Yeah, genuinely one of my favourite original sci-fi movies I’ve watched in the last decade. I did a linguistics course in high school so just really loved that side of it. It also really felt like they did a great job building the tension and making it feel like there were high stakes to her work.
I suppose you are going to tell everyone that Dune was based on a book the next time someone compliments the pacing and direction of that movie?
The poster art for Arrival says it’s based on a story by Ted Chiang, it isn’t some secret nobody knows but you.
What does being original or not have anything to do with what the original commenter wrote? MOST movies are based on previously existing stories. They were focusing on the movie. If you read the book and want to show everyone how much more you know than they do, it would be more impressive if you had said “i read the story the movie was based on, and comparatively, <your opinion here>”. It might have even made for an interesting and productive comment.
Then I guess NO movie can be called original, because at a minimum they begin with a written screenplay, so that screenplay is the ORIGINAL work in pedanticland.
Usually when the word “original” is used in the context of media, it means it’s a new idea/concept/story, in opposition to an “'adaptation” from another media (like a movie to a videogame, or a book to a movie). This movie is an adaptation.
I’m not criticizing your opinion, as I really like the movie too (including pacing and direction). Only the terminology.
Yeah, genuinely one of my favourite original sci-fi movies I’ve watched in the last decade. I did a linguistics course in high school so just really loved that side of it. It also really felt like they did a great job building the tension and making it feel like there were high stakes to her work.
It’s not original, though it expands on Ted Chiang’s short story “Story of Your Life”.
I suppose you are going to tell everyone that Dune was based on a book the next time someone compliments the pacing and direction of that movie?
The poster art for Arrival says it’s based on a story by Ted Chiang, it isn’t some secret nobody knows but you.
What does being original or not have anything to do with what the original commenter wrote? MOST movies are based on previously existing stories. They were focusing on the movie. If you read the book and want to show everyone how much more you know than they do, it would be more impressive if you had said “i read the story the movie was based on, and comparatively, <your opinion here>”. It might have even made for an interesting and productive comment.
🙄
Then I guess NO movie can be called original, because at a minimum they begin with a written screenplay, so that screenplay is the ORIGINAL work in pedanticland.
And here I thought the grammar police were bad.
A screenplay is part of (the process of making) a film. It’s not an independent work.
Usually when the word “original” is used in the context of media, it means it’s a new idea/concept/story, in opposition to an “'adaptation” from another media (like a movie to a videogame, or a book to a movie). This movie is an adaptation.
I’m not criticizing your opinion, as I really like the movie too (including pacing and direction). Only the terminology.