5 minutes ago I mailed the following complaint and suggestion to webmaster@studentfilms.com, and I thought we'd could get an interesting dialogue going if I posted it...

"I have a problem with this "only original material - no adaptations" rule. How can you say this? Not only is there a much-preached ethos (especially in modern film study circles) that all "stories" are just the accumulation of trends and conventions from previous myths/fables. But apart from that, how can you possibly accurately judge if a story is accurate or not? At least one element from any story will (in however small a way) be a reproduction of another story (whether or not the storyteller has even seen said other story).

I can understand - and agree - with the no outside music deal, especially considering copywrites etcetera. But seriously is there anything wrong with adapting or even refilming previous material. Some would say that this synthesis is all that cinematography can hope for; that "the story" exists independently of the filmmaker and that he is only an observer, never a creator.

So please, drop this rule. When a remake or adaptation is botched it will be obvious. Vision, tone and style are qualities that are not so simple to reproduce.

in cinema,



Fraser Auld

ps I will post this on the board: I think its an interesting argument, we'd both want to hear what others think."

Welcome Fraser - I must congratulate you on an attention-getting entrance!

The way I understood that rule was that it meant films based on previously created literary or cinema works were not permitted. It's ok if you draw inspiration from other movies. For example, you won't be disqualified for having a scene in "bullet time" like the Matrix or for having blood on the camera lens like Once Upon a Time in Mexico. People might say it's unoriginal, and not vote for you though! But you CAN'T adapt a short story, have characters from Star Trek, or reshoot a scene from Indiana Jones.

So, I don't think this rule applies to the whole notion of "There is no new idea under the sun - it's all been done. We're all ripping off someone - we just don't know who."

Don't take my post as an official explanation of the rules - it is my interpretation as a member, and not as a moderator

If you refilm another film or adapt a story without getting the rights to it, it is copyright infringement - plain and simple. It is against the law.

Big companies pay ALOT of money for the remake or film adaptation rights to films, novels, short stories, etc.

I'm not going to drop this rule.

Yes some films are variations of different "myths" but that is not copyright infringement.

And I strongly disagree that originality is impossible. A a quick example, have you seen "Exhibit A" on this site? That's one of the most original student films that I have seen in a long time. Of course the underlying plot is nothing new, but the way the plot was told was extremely original.

The rule means that you cannot submit a film that is based on another person's writing or film.

-Chris
Studentfilms.com

quote:

The rule means that you cannot submit a film that is based on another person's writing or film.

Not even with permission?

Ok - with permission is ok.

-Chris
Studentfilms.com

I've never made an adaptation, but I just wanted to clear that it would be acceptable with permission. Suppose your screenplay was written by someone besides the director...

The rule is to guard against adapting published works or already made films.

Using a script with permission is perfectly fine.

-Chris
Studentfilms.com

chr

quote:

Originally posted by Studentfilms.com:
The rule is to guard against adapting published works or already made films.

<---so for copywrite reasons? That's good, I wouldn't expect anything less than this from future film employees - it IS (or can be) art, entertainment AND business. I was worried that you weren't accepting submissions of things like fairy tales or public domain myths, fables. What I'm hoping to submit (if not by the deadlin, sometime soon) is a project based on one of Hans Christian Andersen's (long-public domain) "children's" stories.

I've found that, for shorts especially, fables and legends can be great material.

ps for the sake of argument, would you accept adaptations of other public domain prose, even based on the works of novelists - for instance, Charles ****ens, H.G. Wells etcetera.

pps thanks for relying so curteously. Keep up your good work.