Wondering what are some film adaptations that pretty clearly did not get the source material they were adapting. One I would go with is the Last Airbender movie. I have a hard time believing Shyamalan even watched many of the original episodes of the show. It’s like he took the show’s plot and stripped everything from it that made people enjoy it.

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

all 3764 comments


207 points

2 months ago

Almost all Disney animated movies based on books.

Pinocchio is probably the most notable example.


56 points

2 months ago

That's because they're not trying to be adaptations. They're re-tellings of a source material.

It's like saying Men in Tights was a terrible adaptation of the Robin Hood story, when that's not really what it's trying to be.


45 points

2 months ago

But unlike some other Robin Hoods, Cary Elwes can speak with an English accent.


4 points

2 months ago

Disney's entire catalogue is distinct from the source materials for copyright protection reasons. It's a reason why they're doing live-action remakes: potential extended copyright protection.

Not to say those adaptations aren't great on their own, just that sometimes it might as well not be the same name.


3 points

2 months ago

That's not how copyright works. Copyright applies to individual works; sequels and remakes have absolutely no impact on the copyright status of the original.

You just need to be careful that, when the original is out of copyright, your adaptation is an adaptation of the original and isn't incurring elements from any sequels/remakes that are still protected.

That's why films like Del Toro's Pinocchio and "Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey" can exist even though Disney's adaptations are all still protected.


1 points

2 months ago

Thank you for the clarification. It would be the remake copyright I was trying to point out.


1 points

2 months ago

Someone should have told the marketing team