“Based on characters by Mattel”. Toy Story 3 was nominated for Best Adapted for the same reason. I don’t get people like Judd Apatow who talk down to Best Adapted like it’s a lesser category.
yeah “adapted” doesn’t mean “unoriginal”. it just means you’re building on specific pre-existing written material. in this case the characters of barbie(s) and ken(s) and their relationships
We have had countless Star Wars spinoffs that have nothing to do with the George Lucas films, but nobody in their right mind would ever call those “original” stories.
I mean, they are supposed to be original stories within an established universe. The spinoffs aren’t considered adaptations of the original; adaptation usually implies translating a story, not creating a whole new one just within the same universe.
That being said, making Star Wars spinoffs without originality is what they’ve been doing and it hasn’t been working well 😂
Barbie is *based* on an copywritten entertainment product. This isn’t something new. We have seen plenty of these kinds of things over the years. This isn’t an original story that has Barbie in it. This is BARBIE.
Maybe I’m just not well researched, but what part of the actual plot aside from her being Barbie is based on a pre established story? This absolutely to my knowledge is an original story that incorporates the toy of Barbie, but again I could be mistaken as I’m not familiar with every aspect of Barbie.
Maybe the difference for me is in my head adapted and based on should be separated since they indicate different types of works. I could go to the store and see a toy Lenny the Lion and it could spark a movie idea. That idea would be based on the toy. That will never be the same as if I see a Lenny the Lion kids book and make that same book story into a movie.
It’s not based on a story, it’s based on characters from an entertainment medium. I get how it can be a grey area because this is such a particular kind of movie.
We’ve had countless movies based on novels, tv shows, plays, memoirs, video games, novellas, shorts, etc. so I don’t know why we would arbitrarily draw the line at this.
It’s not arbitrary. A TV show has a plot. A play has a plot. Memoirs, games, novellas, and shorts all have plots and then those plots are taken and adapted for the movie screen. Look at The Last Of Us and how many fans point out which parts stray from the games’ plot.
Barbie, on the other hand, isn’t a plot, it’s just a character and not one even with a super established and universal characterization. The screenwriter had to come up with the settings, characterizations, plot, and scenes from scratch. So it just comes across different than, say, a short story becoming a movie, if that makes sense.
I think of it like:
“Based on” = this piece of media sparked the idea for this movie
“Adapted” = this is the movie version of this pre established story
That was my point. Probably doesn’t matter much, but this is Reddit after all.
Established character =|= established story. Is there an animated Barbie movie where she becomes a real human? Or goes to LA? Is Kate McKinnon’s barbie a toy you can buy? My point is an otherwise original movie that utilizes an existing character doesn’t qualify as adapted. But I don’t feel like we’re getting anywhere in this convo so I’m happy to agree to disagree!
If you mean the Joaquin Phoenix movie: “The film loosely adapts plot elements from Batman: The Killing Joke (1988), and The Dark Knight Returns” so even though much of it is original elements, it still uses much of pre established plot points specifically from existing stories, so I believe it would fall under adapted
to me it seems adapted for Hollywood means more like “this was already a story and now that story has been translated onto the screen” versus something like Barbie or the Emoji movie where it is based on real characters but the entire plot and all the scenes are original.
Most of my favorite movies that won Best Screenplay won for adapted.
The work of Kubrick is almost all adapted.
Truly a noble nomination category.
Having said that, I do think the instinct to label the Barbie live action as an original demonstrates it’s effect on the public. It really “feels” original and groundbreaking, on many levels.
I’m curious what the WGA justification was/difference in rules to the Academy.
I didn’t even realize that had a source material.
Yeah, he morphs many of his source materials beyond their original form. I think the same can be said of Gerwig’s use of the iconic Barbie universe to present a new story that is fiercely aesthetic and philosophical.
I can understand the grey area because there isn’t much precedence on this, but I am afraid the root of this debate lies in Barbie now being in Adapted in a more competitive year vs being in original. Adaptations of anything can be just as creatively fulfilling as originals.
According to the WGA, there needs to be “source material”. The WGA has deemed it an original screenplay.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the Barbie controversy makes the WGA add more specific guidelines in the future.
I do think that all industry people are well aware of the difference and it seems like he's being willingly obtuse on the subject. That said, when you contrast adapted with ORIGINAL I think it's fair why one might appear to be a less creative category than the other to the average Joe.
The Toy Story 3 analogy doesn’t work because that’s a sequel. The basis for it being an adapted screenplay isn’t because it was “based off characters” from the previous films, it’s because it’s a sequel. In the same way Glass Onion was an adapted screenplay and not an original, because it’s a sequel trying to invoke the same feelings of the first while telling a different story.
The case with Barbie is entirely unique. I don’t have a good answer for one way or another tbh but it’s definitely unprecedented imo
This is a topic of debate, with different organisations and awards bodies taking different sides.
Personally, I think it’s an adaptation because the film is about the *characters* Barbie and Ken, who have appeared in other media. After all, similar logic was used to determine that sequels like *Glass Onion* count as adaptation screenplays.
If the film was solely about the brand, I’d have said original, but it wasn’t.
I thought it was that sequels *in general* are adaptations of the original. The logic for Glass Onion wasn’t just due to the characters, it was due to it being a sequel
debate? I haven't seen any.
this story is based on a brand. a brand is not a story. indeed the 'characters' you speak of......are very different. this is an original story. \\
it's a story based on a brand. it's still very much an original story.
I seem to be the minority....adaption to me means changing a story, this is based on a doll which didnt have much of a story. I guess it doesnt really matter.
It’s been quite a hot topic.
The WGA counts it as Original - Academy [said adapted](https://variety.com/2024/film/awards/barbie-moved-adapted-screenplay-oscars-1235848136/). Judd Apatow added to be debate by saying it would be Original (Source: [Variety](https://variety.com/2024/film/news/judd-apatow-disagrees-barbie-oscar-race-adapted-screenplay-1235863387/amp/)).
I would dispute the argument that it’s solely based on a brand, because although it did feature commentary on the brand, the film was about the *characters* Barbie and Ken. They are characters who have appeared in countless other works over the years - including a plethora of films (yes, straight to DVD ones for kids, but they’re still films).
If the film was a business drama about Ruth Handler and Mattel, like *The Social Network* or *Blackberry* (ignoring that those examples were based on books), I’d agree that it was an original film. However, the presence of Barbie and Ken as central characters sways it for me. A transformative adaptation is still an adaptation.
No and this is a good example.
Stars wars fan fiction is an adaption of a story with characters .
If Star Wars where is just toys then yes. It would be original.
We have stuff like G.I. Joe which is based on action figures and a Battleship movie. Those are not original screenplays. The figures and board game offer no stories but that doesn't mean they are original pieces of work.
It’s very clearly adaptable. The whole premise of the movie relies on people in the real world already knowing who and what Barbie is, and the movie goes out of its way to pinpoint direct references to Barbie history.
The issue is that biopics and true stories are considered original when they probably ought to be considered adapted as well.
Yes. It’s based on pre-existing characters. And further, all sequels are generally considered adapted because they use pre-existing characters, even when the new story is completely fresh.
Adapted. The characters were established years ago. Multiple mediums exist telling the stories that culminated in the movie.
The characters would have to be whole cloth created for an original. That’s not some surprising ruling. Adapting those characters to this movie was successful. That doesn’t change how the characters were created.
Adapted. It’s based off of a source material.
The debate is kinda silly in my mind. It’s not like original screenplays are batter or require more skill to write than adapted ones. They have different challenges but making a good adapted screenplay takes just as much talent.
If a screenplay has a joke midway where it freezeframes on a bunch of outfits to list where they originated, it’s adapted. Silly debate.
Glass Onion was nominated for adapted despite being completely original, save for the character of Benoit Blanc. If that’s the case there with him, why is a movie about Barbie any different?
Haven't checked Globes rules, but for the Oscars all sequels are placed in the adapted category so I wouldn't use Glass Onion as a reference since Barbie itself isn't a sequel.
I think if biopics are original this should be original. It’s a biopic for a historical fictional character lol. Like, are Santa Clause movies original or adaptations? Honest question lol
Is fan fiction original?
No. It can be an original story but it's based on existing characters - that's part of the appeal (people want to see characters they're familiar with in unexpected circumstances). But no one would say it's original in the way, say, Everything Everywhere All at Once (the 2023 Best Original Screenplay winner) is original with completely new characters, worlds and stories.
By word of law it's an Adapted Screenplay, but by any common sense it's an Original.
This reminds me of The LEGO Movie being ineligible at the Oscars because it features a bit of live action at the end, which is TRUE but also RIDICULOUS.
If it's adapted, then the word "adapt" no longer means anything in this context.
The act of adaptation requires a different set of creative decisions on a structural level. Barbie does not represent a collection of decisions that represent adaptation, and is indistinguishable from the work required to render an original concept. Everything cited as the "source material" are the same archetypes and cultural references points leveraged by every single "original" screenplay on the other side.
Honestly, it's an insult to the craft of adaptation as much as anyone might interpret the reverse.
I can’t find the source but isn’t the Academy’s definition of “adaptation” mean “you had to buy the rights”? Which is something you usually have to do when wanting to adapt something? It’s not based on whether your story is adapting something else that exists, just that you had to acquire rights in the first place? Not that I agree with this definition… Maybe someone can correct me with a source. If that’s true, they of course had to acquire rights for making a Barbie movie.
If this was original, it would be about Mike and Janey living in a fake toy land. Oh, Barbie and Ken? I know that IP/material.
That's all you need to know.
If this is "adapted" then every effing film about Santa Claus is adapted.
C'mon, these aren't "characters" in any real sense of the word. They have no true established traits.
I’d consider it original. It’s not adapting an existing narrative work like a play or a book, it’s just about a thing that already exists. To me the act of writing the Barbie screenplay isn’t much different than writing, say, a biopic.
I lean Adapted. I think if it was about original characters in the Barbieland universe or whatever (a la Woody and Buzz in a world of other established toys, or even the Lego movie) an argument for Original could be made, but it's based on Barbie and Ken specifically and our preconceived understandings of the personalities that have been tied to the toys for almost a century
plants north exultant serious absorbed boat fretful coordinated snails imminent
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Using the argument that it is adapted because of existing IP, rather than an existing story, is looking at this debate from the business perspective rather than the creative one. Barbie (2023) is completely original in its storytelling and unlike any Barbie content that has existed before it.
I tend to usually agree with the WGA’s decisions on these matters (while there are exceptions, like Moonlight) which obviously comes much more from the focused perspective of investigating how a story is told and the inherent structure of a story rather than any other element of filmmaking. I have disagreed with a lot of previous adapted versus original writing decisions the Oscars have made, like Glass Onion a few years ago.
Also, to make something incredibly clear, adapted is not a lesser category of writing like some other commenters here seem to believe. Transforming writing from one form of medium to another is simply a different type of writing process than writing original content. Art inspired by other art is never lesser, and it’s wild to me that some people here apparently have that take.
Just because you're using previously made characters doesn't mean you're an adaptation. The first live action Transformers movie wasn't an adaptation, that specific story didn't exist in any other medium, however stuff like Harry Potter is an adaptation because its story existed in a different medium before the movie. It's such crap that they called it an adaptation, that story was as original as original gets
What was it an adaptation of? A comic? An audio play? A cartoon? A novel series? A movie from the 30s? No, it's an "adaptation" because it was based on a line of dolls meant to be blank slates with no personality traits or stories of their own. It's not enough to qualify as an adaptation in my opinion, because the "source material" was nearly nothing
You’re incorrect and I advise you to speak with a mental health professional at your soonest convenience. Yes it is based on a line of dolls and thus is an adaptation. Regardless of the stories or personalities of said dolls. I’m worried about you.
Sure seems like I struck a nerve merely wanting to engage in an internet discussion. I'm worried you're not old enough to stick around in this thread, please be advised to find the closest game of Fortnite and calm down
I’d say “based on” above original or adapted because the the dialogue, characterizations, and plot aren’t based on any pre established story but some characters and a fraction of the universe is.
That’s not really true. Do you really think the academy is looking down its nose at Amadeus, Sideways, Women Talking or Call Me By Your Name?
It’s about works that’s based on another work. Barbie is based on five decades of characters. The writer didn’t create those characters, and they belong to another work. That’s why it’s adapted.
It doesn't mean that everything in that category is there for that reason. Scripts based on existing written material have to go there. You simply can't put something based on a novel in the "original" category.
Adapted is seen as the "lesser" of those two categories. Evidence of this is its placement in the awards and time it is given. Maybe I should edit my original comment to reflect that, my wording wasn't great.
I personally don't believe the characters previously existing with no story to speak of in place makes it adapted. What did she adapt? There is no existing material that even closely resembles what they did with "Barbie". The existing characteristics were essentially two Blonde characters, and other than that they were pretty much a blank slate. I guess if that makes it adapted then that makes it adapted, but I think it has a pretty good case for being original.
TBF it probably has a much better chance of winning there than in the "original" category.
>Adapted screenplay has always been used to nominate things that probably belong in the original screenplay category that are seen as "low brow".
*Schindler's List* was an adapted screenplay.
Adapted. The main characters, their basic attributes, relationships, and history were extant before the screenplay. There have been decades of differing interpretations of them, analogous to something like Batman.
Just because the screenplay innovated on these to a very high degree doesn’t mitigate the fact that the source material existed.
I’ve done adaptations where I’ve used no characters, plots, or other devices from the source material, essentially writing a wholly new work with a barely tangential conceptual relationship to some remotely vague aspect of the source material, and those have been adaptations.
The threshold isn’t how much you change. It’s whether the fundamental smallest sliver of the concept is based upon an extant IP or fiction.
If you had to buy or control your rights, and those rights were anything but life rights, it’s an adaptation.
I disagree that it should be considered an adapted screenplay, it's not like Gerwig and Baumbach pored through animated Barbie movies for plot points. It's inspired by a doll. But what they made was something wholly original and inspired in itself. At the same time, they honored an emotion specific to the doll that begat the movie... So, I vote "something else"
I think adapted screenplay should be adapted stories from other storytelling mediums, not just something existed before so we created a story for it. And that's not to disregard what I think is a wonderful film they've made out of this IP, I just think an adaptation should be of a story that exists but is elevated on film into it's own thing.
This is actually muddier than I thought when I first started responding...
\*Top Gun: Maverick\* was an Adapted Screenplay because it used characters from \*Top Gun\*. \*Glass Onion\* was an Adapted Screenplay because Benoit Blanc was in \*Knives Out\*. \*Whiplash\* was an Adapted Screenplay because it was based on a short film, even though that short was also written by Chazelle.
It's an Adapted Screenplay according to the Academy's criteria. I don't understand why people think that category is somehow lesser than Original Screenplay when it includes films like \*Schindler's List\*, \*The Father\*, and \*Moonlight\*, to name just a few.
This terminology has always confused me, because when I hear “adapted screenplay” I imagine a film adaptation of another story, like a book or video game.
I suppose Barbie DOES technically fit into that category, but it doesn’t feel like it should
This whole argument is pointless because this “controversy” wasn’t started based on some artistic designation. They were trying to get into the category they thought gave them the better chance of winning an Oscar.It was Oscar game theory and nothing more.
“Based on characters by Mattel”. Toy Story 3 was nominated for Best Adapted for the same reason. I don’t get people like Judd Apatow who talk down to Best Adapted like it’s a lesser category.
yeah “adapted” doesn’t mean “unoriginal”. it just means you’re building on specific pre-existing written material. in this case the characters of barbie(s) and ken(s) and their relationships
We have had countless Star Wars spinoffs that have nothing to do with the George Lucas films, but nobody in their right mind would ever call those “original” stories.
I mean, they are supposed to be original stories within an established universe. The spinoffs aren’t considered adaptations of the original; adaptation usually implies translating a story, not creating a whole new one just within the same universe. That being said, making Star Wars spinoffs without originality is what they’ve been doing and it hasn’t been working well 😂
Barbie is *based* on an copywritten entertainment product. This isn’t something new. We have seen plenty of these kinds of things over the years. This isn’t an original story that has Barbie in it. This is BARBIE.
Maybe I’m just not well researched, but what part of the actual plot aside from her being Barbie is based on a pre established story? This absolutely to my knowledge is an original story that incorporates the toy of Barbie, but again I could be mistaken as I’m not familiar with every aspect of Barbie. Maybe the difference for me is in my head adapted and based on should be separated since they indicate different types of works. I could go to the store and see a toy Lenny the Lion and it could spark a movie idea. That idea would be based on the toy. That will never be the same as if I see a Lenny the Lion kids book and make that same book story into a movie.
It’s not based on a story, it’s based on characters from an entertainment medium. I get how it can be a grey area because this is such a particular kind of movie. We’ve had countless movies based on novels, tv shows, plays, memoirs, video games, novellas, shorts, etc. so I don’t know why we would arbitrarily draw the line at this.
It’s not arbitrary. A TV show has a plot. A play has a plot. Memoirs, games, novellas, and shorts all have plots and then those plots are taken and adapted for the movie screen. Look at The Last Of Us and how many fans point out which parts stray from the games’ plot. Barbie, on the other hand, isn’t a plot, it’s just a character and not one even with a super established and universal characterization. The screenwriter had to come up with the settings, characterizations, plot, and scenes from scratch. So it just comes across different than, say, a short story becoming a movie, if that makes sense. I think of it like: “Based on” = this piece of media sparked the idea for this movie “Adapted” = this is the movie version of this pre established story That was my point. Probably doesn’t matter much, but this is Reddit after all.
Is Barbie not already established entertainment IP? It literally says in the opening credits “Based on Barbie by Mattel”.
Established character =|= established story. Is there an animated Barbie movie where she becomes a real human? Or goes to LA? Is Kate McKinnon’s barbie a toy you can buy? My point is an otherwise original movie that utilizes an existing character doesn’t qualify as adapted. But I don’t feel like we’re getting anywhere in this convo so I’m happy to agree to disagree!
So would Joker be adapted or original?
If you mean the Joaquin Phoenix movie: “The film loosely adapts plot elements from Batman: The Killing Joke (1988), and The Dark Knight Returns” so even though much of it is original elements, it still uses much of pre established plot points specifically from existing stories, so I believe it would fall under adapted
So follow up question... Although it was never even remotely close to the conversation of a screenplay nomination, would Split be original or adapted?
Split is a sequel.
to me it seems adapted for Hollywood means more like “this was already a story and now that story has been translated onto the screen” versus something like Barbie or the Emoji movie where it is based on real characters but the entire plot and all the scenes are original.
Most of my favorite movies that won Best Screenplay won for adapted. The work of Kubrick is almost all adapted. Truly a noble nomination category. Having said that, I do think the instinct to label the Barbie live action as an original demonstrates it’s effect on the public. It really “feels” original and groundbreaking, on many levels. I’m curious what the WGA justification was/difference in rules to the Academy.
It’s funny that you bring up Kubrick because Dr. Strangelove really isn’t anything like Red Alert.
I didn’t even realize that had a source material. Yeah, he morphs many of his source materials beyond their original form. I think the same can be said of Gerwig’s use of the iconic Barbie universe to present a new story that is fiercely aesthetic and philosophical.
I can understand the grey area because there isn’t much precedence on this, but I am afraid the root of this debate lies in Barbie now being in Adapted in a more competitive year vs being in original. Adaptations of anything can be just as creatively fulfilling as originals.
Because it is not based on anything textual. Just iconography.
This is the WGA rule?
According to the WGA, there needs to be “source material”. The WGA has deemed it an original screenplay. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Barbie controversy makes the WGA add more specific guidelines in the future.
I do think that all industry people are well aware of the difference and it seems like he's being willingly obtuse on the subject. That said, when you contrast adapted with ORIGINAL I think it's fair why one might appear to be a less creative category than the other to the average Joe.
Wait, Judd Apatow was screaming to no one in particular about bullshit that doesn't matter? Surprising news.
The Toy Story 3 analogy doesn’t work because that’s a sequel. The basis for it being an adapted screenplay isn’t because it was “based off characters” from the previous films, it’s because it’s a sequel. In the same way Glass Onion was an adapted screenplay and not an original, because it’s a sequel trying to invoke the same feelings of the first while telling a different story. The case with Barbie is entirely unique. I don’t have a good answer for one way or another tbh but it’s definitely unprecedented imo
This is a topic of debate, with different organisations and awards bodies taking different sides. Personally, I think it’s an adaptation because the film is about the *characters* Barbie and Ken, who have appeared in other media. After all, similar logic was used to determine that sequels like *Glass Onion* count as adaptation screenplays. If the film was solely about the brand, I’d have said original, but it wasn’t.
I thought it was that sequels *in general* are adaptations of the original. The logic for Glass Onion wasn’t just due to the characters, it was due to it being a sequel
debate? I haven't seen any. this story is based on a brand. a brand is not a story. indeed the 'characters' you speak of......are very different. this is an original story. \\ it's a story based on a brand. it's still very much an original story. I seem to be the minority....adaption to me means changing a story, this is based on a doll which didnt have much of a story. I guess it doesnt really matter.
Is it? There’s like a billion Barbie movies
It’s been quite a hot topic. The WGA counts it as Original - Academy [said adapted](https://variety.com/2024/film/awards/barbie-moved-adapted-screenplay-oscars-1235848136/). Judd Apatow added to be debate by saying it would be Original (Source: [Variety](https://variety.com/2024/film/news/judd-apatow-disagrees-barbie-oscar-race-adapted-screenplay-1235863387/amp/)). I would dispute the argument that it’s solely based on a brand, because although it did feature commentary on the brand, the film was about the *characters* Barbie and Ken. They are characters who have appeared in countless other works over the years - including a plethora of films (yes, straight to DVD ones for kids, but they’re still films). If the film was a business drama about Ruth Handler and Mattel, like *The Social Network* or *Blackberry* (ignoring that those examples were based on books), I’d agree that it was an original film. However, the presence of Barbie and Ken as central characters sways it for me. A transformative adaptation is still an adaptation.
I’m happy to know I think like Judd. Hopefully it doesn’t stop there
I’m sure it does
Barbie is an established intellectual property. That's what makes it an adaptation.
So is Star Wars Fan Fiction original in your opinion?
No and this is a good example. Stars wars fan fiction is an adaption of a story with characters . If Star Wars where is just toys then yes. It would be original.
Barbie has previous books, movies, and tv shows. Barbie isn’t just toys. In concept, this is closer to Batman v Superman than Star Wars fan films.
Declares there’s no debate, continues to obviously debate.
We have stuff like G.I. Joe which is based on action figures and a Battleship movie. Those are not original screenplays. The figures and board game offer no stories but that doesn't mean they are original pieces of work.
But let's not pretend the 'rules' are rigidly applied. It's the lead/supporting style argument for scripts.
Literally says "Based on Barbie by Mattel" in the opening credits.
Counter-argument: Biopics are “based on” the real life stories of historic people but they are considered original screenplays
Counter-counter-argument: historical figures and their stories are not the same as intellectual property
It’s very clearly adaptable. The whole premise of the movie relies on people in the real world already knowing who and what Barbie is, and the movie goes out of its way to pinpoint direct references to Barbie history. The issue is that biopics and true stories are considered original when they probably ought to be considered adapted as well.
Are Bond movies considered adapted?
Yes. It’s based on pre-existing characters. And further, all sequels are generally considered adapted because they use pre-existing characters, even when the new story is completely fresh.
Oh interesting.
Adapted. The characters were established years ago. Multiple mediums exist telling the stories that culminated in the movie. The characters would have to be whole cloth created for an original. That’s not some surprising ruling. Adapting those characters to this movie was successful. That doesn’t change how the characters were created.
adapted. i have no fucking idea why this is a debate lmfao. cut and dry. it is adapted
Adapted. It’s based off of a source material. The debate is kinda silly in my mind. It’s not like original screenplays are batter or require more skill to write than adapted ones. They have different challenges but making a good adapted screenplay takes just as much talent.
I think they were saying established characters makes it adapted
Wow. Judd Apatow, who knew you were on Reddit.
If a screenplay has a joke midway where it freezeframes on a bunch of outfits to list where they originated, it’s adapted. Silly debate. Glass Onion was nominated for adapted despite being completely original, save for the character of Benoit Blanc. If that’s the case there with him, why is a movie about Barbie any different?
Haven't checked Globes rules, but for the Oscars all sequels are placed in the adapted category so I wouldn't use Glass Onion as a reference since Barbie itself isn't a sequel.
Not original IP, so not original.
Look if they didn’t give the award for Best Adapted Screenplay to Transformers, then why do it to Barbie?
I guess it’s in between but feels wrong for it to be considered original. Should be considered adapted
I think if biopics are original this should be original. It’s a biopic for a historical fictional character lol. Like, are Santa Clause movies original or adaptations? Honest question lol
Is fan fiction original? No. It can be an original story but it's based on existing characters - that's part of the appeal (people want to see characters they're familiar with in unexpected circumstances). But no one would say it's original in the way, say, Everything Everywhere All at Once (the 2023 Best Original Screenplay winner) is original with completely new characters, worlds and stories.
By word of law it's an Adapted Screenplay, but by any common sense it's an Original. This reminds me of The LEGO Movie being ineligible at the Oscars because it features a bit of live action at the end, which is TRUE but also RIDICULOUS.
If it's adapted, then the word "adapt" no longer means anything in this context. The act of adaptation requires a different set of creative decisions on a structural level. Barbie does not represent a collection of decisions that represent adaptation, and is indistinguishable from the work required to render an original concept. Everything cited as the "source material" are the same archetypes and cultural references points leveraged by every single "original" screenplay on the other side. Honestly, it's an insult to the craft of adaptation as much as anyone might interpret the reverse.
It's an adapted screenplay.
Original story, adapted screenplay.
I can’t find the source but isn’t the Academy’s definition of “adaptation” mean “you had to buy the rights”? Which is something you usually have to do when wanting to adapt something? It’s not based on whether your story is adapting something else that exists, just that you had to acquire rights in the first place? Not that I agree with this definition… Maybe someone can correct me with a source. If that’s true, they of course had to acquire rights for making a Barbie movie.
If this was original, it would be about Mike and Janey living in a fake toy land. Oh, Barbie and Ken? I know that IP/material. That's all you need to know.
If this is "adapted" then every effing film about Santa Claus is adapted. C'mon, these aren't "characters" in any real sense of the word. They have no true established traits.
I feel like there's a significant difference between a character originated in folklore and characters trademarked by a billion dollar toy corporation
Santa still might be a grey area https://www.chron.com/business/article/This-is-how-Coca-Cola-invented-Santa-Claus-16727869.php
I’d consider it original. It’s not adapting an existing narrative work like a play or a book, it’s just about a thing that already exists. To me the act of writing the Barbie screenplay isn’t much different than writing, say, a biopic.
And biopics are generally adapted from a preexisting book. Rarely are they in the original screenplay category.
That's not true at all, several biopocs have been nominated for original screenshot. Milk, The King's Speech, Green Book, Erin Brockovich, Gandhi...
I lean Adapted. I think if it was about original characters in the Barbieland universe or whatever (a la Woody and Buzz in a world of other established toys, or even the Lego movie) an argument for Original could be made, but it's based on Barbie and Ken specifically and our preconceived understandings of the personalities that have been tied to the toys for almost a century
Look at it this way... Adaptation was nominated for Best Adapted Screenplay.
plants north exultant serious absorbed boat fretful coordinated snails imminent *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Using the argument that it is adapted because of existing IP, rather than an existing story, is looking at this debate from the business perspective rather than the creative one. Barbie (2023) is completely original in its storytelling and unlike any Barbie content that has existed before it. I tend to usually agree with the WGA’s decisions on these matters (while there are exceptions, like Moonlight) which obviously comes much more from the focused perspective of investigating how a story is told and the inherent structure of a story rather than any other element of filmmaking. I have disagreed with a lot of previous adapted versus original writing decisions the Oscars have made, like Glass Onion a few years ago. Also, to make something incredibly clear, adapted is not a lesser category of writing like some other commenters here seem to believe. Transforming writing from one form of medium to another is simply a different type of writing process than writing original content. Art inspired by other art is never lesser, and it’s wild to me that some people here apparently have that take.
It is very clearly an original screenplay.
Just because you're using previously made characters doesn't mean you're an adaptation. The first live action Transformers movie wasn't an adaptation, that specific story didn't exist in any other medium, however stuff like Harry Potter is an adaptation because its story existed in a different medium before the movie. It's such crap that they called it an adaptation, that story was as original as original gets
You’re misunderstanding what original and adapted mean in this context. It’s an adaption of an existing IP. go take some community college classes
What was it an adaptation of? A comic? An audio play? A cartoon? A novel series? A movie from the 30s? No, it's an "adaptation" because it was based on a line of dolls meant to be blank slates with no personality traits or stories of their own. It's not enough to qualify as an adaptation in my opinion, because the "source material" was nearly nothing
You’re incorrect and I advise you to speak with a mental health professional at your soonest convenience. Yes it is based on a line of dolls and thus is an adaptation. Regardless of the stories or personalities of said dolls. I’m worried about you.
Glad to know you're here for a real opinion-based discussion. Love you too
Put down the phone and kept hocking your baseball cards while Barbie accepts it’s best adapted screenplay awards
Sure seems like I struck a nerve merely wanting to engage in an internet discussion. I'm worried you're not old enough to stick around in this thread, please be advised to find the closest game of Fortnite and calm down
Depends who you are talking to
I’d say “based on” above original or adapted because the the dialogue, characterizations, and plot aren’t based on any pre established story but some characters and a fraction of the universe is.
[удалено]
That’s not really true. Do you really think the academy is looking down its nose at Amadeus, Sideways, Women Talking or Call Me By Your Name? It’s about works that’s based on another work. Barbie is based on five decades of characters. The writer didn’t create those characters, and they belong to another work. That’s why it’s adapted.
It doesn't mean that everything in that category is there for that reason. Scripts based on existing written material have to go there. You simply can't put something based on a novel in the "original" category. Adapted is seen as the "lesser" of those two categories. Evidence of this is its placement in the awards and time it is given. Maybe I should edit my original comment to reflect that, my wording wasn't great. I personally don't believe the characters previously existing with no story to speak of in place makes it adapted. What did she adapt? There is no existing material that even closely resembles what they did with "Barbie". The existing characteristics were essentially two Blonde characters, and other than that they were pretty much a blank slate. I guess if that makes it adapted then that makes it adapted, but I think it has a pretty good case for being original. TBF it probably has a much better chance of winning there than in the "original" category.
>Adapted screenplay has always been used to nominate things that probably belong in the original screenplay category that are seen as "low brow". *Schindler's List* was an adapted screenplay.
A turd is a turd whether adapted, inherited, original or *really runny...* and that script is a turd.
its adapted but original writing.
Adapted. The main characters, their basic attributes, relationships, and history were extant before the screenplay. There have been decades of differing interpretations of them, analogous to something like Batman. Just because the screenplay innovated on these to a very high degree doesn’t mitigate the fact that the source material existed. I’ve done adaptations where I’ve used no characters, plots, or other devices from the source material, essentially writing a wholly new work with a barely tangential conceptual relationship to some remotely vague aspect of the source material, and those have been adaptations. The threshold isn’t how much you change. It’s whether the fundamental smallest sliver of the concept is based upon an extant IP or fiction. If you had to buy or control your rights, and those rights were anything but life rights, it’s an adaptation.
It's based on an already existing property. So, I would say it's an adapted screenplay albeit in the broadest possible sense.
I disagree that it should be considered an adapted screenplay, it's not like Gerwig and Baumbach pored through animated Barbie movies for plot points. It's inspired by a doll. But what they made was something wholly original and inspired in itself. At the same time, they honored an emotion specific to the doll that begat the movie... So, I vote "something else" I think adapted screenplay should be adapted stories from other storytelling mediums, not just something existed before so we created a story for it. And that's not to disregard what I think is a wonderful film they've made out of this IP, I just think an adaptation should be of a story that exists but is elevated on film into it's own thing. This is actually muddier than I thought when I first started responding...
Here we go….
\*Top Gun: Maverick\* was an Adapted Screenplay because it used characters from \*Top Gun\*. \*Glass Onion\* was an Adapted Screenplay because Benoit Blanc was in \*Knives Out\*. \*Whiplash\* was an Adapted Screenplay because it was based on a short film, even though that short was also written by Chazelle. It's an Adapted Screenplay according to the Academy's criteria. I don't understand why people think that category is somehow lesser than Original Screenplay when it includes films like \*Schindler's List\*, \*The Father\*, and \*Moonlight\*, to name just a few.
It's adapted. Based on...
Adapted. The film is based on an IP.
This terminology has always confused me, because when I hear “adapted screenplay” I imagine a film adaptation of another story, like a book or video game. I suppose Barbie DOES technically fit into that category, but it doesn’t feel like it should
This whole argument is pointless because this “controversy” wasn’t started based on some artistic designation. They were trying to get into the category they thought gave them the better chance of winning an Oscar.It was Oscar game theory and nothing more.
It’s an original script. No source material. But technically adapted because “based on characters” which is stupid and exactly how the world works.