Posts by Karen Smith9

electriccanyon26 said:Hold on, I never mentioned Broadway, so please don't assume what I know about theater. You can project whatever you want onto me, but don't pretend you know my thoughts. Kurosawa adapted a stage play based on a drama. Sure, he adapted a drama, but a drama is meant for the stage and was almost certainly performed there first. What defines a stage play? If that term is confusing, maybe look it up.

It’s intended for the stage, sure, but the text itself is a written, published work of art. He adapted the text—get my point?—he adapted the Shakespearean text, not necessarily a specific theatrical production. It doesn't matter if Macbeth has been performed a million times before; Kurosawa took the script and adapted it for film in his own unique way. I really don't see why this is confusing you.

Christian Taylor3 said:@Karen Smith9

I’ve honestly had about enough of your constant anti-American sentiment across basically every single topic here; there are plenty of other places where you can vent that particular brand of cynicism. 😬

I figured as much—it's probably best if we just start our deep dive with the meadows of ancient Greece and Dionysus. 😁

Stage to Screen Adaptations
Stage-to-film adaptation
From Stage to Screen

What exactly is confusing about a thread titled 'Films based on stage plays'? 🤷 And why is everyone being so harsh toward the new guy (who, by any chance, happens to be actually decent and constructive)? 😢

It’s almost as if you all believe American cinema is the only kind that exists... look, I have nothing against the greats—from Griffith to Ford, I still respect them—but, imagine this: movies exist in other countries too... strange, isn't it?

electriccanyon26 said:What exactly is wrong with this "Broadway semi-literature" you mentioned? Is this whole debate driven by your own subjective take on Hollywood adaptations and Broadway? If you wanted us to discuss films based on plays by the ancient Greeks, you should have just said so. Decide what you actually want to talk about...

edit: Or perhaps this discussion stems from Laura Palmer25's snobbish view that directors don't understand drama until they see it on stage, and now she wants to put plays back on her own personal pedestal..

You really seem stuck on Broadway... though—believe it or not—theater actually exists outside of the USA too. Strange, isn't it?
And that list you provided? It’s completely nonsensical. Kurosawa adapted a Sheik-like text—the script itself—not a specific stage production... do you even grasp the distinction? That is precisely why I keep bringing up interpretation and the director's unique creative vision...

electriccanyon26 said:Laura Palmer25 said: "A 'stage play' is a drama performed in a theater, but it is still a drama." I am saying that dramas aren't the only things performed in theaters. Someone can write a theatrical script that isn't a drama!! Can you grasp that the theme is to be "films based on stage plays," yet you are narrowing that concept down to just dramas! Do you even know what you're talking about?

No, this is actually ridiculous. Posts are wrong? Stage productions are a director's INTERPRETATION of a written work??? So then we have an interpretation of an interpretation? Please... do you actually know what you're saying?

Now you've gone and contradicted yourself—the topic is "Films based on stage plays," if that's what I'm seeing written right here. Not "based on stage plays" in some other way. And that’s a massive distinction. A stage play is the text itself.
Nothing is being narrowed down to just "drama"—because in literature, drama is a genre of text that encompasses comedies, tragedies, and everything else written specifically for the stage.

Christian Taylor3 said:That’s exactly my point—the initial spark for these kinds of projects, you know, those films based on stage plays, usually hits you after... watched Whether we're talking about the sheer number of productions, the consistent box office hits, or the endless stream of prestigious industry awards, there’s no denying the momentum here. Unlike other branches of literature, which often struggle to find an audience or a way to stay relevant, this field seems to have its own built-in engine for success. stage Play It doesn't really work as a standalone entity since it was built exclusively for the stage. I honestly can't think of a single instance where a major Hollywood studio or a director decided to tackle an adaptation of a theatrical script that hadn't already been performed in a theater first. In the world of literature, though, that kind of thing happens all the time; film studios are constantly snapping up rights for adaptations before an author even puts pen to paper.

I mean, honestly, what part of this is actually difficult to wrap your head around? 😕

I honestly can't wrap my head around what you guys are actually stuck on here. Why isn't the thread just titled "Films based on stage plays" and called a day? 😵

What we're discussing here is essentially modern Broadway semi-literature (with a few notable exceptions, of course)... plus, even those professional awards being mentioned are American, for American productions... why reduce an entire branch of cinema to just one American perspective? A much more compelling issue is the adaptation of the classics—ranging from the ancient Greeks all the way down to the Sheik...

electriccanyon26 said:Dramas, since everyone keeps bringing it up, are written specifically for the theater. Dramas are essentially a subcategory of stage plays—so is my title really misleading? Most films are modeled after theatrical performances; even actors prepare their roles by studying stage work. Am I talking nonsense? A theatrical script isn't the same thing as a film script. There is such a thing as an adapted screenplay, meaning we take a script meant for the stage and modify it for the screen. Why should I obsess over every nuance? Just to satisfy people looking for flaws in everything? You might have found a convenient article, but I simply stated that I enjoy these types of movies, and the goal was to share recommendations and talk about cinema.

What kind of nonsense is that, first of all?? A drama being a subcategory of stage plays?? Drama is one of several literary genres, and this specific one is intended for performance on a stage.
So what if actors study stage plays? What does that even have to do with anything? It's like saying actors for The Three Musketeers had to go see a fencing instructor.
We are talking about the foundation for a screenplay. By knowing the literary work—where a stage play is just one interpretation—a film script is created as a second, different interpretation. What part of that is unclear?
There are countless productions of Hamlet, both on stage and in film, and which one is based on which? They are all done according to the personal vision of the director or screenwriter regarding the original drama, the text, which the Sheik wrote... And that's it—less is more in all these cases we're discussing...

Christian Taylor3 said:Honestly, nothing is mislabeled here; the title is actually spot on—Movies based on stage plays/film adaptation of stage plays. Or, to put it simply, stage to Screen Adaptations. 🙂 Some of my personal favorites (shame on you all for not mentioning Mamet's Glengarry Glen Ross 😁), which can be found on the '20 Greatest stage to Screen Adaptations' list. Of course, like any other list, it’s missing a ton of stuff: Wilder's Irma la Douce; Capri's You Can't Take It with You; Curtiz's Casablanca; the one I absolutely love, Frost/Nixon by Ron Howard; A Few Good Men, based on that same play by Aaron Sorkin; Lloyd's Cavalcade; that grumpy little old lady Daisy in Driving Miss Daisy; and the whole gallery of broken characters from One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest...

That list of 20 films is honestly hilarious. Not because the movies themselves are bad—on the contrary, there are some great ones in there—but because it is almost entirely Anglo-American. Then, out of nowhere, Kurosawa pops up at the top (which, objectively speaking, makes him the best one on the list). But what about the Frenchmen, the Germans, or the Russians? Are Americans and the English really the only ones who do adaptations well?
Besides, another Kurosawa masterpiece, "Ran"—basically King Lear done Japanese style—is better than half the films mentioned here.
I'm sticking to my guns: the thread title is wrong. A film might be inspired by a play, or perhaps a specific production by a certain theater director, and then those elements carry over to the screen. But the foundation of the screenplay—the only actual basis for a script—must be the dramatic text itself.
It feels like the OP just stumbled upon a catchy article, thought, "Hey, this would make a great topic," without actually digging into the deeper implications of what they were posting.

The title of this thread is slightly off, which has led to some confusion in the posts. Films based on the works of William Shakespeare or Tennessee Williams are actually adaptations of dramatic texts—not specifically adaptations of theatrical productions. A stage production itself is merely a director's interpretation of a single written work of art. Based on how the topic is titled, those movies would essentially be an interpretation of an interpretation, which simply isn't the case.

Rachel Young3 said:So, basically, 90% of the topics on this forum should just be shut down entirely.

Now, don't get me wrong—I might actually agree with that part. 😁-well, maybe just a little.--

Rachel Young3 said:So, what—are you going to start dictating which topics everyone else is allowed to discuss? 🙄

I'm just saying—not every single bit of nonsense deserves its own dedicated thread.

mistyotter35 said:Honestly, I think this might just be their absolute peak: Shark Attack (2012)
A two-headed shark and Carmen Electra... 😂

😂 well, people really will come up with anything...

To the person who started this thread—and honestly, most threads just like it—please, go get a life. Find yourself a real Homer Simpson to obsess over instead of trying to hype up this absolute garbage.

Frank Moore4 said:Honestly, this movie gives me total flashbacks to that one Italian adult film, especially because of that shot featuring the dwarves. 😬

Hehehehe 😁

Kevin Ward3 said:I've been sitting here staring at this video—honestly, I should probably be doing something productive—but I just couldn't look away. There is something about the way this unfolds that really sticks with you, isn't there? It’s one of those clips that manages to be both deeply unsettling and strangely captivating all at once—a bit of a rollercoaster for the senses, if you will. I found myself leaning closer to the screen, then pulling back—a classic case of my own curiosity getting the better of me! It's definitely worth a watch if you have the stomach for it, though I might need a minute to recover afterward. What did you all think? Did it hit you as hard as it hit me?Mega Piranha🙏

I still remember the first time my cousin and I stumbled upon that *Boa vs Python* DVD at the local video rental shop—honestly, we both just burst into tears of laughter the second we read what the plot was actually about.🤣Honestly, we were just completely stunned—it took us a good five minutes to even process what had happened.😂

😂 You hit the nail right on the head—honestly, I’d much rather sit through an Asylum production and have a good laugh at how ridiculous they are than suffer through every single Hollywood comedy released over the last twenty years.

Kevin Ward3 said:They are absolute legends!!! 🙏🙏🙏
I can't help but laugh whenever I catch one of their trailers—honestly, most modern comedies just don't have that kind of spark anymore.😁
Check out their full filmography here:http://www.imdb.com/company/co0043571/🙏

Spot on... most of this Hollywood comedy garbage makes me want to gag—but that Asimov trash? It’s pure gold...😂
you get these totally iconic scenes mixed with just plain ridiculous ideas...😁

Terry Morris41 said:It’s just a total dud—if it had been some silly, low-budget trash flick, I might have actually enjoyed it...

True enough... As great as old-school, low-budget Smith can be, I don't think he's really built for something this big or "serious"—he's just not that kind of actor, and honestly, he isn't quite at that level...

For what on earth?? 😢 I mean, are they really planning to cram every single classic into some flashy remake?? 🙂

Jack Brooks51 said:So, who actually had it right here? Is it even fair for the partisans to claim the anti-fascist mantle? Were those guys actually fighting for an American state, or just their own interests? And honestly, if the Axis powers had been backed by the Russians instead of the Allies, would they be running things in America today?
Why does this whole debate keep resurfacing every single election cycle?
Do people seriously cast their votes for a political party just because of how that party interprets this slice of history?
I guess if you look at the core principles of both movements—their methods versus their actual end goals—it tells a different story.

Are you writing a high school term paper here or something?

Personally, *The Informer* stands out as his best work for me. I’ve always had a bit of a complicated relationship with his Westerns—and don't even get me started on those occasional forays into comedy. To be honest, I’m still not entirely sure why so many critics insist on placing *The Searchers* among the greatest films ever made. It was a massive favorite with the French New Wave crowd—Wenders, for instance—but while the film is certainly good, I find it absolutely overrated. There’s no question he knew how to tell a story—that much is indisputable—but still... I never quite understood the purpose of having Walter Brennan in his films, playing that old comic drunk all the time. And then, of course, there's John Wayne—one of the most polarizing presences to ever grace the screen.

The end of Titanic... finally!