Title
0

Sequels vs. Adaptions

In a time where every other new show or movie is a reboot or adaption of a recent, popular book or movie, is there any originality left? Would audiences prefer to see an extended story of newer characters and places or would they prefer the risk of having their favourite book turned into a movie where the actors are not who they pictured or important plots are left out. Which one is better?

  • It is true that we could use more variety with original film. However, It is harder to sell a movie from scratch, then it is just adapted something, or to make a sequel. For adaptations, the movie executives will see how popular a book or story was with major audiences. For sequels, they check how well the movie did money wise. You could talk about what a director needs to do in order to persuade movie studios to have their original films made. – Aaron Hatch 6 years ago
    0
  • I agree with Aaron. The arguments for a specific movie needs to be pitched. Most out there are simply adaptations/sequels. This can be a running problem because eventually, people will just stop watching and Hollywood would be in a pickle where they'll have to start taking risks and studios would end up out of business. If this continues on this path, it will not mean anything good for the industry. – SpectreWriter 6 years ago
    0
  • Although many people complain about the lack of originality in films, I think the problem is that people are too afraid to risk finances, time and effort on an original idea that has potential to flop. If you adapt a book, there's already an existing fan base so you're guaranteed for someone to watch your movie when it's released. There's a Youtube video called 'Screeenwriter Max Landis - Explain Things to Me' that's helpful, as an LA-based screenwriter talks about these problems. – YsabelGo 6 years ago
    0

Want to write about Film or other art forms?

Create writer account