That certainly puts the next 17 years into perspective.

Though, one good thing about this list is that it implies (not directly, however) that adaptations are made from writers that once wrote and sold an original screenplay. (I hope that makes sense).

While there might not be a lot of average grossing dollars in an original film, there's lots of opportunity to jump in with the tide.

I find it interesting that call Titanic an original movie and not based on true events...

Just laying out "The Numbers" is deceiving. A movie based on a comic book averages 80M but how much do those cost to make on average: 80M? An original spec averaging 22M - most of those comedies, thrillers, etc - how much do those cost to make? And how much is spent on marketing for different types of genres?

Scott, explain these numbers and what they mean to aspiring scribes. Don't post and run. LOL.

@David: To quote Ahnold, "Ah'll be back," don't worry. Just wanting to see what the GITS community reaction is first.

Scott, can you tell what category sequels are in? I don't think it's fair to consider those "original screenplays," since they're based on existing material.

@Nick: Good question. Seems like they should bust that out as a separate category. Obviously these numbers aren't terribly scientific, but there's probably some truth to them in a general way.

This is very deceiving. The vast majority of productions that fall below the 20 million dollars (and almost all movies that fall below a 10 million dollar production budget) are original ideas. So that significantly skews the box office returns lower for original content, a la a Juno or Donnie Darko or Big Lebowski. In contrast almost all comic book movies (save movies like Ghost World), theme park movies, tv movies, etc open to mostly huge fan fare at more than 3000 theaters with production budgets from 80-250 million dollars and beyond.

Additionally, if one is making a smaller movie from an adaptation it would almost assuredly be based on real life events, short stories, or other material that has less expensive rights.


They should amend those numbers to something like "movies opening on at least 1500 theaters," to give a better perspective, or movies with a production budget of x dollars. It would be nice to get more context on these numbers.

I'm just wondering how much I contributed over the last 17 years in tickets to get these numbers.

Things like PIXAR would skew the numbers. At least in terms of the spec market and original screenplays.

Also, as far as based on religious texts goes -- take Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ out of the equation and that number plummets.

Also the numbers are going to be skewed, favoring the present, the closer to the present they are.

There's also a huge number of films that have been left out of this simply because of the cutoff date. -- PULP FICTION for example, that started a new wave of original films. DIE HARD, which spawned endless clones.

I'm curious why it stopped at 95.

I see 100% religious movies as cheap shots. If you make a movie about jesus, I'm guessing at least 90% Christians will see it and some multiple times. They feel it's their duty. Make that kind of money with an original idea then you've gained respect.

Also I agree with Jon. I too was thinking why Titanic was not under the Real Life Events section.