If we look at works which are both critically and financially successful we often see writers adapting previous works a la comics, books and in some cases films to tv (Fargo) Do writers hinder their own original ideas because of how an existing property is already ripe with ideas that can be changed or looked at in a different way.
Could you give some more examples of adaptations and specify according to type of translation to medium?
For example: Sex and the City - TV to book to movie
MASH - movie to TV
La femme Nikita - movie to TV
Wouldn't it be to a writer's advantage to get more mileage out of their ideas? The only written work I know of is SAGA, a comic book series that was specifically written so it would not be conducive to a film adaptation. Other stories like Spiderman were instances where Stan Lee chose to wait for the technology to do justice to his comics. I think it would be good to look at writers of novels or comics or movies that did not want to transcend the original medium in order to answer the question you have put forward. I hope this helps in what you are intending to answer. – Munjeera9 years ago
In response to Munjeera. The principle writer that has not supported adaptations of their work is Alan Moore. He has noted time and time again that the adaptions of his work are not good because of his own personal feelings on adaptation and that his work is designed for comic book (or graphic novel if you must be that guy) and with comics blowing up in terms of popularity his creation 'Constantine' is now a tv show without his consent and has no interest in exploring the class themes that the character was designed to explore. When it comes to novels to film successes there are countless, o name a few: Jaws, Blade Runner, Snowpiercer, any Kubrick. But there is a significant number of authors that do not agree with their work adapted to another medium. My question was whether this stifles writers, if a writer is constantly building off an already made work then do they limit their own imaginative works? – JChic9 years ago
Thanks for clarifying. I looked up Alan Moore and the topic suggested could be narrowed down to just on Alan Moore himself, a fascinating topic for an article. I would suggest writing about him and his work on this platform so that people like myself, who do not know much about him, can learn about his views. I only knew about him from "V for Vendetta." His beliefs and philosophies are definitely relevant to your topic and there is enough material to write a good article. Also Bill Watterson, of Calvin and Hobbes fame, successfully resisted all efforts to make his comic strip a movie. His dad was a patent lawyer so I am sure he was conscious of how his art could be exploited right from the beginning, an advantage that other artists may not be as aware as an "evil" they may have to guard against to retain their artistic purity. Watterson's rare interviews always touched on this topic. He is another example of an artist who eschewed financial gain for artistic integrity. If I am understanding you correctly, then perhaps the concept you are referring to could be how creative control, or lack thereof, affects the writer? When writers develop their concepts and these concepts are exploited, how does affect an artist? It would be interesting to learn about artists who do not sell out, create and protect their material in the original form. Let me know if I have understood you, at last. – Munjeera9 years ago
It also seems noteworthy that if a adaptation does not do well as a film, or in Tv, then then producers always look to the other one as the saviour. This seems to convolute the markets as now the original work has been adapted twice, therefore taken twice the amount of space for original Tv and film. – thomassutton949 years ago
I think this idea is interesting because it's different from the typical "book vs. movie" argument. I would opt to focus on TV adaptions for sure. The first two series that come to mind are naturally "The Walking Dead" and "Game of Thrones," both of which tend to have vastly different opinions between the book/comic readers and those who watch the show. Something like that could be interesting to discuss. For example, when does "changing the material" take away from the original source? If you are looking into movie to TV adaptions, "Fargo" is an excellent example, along with "Hannibal," "Ash vs. Evil Dead," and, though the original movie was rather poorly received, the stellar TV series "Buffy the Vampire Slayer." – Filippo9 years ago
Focusing on what makes these 80s and 90s movies classics (Clueless, Fast Times at Ridgemont High) and what she can bring to her new movie currently in the works.
Some of the most impactful cinema has been composed of fantastical realms far set from reality. What is it about such fantasy that keeps audiences entranced? How are filmmakers still able, after all these years of a seemingly everlasting genre, to create groundbreaking films which continue to fascinate enormous groups of people?
I'd suggest mentioning the movie Pan's Labyrinth. The film is a fantastic example of blurring the line between fantasy and reality, which not many films do. – StefAnghel9 years ago
I don't know that one article can tackle successful fantasy in cinema. I'd recommend utilizing a case study of world-building through Hollywood and noting how it went right by citing and sampling instances through which it's gone wrong. I would definitely read a case study, and that would help focus the topic. – Piper CJ9 years ago
Unfortunately, not all films under the fantasy genre have this impact on audiences, so it would be better to write about this by picking a specific fantasy film, or series, that makes viewers feel 'entranced'. Also, if you look up "fantasy" in IMDB as a genre, you get a list with about 10,000 movies from "Suicide Squad" to "Shrek", so maybe identify further what you have in mind (eg. Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, etc.) – Suman9 years ago
Great topic, but I do agree with the preceding notes suggesting possibly adding in a title, or two, to set the mood for what you are attempting to highlight. As for fantasy, it is the ultimate means of escapism--except when the fantastical world is highlighting all that is wrong with society, such as dystopian society. Let's take, for instance, Harry Potter. It is a wondrous place of excitement, nostalgia, familial relations, friendships, emotional and mental growth, and has a wonderful score. How many times have you wished you could eat in the dining hall and have the owls deliver mail to you :-)? – danielle5779 years ago
Over the past 5 years or so, there has been a dramatic decline in cinema theater going, as home technologies such as Netflix, Hulu, and the Amazon Firestick, have grown in popularity. With that in mind, what does this mean for the future of the movie going experience? How do they maintain relevance in an industry that is quickly out growing their services?
I have said this before, and I will say it again, I do think monetary issues are a key reason in the decline in movie theater viewership. I have heard people countless times remark that they would obtain the film via. online streaming, a DVD, etc., to avoid the high cost of the movies. Also, now with the rise of 3-D televisions, people are able to watch the movies, as intended, upon filming. Not to mention the high-tech sound systems people have in their homes that allow for the same surround sound feeling that people go to the movies for. Another important aspect is the lack of quality of movies. All that appears to be released is another subsequent edition to a franchise, a remake, or a blockbuster film with hardly any dialogue and abundant reliance on special effects and CGI. On another note: I do not think your title--though I know this is just a suggested topic--adequately describes your topic. When reading the title, it appears as though you are going to discuss film in a positive light, yet you bring up all of these relevant questions that dispute the title. Even if you were to just add a question mark after your title, it would make more sense. – danielle5779 years ago
Freddy, Jason, Micheal, Pinhead, Chucky… all original horror characters (some with funny jokes) but today the Horror movie genre seems dead (no pun intended). The only thing still keeping the genre is alive is turning old books into films, or films attempting to copy the mastermind, Wes Craven.
There is a rise in the number of horror short films and many are quite good. Perhaps these will replace full-length feature movies in the genre.
– Jeffery Moser9 years ago
Short horror stories, especially the best of Creepy Pastas available out there, would only last about a half hour at most in a visual format. But these are the stories that have managed to scare me and affect me the most, except for maybe "Hellraiser" 1 and 2. These stories, written by everyday teens and young adults, are clever, innovative, original, and surprising. Something that modern horror cinema has failed time and time again to do. Modern horror films, for the most part, do not understand what is truly scary. They do not try to be terrifying. Rather they go for the quick and simple thrills and jump scares, and disturbing imagery. But the funny thing is, even the imagery isn't as freaky or disturbing as it could be. Because something as innocent as a doll facing just the right way in the middle of an empty old room with one eye missing can be scarier than a dead person's body cut open on a table or something. It's more about subtlety, misdirection, showing people one thing, but then revealing it to be more than what it appeared at first. "Sinister" managed to do some of this at first, but then went so far beyond itself that it became laughable by the end. It tried to be creative and original, and really mysterious, but then it broke that barrier between scary and stupid, and it just lost its grip. If horror wants to get better, then it needs to look into Creepy Pastas for inspiration, and not just to fit them into the tried-and-true molds that already exist, but to present them as they were intended, where they can actually elicit a palpable and lasting reaction. – Jonathan Leiter9 years ago
I would give reasons why the genre "seems dead" to you. What did past horror characters have that may be lacking today? What makes Wes Craven "the mastermind"? – StephenMatthias9 years ago
Was Wes a "Mastermind?" I mean, he had like two big films that are respected to this day, and then a bunch of sequels that slowly got less and less innovative. The other things he did I couldn't even name for you. Whereas someone like John Carpenter created "Halloween," "The Thing," "The Fog," and "In the Mouth of Madness." Even his first feature, "Dark Star," went on to inspire Ridley Scott's "Alien," because both films had a similar plot-line, the same writer, and the same VFX supervisor. I get that Craven has always been a big deal, I just don't quite get why compared to other horror directors. I mean, heck, what about Tobe Hooper? – Jonathan Leiter9 years ago
One area of focus could be the numerous sequels to certain horror movie franchises. – JDJankowski9 years ago
Examining popular entertainment like film, books, and the arts, can we see where our generational fixation on oversensitivity and prohibiting the lifespan of anything that offends us has weakened or diminshed the reputation/ influence of these mediums? Are we heading toward a destination of absolute safety that leaves no urgency or passion to be acceptable, being too volatile of subjects?
Passion in terms of what? Story concepts? Types of scenes or narrative events? The emotional or personal interests of the characters themselves? You're rather vague on that point. – Jonathan Leiter9 years ago
you subbed this under "film" so I will stick in that art form: what film examples do you have of "oversensitivity"? I am not sure what you mean by this term (and so I agree with Jonathan above). If you provide an example, it will help define what you mean by "oversensitive." – Caitlin Ray9 years ago
I can't really think of something in recent memory that was cancelled or shut down because it offended too many people. I will agree to some extent that content these days is more "PC friendly," but at the same time, certain things are just as vulgar and inappropriate for certain age groups as they've always been, it just depends on where these things are shown, and what the core demographics are. And also, plenty of shows and books have tried to broaden the scope of modern fiction by exploring topics and approaching stories from an angle which allows a wide variety of people (genders, sexes, colors, cultures, etc) to enjoy it for themselves, and get out of it what is meaningful to them as an individual. Many people will find these new trends offensive and say that they have a sinful agenda, but since when was allowing someone to think for themselves a sin? But, I still have no idea what this all has to do with an eventual ultimate result of total safety in media and a "lack of passion or urgency." I think there are plenty of things to be passionate about that are offensive to no one, but it is the things that are offensive to a lot of people that are worth talking about, because often they are things which shouldn't be offensive at all from a rational point of view, which is why people fight for them to be accepted. I think if people can learn to stop living in the past and embrace a new way of thinking, living, and creating, we might be better off in the future than we are now. We're much better off now than we ever were in previous decades or centuries. But it doesn't feel like it because we all think that our childhood years were so much different than things are right now, when in reality, they probably weren't much different. It all has a lot to do with perspective. – Jonathan Leiter9 years ago
Are you talking about what media has shown this kind of example in the plot, or are you talking about how our reality effects media? If it's question 1.) I would say the writer should read The Giver.
If it's question 2.) I would say research banned books. – Jaye Freeland9 years ago
The Giver by Lois Lowry or The Chrysalids by John Wyndham are two books that are relevant to this topic. Munjeera – Munjeera9 years ago
General American movie-goers tend to object to sexual content in films as being inappropriate or pointless ("Why do we need to see it?") but conversely don't object to violence and gore. Is it not more vulgar to watch people get murdered or tortured even rather than to see a little bit of intimacy on screen? Dissect examples of popular films and their appeal to either violence or sex, and the audience's response.
This is certainly worth investigating. In grade 12, I recall taking an introductory film studies course, and the teacher told us that he was allowed to choose films with excessive violence, but not with sex. It's really strange, since violence is something that we (ideally) shouldn't partake in, and sex is something fun, natural, and will be a part of nearly everyone in that room's life at some point (by grade 12, it was a part of many of the students' lives already). Even more surprisingly, in that class we watched three films with rape scenes - Rashomon, Deliverance, and Boys Don't Cry, all of which somehow managed to somehow slip past the sex radar - which is, by definition, a mix of sex and violence. I think it has to do with a large element of Conservativism which is still very present in our seemingly Liberal society. Sex is "bad" because its "sinful" and "corrupting," but violence is "okay" because "sometimes its necessary" and "the ends justify the means." – ProtoCanon8 years ago
It not only happens in the motion picture but in the TV. After watching Game of Thrones or James Wan's movies, I ponder whether the excessive violence or the sexual content is compulsory to the movies or the tv nowadays.
One of the reasons why popular films love brutal or crazy sex scene is related to the transformation of the entertainment industry. It is more open-minded and allows those disturbing concepts in the movie and tv productions. Few decades ago, the idea barely appears in the featured films or TV but rather in B-movies. – moonyuet8 years ago
Also, just remembered this: http://hannibalfannibals.com/2015/07/18/hannibal-and-the-hypocrisy-of-censorship/ – ProtoCanon8 years ago
I guess it is hypocritical but as a parent I regularly watch movies with all kinds of violence like Civil War and even talk about the "airport battle.". But truth is I wouldn't be comfortable watching any intimate scenes with my kids, even though they are 23 and 13. This would be a good topic because it is something I have never thought twice about. – Munjeera8 years ago
Dermis is dirty, but subdermis is okay. – Tigey8 years ago
A lot of it has to do with religion, and how it depicts the sexual being. In countries that are far less religious, you don't see this uncomfortable reaction to sex on the screen. When groups are indoctrinated at a young age and told essentially that sex is sin, you can see how when they become adults, that negative reaction is still there. – MikeySheff8 years ago
Every decade has a movie that represents the time period, what movie theme represents the 2000's?
I was just curious by what you mean by a movie that describes the 2000's? Would you discuss the film techniques used in film or the content of a film as how it represents/describes landscape of the 2000's? – SeanGadus8 years ago
Perhaps instead of "What movie describes the 2000's" you might focus on what movie themes/tropes describe the 2000's most accurately. Summing it up into one movie sounds difficult, although it could be a fun idea to toy around with; for the purpose of ease on the author I might say going with themes/tropes would work better. – Steven Gonzales8 years ago
