On Books and Movies
In comments, Manar writes: "I can't wait for the movie. I'm overjoyed that you're writing the screenplay because that means that even if it must deviate somewhat from the book (because although I may not like it, I recognize that it can be necessary for movies to not be perfect visual replicas of the literature that they are displaying...) it will nonetheless still be awesome. :)"
It is well known that when it comes to the movies, I am a bit of a Holden Caulfield*. But it should also be noted to all fans of Paper Towns that, should a movie ever be made of the book, it will likely be RADICALLY different from the book. It will not be an attempt to make the book into a movie; it will be an attempt to make a movie that doesn't suck. I hope that won't make you hate me.
I know that this is an unpopular position, and I'm happy to acknowledge that I might be wrong about it, but ultimately I'm not interested in movies retelling stories. (Like, when watching the Harry Potter movies, I am always bored. Like, I've already had a much richer experience imagining these characters doing and saying these same things. What I want from Harry Potter movies are vastly different stories told in the same world, with different endings and the like. For instance, I would LOVE it if in the last HP movie, Harry died.)
As I begin to write a screenplay called Paper Towns, I find myself still interested in the ideas of the novel, but I don't think that the same plot rendered visually works in the service of those ideas. So I hope that you will not hate me, if they ever make a movie, for "ruining" the book. Nothing I'm writing now says anything about the book; I'm just trying to write something that will be fun and interesting to watch.
I know this early to start begging your forgiveness, particularly when you consider how rarely movies actually get made, but still: Forgive me.
* Which is to say that I'm dubious. By the way, do you know how the original Catcher flap copy, which was probably written by Salinger, described Holden? "Perhaps the safest thing we can say about Holden is that he was born in the world not just strongly attracted to beauty but, almost, hopelessly impaled on it."
42 Comments:
Asterisk what? I'm cliffhangered, John.
The only thing that's exciting about a book being made into a movie is that it is going to be made into a movie--the idea of it. The fact that something you appreciate is going to be appreciated by more people, albeit in a watered-down, kind of sucky way, is fun. But once it actually happens, it can only be disappointing, I think.
Also: I AM VERY EXCITED FOR THE MOVIE.
Are you writing this cause people are interested or just on your own accord? It would seem weird to me if some studio pointed to paper towns and was like make that in to a movie. And then you haded them a script that was 90% different then the book.
I mean maybe that's standard practice. But it just seems like instead of optioning the book they should just hire you to write a movie and it could be a John Green Movie instead of a Paper Towns movie.
Are there dramatic differences between writing a screenplay and writing a novel? Is the process different, is it harder, etc. I'm curious. It seems like the two genres are so different that even a skilled novelist such as yourself would have a tough time transitioning. I'm just curious if that's the case.
You're right...the final HP movie would be so much more interesting if they decided to kill Harry. I never thought about that. XD
I remember you said earlier that you might even have different characters for the movie. Has that happened yet or are you still not sure what is concrete for the screenplay?
Also, I know it's not really a big deal or anything, but Paper Towns was the first book I read this year. Which kind of makes me a bad fan, but I made my new year's resolution to read 100 books this year just to make sure I did it, and yours was the first I read. Do you feel uber special now? You should. Haha.
It will not be an attempt to make the book into a movie; it will be an attempt to make a movie that doesn't suck.
Thank you for that. I completely agree that making a movie that is essentially scenes from the book is pretty darn boring. Books and movies are completely different mediums, and to essentially transfer one to the other is never going to work. Which is why I am always annoyed at literary purists who say the movie "ruined" the book. How can it? It isn't possible for a book and a movie to tell the same story.
So, yeah, make a movie that doesn't suck, and we'll all be happy. (Well, I will, at least.) No pressure, though.
Though you make an excellent point, if you are really so interested in telling another so different story, why have the premise of a movie with the same name as your book? Why not just have an entirely new story? (I realize this might not be sold as easily -- though Nerdfighters would love a Random John Green-penned Movie). Will your the ten per cent that is the same in your book and your screenplay be the kernel truths, the enlightening moments, the things I learned from, or will they be superficial names and places so that studio execs who haven't actually read your book won't recognize your deviation from the story they purchased? (Not that you would do that. I'm making a point.)
In service to a 'movie that doesn't suck', is it possible that you are doing a disservice to a book that has touched people and changed lives? You show much more flippant disregard for the merit of your books than your readers do, and we seem to think they are much better than you think they are. I will watch anything with 'John Green' somewhere in the credits, but I love Margo and Q and the characters in a way that is beyond you now. You sent that story into the world, and now I love it like it's real. I am not a huge fan of movies, but of course I am going to object to a film with a Margo that is 90% from the Margo you have created already and whom I already love.
This is a long-winded and grammatically painful way of saying: If it's not a duck, don't call it a duck. If you don't think a movie that doesn't suck can be made from the ideas and events in your book, why did you agree to make a movie with the same title?
I disagree with what you say about retelling stories. I love seeing my favorite books made into movies. While I have a rich imagination, I also find it fascinating to see characters I adore brought to the screen. For example, I was psyched about the recent film "Revolutionary Road", as it has been one of my favorite books for years. I was happy to see it stick to the story and I was fascinated with how the storytelling played out on screen. I think it's interesting to see how different narrative styles are presented in movies. How is a first person story going to be adapted? How is a book with heavy narration going to be adapted? Sure, the adaptation is not always perfect, but I still find it interesting to see how someone else would make the story work on screen.
(P.S. I'm glad Catcher is never going to be made into a movie!! That would be blasphemous!)
I have to agree with Stefan on this. I don't see the point in optioning the book if the movie is going to be radically different from the book. I mean, the material would be drastically different, so why even give it the same name as the book? Why not just write an original screenplay? And that you have the power to make it awesome and not terrible is exciting. My problem when books are adapted into movies is that whenever someone goes to see the movie, they'll think "oh, then that must be what happens in the book, then" and they never bother reading the book or taking the book seriously because they didn't understand or like the movie. It's kind of... misleading. And that angers me like nothing else when people don't bother to pick up a book because their first impression of the story was from the movie. I hate having to explain to non-HP readers that their understanding of Harry Potter is almost entirely incorrect because they've only watched the movies. They speak about the books as if the movies are an accurate retelling, which they're not.
To me, movie versions of books should be a concise retelling. Not to be antagonistic, I'm just looking forward to Q, Margo, and the other characters as I saw them in the books, but through the eyes of someone else. I like to see creative interpretations and how others view certain characters, settings, etc. I think the ending especially of Paper Towns would be so awesome in movie form. And lastly, I think Harry dying in the last movie is a horrid idea because then people would think he really does die in the last book, and that would shape people's perception of the book. Plus, I just wouldn't want to see my dear Harry dying in general. Sorry, I just think it's important to do a book justice when it's being adapted into a medium that's likely going to be more widely-received. For example, I think that's why Lord of the Rings did so well and is so admired - the director was determined to retell the books concisely but accurately.
Again, I'm sorry for playing the devil's advocate, but being a movie and literature junkie, it's something I'm passionate about.
I agree that a movie based on a book should not try to retell the story on screen.
I would much prefer movies that take the same characters and put them in different or new situations. That's the main reason I like the Bourne movies--the books are incredible and complicated in a way that wouldn't work on screen. So instead they told a different story.
John I'd never hate you for making something different from the book. I think it's a good decision to make two great stories that share themes you care about, and that can be engaging within their respective media. Perhaps movie lovers can even help encourage you a little as you write, so you won't end up hating us by the end of it :o)
I think it's really awesome -- essentially we're getting 2 versions of the ideas that drove the book, both of them from the exact same person.
Assuming, of course, that the differences in the movie are more superficial (adding characters, moving locations, changing the timeline), and don't go as deep as changing the "imagining other people incorrectly" aspect.
I, like others who commented, understand that the two mediums are different, and transferring a book scene for scene onto the screen doesn't always successfully tell the story. And isn't that the goal? To successfully impart the same ideas and points through a different medium?
Good luck with the screenplay, John! I'm sure it will be great.
I dunno...I think that if there is a movie going to be made, it should either represent the book OR have a different title.
This is mostly for the sake of those of us whose favorite books have been made into crappy movies (which DON'T follow the book). Or even if they're good movies.
Example: "The Black Cauldron".
The movie is a sort of amalgam of Lloyd Alexander's Prydain Chronicles. Great! Except it had dragons. And weird stuff. And that's okay. Except whenever I recommend the books to someone, they say, "Oh, I saw the movie of that."
ARGH! HULK SMASH KILL! NO YOU DIDN'T! You saw a movie by that name! With some similar characters! THAT WAS NOT THE SAME!
There are, sadly, many examples of this. "Howl's Moving Castle" comes to mind. The movie is NOT the novel(which is one of my all-time favorite books) and it drives me crazy to have my friends assuming that the book is the same.
It's not.
That's why I think that if it's drastically changed, the title should be changed. :)
Yeah, Miramax optioned the rights for the YouTube book, so I've been working on that screenplay. They want to make some kind of dramacumentary. But I don't think it should tell the same story, so, instead, my screenplay focuses on a vlogger who posts on LiveVideo. Totally changes the whole dynamic, yet stays true to the original idea of the book, you know? I also totally have to rewrite the ending, a film can't end with a bunch of talking heads, we have to go out with a bang. I'm thinking a front page feature, or maybe he ends up going viral on Digg or something, you know, because people love happy endings.
I don't know Anna Swenson but I know she asks some good questions John and you're response to them would be of interest.
Clearly a book must change for retelling the story (which I would argue is independent of its 'bookness' even if 'bookness' isn't a word) as film. But there's much more to a cinematic telling of a story than simply a different ending - and I know you aren't saying otherwise. But I wonder with Anna if you undervalue your own work and simply can't see that there is great worth in retelling the same story visually to reach a whole new audience?
I thought I should present to you a slightly cracked-out comparison I have made..
Say you were commissioned to construct a rose using only paper mache. You begin your process only to find that capturing a rose in the form of paper is extremely difficult, as roses have many layers and folds that only the wonder of nature can achieve. So instead, you go on to create a tulip. When you're done, you present the tulip you have created to the person who has requested the rose, and tell him that it is a rose. Well, he's going to be rather confused, as the paper rose in question is, in fact, a tulip. You have just chosen to call it by another name because what you have created works better being recreated in paper form than what you were supposed to have made would have been.
And that's how I feel about Paper Towns sharing the same name as a potential movie written by you that would be drastically different from the book. I don't believe it's possible for bad books or screenplays to come from you, but I am disappointed at the prospect of there being a movie created and sharing the same name as a book I really enjoyed only for it to be nothing like the book at all. I think it would be bad to market it as such, for ignorant assumptions of books based on their film counterparts are most annoying. Especially when people see that the author has also written the screenplay for the film. They'll likely assume that it's meant to be a retelling of the book. I say if it has to be radically different, then perhaps a change of title is also in order. And I think that the producers should refrain from having "based on the New York Times best-selling novel Paper Towns" splashed across the trailers and promotions.
Again, I love your books, but I thought I should offer my two cents.
WHAT? THE PAPER TOWNS MOVIE WILL NOT BE EXACTLY LIKE THE BOOK?!?! PANIC! PANIC!
Ahem. Just kidding. :) I actually took a class this past semester about film adaptations from novels. I was surprised to find that there is an ongoing heated debate with several books written concerning this issue of "faithfully" translating a novel into film.
I think you're largely right. In terms of narrative, a film that tries to capture every scene word for word would indeed be boring.
However, I don't think the same could be said about a novel's style. If a film, through its own cinematic stylistic techniques can translate certain stylistic elements (metaphor, tone, etc.) of a novel, it might be fair to call a film adaptation "good" insofar as it's "faithful."
To me, anyway, successfully translating "style" seems to be ultimately more interesting to see in film than to have a film that is completely true to the narrative.
I don't think it matters how different Paper Towns is from the book, as long as John brings his lovely humor and voice to the screenplay, as he does to his books, it would be brilliant. Or at least I think so.
I share Lindsay's curiosity about how writing a screenplay is different from writing a novel, or even if it's dramatically different at all.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I agree completely!
I also just went back to your previous blog entries and found the one where you made a playlist for Paper Towns and I knew pretty much every song which was extremely exciting. Have you ever heard anything by Rilo Kiley? "The Elected" has two of the members from Rilo Kiley in it and their music is pretty similar.
But anyway, you're amazing.
I pretty much agree with Anna Swenson.
The excitement of seeing a book you've loved turned into a movie isn't getting a different story - it's watching the small things, seeing someone's interpretation of the story. It's watching the same story in an entirely different medium - one that is simultaneously more and less detailed than a novel, but mostly just different. The story isn't the major thing that's supposed to change.
Obviously, it's necessary to change some of the story - condense some parts or whatever, but I don't think it should be an entirely different story. The essential message (the themes, I suppose) need to remain the same.
Of course, I'm sure any movie you write will be excellent. It just might be that I have to approach it as A John Green Movie rather than The Paper Towns Movie.
I'm back because it occurred to me, as I was thinking about this during my chemistry class (...does that make me a bad person?) :) that despite the abundance of poor book-to-movie adaptations or adaptations that drive me insane, there's the shining example of "The Princess Bride".
...Which is nothing like the book. Sure, it follows the same basic premise, but the movie actually plays it way straighter than the book. And they're both brilliant. The screenplay was written by the author and he did a terrific job.
So I'm not wholly against alternate interpretations on the screen after all. :) Not if they're done well.
No matter how you may change the plot points in the movie version, it won't suck because it will still be your vision...just a little augmented.
Good luck with the screenplay.
By the way, I stumbled on this clever facebook parody involving Pride and Prejudice. Thought you might enjoy it.
http://www.much-ado.net/austenbook/
Best Wishes!
Marie
You're right, that would be a very interesting ending to the series, having Harry die. I thought he was going to die, I really did. But when Rowling decided to miraculously save him and make his death into a 'superhero death' (that is to say he didn't really die, but everyone thought he did), I sort of have to agree with you and say it almost would have been better if he'd died. It would have made a lot more sense, anyway. That 'Kings Cross' chapter took forever for me to get. Read it like 4 times before realizing what she was trying to say. :)
I agree with you. For example, WILLIE WONKA AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY is less like the book by Roald Dahl than Burton's CHARLIE AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY... but is a much better movie. IMHO.
Also...
Have you read Ellen Klages's WHITE SANDS, RED MENACE? Or her GREEN GLASS SEA? You definitely should. She blows most YA novels out of the water. Don't worry, yours is safely adrift.
For lack of a better example, there's several versions of Batman in the movies. I'm not sure which one is the closest to the comic books. But some people are hardcore about books. I think Harry Potter is so loved enough that people don't want to see major changes, but for some other books the idea of it would make a finer movie than perhaps the actual plot. Harry Potter will probably be remade someday. There have been rumors of remaking The Wizard of Oz. We don't know when the world will end, but I can see movie making going along till the end. And people will want to remake things over and over as long as technology gets better and people continue to have different visions and takes on the story.
john, i'm actually ridiculously glad that you feel that way.
movies that retell stories from books precisely are a waste of film. of mice and men was ridiculously faithful to the book to the extent where i felt like it was made purely as a tool for exasperated teachers who felt that trying to make students actually read the damn book would be hopeless, and at least if they showed them this film they would know what happened.
at least, i definitely had one teacher use it that way. yawn.
oh. and while i fully thumbsup vast alterations in the screenification process, i will be severely disappointed if there is no giant tub of vaseline in the movie.
Personally, I get irate when the change things from the novels because the people who did not read the book get everything confused. I can only think of one movie that was a fantastic adaptation of the novel, About A Boy by Nick Hornby. Yes, I know the Kurt Cobain story line is gone but beyond that amazing.
After hearing you look at it that way, maybe I'm too harsh on the Harry Potter movies.
I am not too harsh however on the people whom I ask, "Have you read Harry Potter?" and they reply, "No but I've seen the movies, so i know the story."
I'm like...No. You don't.
I think that that is the most accurate and brilliant description of Holden Caulfield ever written.
Well done once again, Mr. Salinger.
And well done, John Green.
I get fidgety during HP movies. Especially the fourth and fifth ones. I wiggle and squirm like a Kindergartner with a bladder infection, dying for something I don't already know to happen. Then I get annoyed because things that are really important and a require at least a little backstory are shown but completely unexplained (i.e. all those glowing orbs in the Dept of Mysteries are prophecies, the Veil is a portal to death, etc.). My mom (who hasn't read the books) and I had a HP movie marathon over Christmas break, and all I could think was, "Why isn't she asking me a thousand questions? Isn't she confused? Doesn't she want to know why this is all so important?"
Also, I know a girl who is about to start reading HP simply because she is obsessed with Twilight, and Rob Pattinson is in the Goblet of Fire. I understand that anything that gets kids reading is great, but there's a difference between reading as a means to an end (i.e. so I have another excuse to imagine Rob's face every time I read the words "Cedric Diggory") and reading because you want to challenge your mind, get engrossed in a great story, exercise your imagination, etc. It just seems like a waste. I hope she falls in love with the stories and forgets all about whatshisface.
captcha code definition of the day:
pedibula: alternate term for ankle (combination of the prefix pedi and the word fibula).
physiology and anatomy nerdfighters, unite!
I'm curious how a writer could be so casual about the endings of other people's stories. For just one example, Harry Potter: Harry didn't "not die" just because JKR didn't want to kill him. There were plot, structural, theme, and many other types of reasons for her to do it; his being alive at the end reinforces the threads she carefully constructed throughout seven novels, creates a (heh) believable way that Voldemort could actually be defeated, and reinforces the messages of love and life being harder and more worthy than hate and death.
I only say this because, it seems really bizarre for someone to say, "I'd rather watch Harry [or insert any other character here] die," especially when you often are so respectful of others' creativity and the work they put into their creations. If you'd rather see an entirely different story perhaps it should be a different movie. If you'd like to explore the ways a textual creation can be made visual, then you want to see the movie of a book.
That's not to say that all the details have to be the same - there are demands of film that absolutely must be met in sacrifice to the slavish representations of books - but something central like that just changing because you don't think it has merit if it's translated to film, seems to me to be at odds with your usual attitude toward creation and interpretation.
It's as though I said, "I think Paper Towns would be a better movie if they don't find Margo." Isn't finding Margo absolutely key, absolutely vital to Paper Towns BEING Paper Towns? If you want to recreate it to have the same themes and not have a Finding Margo ending, that's yours to do because it's your creation. But I don't think it makes a better film, just a different one, and it should be up to no one but the creator to indicate that a work should change so centrally. Give the kids different costumes - change their names if they're unimportant - whatever - but it's so bizarre to me to hear a writer so dismissive of the payoff of another writer's work.
I'm concerned about the natural effect of your words here - that your younger readers have been saying "You know, I never thought about that! Harry should die!" etc - because it's akin to saying, "Never mind what an author slaved over and how they expressed their creation. It's not good outside what you want it to be." If Harry should die, it's a different book, a different film. It's not the film based on the series that JK Rowling created around that very integral moment.
Critical thought and the expression of it is very important and a very big part of your online persona, John - please don't sacrifice it here because you don't mind fooling around with other people's works.
As for Paper Towns, sure it should be different! It should be nothing like the book - except that it should be like the book. It has to be a movie of the same central ideas and themes of the book, no? And I'm all for you changing whatever you want to change to make that happen - because it's your story and if you feel you can make it work a different way, sure. But if someone made a screenplay and said to you, "Yeah, we're just gonna not find Margo because we'd much rather it was different than the book, but we can't prove to you why it's essential to the plot of the film or anything. We just want to do something different," wouldn't you have something to say about that?
All the best, you are a fabulous writer.
-Judy
with or without the changes john is an excellent story teller and i believe we would see it through the movie
zach
I'm sure that Nerdfightoria will expand when the movie comes out. This is great and all, but don't you think it will be a little sad to be a little less unique and always feel the need to say, "I was a Nerdfighter before the Nerdfightorian Expansion."?
Well, that's really what I meant in a way.
Whenever I see a movie that attempts to imitate a book, it generally fails miserably and only serves to disappoint me. Because, as you say, no movie can surpass our limitless imagination.
However, on the rare occasions where there is a movie screenplay written that is based upon a book that is written by the same author- I am entertained no matter the similarity between the two media. If the author intends for it to be different, it's not killing the book. It's telling a different story, and I can appreciate that. However, that does not happen often. Generally, movies based on books are created to make the book "come to life."
Basically, what I meant was that I have faith in you as a writer, John Green, and I don't have to fear your work being butchered. I know that I will enjoy the movie (or at least the script), because I trust you to write something that I will enjoy. I would not want anyone else to have the authority to alter your writing. That is what I really meant when I expressed my joy in your control of the screenplay.
:)
Dftba!
I disagree that John "has control" of the screenplay.
He doesn't. Hollywood does whatever they want. You don't just turn in a version of a screenplay (whatever it may be) and they hop off and film it. It doesn't work that way. Movies cost real, hardcore money to make. When money is involved screenwriters have to answer to lots and lots of studio executives.
Just because John Green writes his own version of the screenplay doesn't mean other writers won't get paid to REWRITE many, many parts of the screenplay, or even start over from scratch.
When the studio pays, the studio gets what they want.
PT is a very hard book to turn into a movie because so much of it is internally based -- we know how Q feels about Margo, the discovery of the poem, and her hiding place because of Q's internal thought process.
Thoughts are very hard to dramatize for a movie screen. Action is not. Because Q is alone for much of the middle of the book (act two of the screenplay) not only do you have scenes with internal thought, but also the problem of no other characters to draw out what is going on. Again, very hard.
The road trip part, well, yeah, it's all external jokes and the very act of the trials of getting to point A to point B, that's a no-brainer. But that whole middle section, that's killer.
I always thought that if I read a book, I would want the movie to be as close to it as possible.
However, I just watched the BBC versions of the Narnia books....and almost took a nap.
Not to say that they were bad. For being made in the late 80s early 90s and made for tv the special effects weren't horrible (they however weren't good either).
The problem I had is that they went page by page almost exactly to the book, which I had already read. Nothing to grab my attention, nothing new to pique my interest.
So I look forward to someday watching a new version of "Paper Towns". Mmmm.....but what will the tagline be?
If you decide to make it into a movie, that's great.
however, if you don't, then it's not a big deal. The book was great, and nothing can ruin that for me.
i can't even begin to explain how excited i am about the movie but also i wanted to say that i convinced my schools library to buy looking for alaska and paper towns which made me grinny and smiley for about three days.
This is wonderful! I completely agree. I mean, it is fun to watch movies that are based on books just because you get to see how other people envisioned it (or...sometimes...not. ) But it's not like a mutual conversation about the way that you imagined it in your head; it is more like someone telling you how to imagine it - which is no where near as awesome. The themes of your book were, however, exceptionally thought provoking and your characters were entertaining and interesting and I hope at least the basic outline of those stay...
i just want to say, i think emily tennant should play margo.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home