The Skellingcorner

1.5M ratings
277k ratings

See, that’s what the app is perfect for.

Sounds perfect Wahhhh, I don’t wanna
its-a-writer-thing

Baking Soda and the Art of Book-to-Film Adaptations

theallycarter

So this is something I’ve been thinking about writing for a long time. At least a year. Maybe longer. Probably longer. And I’ve decided to write this now because John Green’s PAPER TOWNS opens this weekend, and I’m extremely excited for John and about the movie. Also because the “John Green Hollywood experience” has been on my mind a lot lately.

It never ceases to amaze me how much the book-to-film process both captures the public’s fascination and confuses the heck out of people.

If you write a book – any book – you will hear every day that “you should make a movie out of your book!”

The truth is, most authors dearly want a movie based on their books.

Sometimes because we love movies, but usually because we love money. And there is no greater way of increasing book sales and overall brand awareness than a movie being made and then advertised around the world.

I’ve gotten this question so many times that several years ago I wrote this post that describes how the book-to-film process works. Sure, it’s a few years old now, but it’s just as true today as it was then. So if you’re confused or just interested to see how and why books get turned into films, go read that first.

If there is one thing that authors hear more than “you should make your book into a movie” it is “you should make sure that, if your book becomes a movie, they don’t ruin it.”

Setting aside the fact that no film adaptation has ever changed one word of a novel–that the novel is and will always be the same– today I’m going to try to address a far more delicate topic: not how movies are made, but how GOOD movies are made.


Disclaimer: everything is relative

The first thing that makes this difficult, of course, is that “good” is a relative term. There are movies that I hated that other people loved. And vice versa.

Another factor is that sometimes movies are good because they stayed true to the book. Sometimes they’re bad for that same reason. Sometimes the result is a movie that isn’t true to the book but is good anyway—it’s just a different kind of good than the book is.


Newsflash: Books and movies are different

Overall, the first thing that everyone needs to know and remember and remind themselves of daily is that BOOKS AND MOVIES ARE DIFFERENT CREATIVE MEDIUMS.

Someone (I don’t know who) once said that “making a movie out of a book is like making a song out of a painting”. It’s not exactly that. But it’s pretty darn close.

So they’re going to be different.

- Books are longer and can cover more ground.
- Books can go into a character’s head.
- Books have unlimited budgets.

And what is, in my opinion, the biggest difference of all:

- Books only have to please two people: the author and the editor.

But because movies are so incredibly expensive (THE FAULT IN OUR STARS was considered a bargain with a pricetag of $12 million), there are a lot of people keeping tabs on that money. So there are a lot of people you have to please. And that makes the process more difficult. It just does.

Now, not a lot of readers get that. And, furthermore, not all authors get that. But most of us do.

I know that watching a movie won’t be like reading the audiobook—I’m not going to be able to open to page one and read along. That would make for a terrible movie.

But I think that when Hollywood adaptations go off the rails it is because this point – this “books and films are by their very definition different” point – gets misconstrued.

Because if there is one thing that anyone who pays attention to film adaptations will tell you, it’s that not all changes are equal.


Baking soda is not baking powder

I love to cook and, especially, to bake. I was raised by perhaps the World’s Best Cook. (It’s true. Everybody says so.)

And growing up out in the country thirty miles from the nearest Wal-Mart my mother taught me early on that you’re not always going to have what you need in the pantry.

If a cookie recipe calls for pecans and all you have is walnuts? Fine! If it calls for M&Ms and you’ve got chocolate chips? Well, that might work.

But only a fool would substitute baking soda for baking powder.

Why? Because that changes the chemistry and will throw the whole thing off whack and out of balance.

Good book-to-film adaptations know the difference between Baking Soda Changes and Walnut Changes. They know better than to mess with the chemistry.

I’ve probably discussed this with at least fifty authors.  (I wouldn’t be surprised if the number is closer to 100.) And I’ve worked with some of the smartest people in Hollywood. And without a doubt the hardest part of adapting a novel is watching out for the Baking Soda Changes. (Not that anyone else uses that term. Yet.)


What is a Baking Soda Change?

This is where it gets hard, folks.

I wish I could say that the chemistry of a story is based entirely on, for example, character, and any change to anything about a character will be a Baking Soda Change.

Except… that’s not true.

It’s not a secret that when HEIST SOCIETY was under option at Warner Brothers they intended to age the characters up from their teens into their early twenties. (Read a full post on that topic here.)

In my opinion, for those characters and that story, that was a Walnut Change.

Why? Because Kat was always an old soul inside a teenager’s body. Her character arc wasn’t going to be affected by that change. If anything, it might have been a little more poignant, because I remember being 22 or 23 and having everyone still treat me like a kid – sometimes still feeling like a kid. But I knew that I wasn’t, and so I was straddling two worlds in that way.

Now, am I saying that I think aging characters up is always a Walnut Change? NO. No. N-O.

I mean, seriously, I do not think that. At all.

In fact, in most cases I do think it’s probably a Baking Soda change, especially the younger the characters are in the book.

After all, a sixteen-year-old is in many ways far more similar to the person they are going to be at twenty-one than the person they were at eleven. Plus, oftentimes the plots of the books don’t make sense if a tween is involved vs. a teen vs. a twenty-something.

For example, I can forgive eleven-year-old Harry Potter for going after Professor Quirrell and not telling a teacher what was up far more easily than I could forgive a sixteen-year-old Harry for making that same call.

I guess the key question is this: “Will this change impact other aspects of the story?”

Will this change the chemistry?

“We found a great young actress for Hermione but she doesn’t need braces.”
—Walnut Change

“We decided to set Hogwarts in Ireland instead of Scotland.”
–Walnut Change (an unnecessary change, but a Walnut Change nonetheless)

“We decided to give Harry a spunky kid brother because there was a kid brother in Jurassic World and everyone loves a kid brother.”
–Baking Soda Change


Why Baking Soda Changes Happen

In most instances, people don’t know they’re making a Baking Soda change. And no one – I do mean no one – sets out to make a bad movie.

I think that mostly they are honest mistakes made by well-intentioned people who just don’t foresee the consequences.

There is a domino effect to Baking Soda Changes. That is their defining factor. Baking Soda Changes multiply and carry on, and people often don’t see it until it’s too late.

This is why I think the first rule of book-to-film adaptations should be simple: first, do no harm.

One of the most sought-after screenwriting teams in Hollywood right now is Michael Weber & Scott Neustadter who did the adaptations of Fault and Paper Towns. Now, I don’t know them—have never met them. But I’m going to guess that this rule is pretty important to them (and also the producers and studio execs who are giving them notes on John’s projects), and that is why those adaptations are incredibly good. Not just true to the book—but good.

Make no mistake, there are a lot of cooks in a movie’s kitchen. Everyone gives notes. Everyone wants to see their idea make it onto the screen. And that makes for a lot of potential places where the chemistry can get way out of whack.


So Why Do Authors Let This Happen?!

Power.

Clearly, all of the examples here are ludicrous because no one was ever going to mess with Harry Potter. Why? Because it was Harry-Freaking-Potter.

It had the largest fandom the world had ever known, and that meant two things.

– We don’t want to tick them off.
– Millions of people are obsessed with this. Something here might be working.

But no book franchise will ever have power like that again. Few even come close.

Those who do – those mega franchises like Twilight, Hunger Games, and the John Green novels – result in film adaptations that are likely to follow the books fairly closely because studios are afraid of what will happen if they don’t. But at any given time there are maybe ten authors on the planet with that kind of power.

So what about authors/books that don’t have that kind of power?

Some will be fortunate enough to work with people who want to hear what the creator has to say, to get feedback from the people who know that readers are essentially a focus group that has been going on for years and sometimes include millions of fans.

Some will not be that fortunate.

All an author can do is carefully choose who we get into bed with and hope that they really, truly get the story and the characters and the world and how all of these things work with each other – that they understand the book’s chemistry.

After all, books and films are different.

But, ultimately, it is the kind of different that matters.

lbardugo

This is a wonderful read and all of the links click through to wonderful reads on the process. (Personally, I felt condensing the action of Cider House Rules was a Baking Soda Change, but apparently John Irving didn’t since he wrote the adaptation himself. And I guess the Academy was okay with it too. Shows what I know.) 

I can’t speak to the adaptations of Green’s work, but I will confess… I have a less generous read on some of the Baking Soda Changes made to a lot of YA properties. I think many people believe the success of some YA (especially commercial YA) is a fluke or a scam, that the properties aren’t actually good, that they just somehow got one over on their audiences. After all, YA is predominantly read by women and girls and we all know ladies are highly susceptible to a strong jawline and flashing lights. So, instead of asking what was in the original recipe that made people so hungry for the story to begin with, there’s a feeling that these properties need to be fundamentally fixed. Bring out the baking soda. 

sarahreesbrennan

I am so happy Ally Carter, genius extraordinaire, fantastic cook and beautiful blonde, has written this out. I feel it to be a deep truth that explains something fundamental that I have never had words to explain myself. I also think Leigh (genius extraordinaire, beautiful blonde, CAN THIS BE A COINCIDENCE) has made an awesome point. I mean, some adaptations read as ‘By a random happenstance which has nothing to do with skill… because LADIES… this particular lady material had become popular! Gotta elevate that lady material! Boy will people be pleased when they see we have changed this with our dudely wisdoms… oh, wow, turns out people liked… the lady material… and are angr… quickly, Ike, to the bunker!’

I also feel that Baking Soda Changes and Walnut Changes are actually a great way of thinking about writing and editing stories. I mean, sometimes things are so wrong, you’re using dried hen’s teeth instead of baking soda, and you need to change it all up from scratch. But thinking about changes this way means you think about what would essentially change your story… and that means you’re thinking about what the essence of your story really is.

mundiemoms

This is great read!

cassandraclare

Really interesting and true stuff about book to screen adaptations, from the always wise Ally Carter. I’ve used her Baking Soda vs. Walnut Changes analogy in lots of conversations.

writing-questions-answered

This is a really fascinating analysis of the book-to-movie process. This is worth a read for anyone who loves books and is sometimes disappointed by their movie adaptations. There’s also a link to an earlier post about how the process actually works, which is a must-read for anyone who has been upset at an author because of how their book movie turned out.

Source: theallycarter
book adaptations writer reference
writingwithcolor sasgayjewchiha
talkdowntowhitepeople

do you want to know something?? I always wondered what the hell kind of hairstyle the Ancient Egyptians were trying to portray with depictions like these

image

image

and this

image

until I did my hair this morning and 

oh

image

welp

image

you can take the noses off our statues but until you find a way to take Egypt out of Africa we’re still going to find ourselves

talkdowntowhitepeople

I’m reblogging this post without all the salty, racist commentary because I’m sick of looking at it. please spread this around again in its pure form for posterity.

tevinsupreme

What’s funny is that white people thought they were hats/crowns 😂

esiuqram

ESIUQRAM

barbotrobot

Here’s a really good post about this.

And here’s some pictures of the Afar people, who still live on the horn of Africa today.

image
image
image
image
image
image

Cool, huh?

heyblackrose

Beautiful

jasoncanty01

People thought it was Hats and Crowns? How could they not see hair?

ohgodhesloose

The same reason archaeologists, upon finding a woman’s skeleton in the grave of a famous Roman gladiator, immediately wondered where the gladiator’s skeleton was: Old Straight White Man™ brand denial.

vaspider

Same way they denied the Really Gay Egyptian Tomb, too. It’s kind of a Thing.

This post is amazing, I’m so glad it exists. I have learned.

lapunkrockmere

There is so much greatness in this post and all white people care about is defending why they thought the depictions are hats. White people??? Why are you like this???

so-much-history-in-these-streets

I’m salty as fuck that we were taught they were crowns at SCHOOL. For Christ sake.

snorlax-con-tetas

image
image
wellfuckk

Their hair is laid to rest. How do I get on this wave?????

africaninnewzealand

I’m really afraid how woke my kids are gonna be in school.

archaeologysucks

This is why Eurocentrism is bad for archaeology, and we really need race and gender theory. We can only learn about the past if we’re able to ask the right kinds of questions.

Source: are-you-even-gluten-free-bro
Egypt Ancient Egypt hair black hair history erasure culture whitewashed history African history representation reblog
its-a-writer-thing fixyourwritinghabits

A Guide to Making Up Diseases (as Explained by a Biologist)

taylor-tut

So listen up y’all, nothing drives me crazier as both a writer and a scientist than seeing alien diseases that make no fuckin’ sense in a human body. 

If you’re talking about alien diseases in a non-human character, you can ignore all this.

But as far as alien diseases in humans go, please remember:

DISEASE SYMPTOMS ARE AN IMMUNE RESPONSE.

Fever? A response to help your immune cells function faster and more efficiently to destroy invaders.

Sore/scratchy throat? An immune response. Diseases that latch onto the epithelium of the throat (the common cold, the flu) replicate there, and your body is like “uh no fuckin’ thanks” and starts to slough off those cells in order to stop the replication of new virus in its tracks. So when it feels like your throat is dying? guess what it literally is. And the white spots you see with more severe bacterial infections are pus accumulation, which is basically dead white blood cells, and the pus is a nice and disgusting way of getting that shit outta here.

(No one really knows why soreness and malaise happens, but some scientists guess that it’s a byproduct of immune response, and others suspect that it’s your body’s way of telling you to take it easy)

headache? usually sinus pressure (or dehydration, which isn’t an immune response but causes headaches by reducing blood volume and causing a general ruckus in your body, can be an unfortunate side effect of a fever) caused by mucous which is an immune response to flush that nasty viral shit outta your face.

Rashes? an inflammatory response. Your lymphocytes see a thing they don’t like and they’re like “hEY NOW” and release a bunch of chemicals that tell the cells that are supposed to kill it to come do that. Those chemicals cause inflammation, which causes redness, heat, and swelling. They itch because histamine is a bitch.

fatigue? your body is doing a lot–give it a break!

here is a fact:

during the Spanish 1918 Plague, a very strange age group succumbed to the illness. The very young and very old were fine, but people who were seemingly healthy and in the prime of life (young adults) did not survive. This is because that virus triggered an immune response called a cytokine storm, which basically killed everything in sight and caused horrific symptoms like tissue death, vasodilation and bleeding–basically a MASSIVE inflammatory response that lead to organ damage and death. Those with the strongest immune systems took the worst beating by their own immune responses, while those with weaker immune systems were fine.

So when you’re thinking of an alien disease, think through the immune response.

Where does this virus attack? Look up viruses that also attack there and understand what the immune system would do about it. 

Understand symptoms that usually travel together–joint pain and fever, for example.

So please, please: no purple and green spotted diseases. No diseases that cause glamorous fainting spells and nothing else. No mystical eye-color/hair-color changing diseases. If you want these things to happen, use magic or some shit or alien physiology, but when it’s humans, it doesn’t make any fuckin’ sense. 

This has been a rant and I apologize for that. 

mcubed35

As a microbiologist, I think the main advice here is to take into account real diseases and conditions before you make up a fictional disease or condition.

Some bacteria have physical effects on the body that cause symptoms (EHEC varitype of E. coli ruptures cells at the site of infection, which is usually the large intestine, hence, you have bloody stools from it). If your alien or “made-up” bacteria or virus causes a certain symptom, find a real bacteria or virus that causes the same symptom. They need to behave in a similar fashion and have similar physical traits. Bacteria and viruses do not evolve functions because they’re cool. They evolve them because they’re useful.

There are also dietary issues, medications and chronic diseases that cause physical changes–copper toxicity can cause an orange ring around the iris, an eyelash lengthening “medicine” causes darkening and/or color change of the iris, hemochromatosis (sometimes known as “Bronze Diabetes”) causes darkening of the skin etc. If you want to use this sort of thing, again, find something real that causes it and work through things logically. 

Play your cards right, do your research and you will have hordes of readers in the scientific and/or biological community cheering, screaming and crying because they love your work.

katistrophe

@biologyweeps, this feels up your speculative alley - anything to add?

biologyweeps

Ohhh.

I’d like to add that the same goes for parasitic infections, more or less. If you want a certain trait for a diseases, cross reference with existing parasites to see what’s happening, and also make sure you check what happens if you put a parasite in a host it’s not meant for. We can sensibly assume that alien parasites that encounter a human would be ‘wtf’ and potentially cause complications that would never happen in the native species. Maybe in the native species it causes a cold like reaction at worst, but in a human the parasites may attempt to nest in a totally different tissue. Maybe that causes widespread tissue damage by the parasite itself as it tries to borrow in? Again, check existing cases to see what horrific things could happen.

While we’re on it, also check how your disease is communicated. One of the things that annoy me so much with zombie movies is that ‘biting’ is supposed to be a very effective way to spread it. It’s not. Anything that requires such intimate contact is actually kind of hard to communicate. Airborne things? Now there we are at potential ‘oh shit’ territory. So if you want your disease to sweep the country/planet/ship, pick something that’s easily communicable. 

Also consider the incubation period. How long until someone shows symptoms? Are they already infectious to other people before showing symptoms or still after they stopped? As mentioned above, illness symptoms are in most part immune responses and the immune system needs time to get up and run. Give it that time.

And while we’re at it… there are symptoms that aren’t immune responses. For example the cramps that accompany tetanus are caused by a toxin the bacterium produces that damages/destroys nerve cells. Viruses can cause tissue damage when they insert in cells, replicate in there and destroy the cell on exit. Think of how HIV can wreak havoc on the human immune system by killing of a specific kind of cell. Depending on where your viruses likes to replicate it can massively impact the look of it. Something that destroys liver cells will look different (and if survived may come with different long term damage) than something that prefers skin or muscle cells. If it’s alien also consider how it might behave differently in its original host. 

futureevilscientist

Fantastic post, I can relate to OP 100%. More points:

Nothing makes me groan harder than a made-up plague which gives anyone X diseases within seconds to MINUTES. I’m looking at you, most zombie movies. And if your alien/synthetic/sci-fi pathogen is at all like a virus (read: no metabolism of its own, just genetic material of some kind which it uses to reprogram host cells), then the rate at which it mupltiplies is limited to what normal human cells can do. Now, viruses can multiply pretty damn fast. But give you symptoms within MINUTES? Nope.

So long as we’re on the subject of epidemiology, and speed:

 "Oh no, patient died less than a day after being infected! We’re all doomed!“ Wrong. While that SOUNDS scary, a plague that kills that quickly would not actually be that dangerous, and would be unlikely to have evolved to begin with. A disease needs to pass itself on to at least one other person, on average, before it kills its host, or it’s doomed to extinction. Any virus that kills its host before it has a decent chance of being passed on will basically quarantine itself. (Of course, you CAN do this if you handwave its origins as being made in a lab or whatever, just know it won’t realistically pose a truly terrifying threat on a population level.)

Mmore ideas for a realistically scary made-up plague:

- Long incubation period (say, a couple of weeks), making quarantine much more difficult, disruptive to everyday life, and unlikely to succeed.

- Infectious period != symptomatic period, i.e. someone can spread the disease before they appear sick. (Note: if this condition is met, then dying very rapidly after *manifesting symptoms* becomes plausible again, more plausible than dying quickly after being infected.)

- The possibility or relative prevalence of healthy carriers - think Typhoid Mary. I.e. rare people who skip the symptoms part entirely but are still infectious.

- The disease is transmitted through an animal that is hard to keep out, the definition of “hard to keep out” would depend on the setting here. Poor water sanitation means waterborne bacteria and microscopic parasites would be a huge danger. Insect or arachnid (e.g. tick) bites could be a danger in almost any setting..

- As an alternative to above point: the bacterial/viral/parasite/whatever can form spores that are fucking EVERYWHERE. (Read: the reason for both tetanus and botulinum poisoning.)

- The pathogen is both dangerous and impossible to fully exterminate through vaccination because it has a huge population of reservoir hosts. (Reservoir hosts are entire SPECIES that can carry and propagate the disease without being affected much by it.) Same way the Black Plague is still out there because a shitton of rodent species passively carry it.

And many more things if you do some research for inspiration! Pathogens are scary, fascinating things, and I really wish we had more realistic fictional representation of them than “virus which causes zombie behaviour in 3 seconds flat” (looking at you, 28 Days Later) and “virus which can MIND-CONTROL people who view the main carrier through a COMPUTER SCREEN” (wtf???) (looking at you, Jessica Jones).

redrikki

@scriptmedic might this interest you as well?

Source: taylortut
diseases fictional diseases world building
its-a-writer-thing

How to Make Your Villain Domestic but Still Evil

It’s the oxymoron that attracts us. Billowing black cape, terrifying worldviews, a willingness to make the streets run red with blood – and you know what would be hilarious? Them trying and failing to make morning pancakes. You know what would really hit us in the feels? Watching them show tenderness around a special someone.

Having a villain with a domestic side is lassoing a black hole, and it’s a tantalizing thing to watch. However, anyone who’s indulged in these daydreams with their own villains has probably encountered one very specific issue: it makes them less evil. They lose their edge.

For example, look at Crowley from CW’s Supernatural. This was a guy to be feared at one point; arriving out of nowhere at unexpected times, always playing both sides of the conflict, and you could be certain he would skin anyone necessary to get what he wanted – usually without getting a single drop of blood on his impeccable suit.

Flash forward to recent seasons, and we’ve seen Crowley cry and whimper more times than Dean has died –which is saying something. At first, it was fascinating to discover this powerful character actually had a tender side; and now, when Crowley makes a threat, we’re about as afraid as when any low-level demon makes one. This is because his evil was too compromised. He let himself go.

How can we avoid this mistake with our villains? The answer isn’t making them crush puppies and hate butterflies at every turn; it’s in balancing their core scariness with their softer side – giving them complexity, giving us a bit of “aww,” and making their eventual whiplash back into ‘terrifying’ all the more wonderful.

For this, we’re going to use Epic of Lilith by Ivars Ozols as an example. This book centers on arguably the original female villain – Lilith, the first woman of the Garden of Eden, who got on the “good guys’” bad side by refusing to submit to someone who was clearly her equal. There won’t be any spoilers below, but if you give the book a read (it’s an easy page turner), the points will be driven home stronger.

Plus it’s a book with a great female villain who isn’t objectified (don’t let the cover fool you, seriously) and prose that isn’t full of sexual over- or undertones. Talk about a win, eh?

Here we go.    

Keep reading

villains character development how to make villains domestic making villains domestic but evil epic of lilith self published self publishing antagonist iawt
characterandwritinghelp blacksplash

Reactions to tragedy

the-right-writing

In real life, pretty much everybody reacts to tragedy differently. So why is it that every author has their pet reaction to tragedy that all their characters use? Not only is it unrealistic, but it takes away the chance for the characters’ different reactions to reveal things about themselves.

Possible reactions to tragedy (not an exhaustive list):

  • Distracting oneself with mindless activities
  • Distracting oneself with others’ humor
  • Distracting oneself by making jokes
  • Distracting oneself by reading/watching/playing stories
  • Distracting oneself with hard mental work
  • Distracting oneself with hard physical work
  • Distracting oneself with creative endeavors
  • Distracting oneself by chatting with friends about normal things
  • Talking to friends about the tragedy
  • Talking to authority figures about the tragedy
  • Talking anonymously with strangers about the tragedy (if possible)
  • Getting wrapped up in others’ problems
  • Staying unusually silent
  • Screaming
  • Crying loudly
  • Crying silently
  • Doing everything possible not to cry
  • Pacing
  • Taking unhealthy risks
  • Going for revenge against whoever one can blame
  • Punching random objects
  • Throwing random objects
  • Lashing out against friends and family members
  • Trying to prevent a similar tragedy from happening
  • Eating more than usual
  • Not eating
  • Taking mind-altering substances
  • Getting in unhealthy relationships
  • Isolating oneself
  • Obsessing over routine
  • Numbness combined with apathy
  • Numbness combined with going through one’s normal motions
  • Trying to get things back the way they were
  • Denial
  • No reaction at first but a reaction hits later in greater force
  • No reaction at all. Emotions relating to the tragedy just fail to load. Note that this can happen to anybody and does not mark a character as a sociopath.

Characters can have more than one reaction at the same time, one reaction after another, or different reactions to different tragedies.

Source: the-right-writing
long post emotions grief loss sadness