by Mary Jo:
I'm madly trying to finish Lost Lords #4 this week, (No Longer a Gentleman, scheduled for May 2012), so I'm invoking the Wench Classic Clause. That is, I looked at older posts (and after 5 years, I've done a LOT) and found one that I thought might still be of interest. Namely, the perennial topic of getting movies made from our books.
Not a lot has changed since I first posted this in June of 2006. Getting a movie made from one's book is still an incredibly long shot!
Making Movies:
One of those questions that authors hear with some regularity is “Why don’t you make a movie out of one of your books?”
This is flattering. It’s also pretty funny because of the implication that writers have any control over such things. (Heck, the only thing we might have control over is the content of our books, and even then….)
The chances of a historical romance writer having any appeal to the great and insane dream factory called Hollywood are infinitesimal. As a writer friend who lived in Beverly Hills once told me, it was more likely that she’d be struck dead by a meteor than that a movie would ever be made of one of her books—and she writes fast-moving, sexy romantic suspense, which is more likely to interest movie makers.
Historical romance means costume drama, and costume drama costs more to make than a contemporary setting. Usually a lot more. So if someone wants to make a costume drama, they’ll probably pick a reliable classic with a built-in audience, which is why there are so many versions of Pride and Prejudice and Jane Eyre. Or else they’ll add elves and make it fantasy, which is hot these days. <g>
Genre Books That Do Become Movies:
Now and then a movie will be made from a romantic book, but usually there is a great story hook, as with Meg Cabot’s delightful The Princess Diaries. Geeky San Francisco teen finds out she’s heiress to a small but charming European kingdom. Great story idea, great movie, and after she becomes a princess, she has great hair. <g> Or The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants. (Not only are these good stories, but they are YAs and their young protagonists are a good choice for the movie-going demographic.)
Why a lot of great romances won't make great movies:
Movies are an intensely visual medium, while falling in love is an internal process that takes place inside minds and hearts. While romance is a common element in movies, pure romance is seldom at the center of the story.
Romantic comedy comes closest, but there’s still lots of comedy to entertain people while the relationship develops. In thrillers, The Girl is usually the reward to The Hero for being so brave and stalwart. Or worse, she gets killed to give The Hero an excuse for destroying six counties with his mega-weapons. Ugh!
The movie production process is long and beyond arduous. As with tadpoles that never live to become frogs, few ideas ever reach the silver screen. There can be any number of reasons why stories fall by the wayside, and many great stories disappear onto studio shelves, never to be seen again.
(For a hair-raising insider view of Hollywood, you might read William Goldman’s very funny books, Adventures in the Screen Trade and Which Lie Did I Tell You? Since one of my contemporaries, The Spiral Path, is built around movie making, I got to do lots of fun research.)
Where romance translates to the screen best:
Romance tends to work better on television because it’s well suited to the intimacy of the small screen. Yet even there, with a few exceptions (two LaVyrle Spencers and one Penelope Williamson book come to mind), any romance novel turned into a tv movie is apt to be contemporary. Cheaper, and more people can relate to modern stories. Often the stories chosen are more women’s fiction/family drama than romance since soap opera has always been a staple of television.
The China Bride:
Nonetheless, having said all that—my book The China Bride was optioned and renewed by a Hollywood producer. That option expired quietly, but more recently, the book has again attracted somewhat serious film attention.
Don't think that an option always makes an author rich! The initial money is small, though if a movie ever got made (HIGHLY UNLIKELY) there would be a good pay-out. Such deals are wildly complicated: with the first option, the deal memo was 10 pages, or maybe it was 16. And that wasn’t the contract, just the deal memo. It spelled out every conceivable variation, including theatrical film, tv movie, spin-off tv series, whatever.
I had no expectations of the option—my agent warned me that Hollywood is full of elephant graveyards littered with the bones of novelists who lost their wits and careers by becoming obsessed with the dream of movies.
Not to worry, I assured her. I’m too much of a control freak to play well with others, and movie making is a very collaborative process. If someone wants to give me money to make a movie from one of my books, probably distorting it hideously in the process, I’ll take the money and run. I have no desire to be part of the process, nor to chase will o’ the wisps when it’s hard enough to write novels. (William Goldman emphasized that in Hollywood, the writer is always at the bottom of the status heap. Who need that?)
Still, selling an option is found money, and the bragging rights are considerable. This is the only non-American set historical romance I’ve ever heard of to be optioned, and I’m pretty sure I know why there is interest: my kickass half-Chinese heroine. With martial arts popular, Troth might make a good story.
Do I expect anything to come of this? No, this will just be another deceased tadpole, I think. But the bragging rights are considerable. <G>
So what are your favorite movies made from books? Ande what books would you like to see made into movies?
Mary Jo
There are many books that would make excellent movies, but the market won't support them. As an author, I would be a bit hesitant about selling the rights to a book. Not because I am an author, but because of what has been to books that have made it to the screen, large or small. The first one that comes to mind is ROSE HILL, a Hallmark made for TV movie. It is based on Julie Garwood's Clayborne series: FOR THE ROSES, THE CLAYBORNE BRIDES, and COME THE SPRING. I missed it when it was on TV and eventually found the tape and bought it. I don't think I have ever been so angry with a production before or since. Other than the names of the characters and the opening scene, NOTHING in the movie is the same as the books. They threw every western cliche they could find into it and completely ruined a good story. It wasn't a good movie at all. If I were the author, I would be quite ill over it. J K Rowling had the right idea with her Harry Potter books going to movie. Her control guaranteed the characters and story lines stayed true.
One book I have read that would translate well to film and would attract a good audience is BRIDE OF THE LION by Elizabeth Stuart. It has a lot of action, intrigue, and a complicated relationship between the H & H. It would appeal to both men and women more than most romances do.
Thank you for an interesting post.
librarypat AT comcast DOT net
Posted by: librarypat | Sunday, August 07, 2011 at 10:29 PM
I love to read and rarely watch movies, but I am dying to see the new movie "The Help" based off the book because I just loved the book so much that it will be like re-reading the book (which I rarely do). I do have to agree, most of the time, the books are way better than the movies (thinking John Grisham, Robert Ludlam, etc.) where the movies miss alot of the backstory going on to fit it into the 2 hours...then there are the movies that I loved where I just had to read the books after (Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings come to mind) because while not a genre I ordinarily would read, the movies actually made me fall in love with them.
Its funny you posted this since I recently finished the book "Sixteen Brides" by Stephanie Grace Whitson and thought to myself "this would make a great movie".
Posted by: wendy p | Sunday, August 07, 2011 at 10:56 PM
Since movies fall into the standard genre categories -- romance, mystery, suspense, horror, etc -- it does seem odd that filmmakers don't turn to novels more often. One of my favorites is Devil in a Blue Dress, which I think is a wonderful adaptation of a fantastic book. When it came out, I got all excited that we would see a series of Easy Rawlins books, with Denzil Washington (be still my heart), but it evidently did not do well enough at the box office. In my unscientific poll of one, I think there may be more movies adapted from mysteries than other genres, but with few exceptions, the ones that come to mind tend to be older movies -- The Thin Man, Maltese Falcon, The Big Sleep, and the like.
As you say, those romantic movies that are adaptations tend to be contemporaries. In addition to the cost, I think the reason has to do with the importance of appealing to an international market. Movies that are dialogue heavy don't translate as well as movies with a lot of action and violence.
Posted by: Annie | Monday, August 08, 2011 at 05:09 AM
P.S. Right after I posted, I dropped by Salon. Today there's an article on adaptations, and with the possible exception of Dick Francis's Gamble, they're all action-heavy -- the Bourne movies, James Bond, a Robert B. Parker novel, and Sherlock Holmes, an author whose stories have been given the special effects treatment.
Posted by: Annie | Monday, August 08, 2011 at 05:14 AM
Librarypat--I've known several authors who've had tv movies made from their books, and they all pretty much say the same thing: They had to think about it, and came to the conclusion that from a business point of view, it was worth accepting the deal and the money in the hopes of it being a career boost. And then they detach. Tami Hoag said it was rather surrearl seeing something on the screen that had no resemblance to her novel except for the names.
JK Rowling was in a unique situation in that she started small enough to retain film rights, then got so big so fast that she was able to have a lot of control over the process. Plus, she's a very, very smart woman with very good judgment.
Posted by: Mary Jo Putney | Monday, August 08, 2011 at 07:36 AM
Wendy--in my experience, it's better to see the movie, THEN read the book rather than vice versa, because the story in the book is richer and more layered in ways a movie can't manage. If you see the movie first and then read the book, it's discovering new pleasures rather than seeing a movie and realizing how much is missing.
Posted by: Mary Jo Putney | Monday, August 08, 2011 at 07:39 AM
I love movies and I love romance, but agree that romances are hard to film. A recent issue of "Entertainment Weekly" asks why good romantic comedies are thin on the ground and provides several reasons, most of which are related to the economics of the movie business (e.g., romances tend to be culturally specific so don't travel well overseas, thereby reducing potential revenues). Also, as MJP notes, so much of the romance is internal and hard to film (same reason why writers in movies are not often shown in the act of writing). However, despite all this, there are a number of classic films that managed to overcome any and all of these problems: His Girl Friday, It Happened One Night, The Princess Bride, Philadelphia Story, Ever After -- I love those movies and could name more.
As for the books always being better, I read somewhere that that statement is true for good books but not necessarily true for middling or bad books. I think, for example, that the movie of "The Horse Whisperer" was better because the film cut out a lot of the book's excess meanderings and also replaced the original's over-the-top ending with a more realistic one.
Posted by: Susan/DC | Monday, August 08, 2011 at 09:08 AM
Annie--
I think you're right that mysteries and thrillers are the genre most likely to be made into movies, because they have good strong plots, and movies need action. Probably more thrillers than mysteries, since thrillers provide more opportunities for explostions. You are so right action (and explosions) are much easier to sell to a global audience.
A pity there weren't more Easy Rawlins movies. Whereas we are on what--the #3 Transformers movie about toy that go bang? Sigh.
Posted by: Mary Jo Putney | Monday, August 08, 2011 at 12:07 PM
Mary Jo, I think you're right about authors taking the money and just hoping the movie wouldn't be too terrible. Georgette Heyer allowed just one movie to be made of one of her books and it was so bad after that she refused all other offers.
But I wish some of her books could be made into movies. Books don't always have to be action rich to become good movies. Movies like the Philadelphia Story aren't all that action rich, but wow are they clever dialogue-rich. And Georgette Heyer is great at snappy, fun dialogue. As if Jane Austen, which is why some of her books have translated so well to screen. I feel sure Heyer's would, too, if only someone could look past Austen and Bronte.
Posted by: Anne Gracie | Monday, August 08, 2011 at 04:17 PM
Anne, I think the key is "looking past Austen and Bronte,"--and I think it's unlikely to happen. The classic romantic historicals were read by so many of us in school that they have a built in hook/recognition factor that appeals to the people who green light movies.
But you're right that some of the Heyers would be delightful on screen. Maybe the BBC could do a series. Lots of great British actors, and TV is more doable than big screen films. I'd love to see THE GRAND SOPHY filmed!
Posted by: Mary Jo Putney | Monday, August 08, 2011 at 04:34 PM
Susan/DC--
You make a lot of good points, starting with the thought that romances are more cultural specific than suspense and things that go bang.
**His Girl Friday, It Happened One Night, The Princess Bride, Philadelphia Story, Ever After **
I'm not sure, but except for The Princess Bride, weren't most of those written for the stage or as original screenplays? Certainly The Philadelphia Story was, and Ever After is a screenplay of Cinderella. In general, I think the romance will work better if it's written for the screen to begin. And while I love The Princess Bride, I'd say it's a fantasy with a nice romance rather than a straight romance. A lot going on there besides romance. ("He's only mostly dead. I've seen worse." )
>>read somewhere that that statement is true for good books but not necessarily true for middling or bad books. <<
You're right, someone famously said that, and it's probably true. The richness that makes a book great isn't all going to translate well to the screen, while a middling book with a good plot is a better bet.
Interesting points to ponder!
Posted by: Mary Jo Putney | Monday, August 08, 2011 at 04:43 PM
I have wondered why Regency romances weren't turned into movies. I can see where the costumes and period sets would cost more, but I really think the Austen movies have been remade a little too much lately and it would be nice to have a fresh batch of Regency period movies. Your China Bride book was one of the first "sensual" Regency romances I read when I began reading this genre last August. I devoured 22 more of your books over the next 3 months before moving on to Jo Beverly and a dozen other authors! You definitely got me hooked. I hope The China Bride is made into a movie just so you can gain from it financially and have even bigger bragging rights. If it were made well, I would enjoy it no matter what as long as I didn't compare it to the book. Getting into a story through a book is totally different from getting into one through a movie and to compare would be like comparing apples and oranges!
Posted by: Cathy Gilleylen Schultz | Monday, August 08, 2011 at 05:38 PM
Cathy--
You read TWENTY TWO of my books in three months? I'm amazed that you didn't get sick of the sound of my voice. *g* I do think that China Bride has some film potential because there's a fair amount of action and the whole cross-cultural theme.
You're right getting into a story is very different for books and for movies. Both good, but very different.
Posted by: Mary Jo Putney | Monday, August 08, 2011 at 05:45 PM
I agree that mystery/suspense novels can be turned into movies more handily, since they are so often based as much on plot and ambience as on character. The Maltese Falcon, The Big Sleep, etc. are great movies. Romance, like a lot of science fiction, isn't action oriented or plot driven; it's cerebral and emotional. So I have trouble thinking of books, especially romantic ones, that were turned into good movies. That said, I have liked most of the Austen adaptations, especially Sense & Sensibility.
I loathe the Peter Jackson versions of Tolkien because he 'modernized' it by conflating some characters and leaving out others: why does *everyone* leave out Bombadil? Argh. And we won't even talk about what he did to Arwen.
Heyer has been done for radio (where costumes & sets are really really cheap ;), but the productions I heard were disappointing; characters didn't sound like I hear them when I read the books, and much was left out due to time.
Occasionally a movie from a book is better than the book; Never Let Me Go comes to mind. It seemed richer on the screen somehow.
Sometimes a book that didn't hold my interest as a book makes a pretty interesting movie; Eat Pray Love was like that for me.
I don't buy many action suspense thrillers anymore as to me they'll be better in the movies with Matt Damon or Mark Wahlberg to lend the hero a little personality than they are in the bare bones emotionless style of the books.
Posted by: Janice | Monday, August 08, 2011 at 06:11 PM
I meant to add a strong recommendation for Tom Selleck's movies from Robert B. Parker's Jesse Stone series. They are visually very beautiful, and they catch Parker's style and mindset wonderfully well.
Posted by: Janice | Monday, August 08, 2011 at 06:13 PM
I LOVED Emma Thompson's SENSE AND SENSIBILITY. I'm also very fond of the version of PERSUASION with Ciarin Hinds. And since I'd only read LOTR once, many years ago, I'm fine with the way Peter Jackson distilled and simplified, which is one of the things that movies pretty much require. Tackling the Ring trilogy was a staggering task, and I think Jackson did as a good a job of as anyone could. But then, I don't remember Bombadil enough to miss him.
I'll look for some of the Jesse Stone mysteries. Sounds like something Netflix would have.
Posted by: Mary Jo Putney | Monday, August 08, 2011 at 09:01 PM
Mary Jo, I am shocked -- shocked, I say -- that you have never reread LOTR. The books are so much richer an experience than the films (although I do think that at times the films function as very nice illustrations of the text). The beauty of his language alone is very soothing to the spirit. I return to them often.
Emma Thompson's Sense & Sensibility is an example of a movie with changes between film and book that are actually an improvement - for instance, the youngest Dashwood sister Margaret is a 'person' in the film in a way she wasn't in the book. I loved Harriet Walter as Mrs. John Dashwood too, but I so wanted the scene where she falls backward into a gorse bush to be left in :)
I also like the Gwyneth Paltrow Emma because Jeremy Northam does the best Mr. Knightley so far, and the scene where he speaks to Emma about her poor behavior towards Miss Bates at the picnic is beautifully done.
Posted by: Janice | Monday, August 08, 2011 at 09:58 PM
Mary Jo, you are correct. The only one of the movies I list as a favorite romance that is an adaptation of a book is "The Princess Bride". "His Girl Friday" is an adaptation of a play, "The Front Page", and is not a straight romance. However, the genius of the screenplay was to make Hildy a woman and Walter Burns' ex-wife. That added a layer of romance and sexual tension to the film that was entirely lacking in the original. Have to add that Cary Grant and Rosalind Russell are a huge reason why the movie works so well. Having the right actors with the right chemistry can be a definite bonus to the movie version even for the best of books and even if the rest of the film doesn't quite add up to the printed page.
Posted by: Susan/DC | Tuesday, August 09, 2011 at 10:00 AM
I think the only movie I ever watched that was almost spot on with the book was Stephen King's The Stand. They changed almost nothing in that, but in part, it's because it was a TV mini-series. Again, had they done a movie, I'm sure they would have butchered it like they have all of his other ones.
I tend to read books but not watch the movies that are based on them for just that reason. Doesn't matter the genre, more often than not, the movie only carries the title of the book. The contents are shelved.
So from a good business standpoint, take the money and run! And whenever someone asks why they changed something, the author can then say, I don't know. I just cashed the check! :o)
Posted by: theo | Tuesday, August 09, 2011 at 04:21 PM
As a side note, for whatever reason, you comment feed isn't working for this one...
Posted by: theo | Tuesday, August 09, 2011 at 04:24 PM
Susan/DC--Isn't it fun to talk about movies? *G* I agree that having two terrific actors with super chemistry--and having them be ex-spouses--really made HIS GIRL FRIDAY. I saw the play version once. Fun, but not as much fun.
Posted by: Mary Jo Putney | Tuesday, August 09, 2011 at 04:41 PM
**And whenever someone asks why they changed something, the author can then say, I don't know. I just cashed the check! :o) **
Very, very true. *G* I think a lot of books would do well as mini-serie when a 2 hour theatrical film would be too short.
I'll pass on the Sherrie, our Whipmistress, about the comment feed. Thanks.
Posted by: Mary Jo Putney | Tuesday, August 09, 2011 at 04:44 PM
I always wanted to see Janet Evanovich's By the Numbers series featuring her not too talented bounty hunter Stephanie Plum (the first in the series is One for the Money). I was delighted to find out a few months ago that they are filming it! Katherine Heigle is in the lead.
The only other book that I've ever imagined or desired to be made into a movie is Diana Gabaldon's Outlander.
Posted by: LilMissMolly | Thursday, August 11, 2011 at 11:16 AM
Janet has wanted to see a movie from her books since she wrot the very first one. You see how long it's taken! But--it is on track, and it will be fun to see how well they manage it. OUtlander would need to be a TV series to capture it all. *g*
Posted by: Mary Jo Putney | Thursday, August 11, 2011 at 11:39 AM
Great blog piece, Mary Jo. Thank you!
I wish there were more films made from historical romances and more costume drama in general on British TV. Unfortunately it's very out of favour at the moment with the BBC saying they will be making fewer period dramas rather than more. Disappointing, when Downton Abbey and Upstairs Downstairs have proved that there is a big appetite for it. I live in hope that the wheel will turn again!
Posted by: Nicola Cornick | Friday, August 12, 2011 at 02:07 AM
Nicola--
As you say, historical material cycles in and out of favor. At least in the UK, there are lots of great stage sets sitting around in the real world, which reduces production costs. *g*
Posted by: Mary Jo Putney | Friday, August 12, 2011 at 07:51 AM
I would love to see BBC make a series of Outlander - with each book comprising a different yearly series (only better than The Tudors - maybe more like Rome). I can't see anyone other than BBC doing it justice.
Posted by: J Prince | Friday, August 12, 2011 at 07:35 PM
I agree--only the Beeb is set up to do a project so vast. Luckily, Britain is full of superb actors.
Posted by: Mary Jo Putney | Friday, August 12, 2011 at 07:36 PM
I've honestly never understood why historical dramas are "too expensive" but then studios will brag about how many millions it cost to make the latest action or science fiction movie. :shrug:
I would love to see a BBC version of Philippa Gregory's Wideacre trilogy.
Posted by: Anna C. Bowling | Thursday, August 18, 2011 at 05:30 AM
Anna--
It's not just the initial costs, though costumes and transforming 21st century villages into 19th century villages doesn't come cheap. It's also costs in relationship to potential audience.
BANG! POW! BOOM!!! has a potential audience of every young male on the planet. And intelligent historical drama like Wideacre draws a much smaller audience. Alas!
Posted by: Mary Jo Putney | Thursday, August 18, 2011 at 07:28 AM
Cost is a major factor. There is one scene in EMMA where they are riding in a carriage and I swear they are BEHIND the false front of the village street! LOTR is the only movie so far that has been BETTER than the books because a lot of the "British school boy" crap was eliminated. Don't forget Tolkein wrote those books in the 30s. - No novel really adapts well to the screen, because part of your enjoyment comes from using your own imagination to create a world, whereas in a movie you are looking at someone else's imagination - it always falls short of your own. - Frankly, I'd like to see Kipling's STALKY & CO adapted: three young scamps and how they grew.
Posted by: Artemisia | Thursday, August 18, 2011 at 03:29 PM