Vonda N. McIntyre's Adaptations: Any notes or letters?

[Firebird]

Yes, she was sometimes castigated by fans for daring to add the David/Saavik connection in her ST II novelization. Then I bought a set of official ST II playing cards and there was at least one publicity still with David and Saavik in the Genesis Cave in a romantic pose.

Having seen the workprint for Wrath of Khan at UCLA and possessing all of the revisions for the shooting script, I can tell you there are no romantic scenes of any kind for David and Saavik in the Genesis Cave scene that were written or shot. The publicity stills were just posed shots.

 

[DarrenTR1970]

And the first two or three issues of Marvel comics 'Star Wars' adaptation were on the shelves a few months before the movie was released and included the deleted scenes of Luke and Biggs on Tatooine and Han Solo meeting a very humanoid Jabba the Hutt, because Roy Thomas and Archie Goodwin were working off of earlier versions of Lucas' script.

 

[Christopher]

Almost definitely. Especially in the 1980s, the lead time to publish a book if you were rushing it was 6 months, and the preferred was 9 months. The book had to be typeset and copy-edited and proofread and approved by the folks at Paramount.

Memory Alpha says Curtis was cast as Saavik by August 1983, which was just 10 months before the TSFS and its novelization came out, so I guess it's possible. Still, I think Kirstie Alley's departure was known about sometime before that, though I can't find a specific date.

Still, as I said, it's not the recasting itself that was key, since a new actress could've been directed to play Saavik the same way Alley did. The change was Nimoy's decision as director.

 

[James Swallow]

Alas, one of the things that has led to the dearth of novelizations in modern times (besides rampant spoiler-phobia as well as studios not wanting people to trash the movie based on the novelization in online reviews) is that studios have gotten much more fussy about complete fidelity to the movie, to the point of absurdity and of turning in a too-short book that's a hard sell.

Co-signed; I had the same experience working on my novelization of Ghost in the Shell in 2017; a total contrast to adapting The Butterfly Effect in 2004, where I was given a free hand to expand, enhance and build out the movie narrative.

 

[Christopher]

I don't understand the point of a novelization that doesn't add anything to the movie. That's what they're for. Especially these days when you can just buy the movie on DVD or streaming, why even do a novelization if it's effectively just a transcript of the movie?

 

[DonIago]

I don't understand the point of a novelization that doesn't add anything to the movie. That's what they're for. Especially these days when you can just buy the movie on DVD or streaming, why even do a novelization if it's effectively just a transcript of the movie?

Hmm. I guess there's an argument to be made that my opinion of TSFS the film might be higher if I hadn't read TSFS the novelization and saw so much unrealized potential, even if technically it's the other way around? Though maybe the argument there is that the novelization should be released after the movie. Get the butts in the seats and then fans will read the book...though if they didn't like the movie, why would they get the book? Kobayashi Maru.

 

[DonIago]

Co-signed; I had the same experience working on my novelization of Ghost in the Shell in 2017; a total contrast to adapting The Butterfly Effect in 2004, where I was given a free hand to expand, enhance and build out the movie narrative.

I don't think I knew there was a novelization of TBE. I'd be curious to read that one (is it out there?), given that I really wanted TBE to be a good film and was a bit disappointed when it wasn't. Admittedly partly because the idea of Ashton Kutcher in a serious role was intriguing to me at the time.

 

[Christopher]

Hmm. I guess there's an argument to be made that my opinion of TSFS the film might be higher if I hadn't read TSFS the novelization and saw so much unrealized potential, even if technically it's the other way around? Though maybe the argument there is that the novelization should be released after the movie. Get the butts in the seats and then fans will read the book...though if they didn't like the movie, why would they get the book? Kobayashi Maru.

Except the reason that novelizations used to be released before movies -- sometimes months before, like with Fantastic Voyage or Star Wars -- was to try to replicate the hype for a movie that was based on a pre-existing novel, since back then people actually read and valued books, so a movie would get a boost if it was based on a successful book. And a movie based on a novel is always, always going to be much, much shorter than the novel and leave out a lot of its content. The point isn't for the experiences to be identical, or for one to be merely an advertisement for the other. The point is for them to complement each other, each version offering something the other doesn't.

 

[DonIago]

I think I both agree and disagree with you Christopher.

The problem with releasing the book first is that it's a risk. If the book is good then yes, it increases the hype. But if it's bad, then it could have the opposite effect.

I agree that I'm not interested in reading a book that precisely mirrors a film, but, for me at least, in cases like TSFS, the book led me to imagine a film that was a lot more compelling than what I got. As such, I might have been better going in with no expectations. And perhaps I shouldn't have had any expectations, but I think expecting someone to read a novelization before a film release and not develop any expectations is probably a bit unrealistic?

 

[KRAD]

Releasing the book before the movie is win-win for everyone, because the publisher gets to take advantage of the pre-release hype without having to worry about whether or not the movie is successful, and the movie producers get free advertising, as bookstores have little movie posters sitting on the shelves.

Releasing it after the movie comes out means Schrodinger has already opened the box. If the movie tanks, your book is screwed before it's even released.

 

[Greg Cox]

Releasing the book before the movie is win-win for everyone, because the publisher gets to take advantage of the pre-release hype without having to worry about whether or not the movie is successful, and the movie producers get free advertising, as bookstores have little movie posters sitting on the shelves.

Releasing it after the movie comes out means Schrodinger has already opened the box. If the movie tanks, your book is screwed before it's even released.

Or at least it used to be a win-win for everyone, and was certainly in the publisher's best interests. As noted, all movies are presumed to be hits until they open.

Alas, that was before spoilers became a cottage industry, so that publishing the novelization in advance meant that the entire plot of the movie was going to be spoiled all over the internet the minute some fan got their hands on a copy of the book. And that social media was going start feverishly dissecting and critiquing the movie, based on the novelization, before your $200 million summer blockbuster even opened.

"Found the novelization at Wal-Mart! SPACE MERMAIDS 2: NEPTUNE'S REVENGE is the worst movie ever!"

 

[Christopher]

I think I both agree and disagree with you Christopher.

The problem with releasing the book first is that it's a risk. If the book is good then yes, it increases the hype. But if it's bad, then it could have the opposite effect.

My point is that it's the same with movies that are based on pre-existing books. There's always the risk that the movie will be a disappointment compared to the book; indeed, that arguably happens more often than not (with notable exceptions like Jaws, The Godfather, Blade Runner, and Who Framed Roger Rabbit?, which are generally considered as good as or better than their source novels). No matter which comes out first, there's no guarantee that you'll always find the movie as satisfying as the book. That's why it's good that there are two versions. It's just a matter of appreciating each one on its own merits.

(This is why I've never understood the mentality "Wow, I loved that book, I hope it gets made into a movie." Given how often movie adaptations are inferior to the books they're based on, or severely trimmed down or substantially rewritten, is that really something to wish for? If you love the book, it makes more sense just to appreciate the book for what it is than to yearn for it to be changed into something certain to be different and not necessarily any good.)

Alas, that was before spoilers became a cottage industry, so that publishing the novelization in advance meant that the entire plot of the movie was going to be spoiled all over the internet the minute some fan got their hands on a copy of the book. And that social media was going start feverishly dissecting and critiquing the movie, based on the novelization, before your $200 million summer blockbuster even opened.

The makers of The Empire Strikes Back didn't mind that the novelization was released a month before the movie, even though it gave away the twist about Darth Vader. And I think David Prowse gave it away in an interview something like a year before the film came out.

I think it's a function of people reading less these days. Back when people read books all the time, and movies adapted from books or well-known plays were a big part of the industry, it was common for people to know the story of a movie in advance, so it wasn't seen as a problem if they did.

 

[James Swallow]

I don't think I knew there was a novelization of TBE. I'd be curious to read that one (is it out there?), given that I really wanted TBE to be a good film and was a bit disappointed when it wasn't. Admittedly partly because the idea of Ashton Kutcher in a serious role was intriguing to me at the time.

Best of luck to you in finding a copy of The Butterfly Effect novelization after 21 years (!); it's long out of print and was never released digitally. But I still occasionally get mail from people asking me if I liked the movie they made out of my novel .

If you're interested in hearing more about my work on it, there's a blog on my website (link) I wrote for the 20th anniversary last year, which also includes an interview I did with the Authorized Novelizations podcast - worth a listen if you're into these kind of tie-ins...

 

[Greg Cox]

My point is that it's the same with movies that are based on pre-existing books. There's always the risk that the movie will be a disappointment compared to the book; indeed, that arguably happens more often than not (with notable exceptions like Jaws, The Godfather, Blade Runner, and Who Framed Roger Rabbit?, which are generally considered as good as or better than their source novels). No matter which comes out first, there's no guarantee that you'll always find the movie as satisfying as the book. That's why it's good that there are two versions. It's just a matter of appreciating each one on its own merits.

(This is why I've never understood the mentality "Wow, I loved that book, I hope it gets made into a movie." Given how often movie adaptations are inferior to the books they're based on, or severely trimmed down or substantially rewritten, is that really something to wish for? If you love the book, it makes more sense just to appreciate the book for what it is than to yearn for it to be changed into something certain to be different and not necessarily any good.)




The makers of The Empire Strikes Back didn't mind that the novelization was released a month before the movie, even though it gave away the twist about Darth Vader. And I think David Prowse gave it away in an interview something like a year before the film came out.

I think it's a function of people reading less these days. Back when people read books all the time, and movies adapted from books or well-known plays were a big part of the industry, it was common for people to know the story of a movie in advance, so it wasn't seen as a problem if they did.

Note that EMPIRE was more than forty years ago, and STAR WARS and FANTASTIC VOYAGE even further in the past. That was another time, before today's modern media eco-system. Nobody was monetizing nerd rage by posting angry YouTube videos and podcasts -- or racing to be the first to spoil the entire movie all over the internet.

(Although, yes, I still regret that a college friend spoiled EMPIRE for me, based on the novelization, before I could stop them.)

True story: Some years ago, I had dinner with a studio licensing person who opined that, from the studio's POV, novelizations were much less cost-effective than other kinds of tie-in merchandise because you had to pay somebody to spend hours reading and reviewing an entire manuscript (and revisions) instead of just signing off on a design for a tee-shirt or lunchbox or whatever.

I hope the studios aren't starting to find them more trouble than they're worth.

 

[Tallguy]

or racing to be the first to spoil the entire movie all over the internet.

Gene Roddenberry was a trend setter! As was the marketing department for The Search for Spock.

 

[James Swallow]

Alas, that was before spoilers became a cottage industry, so that publishing the novelization in advance meant that the entire plot of the movie was going to be spoiled all over the internet the minute some fan got their hands on a copy of the book. And that social media was going start feverishly dissecting and critiquing the movie, based on the novelization, before your $200 million summer blockbuster even opened.

Yeah, this has really been the death-blow for the novelization-as-it-was from back in the day, the kind of work that Vonda McIntyre really excelled at. That and the fact that you no longer have to wait a (relatively) long time to experience a movie again after the initial release. Why read the story as prose if you can watch the blu-ray or stream it?

The only reason for a novelization to exist in the current market is if you get that extra something, as McIntyre provided in her books. I feel like now the concept can only hope to survive by being marketed specifically as either an "enhanced" version of a movie story or as a concept with nostalgia value (or both!)

You can see this with the last few Star Wars movie novelizations where they actually say Expanded Edition right there on the cover - of course, SW is a massive franchise with a huge fanbase so they're probably not worried about losing sales by releasing the book four or five months after the film came out.

Then again, look at Tim Waggoner's adaptation of Terrifier 2, released two years after the movie. But I get the sense that book is trading on the nostalgia value of being a novelization as well as the fact it has new material that expands the movie narrative. And in the meantime, publishers like Titan Books have been putting out stuff like the Rebel Moon novelizations, and reprints of old tie-ins (Conan The Barbarian, Ghostbusters and those nifty Godzilla Monsterverse books by some guy whose name escapes me... )

 

[Greg Cox]

But I still occasionally get mail from people asking me if I liked the movie they made out of my novel .

An occupational hazard for us novelization writers. I still find myself having to explain that, no, I didn't invent GHOST RIDER or GODZILLA, and, no, the new BATMAN movie is not based on my book . . . .

People are well-acquainted with the notion of movies based on books. The concept of books based on movies still tends to confuse folks, in my experience.

"Please, Mom, stop telling everyone I wrote that new movie."

 

[DonIago]

Best of luck to you in finding a copy of The Butterfly Effect novelization after 21 years (!); it's long out of print and was never released digitally. But I still occasionally get mail from people asking me if I liked the movie they made out of my novel .

If you're interested in hearing more about my work on it, there's a blog on my website (link) I wrote for the 20th anniversary last year, which also includes an interview I did with the Authorized Novelizations podcast - worth a listen if you're into these kind of tie-ins...

Did you like the movie they made out of your novel?

...I'll show myself out!

 

[Greg Cox]

For Darkness Falls in 2003, the studio kept us abreast of changes. For example, they changed the ending, and they not only told us, but invited me and my editor to the New York office of the studio to watch the new ending so we could incorporate it. They also let us know that they changed the name of the town where the movie takes place, so we were able to put that in, too.

I meant to comment earlier that I remain dumbfounded by this. In all my decades of writing AND editing movie novelizations, I have never had any footage screened for me.

Best I ever managed was getting an advance copy of the movie trailer sent to me on disk.

 

[Avro Arrow]

This is why I've never understood the mentality "Wow, I loved that book, I hope it gets made into a movie."

As someone who has occasionally wished for a book to be adapted into a movie/miniseries/series: sometimes, for me, anyway, it's a matter of wanting to see the story that you're picturing in your head "brought to life". If you enjoy the story, or even the world created in the story, sometimes it's fun to experience it in different formats, even if it's not the same. Whether it ends up being good or not is another thing, of course.

Alas, that was before spoilers became a cottage industry, so that publishing the novelization in advance meant that the entire plot of the movie was going to be spoiled

I will admit that I've always been spoiler adverse: even when I've bought the novelization before I've seen the movie, I would always wait until after I'd seen the movie to read it, to avoid spoiling anything. Of course, the only novelizations I've actually bought have been the novelizations of the Star Trek movies. (With one exception... shout-out to @KRAD for Serenity.)

Of course, I also try to do it the other way, too: if I know a movie is based on a book that I'm interested in reading, I will usually try to read the book first, although it doesn't always end up working out that way.