Has Film Changed How we Write Fantasy?

[Kelise]

I'm the odd one in that I don't watch movies much at all, so I don't think I myself will be directly influenced by how I write. I of course will be secondly influenced as I read, and those authors may themselves have been influenced, but that's about it.

It does make a huge difference to some authors. Pick someone who started writing a series, then got a movie deal while still writing the last books. Those have scenes written almost directly for how they should be shown in a movie, rather than for a reader of the novel. The last few books of Harry Potter are one example. Twilight, uh. I read somewhere that the author 'wrote them like a movie because she got it all from a dream, which is like a movie in her head.' There's probably a heap more out there too.

 

[Shadoe]

Reading this post makes me very sad but the truth is evident. If you want my opinion people are stupid, selfish, lazy bent on instant gratification and adoration of their peers with little actual thought or reason behind anything.

I agree with you - to a point. I think the majority of society is going that way as a culture, but I think there are still plenty of individuals who remain thoughtful and intelligent. Granted, you have to look a little harder for them, but they are out there.

Honestly I think movies and in particular TV are changing writing, everything in this modern age. I don't think movies are necessarily to blame, well some movies at least, but TV is. Think about it. TV shows are designed to be short to the point so that anyone from any background can turn on the TV and know exactly what is going on with little if any investment.

Again, yes, and no. I don't think tv is changing society any more than society is changing tv. I read an article lately that really opened my eyes to this. The author noted that if you look at tv shows from ten or 15 (or more) years ago, you get a very different experience, both in the writing and the watching. Currently, hour-long TV shows are usually about 42 minutes long, broken into three acts. Back in the day, each act had maybe 3-4 scenes. Now, each act has no less than 6-7 scenes. Do the math. That means each scene can be no longer than about two minutes, compared to three or four minutes back in the day. Movies are generally in the same boat. It's all Short Attention Span Theatre.

 

[Lord Darkstorm]

Those have scenes written almost directly for how they should be shown in a movie, rather than for a reader of the novel. The last few books of Harry Potter are one example.

???

I didn't find the last couple of hp books written in movie style. Most books that double as weapons aren't really instant script material. (see my rant on the hp 5 movie) I think the difference there was the change in the type of fantasy it was. One through four were more the fairy tail. Simple, everything will be ok overtones. Books five through seven are more real fantasy, where death is now a reality, and anyone might die, including Harry.

If the books had dropped down to the first book size or less, then I might be inclined to agree, but larger books mean more get's dropped when converted to movie format.

 

[ascanius]

Ascanius, I respectfully disagree when you say that movies can't be emotional. Go watch Radio. If you don't cry during that movie, you probably need something checked mentally. There are several movies I have cried during, and many more that have had a profound emotional effect on me. I'm not saying that books don't do this as well, but movies are definitely emotional. When you watch Lord of the Rings, do you not get excited during a battle, scared in Shelob's cave, and sad when Boromir dies? How could you not?

Honestly not really. In shelob's cave I had issues with the anatomy of a spider with a stinger, I know it's fantasy and all that but it bugged me, no pun intended a spider is not a bug but arachnid. When Boromir died I wasn't sad. Also I never said they cannot be emotional, I cried watching the notebook and am man enough to say it, along with some other movies. Dark Night I had a distinct feeling of fear from the Joker. Mostly though the only emotion I get from the vast majority of movies is enjoyment, nothing really special. Emotionally to me about ninety percent of the movies I watch are all the same, this does not mean they were bad but I simply don't have enough invested in the movie. For me a good movie is one that makes me think. Their too simple for me, and not developed enough to create an attachment to the characters or plot. Now in a book I tend to have strong emotions of anxiety, apprehension, hate and other concerning characters and plot. I want to know what is going to happen, even if I know, I want the journey. In movies there is just not enough, enough detail, and enough character development for me to really care along with anticipating the outcome. I don't know why I am like this with books but not for movies, what can I say my greatest dream is to have a library like that in Disney Beauty and the Beast.

I agree with you - to a point. I think the majority of society is going that way as a culture, but I think there are still plenty of individuals who remain thoughtful and intelligent. Granted, you have to look a little harder for them, but they are out there.

What I mean by people is akin to how the Romans referred to the masses, the plebs. Basically what you said about society as a culture. I know that there will always be some who have Intelligence otherwise this discussion would not be taking place.

Again, yes, and no. I don't think tv is changing society any more than society is changing tv. I read an article lately that really opened my eyes to this. The author noted that if you look at tv shows from ten or 15 (or more) years ago, you get a very different experience, both in the writing and the watching. Currently, hour-long TV shows are usually about 42 minutes long, broken into three acts. Back in the day, each act had maybe 3-4 scenes. Now, each act has no less than 6-7 scenes. Do the math. That means each scene can be no longer than about two minutes, compared to three or four minutes back in the day. Movies are generally in the same boat. It's all Short Attention Span Theatre.

But that is entirely my point, the simple addition of scenes in the end is pointless. More scenes equal less time per scene, it doesn't matter if there are more or less. The net outcome is still the same the scenes have to be shallow enough so anyone can turn on the TV and know what is happening at any point, or at least with as little difficulty in figuring out what is happening. They lack depth touching only the surface.

My point with this is that people have become conditioned for hollow simple information with little to no actual thought behind what that information is. There is no understanding just the knowledge of what is happening. nothing is actually gained just empty knowledge. A book requires the reader to take time and follow each detail in forming the story and understand what is happening, not simply know what is happening. A book takes the reader in it's intimate grasp to tell the story. The reader is emotionally invested in the book, sharing the characters fears, pain, and joy on a level TV and movies could never achieve. Movies and TV are to simple to create this sort of emotional attachment. In many ways a book is like a person you know very well, as are the characters. TV and Movies are the acquaintances you meet every day, you have only a limited emotional attachment to them simply your not given enough details about them to invest in them on the same level you would a parent, girlfriend, spouse, or dear friend. And yes TV is conditioning people to this simplistic way, it is all around, Facebook, twitter. Everything about the vast majority of media is a replication of TV, simple to the point hollow information. Instead of talking with someone we chat or post messages on walls keeping that emotional distance, and hollow information. That is not to say these media are not without their merits but simply people or the society of our culture is so conditioned to mindless entertainment lacking emotional investment that is corrupting the media we have reducing it to mediocrity or possibly worse.
Here's some food for thought. I had a Philosophy professor once tell my class a little about Marx and how he thought capitalism would fail. My professor went on to explain that one thing happened that Marx could never anticipate, the invention and distribution of TV and with it impulse buying. The TV has only one purpose to sell something, the shows and everything else are meant to keep viewers watching by ANY MEANS POSSIBLE, ok that the FCC will allow.
In conclusion Movies and TV have changed the way we write, paint, everything we create simply because we depend on the mindless masses to feed ourselves, shelter us, and supply us with frustration as to why I am still up when I have work in the morning.

 

[Devor]

My point with this is that people have become conditioned for hollow simple information with little to no actual thought behind what that information is.

I don't think there's ever been a time when people didn't want hollow, simple information, and in my opinion there's often nothing wrong with that. I mentioned earlier, but there's a much greater percentage of the population which reads than there was when Tolkein wrote. There's also a much greater number of authors, which is great on one hand but significantly brings down the average quality of their work. The broadening of the reading market over this century, I think, had a far greater impact on writing than anything TV or Film has done, for better and for worse. It's also, I'll add, affected the quality and content of film as an art form, but that's for another forum.

I actually don't think the Fantasy genre has been especially affected by film, not when compared to its impact on other genres. Aside from the Oliphant in the room, there's just been so few fantasy movies that were any good. I think most of the "damage," so to speak, to our genre has been done by video games. Video games can be an especially effective medium for telling about epic journeys and heroic battles, both of which are defining elements of the genre. I think that's spooked and inspired and overshadowed more authors than a few movies.

 

[Shadoe]

What I mean by people is akin to how the Romans referred to the masses, the plebs. Basically what you said about society as a culture. I know that there will always be some who have Intelligence otherwise this discussion would not be taking place.

I totally agree on that. I think our society - as an entity - has drifted from striving for excellence to striving for mediocrity. There was a time when a book was published; it was aimed at the intelligent people. Now, as a general rule, the books are aimed at whoever the publisher thinks will buy the most copies. That means more people are reading, but their idea of "entertainment" is what's driving the industry.

But that is entirely my point; the simple addition of scenes in the end is pointless. More scenes equal less time per scene, it doesn't matter if there are more or less. The net outcome is still the same the scenes have to be shallow enough so anyone can turn on the TV and know what is happening at any point, or at least with as little difficulty in figuring out what is happening. They lack depth touching only the surface.

And that was the point. People don't want depth anymore, they want to get what they want and they want to get it NOW. They didn't drive for more scenes, but for shorter scenes. I just don't know what the cause and effect is. Is TV changing because the viewers have shorter attention spans, or is the world changing because TV films shorter scenes and people are expecting that to translate to the rest of their world?

Think about how things were 50 years ago. That was 1961-- (okay, heart palpitation there). In 1961, tv was still in its infancy. Not everyone had one and those who did had just a couple channels to choose from. If they sat down to watch a show, they would watch the entire show. And generally, even if it was a mediocre show, they would watch every time it was on - because that's all that was available. Today, if someone sits down to watch a show, if it doesn't grab their attention in the first few minutes, they pick up the remote (if they ever put it down at all) and changed the channel. So the TV producers know that they MUST grab the viewer right away, and they MUST keep his attention and desire for the entire 20 or 40 minutes.

The reader is emotionally invested in the book, sharing the characters fears, pain, and joy on a level TV and movies could never achieve. Movies and TV are to simple to create this sort of emotional attachment. In many ways a book is like a person you know very well, as are the characters. TV and Movies are the acquaintances you meet every day, you have only a limited emotional attachment to them simply your not given enough details about them to invest in them on the same level you would a parent, girlfriend, spouse, or dear friend.

I don't know if I agree with that. I think movies and television can inspire viewers as much as a book. It's a different experience that the one a book provides, but it can be just as powerful. Look at Star Wars, which inspired a generation - and that started with the first movie. TV shows can inspire a lot of viewers. Look at Buffy the Vampire Slayer - people were very invested in the characters in that show.

And yes TV is conditioning people to this simplistic way, it is all around, Facebook, twitter. Everything about the vast majority of media is a replication of TV, simple to the point hollow information. Instead of talking with someone we chat or post messages on walls keeping that emotional distance, and hollow information. That is not to say these media are not without their merits but simply people or the society of our culture is so conditioned to mindless entertainment lacking emotional investment that is corrupting the media we have reducing it to mediocrity or possibly worse.

My only question is whether society is driving this or the TV is shoving us in that direction. Our society as a whole is based on instant gratification. TV isn't the only symptom. We have so MUCH going on and so MUCH we can do, it's driving society in a direction we never thought of in the past.

 

[Devor]

Think about how things were 50 years ago. That was 1961-- (okay, heart palpitation there). In 1961, tv was still in its infancy. Not everyone had one and those who did had just a couple channels to choose from. If they sat down to watch a show, they would watch the entire show. And generally, even if it was a mediocre show, they would watch every time it was on - because that's all that was available. Today, if someone sits down to watch a show, if it doesn't grab their attention in the first few minutes, they pick up the remote (if they ever put it down at all) and changed the channel. So the TV producers know that they MUST grab the viewer right away, and they MUST keep his attention and desire for the entire 20 or 40 minutes.

Oh I don't know. Don't most people still watch the same TV channel straight through the evening? I know that trend is changing with the advent of cable, but it's still largely true that most people don't randomly channel flip during prime time, or may only skip to another specific channel once or twice a night. The networks counter-program one another on a given night pretty well nowadays.

It's my understanding, from following television trends a little bit, that most people also prefer "casual" television where they don't need a lot to get into the show and can watch TV while chatting with friends or doing something else. That's why reality TV and procedurals like CSI do so well, while deeper or complex serial shows often need to reach a much higher bar in terms of quality to hold their audience, such that most of them fail. It's not that they're shallow or that people have a short attention span, it's just that they're "easier" to watch without investing as much into the show.

I would also argue that television naturally lends itself to shorter scenes, and that a shorter scene pushes viewers into have longer attention spans, not shorter ones. If you watch old shows they were often banter heavy and conveyed very little in terms of story and plot. They were full of one-liners and almost never had subplots or followed multiple plots which converged in the end. Character development was a wash, Hawkeye was almost the exact same character at the end of M.A.S.H. as he was in a beginning. That's not true of television nowadays. Shorter scenes allows the story to progress into new levels of complexity, jokes or plot twists often rely on something which happened several scenes ago, and even procedurals like CSI or NCIS have characters who evolve as the season progresses. You have to watch the whole show to understand what's going on - that's typically how networks get you to stay on their channel or tune in next week with a scripted show.

I just find it strange when people want to judge everyone and everything, and I find it's often a lack of understanding, even when it comes to something kind of silly like television.

 

[Devor]

What, if any, advantages do books have over films? Are there things that books can do that films never can, or at least cannot do as well? As films grow more and more dominant, should we as writers try to emphasize these as much as possible in an attempt to stay relevant? Or will that just alienate casual readers even more?

To put it simply, when we watch movies or television we watch things that are happening to someone else. When we read a novel we can feel like they're happening to us. I think that's the biggest difference.

Novels can also be more complex than a movie, but a TV series - which has a more comparable time commitment - can reach those levels of complexity. But it's seldom done in television because of the higher costs in producing television and the specific complexities of the industry, so advantage: Novel.

I don't normally like posting twice in a row, but they're very different posts.

 

[Benjamin Clayborne]

I totally agree on that. I think our society - as an entity - has drifted from striving for excellence to striving for mediocrity. There was a time when a book was published; it was aimed at the intelligent people. Now, as a general rule, the books are aimed at whoever the publisher thinks will buy the most copies. That means more people are reading, but their idea of "entertainment" is what's driving the industry.

Time was, books were aimed at educated people -- in other words, those who could read. Education and intelligence correlate, but not that strongly. Go back a hundred, two hundred years, and you'll find loads and loads of lowbrow trash aimed at the masses -- not just literature, but theater and art and music. Most of it was forgotten, because who preserves lowbrow trash? It's the same phenomenon where people say that movies were so much better in Ye Olden Days, because the only movies anyone talks about from those days are the great classics. They ignore the fact that there was plenty of drivel shoveled out Hollywood's door on a weekly basis, but you don't see a lot of discussion of that drivel, for obvious reasons.

Civilization has always strived for survival above all else. (That's because civilizations that don't strive for survival, die out. Natural selection at work.) Some people strive for excellence, some people strive for harm, and the vast majority of people just try to get along without raising too much fuss. Thus has it always been, thus will it (most likely) always be.

Don't take a romanticized view of the past; people two hundred (five hundred, a thousand) years ago loved fart jokes just as much as we do now, and got in petty fights about stupid BS just as much as we do now, and were ignorant and bigoted and spiteful in their turns just as much as we are now. Actually, with universal literacy and the Internet, I think we are on the main actually moving *away* from that kind of thing, albeit very slowly. Just as large cities have always been more progressive and liberal than small towns -- because of the confusion of ideas spawned by many people in close proximity -- the Internet allows ideas to spread incredibly fast, meaning that yokels in small-town Nowheresville can now participate in the same marketplace of ideas as highfalutin ivory-tower types in big cities.

 

[Lordfisheh]

"The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for
authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place
of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their
households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They
contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties
at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers."

-Socrates, via Plato.

Boy, if the decline started all the way back then the we've fallen a hell of a way. If it's been going on this whole time then just think how glorious the perpetually warmongering, sexist, racist, slave-owning society of ancient Greece was compared to ours!

Everyone thinks things are getting worse, because everyone likes to think that they're the special turning point before the golden age or the decline of humanity.

 

[Shadoe]

Not to worry. That quote actually came out in the 1950s.

 

[Johnny Cosmo]

Time was, books were aimed at educated people -- in other words, those who could read. Education and intelligence correlate, but not that strongly. Go back a hundred, two hundred years, and you'll find loads and loads of lowbrow trash aimed at the masses -- not just literature, but theater and art and music. Most of it was forgotten, because who preserves lowbrow trash? It's the same phenomenon where people say that movies were so much better in Ye Olden Days, because the only movies anyone talks about from those days are the great classics. They ignore the fact that there was plenty of drivel shoveled out Hollywood's door on a weekly basis, but you don't see a lot of discussion of that drivel, for obvious reasons.

Civilization has always strived for survival above all else. (That's because civilizations that don't strive for survival, die out. Natural selection at work.) Some people strive for excellence, some people strive for harm, and the vast majority of people just try to get along without raising too much fuss. Thus has it always been, thus will it (most likely) always be.

Don't take a romanticized view of the past; people two hundred (five hundred, a thousand) years ago loved fart jokes just as much as we do now, and got in petty fights about stupid BS just as much as we do now, and were ignorant and bigoted and spiteful in their turns just as much as we are now. Actually, with universal literacy and the Internet, I think we are on the main actually moving *away* from that kind of thing, albeit very slowly. Just as large cities have always been more progressive and liberal than small towns -- because of the confusion of ideas spawned by many people in close proximity -- the Internet allows ideas to spread incredibly fast, meaning that yokels in small-town Nowheresville can now participate in the same marketplace of ideas as highfalutin ivory-tower types in big cities.

This. Another example is music; people compare the most popular bands of previous decades to whatever happens to be in the charts on a particular day, and then jump to the conclusion that todays music is rubbish in comparison.

Most people don't realise how bizarre it is, but it would be like comparing renowned inventors and philosophers from history to the next two people you happen to meet, then coming to the conclusion that people just aren't as smart anymore.

 

[Shadoe]

I don't get that. I like music of the past as much as I like music of today. Same for movies and tv and books. I think it's important to judge things on their own terms.

 

[S.T. Ockenner]

I love descriptions in books, especially descriptions of characters. The short attention span on "readers" is really for people who don't read much.

 

[Toby Johnson]

well I still think that the book is better than the film as in harry potter, lupin looks at his biggest fear and it describes what he saw as a white silvery sphere. that could be anything, later found out it was the moon, but in movies there is no way to do this than to just show the moon

 

[WooHooMan]

I notice a lot of writers say something to the effect of “I see a movie playing in my mind and I write down what happens.” So they basically end-up writing novelizations to movies that don’t exist.
Before film, I assume, people mostly wrote as if transcribing how a great storyteller would tell the story orally. People still tell each other stories but a lot of writers, it seems, have lost the ability to tell a book as if it’s an oral story transcription rather than a film transcription.

 

[Prince of Spires]

I notice a lot of writers say something to the effect of “I see a movie playing in my mind and I write down what happens.” So they basically end-up writing novelizations to movies that don’t exist.
Before film, I assume, people mostly wrote as if transcribing how a great storyteller would tell the story orally. People still tell each other stories but a lot of writers, it seems, have lost the ability to tell a book as if it’s an oral story transcription rather than a film transcription.

I wonder if that's really the case or if it's more a case of a writer trying to explain something intuitive in terms other people understand. I imagine stories playing in my head. If I had to explain it to someone I would say it's like watching a movie in my head. But reality is it's very different from that. It's just the closest I can come to explaining it.

I think the biggest influence of visual media on writing is that we can get away with less description. Everyone will have seen a knight / viking / samurai warrior, they will have seen castles and palaces, deserts and rain forests. I can just call it a red desert or a forbidden city or sky-scraper skyline and my reader will have an image in his head. It might not be my image, but he will have an idea of what I am talking about. If a specific detail matters to the story, or if it will help set the scene then I go deeper in the description. But for the rest I can use a few brush strokes and get away with it.

 

[Miles Lacey]

If you read a book written at the end of the 19th century you will see an attention to detail that is largely absent today for one simple reason: the vast majority of readers back in the late 19th Century had never visited nor seen any images of the places, peoples and cultures being described. These days you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who wouldn't be familiar with pseudo-medieval societies, elves or places like Rome or Tokyo.

That expanding of our knowledge of these things has been in large part due to illustrated books, films, TV and the Internet.

So, yes, film has changed how we write fantasy. As for whether or not that is a good thing is entirely a matter of opinion.

 

[Darkfantasy]

I would say it's made people more aware (cultures, places, people, lives that others live, history). Watching a movie is easy and requires very little time, where as reading a book can be a long commitment. I've watched an entire movie trilogy is one day, you couldn't do that with a book trilogy. A documentary or many on one subject may not go into the depth like a non-fiction book but it still gives you the jist. I think T.V has made people more aware of things, especially visually. IF it weren't for the internet or TV I'd have no idea what things looked like because words don't always give you the truth because so much imagination is involved and perspective of the times.