Adaptations and sequels: Hollywood’s most overused trend.

By Alfie Eville

Now, more than ever, we are seeing adaptations dominating the silver screen. Be it novels, comic books or even cultural phenomena spawned from the internet, it is safe to say that the theater is getting less original. But, is that really a bad thing? The argument has two sides: unoriginality leads to slop. Or, adapting prior work allows for modern creative liberties. Both points have their merit, and I find myself agreeing, partially, with both. 

It is paramount that we examine exactly what is being talked about. I think looking at 2026 is a perfect example. Three of the largest releases have all been adaptations: “Project Hail Mary,” “Backrooms” and “The Odyssey.” Are these movies any worse because they are not original scripts? No. In fact, “The Backrooms” in specific, I believe is helped by it being an adaptation. While it was not anything stellar, I still found myself glued to the screen, seeing one of my favorite YouTube series finally on the big screen. So, while it is not wrong to say 2026 has had ‘unoriginal’ films, that cannot be seen as a demerit with the prior films mentioned. 

That being said, franchises like Disney and Marvel have seen a major decline, as their entire brand is just adaptations and rehashing old properties. Disney, especially, has ruined their image by dumping out live-action remakes of beloved cartoons like “The Little Mermaid” or “The Lion King.” Those films did not change anything dramatic, not nearly enough to warrant a new movie. The only noticeable difference is that in quality, with the switch away from animation, ironically enough, making it seem lifeless and stale. It is most apparent in “The Lion King,” as it is near impossible to convey depth and emotion on a computer-generated lion’s face. To pile on, Marvel has churned out the same dissatisfying superhero movie for the last five or so years. They have become so cookie-cutter that the only difference is the costume the character is wearing.

One interesting thing with adaptations is remakes and re-imaginings. I already discussed the terrible Disney live-action remakes, but there are far more examples of this. One of the most iconic examples of this is when legendary filmmaker Stanley Kubrick made “The Shining.” The film was mired in controversy at first, especially from the author of the original novel, Stephen King. Kubrick took major creative risks, by changing much of the plot from the book. The themes, the actions of characters and entire narrative subplots were changed completely. I would argue, however, that this is what makes the film so perfect. Kubrick turns the original story, a much simpler one about monsters and supernatural freight, into a psychological nightmare that allows for dozens of theories and interpretations to be made. There is no one way to watch and understand “The Shining” and that is what makes it so memorable and great, even though it is objectively an imperfect adaptation of the book. 

To say that adaptations are killing cinema is patently false. Some pillars of film and culture have originated from books or other sources, like “The Godfather” (1972), or even Peter Jackson’s “Lord of the Rings” trilogy, which I would argue exceeds the quality of the books. That being said, it is impossible to avoid really bad films like “Elektra” or “Transformers: The Last Knight” due to the rising trend of studios taking ideas from established and popular storylines in other media. Maybe soon the theater will be entirely just spin-off movies of “The Big Bang Theory” or “Condiment King.” I want to see the landscape of cinema to be balanced; the last thing the theater needs is every new release to be a remake or sequel. Because while there will always be a diamond in the rough, it becomes more difficult to find those diamonds when they are all buried beneath the big-budget studios’ attempts to shove their slop down our throats all the time.

Alfie Eville is a sophomore history and secondary education major