What’s a common “fact” that’s spread around that’s actually not true and pisses you off that too many people believe it?

  • ohulancutash@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 days ago

    Okay, but you can’t just redefine established terminology to make it fit your argument. Besides, people complain about adaptations from other media just as much as about remakes and sequels.

    • FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 days ago

      People complain about original movies too, what’s your point? People are hypocrites. They ask why nothing original is being made and them Disney announced Hexed and it immediately got backlash. People are accusing it of being a ripoff of Owl House but there’s no good evidence of that. People complain no matter what.

      Maybe I’ve misunderstood and people usually aren’t just complaining about franchise films but also about adaptations. To which I’m even MORE annoyed with their complaint about no original movies being made. The original Mean Girls was an adaptation. So that movie shouldn’t have been made? Why shouldn’t Hollywood look to books for material? Why this arbitrary demand that the movie can’t be based on anything? All stories are derivative. The original Star Wars was original, not a remake or adaptation, but it was inspired by Flash Gordon. It’s basically impossible to make a story with no connection to any preexisting story

    • FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      4 days ago

      Different categories apply depending on the context. Adaptations are a different category than remakes or sequels and in this context make sense to classify as original. It’s not based on any preexisting movie