Adapting a short story novel into a screenplay

L

L1N3ARX

Well-known member
I wrote a 'mini' novel a few years ago, and since then have been contemplating making a movie out of it. So, this past year, I've tried to immerse myself in all things to do with film-making. After revisiting my original material, I was surprised at how much I wanted to get back into the same story. I usually find that after taking a break from most anything creative and then coming back to it, I mock my own efforts and abandon what I've done. So to be excited after coming back to it years later... is a pretty big sign to me that I might have something good on my hands (or so I think...). Has anyone here adapted a short story or novel, whether you wrote it or not, into a screenplay? Does it help? I imagine having a roadmap like finished novel, should definitely be of some assistance without curtailing your creative juices / freedom.

The story I will be adapting is a science fiction narrative exploring consciousness, and how we perceive time. It will look at familiar elements like time travel, free will & determinism, but in a very different light than what we're used to seeing in most movies / shows that attempt to deal with subject matter of that nature. I feel that the 'science' in most sci fi movies is often nothing more than a pretext for the narrative to stand on. I love science fiction that has the balls to show real science, or at least present a plausible theory and blend that in with a great story exploring something interesting about the human condition. So my second question here is, do you enjoy real science in a film that is there to entertain you? Do you mind "tagging along" for the first half hour or so while the film sells you on the premise, or as if you are there taking part in the discovery itself before characters can be developed? My opinion is, that if it's interesting and it gives you something to think about, setting the atmosphere and convincing you of the reality of the world you're partaking in... makes for a much better film.

Has anyone seen In Time? Not really a "good" movie per se, but it could have been made much better simply by getting into just a tad bit of pseudo science, and at least pretending to sell you on it's premise. If there was ANY sort of build up as to how and why time turned into a necessitative commodity upon which life depended... I would have enjoyed it more.
 
Yeah, I've adapted some stuff (including a New York Times Best Seller) - and there is no blanket answer, because it depends on the novel. Some novels are famous for being impossible to adapt, because they are about thoughts and emotions rather than actions. You can's see thoughts and emotions on screen unless they are converted into actions (something visual) and some novels don't convert well. Others do. Some books are just a series of impossible problems, and others are easy to adapt. The NYT best seller I did had some problems - but I found ways to adapt the elements to the screen. Lots of things changed - because they were unfilmable. I had to find the filmable version. So there's no real answer - you know if your story is visual or not.
 
wcmartell said:
you know if your story is visual or not.
Click to expand...

Good answer ha, I think I asked for exactly this reason now that I think of it. My original story is VERY much about thoughts and emotions, rather than a more external, more palpable "actions and words" type of interpretation. I've realized recently that script writing is very much expressed through "what do I see, what do I hear?" and nothing really more than that. I guess it'll be just as hard to adapt as it would be writing a fresh screenplay, just for different reasons.
 
L1N3ARX said:
Good answer ha, I think I asked for exactly this reason now that I think of it. My original story is VERY much about thoughts and emotions, rather than a more external, more palpable "actions and words" type of interpretation. I've realized recently that script writing is very much expressed through "what do I see, what do I hear?" and nothing really more than that. I guess it'll be just as hard to adapt as it would be writing a fresh screenplay, just for different reasons.
Click to expand...

Unless your thoughts/emotions as expressed in a voiceover ala Peter Handke's work for Wim Winders in "Der Himmel Über Berlin"(1987)... action seems to be the better part of valor in scriptwriting...

Of course Peter Handke is a noted austrian playwright and novelist, so wordsmithing and attended 'flow' of the spoken word comes in a natural way...
 
Yeah I'm definitely not keen on any sort of narration.. feels like cheating to me. That, and it's simply not at all what comes to mind when I think of science fiction, perhaps a historical drama of sorts. I'll definitely be presenting the story in a very visual way, just need to sit down and really think hard about how I want to do it. Should be fun though, writing a screenplay is something that I've wanted to do for a long time, and already having a story and done research, I feel like a have a pretty good base to work from.
 
You can do it! The 2 toughest challenges you will face are the execution of the screenplay (obviously) and then when trying to sell your script, hoping the readers have an imagination.

If I were in your position, the first thing I'd do is figure out the best way to convert the essence of your piece into a film, even if it requires tweaking the story/plot a bit.
 
The reason the validity of the science in a film is so irrelevant is because it is the characters that make the movie watchable for the audience. People will always value authenticity in character and communication over scientific credibility.

What will really get people going is if they love the characters and the communication and interaction and also discover that there is some truth in the science. But it will be like icing on a cake - the cake is always made of characters and drama - eat only icing and you'll get very sick.
 
Respectfully disagree. The differentiating point of science fiction is that the idea is king. If it is not then it is science fantasy. There are not many science fiction films. Star Wars for example is not science fiction. I enjoy films about dress-ups as much as anyone but it would be nice if more real science fiction films could be made from time to time. Science fiction doesn't preclude good characterisation although in practice it often is poorly realised, especially in the early days.

The giants of science fiction (I'm looking at you Asimov) were notoriously poor at coming up with characters and relationships that did any more than frame the idea and service the plot that delivers it. Female characters in particular were paper thin, often the only difference being the use of 'she'. Modern authors work harder on their characters and relationships now often have a far greater impact on the plot development. But still, in real science fiction the idea is king. Can't remember who I'm paraphrasing but 'if you can remove the science and the story still works, it isn't science fiction.' Nothing wrong with science fantasy though, I'll take a rom-com with a robot in it over the saccarine alternative any day of the week.



On the OP I'm in a similar position myself. I have half a dozen drafts of novels/novellas in various stages of completion floating around, chock full of ideas that have never let me go. One thing I have recently learnt in trying to rework them is that you really have to adapt them. Prose and scripts are worlds apart and it has taken me almost a year of aborted efforts for some key realisations to finally click. The biggest handicap was the belief that 'I'm already a writer...nothing to it!

I have just finished my first script that isn't simply reformatted prose for WarFest (that said its a new idea, not a rehash of one of my old ones) and I feel I've finally cracked it. Now I have my blueprint it feels like a real possibility I might actually be about to make my first scripted film for real! It's amazing, now I have an actual script in my hand people have started coming out of the woodwork to be involved, after a year of luke-warm responses to my projects.


Anyway, I digress. The key things I would suggest based my recent experience:

-Rewrite your story from scratch as a movie. If you are copying across sections out of it wholesale you will probably run into trouble.
-Establish your themes early and keep your story tightly focussed, no matter how short you will probably need to simplify.
-Make your plot outline adhere to a 3 act format, even a novella has room to ramble and explore differerent avenues but a script has to be structured.
-Expect to have to drop whole sub-plots, merge characters and lose your favourite bits. A masterstroke of prose may not translate to a masterful image.

In terms of writing style:

-Write simply, do away with all density in your writing. Outside of dialogue the text should be entirely functional and clean. The kind of densely loaded sentence with layered meaning and poetic execution so relished in prose has no place in your script. The script must flow, you shouldn't have to dwell on any sentence within it. This was the hardest relic of my prose writing style I had to surrender (<-or in script: This was/is hard to do).
-If you have to describe an emotional state you have failed. He doesn't look ashamed, he looks down and shuffles his feet (audience needs to see it).
-Write only in the present tense and only write actions. Dialogue is dialogue and everything else is action. Description is for reserved for set dressing. Leave room for co-creatives to envision.
-Perhaps the biggest penny that dropped for me (or maybe just the most recent one - just figured it out yesterday as I was editing my final draft) was to eliminate any word ending in -ing. He isn't cleaning, he cleans. It is amazing how much the script pops with this single alteration. Each line becomes a step in a sequence rather than painting a picture. It becomes action orientated and keeps the reader firmly in the present.

I'm sure all this is reinventing the wheel but I'm starting to realise having a knack for prose is a hindrance to the scriptwriter.


Oh damn, another essay. Why can't I ever write a 2-line post, a +1 or just a smiley face...?! :smile:
 
Yes in many films that never got made the idea was king. In many that did if the idea was king it was because the idea was a character. I'm not saying that factual scientific theory can't live in a piece of cinema. I'm saying that if it is going to it has to be given life by characters and relationships - communication. Otherwise make a documentary - or be content with a very niche audience. It is completely possible to remain true to and fully explore the scientific premise for your film - but you will accomplish that most effectively if the characters engaging with and using that science are believable - technically and emotionally. Science shows however that audiences will forgive technical flaws in a script before they will forgive emotional/psychological ones - there is no fiction or fantasy in that.
 
wcmartell said:
Yeah, I've adapted some stuff (including a New York Times Best Seller) - and there is no blanket answer, because it depends on the novel. Some novels are famous for being impossible to adapt, because they are about thoughts and emotions rather than actions. You can's see thoughts and emotions on screen unless they are converted into actions (something visual) and some novels don't convert well. Others do. Some books are just a series of impossible problems, and others are easy to adapt. The NYT best seller I did had some problems - but I found ways to adapt the elements to the screen. Lots of things changed - because they were unfilmable. I had to find the filmable version. So there's no real answer - you know if your story is visual or not.
Click to expand...

What you said is very interesting, do you mind giving me some examples of novels you think are hard to adapt?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top