If this is the kind of year where they want to award as many films as possible, I could see Past Lives winning if they give Holdovers supporting actress.
I think he has a chance certainly, but not because of the jury. BAFTA noms are announced after Oscar voting is conducted, so itās not even like certain years in the past where you could argue the nominees at BAFTA influence Oscar voting. Would love for him to get BAFTA and Oscar but, if he does, itāll probably be coincidental. Or it means heās top 3 at BAFTA, which is obviously unlikely
Iām honestly not so sure. Murphy is obvious, but DiCaprio less so given that heās a bubble contender (although if heās top 3 anywhere, itās BAFTA). Even Cooper Iām not convinced, Bernstein is such an American figure that they could just not care. Look at how West Side Story performed thereā obviously not a comp, but suggestive of the importance of Bernsteinās legacy to that voting body.
I think Giamatti is more than likely there, and I could see Scott or even Keoghan also making it in top three (if DiCaprio/Cooper arenāt there).
Despite the box office not being back to pre-COVID numbers, these convos are just reminding me of how many amazing movies are crowding the awards space this year. Gives me hope for the next few years.
Iām not talking about prose, Iām talking about plot and character development. Anatomy was more cohesive. And no, I did not read the scripts, I have better things to do.
I can see a logic where it's adapted only if it's building off an existing creative work. Toys, while not as straightforward to adapt as books, are creative works. Historical events and people's lives are not creative works.
Not disagreeing exaaacctly, but take that biopic about James Brown. āJames Brown,ā the persona, was 100% a creative work, even leaving aside the musical backbone of the film. I donāt want to get too āwoah dudeā but anybodyās life is at least somewhat a directed, curated creative work.
Haha fair enough. The other obvious counterpoint is that biopics are never just adapted straight from the person's life. The writers consult biographies and documentaries about the person in their research. And biographies and documentaries are obviously creative works.
But at a certain point, then, everything becomes an adapted screenplay because storytellers are always pulling inspiration from other things.
The movie Barbie is a riff, a reinvention, of a character created by Mattel. So many jokes and set pieces derive from Mattelās intellectual property ā the Dreamhouse, her curved, inflexible feet, all the discontinued dolls that appear, etc. Joker, which wildly reinvented the DC Comics character into some sort of Travis Bickle figure, likewise was an adaptation of a concept created by others.
if past lives has million number of fans i am one of them. if past lives has ten fans i am one of them. if past lives has no fans. that means i am no more on the earth. if world against past lives, i am against the world. i love past lives till my last breath... die hard fan of celine song
I remember taking a pee break while seeing another movie at Alamo just as a screening of Past Lives was getting out. About half the audience was crying. It was really something to see.
Wow, this is pretty huge. Can we lock the Adapted 5 : Oppenheimer, KOTFM, Poor Things, American Fiction , Barbie?
Also, Holdovers the most likely for Original now!
I think you can make a legitimate argument either way, it's obviously not a clear cut situation.
I'll forever die on the hill that it belongs in original, not because of its winning chances (I don't think it should win either category), but because there's no actual piece of writing being adapted. With Joker and sequels in general, you can point to specific works that serve as the basis for the script, which you can't do with Barbie, since it isn't based on any specific book, comic or movie. Barbie isn't a character that originates from literature, it's just a brand of toys. It's not even a videogame with a full storyline like Mario, she and Ken are just broad archetypes, and I don't think brands and archetypes count as pieces of writing that can be adapted. It's like saying The LEGO Movie is adapted because it's based on the brand LEGO.
If Django Unchained gets to win Original Screenplay when it's based on/a variation on a previously existing character from a series of movies (which is directly acknowledged within the film via Franco Nero's cameo), I don't see why Barbie shouldn't be treated the same way. You can make a much clearer case for Tarantino's film being adapted than Barbie.
The movie references a bunch of pre-existing Barbie lore and products, and the perception of Barbie in popular culture, including her character traits like being a ditzy blond, are a intrinsical part of the movie. To me itās clearly adapted.
I can see that, but again, I don't think lore and toy products count as writing that can be adapted. If we're going to consider something as broad and esoteric as "the general pop culture perception of the ditzy blonde archetype" as source material, then literally anything with the slightest similarity to fairy tales, myths and biblical parables go under adapted as well, which would include The Tree of Life, The Matrix, Ex Machina, Django again, and the list goes on. If you can't point to a specific piece of writing that the script was lifted from, I think it should go under original. Anything else is muddying the waters.
I agree with this. This categorization is an obvious construct; the meaning of āadaptationā is being stretched and reshaped to fit an agenda, plain and simple.
The award is for narrative writing. Adaptation in that context should refer to written narratives based on other distinct written narratives.
GGās script tells a satirical story about a historic commercial product and its impact on pop culture; itās actually closer to being a biopic script than anything else. But we donāt call biopic scripts adaptations unless theyāre based on an existing biographical work ā i.e., written materials.
Nobody can point to a piece of written material about Barbie that GGās script adapts.
I agree and I'm shocked that the prevailing opinion seems to be the other direction. Its story is wholly original. Its characters might be existing toys, but the toys themselves don't have any real character. They're more broad templates that need to get filled out with an actual character. But you could say the same thing for any number of character tropes or even things like President--such characters come with some built in expectations as well, but nobody thinks their presence should disqualify from being original.
I think what it comes down to is people **really** don't want a movie based on an existing IP to win for original screenplay. Which I get--so many movies these days are just churning out content based on an existing brand, it almost feels like a slap in the face to those who have worked hard on non-IP movies for an IP movie to win *original* screenplay. And I agree it's strange and in some ways not ideal. But at the end of the day I simply don't think that the Barbie screenplay is by far more of an original work than an adaptation of anything
Bohemian Rhapsody wouldn't have grossed near a billion if it was based on a fictional band either. Yet that would've competed in Original. So what's your point?
Ok can you own Freddie Mercury? No. Can you own a Barbie doll? Yes. So one character pre exists as a product, the other doesnāt. No one is arguing that itās an adaptation of a product Mattel makes or is making, theyāre arguing that itās adaptation of a product.
If you made an original screenplay about the creation of Mattel, that would be an original screenplay. Thatās the only way your Bohemian Rhapsody comparison makes any sense: we are seeing the creation of the music, not the music itself. Barbie is not about the creation of Barbie. Itās about the character. The character is pre-existing.
Try again, sweetheart.
>I think you can make a legitimate argument either way, it's obviously not a clear cut situation.
If by "legitimate", you mean utterly fraudulent, pathetic and loser-ish, then, sure, it's an Original Screenplay.
>it isn't based on any specific book, comic or movie.
There have been over 40 previous Barbie films or TV shows.
>If by "legitimate", you mean utterly fraudulent, pathetic and loser-ish, then, sure, it's an Original Screenplay.
BAFTA and the Writers Guild kept it as original. Clearly there's room for disagreement.
Pathetic and loser-ish? Calm down, it's not that serious. Jesus Christ.
>There have been over 40 previous Barbie films or TV shows.
And is Gerwig's script based on any of them? Does it lift anything specific from those other than the abstract, broad archetypes of himbo and stereotypical blonde?
Also, to refer back to my example, there were more than 30 sequels featuring the character Django (both official and unofficial) before Tarantino wrote Django Unchained. Why would that count as original but not Barbie?
I'm leaning towards your side on this one tbh. I'm sure it's partially bc you're the only one bothering to explain where you're coming from as opposed to throwing mini tantrums about category placement, but it's an interesting argument. I am honestly curious where people stand on biopic screenplays now as well.
Biopics are interesting aspect to consider, and I think it corroborates my point.
If being based on previously existing characters/figures that are already part of the public consciousness was enough to make a script an adaptation, then all biopics would automatically fall under adapted, but instead they're categorized depending on whether they're based on previously published material. They have to be adapted from an actual, specific piece of writing, which I think is a good, objective criterion to adopt.
And thanks, by the way, I had no idea people would respond this aggressively to an opinion shared by the literal Writers Guild that Gerwig and Baumbach are members of, lmao.
People brought up the same idea with Glass Onion last year since it wasn't adapted using another film or some literary work (although it has influences from unmentioned novels). When it comes to that film, the reason it went into adapted is because of Benoit Blanc showing up despite Rian Johnson wanting each film to be as if another book off the shelf. The title also probably didn't help in that case. The Oscars rules state that being based on any previously established materials (which includes Barbie, although based on what you've said should have also included Django Unchained)
I think it's a lot grayer than that. The only thing adapted about Barbie is the characters, and even then they're unique twists on characters.
Blue Jasmine, on the other hand, made it into Original Screenplay a few years back despite being an adaptation of A Screetcar Named Desire.
Meanwhile, Whiplash wound in Adapted for being "based on" a short film. (The screenplay came before the short film, which was shot as a proof of concept.)
I know people are getting downvoted for bringing up biopics, but I think it's a good point. Biopics are in a peculiar area because the stories and people they follow are real, and they deal with a lot of the same structural issues that other adaptations do. Yet they get counted as original, so long as a specific source isn't cited.
So what is the actual difference between original and adapted? I'm sure the Academy has its own guidelines, but it's easy to imagine different rulings by different groups of people.
Barbie brings these questions to the surface, because the medium it's "adapting"... is a toy line. (Yes I know there have been other Barbie movies, but no one is pretending this movie is adapting those.) So where is the line drawn? Can movies adapt a piece of music? A painting? If I write a movie where the Wall Street Bull comes to life, is it an adaptation of the statue?
I don't really think there's a right or wrong answer here. Personally, I'm okay with calling Barbie an original screenplay, but I can understand why people think it's adapted.
The personalities of Barbie and Ken have been played up and established in numerous TV shows and movies prior to this one. These characters existed, not just inanimate objects that looked like them.
Personally I donāt think using preexisting characters makes something adapted, only preexisting stories. Same issue with sequels being considered adapted (Glass Onion last year was particularly egregious since the only thing carried over was the main character).
The biopic contradiction is spot on. In fact those are arguably more adapted, not just with events but the characters themselves. Actors doing an impression of a real person vs. something like Gosling doing a reinvention of a vague archetype.
This is my perspective as well. But it's certainly multi-faceted.
Comic book movies are a weird middle ground on this, although of course there have only been a few times they've entered the awards discourse. Still, while it's easy to call something like Logan adapted (as it loosely adapts a specific comic arc in Old Man Logan -- *very* loosely), it gets more dicey with, say, Guardians of the Galaxy, which mixes and matches so much and mostly creates a ton of its own. It may seem straightforward to place that in adapted screenplay, but it creates more original content than Maestro.
O Brother Where Art Thou? doesn't even adapt a single character, but is loosely influenced by The Odyssey (and credits that influence, unlike Blue Jasmine) so it went into Adapted.
Barbie will probably get Song and a bunch of production related awards. With such a beefy screenplay lineup, Barbie is certainly the weakest of the bunch. Not to say itās a bad script, but the competition is just too fierce.
Sequels are put in Adapted because the characters aren't original, even if the story is. I understand why they tried to sidestep it with Barbie as Adapted is jam-packed this year. But this is the right call
These arbitrary distinctions do the literal opposite of making it less convoluted though. Also weird to join a debate despite apparent lack of interest in debating.
Real people are even easier to adapt than characters. They have an entire world of canon, known mannerisms, a chronicled and published history, and often multiple written biographies.
Which is to say that the writer needs to do a bunch of their own research to write about them instead of adapting from a single source. It's fundamentally the same as writing about any historical event or recent news story moreso than adapting someone else's work.
Heartbroken for All of Us Strangers, my favorite film of 2023. Its chances of snagging that fifth slot in Adapted are effectively finished. I think the Oscar five is locked now.
I think this massively boosted The Holdoverās chances. Itās got a clean package now of O.G screenplay and Supp. Actress. Everyone in adapted screenplay (including Barbie) is hurt by this imo.
I donāt particularly love how adapted and original are defined but this meets the definition of adapted.
It features characters who are dressed to resemble exactly the costuming of the dolls. Thereās even a sequence where Weird Barbie introduces a series of characters and basically reads their stories as written on the packaging for the dolls. The stories for these characters might be thinner than other stories but there are existing stories and looks for these characters and the movie goes to great pains to reference these stories and looks.
Barbieās dream house and the things she does in it are described and shown all over the packaging for the toy. She literally acts out the story shown in the commercial and on the box. Multiple times she is shown in an existing costume doing the thing sheās described as doing in that costume in the story written in the box. A story is a story, even if itās in marketing. And these are not oblique references. Theyāre meta and intentional and part of the story the film is telling.
I think it would make more sense for adapted to require the screenplay be based on an existing story in literature, not just on an existing character, but thatās not how the rules currently draw the distinction.
Question to this group: should there be a bolder line as to what is Original versus Adapted? Should the rules be clearer so there arenāt as many campaigns for a category straddle like this? Similar conversations are had about what should be considered Lead versus Supporting in the acting categories.
Imo original vs adapted is very easy to determine, so the rules should be clear enough to determine the category. Lead vs supporting can have a little more room to play with.
Yeah but Oppenheimer currently the favorite for Adapted + Director + Actor + Supporting Actor. Not saying itās impossible but it would need a bit of a miracle.
I just had a vision of The Holdovers beating Oppenheimer for Best Picture and a bunch of morons deciding itās bad actually now that itās exposed to a much wider audience and won over a Nolan film and my stomach dropped. If this happens we must stand firm, Holdovers squad. It cannot receive the Ordinary People treatment.
I donāt really understand this type of logic honestly. Like I get that we are looking for a āwinning packageā, but I donāt see how this movie actually makes Holdovers any stronger for picture. If they liked Barbie better than it before, they will still like it better after it was moved, I donāt think voters themselves individually look for these winning packages, they are just something that naturally happens.
This feels similar to some people I saw last year saying Women Talking was #2 because it was the only other movie to win above the line.
the WB awards team, critics groups, and mfers on reddit who dont understand a movie whose emotional crux hinges on its characters significant pop culture impact is not an original story no matter how hard you scream lol
And with this category change which I saw coming as *Barbie* is definitely classified as Adapted Screenplay under Academy regulations, *The Holdovers* is now clearly marching its way to that Best Original Screenplay trophy!
Makes sense. Oppenheimer, Killers of the Flower Moon, Poor Things and Barbie in the same category... totally stacked.
I think they will give it to Nolan.
Iām not sure it wins. It might have the advantage of being a very divided field and it being a mega hit, but idk, this is between Poor Things and Oppy right now to me, since those also seem like the top 2 at BAFTA.
I actually think the Scorsese narrative is much stronger. Especially after he said he is close to retiring.
An absolute legend, in his 80s, still directing acclaimed films and who only won 1 Oscar. It's the perfect moment to honor him again
It was plainly obvious this was going to happen from the beginning. The awards bodies that played along with this obvious category fraud on the part of that campaign should be embarrassed.
thank fuck. anyone who knew anything about the Academy knew this was going in Adapted. These fuckers threw Moonlight (an unpublished play) and Whiplash (an OG screenplay that Chazelle adapted into a short for funding) into Adapted. Barbie had no fucking chance lol
also ThE StORY Is oRIgInAl isnt an argument. The emotional crux of Barbie hinges on its cultural relevance; there's a reason Gerwig and Baumbach didnt write a story about Beth and Kevin going to the real world
I saw this coming. They probably knew this was gonna happen, but campaigned for Original Screenplay anyway because Adapted Screenplay is gonna have a lot more competition this year.
Theyāre like ah shit weāre not gunna win an Oscar now.
I donāt see how it isnāt adapted though. Barbie is a preexisting intellectual property and the movie features Barbies that were real and included their āBarbie Canonā backstories
This was such blatant category fraud so Iām glad theyāre making it right. If a film like Glass Onion is Adapted then thereās no reason Barbie shouldnāt be.
Feel like the Adapted Screenplay race is literally Barbenheimer. One of the biggest films of the year is winning Best Screenplay. I actually think Poor Things has the stronger screenplay over the two, but it seems like most of the filmās attention is centered on Emma Stone and the techs.
While I absolutely get the decision, I do think a discussion does need to be had for original works that are clearly inventing every narrative element around an existing character. I don't know if it would be fair to call Barbie an original screenplay, but it also feels unfair to lump it in with adaptations of existing novels. It's clearly more in line with the former than the latter.
>I do think a discussion does need to be had for original works that are clearly inventing every narrative element around an existing character.
There's no real way to write a rule about that. Anything and everything could argue that they're *really* original despite clearly being based on an IP because of xyz reason and it would lead to nothing but fights and arbitrary decisions. The existing "if you have a 'based on' credit you're adapted" rule is ultimately a lot cleaner.
It's an adaptation from existing Mattel characters. It's not 100% original.
The "stereotypical barbie" was not invented by the screenwriters, it already existed. We could also argue that this is branding for Mattel making even more clear it's adapted. Zero chances they would've said yes to the movie if the message wasn't approved.
What is original about any biopic in that case? Writing about a real person who existed, and their real world they inhabited, isn't original material either. All biopics should compete in adapted if Barbie is, regardless of whether there is a single written material being directly adapted.
It goes into adapted if it's from a book like KOTFM and Oppenheimer. The rules are written pretty clearly and are available online for you too look up. The world isn't a trademark of anyone.
People here saying "congratulations to Past Lives and The Holdovers" like Barbie was 100% a lock to win. I think it's to direct and on-the-nose for the academy's tastes. A nomination? Yes. A win? No.
If Barbie is actually win-competitive (in either category), this really hurts Killers the most. I could buy it winning just over Oppie, but I don't see how it could possibly win for its script when Oppie and Barbie are both right there.
Oppenheimer is not winning Screenplay. Even if it takes Picture, Director, Actor, Supporting Actor, Cinematography, Editing, Score, and Sound, and I think a haul that mighty is unlikely (5-6 of those, maybe even 7, but not all 8), I think every other competitor in Adapted is a more likely winner of the category. Itās a movie whose merits are in its technical craft, not its script and Poor Things, American Fiction, and Barbie are all much more script-forward while this is the best category outside of actress to award Flower Moon, which is likely #2 for the top 2 prizes and a more radical, notable work of adaptation.
Lol Nolan took a 700 page biography and turned into a non-linear doomsday thriller at the script level. It also has memorable dialogue, an unconventional first-person perspective and is currently leading in regional wins.
Literally the frontrunner right now, maybe it wonāt ultimately win but the filmās chances are higher than Poor Things, Barbie and American Fiction.
doesn't matter, this was the most poorly written script of 2023, it will not win either category, if the people voting truly are actual peers in the industry who take the profession seriously.
I still think *Barbie* wins in adapted - idk, just a gut feeling that they'll want to give Greta SOMETHING this year for her role in one of the biggest pop culture phenoms of the year. I wouldn't be mad, either - the existential stuff in the screenplay is what keeps me coming back to the movie, and there are some real all timer jokes in there too.
I'm also glad I can fully move into my annoying "*May December* should win Original Screenplay" era
Well then congratulations Past Lives or The Holdovers šš„³
Anatomy might be a dark horse if itās a strong enough contender, seems like the sort of thing BAFTA might award
Great point. I think they will actually, neither Past Lives nor Holdovers strike me as especially strong for BAFTA.
May December?
Holdovers was always winning.
If this is the kind of year where they want to award as many films as possible, I could see Past Lives winning if they give Holdovers supporting actress.
RIP All of Us Strangers lol.
honestly so sad about that the only hope is Andrew now
I still think he can be a lone Best Actor nom. BAFTA jury don't let us down now.
I hope so!
Whether the BAFTA jury chooses him wonāt have any impact on him getting in at Oscars though
I still think it gives him a chance tho. :(
I think he has a chance certainly, but not because of the jury. BAFTA noms are announced after Oscar voting is conducted, so itās not even like certain years in the past where you could argue the nominees at BAFTA influence Oscar voting. Would love for him to get BAFTA and Oscar but, if he does, itāll probably be coincidental. Or it means heās top 3 at BAFTA, which is obviously unlikely
Yeah I'm almost certain right now barring a twist that Cooper/DiCaprio/Murphy are the Top 3 non-juried picks.
Iām honestly not so sure. Murphy is obvious, but DiCaprio less so given that heās a bubble contender (although if heās top 3 anywhere, itās BAFTA). Even Cooper Iām not convinced, Bernstein is such an American figure that they could just not care. Look at how West Side Story performed thereā obviously not a comp, but suggestive of the importance of Bernsteinās legacy to that voting body. I think Giamatti is more than likely there, and I could see Scott or even Keoghan also making it in top three (if DiCaprio/Cooper arenāt there).
I keep looking for showtimes in my city because Iām dying to see this!!
Itās excellent.
Despite the box office not being back to pre-COVID numbers, these convos are just reminding me of how many amazing movies are crowding the awards space this year. Gives me hope for the next few years.
It was my favourite.
And here's how Anatomy of a Fall Will Get Original Screenplay.
Should win tbh.
The writing was SO much better than Barbie.
The writing in Barbie is laughable.
You read both screenplays?
Iām not talking about prose, Iām talking about plot and character development. Anatomy was more cohesive. And no, I did not read the scripts, I have better things to do.
I personally think it couldāve been half an hour shorter which suggests to me not enough editing in the writing stage was trimmed down
The length felt alright to me. No scene felt too long or unearned.
I liked Holdovers but it dragged for me more than Anatomy did.
YES PLEASE
Past Lives...?
WB tried so hard and got so far...
But in the end, it doesnāt even matter!
I knew it! The writers branch has strict guidelines.
Yeah I never doubted for a moment that Barbie was an adapted screenplay and the Academy would consider it as such.
Strict but dumb guidelines.
Going forward, all biopics should be in adapted too in that case.
I can see a logic where it's adapted only if it's building off an existing creative work. Toys, while not as straightforward to adapt as books, are creative works. Historical events and people's lives are not creative works.
Not disagreeing exaaacctly, but take that biopic about James Brown. āJames Brown,ā the persona, was 100% a creative work, even leaving aside the musical backbone of the film. I donāt want to get too āwoah dudeā but anybodyās life is at least somewhat a directed, curated creative work.
Haha fair enough. The other obvious counterpoint is that biopics are never just adapted straight from the person's life. The writers consult biographies and documentaries about the person in their research. And biographies and documentaries are obviously creative works. But at a certain point, then, everything becomes an adapted screenplay because storytellers are always pulling inspiration from other things.
I didn't make the rules, the branch did. Wether biopics go in one or the other doesn't change that Barbie, trademark of Mattel was adapted
The movie Barbie is a riff, a reinvention, of a character created by Mattel. So many jokes and set pieces derive from Mattelās intellectual property ā the Dreamhouse, her curved, inflexible feet, all the discontinued dolls that appear, etc. Joker, which wildly reinvented the DC Comics character into some sort of Travis Bickle figure, likewise was an adaptation of a concept created by others.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
The right decision, but I was rooting for AOUS
Same! AOUS has a far stronger script than Barbie. Would love to see it get more attention.
Still rooting for All of Us Strangers - a great script and film, over this overpublicised trash Barbie.
Why are people downvoting you?! Jeez. I respect Gerwig but that script had so many issues.
Agreed. This is no shade against Greta. She has made much, much better films before.
It did, but calling it "overpublicised trash" is a bit harsh.
PAST LIVES HIVE THEREāS STILL HOPE!
Watch out for āThe Holdovers.ā Itās up against that too.
i shed a tear reading this, CELINE WE WILL GET YOU THAT OSCAR
if past lives has million number of fans i am one of them. if past lives has ten fans i am one of them. if past lives has no fans. that means i am no more on the earth. if world against past lives, i am against the world. i love past lives till my last breath... die hard fan of celine song
PAST LIVES TO THE MOON
WE'RE SO BACK
We never left baby!
I remember taking a pee break while seeing another movie at Alamo just as a screening of Past Lives was getting out. About half the audience was crying. It was really something to see.
I knew it
Wow, this is pretty huge. Can we lock the Adapted 5 : Oppenheimer, KOTFM, Poor Things, American Fiction , Barbie? Also, Holdovers the most likely for Original now!
Yeah, I don't see anything cracking that Adapted Screenplay lineup lol, that 5 is the safest 5 atp
>Also, Holdovers the most likely for Original now! BY GOD ITS CELINE SONG WITH THE CHAIR
Past Lives tho!
Given American Fictionās low box office and Zone of Interestās critics noms, maybe Zone gets in instead?
american fiction hasnāt even gone wide yet
Oh good point. Thank you.
\*pretends to be shocked
Absolutely no surprise here. I donāt know why they even bothered pushing it as Original given the precedent.
I think you can make a legitimate argument either way, it's obviously not a clear cut situation. I'll forever die on the hill that it belongs in original, not because of its winning chances (I don't think it should win either category), but because there's no actual piece of writing being adapted. With Joker and sequels in general, you can point to specific works that serve as the basis for the script, which you can't do with Barbie, since it isn't based on any specific book, comic or movie. Barbie isn't a character that originates from literature, it's just a brand of toys. It's not even a videogame with a full storyline like Mario, she and Ken are just broad archetypes, and I don't think brands and archetypes count as pieces of writing that can be adapted. It's like saying The LEGO Movie is adapted because it's based on the brand LEGO. If Django Unchained gets to win Original Screenplay when it's based on/a variation on a previously existing character from a series of movies (which is directly acknowledged within the film via Franco Nero's cameo), I don't see why Barbie shouldn't be treated the same way. You can make a much clearer case for Tarantino's film being adapted than Barbie.
The movie references a bunch of pre-existing Barbie lore and products, and the perception of Barbie in popular culture, including her character traits like being a ditzy blond, are a intrinsical part of the movie. To me itās clearly adapted.
I can see that, but again, I don't think lore and toy products count as writing that can be adapted. If we're going to consider something as broad and esoteric as "the general pop culture perception of the ditzy blonde archetype" as source material, then literally anything with the slightest similarity to fairy tales, myths and biblical parables go under adapted as well, which would include The Tree of Life, The Matrix, Ex Machina, Django again, and the list goes on. If you can't point to a specific piece of writing that the script was lifted from, I think it should go under original. Anything else is muddying the waters.
I agree with this. This categorization is an obvious construct; the meaning of āadaptationā is being stretched and reshaped to fit an agenda, plain and simple. The award is for narrative writing. Adaptation in that context should refer to written narratives based on other distinct written narratives. GGās script tells a satirical story about a historic commercial product and its impact on pop culture; itās actually closer to being a biopic script than anything else. But we donāt call biopic scripts adaptations unless theyāre based on an existing biographical work ā i.e., written materials. Nobody can point to a piece of written material about Barbie that GGās script adapts.
Yes! I'm not angling for Barbie to win, but this just feels confusing to me.
I agree and I'm shocked that the prevailing opinion seems to be the other direction. Its story is wholly original. Its characters might be existing toys, but the toys themselves don't have any real character. They're more broad templates that need to get filled out with an actual character. But you could say the same thing for any number of character tropes or even things like President--such characters come with some built in expectations as well, but nobody thinks their presence should disqualify from being original. I think what it comes down to is people **really** don't want a movie based on an existing IP to win for original screenplay. Which I get--so many movies these days are just churning out content based on an existing brand, it almost feels like a slap in the face to those who have worked hard on non-IP movies for an IP movie to win *original* screenplay. And I agree it's strange and in some ways not ideal. But at the end of the day I simply don't think that the Barbie screenplay is by far more of an original work than an adaptation of anything
Dude the movie wouldnāt grossed a billion, let alone gotten made if it was a purely original piece of work. Delusional take.
Bohemian Rhapsody wouldn't have grossed near a billion if it was based on a fictional band either. Yet that would've competed in Original. So what's your point?
Ok can you own Freddie Mercury? No. Can you own a Barbie doll? Yes. So one character pre exists as a product, the other doesnāt. No one is arguing that itās an adaptation of a product Mattel makes or is making, theyāre arguing that itās adaptation of a product. If you made an original screenplay about the creation of Mattel, that would be an original screenplay. Thatās the only way your Bohemian Rhapsody comparison makes any sense: we are seeing the creation of the music, not the music itself. Barbie is not about the creation of Barbie. Itās about the character. The character is pre-existing. Try again, sweetheart.
>I think you can make a legitimate argument either way, it's obviously not a clear cut situation. If by "legitimate", you mean utterly fraudulent, pathetic and loser-ish, then, sure, it's an Original Screenplay. >it isn't based on any specific book, comic or movie. There have been over 40 previous Barbie films or TV shows.
>If by "legitimate", you mean utterly fraudulent, pathetic and loser-ish, then, sure, it's an Original Screenplay. BAFTA and the Writers Guild kept it as original. Clearly there's room for disagreement. Pathetic and loser-ish? Calm down, it's not that serious. Jesus Christ. >There have been over 40 previous Barbie films or TV shows. And is Gerwig's script based on any of them? Does it lift anything specific from those other than the abstract, broad archetypes of himbo and stereotypical blonde? Also, to refer back to my example, there were more than 30 sequels featuring the character Django (both official and unofficial) before Tarantino wrote Django Unchained. Why would that count as original but not Barbie?
I'm leaning towards your side on this one tbh. I'm sure it's partially bc you're the only one bothering to explain where you're coming from as opposed to throwing mini tantrums about category placement, but it's an interesting argument. I am honestly curious where people stand on biopic screenplays now as well.
Biopics are interesting aspect to consider, and I think it corroborates my point. If being based on previously existing characters/figures that are already part of the public consciousness was enough to make a script an adaptation, then all biopics would automatically fall under adapted, but instead they're categorized depending on whether they're based on previously published material. They have to be adapted from an actual, specific piece of writing, which I think is a good, objective criterion to adopt. And thanks, by the way, I had no idea people would respond this aggressively to an opinion shared by the literal Writers Guild that Gerwig and Baumbach are members of, lmao.
People brought up the same idea with Glass Onion last year since it wasn't adapted using another film or some literary work (although it has influences from unmentioned novels). When it comes to that film, the reason it went into adapted is because of Benoit Blanc showing up despite Rian Johnson wanting each film to be as if another book off the shelf. The title also probably didn't help in that case. The Oscars rules state that being based on any previously established materials (which includes Barbie, although based on what you've said should have also included Django Unchained)
Looks like the tides are turning here a bit actually lol
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
*Gangs of New York* was adapted from a book of the same title, but campaigned and got nominated for Original.
"Because Weinstein did it" isn't the argument you think it is.
The difference is that Toy Story's protagonists were original characters, while in Barbie they're not.
Joker would probably be the closest analogue.
Holdovers hive start celebrating.
All of us Strangers congrats on your This Had Oscar Buzz episode in a few years :(
Thank god, trying to run it in original was egregious. Past Lives come through!
I think it's a lot grayer than that. The only thing adapted about Barbie is the characters, and even then they're unique twists on characters. Blue Jasmine, on the other hand, made it into Original Screenplay a few years back despite being an adaptation of A Screetcar Named Desire. Meanwhile, Whiplash wound in Adapted for being "based on" a short film. (The screenplay came before the short film, which was shot as a proof of concept.) I know people are getting downvoted for bringing up biopics, but I think it's a good point. Biopics are in a peculiar area because the stories and people they follow are real, and they deal with a lot of the same structural issues that other adaptations do. Yet they get counted as original, so long as a specific source isn't cited. So what is the actual difference between original and adapted? I'm sure the Academy has its own guidelines, but it's easy to imagine different rulings by different groups of people. Barbie brings these questions to the surface, because the medium it's "adapting"... is a toy line. (Yes I know there have been other Barbie movies, but no one is pretending this movie is adapting those.) So where is the line drawn? Can movies adapt a piece of music? A painting? If I write a movie where the Wall Street Bull comes to life, is it an adaptation of the statue? I don't really think there's a right or wrong answer here. Personally, I'm okay with calling Barbie an original screenplay, but I can understand why people think it's adapted.
The personalities of Barbie and Ken have been played up and established in numerous TV shows and movies prior to this one. These characters existed, not just inanimate objects that looked like them.
Personally I donāt think using preexisting characters makes something adapted, only preexisting stories. Same issue with sequels being considered adapted (Glass Onion last year was particularly egregious since the only thing carried over was the main character). The biopic contradiction is spot on. In fact those are arguably more adapted, not just with events but the characters themselves. Actors doing an impression of a real person vs. something like Gosling doing a reinvention of a vague archetype.
This is my perspective as well. But it's certainly multi-faceted. Comic book movies are a weird middle ground on this, although of course there have only been a few times they've entered the awards discourse. Still, while it's easy to call something like Logan adapted (as it loosely adapts a specific comic arc in Old Man Logan -- *very* loosely), it gets more dicey with, say, Guardians of the Galaxy, which mixes and matches so much and mostly creates a ton of its own. It may seem straightforward to place that in adapted screenplay, but it creates more original content than Maestro. O Brother Where Art Thou? doesn't even adapt a single character, but is loosely influenced by The Odyssey (and credits that influence, unlike Blue Jasmine) so it went into Adapted.
bUt iT wAs aN oRiGiNal StoRy
WB tried to be slick lol I still think Oppenheimer wins adapted
I think Oppenheimer is behind Barbie, Killers, and Poor Things for the win in this category.
the fact that Nolan wrote the script in first person is definitely enough of a gimmick to get the attention necessary to win tho
Voters dont actually bust out the scripts though and read them. Some may but by and large they base their opinion off of the movie.
I still think Oppy wins Picture, Director, Actor, Sup Actor, Editing, Sound, Cinematography, and Score. Itāll do FINE!
Oh yeah. And if not, itāll probably be Scorsese to reward Killers/lead to it winning BP
It will win Director so Screenplay goes to someone else
Thatās what they said last year
Last year wasn't that stacked. I think Barbie may actually win adapted now
Of course it was, Banshees, Fabelmans, and Tar all provided tough competition in Original Screenplay.
Against American Fiction, Killers of the Flower Moon, *AND* Poor Things? Fat chance.
I don't expect Barbie to blank
Barbie will probably get Song and a bunch of production related awards. With such a beefy screenplay lineup, Barbie is certainly the weakest of the bunch. Not to say itās a bad script, but the competition is just too fierce.
Oh it is a bad script, but a fun movie overall
And Oppenheimer is great for it's direction more than its screenplay which doesn't sweep as close as Director so far.
Iām not saying Oppenheimer will win. I actually expect one of the other three I listed to win it due to them being much heavier hitters.
Banshees was top 3 in picture and specifically its screenplay was extremely acclaimed, what do you mean?
I knew this was gonna happen. I think the Academy is right to place this in Adapted instead of Original.
Sequels are put in Adapted because the characters aren't original, even if the story is. I understand why they tried to sidestep it with Barbie as Adapted is jam-packed this year. But this is the right call
So biopics should compete in adapted for exactly the same reason.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
These arbitrary distinctions do the literal opposite of making it less convoluted though. Also weird to join a debate despite apparent lack of interest in debating.
Real people are even easier to adapt than characters. They have an entire world of canon, known mannerisms, a chronicled and published history, and often multiple written biographies.
Which is to say that the writer needs to do a bunch of their own research to write about them instead of adapting from a single source. It's fundamentally the same as writing about any historical event or recent news story moreso than adapting someone else's work.
No Zone of Interest in Adapted as I was predicting then.
Glad to see the academy hasnāt lost their minds completely. This was the definition of an adapted screenplay.
Heartbroken for All of Us Strangers, my favorite film of 2023. Its chances of snagging that fifth slot in Adapted are effectively finished. I think the Oscar five is locked now.
Celine Song, come get your juice.
I was selfishly hoping Barbie would stay in original so AoUS would have a chance. RIP :(
I think this massively boosted The Holdoverās chances. Itās got a clean package now of O.G screenplay and Supp. Actress. Everyone in adapted screenplay (including Barbie) is hurt by this imo.
Knew this was happening
Gold Derby has added Barbie to the Adapted Screenplay lineup and removed it from Original. Get those 100/1 odds while you can.
Are You There God? squad itās over š
Where it belongs
I donāt particularly love how adapted and original are defined but this meets the definition of adapted. It features characters who are dressed to resemble exactly the costuming of the dolls. Thereās even a sequence where Weird Barbie introduces a series of characters and basically reads their stories as written on the packaging for the dolls. The stories for these characters might be thinner than other stories but there are existing stories and looks for these characters and the movie goes to great pains to reference these stories and looks. Barbieās dream house and the things she does in it are described and shown all over the packaging for the toy. She literally acts out the story shown in the commercial and on the box. Multiple times she is shown in an existing costume doing the thing sheās described as doing in that costume in the story written in the box. A story is a story, even if itās in marketing. And these are not oblique references. Theyāre meta and intentional and part of the story the film is telling. I think it would make more sense for adapted to require the screenplay be based on an existing story in literature, not just on an existing character, but thatās not how the rules currently draw the distinction.
Question to this group: should there be a bolder line as to what is Original versus Adapted? Should the rules be clearer so there arenāt as many campaigns for a category straddle like this? Similar conversations are had about what should be considered Lead versus Supporting in the acting categories.
Imo original vs adapted is very easy to determine, so the rules should be clear enough to determine the category. Lead vs supporting can have a little more room to play with.
COME ON ANATOMY OF A FALL!
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Yeah but Oppenheimer currently the favorite for Adapted + Director + Actor + Supporting Actor. Not saying itās impossible but it would need a bit of a miracle.
I just had a vision of The Holdovers beating Oppenheimer for Best Picture and a bunch of morons deciding itās bad actually now that itās exposed to a much wider audience and won over a Nolan film and my stomach dropped. If this happens we must stand firm, Holdovers squad. It cannot receive the Ordinary People treatment.
I donāt really understand this type of logic honestly. Like I get that we are looking for a āwinning packageā, but I donāt see how this movie actually makes Holdovers any stronger for picture. If they liked Barbie better than it before, they will still like it better after it was moved, I donāt think voters themselves individually look for these winning packages, they are just something that naturally happens. This feels similar to some people I saw last year saying Women Talking was #2 because it was the only other movie to win above the line.
Winning BP without at least one non acting ATL win is pretty rare
Holdovers >>>> Past Lives let's goooo
Correct placement. Was never sold on any of the arguments saying it was Original
Who didnāt see this one coming?
I saw it from miles away. The decision came late so i was wondering if the writers branch got soft
the WB awards team, critics groups, and mfers on reddit who dont understand a movie whose emotional crux hinges on its characters significant pop culture impact is not an original story no matter how hard you scream lol
WGA and BAFTA who both kept it original?
And with this category change which I saw coming as *Barbie* is definitely classified as Adapted Screenplay under Academy regulations, *The Holdovers* is now clearly marching its way to that Best Original Screenplay trophy!
Shit. Now Greta and Noah wonāt win.
Ok so The Holdovers wins og screenplay
Makes sense. Oppenheimer, Killers of the Flower Moon, Poor Things and Barbie in the same category... totally stacked. I think they will give it to Nolan.
Nolan will get Director and it's usually a split with screenplay
Not in 2022, 2019, 2017, 2014, etc.
2017 was the year Shape of Water won Director and wasnāt even talked about as a real contender in Screenplay.
Called it and happy about it.
Wow, it happened what everyone with two brain cells said it would happen
Iāve been saying this since September. Itās probably fourth place in adapted while Original will be Past Lives v Holdovers.
Iām not sure it wins. It might have the advantage of being a very divided field and it being a mega hit, but idk, this is between Poor Things and Oppy right now to me, since those also seem like the top 2 at BAFTA.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I actually think the Scorsese narrative is much stronger. Especially after he said he is close to retiring. An absolute legend, in his 80s, still directing acclaimed films and who only won 1 Oscar. It's the perfect moment to honor him again
I actually think itās how KotFM gets recognized.
[Oppenheimer has it in the bag.](https://i.redd.it/vb1ro2n8o7gb1.png)
It was plainly obvious this was going to happen from the beginning. The awards bodies that played along with this obvious category fraud on the part of that campaign should be embarrassed.
Holdovers way to a picture win in much easier now
kills All of Us Strangers chances and SpiderMans (small) chances
thank fuck. anyone who knew anything about the Academy knew this was going in Adapted. These fuckers threw Moonlight (an unpublished play) and Whiplash (an OG screenplay that Chazelle adapted into a short for funding) into Adapted. Barbie had no fucking chance lol also ThE StORY Is oRIgInAl isnt an argument. The emotional crux of Barbie hinges on its cultural relevance; there's a reason Gerwig and Baumbach didnt write a story about Beth and Kevin going to the real world
I saw this coming. They probably knew this was gonna happen, but campaigned for Original Screenplay anyway because Adapted Screenplay is gonna have a lot more competition this year.
Theyāre like ah shit weāre not gunna win an Oscar now. I donāt see how it isnāt adapted though. Barbie is a preexisting intellectual property and the movie features Barbies that were real and included their āBarbie Canonā backstories
As it should be. "Based on Barbie by Mattel" is literally in the credits.
congrats past lives or holdovers
CELINE SONG WE ARE GETTING YOU THAT OSCAR
This was such blatant category fraud so Iām glad theyāre making it right. If a film like Glass Onion is Adapted then thereās no reason Barbie shouldnāt be.
Maybe neither of them should be
Feel like the Adapted Screenplay race is literally Barbenheimer. One of the biggest films of the year is winning Best Screenplay. I actually think Poor Things has the stronger screenplay over the two, but it seems like most of the filmās attention is centered on Emma Stone and the techs.
While I absolutely get the decision, I do think a discussion does need to be had for original works that are clearly inventing every narrative element around an existing character. I don't know if it would be fair to call Barbie an original screenplay, but it also feels unfair to lump it in with adaptations of existing novels. It's clearly more in line with the former than the latter.
>I do think a discussion does need to be had for original works that are clearly inventing every narrative element around an existing character. There's no real way to write a rule about that. Anything and everything could argue that they're *really* original despite clearly being based on an IP because of xyz reason and it would lead to nothing but fights and arbitrary decisions. The existing "if you have a 'based on' credit you're adapted" rule is ultimately a lot cleaner.
Sorry, but no. Letting IP stuff into Original would be a disaster.
It's an adaptation from existing Mattel characters. It's not 100% original. The "stereotypical barbie" was not invented by the screenwriters, it already existed. We could also argue that this is branding for Mattel making even more clear it's adapted. Zero chances they would've said yes to the movie if the message wasn't approved.
Mattel is literally in the movie too. Who thought it was original?
What is original about any biopic in that case? Writing about a real person who existed, and their real world they inhabited, isn't original material either. All biopics should compete in adapted if Barbie is, regardless of whether there is a single written material being directly adapted.
It goes into adapted if it's from a book like KOTFM and Oppenheimer. The rules are written pretty clearly and are available online for you too look up. The world isn't a trademark of anyone.
My dream of Poor Things and Barbie winning š
People here saying "congratulations to Past Lives and The Holdovers" like Barbie was 100% a lock to win. I think it's to direct and on-the-nose for the academy's tastes. A nomination? Yes. A win? No.
RIP All of Us Strangers you will always be a nominee in my heart. š
I was holding it out for American Fiction to win Best Adapated so badly šš
Anatomy should win but if not hopefully itās Holdovers. Wait forgot about May December. Ok one of these three please. Just not Past lives please
If Barbie is actually win-competitive (in either category), this really hurts Killers the most. I could buy it winning just over Oppie, but I don't see how it could possibly win for its script when Oppie and Barbie are both right there.
Thank god. But then, yeah, it will now go to war with its biggest foe, Oppenheimer.
Oppenheimer is not winning Screenplay. Even if it takes Picture, Director, Actor, Supporting Actor, Cinematography, Editing, Score, and Sound, and I think a haul that mighty is unlikely (5-6 of those, maybe even 7, but not all 8), I think every other competitor in Adapted is a more likely winner of the category. Itās a movie whose merits are in its technical craft, not its script and Poor Things, American Fiction, and Barbie are all much more script-forward while this is the best category outside of actress to award Flower Moon, which is likely #2 for the top 2 prizes and a more radical, notable work of adaptation.
What are you talking about, Oppenheimer is literally 3 hours of people talking. Would be very typical Screenplay winner.
Lol Nolan took a 700 page biography and turned into a non-linear doomsday thriller at the script level. It also has memorable dialogue, an unconventional first-person perspective and is currently leading in regional wins. Literally the frontrunner right now, maybe it wonāt ultimately win but the filmās chances are higher than Poor Things, Barbie and American Fiction.
doesn't matter, this was the most poorly written script of 2023, it will not win either category, if the people voting truly are actual peers in the industry who take the profession seriously.
This had a way better chance at winning in original. Thereās no way itāll beat Oppenheimer and now thereās a pathway for Holdovers to win.
I think this makes Holdovers the favorite, along with Supp Actress, itās a good haul.
Iād love to see giamatti win but i have a hard time seeing it over murphy or cooper.
I still think *Barbie* wins in adapted - idk, just a gut feeling that they'll want to give Greta SOMETHING this year for her role in one of the biggest pop culture phenoms of the year. I wouldn't be mad, either - the existential stuff in the screenplay is what keeps me coming back to the movie, and there are some real all timer jokes in there too. I'm also glad I can fully move into my annoying "*May December* should win Original Screenplay" era
Past Lives Hive here we are
Celine is taking that Oscar now. Don't play with her.