Science Fiction: Films vs Books

[Brian G Turner]

A common point I've heard mentioned by those in publishing is that fantasy outsells science fiction by around 3:1.

In fact, science fiction can be very niche indeed - I seem to recall that a debut SF author can ordinarily expect a print run of around 1,000 books in the UK.

And Iain M Banks is on record somewhere of saying that the Wasp Factor sold more books than all his SF novels together.

I may have misconstrued some of the above, or get some figures slightly wrong.

The point is, science fiction books tend not to sell big.

And yet - when I look at the films that have come out over the past year, I see a lot of science fiction - Elysium, Oblivion, Pacific Rim, Gravity, Cloud Atlas - just for starters.

And very little fantasy. The only title I can think of is The Hobbit.

My designation of science fiction vs fantasy is simple: if the focus is on space, future, or tech development, then it's science fiction. If it's pseudo-mediaeval and non-historical, then it's fantasy.

People who want to argue the nuances of what constitutes "real" science fiction can sit in the naughty corner and argue among themselves.

No matter where the definition is argued, though, it's clear that science fiction themes are more commonly explored in film - yet the readership is very niche.

Is this simply because film helps serve the visuals of science fiction much more effectively?

Or is it that science fiction is perceived to be too often obsessed with hard science extrapolations?

Just curious, as noticed the issue while ordering films to rent for the week.

 

[Mouse]

Pretty narrow definition of fantasy, Brian! What about The Mortal Instruments? Not pseudo-medieval, so not fantasy? Thor? Frozen?

 

[Brian G Turner]

Oops - I can see I'm failing on definitions again.

Perhaps I've spent too long reading Epic Fantasy and that's clouded my perception of how to define the fantasy genre.

Supernatural-themed stories such as Mortal Instruments I would have considered as Horror genre. Thor - a difficult one, that mixes things up - an alien race so technologically advanced that humans regard them as gods.

Am afraid I haven't seen Frozen until it's released on DVD/Blu-ray.

But what I mean is - where are the recognisably, undisputed fantasy films?

Or have I totally undermined myself by having far too narrow a definition of what constitutes fantasy?

Either way, why is science fiction so popular on screen but not in the bookshop - if what I've been told can be believed to be true? Or am I confusing apples and oranges here?

 

[Mouse]

Or have I totally undermined myself by having far too narrow a definition of what constitutes fantasy?

Yes.

I wouldn't have said Mortal Instruments was horror.

I could've given you Seventh Son as a pseudo-medieval fantasy film, but it's release date was pushed back from 2013 til 2015!

How about Epic? Was that 2013? Hansel and Gretel. Oz.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

There's definitely a discrepancy in sci fi films vs books ( I do hope you're wrong about the figures, though), but some of this is genre classification I think. Sci fi does well in YA and space opera and what not tend to retain good sales. Hard sci fi, though, is very niche.

I'm not sure why fantasy doesn't translate just as well to screens but fairytale retellings etc seem to do well - Snowwhite and the Huntsman, Hansel and Gretel. Also, things like Twilight are technically fantasy (much as the purists might want to deny them.) my guess, if
I had one, might be that trad fantasy settings are less individual than sci fi and therefore, perhaps, do less visually?

 

[Mouse]

From someone who doesn't really read sci-fi, but loves sci-fi films and TV shows - I am under the impression, probably wrongly, that sci-fi books are hard. They're gonna be full of stuff I don't understand, will have few decent female characters, and are written by misogynists and homophobes. Whereas the films are full of space ships, lasers and funny aliens.*


*this is all a basic viewpoint to get my point over, before anybody slags me off.

 

[thaddeus6th]

Mouse, I think that's a valid point. Sci-fi might have complex scientific stuff, whereas you know (mostly) in fantasy it's old historical technology, and even if you don't understand how a sword is forged, you know how a sword works.

Hmm. Interesting comments on misogynists/homophobes, given a faithful(ish) medieval morality isn't necessarily pro-equality for either (as Edward II will firmly attest).

 

[Mouse]

Hmm. Interesting comments on misogynists/homophobes, given a faithful(ish) medieval morality isn't necessarily pro-equality for either (as Edward II will firmly attest).

Written by, not featuring. (And I don't believe all sci-fi authors are like that for a second, but as someone who doesn't really read it, it's an impression you get when hearing about certain authors).

 

[thaddeus6th]

Ah, sorry. My mistake.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Written by, not featuring. (And I don't believe all sci-fi authors are like that for a second, but as someone who doesn't really read it, it's an impression you get when hearing about certain authors).

Oh dear, we need to promote Bowler to sf PR. Ray guns.

For what it's worth I have aliens and swearing and rayguns (may not be strictly true), space ships, sexy pilots, and strong female characters and I'm not at all misogynistic.

Bah.

 

[Mouse]

Yeah, and you know I've read and love your stuff, so don't give me none of that sad blue face, missus! And as I said, I don't believe all sci-fi authors are like that, it's an impression I get from various places.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Yeah, and you know I've read and love your stuff, so don't give me none of that sad blue face, missus! And as I said, I don't believe all sci-fi authors are like that, it's an impression I get from various places.

I knew that ( and ty, lovely ). The bah was about how we challenge the views. Most of the sci fi I read is terrific fun. It's escapism like nothing else. But most sci fi I read is from the pulp end of the spectrum. Frankly, I think it is a genre that often gets notions about the importance of concepts and forgets that often people* just want stories about nice, sexy space pilots and ray guns and aliens.

*well, okay, me.

 

[Mouse]

Yeah, well the thing is lately I've been pondering reading some sci-fi because of the guys like you talking about it.

 

[Parson]

Back to Brian's point. ---- from A die-hard S.F. fan, who can's seem to get enough of it, especially military S.F. ---- I wonder if you see so many more big S.F. movies rather than Fantasy (assuming you put comic book heroes in the S.F. and not Fantasy category, I lobby for S.F. for things like Fantastic 4, Superman, Spiderman, Batman, etc.) could be because of two separate issues. One: History, S.F. movies have a long and wonderful track record of success following Star Wars, Aliens, E.T., etc. And as our endless trail of sequels points out, success will always be copied in Hollywood. Two: screen writers, I wonder if those who make movies like S.F. because it is easier to appear original while telling an ancient tale.

S.F. books on the other hand have always been seen as for nerds or brainiacs. Partly because when the authors try to describe some tech in a S.F. book it always requires at least a passing knowledge of science. Whereas in the movies you just see a thing work, and the ave. Joe or Jill doesn't think to ask. "Could that really work?"

 

[GWakeling]

Just my two cents worth; I think that SF novels are perceived as too hard to read by a lot of readers, and the minute any SF connotation is announced, people shy away to something else. Which is odd, because hell....I've tried to read LOTR several times and failed dismally. That IS a hard book.

I think it's also true of SF television series....there seems to be a tendency for people who don't normally watch SF, to shy away from it. To not even attempt it. It seems odd to me because some of the best SF isn't to do with the tech at all; it's about the people and the circumstances. Why is throwing a load of teenagers into a arena to kill one another more popular than the story of a small band of people trying to colonise another world? I don't get it.

It might be that movies do well because of the trailers emblazoned everywhere. Because going to the movies is a thing you do with someone (well...not me...I often go alone). I think many people end up watching a SF movie because they go with their partner or the family. Reading, though, is an individual thing.

I know that both my partner and my sister had watched and read SF material, quite unwillingly sometimes, at my recommendation. Then they've ended up loving it. Maybe it's the way that novels are advertised? It gives people an easy way to opt out rather than giving something a try?

Geoff

 

[Vince W]

I think sci fi films do well because they pack the story in an easily digestible form and of suitably short duration so most people who would never think of picking up a sci fi novel don't think twice about seeing a sci fi film, even if it's from a sci fi novel.

Unfortunately science fiction books contain that dreaded word science and science is hard, or so many people think.

 

[GWakeling]

Unfortunately science fiction books contain that dreaded word science and science is hard, or so many people think.

THIS. I think readers assume they need to be a science nerd, or at the very least to have enjoyed biology/chem/physics in school, to go near a SF novel. How disappointing. They're missing out on a universe of fun!

 

[Mirannan]

SF books can be rather difficult, particularly hard SF. Several reasons for this. One is that they tend to introduce rather difficult concepts at the cutting edge of science - or, often, slightly beyond it but in a plausible direction. Another is that they tend to describe societies with some very different basic assumptions from current Western ones, and technology that's a little hard to wrap your head around. And, often, they are packed with neologisms which (in a good story) are fairly easy to decode but still need a little work.

On the other hand, fantasy is thought by many to have nothing new or difficult to understand in it, and with no radically different basic assumptions. The default setting for fantasy seems to be sometime in the mediaeval period. Of course, fantasy usually involves magic or the supernatural in some way - but most of us think we can understand the setting.

We are wrong, of course, especially regarding the faux-mediaeval basics of the society. Anything that depends on precise timekeeping or measurement, for example, simply wouldn't work. I had a minor experience with that aspect of it once. I occasionally play fantasy RPGs, and used to do a lot more of it. The adventuring party my character was part of came up with a really clever plan for something we'd been tasked to do, involving two groups arriving at the same time among other things. Referee listened, and then said, "Good plan. Now tell me - who among each of your groups is wearing the watch?"

Of course, nobody was. Not to be invented for 800 years or so.

 

[Lilmizflashythang]

Be careful of assuming GWakeling. Like you have a hard time reading "Lord of the Rings" I have a hard time understanding anything in the hard science-fiction styles. And it's not because science is hard, it's because science is used as the core of the story. It appeared to me that the authors forgot that stories are about people, not all the nifty gadgets that are coming.

 

[GWakeling]

Be careful of assuming GWakeling. Like you have a hard time reading "Lord of the Rings" I have a hard time understanding anything in the hard science-fiction styles. And it's not because science is hard, it's because science is used as the core of the story. It appeared to me that the authors forgot that stories are about people, not all the nifty gadgets that are coming.

I can totally understand your point on this, and I think that for any book where characters are forgotten in favour of the science or the world in which the novel's set, it can be difficult to make that crucial connection required to carry you through a book.

What I was really trying to say was that when it comes to fantasy, despite there being some hard to read novels out there, people seem to continue widely reading the genre. I know quite a lot of people who've attempted to read LOTR and failed, but it hasn't stopped them trying other fantasy. But with science fiction, there's often a notion that these books are hard to read before people have even tried. I'll agree there are many HARD SF novels out there, but there are just as many great, fun and easy reads too; just as in the fantasy genre.