From Book to Movie?

Elwyn · Sep 13, 2005

In the short time I've been at this forum reading about all the folks trying to get their book published, I was wondering if anyone has given up on finding an agent and actually turned their work into movie script. If so, what was the process - and is finding an agent for a movie script as difficult as it is for a book?

IMHO, it would seem the movie industry would be more reliant on new scripts than the publishing industry is on new books. It seems the publishing industry has an overload of new material just waiting to get published - and only a small percentage of books-in-waiting actually make it to print.

Are there more moviegoers than novel readers? Somewhere there has to be statistics on all of this.

Aconite · Sep 13, 2005

Elwyn said:
IMHO, it would seem the movie industry would be more reliant on new scripts than the publishing industry is on new books. It seems the publishing industry has an overload of new material just waiting to get published - and only a small percentage of books-in-waiting actually make it to print.

The movie industry also has a huge backlog of scripts-in-waiting, and few scripts actually make it to the screen.

pconsidine · Sep 13, 2005

Statistically, it's easier to get a novel published than it is to get a screenplay produced. I've known many people who've done the reverse - novelized their own script. I was even toying with the idea myself. It's a slight advantage, at best, but it's there.

Elwyn · Sep 13, 2005

But doesn't the movie industry have to put out so many "good" movies a year to be profitable? And doesn't the TV industry have to fill a bunch of time slots - 365 days a year. There are so many cable channels available now that it would seem finding "good" material to fill them 24/7 would be exasperating.

fedorable1 · Sep 13, 2005

Actually, I believe it is the other way around. The movie industry is incredibly competitive and difficult to break into - probably moreso than the literature industry.

Keep in mind that movies can cost hundreds of millions of dollars to produce, not to mention the difficulties of casting, travel, time constraints, current trends, legal issues, and a host of other things that make the industry what it is. Thus the movie industry is very selective about what gets produced.

I'm not 100% sure on the numbers, but it's something to the effect of 1 in 10,000 scripts even gets purchased, or optioned; and of those only maybe a tenth actually gets made into a movie.

Think about how many movies come out every year. Though there may be many independant films or low-budget movies, the really big features tend to much more rare. Perhaps 50-60. Considering that nearly half a million scripts are written every year, that's not a whole lot.

I'm not trying to discourage you, but the reality is that both movies and books are very difficult to sell a single work into, much less make a living at. It can be done!! It just takes patience, intelligence, and above all skill.

fedorable1 · Sep 13, 2005

Elwyn said:
But doesn't the movie industry have to put out so many "good" movies a year to be profitable? And doesn't the TV industry have to fill a bunch of time slots - 365 days a year. There are so many cable channels available now that it would seem finding "good" material to fill them 24/7 would be exasperating.

The movie industry is never at a loss for scripts, though the term "good" is relative. There are many absolutely horrid, stupid movies that some directors or producers thought were hilarious or charming. There are some movies that are made due to contractual obligations but become smash hits.

It's a gamble. The TV industry is also flooded with people trying to break into the business. While the "quality" may be relative and sometimes lacking, the "quantity" of work out there will always be very high. No film/TV company worth its weight is ever clamoring to find "something" to fill time slots or deadlines. They have too many to deal with.

Aconite · Sep 13, 2005

Elwyn said:
But doesn't the movie industry have to put out so many "good" movies a year to be profitable?

No. It has to make a certain amount of money, which can be done with one megablockbuster or fifty small films. There's no magic number of films to be produced. OTOH, most publishers have a certain number of publishing slots open every year, and will need to fill those. Also, producing a film takes millions of dollars. Producing a book takes thousands. Which do you think there are going to be more of?

And doesn't the TV industry have to fill a bunch of time slots - 365 days a year. There are so many cable channels available now that it would seem finding "good" material to fill them 24/7 would be exasperating.

Writing series TV is not the same as writing a movie script. Most TV series have their own sets of writers, who know the show thoroughly and who have industry experience. It's really, really hard to get one of those positions. You have to have credentials that make them take you seriously, and you usually have to live near the studio.

jackie106 · Sep 13, 2005

Elwyn said:
In the short time I've been at this forum reading about all the folks trying to get their book published, I was wondering if anyone has given up on finding an agent and actually turned their work into movie script.

I think this is a bad reason to go into film. If you are having trouble getting published, rewrite your novel, write a new novel, or take a writing class. If you decide to switch, switch because you love movies, not because you can't find an agent for your novel.

The screenwriting section of this board would have more information about how to get your work produced. Most of what I know about Hollywood comes from watching the first season of Entourage. (The second isn't out on DVD and I'm too cheap for HBO.)

As far as I can tell, there are completely different rules in Hollywood. Not just for writing the scripts, but for getting them in hands of producers and actors. (Again, I am not a Hollywood insider nor do I play one on TV.)

Elwyn said:
But doesn't the movie industry have to put out so many "good" movies a year to be profitable? And doesn't the TV industry have to fill a bunch of time slots - 365 days a year. There are so many cable channels available now that it would seem finding "good" material to fill them 24/7 would be exasperating.

Since when do network executives care about quality? Sorry, low blow. But seriously, there isn't that much original scripted programming on TV. They broadcast movies, talk shows, re-runs, more re-runs, sports, news, cooking shows, home makeovers, music videos, documentaries, UK imports, and so-called "reality TV." They don't have to fill every hour of the week with brand new scripted programs.

Jackie

GPatten · Sep 13, 2005

The producers, rather than the movie industry find a screenplay in the pile they like and gather the backing to produce it. It seems to me, the quality of the movies has plummeted in the years past. They just don’t seem as good to me anymore. Do others see that too?

Do the producers pick up a book and have a screenwriter of their own to write if the author of the book is unable to write a screenplay? I sure would hate to have to write one myself.

E.G. Gammon · Sep 13, 2005

GPatten said:
Do the producers pick up a book and have a screenwriter of their own to write if the author of the book is unable to write a screenplay?

Most authors aren't even given the chance to write the screenplay adaptation of their novel.

maestrowork · Sep 13, 2005

Elwyn said:
IMHO, it would seem the movie industry would be more reliant on new scripts than the publishing industry is on new books. It seems the publishing industry has an overload of new material just waiting to get published - and only a small percentage of books-in-waiting actually make it to print.

Don't count your beans. If you think getting a book contract is tough... try selling a script.

E.G. Gammon · Sep 13, 2005

maestrowork said:
Don't count your beans. If you think getting a book contract is tough... try selling a script.

Exactly! It's all about money... You have to think about the amount of money publishers/production companies put into the project. If a book flops, the publisher only loses a couple thousand dollars. If a film flops, the production company loses a couple million. Big difference.

GPatten · Sep 14, 2005

E.G. Gammon said:
Most authors aren't even given the chance to write the screenplay adaptation of their novel.

Thank you. That's interesting.

sassandgroove · Sep 14, 2005

Check out this thread on the subject.

http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17954

Jamesaritchie · Sep 14, 2005

Elwyn said:
In the short time I've been at this forum reading about all the folks trying to get their book published, I was wondering if anyone has given up on finding an agent and actually turned their work into movie script. If so, what was the process - and is finding an agent for a movie script as difficult as it is for a book?

IMHO, it would seem the movie industry would be more reliant on new scripts than the publishing industry is on new books. It seems the publishing industry has an overload of new material just waiting to get published - and only a small percentage of books-in-waiting actually make it to print.

Are there more moviegoers than novel readers? Somewhere there has to be statistics on all of this.

Moviegoers versus readers doesn't have anything to do with it, though there are a LOT of both. What matters is how many new movies that are made versus how many new books are published, and there simply is no comparison.

Book publishers rely on tens of thousands of new novels each and every year. The number of movies that industry wants can be measured in the hundreds. Think about it. Just how many new feature films do you remember coming out last year? Even when you add made for TV/cable movies, the number doesn't go up all that much.

Breaking into the screenplay world is quite likely the hardest task in the world for a new writer. It's so much harder than selling a novel that it's ridiculous.

Books-in-waiting are nothing compared to screenplays-in-waiting. The world of the screenplay is far more difficult in every aspect, all the way from getting an agent to selling a screenplay. Getting a novel pubished is child's play in comparison.

It costs a few thousand dollars to publish the average novel. The average movie costs many millions of dollars to make, and I know of at least one in the works that's going to cost in excess of 150 million. Would you risk 150 million dollars on anyone who wasn't already a proven writer. Would you risk five million on a newcomer?

Jamesaritchie · Sep 14, 2005

Good

The one thing Hollywood and book publishing has in common is that the definition of "good" is that it makes money. I find no reason to argue with this. How can you say something is good that no one wants to view or read?

sassandgroove · Sep 14, 2005

Amen. I have often said that things that are considered "Good" or "artsy" that are in fact boring, sloppy and/or poorly done or written get kudos in Hollywood (for movies) and NY (For books) by people who don't want to admit they don't get it. Like the Emporers new clothes. These works get accolades, but don't make money...I want to make money.

britwrit · Sep 16, 2005

A screenplay which you write and then try to sell yourself or via an agent is called a "spec screenplay" - spec for being short for "on speculation." It's insanely difficult to sell one of those and even tougher if you live outside LA.

aruna · Sep 16, 2005

Jamesaritchie said:
The one thing Hollywood and book publishing has in common is that the definition of "good" is that it makes money. I find no reason to argue with this. How can you say something is good that no one wants to view or read?

It's not a question of "no-one" wants to view or read it. A book or film can be excellent, but simply does not fill the lowest-common-denomination mass appetite for blood, sex, car-chases and vampires. Most of these "mass-appeal" offerings are pretty atrocious - but they make money.

Of course, "atrocious" is just my own subjective opinion....!
I was once in a dedicated screenwriting forum. The top dog there (author of the book Idiot's Guide to Screenwriting, Skip Press) said that when choosing its projects Hollywood tries to get inside the mind of a twelve-year-old boy. That's because 12 year old boys go to see movies again and again. So if that's the definition of "good"....

Quality cannot be judged by numbers. And a really good book or movie doesn ot have to be boring. There's no reason on earth why a book orm ovie can't be excellent in terms of story, characterization etc, intelligent in theme, AND entertaining at the same time. Intelligence and entertainment do not cancel each other out.

Mike Coombes · Sep 16, 2005

Jamesaritchie said:
The one thing Hollywood and book publishing has in common is that the definition of "good" is that it makes money. I find no reason to argue with this. How can you say something is good that no one wants to view or read?

Not Hollywood, but a good case in point... Bertolucci's 'The Dreamers'. In the UK critical acclaim was amazing, whole arts programs and discussions on TV devoted to it. In my local cinema it was pulled after 3 days. Nobody went to see it, and I don't get why. It was a beautiful film. Maybe there weren't enough explosions.

sassandgroove · Sep 16, 2005

Mike Coombes...Sometimes the timing is off, or it is marketed wrong. A lot of cult classics never did well in the theater. I've seen or read works that are excellent that were completely ignored, this applies to music as well.

Aruna, you are right, good doesn't always equal popular, but I was talking about works that are considered good that aren't, but no one will stand up and say "This is crap." so it gets critical acclaim and awards. This is why I completely ignore the Oscars, Grammies, Emmys and all the other myriad of awards shows. And I ignore reviews and critics. I make up my own mind. THere are beliefs in holllywood, like long=good, which translates to 3 hour epics that with a good edit might be interesting but has to many stretches of meaningless dribble in between. Another, I think, is the movies or books people don't understand, so they think it must be good, because the next guy seems to like it. Meanwhile the next guy didn't get it either, but no one is willing to say, this is poorly structured convoluted or just plain bad, so it becomes that years MOvie of the year or whatever. It happens with books, too, but I see it more with movies because there is so much more media around them.

Jamesaritchie · Sep 16, 2005

aruna said:
It's not a question of "no-one" wants to view or read it. A book or film can be excellent, but simply does not fill the lowest-common-denomination mass appetite for blood, sex, car-chases and vampires. Most of these "mass-appeal" offerings are pretty atrocious - but they make money.

QUOTE]

I'd go along with this if the only successful films were ones with mass appetite for blood, sex, car-chases and vampires. But they aren't. Many films without any of these things are highly successful. So are many books. I've always thought the "lowest common denominator" excuse was a real copout, and has no basis in truth.

First, just because a book or movie has explosions, blood, sex, and violence does not in any way mean it's bad. Many excellent films have all these things. When done well, they tap into the highest common denominator, not the lowest.

Second, many books and films that have none of these things hit it big, and the public eagerly reads the books and watches the movies.

It's true enough that the public also makes some bad books and films successsful, but overall, the public knows the difference between popcorn and steak, and wants the steak just as much as the popcorn, and book and movie sales reflect this.

It's also true that just because something is popular does not mean it's great, but it's equally true that when the public has no interest in a book or movie, that book or movie is sadly lacking in something that's vitally important. Popular does not always mean good, but unpopular almost always means bad in some important, vital way. Popular does not always mean good, but unpopular nearly always means bad. I canb't say this enough. Sooner or later, even if a book or movie initially fails, the public brings the good ones back to life, and keeps them living for generations. The bad ones continue to be ignored, as they should be.

There is no "lowest common denominator." If you want to sell quality books or movies to the public, you have to find the highest common denominator.

aruna · Sep 16, 2005

There is no "lowest common denominator." If you want to sell quality books or movies to the public, you have to find the highest common denominator.

I agree with the last, but not the first part of this!
I believe that we (humans) all have these two sides in us. There's the low, tacky, junk stuff that is easily and quickly consumed, shallow, appealing to the masses. In Britain at the moment there is a woman called Jordan who has a huge bosom; she is famous for that and for very little else, but she is famous. Damn famous. She has "written" an autobiography which becmae such a huge seller that she has just been commissioned to "write" two novels; even though she says she has never read a novel in her life. These novels are likely to be filled with sex scenes with a bit of connecting dialogue; and I bet they become as big sellers as her autobiography. They appeal to the low, voyeuristic, tawdry side of the masses. I feel it myself when I sit in a doctor's office and read cheap magazines. I know they are awful yet they do have a kind of a pull - and many in the public simply give in to that pull.

I also believe that there is a highest common denominator, but that takes effort and intelligence and unfortunately there seems to be a compacency and laziness that has overcome modern society which means that our attention spans are much reduced and we are less inclined to search for the beautiful, rare, and truly nourishing.

but it's equally true that when the public has no interest in a book or movie, that book or movie is sadly lacking in something that's vitally important. Popular does not always mean good, but unpopular almost always means bad in some important, vital way. Popular does not always mean good, but unpopular nearly always means bad. I canb't say this enough. Sooner or later, even if a book or movie initially fails, the public brings the good ones back to life, and keeps them living for generations. The bad ones continue to be ignored, as they should be.

I'd agree with you here. Ther is a vital ingrediant that makes a work truly great, so that it is popular as well. That's why we have the clasics; books and films that are great and loved.

Jamesaritchie · Sep 16, 2005

aruna said:
I agree with the last, but not the first part of this!
I believe that we (humans) all have these two sides in us. There's the low, tacky, junk stuff that is easily and quickly consumed, shallow, appealing to the masses.

I agree on that point. That lowest common denominator is there. Sex sells, and too often there is no redeeming scrap of anything that makes it sell. If you want to sell readily, write porn. As a porn publisher I once talked to said, "It takes neither talent nor skill, just willingness."

But I'm talking about the more mainstream area of books and movies. There is the "popcorn" side. But just because something is popcorn doesn't mean it's bad. I like popcorn.

I don't know about bosums, but with books and movies, even the mainstream junk usually has something good going for it. Whether it's the humor, the special effects, the characters, the dialogue, something is done right, else the public wouldn't want it.

And don't be surprised if this woman has a ghostwriter. If not, she'll have a boatload of editors who rewrite everything she turns in.

The public may well make junk famous over the short term, but over the long term, but such fame never lasts. It's usually car wreck fame, and many read or view it for the same reason so many pull over to look at a wreck. But over the long term, the public is seldom wrong.

Something can be declared great by critics, reviewers and artists until hell freezes over, but of no one wants it, it's bad.

aruna · Sep 16, 2005

Jamesaritchie said:
I
And don't be surprised if this woman has a ghostwriter. If not, she'll have a boatload of editors who rewrite everything she turns in.

The public may well make junk famous over the short term, but over the long term, but such fame never lasts. It's usually car wreck fame, and many read or view it for the same reason so many pull over to look at a wreck. But over the long term, the public is seldom wrong.

.

Oh, she certainly has a ghostwriter. But the ghostwriter will write the sort of stuff one associates with Jordan - sex, bosoms, parties, binge drinking.

I believe that the best books (and movies) are those that appeal on several levels at once. They have stories that just whip along and take the reader (viewer) with them, characters that leap out of the page (to use an old cliche - sorry!), climaxes that make you cry and laugh - all of that will appeal to the masses. But at the same time they have depth and meaning, make you think about life an death, love and loss, address the deeper issues without cramming them down your throat in "deep" dialogue or monologue. Thier depth is between the lines, so to speak, and so even Harvard and Oxford garduates will be satisfied. They are universal.
Oh - and of course, they are well written as well.

From Book to Movie?

Elwyn

Aconite

pconsidine

Too Adorkable for Words

Elwyn

fedorable1

Hopeless Romantic

fedorable1

Hopeless Romantic

Aconite

jackie106

GPatten

Dang...

E.G. Gammon

maestrowork

Fear the Death Ray

E.G. Gammon

GPatten

Dang...

sassandgroove

Sassy haircut

Jamesaritchie

Jamesaritchie

sassandgroove

Sassy haircut

britwrit

aruna

On a wing and a prayer

Mike Coombes

Guru

sassandgroove

Sassy haircut

Jamesaritchie

aruna

On a wing and a prayer

Jamesaritchie

aruna

On a wing and a prayer