Memento: adapted from a short story.
Insomnia: remake
The Prestige: adapted from a novel
Batman Begins: adapted from a comic
The Dark Knight: adapted from a comic
The Dark Knight Rises: adapted from a comic
Oppenheimer: a true story but also adapted from a novel
what about Interstellar and Tenet?
shareInterstellar was a rip-off of Lost in Space and Contact. Even Inception and Tenet weren't that original. Inception used the heist template, and Tenet was basically a Bond movie.
shareLost in Space and Contact are nothing like Interstellar. most people dont understand Interstellar which is why they think its a rip off of inferior space movies.
shareYou don't understand Contact, which makes you fail to see the similarities between it and Interstellar.
shareContact and Interstellar are completely different movies. and Interstellar is far superior thanks to Kip Thorne.
shareYou show you don't understand Contact by saying they are completely different movies. Even Neil deGrasse Tyson said Contact was better than Interstellar.
sharethats just because you dont understand Interstellar, its an easy mistake for a rookie of sci-fi.
Neil deGrasse Tyson praised Interstellar for its scientific accuracy and creativity, while also noting that he had previously criticized Gravity for its inaccuracies. Tyson said that Interstellar was ambitious in its scientific exploration, and that it handled topics like Einstein's theory of relativity, black holes, and wormholes well. He also noted that the film had a physicist, Kip Thorne, as an executive producer and advisor.
Yes, and Tyson said Contact is better than Interstellar. You don't understand Contact make you fail to see why Contact is better than Interstellar.
shareactually, Tyson said that Interstellar was better than Contact.
Neil deGrasse Tyson praised Interstellar for its scientific accuracy and creativity, while also noting that he had previously criticized Gravity for its inaccuracies. Tyson said that Interstellar was ambitious in its scientific exploration, and that it handled topics like Einstein's theory of relativity, black holes, and wormholes well. He also noted that the film had a physicist, Kip Thorne, as an executive producer and advisor.
people dont understand Interstellar because they will only watch it one time.
No, Tyson clearly said Contact is better in the video, I dare you to find a source to back up your claim he said Interstellar is better.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAKXQKMTAU0
thats just an opinion. it doesnt mean one movie is better than the other. I like both movies but prefer Interstellar and Contact is a close 2nd.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/adambvary/neil-degrasse-tyson-interstellar
Opinion or not isn't what I am asking, I asked you to find a source to back up your claim Tyson said Interstellar is better than Contact.
shareTyson said that Interstellar had better scientific accuracy and creativity. he never said it was better.
shareIn the video he clearly said Contact is a better movie, did you even watch the video.
"Tyson said that Interstellar had better scientific accuracy and creativity."
Find a source to back up your claim.
yeah I watched it, he talked more about Interstellar than Contact.
I just posted it. lol
He put interstellar in B, and Contact in A, which part of the video made you think he thinks Interstellar is better than Contact? I dare you to post the timestamp to prove your claim he said Interstellar is better.
"Tyson said that Interstellar had better scientific accuracy and creativity."
Find a source to back up your claim.
I never said he said it was better.
I just posted it. lol
This is your words: "Tyson said that Interstellar was better than Contact."
Find a source to back up your claim he said Interstellar is better. And find a source to back up your claim he said: "Tyson said that Interstellar had better scientific accuracy and creativity."
I already posted it.
shareNo, you didn't.
shareyeah I did. scroll up.
shareThis is your words: "Tyson said that Interstellar was better than Contact."
Find a source to back up your claim he said Interstellar is better. And find a source to back up your claim he said: "Tyson said that Interstellar had better scientific accuracy and creativity."
I already posted it.
scroll up.
This is your words: "Tyson said that Interstellar was better than Contact."
Find a source to back up your claim he said Interstellar is better. And find a source to back up your claim he said: "Tyson said that Interstellar had better scientific accuracy and creativity."
I already posted it.
scroll up.
Stop lying.
share[–] JoWilli (20583) 2 hours ago
thats just an opinion. it doesnt mean one movie is better than the other. I like both movies but prefer Interstellar and Contact is a close 2nd.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/adambvary/neil-degrasse-tyson-interstellar
people are so lazy...
Stop lying! He didn't said:
"Tyson said that Interstellar was better than Contact."
"Tyson said that Interstellar had better scientific accuracy and creativity."
he was basically saying it is better because of scientific accuracy and creativity.
shareStop lying! He didn't said:
"Tyson said that Interstellar was better than Contact."
"Tyson said that Interstellar had better scientific accuracy and creativity."
yeah, he was alluding that its better because of that.
shareStop lying, He never mentions Contact in his tweets not even once.
shareI know, he was talking about Interstellar.
Tyson said that Interstellar had better scientific accuracy and creativity.
You are either a liar or too stupid to understand basic logic or words. He said some of the science, like general relativity, in Interstellar has never been put on screen, but that didn't mean "Interstellar was better than Contact" or "Interstellar had better scientific accuracy and creativity."
He just praises the science in the movie, where did your "creativity" come from? Where is the comparison to Contact?
bro, we are saying the same thing but in a different way. lol
shareNo wonder Tyson and Bill Nye said Interstellar is a dumb movie for dumb people. They were right.
shareInterstellar is definitely not superior to Contact. There's a reason I've only watched Interstellar once and have watched Contact several times. Interstellar has structural problems with its script.
shareInterstellar is much better than Contact. and you only watched it once because you didnt understand the movie. it takes several viewings to completely understand the logic and physics of the movie.
shareContact is a piece of garbage and it has little to nothing to do with Interstellar other than the fact that they both involve space.
shareYou're the first person I've ever seen say Contact is garbage. For me, it's probably a Top 5 sci-fi film and also my favorite Robert Zemeckis film.
What didn't you like about it?
We got all that buildup to seeing an Alien and it turned out to be her father. The movie is also boring and for some reason it seemed to focus disproportionately on the characters religious beliefs. I haven’t seen it in decades but that’s what I remember. It was boring and I hated it.
Robert Zemeckis is also not a great director. The Back To The Future films were entertaining but even then they were riddled with plot holes and contradicted their own rules all the time.
Those are all original movies. An original movie is something that isn't a remake or a sequel. Since the dawn of cinema, films have been based off of books and plays. A film doesn't need to be made from a script that was written from scratch to be considered original.
If you really get down to it, nothing is original by your definition, because there are only a small number of stories in existence, and all books, plays, and films are variations on those tales.
https://stephenfollows.com/p/how-original-are-hollywood-movies
shareThat writer even admits that he has made up his own definition of what makes a film original, and I think that's what this comes down to. What makes a film original to me isn't the same as what makes it original to you.
Many directors don't write their own scripts. I mentioned Alfred Hitchcock before. He didn't write any of the scripts to the films he directed. Some were adapted from books, others were scripts written without a source. One was even a remake of a movie Hitchcock had made in the past. Despite that, I'd not say that Hitchcock didn't direct original films.
If Christopher Nolan writes all his own scripts from scratch or if he adapts existing works, or even if he pays someone else to write them for him, that doesn't affect the originality of his films. Even his Batman films, which feature a well-known protagonist, are what I would call original because he took the character in a direction different from those which previous filmmakers had tread.
Many directors don't write their own scripts.
If Christopher Nolan writes all his own scripts from scratch or if he adapts existing works, or even if he pays someone else to write them for him, that doesn't affect the originality of his films.
Agreed.
He appears to have mixed this term up with "Original Screenplays"
I define "original" as not being on based on preexisting IP. In case, Memento is an original film, as is Inception and Tenet.
shareNot Memento as it's adapted from a short story.
shareIt wasn't published at the time of the film's release though, and it was nominated for an Oscar as Best Original Screenplay.
shareI'm aware it was published afterwards, but he still got the idea from someone else.
shareYeah... his brother, who he's had as a co-writer for multiple films. I'm a critic of Nolan to varying degrees but this is a ridiculous comment.
shareI mean, the first sentence of Wikipedia says it all:
Memento is a 2000 American neo-noir psychological thriller film written and directed by Christopher Nolan, based on the short story "Memento Mori" by his brother Jonathan Nolan, which was later published in 2001.
So basing it off an unpublished short story written by his co-writer makes the film "unoriginal"? How? If someone brings a director a unique script, and they proceed to make the film, that film is immediately retroactively unoriginal simply because the script existed beforehand? You're not even making sense.
There's plenty of things to criticize Nolan about without resorting to total nonsense.
Because the intention was for it to be a short story. He had a template before even beginning the screenplay. Christopher Nolan didn't come up with the idea. James Cameron was sued for Avatar because some guy wrote a screenplay that never got produced and said Cameron stole his idea. It's the same thing. Except that Nolan's brother gave him permission.
shareSo now only the intention matters for some reason? If someone intends to write a novel but ends up writing a screenplay of the idea instead, the fact that they intended to write a novel now means that the eventual movie is "unoriginal"? Again, you're not making any sense.
Also, while not entirely relevant to the point here, you're wrong about the details of the screenplay: "Jonathan got the idea for the story from his general psychology class at Georgetown University. He pitched the idea to his brother Christopher during a cross-country road trip from Chicago to Los Angeles. His brother responded to the idea, and encouraged him to write a first draft. After Jonathan returned to Washington, D.C., to finish college, he sent his brother a draft two months later, and Christopher set to work on a screenplay, while Jonathan began finishing the short story."
So, they were working on it simultaneously. This isn't to mention that the screenplay ended up being significantly different than the short story as well, which is similar to what happened with Interstellar - Jonathan wrote the original script, and Chris rewrote it with a multitude of changes. So basically you're implying that not a single thing can be considered "original" if there's even an inkling of inspiration from another source involved. Which is of course, ridiculous.
Of course intention matters if he's not the one who came up with the idea. This is actually the premise of the terrible film "Big Fat Liar" where a Hollywood producer steals a short story written by a kid for his class assignment. Just because the story wasn't published, that doesn't mean it's original.
But anyway, I'm just basing this off what what it said in the first sentence of the Wikipedia page. It says it's "based on the short story "Memento Mori" by his brother Jonathan Nolan".
The points I've made seem to be totally flying over your head, so I'm not even going to attempt to explain it in a different way.
shareAnd I'm saying that you're wrong too. Notice how I'm not criticizing Jonathan Nolan for being inspired by something to write a short story? Christopher Nolan is different because he was given an entire outline.
Britannica says it's adapted:
…came with the 2000 film Memento, a sleeper hit that he adapted from a short story written by his brother Jonathan Nolan
Christopher Nolan’s Memento is a loose adaptation of the short story Memento Mori, written by his brother Jonathan Nolan and based on a concept he pitched to Chris during a road trip the two took together in the ‘90s.
Adapted by Nolan from his brother Jonathan’s short story “Memento Mori,”
Jonathan Nolan wrote the short story entitled “Memento Mori” that was eventually
adapted into a film by the name Memento directed by Christopher Nolan.
Christopher Nolan achieves an interweaving film adaptation from his brother, Jonathan Nolan’s, short story, Memento Mori.
Christopher Nolan’s dazzling, creative screenplay was actually based on a short story, “Memento Mori” by his brother Jonathan “Nathan” Nolan.
A massive amount of films are adapted from novels, plays, short stories, and other written works. If you consider all of them to be "unoriginal," then so be it. Most people will disagree.
According to your definition, Alfred Hitchcock never directed an original film.
Saboteur and Shadow of a Doubt, were original. I'm not sure most would disagree with me. An original work would have to be a story that was created specifically for a movie without any previous interpretations.
shareThey were original, but Hitchcock didn't write them. Why does that count, but adapting a script from a book doesn't? What if the author of the book writes the script for the director, does it suddenly become original?
shareThey were original, but Hitchcock didn't write them. Why does that count, but adapting a script from a book doesn't?
adapting a script from a book doesn't? What if the author of the book writes the script for the director, does it suddenly become original?
That's just where we disagree. If the screenplay is original, the film is original. It doesn't matter where the idea for the screenplay came from. If anything, I'd say something like Memento is far more original than, say, Avatar, despite being inspired by a short story. The implementation and presentation of the story is completely different and original, and the script was written entirely as its own thing, as opposed to Avatar, which is more or less Dances With Wolves in space.
shareI am not big Nolan fan, and I don't really like majority of his movies.
But basing on something does not mean it is not original.
For example Batman is a very old movie franchise, but before Batman Begins, all the movies were more gothic and more in a fantasy world.
Batman Begins is a lot closer to real world, that means Nolan added something new, a new direction for comic book movies, which later Marvel franchise built on it.
I think Batman Begins is the basis of modern comic book movies.
So I think Batman Begins is original, and refreshing.
I still don't think they're original. He's retooling an existing idea. It's like if I add jellybeans and cotton candy to a pizza. I didn't come up with pizza, I just came up with a different version of it.
shareBut when you add pineapple on pizza, I would consider it an original pizza.
"Greek immigrant Sam Panopoulos invented pineapple pizza in 1962 at his restaurant, the Satellite, in Chatham-Kent, Ontario, Canada"
Blade trilogy from 1998~2004 were comic movies that were closer to the real world, maybe more closer than Begins, and it's more entertaining, Begins was freaking boring.
shareThe blade movie, at least the first one, was great. But closer to reality was not my first impression.
It is still a vampire movie, with blood parties, and vampires co-exist with human governments.
It is like saying we live in a world run by reptilians, there are people believe that, think that is sort of reality. But to most of people is closer to fantasy.
Spider-Man from 2002 or X-Men from 2000? I would say X-Men was closer to the real world than any comic movie, yes they have superpowers but the movie made you believe it was in the real world because they are dealing with issues we face in the real world: discrimination. It was more real than a rich boy going to China to train with ninjas and use fists and ninja darts to catch bad guys. I still vividly remember being in a theater on the first day of release, I almost burst out laughing to see Batman use ninja darts. It was ok in previous Batman movies because they were more like fantasy, but a man living in the real world wouldn't use that stupid weapon.
shareYes, I have to agree. X-men is very close to real world too, and it is earlier than Batman begins. Somehow I thought Batman begins was earlier.
Batman begins is more of the first batman movie closer to real world.
Yes, X-men is more of what Marvel movies were built on.
The guy is a first-rate hack!
share