Talk:List of television programs based on films

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

I believe Logan's Run and Planet of the Apes each ran for one season. I seem to recall that The Ghost and Mrs Muir was quite a successful sitcom in the 1960s, running for at least 2 seasons, based on a movie from at least a decade earlier. Lee M 18:55, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Peyton Place was previously listed as "Unknown" rather than "Successful". You've gotta be kidding. It ran for 514 episodes! Lee M 19:00, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Hey! Some of us youn'uns may NOT have been around for the whole run of the series, okay...How the heck are we supposed to know? :) jengod 19:09, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)
Um, I dunno...look it up in an online encyclopedia? ;-) Lee M 01:13, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Snerk. :) ~j

I dont like the arrangement of "successful" and "short lived" : it seems quite POV. "Successful", as applied to the list as it stands, seems rather arbitrary. If "Successful" refers to longevity, then I have a real problem with some of these: I recall, "Clueless" was a "blink and you missed it" series, as was "Honey I Shrunk[sic] the Kids", but if I moved them, I'd probably start the mother-of-all-edit-wars-that-don't-involve-German-names-of-towns-in-Poland. I think it should go back to a straightforward alphabetical listing, perhaps with years that the show ran. Dukeofomnium 15:47, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That seems fine, although some entries may need further detail. We'll cross that bridge when we get to the appropriate German-named-town-in-Poland. :) jengod 19:04, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

Where's the line between short-lived and successful?[edit]

How long does a TV show have to run to be considered successful? Two years? Three? Would it be better to just have a single list, and add the years (as in "1998-2002") for each? Then people could decide for themself.

I'm all of that. I just added War of the Worlds, but wasn't sure as to whether it should be short-lived since it ran for two seasons, but I know that the series can't be placed under sucessful since it didn't reach a Buffy the Vampire Slayer level of success. It seems a bit too troubling to have to be specific with something that should be fairly clear and simple. I mean, look at Tremors - what does it mean "unknown"? What's unknown, the series' run? The level of success? Differentiating between the two subjects seems pointless. --Bacteria 15:27, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like it either. Myself, I would prefer to differentiate between the series what follow the events of the movie (like Stargate SG-1) and therefore are sequels of it, and the ones who are remakes of the movie. I have time to implement it, if nobody opposes. -- Andromeda 01:07, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unclassified shows[edit]

Under the new format, does anyone know where Barbershop: The Series and Party Girl would fit? I'm not familar enough with either series to know whether they are sequels or remakes. --Bacteria 07:53, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I hope it's okay to move this to "inc-video", regular "Incomplete lists" is very crowded.--T. Anthony 07:18, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nick of Time & 24[edit]

Might the TV Series 24 count as a remake of the movie Nick of Time (John Badham, 1995)? Plot device of both (re 24 at least the first series): bad guys kidnap a man's daughter and tell him they will murder her if he does not assasinate some politician for them. Artistic device of both: the story unfolds in 'real time' (1.5 hours in the movie, 24 hours in the TV series). I don't know if there's any formal connection/agreement between the producers of the two.

It's interesting, but unless there's a clear and conscious connection, such as re-using a character, or a citation from the producers, it shouldn't be included here. --Bacteria 21:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Godzilla[edit]

I am taking off Godzilla as that has a long history of it being released as movies themselves and the 1998 film is a remake of the 1954 original —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Willirennen (talk • contribs) 12:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Sit Down, Shut Up[edit]

Why is Sit Down, Shut Up included on this list if this list is of TV shows that were based on movies? If Sit Down, Shut Up was a movie, it's article needs to state that, if not, it needs to be removed. I'll check back this weekend and delete it if no one objects unless the changes are made before then. Bhall87 (talk) 19:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, deleting Sit Down, Shut Up for not being a movie. Bhall87 (talk) 21:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek[edit]

Star Trek should not be on this list in any form. The original property that was successful was a TV show, Star Trek, not the movie series. What's the point of this list if it's going to include things that are not TV shows based on films, but TV shows based on TV shows that were also separately adapted to films? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.89.174.229 (talk) 17:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spawn[edit]

Spawn also doesn't belong on this list. The animated series was based on the comic, which the movie was also based on, but the plot of the animated series is not a direct continuation of the movie. They only share elements because they share a common original source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.89.174.229 (talk) 17:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate entries[edit]

These lists have a number of duplicate entries. These should all be eliminated. Either the TV series is a "prequel" or "sequel" to the movie in question, or it is a straight "adaptation" (aka. a "remake" or a "reimagining") – it can't be both. So an effort needs to be made with any duplicate entries, and figure out if they belong in the "prequel"/"sequel" table list, or in the later "adaptations" list. --IJBall (talk) 19:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Upcoming" section[edit]

I personally don't feel such a section is needed (we can simply add such series once they premiere...), but if a section like that is to be included it MUST be fully sourced – as all in-production, yet-to-premiere series must be fully sourced as per usual Wikipedia guidelines – likely with a source that includes the series' premiere date. As the "Upcoming" section that had been added was completely without sourcing, I have removed (as other editors had attempted to do in the recent past). It should not be readded without adequate sourcing for the entries. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree, though the series should also have to have entered production with a full series order. Shows "entering development" or pilot orders should not be listed and will be removed. -- Wikipedical (talk) 02:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After building up a properly sourced 'Upcoming' section, an IP then removed the entire section on April 5 (in a WP:POINT-y edit?...). Frankly, I think this is the best outcome, as an 'Upcoming' section is just going to continue to be problematic, and the article doesn't need an 'Upcoming' section. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of television programs based on films. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:13, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SCOPE of this article...[edit]

I've been meaning to bring this up for a while, but the SCOPE of this article needs to be spelled out so that it is clear that this list includes only TV programs spawned from theatrical films.

In other words, an entry like London's Burning (TV series) has no place in an article like this, as it is simply a TV series spawned from a backdoor pilot TV movie, not a theatrical film.

In the near future, I will endeavor to search through this list, and remove those entries that involve just TV movie precursors, unless there is further discussion about this issue here... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More about scope[edit]

A good number of entries on this list are series that are arguably based on earlier works that are not movies (i.e. the series and movies are each based on the same source material), such as Bates Motel (the movie Psycho was originally a book), The Odd Couple (movie based on a play), and The Wizard of Oz/Oz Kids (most Oz books are in the public domain, so derivations can be freely made without referencing the heavily copyrighted elements of the 1939 movie). In all of these cases, the movie was popular enough to drive production of a TV series but it cannot be explicitly true in all cases that the TV series is "based on" the film -- they are based on the book, play, or whatever. HalJor (talk) 17:20, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. It's been on my long-term "To Do" list to go through this list, and trim it for things like this (and my earlier post) – I just haven't gotten to it. Feel free to do what you think needs to be done... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:08, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@HalJor: To follow up, I'm not sure I agree with some of your removals. For example, Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. to my mind unquestionably ties to the films much more than the comics. Similarly, The Exorcist (TV series) was sourced as to tying into the film. Bottom line: Some of these are going to tie to both, but if they have sourcing support for tying them to one or more theatrical films (as my two examples did), then they should remain here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:50, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. I'll address... HalJor (talk) 02:57, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What a mess. I agree with the Exorcist comment because it's cited, but I disagree with Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. The article isn't about being tied in to the films; the description at the top states "adapted from theatrical films". One could argue that the style and settings are influenced by the films but the source material is still the comics, even the storylines of some of the movies. I admit I haven't seen the show but if it's anything like Arrowverse, several of the storylines (or at least significant elements) in the series but not the movies first appeared in the comics. Much of this is debatable. In some cases like The Legend of Tarzan, the source material is clearly the Disney version and not the works by Edgar Rice Burroughs. That should stay, based on the purpose of the article. But what to do with the Star Wars entries? Did all of those come from the films, or the books? I'll also note that the articles for several of these TV series state the series is based on the film, but even that statement is often uncited. I'll give this more thought before continuing much further, but I repeat, it's a mess. HalJor (talk) 03:23, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of Star Wars, they all "come from the films" – the novelizations themselves come from the films, so any TV series adaptation would also draw ultimately back to the films... The problem is when there's an earlier books/etc. source that led to a film adaptation that then led to a TV adaptation – most of these will actually be TV adaptations of the films, rather than of the earlier written source, but not always. For example, I suspect that the animated Jumanji series likely was an adaptation of the film, rather than of the original work... But, bottom line: Follow sourcing – if sources say "...TV series adapted from the earlier film..." we go with that, even if it's arguably wrong. If the sourcing says "...the TV series was adapted from [both]...", then we have a problem. And if sourcing says "...the TV series is a (direct) adaptation of the earlier written work..." it can be removed from the list. Similarly, anything unsourced (and likely unsourcable) can be removed... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:39, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Agents of SHIELD – I've looked into a little, and I'm... confused. This Variety ref says, ...said the storyline for the proposed series will be largely “autonomous” from the “Avengers” sequel feature that is also in the works. The series will revolve around the activities of the top-secret S.H.I.E.L.D espionage org featured in “Avengers.” So, is it based on the films? Is it not based on the films?... I can't tell. But I also can't tell if it's "adapted directly from the comics" either.... Honestly, it is unsourced, so I think I'm going to take it back out for now. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:06, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It all depends I guess what the scope of the article is. Is it "TV series that are 100% based on the film - the film being an original work"? Is it "TV series that are based on the film but the film can be based on a previous work"? Agents of SHIELD is of course based both on the film and the comics (as the films are based on the comics as well). Almost all (and maybe all period) of comic book adaptations are based on the comics. But it's also based on the film franchise (and not only Avengers). The aftermath of Captain America: The Winter Soldier is a main part of season 1 and the events of Thor: The Dark World also somewhat have effects. Clark Gregg reprises his role as Phil Coulson, which is an original character introduced in the films all the way back in the first Iron Man film. Nick Fury, Maria Hill, Jasper Sitwell, Sif, Peggy Carter, Timothy "Dum Dum" Dugan, Jim Morita, Dr. List, Matthew Ellis all reprising their character from the film. --Gonnym (talk) 07:38, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And all of that is fine – for entries here, I just want to see a source say something like, "The TV series, which is adapted from the film..." or "The TV series continues the events of the film..." Just something along those lines – as long as it's sourced (or sourceable), it's fine. (It's just with Agents of SHIELD, after a quick look I couldn't find a source that was as clear cut...) Meanwhile, last night, I looked for a similar source for the 1996 Jumanji animated series, and really couldn't find anything – so if it can't be sourced, I think keeping it out is justified. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:23, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just to throw this out there... The current organization is around followups/prequels and adaptations -- I'm guessing the distinction is around the relative timeline, either before/after or effectively concurrent. Since the topic is "based on films" (i.e. the source material, regardless of continuity), what if the article were arranged as "based on films as an original source" and "based on films as a derivative source" (or words to that effect)? That would draw some clear lines, would not be a magnet for those entries with relatively obscure source material, and would not require the degree of research we're discussing here to determine whether something really qualifies. Issues of continuity and tie-ins would be side notes rather than a defining characteristic. HalJor (talk) 03:58, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While it's logical, and it's maybe what a film/TV scholar would do, I doubt it's Verifiable, and would probably end up being "WP:OR-y". With this, we're basically stuck with going with what sourcing indicates, including whether it's a "prequel/sequel" or not. (IOW, if sourcing doesn't indicate that, it needs to be pulled out of that section...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:30, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno, much of this is unsourced anyway, and the articles on the corresponding films often state if they are based on a play/story/book (or if no such statement is made, one can reasonably infer from the other text that the film is the original source). It would be WP:OR in the sense that work is done do conclude which of the proposed sections each belongs in, but that would be based on (presumably) non-OR statements in the linked film articles. HalJor (talk) 04:52, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agents of SHIELD[edit]

Not sure how you couldn't find any source talking about the Agents of SHIELD being in the MCU [1], [2], [3] as any wikipedia article talking about the series or the MCU will have tons of sources for it. Here are a few. --Gonnym (talk) 22:45, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that it's a "weird" situation. Is it "based on a film"? Or is it actually "part of a larger franchise"?... Maybe it's semantics, but I don't know how to categorize this one. I definitely think you can't call it a "prequel" or a "sequel". But it's not exactly an "adaptation" either... You know, it's possible that we should just treat Agents of SHIELD "uniquely" at this article – i.e. not include it in the tables/lists, but write it up in the lede prose. I ended up having to do something that for Sam & Cat at List of Nickelodeon crossovers, for similar reasons, because there was really no other way to handle it. So maybe we should do something like that with SHIELD here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:15, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this depends what the scope of this article is. It's not a 1:1 conversion, in that, it's not an Iron Man TV series that came after an Iron Man film. However, the events of SHIELD do come after Avengers (actually even after Iron Man 3), Pill Coulson, Nick Fury, Maria Hill, Jasper Sitwell, Sif, Peggy Carter, Timothy "Dum Dum" Dugan, Jim Morita, Dr. List, Matthew Ellis all reprising their character from the film with the same actor. The events of Captain America: The Winter Soldier have a direct impact. Thor: The Dark World, Avengers 2 and 3 are also directly mentioned. Also as mentioned before, the character of Coulson came from the Film and not the comics so in that, it is a 1:1 conversion (sort of a spin-off). --Gonnym (talk) 07:58, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yep – all of which is why I think it merits a special mention in the lede of this article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Small nitpick, but shouldn't the lead be a summary of the article contents, adding no new information not present in the article body (WP:MOSLEAD)? --Gonnym (talk) 07:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Theoretically, yes. But that's a guideline, not a "rule", and this is a situation where I think it makes sense to not strictly follow it. Again, what I did at List of Nickelodeon crossovers is the precursor... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:21, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not actively editing this so my caring-level isn't that high on this issue, but I don't buy into the dismissing of the guideline argument for no real exception case, which this really isn't, considering there are many other options like a prose section; defining the scope in a section of its own and including it there; and also including it in the list itself. As a side note These television series follow the events of the original theatrical film includes Agents of SHIELD; so if SHIELD is out of the scope, you should define what exactly you want this list to include, cause atm it really looks like you, not the sources, have a problem with including it in the list... --Gonnym (talk) 13:47, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I do – because, by definition, it's not a "sequel" or a "prequel": it's at best described as a "parallel work" (i.e. taking place at the same time, and along side, the feature films). Now that may merit its own section, but a one-entry section in a "list" article strikes me as rather pointless, though I wouldn't oppose one if consensus was in favor of creating one. Mentioning it as "exception" in the lede strikes me as the best approach, because in general the lede is the only portion of a "list" article with substantial prose. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:57, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you are moving the goal posts so suit your own preference. This list is not titled "List of television programs that are sequels or prequels to a film", but rather "based on films"; and the text of the article as I've shown above also does not say that, but actually spells it out These television series follow the events of the original theatrical film. Both of these include SHIELD. Either change the title of the article or deal with it that some forms of media will not fit in to your own definition, and instead relay on RS who do say that SHIELD follows the events of the film.
Why are you being argumentative about this? This article has two sections: "Sequels and prequel", and "Adaptations" – Agents of SHIELD falls into neither category. I'm not saying it doesn't belong at this article: I'm saying it doesn't belong in either of these sections. I've given you two options: mention it in the lede, or do a new section. I don't understand what's so hard about this... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:06, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You should avoid using phrases like calling someone not agreeing with argumentative, in so far as you might be the one being argumentative to their perspective. I don't agree with adding information to the lead that is not in the body. That's just bad article work, IMO (which the MOS agrees). I also don't agree with this not being a sequel, as it "follows the events" of the previous work. So it checks that criteria - it's even more related to the previous work than do shows like Buffy (which barely even mention some of the events of the film, while ignores others all together and is not considered part of its canon) or Highlander which save one character appearing in both, has ignores all movies (including the first) and thus both don't check the second criteria written in the article and are set within the same universe. --Gonnym (talk) 14:17, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I still say, put it in its own section, called 'Parallel works' or something – SHIELD is a special case. It probably warrants a special mention. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:19, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize that what you are advocating is more OR than based on sources, right? Also, small nitpick, I just noticed that the section is not even titled "Sequels and prequel" but "Follow-ups and prequels", which again, SHIELD checks. So all 3 criteria listed it follows, while other shows in the list which barely even follow one are ok by your standards. Anyways, that was the last comment from me on this, as it's not worth my time. --Gonnym (talk) 14:22, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:JUSTDOIT, then. If you've got (good) sources (and Wired is good), you don't need my permission. I've made my views on what should be done (and why) clear, but I'm not going to "stop" you if you put it back into the table. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:39, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_television_programs_based_on_films&oldid=1208304996"