Ask Slashdot: Are Movies Becoming More Derivative? (stephenfollows.com) 100
Film data researcher Stepehen, writing on his blog: This may surprise some, but since 2000, just over half of all movies released have been original screenplays. The most common source for adapted screenplays was real-life events, accounting for almost a fifth of movies made between 2000 and 2023. (Typically, in these cases, the filmmakers will have paid for the rights to a nonfiction book or two that covered those events, but we will classify that as 'based on real-life events' in this analysis.) Other sources include fictional books/articles (8.9%), previous movies (11.8%), stage productions (including plays, musicals, and dance performances) (1.5%), and TV/Web shows (0.9%). In the chart below, 'Other' includes myths, legends, poems, songs, games, toys, and more.
How has this changed over the years? Forty years ago, about the same proportion of movies being made were original screenplays as they are today. That's quite surprising -- both because I assume that many people expected it to be lower in recent years, but also because little stays the same in the film industry over such a long period of time. But when we look at a time series by year, we can see that it hadn't plateaued. During the late 1990s and 2000s, original screenplays declined markedly and only rose again in the 2010s.
How has this changed over the years? Forty years ago, about the same proportion of movies being made were original screenplays as they are today. That's quite surprising -- both because I assume that many people expected it to be lower in recent years, but also because little stays the same in the film industry over such a long period of time. But when we look at a time series by year, we can see that it hadn't plateaued. During the late 1990s and 2000s, original screenplays declined markedly and only rose again in the 2010s.
No question (Score:3)
Taking a risk on a new property is not what the studios are into these days. They, like every other business, have fallen in to the pit of having to meet payroll every month which means some sort of subscription business model. Derivative works, sequels, and spinoffs are essentially that. They are usually boring but they make enough money to keep the system going. New properties aren't really that new either. They're often based on a book, graphic novel, video game, or some other media that already has a guaranteed customer base.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
have fallen in to the pit of having to meet payroll
This isn't about making payroll. This about paying the shareholders for them sitting on their ass.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
It doesn't even seem to be about THAT these days...seems some studios, at least, are more interested in pushing "the message" than making profits...ie "See Disney".
They're losing money hand over fist and don't seem to care....the agenda must be pushed.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The question is which idiot are they. A Russian or an owner of DJT stock that is currently losing their shirt?
Re: (Score:1)
There has to be a bible verse about a rich man talking poor men out of their meager earnings.
Re: (Score:1)
How do you figure?
Disney stock has been tanking badly over the past few years, and I"m not talking about covid problems.
Only thing I can figure is, they are more beholden to Blackrock and Vanguard than they are their other stockholders.
Re: (Score:1)
Disney stock has been tanking badly over the past few years...
Disney whose profits for 2023 are up nearly 5 percent over 2022, that Disney? Disney whose stock price is up about 13% over this time last year, is that whom we're talking about?
It does look like the stock hit a 5-year low in October but has been rising since (aside from the past few weeks).
Re: No question (Score:1)
Except you missed the point where they are not making money, Disney and co is losing money. The problem is that the current leadership is no longer interested in making money, they are ideologically motivated to think money is evil because they themselves have had a lifetime of enough money that they donâ(TM)t have to worry about it.
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't about making payroll. This about paying the shareholders for them sitting on their ass.
I am just an engineer not an accountant, but isn't Hollywood accounting [wikipedia.org] intended to minimize reported profits, which in turn will minimize payments to shareholders?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, studios want the block busters. And they spend big on them to ensure they're either blockbusters with huge budgets, or smaller budget "Oscar material". They don't like smaller films with smaller returns. Even with original scripts they're not all that original, they're formulaic. In today's world, all movies by Orson Welles would be labeled as "indy" most likely. When you do see a movie that genuinely feels original they do get a big buzz, so it's unclear why Hollywood avoids this.
Probably more th
Re: (Score:2)
Was it ever any different? In the early days many movies were just stage shows or popular books being adapted, or copies of other movies. Later sequels became the thing. The current trend or reboots or sequels long after the original are just the natural continuation of that.
H'wood's Been ReMaking Films For Many Decades (Score:5, Interesting)
A Star Is Born has been remade four times [after original 1937 film]:
- 1951 (a television adaptation) with Kathleen Crowley and Conrad Nagel
- 1954 with Judy Garland and James Mason
- 1976 with Barbra Streisand and Kris Kristofferson
- 2018 with Lady Gaga and Bradley Cooper.
I don't really expect Hollywood to change any time soon.
Re: (Score:3)
Robin Hood (1922) has been remade [wikipedia.org] a whopping 17 times! More if you include the direct-to-video and TV films.
There is a list of remakes [wikipedia.org] on Wikipedia. A Star Reborn can be found on the N-Z [wikipedia.org] list.
Re: (Score:1)
There are 38 Godzilla movies.
I don't know if each one would count as "original" though.
Smash, slam, roar....
Re: H'wood's Been ReMaking Films For Many Decades (Score:2)
Robin Hood has been ADAPTED many times.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll have to agree. Are you seriously going to argue that "Men in Tights" is a remake of the Errol Flynn movie?
Now, granted, that number of adaptations of the same subject also shows a remarkable lack of imagination.
Re: (Score:2)
Unlike say, Generic Superhero Comic Book Adaptation.
Re: (Score:2)
Casey: Hey, a bunch of us are going to see Spider-Man 2 tonight, you wanna come?
Eleanor Shellstrop (Kristen Bell): They made a second Spider-Man? What is there left to say?
-- The Good Place, "...Someone Like Me as a Member" (S1.E9)
Re: (Score:2)
And every single "A Star is Born" is an unwatchable mess.
Re: (Score:2)
My favorite is that the Judy Garland version of "The Wizard of Oz" is 7th live-action film adaptation.
And how do these numbers shift... (Score:1)
...if you count sequels as non-original?
Re: (Score:2)
One chart [yahoo.com] shows how little box office returns come from original works. In the past 7 years, 74% of the top 10 grossing movies were sequels. 19% were based on existing IP and 7% were original works (although Oppenheimer was based on real events).
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it's only logical. Studios fear bombs and know that sequels work, people fear shelling out 20+ bucks for a dud and want to go to what they can (at least somewhat reasonably) expect to be what they're looking for...
Re: And how do these numbers shift... (Score:2)
Weird how studios having to make money seems to be on every side of an issue.
We HAVE to sue the shit out of people, they're stealing! (No they're not but don't worry, America is now too stupid to even know or care about the difference. )
We HAVE to charge exorbitant amounts for everything because profit!
We can't make anything new, profit!
We have to skip the theaters because profit!
We gm have to get people to go to the movies because profit!!!
We have to re-re-re-re-re-release that movie from the 50's...but in
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
In part, that's because a large percentage of them were originally made as B movies: low budget films intended to be the second part of a double feature. As examples, all of the Basil Rathbone Sherlock Holmes movies and all of
Re: (Score:2)
One chart [yahoo.com] shows how little box office returns come from original works. In the past 7 years, 74% of the top 10 grossing movies were sequels. 19% were based on existing IP and 7% were original works (although Oppenheimer was based on real events).
One of my friends once pointed out to me that 10 Things I Hate About You is basically Taming of the Shrew in a different setting, and my perspective on movies has never been the same since. So how many of those 7% were still retellings of existing stories, but with enough changes to make them not be flagrantly "based on existing IP"?
Re: (Score:3)
One of my friends once pointed out to me that 10 Things I Hate About You is basically Taming of the Shrew in a different setting, and my perspective on movies has never been the same since. So how many of those 7% were still retellings of existing stories, but with enough changes to make them not be flagrantly "based on existing IP"?
10 Things I Hate About You is especially derivative, considering Petruchio / Patrick, Katherina / Kat, and Bianca's character names were even kept largely the same. But it isn't like Shakespeare's play was even original. Literary critics have found many oral and literary stories which most likely heavily influenced the play, included using the same names as characters from previous works. I'd say today's version of ChatGPT isn't too far from a human's ability to come up with a truly original story.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd say today's version of ChatGPT isn't too far from a human's ability to come up with a truly original story.
Isn't the case that all the stories have been already told? Then for both ChatGPT and a human it would be impossible to come up with a truly original story (and then we devolve debating what is a truly original story and what is a true Scotsman).
Re: And how do these numbers shift... (Score:2)
If you really look for it, you'll find there are typically a few Shakespeare adaptations in production at any given time in Hollywood.
It's What the Audience Wants (Score:2)
So it looks like this research shows studios are still producing just as many original works, but audience members have migrated to derivative works. Movies based on novels and comic books are less than 10% of all movies in the past two decades, but they account for over 35% of box office revenue.
Like another poster said, I bet if you count a sequel as derivative work then the shift in the industry would be even more dramatic.
Re: (Score:2)
What evidence do you have for that? The two biggest recent movies were Oppenheimer and Barbie, and both were utterly unique as movies. The biggest bombs were The Marvels (derivative of a comic book (with characters no one ever cared about)), Dial of Destiny (gender-swapped zombie of a 40-year-old franchise), and Shazam 2, all, not at all coincidentally, poorly-written, cynical cash grabs. Which deservedly failed at the box office. Barbie was generally an awful movie, but it was certainly inventive.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: It's What the Audience Wants (Score:2)
So, the Iliad isn't an original work because it talks about the Trojan War? GTFO.
Re: (Score:2)
So, the Iliad isn't an original work because it talks about the Trojan War? GTFO.
Well, i think there is a lot of creative freedom in how the war was described...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't if I'd call Oppenheimer unique. Movies covering the Manhattan project in general have been done many times over. Fat Man and Little Boy is probably the most famous, which covers like the vast majority of the same material. Also Oppenheimer biographies are out there as well, such as the Day After Trinity or the mini series Oppenheimer from 1980.
Re: It's What the Audience Wants (Score:2)
The market for movies shifts over time. During the 90s it was de rigeur to produce little indies. All very artistic focused, making names for directors like Tarantino. Now, the film industry is a bit more akin to the 50s. Someone found a way to mine gold (cowboys, superheroes, animated princesses, etc) and they're not gonna stop until the mine has been stripped. Like the 50s, were now studio dominated. It will take consumer changes in behavior to right the ship.
I think one of the big tragedies is how intern
Re: (Score:2)
More likely is comparing apples with oranges. Big budget movies that attract more viewers tend to have derivative stories and small budget movies, who tend to use original stories, attract smaller audiences.
Yes, obviously (Score:2)
Everything is a re-telling of an old story that was once popular. Sequels, remakes, reboots and spinoffs are just about the only thing being made
People who work in the biz are concerned about AI taking their jobs
Studio executives are behaving exactly like AI that is trained on everything that was popular in the past. They use their training data to make stuff that's statistically similar to the training data
Same goes for pop music
Outside of indies, even originals aren't original. (Score:2)
The creative process for the bigger business involved in "art" if you can call it that, don't create original works at all. What they do is take an original film, if they dare risk trying one, and committee it, study it, strip it of its originality, get test audiences to help them manipulate it into something more palatable and hopefully non-offensive, and try everything they can to still target whatever happened to work best in movies last development cycle. It's not a creative process. It's a process wher
YES (Score:3)
Eat it, Betteridge.
Is that the correct metric though (Score:2)
Its one thing to look at total MPAA-scope production and say 'see see its about what it always has been in terms of original content' but...
I assume that includes all the direct to video/streaming, barely promoted stuff you never hear about unless you are like "into" a certain art-house or something. Certainly there is a lot more of this now that:
You can shoot a movie all digital rather than on expensive film under very costly lighting conditions and/or in any location where you don't have as ideal conditio
Re: Is that the correct metric though (Score:2)
But that doesn't represent "the industry". That represents Disney. Tentpoles have changed over time, sure. But that has to do with economic and technical dynamics. Tentpoles can generally only be experienced fully in a theater setting today, but almost any other type of movie is just as good as home with a modest home theater system.
Original screenplay?!? LOL!! (Score:2)
Hollywood hasn't had a truly original screenplay in years. Sure, the script may be original, but the movies they are releasing have already been done and the original is usually better.
Alright, that might be a slight exaggeration, but "over half" -- no way. A truly original screenplay is really hard to do because almost all the ideas have been used up.
Re: (Score:2)
For instance, look at Hallmark movies. They could all be original, but they're so formulaic they may as well not be.
The real problem is that it can be difficult to draw a sharp line between what is original and what isn't. I tend to see it as nothing is, or has been for a long, long time. Basic story elements don't change, and the details mostly exist to get you to miss the fact you've already seen the plot or character a million times before.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty certain I read at some point Danielle Steel admitting her stories were all the same, only the names and locations were changed.
Basic story elements don't change, and the details mostly exist to get you to miss the fact you've already seen the plot or character a million times before.
Which would fit in with what Steel said.
For the record, Steel has written at leas
Re: (Score:2)
Or, if you take her at her word, she's written one book at least 185 times.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Original screenplay?!? LOL!! (Score:2)
And the award for Best Picture 2023 goes to...
Everything Everywhere All At Once.
You need to get out more of you think Hollywood doesn't make anything original.
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't bother actually grok my post? Yes I said that "Hollywood hasn't had a truly original screenplay in years." but then I said that was an exaggeration and it was just really hard. No where did I say that they hadn't released new shit.
As for "getting out more" the last time I went to a theater half the audience had their phones out -- hard pass.
Lastly Everything Everywhere All At Once has been done .. many times. As I stated, it is nowhere near as good as some of these: https://screenrant.com/everyth... [screenrant.com]
Re: Original screenplay?!? LOL!! (Score:2)
You think EEAAO is derivative of Swiss Army Man? I think you're confusing genre with substance.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they just forgot what it actually means.
Misleading statistics (Score:2)
The movie industry is much too complex to define it in simple statistics.
You need to take into account how many movies per year were made for each period, then break down by movie studio type (independent, corporate, small, etc).
Because, for example, if 80% of independent/small movie makers produce original screenplays, with limited exposure, and 80% of giant corporate movie makers produce sequels, prequels and "whatever_movie_53" releases, then of course the big picture, taken at high level, remains largel
Re: (Score:2)
They lost me at the claim that there are movies based on real life events. Yeah, there are occasionally actual documentaries, but unless you go looking for them, you'll never know they exist. Tripe like Oppenheimer isn't based on real life events, it's "based on the title of a book we haven't read." They're fictionalized to the point of being . . . fiction.
This has always been the case, for as long as Hollywood has existed.
Re: (Score:2)
"Based on real life events" could be very loosely so, but still based on real-life events.
The guy existed, he oversaw the making of the atomic bomb, in a place with the same name, etc., etc.
It's not a documentary, although there are, ahem, "documentaries" (Cleopatra, looking at you) with way more fiction than Oppenheimer.
Re: Misleading statistics (Score:2)
I'm not sure what inaccuracies you are referring to with Cleopatra. It was pretty spot on with all the historical records we have.
If you're referring to her race, let me remind you Cillian Murphy is not Jewish.
contributing factor: (Score:1)
Lazy studios pumping out comic book movies.
Re: (Score:3)
After the first couple, they were far too busy counting their huge piles of money to worry about coming up with something new. It's foolish to argue with success.
Re: contributing factor: (Score:2)
I'm a bit skeptical after hearing Disney has essentially lost $1.2B on their purchase of Lucasfilms. They tried to hide their abject failure behind corporate speak on the last earnings call, but if you read between the lines they tried to make Star Wars look profitable by excluding the $4B they paid for Lucasfilms.
I assume Marvel has done better than Star Wars so far (just based on volume), but I have a feeling we'll still be getting Star Wars movies past the year Marvel has been dusted.
Re: (Score:2)
Star Wars wasn't a comic book film.
Try to pay attention to the entire conversation.
Re: contributing factor: (Score:2)
Marvel is. Pay attention to the ENTIRE conversation.
Re: (Score:2)
The entire conversation:
OP: "Lazy studios pumping out comic book movies."
Me: "Comic book movies make a lot of money."
You: "Disney lost money on Star Wars."
Me: "Star Wars isn't a comic book movie."
You: "I'm a fucking retard who has no idea what I'm posting."
Dumbass. Have a grown up explain it to you.
Re: contributing factor: (Score:2)
Your reading comprehension leaves something to be desired. Try again. I'll wait.
Re: contributing factor: (Score:2)
Pro tip: CTRL-F will let you search the page for the word "Marvel".
Re: (Score:2)
You didn't say Disney lost money on Marvel, retard. You said Disney lost money on Star Wars.
Do you actually understand that Star Wars was not a Marvel franchise? And not a comic book?
Do you?
Or are you too fucking stoned and brain damaged to understand that?
Loser.
Re: contributing factor: (Score:2)
Hey retarded fuckface. Disney owns both you smooth brained moron. Learn to read and stop getting angry when you fail at it, you tiny dicked loser.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for admitting I'm right, and that you know it. And you're not man enough to just say, "Hey, what I said was pretty stupid, but I was drunk or high, like usual, so ignore me."
The first step to treatment is to admit you have a problem.
Re: contributing factor: (Score:2)
I'm very sorry you can't read with an adult level comprehension and so fail to see inferences.
Re: (Score:2)
These days I don't take anyone's claims without some kind of external verification, given the amount of partisan spin flooding every conversation. (BTW, not a big Disney fan, or a fan of any of the big media companies in general.)
99.999% is recycled (Score:3)
I doubt there are ANY true original stories. Maybe there are a few left, but the chances of any existing director stumbling upon them is very small.
I bet one can find that any plot shares most in common with prior works. Often it's a mashup of different prior art, but generally just a random mashup rather than revolutionary.
For example, many consider The Matrix an original idea, but "fake worlds" have been a staple of sci-fi for a long time. It's a glorified Trek holodeck story. The very first Trek episode was about a fake world, even (via mind control). There was also a "nested holodeck" episode or two, where they thought they escaped the holodeck only to find they were still in it. Turtledeck.
At the end, one character said to the other: "I surely hope we are finally out." The other character replied: "I'm too tired to care anymore, as long as this layer has a bed I don't care if it's real or fake." (IIRC)
Originality is overrated anyhow. Tell a story well and most won't care if you borrow.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
The Laynes Law of plots.
Re: (Score:2)
And even if you don't, virtually everything fits comfortably within The Thirty-Six Dramatic Situations [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
For example, many consider The Matrix an original idea, but "fake worlds" have been a staple of sci-fi for a long time.
And Dark City came out the year before. And the 13th floor came out the same year but earlier. Both were 'fake worlds' movies, both were also more intelligent movies, imho. Both were box office failures.
But I'd say all 3 are pretty original movies. (Although 13th floor was loosely based on a book (Simulacrum-3; and had previously been made for TV in the 70s in Germany) -- but even so I'd say its an original movie.
Your argument that nothing is original because you can identify tropes is too dismissive. If yo
oriiginal? (Score:2)
An original screenplay need not contain any originality, and indeed it's rare that such movies do.
All the money is in sequels (Score:2)
I took a look at box office returns for the past few years and compared them to 1995-99. In the past 3 years 79% of box office returns from the top 10 grossing movies came from sequels or remakes. In the late 90s, it was 36%. While the studios may be partially to blame based on where they spend their marketing dollars, I feel most of the blame lies on the audience. The studios wouldn't have shifted this dramatically if the audience wasn't rewarding them for it.
Re: All the money is in sequels (Score:2)
That's a weird way to look at the stats. Successful properties get sequels because they are successful. Sequels are successful because they are based on successful properties.
If people want to buy my pancakes, I should make more pancakes.
Movies have become more derivative every decade (Score:2)
Movies have become more derivative every decade since the motion picture camera was invented. This is the "low hanging fruit" observation.
People only have a certain number of desires, and only desire a certain amount of change. As it gets more difficult to come up with something new that people like, something old will get repeated more. As there gets to be a longer history of "something old that people liked", something new will be created less often.
It's not just movies. You can see it everywhere. Co
Re: Movies have become more derivative every decad (Score:2)
I strongly disagree. Early cinema was extremely derivative. The very fact that it a moving picture was enough to entice audiences.
Re: (Score:2)
The story lines were derivative. But no more so than the current ones. The story lines have been slowly evolving since the Greek plays. (We even still use some of the Greek terms to refer to them.)
What was your first clue? (Score:3)
Time and Technology (Score:2)
Yes and expectedly so, but not always in a bad way.
First, as stated already, are there really any "new" stories humans have not told? Finding something new after several thousand years of story telling is tough. That doesn't mean we can't freshen up or retell a story in a new and engaging way. Take the acting styles of the silent era and compare it to method acting post WWII. Also, societal norms and expectations shift, which may allow the story tellers to be more free with their new vision of past work
Re: Time and Technology (Score:2)
I would argue most originality in movies comes from new technological or economic developments or - like Kurosawa - remixes. It's the effect of ideas that have been swirling around but for whatever reason could not (or would not) have been made until this day or presented to a new audience in this new way.
Re: I can't remember the specifics now (Score:2)
I imagine it was the end of the "Golden Era" standards. Up until the 60s, the industry refused to produce anything transgressive because they were trying to rid the perception that Hollywood was filled with perverts and communists.
Once technology got good enough to break the studio stranglehold (and with some inspiration from France and Italy), the field shifted. You could get much more creative and not be subject to bans or persecution.
Something's missing here (Score:2)
The article lands on a resounding "it depends". It depends on what you mean by "derivative", and it depends on how you measure "more".
I'm sorry, was there supposed to be a point to this article? If so I've missed it completely.
Obviously... (Score:2)
Plan 9 From Outer Space is a classic (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have the same question for Formula 409. What did the other 408 formulas do? Would it melt my face, get me high, I'm curious.
"Original Screenplay" doesn't mean Non-derivative (Score:2)
It's covered a lot above, I'm sure. But sometimes people take the demand for originality a little far. If something is going to resonate with people, it has to have some portion of the human experience in it. That makes a screenplay an easy target for being called derivative. I once heard somebody describe the Lord of the Rings as a really complicated Fed-Ex quest. They weren't wrong.
Everything has been more derivative since the 80's (Score:2)
Of course not (Score:2)
Now, you'll have to excuse me, I have a ticket to see Star Wars XXVIII.
As they would famously say on Fark (Score:2)
Hollywood is out of ideas.
Pabulum for the moronic masses reliably pays off. (Score:2)
The purpose of cinema is profit, not "art" which is an excuse.
Most movies have always been derivative and formulaic.
If you want something better perfect AI so individuals can tailor their entertainment to their desires. Most works will be crap but that doesn't matter as they're all just trifles to amuse the bored.
You get the ... (Score:1)
Don't like remakes and sequels? Then stop watching 'em and the big studios will stop making 'em.
However, don't expect the big studios to green-light a big budget for an unknown, either.
Your choices are high-production-value pablum or clunky originality and very little in between.