Commenting Rules: Keep the conversation civil and on topic. If your comment does not add to the conversation, it will be removed. Debate intelligently. Insulting the author, /Film, or other commenters will result in comment removal and possible ban. If you want to point out a typo, correction, suggestion or criticism for /Film, please email us instead. Please use your name or nickname and not your business name (ie Discount Car Parts) as we might confuse and mark it as spam. If you would like to have your own Avatar show up with your comment, sign-up for a free Disqus account. Any Links will go into moderation before being approved. Anything we deem as spam will not be approved.

Only Eight of This Decade’s Best Picture Nominees Are Original

Posted on Tuesday, November 17th, 2009 by Peter Sciretta

Academy Awards

Yesterday we posted a blog post pointing out that only two of the top 30 grossing movies of this decade were original (ie not based on an existing story (fictional or true)/character/property, be it a sequels, remake or adaptation). In fact, out of the top 50 grossing films of this decade, there are only 9 movies based on original properties. And five of those nine films were created by Pixar Animation Studios, another two produced by DreamWorks Animation. So basically, only two live-action films out of 50. The post got a lot of millage, so I thought a follow-up was warranted.

You would think that there would be a huge divide between the most profitable and the most critically acclaimed  films of this decade, right? You would think that while mainstream America flocks to established properties, the Academy of Motion Pictures would lean more towards rewarding originality. Not So… /Film commenter Keith points out that only 8 of the 45 Academy Award Best Picture nominees of this decade (so far) are original.

Here is Keith’s original posting:

I took a look at the Best Picture nominees from 2000-2008, of which there are 45. Because kottke considers something like Pirates to be an unoriginal property, I am using similarly strict criteria. So, on to the list. There have been 45 nominees for Best Picture so far this decade. Of these:

  • 1 was a remake of another movie (The Departed)
  • 1 was based on a TV series (Traffic)
  • 1 was based on a Greek myth and an Italian Opera (Moulin Rogue)
  • 1 was a sequel (The Queen)
  • 3 were based on plays (Frost/Nixon, Chicago, Finding Neverland)
  • 4 were based on short stories (Million Dollar Baby, In the Bedroom, Brokeback Mountain, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button)
  • 4 were straight up biopics, which I argue is not not an original property in the sense that a studio acquires rights to tell a story, and arguably the originality involved is similar to adapting a book. (Erin Brokovich, Ray, Good Night and Good Luck, Milk)
  • 8 were based on nonfiction books (The Pianist, Gangs of New York, A Beautiful Mind, The Aviator, Capote, Letters From Iwo Jima, Seabiscuit, Munich)
  • 14 were based on novels or fictional books (LoTR 1, 2, 3, The Hours, Master and Commander, Mystic River, Sideways, No Country For Old Men, Atonement, There Will Be Blood, Slumdog Millionaire, The Reader, Chocolat, Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon)

This leaves EIGHT that are original: Gladiator, Gosford Park, Lost in Translation, Crash, Babel, Little Miss Sunshine, Juno, and Michael Clayton.

Those astute in math will note that 7/45 (17.778%) is worse than 9/50 (18%). So it seems that the box office appreciates originality more than the Academy. Take from this what you will.

——

Peter Sciretta here again: The point of this post is not to call out a good chunk of this decade’s best films out for being unoriginal, but to point out that some of the best movies being made today are also based on established properties, be it books, tv series, true life stories or plays (okay, mostly books and true stories). I find it fascinating that everyone calls Hollywood out for being unoriginal each and every time a new sequel or remake is announced, yet every year we reward “unoriginal” films. Being unoriginal doesn’t mean a film is any less good than a completely original production. Heck, there are a lot of horrible films not based on previously released characters or stories. What matters is the execution.

Comments 

Related Posts

  • No Related Post

Tags

Awards, By The Numbers, Features, 

  • No Really.
    "1 was based on a TV series (Traffic)"

    What the fuck am I reading?
  • That's correct Traffic was based BBC television series from 1989 entitled Traffik it was later adapted into a a movie by Steven Soderbergh.
  • No Really.
    Oh ok.
  • doggystylesteve
    lol dumbass
  • Holy cow >.> this is disappointing :(
  • If I thought that the Oscars meant anything this would surprise me, but they don't.
  • As someone who has studied Communication let me say that without comparison to previous decades this post is interesting, but meaningless. I'd love a combination of this and the previous post (about the largest grosses) and did a comparison to the previous decades through the 30s.

    Also this post implies that the only way to be "original" is through telling a new story when obviously there are lots other ways to be "original"
    Would love to see an edited version of this post.

    Also "Originality" has nothing to do with quality.
  • I wouldn't call it meaningless since it's interesting to me, but I would love to see the other posts that you suggest!
  • jasonb26
    "Also this post implies that the only way to be "original" is through telling a new story when obviously there are lots other ways to be "original"
    Would love to see an edited version of this post.

    Also "Originality" has nothing to do with quality."


    thank you for saying what i couldn't figure out to say. these articles & comments about 'originality' have been pretty offensive to the hard work done on all these films.
  • dock
    "As someone who has studied Communication..." Yeah you and like 90% of college freshmen. Studied communication...lmao! You douche bag.
  • You make it sound like it's a bad thing, Peter. This is NOT in the same league as adapting movies based on videogames, toys, cardboard games, or comic books.

    I whole-heartedly support adapting classic myths, stage plays, literature, and so, into well-made, top quality films.
  • I never said it was a bad thing. I'm just pointing out how much we like and reward adapted stories.
  • jasonb26
    i feel that it wasn't directed at how much we like and reward adapted stories, but definitely towards the 'lack of originality' - hence all the negative posts that followed & supported that very idea.

    this is because of a specific angle that was presented in the articles. as shown with such quotes:

    " You would think that while mainstream America flocks to established properties, the Academy of Motion Pictures would lean more towards rewarding originality. "

    heavily implying a superiority in the decisions made by the academy....come on now, don't back peddle.
  • Kym
    There's LEAGUES for this kind of thing? A film based on a book is in a higher league than one based on a video game automatically? On what grounds?
  • Ed Gruberman
    On the grounds that video game stories generally have all the depth of a snake that's been run over by a loaded tractor-trailer.

    And comic book heroes are only slightly deeper than video game heroes. Some people actually think "Dark Knight" has a meaningful plot.
  • Altly
    Wow, this is some condescending crap right here. Why don't you come down from your high horse before you fall off and get hurt. Your post has all the depth of a pompous douchebag who makes pretentious comments about things he knows nothing about. I could list so many examples of games and comic books with legitimately deep stories and interesting plots, but people like you can't be convinced they're wrong, well, ever. Enjoy being a stuck-up know-nothing who apparently has no joy in his life.
  • The Great Cambino
    Gone with the Wind was based on a novel. Half of Kubrick's films were based on novels. The Godfather was too. And Godfather 2 was -- to state the obvious -- a sequel!

    Hollywood has never been original, and who cares as long as the movies are good? The quality is what's been slipping in blockbuster (maybe. or maybe we just forget about all the old crap and remember the good stuff. might be worth looking into) not the originality.

    Of course there are notable exception like Kane and Casablanca.
  • The Grapes of Wrath = book
    A Streetcar named Desires = stage play
    The Wizard of Oz = book
    My Fair Lady = stage musical, which was based on a stage play, upon which was originally a Greek comedy

    Even William Shakespeare's HAMLET was not original-- it was based on an old Greek story about Amleth (anyone correct me if I'm wrong).

    Like I said earlier, it's all about quality storytelling.

    Feel free to add any other titles here...
  • MattEss
    Well, if you consider films based on real people to be unoriginal (like the list above did) "Citizen Kane" cannot even be considerred an original film. It is based on the life of newspaper mogul William Randolph Hearst. Hearst even tried to destroy the film because of that fact.

    Quality storytelling is absolutely what it comes down to.
  • The Great Cambino
    That's a good point, but not entirely true. Kane was definitely a swing to Hearst's face, and bore some similarities to his life, but it was still an original story. It was also inspired by a few other big-time turn of the century moguls.
  • If people would take a look at film credits more they wouldn't be that surprised by this. If you take a look at the IMDB top 250 you should find similar numbers, a lot of the films there did not originate with a screenplay. Inspiration comes from a lot of different places and just because you're adapting someone else's idea it shouldn't suggest you're being "unoriginal". In the hands of a less capable director Jaws wouldn't have been nearly as effective as a film it was the new ideas Spielberg brought to a pre-existing property that make it great.
  • Chase
    Is anyone else counting eight? Or am I crazy pants here?
  • fixed
  • pfranks
    1 was a sequel (The Queen)
    wat?
  • Dustin
    That's what I thought. What exactly is the queen sequel to?
  • Subey
    Apparently it is part 2 in the "Blair Trilogy". Part 1 is The Deal (2003): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Deal_(2003_film)
  • "The Queen" was a sequel to the movie "The Deal" which came out in 2003. It can be considered a sequel because both films are directed by Stephen Frears and written by Peter Morgan also actor Michael Sheen plays Tony Blair in both projects. But it's not a really a traditional sequel in that "The Queen" is not a direct continuation of the story in "The Deal".
  • correct. And even if it wasnt considered a sequel, it would still be a biopic.
  • Gray
    I don't think it's a sequel. Certainly not in any sense that is relevant to this article (i.e. the story material was not based on the earlier film).

    Nor is it a biopic. It isn't the life story of any of the characters. It's just a film based on real life events and characters. Erin Brokovich and Good Night... aren't biopics either.
  • clarencesomerset
    Don't mind really. Many of the best pics before the 2000s were adapted anyway; not really a new thing.
  • MadmanMundt
    9 of the top 30 of the AFI top 100 are original and I don't feel like doing the rest but I think this proves the point that a lot of good movies are based off of books.

    Edit: I got caught up in it and have 16 out of 50 original. Now some of them are sketchy but its 16 give or take a few.
  • Elikrotupos
    It means that box office appreciate *animation* more than the Academy.
  • Those even more astute-er in math will note that *8* out of 45 is 17.778%. And since eight is the number of original best picture nominees, maybe we'll go with that?

    That being the case, they're roughly equal. Still, that's a pretty small percentage of non-adaptations any way you cut it.
  • cosgrovewatt
    I disagree with the thesis here (about originality). I think it's a stretch to say that Moulin Rouge isn't original. That opens a can or worms about the definition of "original". I'd also argue that there is much more creativity involved in adapting someone's life story to screen that an existing narrative in book form (unless of course you're actually adapting a biography). Lastly, many of the short stories have been greatly expanded, so much so that they might be 80% original works.
  • Jessica
    I agree. I'm not a fan, but I think being an homage to La Boheme is not nearly the same as being "based on" La Boheme. It's a matter of inspiration, not source material.
  • Rislo
    Crash was just a ripoff of Amores Perros
  • MarkoP
    Also, unless my counting is incorrect 19/50 films nominated for best picture in the 90's were orginal while 15/50 films nominated for best picture in the 80's were original.
  • Cool factoid.

    I agree originality vs unoriginality is a moot point. In this sense originality only refers to an established intellectual property, not some merit to the holy grail of creative thinking or something.
  • CRASHkennedy
    whoa you're on joystiq as well

    amirite??

    ive never seen the same user on two different sites.

    its like seeing a classmate/coworker out of school/work
  • Sean
    actually gosford park is roughly based on "and then there were none" if i'm mistaken
  • Jessica
    Don't think I've ever heard that, and being pretty familiar with both it makes very little sense. Nothing about the two is the same except that they're British parlor-style mysteries. And that's more a genre than an adaptation.
  • ARileyL
    Okay I don't know about "eight." If you consider The Queen a sequel, then Babel should be as well. Babel is the 3rd part of Innarritu's Death Trilogy. So if you could both of them then there's 9 and if you don't then there's 7.
  • CRASHkennedy
    the queen is a biopic
  • fanboy_d
    Thanks for shattering my illusions of originality in Hollywood Peter! I'm gonna go comfort myself by watching some original Spielberg pictures; War of the Worlds, Catch Me If You Can, Minority Report, Jurassic Park, Schindler's List, Empire of the Sun, Jaws or Hook...I'm not sure yet.
  • Um, this goes all the way back to the beginning of movies. The first commercial film ever produced was an adaptation of the Passion play, followed quickly by Various Shakespearean adaptations, other bible stories etc.

    All the Universal Monsters were based on established properties. Casablanca, The Maltese Falcon, Gone with the Wind, The Wizard of Oz... The list goes on and on.

    The same can be said of films from the last four decades The Godfather, Apocalypse Now, Jaws, 2001, The Exorcist, Rosemary's Baby, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, Gandhi, Schindler's List, Fight Club, Goodfellas, Shawshank...

    I don't see how this is a surprise to anyone.
  • laser_one
    Well, 2001, it should be pointed out, was written at the same time as the film was made, with Kubrick and Clarke sharing ideas throughout the process. I can't remember which was released first...

    I don't know how you count that one, although it is credited as an adaptation. But, maybe I got one back for the originals...
  • Why is everyone so bummed out about the lack of original films being recognized or made. I think the adaptation of plays, or comics is maybe a great thing, where once there was no way for creators in different media to have their works transformed into film, and now it seems as if this goal is maybe much more realistic than before, especially if it is great. Sure it sucks when it is a sequel we're counting, or remakes of better films, but other than those, i think that working from preexisting content like a novel, comic, short story, play can be very very creative and original in its own right. Is this that big of a deal? The other reality is only 10% of anything is good, only 10% of sushi joints are any good, only 10%(I'm being generous) of anime is any good, the world is flush with garbage. I'm going to just focus on what is being produced that is good, and if it is based on an original property or a preexisting property I will enjoy it.
  • Thrillhouse
    This fact does not bother me in the least and I cannot see why it should.
  • A writer
    You might as well not backtrack on your *original* intent, which was to poo poo a lack of "originality" as you quantify it. It's worth discussing, even if the comments disagree with you.

    My two cents, for what they're worth: screenwriting is all about following archetypal characters and standardized plot structures. Even "original" stories like Kane pull from real life. There's nothing particularly more or less challenging about writing an original screenplay to differentiate it from an adaptation; it can actually be far more difficult to write a script from real life, where you have to deal with historical events, rather than just making stuff up as you go along.

    Besides that, where does originality begin and end, if biopics, or vague references to ancient stories count as "unoriginality?" And how can you properly villainize "unoriginality" when it's so vague and all-encompassing, as you've described?

    Sloppy remakes like The Departed, second-or third time adaptations, unnecessary sequels, and overzealous brand tie-ins, THESE are what we should be focusing our ire on, not well-crafted stories like Good Night and Good Luck or Letters from Iwo Jima.

    Film is such a different medium from a novel, or a comic book, or even a play; a story on paper is not the same as a story on screen. In my mind, unoriginality occurs when one attempts to transfer one story from one medium to another without any thought to changing, or even heightening, the themes or messages of the underlying story.

    Go after the soulless knockoffs like The Departed, which REMOVED any meaning from a very spiritual meditation on violence, not films like Brokeback Mountain, which expanded upon the original material in a way that resonated with so many people.
blog comments powered by Disqus

gorilla nation

/Film

Copyright © 2010 /Film. Web design by Pro Blog Design. Logo Concept by: Illumination Ink

All names, trademarks and images are copyright their respective owners.