electriccanyon26 said:It seems you're here just to tell me what I think and what I know. I never said anything against plays—quite the opposite. If you have an issue with the specific films I listed as my favorites, then go ahead; I have nothing more to say. I chose them specifically because they aren't famous plays, and perhaps most people don't even realize those movies are film based on stage play. I intentionally left out the ones I love more because they are too well known. What's the problem there? It's a bit reckless of you to jump to conclusions about how much I value drama...
...and how much I value ART.
That's it: your definition of what is a film based on stage play is that it isn't one unless the director saw it on Broadway instead of just reading the script—that's something you made up, and it has no basis. It's pure snobbery.
edit: If a director sees a production and then directs a movie based on that memory, then it's a film based on stage play. That's your logic. But if the director watches the play, goes home, reads the script, and writes the screenplay, what is that movie then? A film based on a play? Your rhetoric is like saying you're fixing a leak by plugging the pipe; it's missing the point entirely.
Good grief, a movie can't be a stage-to-film adaptation if the director saw the material on Broadway for the first time... and it wouldn't be based on a play if they hadn't.
What are you even talking about? I'm just saying that American producers get the idea to adapt something when they see a script being performed live; it doesn't always mean that, but usually, it does... But whether they saw it or not, the movie is based on the play. It literally says "Screenplay written by the play" at the start of the film. Who cares how the idea for an adaptation popped into a producer's head? Through theater, TV, a book, or a dream?
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)? 😢
Hold on... I pointed out that minor terminology slip in the first post on the main page, and the OP actually AGREED WITH ME that it was fine. The discussion was moving in a productive direction until you jumped in to try and convince me and Karen Smith9 that we were the ones in the wrong... because honestly, does it even matter if the chicken or the egg came first?
So now we should just leave the Greeks out of it since they weren't interesting enough without film stock.
And apparently, we've been labeled snobs—those people who actually care about correct terms and happen to know a bit more about literature and theater.
Then the author gets defensive again. Even though he originally admitted his title was a bit off, now he's arguing with us over terminology just because his ego took a hit.
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..
Ha ha, and what's wrong with ancient Greek dramas? In case you weren't aware, those were adapted for the screen too. And they were stage plays long before they were movies. If you wanted to discuss modern Anglo-Saxon plays that Hollywood most frequently pulls material from, you should have made that clear in the title. Let's just set antiquity aside then.
As for the "snobbish" comment, why don't you go back and actually read what I wrote and look at the context? Since Christian Taylor3 kept insisting that movies are made based on stage plays, I simply pointed out that only counts if the directors or producers actually see the show on Broadway first before deciding to film it, rather than just reading the script. Which is true 90% of the time. It isn't snobbery.
Maybe learn some basic art terminology before jumping into debates like this.
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? 😵
Just because a work was staged first doesn't mean it was created for the theater or that the movie is being made based on some theatrical essence. A movie is made from a script, regardless of whether that script was previously performed in a high school auditorium, a local theater, a summer fair, or a public square. "Theater" covers everything from vaudeville to cabaret to Kabuki. 🙄
electriccanyon26 said:Films are based on works written specifically for the stage. Using the term Stage to Screen isn't an oversimplification; it's just the reality. And I was specifically referring to how actors prepare their roles...
A Play is a drama—just check a dictionary. Americans often use the term to describe the entire dramatic genre, regardless of whether it's a comedy or a tragedy.
Where exactly does it say film actors prepare their roles based on a specific stage production? Sure, a play might serve as inspiration if they want to emulate a certain actor's performance, but that's about it.
I honestly don't see any point in continuing this argument over terminology.🙂
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.
electriccanyon26, let's not get into a fight over the title right now because the topic itself is actually good and worth discussing. But I can't agree with your claim that all movies are made from stage plays or that actors prepare specifically through theater. Where is that written, and who is saying that? An adapted screenplay is any script not originally written for film but reworked from a literary source, whether it's a novel, a novella, or a drama—it doesn't matter. When a movie starts, it says it is "screenplay written by play" and not "by stage performance." Play in English refers to drama as a literary genre, not a specific theatrical production.
You know what, you're probably right—I guess I owe Ken Kesey an apology.
To Terry Scott34, who spent all that time insisting dragons weren't real, only to end up leading me straight to their dens. 😍
That was a beautifully explained point by electriccanyon26. Well, here we go. Time to get this show on the road. I haven't seen an article posted here yet, so if you were trying to share something, it looks like it didn't quite make it through. Feel free to drop the link or the text whenever you're ready.
The connections between theater and cinema might seem obvious at first glance, but they’re actually pretty deceptive. In reality, turning a stage Play into a movie is a much steeper uphill battle than adapting a novel. Eisenstein wrote in his essay, “Charles Dickens, D.W. Griffith, and the film today,” that novels actually possess their own literary versions of fades, dissolves, close-ups, and various compositional or editing tricks. The real headache when dealing with stage to Screen Adaptations comes from the fact that while the two mediums can look similar on the surface, their core concepts and physical temperaments are fundamentally irreconcilable. Some academics argue that stage Plays are an easy win for the big screen because they share traditional narrative structures, rely on actors to drive the drama, and lean heavily on spoken dialogue, but that simplicity is mostly just an illusion.
Honestly, the inspiration for those films didn't come from any literary source material at all; it came exclusively from stage productions. Whether it was a chicken or an egg situation before that happens is pretty much irrelevant to me.
What exactly are you struggling to grasp? A "stage Play" is a drama performed in a theater, but it's still a drama. And regarding the whole chicken or the egg debate, the "egg" here is the literary source—the play itself. Another thing: American producers rarely sit down to read a script as a book; they usually see it on Broadway first and then realize they could turn it into a movie. But just because they saw it on Broadway doesn't mean the film was made *from* the production. A film is only truly based on a stage production if it’s just a filmed version of the play (like how some old recordings of Radovan III ended up in video stores, when they were really just footage of a stage performance).
Even when an adaptation copies the set design and cast almost identically to the theater version (take My Fair Lady in the US, for example), you can't say the film is "based on the play"—it just means the play might have been the spark that got them to make a movie.
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...
Actually, the title is a bit off. These are movies based on plays, meaning they stem from a literary source that likely predates any actual stage production. It’s not usually a play that exists first just to be turned into a movie; rather, both the play and the film originate from the written script.
Your simplification of "stage to Screen" assumes the reader already knows exactly what we're talking about.
The Matt Damon version is actually a solid adaptation of the book, though I’ll admit the casting felt a bit young for my taste. Personally, I still prefer the 1988 version—it skipped theaters and went straight to TV, but it’s easily a class above the Liman version. Chamberlain was perfect, and honestly, F. Potente doesn't even come close to Jaclyn Smith. It’s a calmer movie with a much tighter narrative. If you haven't caught it on TV, track it down somewhere; I promise you won't regret it.
When you say stage to Screen Adaptations, are you talking about plays that hit the stage first before being moved to the big screen? Any play can be turned into a movie, provided there's a solid screenwriter who knows how to translate the script into cinematic language. Plays are dialogue-heavy; you have to trim all that excess chatter and monologue and figure out how to weave it together with visual storytelling. If they mess that up, I can usually tell a movie was based on a play just by how much it talks. They end up feeling too literary, too grand, and just not very cinematic. Here are a few of my favorites:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089816/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0048563/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0051534/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053318/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056196/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0039636/
Honestly, most of the adaptations from Tennessee Williams and Eugene O'Neill turned out to be absolute masterpieces. If anyone actually wants the list, feel free to grab it and watch.
wiredraven82 said:Hey everyone, just wondering if anyone can help me out. I can't for the life of me remember the name of this movie. It takes place mostly in a news studio reporting on an incoming asteroid heading toward Earth. Then, once they finally manage to stop it, a hundred more asteroids show up, making it seem like someone is intentionally targeting us. I watched it ages ago and my memory is pretty fuzzy, so I can't even tell if it was actually good, but I'd love to give it another watch if someone knows the title.
As for the OP, great topic 👍. Personally, I'd suggest Die Hard, though I guess you have to decide if it's one big action flick or just several smaller "Die Hards" strung together? haha
Is it that one... I think there isn't much else like it, just some Cold War piece of crap. Honestly, I barely made it to the end (or maybe I didn't, it was a long time ago).
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079550/
Regarding the subject itself, aside from Dogville which completely mesmerized me, I find that intense atmosphere reminds me of Tape (is that Linklater's?). A truly excellent piece of work.
restlessfox5 said:She was back on NBC again yesterday, for God knows which time. One of those movies I could probably watch for the hundredth time and still actually enjoy.👍
Honestly, I feel like even if every major network in the country aired this movie 10,000 times, I’d still somehow miss it. It’s like the film is cursed; I haven't been able to sit down and watch it for nearly 30 years. 😍
Did anyone bring up A Man Called Horse with Richard Harris? The scene I’m thinking of isn't actually torture, but that so-called "sun dance ritual" where the Sioux Indians proved their bravery to join the adult world. Harris basically volunteers for the whole thing just to be accepted by the tribe. It’s one of those things that really sticks with you...
www.imdb.com/title/tt0066049
For me, Dustin Hoffman in Marathon runner stays with me, along with Gibson and Monica Bellucci. I'll probably think of something else later.
Because every love in this world is destined to fail And they just drift by like sunlight breaking through the clouds Since all loves are like precious gemstones Hard to find, but even easier to lose
Rebecca Price20 said:thanks so much!!!!! 😁 can't wait to check them out..😁
which ones of Marilyn's are actually good?
Well, Marilyn didn't really do those heavy kissing scenes in the traditional sense; her stuff was mostly comedies or what we'd call rom-coms today. Personally, one of my favorites is "Let's Make Love" (with Yves Montand)
Since you aren't picky about color (thank God), here’s one in color and one in black and white. They're both personal favorites of mine. You won't regret checking them out—you can find both on USA streaming platforms.
I caught this one the other night and honestly, I wish I could just erase it from my memory. I’d much rather remember him as Mad Max or Martin Riggs than whatever this washed-up version of Mel is—just an aging actor who seems to have forgotten how to actually perform. His only remaining talent is holding a gun, which is clearly the only thing the producers were banking on. It feels like a cheap attempt to remix his Payback, but they added all that corporate conspiracy nonsense because modern writers assume the average guy at the multiplex won't notice the massive plot holes in the script.
A total disaster! The absolute peak of stupidity was near the end when one of the bad boss's bodyguards yells at Mel, "Stay There ! Don't move! Be dead!" 🤣
I tried digging through the archives for this stale topic, but I just couldn't stay quiet after seeing this movie on PBS last night.
For about forty minutes, the film actually looks like it might turn into something decent, but then it descends into pure chaos. You lose track of who’s paying for what, who’s sleeping with whom, and you can't decide whether to laugh or take it seriously. It reminded me of some old sitcom, then shifted into something like *The Wire* or a random *partisan squadron* flick, which made me think maybe Dutch TV commissioned Verhoeven to make this for their version of Victory Day... because if not, I have no clue what on earth I was watching. It's been a long time since I've seen such a confusing WW2 movie. There's more gunfire than in a Dillinger biopic, yet the plot doesn't even happen at the front—it's all set in cities. Then you have the lead, this lost Jewish woman walking around looking like Marlena Dietrich and seducing German officers, while SS officers sit around sipping coffee and negotiating with the Resistance movement about who they're going to execute tomorrow. I know things weren't easy for the Dutch, but this is just overkill. By the end, I felt like I was watching a frivolous cabaret show rather than a drama.
Hands down Verhoeven's worst work; this isn't a comeback, it's a total nose dive.
Nicholas Edwards4 said:It really all comes down to the soundtrack and how they set the mood in the opening act—I guess if you get some solid jazz, it’s usually a sign you're in for a decent movie. Or maybe it's just some heavy techno beat.
This feels like it's going to be the same kind of intense garbage, and my gut has yet to fail me.
Yeah, I can't stand baseball or football movies either... I can barely force myself through them unless there's a solid plot and a killer cast to keep me from checking out.
I'm also not a fan of those "based on a true story" tragedies.
People keep throwing around titles like Aliens, The Godfather Part II, Terminator 2: Judgment Day, Mad Max 2, and Empire Strikes Back, but honestly, no matter how great those sequels are, I can't say they're actually better....they're just as good, which is a massive win in its own right.
For me, the only real example of what we're talking about is the Lara Croft series—I actually found Cradle of Life more engaging than Tomb Raider.
