The Star Wars Thread

[Mister Ed Horse of a Different Color Find all posts View Profile Close Mister Ed]

Do writers actually get paid less to adapt stuff to screenplay vs. writing something original? I'd think that, in many cases, it would be just as much work to do it well...

[JohnnyV Pictionary Master Find all posts View Profile Close JohnnyV]

Do writers actually get paid less to adapt stuff to screenplay vs. writing something original? I'd think that, in many cases, it would be just as much work to do it well...

If that were the case, there'd be more original ideas on the big screen.

[Jeff Guardian of the Universe Find all posts View Profile Close Jeff]

There is also an Obi Wan kids series of books from this time period that is out now as well. I haven't read it, but they could conceivably take cues from it. Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing stories about some of the stuff Ben did in all those years between III and IV. I'm sure he didn't just sit in his hut meditating all that time (even though those were the orders from headquarters.).

[Mister Ed Horse of a Different Color Find all posts View Profile Close Mister Ed]

If that were the case, there'd be more original ideas on the big screen.

I don't see that that follows. You don't need to be adapting a preexisting story to have unoriginal ideas. I'll bet you could probably think of several non-adaptation films that are, nevertheless, unoriginal.

Basing something on an existing property isn't the same thing as adapting an existing story to screenplay form, either. I think that is where a big chunk of unoriginal films come from, too.

[Space Cop The Dandy Find all posts View Profile Close Space Cop]

There is also an Obi Wan kids series of books from this time period that is out now as well. I haven't read it, but they could conceivably take cues from it...

Yep. I'd love to know more about how Obi was killing time until Luke stopped by. I remember thinking about that even before Ep. 3 came out.

[JohnnyV Pictionary Master Find all posts View Profile Close JohnnyV]

I don't see that that follows. You don't need to be adapting a preexisting story to have unoriginal ideas. I'll bet you could probably think of several non-adaptation films that are, nevertheless, unoriginal.

Basing something on an existing property isn't the same thing as adapting an existing story to screenplay form, either. I think that is where a big chunk of unoriginal films come from, too.

True, that is a bit of a general statement. However, I think it's safe to say that it's never more original to base a story on something that's already been created. Whether it's based on an existing "property" or an adaption of a story to screenplay.

[Mister Ed Horse of a Different Color Find all posts View Profile Close Mister Ed]

True, that is a bit of a general statement. However, I think it's safe to say that it's never more original to base a story on something that's already been created. Whether it's based on an existing "property" or an adaption of a story to screenplay.

I suppose. It can still be preferable, though. I mean, I can think of several films that were adaptations that were WAAAAAY better than "original" dreck.

The problem arises when you "adapt" stuff for movies that would be better left alone. Adapt something GOOD, and do it WELL, and you can get something great.

None of which I would expect you to argue with, so I'm not sure why I'm pointing it out.

But, on the original point, I'm still not sure that screenwriters get paid less to adapt something to a screenplay than they do to write a screenplay based on an original idea, mainly because my impression is it isn't really less work ( I think there are difficulties in creating a good adaptation that are not present in creating a screenplay from an original idea, and vice versa).

Unless, of course, the original idea is THEIRS. I suppose you get additional payment if you aren't just writing the screenplay, but coming up with the story as well. Maybe that's what you were saying. But then, the question becomes, which costs more, paying somebody to come up with an original idea, or paying to license an existing idea? I think in many cases it is likely to be the latter, but it is still done quite often because with the existing idea, you have a better notion of how much of a market there is for the film. So "unoriginal" movies might actually cost MORE in many cases, but that's offset (or so the studio hopes) by the likelihood of having a built-in audience going in.

[JohnnyV Pictionary Master Find all posts View Profile Close JohnnyV]

But, on the original point, I'm still not sure that screenwriters get paid less to adapt something to a screenplay than they do to write a screenplay based on an original idea, mainly because my impression is it isn't really less work ( I think there are difficulties in creating a good adaptation that are not present in creating a screenplay from an original idea, and vice versa).

Unless, of course, the original idea is THEIRS. I suppose you get additional payment if you aren't just writing the screenplay, but coming up with the story as well. Maybe that's what you were saying. But then, the question becomes, which costs more, paying somebody to come up with an original idea, or paying to license an existing idea? I think in many cases it is likely to be the latter, but it is still done quite often because with the existing idea, you have a better notion of how much of a market there is for the film. So "unoriginal" movies might actually cost MORE in many cases, but that's offset (or so the studio hopes) by the likelihood of having a built-in audience going in.

It would probably depend on how the payment is devised, and whether or not the original writer was "hired" or simply submitted a script that got accepted.

Let's create a hypothetical that WB went to Neil Gaiman and told him that they wanted him to completely create a brand new property from scratch and wanted him to completely create brand new characters, plot, and world. All on his own. Compare that to the hypothetical that they simply came to him and asked him to write a screen play for his Sandman series, I would bet money that he would end up with more money for the brand new idea than his adapted screenplay. He would probably get more due to the wheeling and dealing of his agent/lawyer, which is why you have those agents and lawyers.

Writing is not unlike any other job, the more time and energy required to do it, will net you more of a payday. Again, unless you simply submitted a script that got accepted.

[Mister Ed Horse of a Different Color Find all posts View Profile Close Mister Ed]

Well, I guess I was assuming that the pay for the actual scriptwriting was kind of one factor, and the pay for developing the idea was another part.

For instance, let's pretend that, for whatever reason, Gaiman came up with new characters, plot and world, but HE didn't write the screenplay for it. Setting aside that such a move seems kind of nutty, if he was willing to write it, would the person that turned those ideas into a screenplay get paid any more than a person that adapted Sandman for film? I wouldn't have thought so.

Does Gaiman own all the rights to the Sandman series? If so, are you SURE that a studio would pay him more to write a completely original script than the sum of what they would pay him for an adapted script for Sandman, plus the film rights to it? It seems to me that they are paying for 1.) writing chores, and 2.) an intellectual property. From the standpoint of the studio, it seems like they would be willing to pay MORE for an intellectual property with proven popularity than one that nobody has heard of, all other things being equal (which in this example, with the same creator and screenwriter proposed for both, it seems they are).

[Marvelous Iggy God Of Turtles Find all posts View Profile Close Marvelous Iggy]

If it didn't happen in the movies, it aint cannon.

Create new things for the movies!!

[JohnnyV Pictionary Master Find all posts View Profile Close JohnnyV]

Well, I guess I was assuming that the pay for the actual scriptwriting was kind of one factor, and the pay for developing the idea was another part.

For instance, let's pretend that, for whatever reason, Gaiman came up with new characters, plot and world, but HE didn't write the screenplay for it. Setting aside that such a move seems kind of nutty, if he was willing to write it, would the person that turned those ideas into a screenplay get paid any more than a person that adapted Sandman for film? I wouldn't have thought so.

Does Gaiman own all the rights to the Sandman series? If so, are you SURE that a studio would pay him more to write a completely original script than the sum of what they would pay him for an adapted script for Sandman, plus the film rights to it? It seems to me that they are paying for 1.) writing chores, and 2.) an intellectual property. From the standpoint of the studio, it seems like they would be willing to pay MORE for an intellectual property with proven popularity than one that nobody has heard of, all other things being equal (which in this example, with the same creator and screenwriter proposed for both, it seems they are).

Well, if we're getting into property rights then that's a whole other animal. Because then your selling a good, not a service. Much in the same way simply submitting a script and having it accepted is transacting a "good". If you're hired to write though, that's a "service". And depending on how much more work is required for that service, you'll get paid more. That's the only point I was making. And why you would receive more as a hired writer if you were brought on to create something brand new, over adapting a story or property. Because less work, by its nature, would be required to do so.

[Mister Ed Horse of a Different Color Find all posts View Profile Close Mister Ed]

But I thought you were implying that the increased cost of having someone write an "original" script vs. and "adapted" script was why there weren't more original movies coming out of Hollywood. Was I wrong about that?

I think that the cost of getting the film rights plus the cost of the adapted screenplay may very well often be MORE than the cost of an original screenplay. I'm arguing that, in many cases anyway, studios don't eschew original movies because they cost more, they do it because they consider adaptations a surer return on investment. (Though given all the poor performing movies based on existing material, that might NOT be as sure a thing as they seem to think.)

[W.West Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close W.West]

CANON not cannon.

[Mister Ed Horse of a Different Color Find all posts View Profile Close Mister Ed]

CANON not cannon.

Oh come on. I mean, he not only used ain't, he left the apostrophe out of it, and you expect him to make THAT sort of distinction?

[Marvelous Iggy God Of Turtles Find all posts View Profile Close Marvelous Iggy]

CANON not cannon.

Shut up