John Scalzi - Showing Sympathy for SciFi Screenwriters
I was talking movies with a friend recently -- I know, shocker -- and he made an offhand comment which I found both deeply amusing and true: "You know, if I were spending millions on making a movie, I think I could afford to have the script make sense." The point was brought home to me, quite literally, last weekend when my wife picked up the DVD of Push, the recent science fiction flick in which attractive people with psychic powers run around Hong Kong for reasons that make absolutely no sense at all. Really, that's in the script: Someone actually tells the other characters they have to move about as if they don't know what they're going to do next. I could just see the screenwriter snickering his ass off when he wrote that; in terms of the movie making sense, he'd let himself off the hook. Nicely done, sir.
However, pushing aside Push for the moment to get back to my friend's observation, I have to say I have some sympathy for screenwriters at moments like that, particularly ones writing scifi. Writing a script with good, rigorous science fictional concepts while still being entertaining is hard enough, but then hoping that script makes it through the sausage grinder known as Hollywood intact -- that's a little far-fetched.
Let's say you've written a ginchy scifi movie script and you've managed to sell the script to a movie producer. Congratulations! Treat yourself to a celebration at TGI Friday's. Because now it get wacky.
The producer takes the project, including your script, to a movie studio. They like it, but they think the script needs work. Fortunately, they have a guy they like to use to tidy up scripts. Sometimes he's a script doctor, whose work will be uncredited, and sometimes he gets a screenplay credit. He fiddles with the script until the studio likes it.
Then a director's attached. He loves the project, but there are a couple things about the script that don't quite work for him. He gets his own pet screenwriter to fiddle -- or fiddles himself -- until the screenplay is how he likes it. Then he and the studio have an argument about the new script, because now producing the screenplay as written will cost $20 million more in effects shots. Director leaves the project, new director comes on. New director has some script notes. Script gets re-written again. And everything's groovy...
Until the studio head gets fired. The new head comes in and starts killing off movies championed by her predecessor because, after all, if his choices were so good, why was he fired? The good news is your movie survives the ax. The bad news is, the new studio head wants to make it for a third less than the original approved budget. So: Another rewrite.
Meanwhile, your project lands an A-list star. A-list star loves the script but notices some really good lines are going to other characters, and also thinks his character needs to be more sympathetic. Maybe more of a backstory. And a love interest! And he's got a screenwriter friend he knows can nail it. So in comes another script doctor. Finally, after the efforts of many diverse hands -- not all of whom are particularly interested in the story -- there's a shooting script. And if you think that script is going to make it through filming intact, well. Surprise!
Where is the original screenwriter in all of this? He might be involved all the way through. But more likely he's still at TGI Friday's, wondering what the heck's going on with the script. And when he gets to see the movie he wrote, he may find out that what's left of his original screenplay is a few scattered lines, a story credit and a shared screenplay credit.
If you think I'm exaggerating, check out "Building the Bomb," a classic essay by screenwriter Terry Rossio about the troubles adapting Robert Heinlein's novel The Puppet Masters to the big screen. The result? Well, The Puppet Masters isn't exactly at the top of anyone's movie list.
But it brings home an ironic twist to my friend's comment: A major reason so many scripts don't seem to make sense is not because movie makers can't afford to make them better, but because there's so much money involved that everyone who comes in needs to feel they're justifying the millions they're spending. And often the easiest way to do that is to fiddle with a script. The miracle is that at the end of the day, any scripts make sense at all.
Winner of the Hugo Award and the John W. Campbell Award for Best New Writer, John Scalzi is the author of The Rough Guide to Sci-Fi Movies and the novels Old Man's War and Zoe's Tale. He's also Creative Consultant for the upcoming Stargate: Universe television series. His column appears every Thursday.
Roger Ebert mentioned in his review and commentary of The Hurt Locker that the only way that Kathryn Bigelow (director and producer) could make the movie she wanted was to put her own money into it. If she'd made it with a studio, her vision would have been so watered down as to be effectively gone. His commentary is worth a look.
Roger Ebert mentioned in his review and commentary of The Hurt Locker that the only way that Kathryn Bigelow (director and producer) could make the movie she wanted was to put her own money into it. If she'd made it with a studio, her vision would have been so watered down as to be effectively gone. His commentary is worth a look regarding the 'too many cooks spoiling the broth' difficulties in Hollywood.
I had heard how difficult it is to get a film made, but this really puts it into perspective.
I know it's not SF, but Roger Ebert has written about the recent movie -The Hurt Locker-. Apparently Kathryn Bigelow directed, produced and actually financed the picture with her own money so that she could make the film she wanted, and not have studio interference.
Reminds me of State and Main...
Reminds me of State and Main...
Interesting piece. Thanks!
comment
On the topic of the movie "Push" I have to disagree. I enjoyed the movie and was able to understand the reason behind the story process.
Regardless of that, I enjoyed your column and now have a better understanding of why some of my favorite movies based on books tend to fail so miserably (The Postman for example).
On the topic of the movie "Push" I have to disagree. I enjoyed the movie and was able to understand the reason behind the story process.
Regardless of that, I enjoyed your column and now have a better understanding of why some of my favorite movies based on books tend to fail so miserably (The Postman for example).
On the topic of the movie "Push" I have to disagree. I enjoyed the movie and was able to understand the reason behind the story process.
Regardless of that, I enjoyed your column and now have a better understanding of why some of my favorite movies based on books tend to fail so miserably (The Postman for example).
On the topic of the movie "Push" I have to disagree. I enjoyed the movie and was able to understand the reason behind the story process.
Regardless of that, I enjoyed your column and now have a better understanding of why some of my favorite movies based on books tend to fail so miserably (The Postman for example).
On the topic of the movie "Push" I have to disagree. I enjoyed the movie and was able to understand the reason behind the story process.
Regardless of that, I enjoyed your column and now have a better understanding of why some of my favorite movies based on books tend to fail so miserably (The Postman for example).
On the topic of the movie "Push" I have to disagree. I enjoyed the movie and was able to understand the reason behind the story process.
Regardless of that, I enjoyed your column and now have a better understanding of why some of my favorite movies based on books tend to fail so miserably (The Postman for example).
John, we're really pleased you adapted your novel, OLD MAN'S WAR, for the big screen. I've taken the liberty of tweaking it just a bit. For starters, we're killing off Jane in favor of a fantastic original character we've written for Angelina Jolie. Also, we've decided to add a race of sentient koala bears. Just think of the merchandising money. (Note to my assistant: Did we give Scalzi a cut of the merchandising? We didn't?) Forget merchandising, John; we only did it to make your artistic vision jump out onto the big screen.
Now, I know you're excited, but your director, McG, will have some notes on changes he wants to make. And did I tell you we landed Andy Dick for the lead?
I thought the sentient koala bears were under contract elsewhere (in fact I believe that they are currently contracted to two different projects and we're running short on eucalyptus trees to pay them with). So I think you'll have to change them into sentient three-toed sloths or intelligent octopi. But really how can you beat cute, intelligent human-eating deer or inch-tall humanoids (just cast Megan Fox as one of them and you should be set) for cuteness factor.
Jim Winter: I checked IMDB. McG has pulled out of directing the OMW movie. They've brought in Uwe Boll.
Carl Sagans contact got ruined by Jodie Foster. The book is better and now i have a further reason to hate stars like Tom Cruise thanks John.
Looking to seeing those cute koala bears Jim.
Should George Lucas also get some abuse for making s/f 'too expensive' / been done before and many of those other reasons he gets attributed to when you read things about film production.
Kevin Smith tells a really funny story about working on Die Hard 4 in Sold Out, his thrid Q and A dvd. Basically a particular scene wasn't written and both Bruce and the studio had disagreements about the script. When the studio refused to yield to Willis, Bruce asked the studio "So, who is your second choice for John McClane?"
Kevin Smith tells a really funny story about working on Die Hard 4 in Sold Out, his thrid Q and A dvd. Basically a particular scene wasn't written and both Bruce and the studio had disagreements about the script. When the studio refused to yield to Willis, Bruce asked the studio "So, who is your second choice for John McClane?"
Also, having an old guy as protagonist just doesn't bring in the demo we want, so we're changing him to a young guy. He'll be played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt. Of course we had to change the title too. We figured Green Soldiers would work.
But then the studio decided that all that green makeup was too expensive, so that's out. So now it's called Soldiers!
Speaking of which, I think the anti-war theme has to go too. We want the Bush supporters to go to it, after all. So we're adding a scene where Joseph tortures an enemy soldier and gets him to reveal the location of a ticking bomb just in time. And too many of the good guys die in your book, John. So we're making it so they don't really die, they just download into a new body and retire.
The Brainpal is a really cool idea! But just having a disembodied voice talk to the main character doesn't make sense. Viewers won't get that, John. They'll be sitting here wondering "where is that guy we keep hearing?" So we've decided to make him visible. We figured he could be played by Dean Stockwell. He should be able to nail it.
And so on. Note to self: if you ever write a novel, and Hollywood wants to make it into a movie, remember that Hollywood CANNOT make novels into movies. They can make movies with the same title and characters with similar names, but that will turn your stomach. Tell them no, no, no.
I am with you up to a point, but we do have an example of what happens when the studios are not involved...I give you Star Wars episodes I - III.
A secret clone army that no one knew existed and then no one questioned how we had the forethought to create it 10 years in advance...Midichlorians...Anakin build C3PO?...and seriously, did anyone believe Anakin and Padme were in love? I am a huge Star Wars fan and still love George Lucas, but the man cannot write a love scene to save his life.
Oooh, very insightful post, Scalzi! Is this why Harry Potter books are so much better than the movies?
This explains why small budget Sci-Fi like District 9 works so well. Less cooks trying to season the stew.
This explains why small budget Sci-Fi like District 9 works so well. Less cooks trying to season the stew.