Books based on movies or computer games: Are they doomed to be bad?

[Lemmy]

Here's something that has bothered me for some time. Not many of my friends bother read books, and those who do usually prefer popular books based on the real world. Crime and stuff like that, mostly. Many won't even consider a good fantasy book (unless it's Lord of the Rings), and even sci-fi are out of the question for them. That's their loss, in my opinion. But there's something that really bothers me. Many of them love a good movie, and many of them want sequels for the movies they love. Which is fair enough, who doesn't? But here's the thing. Many movies, especially horror, already have plenty of sequels many people won't even consider - simply because they are not movies.

Take Freddy vs Jason, for example. The movie itself doesn't make sense, but if you forget that, it's quite entertaining. So naturally, a lot of people want a sequel. What they forget or simply ignore is that we already have a sequel. It's called Freddy vs Jason vs Ash. And yes, that's Ash from the Evil Dead-movies, and it's pretty darn good. The reason many won't consider it is because it's not a movie. Or to be precise, they made a script and planned to make it as a movie, but it got cancelled before they had the chance. Instead, they made it as a comic book. A darn good one, too.

What about Evil Dead 4? Can it ever be made? Well... it already has. There might even be several sequels already. I don't know how many there are, but I have a comic book called Army of Darkness 2: Ashes to Ashes, and it's a pretty direct sequel to Army of Darkness. Or Evil Dead 3, if you want. But again, it's not a movie, so most "fans" just ignore it.

And the list goes on. Want more Elm Street, Friday 13th, Texas Chainsaw Massacre or Final Destination? All of them have been expanded into books, and the books I've read are pretty darn good. Nightmare on Elm Street: Dreamspawn are even far better than most of the movies and highly recommended. Next on my reading list is Predator: Turnabout. Yep, it's the good, old Predators. But it's a book, so many people don't care.

But why is that? Why are people so ignorant when it comes to books and comic books that they refuse to care about a sequel to a beloved movie just because the sequel is not a movie? Is it because they demand the special effects? Are they too lazy to read books? Are the stories so weak they don't think they can be expanded into a full book? I have no idea. All I know is I've read several books based on movies, and most of them are pretty darn good. If you can turn Friday 13th into great books, you can turn anything into great books. You just have to give them a try.

 

[Vertigo]

I must admit I tend to steer clear of them. So maybe I'm prejudiced. But then I see quite a lot of movies that I really enjoy even if the story is not that good (eg Avatar); they are a great visual experience but I know I wouldn't have the patience to read such a bad story. I'm afraid most SF movies fall into that category for me though there are exceptions (usually when the movie is an adaptation of an existing good book - often a PKD one!).

However here's a good exception: 2001 A Space Odyssey. Although it was based on an Arthur C Clarke short story and he worked on the script. The actual book was not written until after the film.

 

[Lemmy]

But that's kinda the point. A lot of books are pretty darn good. And what about comics? Are you trying to say you don't have the patience for them either?

 

[soulsinging]

But that's kinda the point. A lot of books are pretty darn good. And what about comics? Are you trying to say you don't have the patience for them either?

They're totally different markets. How would the average movie goer even know such a book exists? Movies come out with all kinds of commercials and trailers and advertising... that doesn't happen for books. Not many people watch those endless sequels anyway (they go right to dvd usually), so why would the books be any more successful? I wouldn't watch the movies for free... and I wouldn't read the novels if you paid me.

Plus, using comics and books interchangeably doesn't make sense. They're not the same. A lot of mainstream folks think comics are for kids and wouldn't read the Watchmen, let alone another recycled Freddy Kreuger plot.

Also, I assume when you refer to crime novels you're talking about James PAtterson and the like? How are his novels any different from a typical horror movie? The only difference is that instead of having a supernatural demon doing the killing, it's a psycho human.

 

[Menion]

I hear you, I read The Infernal City by Greg Keyes based on a videogame I love. He totaly brutalized it! And I first saw The Pillers of the Earth by Ken Follet as a series on TV and then ranout and bought the book... They ruined the book by making that series.
The World of Warcraft novels are actualy rather good and stick to the game world.
Terry Pratchett's Discworld movies are also good in my opinion, the same can be said for the Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter movies. I'm sure The Hobbit will live up to our expectations.

One last bit L Ron Hubbard's book Battlefield Earth Is brilliant, but have you people seen the movie with John Travolta (I think) They ruined it!!

 

[Metryq]

Vertigo, as I understand it, the 2001: A Space Odyssey book and movie were written in tandem. The differences between the two are partly due to the differences in the media. One gross example is that the Discovery mission in the movie was bound for Jupiter, while in the book it was Saturn. The FX artists couldn't make a satisfactory Saturn at the time (which Trumbull later achieved in Silent Running). So why wasn't the book altered to fit? Eh, just one of those things. Clarke wanted the second monolith on Iapetus for the "eye." Remember that all "deep space" imagery at the time was via telescope. And perhaps Clarke thought the markings on Iapetus seemed more mysterious and "artificial-looking." I wholeheartedly agree that "good" science fiction films are very rare.

But back to the topic of the thread.

Any medium can have good writing, but not every story is suited to every medium — it is only marketing departments that think so. Some of the times the spin-off mania can get pretty silly. The Rocketeer was originally a very finely illustrated comic created by Dave Stevens during the early '80s. The story was smartly translated to the big screen in 1991. The movie differed a little from the comic, but is essentially true to its origins. Then guess what? Some genius decided to make a comic book spin-off based on the movie! (The art was terrible.)

Many of the more recent videogames have a narrative in which the player takes part — either in the form of a branching narrative (like some books), or where the player is forced into following a given narrative with video "cut scenes" to give the player's fingers a rest. Either way, the stories are generally not very deep. Such stories might work as action movies. But unless the script writers heavily rework the material, don't expect the movie to be significantly "better" than the game.

Some people prefer games, though. They'd rather be involved than be a passive observer. As Soulsinging noted, there are different markets, and the marketing people are trying to hit them all with the same property. I'm no fan of horror flicks. However, the nature of such stories seems better suited to the more visceral movie medium — fast-paced editing, graphic visual FX and pulse-pounding music. How can a comic book compete with that? And the answer is: by telling the story in a slightly different way suited to the medium.

Don't even get me started on sequels. Many stories are one-shot deals not intended to continue after a climactic point. But that won't stop the marketing people and the producers. If once was good, do it again! In my opinion, some sequels work, most don't. Yet people gobble them up anyway. Sturgeon's Law ("Ninety percent of anything is crud") is simple statistics. However, the endless sequels, remakes, reboots, reimaginings and so on based on previous movies, TV shows, or videogames shows that many media get taken over by marketers and push the artists out.

 

[soulsinging]

Many of the more recent videogames have a narrative in which the player takes part — either in the form of a branching narrative (like some books), or where the player is forced into following a given narrative with video "cut scenes" to give the player's fingers a rest. Either way, the stories are generally not very deep. Such stories might work as action movies. But unless the script writers heavily rework the material, don't expect the movie to be significantly "better" than the game.

You make a good point here... video game movies have traditionally fared pretty poorly in translation. Uncharted is apparently the next one due up. I can't really see it being any better than the Lara Croft flicks. But it's not always easy to skillfully switch mediums like that, be it video game to film, or film/game to book.

 

[Vertigo]

That's interesting Metryq, though I guess my point still stands that it is a good example where both the book and the movie work well.

I do agree the rest of your points. I'm not a gamer - between work and this forum I spend altogether too much time on my computer - nor do I read graphic novels - I'm not against them I just don't find I get as deep a sense of satisfaction from them. However I can see how they are very different media and not every idea will work well in all of them, though of course occasionally you will get some that do. Again I've not read them but I do know that there are a whole host of spin off Star Trek books and I guess they can't be all that bad for there to be so many of them. Actually I must try one one day just to see...

 

[Rodders]

I don't think that's really a fair generalisation. For me, the SF movie tie in books were a gateway into SF and play an important role in the SF Genre. Over the time i've read a lot of hugely entertaining Star Trek and Star Wars books. I recently read two books based on the Eve online game which were very good and Dan Abnett's Warhammer 40K books are superb.

 

[J Riff]

Judge Dredd was good 'til they made a movie of it. Watchmen is better as a graphic novel. The run of superhero movies starting with Batman are no better the comics, plot-wise the graphic novels win again. The movies win for FX although there are some great comic series out there, art-wise, that break away from trad comic book art.
Poisannally, I'd like to be able to afford the Jonah Hex graphic novel - in black and white. Is that exciting or what?

 

[Lemmy]

They're totally different markets. How would the average movie goer even know such a book exists?

That's an easy one. Google it. If you type Friday 13th into google, you will get a lot of hits including 'the friday 13th franchise' on wikipedia. (I know, but it's just an example.) If you read it, you can read about all the movies including the sequel to the reboot, a brief summary of the Friday 13th books and Jason X books (they aren ot related, btw) and even comic books. If you have any interest in a movie beyond the movie you just saw, you will be amazed how many movies have spin-offs of somne kind. Did you know there's a fifth Jaws-movie? Or a sequel to Lost Boys? There's even a Lost Boys 3, and I wouldn't be surprised if they made a fourth one too. The third one wasn't that bad, actually. And let's just say if they do make a fourth, there probably won't be vampires anymore. Which suits me great.

Anyway, my point is if you care about a franchise, why stick to the movies only? You do know a little thing called Star Wars? Do you have any idea how many books and comic books there are based on it? What about Terminator? Alien? Predator? Alien vs Predator? Heck, I have a comic book with Aliens vs Superman, Aliens vs Green Lantern, Batman vs Predator, even Superman vs Terminator. All of them are pretty good, too. And with all the fuzz about we finally got a Predator-movie and an Alien-prequel in the works, it's kinda funny to think that a lot of people don't think there have been any stories since Alien: Resurrection and Predator 2. Some idiots even say Alien is all about Ripley.

Edit: And sure, a lot of stories are made for a format and won't translate well. Do anyone here actually enjoy the Resident Evil moves? I think they are an abomination that should be erased from the face of the planet and forgotten by history. But have anyone here read the books based on Resident Evil? I have six of them. The first one is more or less a walkthrough of the first game, but then it starts getting interesting. The second book is based on characters from the first game, but it's a brand new story. And guess what? All those six books are brilliant. There are more books too, but I haven't read them yet, sadly. What I have read are Starcraft-novels, and most of them are excellent.

My point is it's easy to turn a movie into a crappy book, or the other way around. But does that mean we should judge all books based on the crappy one? Yes, Judge Dredd was a (heehee) dreadfull movie. But does that mean we should ignore the new movie? Who knows, it can actually be good. The first Hulk-movie was aweful, but the second wasn't so bad. The first Captain America was so bad I doubt most of you have even heard of it, but the new one sounds interesting. Just because one movie suck, it doesn't mean all other movies in the franchise will suck. Same with books. If one book suck, it doesn't mean the next one will.

 

[woodsman]

Well I don't think there's any absolutes in literature, but from personal experience I'd say it doesn't work too well. One thing that is great is when a franchise book of a film/game gets people, who otherwise wouldn't be; reading. This is always a bonus, especially if they then move onto better books from other authors.

Personally most of the films I watch that interest me enough, to consider reading the book, have already come from a book. Not sure how this helps but I don't ever really wish for sequels and often take some time to watch them even if I loved the original.

I also think it comes down to taste - Rodders mentions that he enjoys Abnett - who I found shallow and uninteresting with violent but pointless plot lines. However, having said things to friends who read black library stuff I have introduced some of them to alternatives in classic SF and seen them start to read a lot more.

 

[Lemmy]

But let's forget the whole movie/game/book side for now and let's just focus on one thing: The franchise. It doesn't matter if it's Warhammer, Friday 13th, Lord of the Rings or whatever. Can any franchises be good enough that you want more stories take place in it? And if so, does it really matter what format the story is in? And if so, why?

 

[soulsinging]

That's an easy one. Google it. If you type Friday 13th into google, you will get a lot of hits including 'the friday 13th franchise' on wikipedia. (I know, but it's just an example.) If you read it, you can read about all the movies including the sequel to the reboot, a brief summary of the Friday 13th books and Jason X books (they aren ot related, btw) and even comic books. If you have any interest in a movie beyond the movie you just saw, you will be amazed how many movies have spin-offs of somne kind. Did you know there's a fifth Jaws-movie? Or a sequel to Lost Boys? There's even a Lost Boys 3, and I wouldn't be surprised if they made a fourth one too. The third one wasn't that bad, actually. And let's just say if they do make a fourth, there probably won't be vampires anymore. Which suits me great.

Anyway, my point is if you care about a franchise, why stick to the movies only?

I think most people just don't care that much about most of the franchises. Horror is a pretty small genre to begin, so the number of people getting that into it is small too. I actually read a lot of the Star Wars books back in the day, and I think most of them were pretty awful to be honest (Zahn's trilogy aside). Usually when a franchise becomes serialized you get a lot of weak efforts, bordering on fanfic. For instance, the zombie star wars novel... it becomes more about milking a dedicated fan base, the way Hardy Boys books came out one a month.

I don't think it's specific to books based on games or movies though... Dragonlance has really only been books, and a lot of them are terrible too. Once you have built-in name recognition of the brand (Dragonlance, Resident Evil, Friday the 13th), you can have anyone write them and somebody will buy it, so it makes sense to just keep cranking them out regardless of quality. There may be the occasional gem in there, but you're wading through a lot of dreck to get it. So only the most die hard fans will bother.

 

[Lemmy]

Actually Dragonlance started as a pen and paper roleplaying game, and it's still going even today. The first books (Dragonlance Chronicles) were based on the game, but they got so popular the books evolved into a whole new universe on their own. Since then there's been stories all the way from the very begnning (and I mean the beginning) to the very end. More or less. And a lot of them have been great. Many are horribly bad, yes, but with so many books in the series, there's bound to be books all the way from classics to aweful. A certain Lord Soth even made his way into Ravenloft and had two books in that series, before he returned to Dragonlance. We even had a story about him from he was a kid until he became the death knight we know him as. It's a pretty interesting story.

What saddens me the most is that as you say, most people don't care enough about a franchise to look for more of it. But why then did we get seven Saw-movies so far, with rumors of an eight movie? Explain that if you can.

 

[Metryq]

But why then did we get seven Saw-movies so far, with rumors of an eight movie? Explain that if you can.

Painlessly separating fools from their money.

 

[AE35Unit]

Well Greg Bear is an author I will always read (apart from Slant, ahem) and the Halo books, based on the game franchise, will be written by him so maybe they might just be decent. Or not....

 

[AE35Unit]

However here's a good exception: 2001 A Space Odyssey. Although it was based on an Arthur C Clarke short story and he worked on the script. The actual book was not written until after the film.

They were pretty much released at the same time, the film was begun in 1964 based on a story from the 50s, but it was released in 68, the book very shortly after. The thing people, publisher's included, forget is that the book should be credited as by Clarke and Kubrick!

 

[woodsman]

Actually Dragonlance started as a pen and paper roleplaying game, and it's still going even today. The first books (Dragonlance Chronicles) were based on the game, but they got so popular the books evolved into a whole new universe on their own. Since then there's been stories all the way from the very begnning (and I mean the beginning) to the very end. More or less. And a lot of them have been great. Many are horribly bad, yes, but with so many books in the series, there's bound to be books all the way from classics to aweful.

What saddens me the most is that as you say, most people don't care enough about a franchise to look for more of it. But why then did we get seven Saw-movies so far, with rumors of an eight movie? Explain that if you can.

Classics is often overused and I highly doubt thereare any hiding amongst the dragonlance books .

You've hit the nail on the head though, for me at least. Why would I continue to read books set in the world when some are complete dross? To go back to Warhammer books (only franchise I really have any experience with), if you take Abnett as the best of a bad bunch what happens when you then read Swallow? Do you ignore anything by him and lose part of the story, or do you force yourself to read a book, in a style you hate, in order to get a more complete picture? I think reading endless books in the same world is constricting, how many other worlds can be explored, characters met, ideas challenged?

Why do we get franchises and sequels - money mainly. It has little to do with quality, otherwise I'd probably have a bust of Dan Brown on my desk.

Why does it not produce good literature generally? I think again, the monetary constraints cause authors to play it safe. they're not looking for anything too new or exciting, generally a straightforward (insert genre) story and why not; it sells. Secondly authors are working in a pre constructed world rather than building their own which, it appears, is not generally conducive to anything particularly interesting IMHO.

Seven Saw films:
embarrassed for the human race. Making one was questionable.

 

[Lemmy]

Well Greg Bear is an author I will always read (apart from Slant, ahem) and the Halo books, based on the game franchise, will be written by him so maybe they might just be decent. Or not....

Actually if I'm not mistaken, the Halo FPS games are based on the books. Or at least the universe created by the books. I wouldn't know about new Halo-books as I never even liked that setting in the first place.

Classics is often overused and I highly doubt thereare any hiding amongst the dragonlance books .

That depends on your view on classics, I guess. Do you have any idea how many books there are in the Dragonlance-saga? I have well over a hundred myself, and there are at least twice as many. And yes, I think some of them are classics that even people who don't like fantasy can enjoy. I refuse to say which one as everyone has a different taste, but they are not all the same. Some are epic stuff about saving the world, while others are about gnomes charting the ocean floor. I think my favorite is about a blind woman and her pet tiger (aka magically transformed human servant) on a quest deep into enemy territory on their own. It's very different from anything else I've read and actually pretty darn good.

You've hit the nail on the head though, for me at least. Why would I continue to read books set in the world when some are complete dross?

For the same reason a crappy sequel shouldn't be allowed to ruin a popular franchise. Think about Star Wars, for instance. I have yet to meet anyone who enjoyed Episode 1, and even Episodes 2 and 3 are not very popular with most people. Still, is that enough to ruin the franchise? Hardly. And sure, they made a Clone Wars animated tv-series no one has heard about, and let's not forget the dreadful Holiday special. It's so bad George Lucas don't want people to know it exists. And with good reason, I dare say. It's horrible. But then they went and made a movie called Star Wars: The Clone Wars. It's all in CGI, and it's actually not so bad. After that, they made a Star Wars: The Clone Wars tv-series in CGI, and it's pretty darn good. Don't just take my word for it, but the fact it's well into it's third season says a bit. My point is Star Wars: Episode 1 is an abomination we should erase from history, and Episode 2 and 3 are not much better. But that doesn't mean the whole franchise is bad.

The same goes for any other franchise. If you watch a tv-series and they made an episode you didn't like, should it mean the end of the series for you? Hardly. You sit through the episode (or shut it off), watch the next one and enjoy the series. So why doesn't this go for books as well? Even Stephen King wrote some crappy books, but that doesn't mean I don't want more books from him. Clive Barker started writing children's books, but I would still read a new horror book from him any day. So if we have six movies in a series and I enjoy them all, does it matter if the seventh suck? The eight one can still be good.

So to get to the point, if you love Warhammer and read a bad Warhammer book, why would that mean the end of Warhammer for you? Why not just ignore that book and read one you do like?

Why does it not produce good literature generally? I think again, the monetary constraints cause authors to play it safe. they're not looking for anything too new or exciting, generally a straightforward (insert genre) story and why not; it sells. Secondly authors are working in a pre constructed world rather than building their own which, it appears, is not generally conducive to anything particularly interesting IMHO.

The last Nightmare on Elm Street I read wasn't just unlike the movies, but half the book was a highschool drama. Even when Freddy showed up, he had a minor part in the story. And I loved every page of it. There are several books based on Resident Evil, and all of the books based on the games are great in my opinion. I've even read great Star Wars books. Imagine that. I think the problem is we usually discredit a book before we even read it, just because it's based on a game. Think about superheroes, for that matter. Smallville is well into it's 10th season, making it the longest running sci-fi tv-series ever. And it's all about Clark Kent before he became Superman. Batman: Arkham Asylum is often rated one of the best games of all time, and it's about Batman. Christopher Reeve got famous for playing Superman in three movies. (well, four, but... nah.) And if you ever get the chance, you might want to read Batman: The Ultimate Evil. It's Batman fighting... uh, child prostitution. I read it literally in one sitting the second time I read it.

And all of them are based on comic books. Just like that, we have characters successfully starring in computer games, tv-series, movies, novels and comic books. So why can't Freddy or Jason show up in a good book? Why is an Aliens-book doomed to fail? Why can't Star Wars or Star Trek be expanded beyond the tv-series and movies?

Seven Saw films:
embarrassed for the human race. Making one was questionable.

Actually the first one was a classic beyond doubt. It was one of the very few movies where I kept guessing the killer all the time, and I kept wondering who the killer was until the very end. Even then I was surprised. Then they made Saw 2, ignored everything that was good with Saw 1 and focused entirely on the gore. I am ashamed to say I have seen all seven of them, but the last six were horrible. Still, that doesn't mean all franchises are bad just because some of the installments are bad. Alien is a classic, but how could they repeat it in a sequel and make it just as good? They couldn't, so Aliens (or Alien 2) is a war-movie with aliens. And it's another classic.