Books into Movies
by robertjsawyer on Jul.08, 2009, under Robert J. Sawyer
Here’s an updating of something I first wrote in 2001; even though my novel FlashForward has indeed sold to Hollywood, and will be a TV series on ABC this fall (and I’m delighted with the adaptation), and even though several of my other properties are currently under option, I find I still mostly agree with it:
===
It happens all the time: I meet someone, they inquire about what I do for a living, I tell them I write science-fiction novels, and they ask whether any of them have been made into movies.
Two misconceptions underlie that question, one naive and the other galling.
The naive misconception is that most novels, or at least a goodly fraction of them, get made into films. The truth is that hardly any actually do. Indeed, even most major novels don’t get produced for the silver screen. Consider the winners of the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America’s Nebula Award, the “Academy Award” of the science-fiction field. Forty-five novels have received that trophy (including my own The Terminal Experiment, which won the 1995 award). Of those 45, how many do you think have been flickified?
Only two — and, as it happens, the first two: Frank Herbert’s Dune (which won the 1965 Nebula), and Daniel Keyes’s Flowers for Algernon (which won the 1966 award, and was filmed as Charly). All the others — including such classics as Isaac Asimov’s The Gods Themselves, Orson Scott Card’s Ender’s Game, Arthur C. Clarke’s Rendezvous with Rama, William Gibson’s Neuromancer, Ursula K. Le Guin’s The Left Hand of Darkness, Joe Haldeman’s The Forever War, Larry Niven’s Ringworld, and Kim Stanley Robinson’s Red Mars — remain unfilmed.
And if books of that stature don’t get made into movies, consider just how unlikely it is that an average novel by a midlist writer is ever going to be filmed. In fact, only a handful of SF novels have ever been made into movies, and in many cases the resulting products were atrocious. David Brin’s The Postman and Robert A. Heinlein’s The Puppet Masters are great books, but the film adaptations stank. (Probably the best film ever made from an SF novel was 1968’s very liberal adaptation of Pierre Boulle’s La Planète des singes, which came out 41 years ago as the original Planet of the Apes.)
Indeed, I had dinner recently with friends, and, as it often does for us newly middle-aged folk, the topic of eventual retirement came up. One of my buddies opined that I had nothing to worry about: all I needed was for a couple of my books to be made into movies, and I’d be all set. I told her that was precisely like planning to win the lottery — the odds are about the same.
In fact, most authors don’t get rich even when a movie is made of one of their books. Option fees (the amount producers pay to have you agree not to license the movie rights to anyone else) start at about US$5,000 for a year — a nice windfall, sure, but not life-changing. And an author’s compensation if a movie is made from his or her book is typically between US$150,000 and US$500,000 — all of which comes as a lump payment, letting the tax people carve almost half right off the top. Now, yes, even after the government has siphoned off its share, that’s certainly a pile of money — but it’s only a small fraction of what the average person needs in order to retire with a middle-class income.
Now, what about the galling misconception? It’s the belief that a book is a second-rate form of expression. Unless the story is committed to film, we’re led to believe that the book is a failure.
Poppycock. Despite the pernicious auteur school of filmmaking (which promulgates the lie that the director is the sole creator of the film), movies are enormously collaborative, and therefore are exercises in compromise. A novel, on the other hand, is one person’s pure, unadulterated vision: it’s exactly what the artist intended, without concession or budgetary constraints.
People do understand this as related to other kinds of art. No one said to Michelangelo after he finished sculpting David that, well, gee, it’s a nice enough statue, but, you know, unless they make an action figure out of it, what good is it? And yet the same principle should obviously apply to books versus movies: the definitive version of Dune is Frank Herbert’s novel, not the theatrical film or the Sci-Fi Channel miniseries. And my all-time favourite SF novel, Frederik Pohl’s Gateway, won’t become one whit better than it already is if someone someday makes a movie out of it. Books are an end unto themselves, not proposals aimed at Hollywood; whether the book is a success or failure has nothing to do with whether Tinsel Town takes an interest.
So next time you’re chatting with an author, don’t ask if there have been any movies made from his or her books. Instead, ask where you can buy a copy of the actual, complete, finished work of art: the original dreamer’s words on the printed page.
After all, as everybody knows, the book is always better than the movie.
===
Thoughts, people?
Related posts:
- Does the science matter in science fiction? Okay, I confess: tonight I’m off to see the new Star Trek movie for the fifth time. But the science in the movie is just plain whacko. A supernova that threatens the entire universe? Creating singularities out of red matter, whatever the heck that is? Being able to look at...
- SF movies with bad astronomy? So, my wife (the poet Carolyn Clink) and I are at the Launch Pad Astronomy Workshop in Laramie, Wyoming, and we’re going to spend one evening watching an SF movie with bad astronomy. We’ve got dozens to choose from, and the front-runner suggestion is Armageddon. Any other suggestions, folks? (I...
- The mother of Canadian Science Fiction passes on My friend and inspiration Phyllis Gotlieb, the only Canadian to be in SFWA at its founding, the mother of Canadian science fiction, passed away yesterday at the age of 83 from complications related to a ruptured appendix. Phyllis was proof of concept that you could live in Toronto and still...
- Being conscious of consciousness Morgan from Borders just asked what is the cutting edge of science fiction. And I just came back from Readercon, where, as always, the question of what overall theme there is to Canadian science fiction came up. For me, the answer is the same thing: a scientific exploration of consciousness....
- Near-future science fiction: a cop out or cutting edge? Time has a way of catching up with you. My novel FlashForward was first published in 1999, and was set in the then-distant year of 2009 — starting in April, to be precise. Well, now the future is here: reality has caught up with what I had to say. Some...
July 8th, 2009 on 2:41 pm
“After all, as everybody knows, the book is always better than the movie.”
Provocative challenge. OK, I’ll bite.
Sticking just with SF movies:
The aforementioned “Planet of the Apes” is as good as the Pierre Boulle original. Different, to be sure, but I think better.
I’m on firmer ground with “Blade Runner”, which I think trumps Dick’s original “Do Androids…”. Unfortunately despite Hollywood’s love affair with Dick’s stories of late, that is the only one that was done well.
“Fahrenheit 451″ was a creditable effort as a movie, but in this case Bradbury’s work eclipses it.
“Jurassic Park” is certainly on a par with the book. And you can’t deny that the special effects of the first movie were a quantum leap over the rubber suit dinosaurs previous to that.
“Solaris” (the 1972 Tarkovsky version) was as good as Lem’s book, despite Lem’s condemnation of it.
But that is about all that come readily to mind.
July 8th, 2009 on 4:25 pm
Hi, Alex. I meant to put a smiley face after “The book is always better than the movie.” Of course, it’s what the authors of books are supposed to say!
Your examples are very good.
I’m also hugely a fan of THE OMEGA MAN from Richard Matheson’s I AM LEGEND; the pilot film (nominated for a Hugo) for THE SIX MILLION DOLLAR MAN (from Martin Caidin’s CYBORG); the first PBS version of THE LATHE OF HEAVEN (from Ursula K. LeGuin’s novel of the same name); and, of course, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY (from Arthur C. Clarke’s short stories “The Sentinel,” “Encounter at Dawn,” and others).
And I agree with you about BLADE RUNNER, JURASSIC PARK, and actually, yeah, about PLANET OF THE APES: the 1968 film IS better than the novel, I think.
And, actually, Disney’s 20,000 LEAGUES UNDER THE SEA is at least as good as Verne’s original, for my money.
July 8th, 2009 on 7:04 pm
I think arguing over whether movies or books are better is a reasonably pointless exercise as both are very successful and entertaining forms of expression, unless you are actually going to pit a particular book against its own movie creation. I prefer books that are character driven and have a lot of depth and I prefer movies that are fast paced and action driven but both tell a story and both work for me.
I do think it is kind of insulting to assume that everyone who writes a book wants it made into a movie. Most of my favourite books would make terribly dull movies because visually very little happens.
That said, Harry Potter is a wonderful example of something that should have stayed a book, while Spiderwick chronicles worked well on film and was fairly underrated (two fantasy series, both designed for younger readers).
Though if you want the clear and pronounced difference between books and movies watch and read Jaws. Arguably one of the best horror movies and defintiely thrilling, it is suspenseful and chilling and works brilliantly on film. The book, however, is not. It is a brilliant character piece about a police officer and his family and the relationships that are stressed and changed after the shark moves into the area. Brilliant, but nothing like the film that was made from it.
Thanks for the great post.
July 8th, 2009 on 10:47 pm
Thank you for this! Not only did you help blow the Hollywood misconceptions away, you helped solidify my disgust in Hollywood.
It’s very hard for me to see a movie adaptation of a book because I know I’m in for some sort of disappointment. Either the casting will be nothing like I expected, or scenes I wanted visualized will be omitted. Plus, most times the plotting for the film takes too many justices (changing the entire ending for Sister’s Keeper and Watchmen for example….sheesh!). In terms of Watchmen, the new ending worked and made more sense than a giant space squid, but I wanted to see the squid!
It’s gotten to the point that I won’t necessarily go see a movie if I enjoyed the book.
Reading the book is so much more fulfilling. For one thing, a movie is three hours tops while a book can last as long as you want it to. I’m all for original art as opposed to interpretations.
And another thing, when will Hollywood start coming up with original ideas? It’s as if they just want to take the easy way out and adapt a good book or remake a classic from another time. It’s frustrating.
I just read somewhere this evening, one movie studio is working on a way to make a movie out of the Viewmaster toy…..seriously?
I’m officially stepping off the soapbox and really appreciate this post. It was very eye-opening.
July 10th, 2009 on 11:30 pm
I just loved the Michelangelo comparison. Just excellent.
One of the biggest disconnects between book and movie that I can recall “recently” is Starship Troopers.
July 16th, 2009 on 7:25 pm
Thanks for the kick in the pants to us movie lovers. We needed it! I have long known that the two are distinct works to be praised or criticized on the merits of that medium, but I never thought of it in those terms. Having a daughter studying art, I fully understand and love your point. And I promise never to ask an author if a movie has been made (although I reserve the right to check and see for myself if I loved the book - I enjoy seeing a different take on a beloved story).
But … as a dedicated book AND movie lover (I have vast collections of both), I have to stand up for those who may ask. It may be offensive, but sometimes they are merely inquiring because they loved the book, and want more - want to see if a director’s visualization matches their own - they may want to be immersed in the the more tangible (visual and aural) senses of a movie.
And I know from experience that movies have made me look for the book behind it - such was the case with one of my favorite non-SF authors, Nevil Shute. I saw “A Town Like Alice” on PBS many eons ago, and searched the credits for a book. Found it, read it, and read everything he wrote, even though it took twenty years to find them all.
So although I cannot disagree with any of your comments, I do have to stand up for the movie lover.
July 18th, 2009 on 10:03 pm
I would tend to agree with Mr. Sawyer’s assessment that books being made into movies usually stink.
I believe there are several quantifiable reasons for this.
Cost. Let’s face it. Sci-Fi movies are expensive. Effects cost money. Plain and simple. The return on investment of a science fiction film is not as high as on other genres. Sure there are some that make lots of money, and make a tidy profit, but we’re talking generalities here. When not enough money is thrown at something as big as science fiction movies, people remember how shoddy it was, even if the story and acting were great. Low cost movies can be done but they are few and far between. i.e. “Primer”
Interest. I think Sci-Fi is not as popular a genre as many of us would tend to think - both the written form and the film form. Indeed, many science fiction print magazines have gone out of business or switched to an online outlet and even those are having problems. Interestingly enough, big blockbuster movies are usually science fiction. Go figure. Demographics play a key role here. Women usually don’t run out to see the latest Star Wars movie, or Terminator. They only go because the kids want to see it, or they are accompanying their boyfriend/husband. They don’t want to be there any more than someone wants a root canal.
Conversion Issues. How do you take sprawling books like Dune (which I’ve read 6 times) and convert them to film? There’s far too much character, too much plot, too many subtleties that get lost when you attempt to film them and stuff them into 2 hours. Sure you can make a mini-series like Dune on the Sci-Fi Channel, but it still didn’t come close. Look at Robert Sawyer’s “Flash Forward.” I’ve read the book and enjoyed it very much, but the more I hear about the series the more I get worried that it won’t live up to the novel. Certainly, from what I’ve heard so far, “they” are making changes to the plot. So is it still “Flash Forward” or a derivative work?
My 2 cents.
June 1st, 2010 on 12:42 pm
hi,really good pants,do you know where i can find that.thanks,bill