Ink and Celluloid Dreams Collide

There’s a symbiotic relationship between books and films. The movie business likes to use books for content and cut their risks by relying on pre-sold characters and stories. The book biz likes to use movies as big-budget commercials for their products and piggyback on the huge promotional effort that surrounds new films and TV shows. But as the December issue of Moving Pictures magazine points out, there are some dangers.  In one article, headlined "Sin or Synergy," the magazine discusses the recent surge in alliances between publishers and studios…many of whom are owned by the same parent companies. But that doesn’t guarantee hits…for either studios or booksellers.

Maria Campbell, a highly regarded book scout for Warner Brothers, believes "good movies are made because people are passionate about them and have a vision. Alliances can create conversations, but they can’t create good movies.

Ron Bernstein, head of the West Coast Book Department at ICM shares Campbell’s caution. "Books will always be part of the landscape, but it’s certainly not the glory days. With movies based on video games, remakes and TV series, the extraordinary hold that the printed word had on movies is not what it once was."

It works the other way, too. Books based on movies — also known as tie-ins and novelizations — aren’t the booming business they once were, either.  The short window between the theatrical release of a movie and it’s availability in DVD has cut down on the need to buy a tie-in novel to re-live the movie experience. Why re-live it when you can own it?

In an article headlined "Novelization is a Nasty Word," the magazine also explores the publishing industry’s continuing practice of turning movies into books. Among the authors they interview is Max Allan Collins, who they dub the "Leonardo da Vinci of pop culture fiction,"  co-founder (with yours truly) of the International Association of Media Tie-in Writers. "Novelization is an unfortunate term that tends to diminish the process or, anyway, the end result," Max told them.

Max and Greg Cox do a good job describing in the article the enormous obstacles confronting writers of novelizations…including ever-changing scripts, insanely short deadlines (two weeks to three months) and bad pay. Not to mention lack of respect.

Cox points out [that] novelizers almost never get to see the movie in advance. All they have to work with is an early draft of the script.

"If you’re lucky," he says, "you get a stack of still photos and maybe a copy of the movie trailer. "

But when a novelization scores, it can score big. Max’s adaptation of SAVING PRIVATE RYAN sold over a million copies in the U.S. alone.  And when a movie does well, the book it was based on reaps the benefits — according to the magazine, the tie-in reprint of the DA VINCI CODE, with Tom Hanks on the cover, sold five million copies.

Regardless of the potential for these partnerships, the business still remains driven by agents, writers, and studio execs who have to read the material and get excited by it. As Maria Campbell observes,  "it takes a village to publish a book. It takes a continent to make a movie."

Casino Royale…Again

I took my wife to see CASINO ROYALE today and I liked it a lot better than I did the first time. I have no idea why…perhaps it had something to do with the audience, which was a lot more enthusiastic and reactive than the audience I saw it with before.

UPDATE: My friend Javi rates the Bonds. I don’t necessarily agree with his line-up, but I love his commentary.

18. a view to a kill – everyone in this film looks like they are a hundred and thirty seven years old and dying of rickets.

My ranking? My favorite Bonds are Sean Connery, Daniel Craig, Pierce Brosnan, Timothy Dalton, George Lazenby and Roger Moore (though Roger had his moments). But my ranking of portrayals doesn’t match how I would order the films. Each has its unique pleasures. It would probably go something like this:

1. Goldfinger

2. From Russia, With Love

3. You Only Live Twice

4. Casino Royale

5. Tomorrow Never Dies

6.  Dr. No

7. The Spy Who Loved Me

8. The Living Daylights

9. Never Say Never Again

10. Thunderball

11. On Her Majesty’s Secret Service

12.  Goldeneye

13.  Diamonds Are Forever

14.  Die Another Day

15.  For Your Eyes Only

16.  The World is Not Enough

17. Live and Let Die

18. License to Kill

19. Octopussy

20. Man with the Golden Gun

21. Moonraker

22. A View to a Kill

Battlestar Craptica

It happens on even the best shows and, on Friday night, it happened to BATTLESTAR GALACTICA. They had a truly awful episode. Flat, obvious, speechy, boring and illogical. For those of you who saw it, I had one big question while I was watching the episode:  how did Buckshot or the Cylons know where the
Galactica was? And if they knew, why didn’t they send three or four Basestars there to blast it out of space? Wouldn’t that have been a better plan?

The only nice bit was the implication that Balter is having a menage-a-trois with two Cylon women. I wish we could have seen that episode instead.

UPDATE: I’m not alone. TV Critic Alan Sepinwall agrees with me.

Okay, I’m starting to get just a little bit
concerned about the post-exodus portion of the season. The virus
two-parter had some interesting moments and ideas but never quite
clicked, and "Hero" felt like a mess from start to finish.

 

Casino Royale

I just got back from the first show (yes, I am a geek). I enjoyed the movie, I liked Daniel Craig a lot and there are some fantastic action sequences… but it isn’t a James Bond movie.  It’s not your father’s James Bond or even your grandfather’s James Bond.  Sure, there are Aston Martins and casinos and exotic locales  and villians with scars near their eyes. But something was missing. Maybe for the better. (Though it could also have missed about twenty minutes, the film goes on way too long).

The producers weren’t kidding when they said they were reinventing Bond (unlike, say, their attempt with LIVING DAYLIGHTS). This truly is a new interpretation, clearly one that’s heavily influenced by the Jason Bourne movies… with a touch of DIE HARD’s John McClaine thrown in for good measure. But if they are jettisoning so much from the old intepretation, the few
hangers-on (the women who swoon at his glance, the scar-faced villains
and Aston Martins) should be scrapped, too.

This Bond is basically Connery’s take on the character as a ruthless assassin, a working-class  "blunt instrument" in a tuxedo.  In fact, you could say that Daniel Craig is dramatizing the formative days of  Connery’s 007.  If so, then the next film will be a James Bond film. At least more so than this one was… or so they seem to be hinting at the end.

Hasselhoffed

My boxed set of the real first season episodes of BAYWATCH arrived from the UK this weekend. I’d forgotten how good the production values were and how truly awful the writing was (and yes, I am talking about my own scripts). The theme song from the first season was Peter Cetera’s "Save Me," and the title sequence was carefully cut to match the song. Cetera’s song is gone and some awful crap by Kim Carnes has been slapped on in its place.  The problem isn’t so much the song, but the fact that the moves in the song don’t match the edits in the main title sequence so it feels out-of-sync, like dubbed dialgoue that doesn’t follow the movements of the actors’ lips. What I don’t get is why they couldn’t substitute "Save Me" with the "I’ll Be There" theme from the syndicated seasons…