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

indyb

I don't see why people think this is so wrong. Where else are writers going to get their inspiration from if they don't get from books an real life stories?

Lou

Here are a few adaptations we should never see:
Monopoly
Pictionary
Snap, Crackle and Pop (or any Kellogg's character)
Ronald McDonald
Bush (George, that is)
A History of Accounting and Accountants by Richard Brown (I'm not making this up)
Anyone Can Build a Tub-Style Mechanical Chicken Plucker, by Herrick Kimball (Nor this one)

JMW

It is hilarious that people think this sequel/remake thing is new. It isn't. It has been happening BEFORE movies ever existed! The whole idea of mythology is based on remaking a story countless of times, changing it a little each time, and getting the dozens of variations for each one myth we have today. In the 1800's the serial novel was immensely popular, and while that's not quite the same as sequels (it's more like one season of a TV show), Charles Dickens was renowned for drawing out the length of his books simply because he was paid by the word. So milking it for all your money's worth is not something new to this past decade, either.

In fact, I am here to say that retelling stories is PIVOTAL to the whole idea of storytelling. This whole "Everything has to be original" is actually a very new idea, and it's bullcrap. There is nothing truly original under the sun. You think it's original, but somebody somewhere has probably done it before. So all you can do is make a good story, whether or not it's original. That's what counts.

Adam

This "unoriginal" discussion may be interesting, but it's not at all a reflection of the times. It's just the way Hollywood works. Look at the Top 10 films on the "AFI 100" list, (of which none were made this decade, by the way).

1. Citizen Kane 1941 (biopic)
2. Casablanca 1942 (unstaged play)
3. The Godfather 1972 (novel)
4. Gone with the Wind 1939 (novel)
5. Lawrence of Arabia 1962 (biopic)
6. The Wizard of Oz 1939 (novel)
7. The Graduate 1967 (novel)
8. On the Waterfront 1954 (based on a series of articles written in the New York Sun)
9. Schindler's List 1993 (biopic & based on a novel)
***10. Singin' in the Rain 1952

Singin' in the Rain is the only one of the top ten films of all time -- according to AFI -- that's "original" by these standards. That's 10%. Sure a case could be made for Citizen Kane, but that would only bump it up to 20%, not too much higher than this decade's best picture percentage -- not really news.

BSC

I would argue that 'Gosford Park' shouldn't be counted toward the "original" tally as it's a fairly brazen reimagining of Renoir's 'Rules of the Game'.

greggorybasore

Dig that Peter.

Mudassir Chapra

Yeah, I don't get that the same people who lament hollywood's unoriginality, would turn around and call Tarantino a genius. None of his movies had an ounce of anything that wasn't copied from somewhere else.

As Peter says, this idea that movies are only good when they are "original" is stupid. All of your favorite movies have been either adaptations (The Godfather), or remakes (Scarface). Just because they are adapting "lesser" mediums doesn't mean its anything new.

Hugh Manatee

Honestly there's nothing strange about this trend. Romeo and Juliet (or any of the Bard's stories) wasn't an original work when Shakespeare wrote it. And if you want to really get down to it, every story ever told can be reduced to a handful of very basic plot arcs. You know, the whole theory that there's no such thing as a new idea. Unless you work for Pixar of course, they're on a different level.

evilninjax

Wasn't the plot to CARS basically DOC HOLLYWOOD? :)

CyT

"What matters is the execution."

Totally agree with you Peter. In a sense every story is a rip off of another story and I dont really mind going back to the same world ... if its executed properly. Infact when it is executed properly I LOVE it! Examples: Terminator 2, Empire Strikes Back, The Dark Knight, Return of the Jedi, Aliens, Return of the King...

MickJ

"What matters is the execution."

This and nothing else.

David'

Gladiator was based off a painting.

Sobchak

The definition of an original movie is blurry anyway. Sure, Gosford Park is an original story, but it is actually based on things the screenwriter witnessed throughout his lifetime. Anything that is "original" will always be based on something; our imaginations can only create something based on things we have seen.

Bonnie and Clyde may not be based on an original story, being a biopic, but it's execution sure was original for its time. This is all that matters. A filmmaker can take a great play and make a garbage movie (i.e. Hello Dolly), or take a great movie and make a crappy play (Young Frankenstein), or take a crappy play and make a great movie (The Lion in Winter). As long as it's well done, that's all we should care about.

mariasouza

"Anything that is "original" will always be based on something; our imaginations can only create something based on things we have seen."
That's absolutely true. Nice comment.

Philsauce

What exactly is wrong with movies being adapted from books???

mariasouza

I agree that it's kinda disappointing to know that those movies are not so "original" but making a movie of an existing story is not something bad. If we like those movies (I personally love most of them), it means that those stories deserved to become a movie; they are great stories, anyways.

Hans Van Harken

the source of a movie isn't what makes it good or bad.

skatalite

As others have said: This is an interesting fact, but doesn't really mean anything.

Some of the best films this world has seen are adaptations. Some of the highest grossing are adaptations. Not saying the two are synonymous, but I think this means filmmakers can create a new view on the story, and that moviegoers are accepting of that.

A prime example would be "Jurassic Park." The book is a good book, but when I saw it for the first time, my view toward film was completely changed. Books, especially, allow us to stretch our imaginations and picture things for ourselves. Movies show us another's interpretation of that same work. And I'm a fan of that.

jmusheno

It matters not what the story is but how the story is told. So originality doesn't mean much. It's not what it's about... it's how it's about it. And if you'd like to speak of originality in that sense think about the influential and Original TECHNIQUE that goes into the filmmaking process. You should think about this stuff before you post something like this.

stathiz

Why does this come as a surprise? Isn't obvious that film is a more complicated and expensive type of art and thus follows other more spontaneous works of art? Just remember that all movies used to be scripts once.
Originality comes with the film making as well, just compare the two versions of the shinning, both of them are based on the same book, one of them is a masterpiece the other is crap.

It's when hollywood decides to serve us with remakes of perfectly fine (usually foreign) films, or sequels with no artistic connection to the original (s. darko) or sloppy book adaptations that it really annoys me. Its when they hope to gain enough cash just by the fame of the original material that they don't bother to make a good film out of it.

postavant.com

The Queen was a sequel?

skatalite

Read through the thread and you'll get your answer.

Chuchundra

The thing is that, as far as I can tell, this has always been true. Great movies made from screenplays that were not adapted from or based on something else are pretty few and far between.

Let's look at the 1950 Best Picture nominees for comparison.

All About Eve - Based on a short story
Born Yesterday - Based on a play
Father of the Bride - Based on a novel
King Solomon's Mines - Based on a novel
Sunset Boulevard - Original screenplay

RalphRobertMoore

Without question some of the most respected films are not "original", in that the story was based on a source outside the script itself (whether adaptation, sequel, life story, real event, etc.)

Still, it is interesting to see how few movies are based on stories that were created specifically for a cinematic interpretation. (And I have to admit, it's extraordinarily depressing for me to see, at the beginning of a film, "Based on a true story." I enjoyed watching "Milk", for example, but essentially it's an after school special for adults, nowhere near as fascinating as Van Sant's "Gerry.")

Most of the movies I really do like had stories that were exclusive to film itself: "Blue Velvet", "Easy Rider", "Lost in America", most of the Coens' work, etc.

Alonh

I'snt The Gladiator A remake or Retelling of Spartacus?

A writer

pretty much. And Little Miss Sunshine has an entire sequence from "Vacation" in it!

NillerJ

I don't see the problem at all.

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.

Thrillhouse

This fact does not bother me in the least and I cannot see why it should.

Chuck BB

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.

Brad Arnold

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...

Guest

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.

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

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.

Monica Dickey

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

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.

Rislo

Crash was just a ripoff of Amores Perros

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.

ocentertainment

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.

Elikrotupos

It means that box office appreciate *animation* more than the Academy.

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.

clarencesomerset

Don't mind really. Many of the best pics before the 2000s were adapted anyway; not really a new thing.

pfranks

1 was a sequel (The Queen)
wat?

Sideshow Raheem

"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".

Peter Sciretta

correct. And even if it wasnt considered a sequel, it would still be a biopic.

/Film

Blogging the Reel World

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

Related Posts

Tags

/Film