Does anyone know what the ratio of "Original Screenplays" to "Screenplays adapted from novels" is? I'm talking about straight-up films, not stage plays or whatever.

You mean movies written as movies from scratch and then movies based on books? Not sure that there's any hard data but I'd guess stuff based on books is something like 10-15% of the produced films. They usually play up a connection to a book because it makes it sound fancier

I don't know that you'd ever be able to find any solid numbers. There's a lot of murky water here. There're more-or-less direct translations, like Harry Potter tried to be (yes, there are far better examples). Then there are the ones that take a lot more liberties, like Fight Club. There are the ones that are loosely based off books, and ones hanging on the book by the barest thread (Running Man). And it just changes or degrades from there, but to some extent they're directly connected to some kind of literature. Then there are original movies that directly take themes and how they're presented, quotes, and characters in all but name from various novels (Star Trek II: Wrath of Khan is a perfect example).

Fight Club the movie was better than the book, I'll give them that. But I didn't like either that much anyway.

Yeah, I meant films written from scratch with "Big, Silver Screen" in mind. I suppose you could count "Television series that didn't quite pan out, but got a movie deal instead" among them.
Also, Dean Koontz did a lot of film and TV series novelisations, so it's hard to tell which came first in his case, unless the credits in the film specifically say "Adapted from a novel by Dean Koontz" or something like that.

Got a source of this, because IIRC, Harve wrote the screenplay in a couple of weeks, on his own. And then it was rewritten to be less crude, a couple of times.
(And don't give me that "Hornblower" guff, because that was present in the original series as an inspiration for Kirk's character by the Great Bird of the Galaxy himself :P)

[url=]http://www.youtube.com/user/sfdebris?blend=1&ob=4#p/u/62/8hIV3gLupqU[/url]
[url=]http://www.youtube.com/user/sfdebris?blend=1&ob=4#p/u/61/sWAiRGkV9OA[/url]
[url=]http://www.youtube.com/user/sfdebris?blend=1&ob=4#p/u/60/dFvZSSzgE50[/url]
[url=]http://www.youtube.com/user/sfdebris?blend=1&ob=4#p/u/59/z7WQqpPxU38[/url]

Ye gads, If you're gonna be that picky about it, there's only 2 types of films :
Cinderella
Sleeping Beauty.
All the rest is mere window dressing :\
Gene never made any bones of hiding influences on his stories.The major two being Hornblower and Sherlock Holmes.
Hell, the whole thing was basically a western series anyway. "Wagon Train to the stars".

I just pointed it out here. Hell, Wrath of Khan is not only one of my favorite Star Trek movies, it's one of many of my favorite movies period.
Oh, and even Sleeping Beauty was based off of a fairy tale. ;)

The writers for the Star Trek movies weren't the only once who didn't take too much effort to veil their influences. The score composers had it too. Like the opening theme for The Undiscovered Country, and how it was basically a variant version of Mars from The Planets. Hell, Eidelman even said so.

Since we're on the subject of Star Trek, which was the canon version of Bones' middle name, Horatio or Hercules? They've used both but I forget which they stuck with.