But for the purposes of these conversations, people are complaining about sequels and remakes being too prominent. I don't see why an adaptation of a book that has never been adapted into film before should be part of that complaint
Okay it was an adaptation, but it wasn't a remake or a sequel. I understand the definition of original to be not remake or sequel. If adaptations don't count, that significantly shrinks the number of original movies that have ever been made. Why is it not enough the movie isn't part of an established film franchise, it also must not be an adaptation? The authour of the novel had an original idea and it was made into a film. The film is contributing to new, non-franchise, films being made popular. No, ideas must go straight to being film or they don't count?
Maybe I take things too literally because of my autism, but in the contexts I see these comments it seems to mean there are no movies that aren't sequels or remakes. There are plenty of movies that aren't sequels or remakes and these people seem to be willfully ignoring them. I've seen many movies this year, some have been sequels or remakes, some have not been. I personally count movies based on books as original, like the movie Reminders of Him, but that's not good enough for some people. The authour of the novel had an original idea and it was made into a film, but no they won't accept an adaptation as original. And yes, some original films are derivative of ideas that have been done before. All fiction is derivative of other fiction. It's basically impossible fir it not to be at least a little derivative.
I concede that it is unfortunate that there are likely original ideas being rejected in favour of franchise movies. But I think part of the reason this happens is audiences are hypocritical. If the audience would put their money where their mouths are and see more original films, more original films would get made. Franchise films are getting made so often because it's what people want, as proven by them making money. People blame the marketing for their choices. It's a chicken and egg situation, franchise films make more money because they're marketed more and they're marketed more because they make more money. If people saw more original films, original films would get more marketing. I'm annoyed by people blaming the corporations for their own choice to see franchise movies more than original movies
People keep bringing up people who didn't vote like that exonerates them. What they're really saying is two thirds of the country were complicit, the third who voted Trump and the third who couldn't be bothered to vote
That's something people say cause they think it makes them sound smart. Like people who say the Hunger Games is just Battle Royale, while ignorant of the long history of stories about death tournaments
But for the purposes of these conversations, people are complaining about sequels and remakes being too prominent. I don't see why an adaptation of a book that has never been adapted into film before should be part of that complaint