Note 1: There are already plans to make _Yiddish Policeman's Union_ into a movie. No surprise, as it's a mystery at its core and mysteries work well as movies.

And not that it's going to win the Hugo but I think it has to be considered a favorite (sorry, John) strictly due to its mainstream popularity a la Harry Potter. Of course, mainstream popularity can also backfire on a book that's up for a Hugo.

But Chabon won the Nebula, accepted in person, and talked about his love of genre. That goes a long way with the fans.

- yeff

Note 2: Expanding the list of consideration to Hugo-*nominated* novels, I also get:

- Flowers For Algernon, for which the movie was "Charly" (1968). I'm not sure if the movie was based off the story or the novel, but it was a good movie. Mainly because it followed the story, still considered one of the best spec fic stories ever.

- 2010: Odyssey Two (novel in 1983, movie in 1984). I didn't see the movie, so I can't comment here

- The Postman (novel 1986, movie 1997). Kevin Costner delivers the mail. I can't say any more here, either.

There's a good chance I missed something, but in the expanded list I still have to go for Goblet of Fire or maybe, Charly.

Maybe the upcoming Neuromancer movie will change my ranking. (yeah, right).

- yeff

I think people pan Dune without giving it some of its due. It's just too difficult to pull off that book as a movie, and I thought Lynch's visuals and other details, like combat with sound, were very intriguing.

Am I the only one who thought Starship Troopers the book was kind of crappy and Starship Troopers the movie was pretty decent satire (of the book)?

Dune the movie had way too much crazy going on. I watched it just after reading the book for the first time and I still didn't understand what the hell was happening. On the other hand, the TV miniseries version of Dune was quite well made.

I appreciated David Lynch's Dune about 300x as much, after watching the Sci Fi network Dune. Now that was a piece of garbage... shot lovingly into 6 hours. If you're going to use every line of a book... I kind of suggest reading them before you begin. Now, I'm not saying Lynch's Dune was Herbert's Dune... but the Sci Fi Dune was trying really hard to be exactly Herbert's Dune and was a wrenching failure. Lynch's Dune was mostly trying to be Lynch's Dune...

Secondly, I think Veerhoven is secretly a film genius. I mean, beyond his ability to create images on screen that stick together into a coherent whole (coherency was clearly not Lynch's strong-point, but that's neither here nor there)... the sequence of images reinforce each other in interesting ways. Starship Troopers: TMovie wasn't Starship Troopers: TBook, because Veerhoven doesn't make movies about things he likes or supports. Jesus, have you watched Showgirls? For a movie with so much nudity, you might imagine that it's sexy, and that Veerhoven likes sexy.... Starship Troopers: TMovie & violence...
"The problem" of course, is that Heinlein fans who read all that philosophy, and stayed onboard, probably agree with it...

I'm one of those Heinlein fans who stayed on board and agree with it.

That being said, it would have been better if at some point the film producers just owned up and said "this movie was INSPIRED by Starship Troopers". Also, while I love the book and have read it 9X10^29843 times, I enjoyed the movie as well. As a matter of fact, the more I watch the movie, the more I can just convince myself it's named "Bug Wars" instead of Starship Troopers and then I can settle in and enjoy it all the more.

Books are notoriously hard to transfer to film (unless you're Michael Crichton who I think WRITES his books with the plan that they'll be films). So no surprise that GOOD books are as hard or harder to transfer to film. It seems to me that the very things that make them good books do not transfer to film. So it's even more disappointing when that good book, that favorite book of yours, becomes a shoddy film.

Postman the movie stripped out all of the SF aspects from the book(AI and cybernetic enhancement), added about ten extra storylines, and was just a post-apocalyptic epic. AKA Landworld. Overall I would have to call it a failure due mainly to Costner's mid-90s ego.

I think it's important to remember why movies based on Hugo winning novels so often fall short of their supposed potential. For a book to win awards, it implies it's at the head of the pack, a shining example of the potential of the written word. (Yes, I realize this is arguable in the case of some of the winners, but still--it's the ideal.) However, films have different strengths than novels. Writing can capture thoughts, motivations and point of view in a way film can only dream of. Film is visual--it makes things go boom very nicely. Novels can also make things go boom, but they'll never be able to make them go boom like film. Likewise, film can capture thoughts, motivations and POV and the like, but it will never do it as well as novels. I'm simplifying, but you get the idea.

To use the Olympics to illustrate my point, we have Michael Phelps. A great athlete--and the best swimmer on the planet right now. If we were to move him from the pool to a track and field event, however, I'm betting he wouldn't win any golds. He'd still be a heck of a lot faster than me, but he wouldn't be the best runner out there. He's got different strengths. Likewise, expecting novels to perform at the same level on film that they did in print is wishful thinking, most of the time. Yes, it can happen, but it's the exception rather than the rule.

re: Jardine

Yes, yes you are.
:)

I can't see that there is much hope that the best of written science fiction can be turned into an equally great movie. There are simply too many differences in the media.

The movie must be very short in comparison. Three hours is a horribly long movie, yet the equivalent 200-page story does not even qualify as a novel.

Since a movie cannot (realistically) get into a character's thoughts, much of the immersion of the reader/viewer into the role of the protagonist is also impossible. Character depth necessarily suffers.

And the role of the active imagination of the reader should not be ignored: we each create our own images of the world and characters of the story, guided by the writer. A movie hits us over the head and says, "this is the way it is."

We should not compare Hugo-winning novels to movies, just as the producers should not expect that the huge built-in audience of Hugo-winning stories will automatically translate into a $300 Million theatrical gross.

Let's give up on duplicating the novel. That can't work. We can, however, hope for a recreation of the SF world, the vision and imagination of the author. The movie can be a great story, a worthwhile experience. It just can't be the same story.

John, best of luck on that Hugo. I'm rooting for you!

Starship Troopers was great, even though it only had limited connections to the original.

I'd also sayThe Man in the High Castle would make for a great, sweeping ensemble drama in the spirit of Crash, Traffic, and Babel.

It takes guts to make a movie from a Sci- fi book. It takes even more guts to make a movie from a Hugo winning Sci-fi book. It takes guts to make a movie from a Hugo winning sci-fi book and stick to the story. Hollywood rarely has guts or enough to try to make the films and like has been pointed out they rarely succeed when they do try. I like how the only movie/book that was well recieved actually stuck to the story. I think as special effects get better easier and cheaper we'll be seeing a lot more hard to make movies being made. Let's just face it, Sci-Fi movies are hard to make, especially from a book, especially from a Hugo Award winning book.

I think that Sci Fi Channel's Dune came far closer to the book than the original movie did. I think it would be impossible for this book to be made into any kind of film adaptation short of making it into a 24 hour project.

Changing the written word into film is difficult. Most of what wins a novel a Hugo (or any other top line award) material is the narrative and internal musings of the characters. This doesn't translate to the big screen very well. Most of today's filmgoers don't have the attention span to sit through low action sequences which make up these narratives. Heinlein's "Moon is A Harsh Mistress" and "Stranger In A Strange Land" will probably never make it into the theaters for those reasons.

Of the movies Mr. Scalzi states are "in development", my sincere hope is that none get made. They are three books that hold special places on my shelves, and none of them will make a good movie, with the possible exception of Ender.
Hyperion? No chance. The book is far too complex for shrinkage, and dropping elements will gut the story. What would _you_ leave out?
Rama? A scientific look at first contact? My bet is it turns into a "Bugs in a Big Cylinder".

Since it seems like novels are difficult to translate into movies, what about the Hugo-nominated short stories? What movies have been made out of them?

@Jardine. I'm with you on Starship Troopers being more subversive than one might think. I think it was trying to walk the line between satire ("war is actually not cool", such as with the commercials) and celebration ("check out the cool bugs and hot people fighting them").

Tough line to walk, but at times I think it pulled it off. Fun movie to watch, definitely.

- yeff

@Elizabeth Coleman

A quick scan of the list reveals, to my untrained eyes, the following:

- "Flowers for Algernon" (already mentioned)

It's a short list.

But I think you're on to something. I heard that Francis Ford Coppola founded _Zoetrope: All-Story_ partially because he believed that good movies were really short stories. The magazine regularly features a reprint of a story that was adapted into, or inspired, a movie.

Moviemakers, take note! You're looking at the wrong list :-)

- yeff

Hey Bacon boy,

What about the 2000 version of Dune. Yes it's a "Mini-Series", but as film adaptations go, you shouldn't forget this version. There was actually a coherent story that stayed true to the novel. It is by far superior to the David Lynch suck fest.

:Side Note: When are you go to option your books, if you do maintain creative control.

Interesting to note: I believe Peter Berg (of the Kingdom, Friday Night Lights, and, er, Hancock) is in line to direct a new cinematic version of Dune.

Yeah, some Hugo books I just can't imagine as films at all. I just finished reading The Left Hand of Darkness and, while I can see why it won a Hugo, it would make a pretty poor movie. (Although if a visionary director wants to prove me wrong, more power to them.) But that said, I'd love to see someone try and do American Gods, Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell, or Nueromancer.

How difficult is it for authors to maintain some creative control? Obviously, JK Rowling can do it because she's JK Rowling, but doesn't even Stephen King seems to shrug it off half the time (or most of the time)? Can other authors hold on at all?

Actual conversation with my non-reader friend while leaving the theater after Starship Troopers:

-So was it like the book?
-Only some of the character names were the same, really.
-Was [the lead female soldier] in the book?
-In the book there were NO women in the Mobile Infantry.
-Well, no wonder they changed it.

I had been looking forward to seeing the MI powersuits in the film. Instead I got grossed out by the violence against animated giant bugs.

wrenct:

I avoided noting any TV adaptations.

DKT:

Pretty much the way authors retain creative control of their books is to not option them. Once they get optioned, the author is usually shown the door.

(1) Most books that get optioned, don't turn into anything. So the options represent a source of free money to the author, sometimes for many years.

(2) Most films in development never get made. I've been waiting for movies of Ender's Game and Good Omens for years. Fortunately I can console myself by re-reading Good Omens and laughing my head off. (grin)

(3) I always liked the look and the cast of the David Lynch Dune. A mash-up of the Lynch cast and the Sci-Fi Channel script and length would somehow be about right. Alas, not bloody likely to ever get something like that.

(4) Expanding things a bit, I also looked up the Nebulas and in the short-than-novels categories found some more SF stories to films:

Nebula - Novella
1980 "Enemy Mine", Barry B. Longyear (Hugo as well)
1970 "A Boy and His Dog", Harlan Ellison

Nebula and Hugo - Novelette
1977 "The Bicentennial Man", Isaac Asimov

Dr. Phil

The Starship Troopers movie was a masterpiece. It's detractors are just smarting from the incisive thrashing it gave to the mean, nasty, fascist side of Heinlein.

To yeff's (or rather, Coppola's) point, I believe the best story to screenplay adaptation has been Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption, and that was a novella.

I heard once that when someone mentioned the filming of Starship Troopers to James Cameron he asked if they did the armor. Upon hearing that no, they did not do the armor he replied "I already made that movie" (Aliens).

yeff sez: " Expanding the list of consideration to Hugo-*nominated* novels, I also get:"

You missed the adaptation of John Varley's Millenium (3rd place 1984) with Kris Kristoferson and Cheryl Ladd.

If we're talking about TV versions of winners and nominated books as well, there's SciFi's abominable Riverworld (To Your Scattered Bodies Go (winner 1972)) and PBS' excellent The Lathe of Heaven (runner-up 1972) as well.

Neuromancer is in pre-production. Rumor has it that everyones' favorite, Hayden Christensen, will play Case. Perhaps it will stay in pre-production forever.

I've always wanted to see an adaptation of "Footfall." It's another best novel nominee.

Hasn't Neuromancer been in preproduction for ages, kind of like Ender's Game? I keep hoping to see someone good take a shot at either one of those one day, but I'm trying real hard not to get my hopes up?

Another adaptation which may be coming is "The Sparrow":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sparrow_(novel)#Film.2C_television_and_theatrical_adaptations

It's not a Hugo winner, but it was the Arthur C. Clarke winner.

If you include Nebula nominated novels, PK Dick's Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? was made into a fairly well-received film. (The film won the Hugo for "Best Dramatic Presentation" :).

@Sarcastro: good catch on Millenium. I looked at it funny, but then thought I was remembering the TV show.

@dr-phil: Thanks for the Nebula/Hugo search, adds some more good movies onto the list and helps makes the case for short->movie working well. OK, except for Bicentennial Man.

- yeff

There were also winning/nominated shorts that were made into episodes of Twilight Zone or Outer Limits ("To Serve Man", "It's a *Good* Life), but again that's TV and doesn't count here.

- yeff

I'm one of the people who hated the Starship Troopers movie with a passion when it came out. I've since come to accept it as a decent sf action movie and only die a little inside when somebody mentions it's name.

There is a special place in hell for anyone who casts Brad Pitt in the lead in The Sparrow.

@yeff, @Elizabeth Coleman - Actually, this is a good thought. SF novels tend to expand into overlong movies due to the extra material that needs to be incorporated to make sure the movie is comprehensible to the general public. Or at least the directors think the material needs to be incorporated. The most successful/faithful adaptations into movies would probably come from Novellas or Novelettes. But even there, the Hugo list isn't too promising: The Bicentennial Man, and Enemy Mine.

It seems like there are quite a lot of possible sources out there in the Hugo (and Nebula) lists. They just have to be taken up by some directors that have the sense to balance the vision of original story with their own. If you look at Lynch's Dune with an open mind, it may never fit your own vision for the story, but you can see that the Baroque, over the top constructions and visuals are compatible with the setting in a vastly powerful, wealthy and corrupt empire. The film let me read the book with new eyes and see another layer of the original work. To me that means that Lynch over-emphasized something that was already in the original, rather than botching it up completely with his own take. Ironically, the thing that most disgusted me in my original viewing of the movie (apart from the voice-overs) was the dialog that was taken verbatim from the book. One example that came off as overly pretentious was when Gurney Halleck (Patrick Stewart) tells Paul "We'd have joined each other in death." after their training battle early in the film.

I think it says something about Hollywood that some of their most successful adaptations of SF have been from the works of Philip K. Dick. Too bad he never won a Hugo.

I have a suggestion for fans awaiting new movie adaptations of their favorite novels: listen to audiobooks. As an example, on my iTunes browser right now I can see that there are abridged and unabridged versions of Terry Pratchett's Thud available. The unabridged is about 10 hours long, and the abridged is about 3.5. Listening to an abridged audiobook for a novel you're very familiar with can give you a sense for how much will have to be trimmed out to tell the story in a reasonable amount of time. If you find yourself disliking the audiobook because of what it leaves out, steel yourself for a distressing movie experience.

Dick did win the Best Novel Hugo in 1963, for the novel The Man in the High Castle. Thanks for spelling Philip correctly (it was misspelled in the credits of Total Recall).

As for Millennium, Varley himself has reviewed the movie at his own site: "What a disaster. I’ve always enjoyed stories by this John Varley dude, but maybe he should stick to short stories and novels. (Both the story and the novel this turkey are based on are lots better than the movie.) The writing credit blames only him, so I don’t see how he can foist the responsibility on anybody else. Just simply an awful movie."

Nice to see your interesting blog.