'Unfilmable Books'

[iansales]

First of all, the books of the Foundation trilogy are pretty much collections loosely stringed-together stories. There's a story-arc but no overall plot. So a film could only be made of one story in the books. That doesn't make the books unfilmable, unless you consider all books to be unfilmable. As for the ideas... what few there are in the Foundation trilogy can easily be represented on film.

The problem is that no film can really capture a book's essence, because the two media are too different. There's also the time factor - you can't squeeze a 400-page novel into 2 hours, never mind a 800-page novel. But you can get a story out of a book and film that, and Hollywood has been doing that relatively successfully for decades.

So no novel is truly unfilmable. It would just be a film, and not a novel in moving pictures.

 

[Connavar]

I think its the other way around. Only the best scriptwriters and the ones who can capture the essence of a book and make a film out of it.

In that sense many books are unfilmable cause of lack of those kind of script writers. The Godfather is a perfect example, the movie is the best version of a book there is. Why because the writer wrote the book too.

Getting a story of out a book that can be made by any fool in hollywood.

Look at the superhero movies. Many of them are true films of great works of comics. Because the writers,directors admire the comics they make a movie of.
Rodriguez in Sin City was a fan and captured the essence. The same with Spiderman,300 etc

 

[Fried Egg]

When I think about filming the Foundation, one particular scene always springs to mind; the psycological battle between the Mule and the leader of the second foundation. A scene that contains a dramatic and tense battle between the two with many cuts and thrusts but all taking place in their heads. On camera it would just be the two sat there facing each other, maybe the odd bead of sweat occaisionally breaking out.

Generally, many of the stories centre around dialog and crisis points are resolved without action and violence. Ok, that doesn't necessarilly make it unfimable but Hollywood just doesn't tend to handle science fiction like that. Would they be able to resist the temptation to introduce some battle scenes, and chase sequences?

 

[AE35Unit]

Good point there Conn!

 

[iansales]

Conn - there are plenty of films that are better than their source novels. Marnie is a good example, so is The Commitments. Neither script was written by the original authors. I actually think that getting the novelist to write the screenplay is less likely to result in a good film - because writing a novel is not the same as writing a screenplay.

Superhero movies don't really belong in this discussion. The story is immaterial, it's about the character(s). There are such a vast number of stories in the comics, there'd be no way to represent them in a single film, or trilogy of films. all a filmmaker can do is remain true to the character of the superhero - and even then, they don't always do that. Look how many times Batman has been re-imagined, in both comics and films and television.

As for the "essence" of a science fiction novel... What would that be? The author's voice? Can't be that, because so many sf authors write bland prose with little or no voice. The story? In many cases, there's very little that's not been done before in that department - don't forget that the Foundation trilogy is a sf version of The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire. And there was a movie made of that. The ideas, then. So for something like Rendezvous with Rama that means, er, Rama. And for Ringworld, it means, well, the ringworld. Easy enough to do on film these days with CGI. Of course, you'd have to come up with a proper three-act story with character arcs for it to play in a movie. But that's not very difficult.

I wrote a blog post back in Febrary about sf novels that I thought would make good films - see here.

 

[Connavar]

Better or worse wasnt what im saying. I said a film that captured the essence of the original book. I can respect film that is bad but atleast they tried to adapt the book.

Superhero movies always adapt a famous story of the character. The origin,or original famous stories. The newest Batman film was based on 2-3 famous stories. Which was easy to see for the comics reader. It was good because they didnt make their own take on Batman, they took inspiration Frank Miller,Alan Moore stories like Year One,The Dark Knight Returns,The Killing Joke.

The essence is simple, its catching the tone of a book,what the author was trying to tell. Its not about effects or action. Hollywood can remake Roman empire story like you mentioned but they want effects,action from SF. The problem is the people that make SF movies in hollywood. They are Spielberg type directors....

They arent directors,writers trying to make a serious movie.

 

[Rodders]

Wasn't Dune supposed to be unfilmable in it's day?

I'd have to agree with AE. I don't think that any book is now unfilmable. With todays Special Effects and a certain amount of licence by any studio, anything is good for the screen. How we feel about a movie based on our most beloved books as fans however is a different story and it could be argued that it's only out subjective opinion that would make a book seem to be unfilmable.

 

[iansales]

Conn - even some superhero origin stories have changed over the years. In the Tim Burton's film, Batman's parents are killed by a young Joker; in Batman Begins, they're not. But I take your point that most are in some way based on a story originally published as a comic.

As for the "essence"... I'm still not sure what you mean. What would the essence of Foundation be? And how would that be difficult to translate ot film?

 

[Urlik]

Have you not seen Hogfather?

yes I have seen Hogfather and Colour of Magic, but the humour wasn't there. it looked fantastic but just felt flat.
in contrast, I have seen a local AmDram production of Guards Guards and found it to immensly enjoyable and in the spirit of the book.

there was a lot of money thrown at the Sky productions and there were some great actors in them, but somehow it didn't quite translate onto the screen.

 

[Connavar]

Conn - even some superhero origin stories have changed over the years. In the Tim Burton's film, Batman's parents are killed by a young Joker; in Batman Begins, they're not. But I take your point that most are in some way based on a story originally published as a comic.

As for the "essence"... I'm still not sure what you mean. What would the essence of Foundation be? And how would that be difficult to translate ot film?

The essence can be for Foundation that the historical sweep of Foundation in the stories ,psychohistory that is more important the characters.


If you were gonna make a film on RAH story you should focus on ideology,characters,the culture the story is set in. Moon is a Harsh Mistress for example. About lunar revolution,the growth from prison to thier own culture,nation. A film about it shouldnt be a simple war,action story. I hope you understand what i mean. Essence can be what makes a book what its about,what the writer was telling about.

Fantasy like LOTR has got films that showed what the books is all about. I hope a classic SF story can become like that. Not in popularity,BO money but the quality of the film.

 

[iansales]

It would be difficult to show the historical sweep of anything in a movie. Nor, I think, will modern cinema audiences want a film to do so. The new Star Trek seemed to prove they don't even particularly care about common sense or science. Likewise, psychohistory simply isn't dramatic.

And if you make a film focusing on the ideology of Heinlein's novels, well, you might as well make a party political broadcast. You can get away with things like that in a novel but not in a film. If any movie was made of The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, then it would be about the actual revolution and the fighting. Because that's what cinema audiences want.

 

[Urlik]

I've worked out why the Sky adaptations of Terry Pratchett's books didn't work for me.
they had the dialogue and the characters did what they did in the books, but they didn't have the book.
so much of Pratchett's genius is in the footnotes and the passages that describe the setting rather than what is said and done. that is where the real humour and the social observation is and without that, the screenplay is missing at least half the story.
a good example is the recurring theme of economies built on the carrying capabilities of little old ladies dressed in black. not once, to my recollection, does any character ever mention this. a little old lady may appear in a screenplay carrying a large bundle, but without the reference the joke and social comment are lost.

this is why the stage adaptation worked for me though. that has the book at the side of the stage and we get all those wonderful footnotes and the added depth to the scenes and characters.

 

[j d worthington]

Conn - there are plenty of films that are better than their source novels. Marnie is a good example, so is The Commitments. Neither script was written by the original authors. I actually think that getting the novelist to write the screenplay is less likely to result in a good film - because writing a novel is not the same as writing a screenplay.

Ian, if you are referring to those who are only used to writing prose for the printed page, I think you'd be 100% correct. However, those who have also had some experience writing screenplays (or radio plays, or stage plays) often do quite well at transferring their work to other media... though they also have the advantage of being able to take liberties no one else would be likely to (didn't Agatha Christie completely remove Poirot from the stage version of Death on the Nile, for instance?).

As for the "essence" of a science fiction novel... What would that be? The author's voice? Can't be that, because so many sf authors write bland prose with little or no voice. The story? In many cases, there's very little that's not been done before in that department - don't forget that the Foundation trilogy is a sf version of The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire. And there was a movie made of that. The ideas, then. So for something like Rendezvous with Rama that means, er, Rama. And for Ringworld, it means, well, the ringworld. Easy enough to do on film these days with CGI. Of course, you'd have to come up with a proper three-act story with character arcs for it to play in a movie. But that's not very difficult.

I think it's a good deal more complicated than that, in man cases. The ideas may not be a single symbol, entity, or situation, but a host of different things addressed throughout the book, but which may all be interrelated. Heinlein's Stranger is a good example of this, as he brings into question numerous themes, including religion, politics, myth, anthropology, humor, psychology, art, philosophy, the media, sexuality, morality, and many more. Moorcock's Cornelius stories address a lot of the same themes, but in quite different ways -- and I think neither of these -- and these are, really, the "essence" or "heart" of the books -- would transfer well to the screen. They would be too cumbersome, unwieldy, and confusing if you wish to capture the feel or essence of these books, rather than simply transferring the skeletal plot elements. Hence, the books are unfilmable.

 

[gully_foyle]

Hugh Jackman as Gully Foyle? I don't think so. It has to be someone alot less attractive, cold and brutal yet charismatic and aristocratic. A Daniel Craig type, but without the star power, because it is a Monte Christo story of someone rising up from anonymity to the heights of society, and having a too familiar face would kind of go against that.

And as for being un-filmable (and I probably amn't the first to point this out), it is apparently in production.

 

[kythe]

Snow Crash by Neil Stephenson is one book I love that I would say is unfilmable. How would you capture that "world" while maintaining the satire and the nature of the characters? I don't believe any cyberpunk books have been made into movies, or will be.

 

[J-Sun]

I don't believe any cyberpunk books have been made into movies, or will be.

Johnny Mnemonic, duude.

Actually, that's a cyberpunk story rather than book/novel, though, and I've never seen the movie, so it may not qualify as actually being based on the story.

 

[High Eight]

Looks very interesting. I haven't read Hyperion yet, is it any good?

I found it .....OK. Meh. It went on a bit, but was readable. The ending was quite good (I'm not going to spoil it).

The sequels were, however, hideously pretentious and overwritten to within an inch of their collective life.

But then I've never been a Simmons fan.

 

[Rodders]

I really liked it. I must admit that it did take me a while to actually get round and read it, but when i did, i found the experience rewarding enough. I also enjoyed the sequels too.

 

[Jev]

Of course, I may be setting myself up for a fall (COMING THIS SUMMER: 'Siddhartha', by Michael Bay!) -- but Hermann Hesse's books strike me as distinctly unable to film. I initially say this because as a naive teenager, I thought 'Journey to the East' would make a good short screenplay project to try. It, uh, didn't.

As an exception, 'Steppenwolf' might work if handled by the right person. I'm thinking Tarsem Singh ('The Fall'/'The Cell') would be a good choice, but I don't know anyone else who would get the tone exactly right without overselling it or Matrix-izing it, which would be about twenty different kinds of wrong.

 

[AE35Unit]

Hmmm Galactic Pot Healer by Philip K Dick. Now that would be a challenge to film!