New Hairspray Movie: Copied or Original?

Hairspray has been adapted many times, with the newest version being a television musical movie premiering next year. Looking at both the 1988 and the 2007 movies, I can see that there are major differences in the way the story is portrayed, but the main storyline is the same. They are both based in the early 1960's in Baltimore, and about a chubby girl who dreams of dancing on the local Corny Collins TV show. The kids seen dancing on the Corny Collins show are all white, except once a month when the program has Negro Day. Both movies addressed the "social norms" in the 1960s, which was segregation between white and black people.

The 2007 movie was obviously adapted from the 1988 movie, with the title even being the same. Adam Shankman, the director of the 2007 movie, made the new version a musical movie, while the original was a movie with music. The different being the 1988 movie did not have the actors singing, it was just based on the dancing, and the newer version had the actors singing original songs while dancing. The characters, setting, and main plot are the exact same, but the 2007 version is a more dramatic representation of the 1960s. Looking at the posters for both movies, you can see the dramatic differences. With the 2007 poster being brighter, with more colour and more creativity and the 1988 poster having less colour and focuses more on the dancing plotline of the movie. But both Hairspray movies are a social commentary on the injustices of parts of American society in the 1960s.

This example of Hairspray is representing the recombining and transforming sections mentioned in the videos. The director took the original and transformed it into its own movie, it was not copied because he adapted the basic plot into something more. He also combined the 1988 movie and the 2002 Broadway musical Hairspray. He took the general plot of the 1988 movie, and the original soundtrack from the 2002 musical.

I believe that the director has created something new and original, it is obviously based on the original movie, but the adaptations added make the movie its own. John Walter, the director of the 1988 movie, told them to make the new film different from his movie. Also, the movies production company was the same as the original, so it was not infringing on the original work. I think that this movie, even with taking the basic plot from the 1988 version, is an original in its own. Taking the original and adding an aspect as big as original songs makes the movie its own.

In conclusion, I think that there should be a basic list of guidelines that creators need to follow to avoid "ripping something off". Some of these rules could be knowing what copyrights protect, and knowing your practise (film, television, novels, etc.) and knowing the other products in your genre to prevent copying. It is important to know what copyright laws protect because these laws grant the person the control over how, and by whom their work can be used. You also need to know the other products in your genre, to prevent copying someone's work. For example, if you are a film writer in the genre "slasher horror films", then you need to have seen the majority of films in that genre to make sure that whatever you write is not going to be accidentally the same. This can also be seen as a negative thing to do, because you can subconsciously copy someone's work while thinking it was your own.

How do I avoid copyright infringement?. Rocket Lawyer, 2016, https://www.rocketlawyer.com/article/how-do-i-avoid-copyright-infringement-ps.rl. Accessed on October 23, 2016.

Lingan, John. Take Two #12: Hairspray (1988) & Hairspray (2007). Slant Magazine, 2011, http://www.slantmagazine.com/house/article/take-two-12-hairspray-1988-hairspray-2007. Accessed on October 23, 2016.

#hairspray #movie #books #musical #television #original #dancing #songs #adaptations #posters