Questions about novelizations....
- Thread starter Joel_Kirk
- Start date
This general tendency in novelisations isn't that new...I have the novelisations for Back to the Future Part II and Part III, and they're by-the-numbers adaptations of the films without any author-created scenes. What few scenes weren't in the final cut are deleted scenes from each film.
(The only attempt at insight into character motivation that I can remember is an explanation for why Marty reacts so strongly to being called a chicken...)
The novelisation for the first Back to the Future is a little more interesting, but that's because it's based on the script with the Eric Stoltz version of Marty McFly.
Weren't people saying here a while back that the peek-inside-the-head moments in some of the Voyager novelisations suggest that the author didn't have much respect for the source material...?
^ I don't know about the Trek novelisations in that respect, but read John Gardner's novelisations of the 007 films Licence to Kill and GoldenEye to see a degree of contempt for the source material!
I've always fancied doing a novelization, just for the experience of having done one, but never actually have done...
Hmmmm, well I definitely read it somewhere - and again very recently. Try the article on her own website. Sorry about that!
Hmmmm again. There was a link to an excellent tell-all article on:
http://www.vondanmcintyre.com/
but I can't find it yet.
EDIT: Found it! (Make sure to read the responses from VM in the comments, too.)
http://blog.bookviewcafe.com/2009/02/15/writing-star-trek-novels/
Last edited:
Vonda McIntyre says: "I was in my 30s when I was hitting those relentless deadlines one after another. I’m not so interested in pulling six weeks of all-nighters anymore."
http://blog.bookviewcafe.com/2009/02/15/writing-star-trek-novels/
As someone who may read those novelizations in the future, how did he go about not respecting the source material? Did he diverge from the original plots?
I know there are some who like him better than Raymond Benson; I still need to read both to give a solid opinion.
Cool article, Therin...
Last edited:
Is there any difference, approach-wise, between adapting a movie and adapting a comicbook?
Definitely. When adapting a movie, you have to pad things out to expand a 100-page movie script into a book.
When an adapting a complicated comic book miniseries, especially one that runs fifty-two issues or so, you're always trying to streamline and condense the story somehow.
The other difference is that, hopefully, you have more visual reference to work with when adapting a comic book. I usually had the actual artwork propped up by my keyboard and would just describe what I was looking at:
"A burst of sizzling purple energy blasted Superman through the wall. The impact threw nearby vehicles into the air. A fire hydrant burst, while a woman pushing a baby carriage ran frantically for cover . . . ."
Some of the, shall we say, less than scientifically accurate bits of the plot are treated with disdain - a comment about a Stinger missile behaving very differently to normal in Licence to Kill is the one I always remember.
P
PS You can find out more in The Bond Files, co-written by some hack named Simpson...
Tks, Paul...
Speaking of which, isn't it past time for a new edition?
We pitched it when Casino Royale was on the cards, and were told that the sales of the 3rd edition didn't warrant another version. I humbly disagree - with the Charlie Higson books, the reprints of the comic strips by Titan, the Moneypenny books, new films... I could go on. Whether another publisher would be willing to do something with it I don't know. Certainly there's one place I have in mind but not had the time to follow it up...
P
Not technically a question about a novelization but still a question for you about your Terminator: Salvation novel Cold War. I haven't read it yet but I did buy it. I was going to read Timothy Zahn's prequel and ADF's novelization first.
I was wondering what sort of restrictions or requirements were put on you with that novel.
It seems that it's not set around the character of John Connor though I'm assuming he's involved with it somehow. Was it a personal choice to set the book around original characters or did Halcyon or Warner's or whoever tell you not to focus around Connor?
Just a question because it looks like Zahn's book revolves around Kyle Reese and Aaron Allston's T3 dualogy from a few years back also didn't center around Connor.
TS for me was such a disapointment and I think it was chiefly because the John Connor character was so bloody shallow. No real depth in the writing or the acting. It seems if they're going to set books around Salvation they might want somebody to make the main character have another character trait than gruffness.
BTW are there any more Terminator novels coming? I didn't like the movie but I sure like the universe it's set in.
Last edited:
This is going to sound funny but I like that it's set in Alaska. I've never been there but I enjoyed the setting when SM Stirling used it in his T2 novel Future War. I love the idea of loggers and Eskimos fighting it out with machines. Earthy people vs machinery. Nice contrast.
Glad you like the idea. All the movies and tv shows had taken place in the California and the Southwest, so I wanted something completely different. A snowy wilderness seemed to offer all sorts of possibilities. And, yes, there are plenty of loggers and Native Alaskans . . . .
And (true confession) I've never set foot there either!
And (true confession) I've never set foot there either!
Yep, that's the great thing about novelizations. For me it's not just the visual detail that's filled in, but also the words sometimes.
And that, right there, is the strength of a novelization - the ability to provide an internal viewpoint, an added dimension to the narrative.
Of course, that's not always possible (or even allowed by some licence holders) but I think any decent writer has the intention to make more of the work by bringing it to prose form.
Similar threads
- Poll
