point for filling in a lot of the sound -- the songs.<br /><br />Adaptations of other film-like media would be another step down, like TV shows, cartoons, etc.<br /><br />Remakes of earlier movies would be at the bottom.<br /><br />I think sequels are qualitatively different from adaptations. They both show a lack of comfort with laying new ground, but sequels are more of a continuation of something earlier, which isn't as unoriginal.<br /><br />With various degrees of originality, you can compare the years using different thresholds of "new material". Categorize each movie of the top 10 for each year, then plot this over time.agnostichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-47329189239848292392012-07-20T16:51:24.011-04:002012-07-20T16:51:24.011-04:00Not sure it's a good idea to simply compare 19...Not sure it's a good idea to simply compare 1984 and 1955 - quantitatively it seems like comparing decade to decade would decrease the noise:signal.<br /><br />Looking at the 1980s - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980s_in_film - it seems like there are many spin-offs. Lots of sequels, lots of PKD adaptations, lots of comic book adaptations, Conan the Barbarian based on 1930s pulp, &c. The Indy Jones series is a homage to pulp - I'm not sure that can even be heralded as that original, in that context. Star Wars is a ripoff, cinematically, of various other franchises. Even lots of stuff that wouldn't be straightforwardly assumed to be remakes kind of is.<br /><br />Any idea how to do anything quantitative with this that's better than just making a comparison of two random years?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-78760373429940749392012-07-20T16:26:01.189-04:002012-07-20T16:26:01.189-04:00"after all, an adaptation is also subject to ..."after all, an adaptation is also subject to the same constraints."<br /><br />That's a good point. Those pressures from women, Christians, etc., only mean that the movie will be bland, inoffensive, sterile, and confused. It doesn't require that the movie be an adaptation or sequel.<br /><br />The Shining was an adaptation of a novel, but it's hardly a fun-for-the-whole-family kind of movie.agnostichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12967177967469961883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19346366.post-88448928817846854382012-07-20T10:23:09.489-04:002012-07-20T10:23:09.489-04:00I remember at around 2000 (1999?2001? I don't ...I remember at around 2000 (1999?2001? I don't know for sure) to watch a TV talk show where the participants were discussing why "today" ("today" in 2000) many films were adaptations.<br /><br />Their theory was that it was much difficult to write an original script - you had to be careful to not offend any group (the gays, the Christian groups, the minorities, etc.), the film had to be attractive to the public and had to have an happy ending. Then, adapting an old story was easy.<br /><br />I don't know if this makes much sense; after all, an adaptation is also subject to the same constraints.Miguel Madeirahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07382939732567489809noreply@blogger.com