Screenwriting : Engineered for success... by Charles V Abela

Las adaptaciones por lo general son mucho más complejas mucho más difíciles mucho más demandantes que los bienes originales. No sólo porque la historia o los personajes de partida no te pertenecen sino que debes adaptarlos no sólo a la historia sino a tus necesidades como guionista.

I’ve only written original screenplays so far as it gives me more freedom to create a world and characters. If I were to write one adapted from an existing novel I’d be worried that the script would not do it justice or add aspects that would be unnecessary. Which one is better than the other I wouldn’t say either way because one is showing creativity and the other is showing that you can use pre existing material and bring it to life.

Tania Cárdenas Paulsen Muchios grazias. Well, AI did this translation for me: Adaptations are generally much more complex, much more difficult, and much more demanding than the original works. Not only because the story or characters do not belong to you, but also because you have to adapt them not only to the story but to your needs as a screenwriter. ... You are right, except in this case, I write the novel and the Script. However from a couple of previous experiences, I found the going very difficult because I had to compress the novel into 1/6 of the original content.

There is no right answer here IMO. It depends on the execution. So much comes down to the execution. The history of cinema is made up of original and adapted material, after all. Look at a list of the 100 best films and you'll find both original and adapted scripts well represented.

Alex Winstanley Thanks for your comment. The last script lacked the novel. In my case, it

was just as comfortable; it necessitated far more discipline and I went for the script first. Messing around spending a lifetime trying to make the book successful "for a few dollars more" seemed to defeat the objective at the time. So, I gambled for more with less yet equally with remote possibilities for success. However, writing the novel was more satisfying creatively, the script seemed to be more of a straight-jacket exercise.

Eric Christopherson Pardon my ignorance. I am a newbie. You mention original vs adapted. I take it, you mean that original is a straight script with no novel to refer to?

Dan MaxXx To make a difference, what would be an established audience in terms of numbers?

Yes, Charles, an original screenplay would be one that is not based on any source material, such as a novel, a play, or non-fiction book.

Charles you live in Australia,I'm Australian so I'll just give you some numbers on novels published in Australia.Due to our low population you only need to sell about 10 000 copies of a novel for it to be a best seller.10 000 book sales does not get Hollywood knocking on your door.However you could use the angle of it being a best seller to maybe sell it to an American production company.I know several Australian novelist who've written multiple Australian best sellers and their income from these best selling novels is only between $10 000-$15 000 Aus $/year($7000-$10 000 US).They are in most cases making their living by ghost writing biographies for rugby players,cricketers,politicians etc.As you are British I would strongly suggest you target British publishers as it's obviously a far larger market but also American publishers take anything that's sucessful in the British market seriously.Potentially giving you access to the largest English speaking market on the planet.And I don't think it would be any harder to get an English publisher to publish a novel than an Australian publisher.The only reason I'm not suggesting that you try and sell a novel directly into the American market is this.Obviously when I write a script I use American terminology so bin becomes trash can glasses become eye glasses etc.British production companies are fine with it as long as any British characters use British terms.But on several occassions I've had American producers ask me to change my entire scipt into American English because they find reading English spelled the way the rest of the world spell "jarring".So first time I was told this and asked to change the spelling to English overnight stupid me thought it'll only be a couple of words a paragraph.No it was F'n 70% of the words.So an hour or so's work became a very long night.So every time it's been said to me since I just refuse to change the spelling unless they're willing to pay me to do it.I couldn't imagine going through that with a novel.I was proper pissed off by the end so if you decide to do it take your time and drink some whiskey while you're doing it.Best of luck mate.

Hollywood for one generally skews toward existing IP. Original stories are perceived as risky. If it's a successful novel (best seller) all the better.

When I was at a studio an exec mentioned that if I find a good book, with good sales to let him know. Some book adaptations tank at the box office and others are successful. I saw the numbers all the time from most of the studios, tracking the competition. All the studios had successes, and all had failures when it comes to book adaptations. No one knows what will hit and what won't. No one.

The qualifier "best" is quite subjective. However, you can objectively determine which group has been more successful in terms of audience, awards, reviews, votes...

For TV, IP is very much in demand so adapting from a novel can help with sales. But only if the novel has already received one "yes" in the form of awards or some kind of bestseller list. However, generally novels are difficult to adapt to television, so you have your work cut out for you. In many ways writing original material is easier because you can write directly for the screen rather than trying to take something written for the page and rewrite it for a totally different medium with different requirements. Most new TV writers who try to adapt their own or someone else's novel with an eye toward sales potential quickly realize that this is a LOT harder than they thought and requires a huge amount of planning, outlining, and thinking about various elements before beginning Act I.

i feel like most adaptations fall short in some way or another, due to not having enough time to get into every element of the story with the proper nuance. the reason Harry Potter is so successful though is because they got the exact formula right of omission vs. inclusion / translation of words to visually interesting elements. studios scout books really hard to find the next story that will pop on screen primarily because there is a "built in audience" for the material, which has always felt like a tenuous argument to me, but is very defensible for execs which is why it is modus operandi these days. most great novels do translate well to series though and think that's the best form for most modern adaptations. for films, think a lot of the material is often left on the table, which leads to "failures" and is why original stories fit better as films. Although, even a movie like Oppenheimer, which really didn't even need a book behind it because Oppenheimer was such an interesting and tortured character, still had to have a book behind it to get made. Think the biggest studio level films crave that IP in hopes of having a hedged bet and ability to get their money back via physical media sales of some kind, but mid-budget to low budget films work best when they're original and not forcing IP into too small of a budget

A thank you to all. I did ask for some fleshy comments and I am getting them, and I would like to acknowledge and answer them. Different opinions as usual.

Dan MaxXx I am being shown the top of the mountain but my vision doesn’t take me that high up. This is a problem: there are too many such examples which are far too unrealistic or infeasible for screenwriters, otherwise they would be counting their sales and their money. However, it is always good to dream and get your ambitions high…

And thanks Eric Christopherson for the clarification of the terminology. As you say, there is no right answer; another factor is the current situation/status/objectives of the writer… is it money, ego, pastime, or testing the creative ability?

Craig Prickett In Australia, a person is, in many ways, isolated from the two bastions of the English Language. But I have to disagree that the American English is a handicap. Just another obstacle for sure and it's a p.i.t.a. After a while, one gets to know that favor, humor and the like do not carry a “u” and the double “ll” becomes a single “l,” but care still needs to be taken for consistency. I chose the bigger market so I will tend to stick to American English. However, in my novel “Divided we Stand” which effectively reflects the pains of the Old Trafford Football Club, it’s purely English, words, expressions et cetera. I even used the local terminology which I was partly familiar with from my time in the UK. From a marketing point of view, I think both markets are equally difficult.

Jack Binder if no novel exists, then I understand that the Script is the IP.

Another balanced view from Lindbergh E Hollingsworth.

Huascar Mendez Better or best are both subjective and hence lies the dilemma of leaning towards one opinion or another.

Forget the whiskey, just a cup of tea for me. I am of the weak variety.

Finally, quoting Anna Marton Henry “In many ways writing original material is easier because you can write directly for the screen rather than trying to take something written for the page and rewrite it.” The latter often involves hunting grounds that are already familiar, riding on others’ coattails, or regurgitating content for an audience that has been extensively exposed or conditioned through media, book sales, etc. This approach doesn't add much to creativity; often it’s just about changing the spices in the stew or tell the audience “it uses mama's old secret recipe”. BUT, often it’s the guaranteed Hollywood formula to make money.

In my situation, it’s a creative / ego ride. Having done both i.e. written the novel followed by the script (3 times), the quickest way is to write the Script and gamble on that. But one objective comment is “creative over-indulgence: not to jump from one creative ‘done job’ to another without marketing the finished one.” thus leaving leaving the novel to gather dust on an Amazon shelf.

15 years ago, I performed a small statistical investigation. Average rating differ little between movies based on novels and those which are not.

I have myself twice adapted plays into screenplays. For an inexperienced screenwriter, that may actually be a good idea.

Göran Johansson and Mike Childress I agree entirely with your comments. However, putting numbers and statistics aside, and forgetting the credits, recommendations, five-star ratings and other rave reviews - which certainly do a lot to prompt one forward... there are fundamental pieces missing in the puzzle.

And IMHO, they are undertones in all such opinions, discussions and debates. Unless the work is purely a "creative effort" for entertainment sake or ego, in which case the aforementioned accolades certainly help you to push your work a few rungs up the ladder, then unless the script is marketable and you're in with the right people who can push it forward (caution here!), then it doesn't matter whether a novel existed or not.

In summary, a novelist can run wild with creativity and expression. Heshe can chisel out a Michelangelo over time because time is aplenty. If heshe swaps hat for that of screenwriter, then disciplined thought with a good measure of business sense comes to the fore if it is to end up on camera.

Reversing course.... Script first. Novel second. On the front cover of the Paperback, have you ever seen the Logline printed?

Mike Childress Agree on both of your comments. Maybe I am trying to identify somebody who would voice his own chord, perhaps on an even higher pitch, so that critique could be more in-depth. Any thoughts on "Reversing course.... Script first. Novel second. On the front cover of the Paperback, have you ever seen the Logline printed?"

Mike Childress I only did that once: Re-Programming The President. The paid-advice I received was excellent and covered lots of detail. He indicated a complete re-write besides many other problems with the script. It was my first. He told me you have three stories in one. Too confusing. I ended up cutting 120,000 down to 23,000 words. The cleaver was out and I jettisoned 4 chapters out completely, and then whittled down the rest. In the end, I had to follow his advice and start the Script all over again.

Mike Childress I never even got a Bronze. Not surprising. The first one was 116K, rather (2FL) long, the second and published one is 72K, the script in book format but the book itself is not available is 27K.

I think movies based on novels look better because they have more philosophy, psychology, wisdom. Screenwriters concentrate on entertaining the viewer with sex, violence and special effects without paying enough attention to drama.

Arthur Charpentier If the novel is popular that''s very true, but if not like majority, it is of no consequence. It's still a major hurdle to overcome that mountain before you tackle the Script one. By the time I get around the first mountain, I'm done and out. With your last sentence, I can't agree more. In the books above, there is no sex whatsoever and no violence apart from war. I thought the special effects come from the studio though.

The technology of creating a bestseller is mainly based on marketing. there are no best-selling books in Russia because publishers do not want to spend their money on advertising books.

Scripts based on popular novels are easier to pitch and sell to producers as they already have an established audience, who will probably see the movie. This reduces the risk of green lighting a failure, something every producer wants to avoid. Best sellers also catch the eye of actors, looking for projects they they can star in and produce (as they all now have their own production companies). A great original story can be equally entertaining as a popular novel, but much harder to get in the hands of people willing to make a movie.

Daniel Broderick So the idea would be to find a Literary Agent attached to the Producer / Production Co, to take the novel and make it popular via his contacts with the traditional publishers, then carry on the battle to get the Script to move forward. Does this happen? And if so HOW?

Dan MaxXx Thanks for your comment "The real issue/problem here is you...." Absolutely true. If I were much younger, then what you suggest as a better option would be perfect. But at a certain age, it becomes even more of a gamble. So one might try to follow the less torturous approach albeit the possibility of success is even less.... the Las Vegas syndrome.

Its not so much a case of "is it better" but it can influence the marketability of a project. If a book has a large audience and has become a bestseller, an adaptation of it is a strong commercial prospect as it has a pre-existing audience and good press.

First and foremost! it depends on the writer's ability! From a novel (especially an autobiography) it can be difficult to weave into a narrative that fits a streamlined story, especially if it is a story written over a lifetime! While an original story can be designed to meet the beats easily. With a novel, a lot of decisions have already been made and a screenwriter can leverage this, as long as the book is well written. Also, detailed descriptions in novels are a blessing, they can save a lot of time and add authenticity! Both can work, you are essentially comparing apples to oranges!

subjective all around, what is actually real is the time taken to adapt the book to script, seems like the book will always be better since all the best parts will be included. It was written then saw an editor then written again for screen. Kinda obvious but still subjective