Derkanus
asked
Andrew Shaffer:
Erin's backstory in the Ghostbusters 2016 novelization (by Nancy Holder) and Ghosts from Our Past both involve her neighbor dying and then haunting her, but the character's name (Mrs. Barnard / Gretta DeMille) and how she dies are completely different (there are lots of other discrepancies as well). I'm just nerdily wondering how something like that happens, and is Ghosts from Our Past considered the canon version?
Andrew Shaffer
When writing movie novelizations, authors work from scripts provided by studios. They're often written simultaneous to filming, which means they can't incorporate any script updates or improv that happens on the set. Additionally, movies change a great deal during the editing process -- and that's to say nothing of reshoots, which happen on most large studio films.
Therefore, movie novelizations are considered adaptations, and don't generally merit "canon" status in the eyes of creators or fans. That's not to say they're not worthwhile reading -- one of my favorite movie novelizations is John August's "Natural Born Killers." Based off of Tarantino's script, it's virtually unrecognizable compared to Oliver Stone's film.
Nancy Holder did a great job capturing the internal voices of Erin Gilbert, Abby Yates, and the other characters in her Ghostbusters novelization. The studio gave her plenty of leeway to invent backstories for the characters and flesh out incidents only mentioned in passing in the script, such as her neighbor dying and then haunting her.
Obviously, I went in a slightly different direction with some of the details in "Ghosts from Our Past: Both Literally and Figuratively: The Study of the Paranormal," the official tie-in to the film. While I was given a script to work from, the book also went through multiple rounds of edits with the filmmakers and Ghost Corps. Paul Feig and Katie Dippold both graciously read proposals and drafts of the book and provided notes (something that rarely, if ever, happens with movie novelizations). For those reasons -- and because the book appears onscreen -- I would consider "Ghosts from Our Past" closer to canon than the novelization. That's not to knock Nancy's book, which I really enjoyed! It's just the realities of the publishing world, and the discrepancy between the attention paid to novelizations vs. in-world books.
In a perfect world, every book and product connected with a property would sync up to tell one story. Unfortunately, it's not always possible. In fact, it may not even be preferable. Movies adapted from books always veer from their source material, so I don't find it personally jarring when novelizations differ from movies and in-world books.
Therefore, movie novelizations are considered adaptations, and don't generally merit "canon" status in the eyes of creators or fans. That's not to say they're not worthwhile reading -- one of my favorite movie novelizations is John August's "Natural Born Killers." Based off of Tarantino's script, it's virtually unrecognizable compared to Oliver Stone's film.
Nancy Holder did a great job capturing the internal voices of Erin Gilbert, Abby Yates, and the other characters in her Ghostbusters novelization. The studio gave her plenty of leeway to invent backstories for the characters and flesh out incidents only mentioned in passing in the script, such as her neighbor dying and then haunting her.
Obviously, I went in a slightly different direction with some of the details in "Ghosts from Our Past: Both Literally and Figuratively: The Study of the Paranormal," the official tie-in to the film. While I was given a script to work from, the book also went through multiple rounds of edits with the filmmakers and Ghost Corps. Paul Feig and Katie Dippold both graciously read proposals and drafts of the book and provided notes (something that rarely, if ever, happens with movie novelizations). For those reasons -- and because the book appears onscreen -- I would consider "Ghosts from Our Past" closer to canon than the novelization. That's not to knock Nancy's book, which I really enjoyed! It's just the realities of the publishing world, and the discrepancy between the attention paid to novelizations vs. in-world books.
In a perfect world, every book and product connected with a property would sync up to tell one story. Unfortunately, it's not always possible. In fact, it may not even be preferable. Movies adapted from books always veer from their source material, so I don't find it personally jarring when novelizations differ from movies and in-world books.
More Answered Questions
About Goodreads Q&A
Ask and answer questions about books!
You can pose questions to the Goodreads community with Reader Q&A, or ask your favorite author a question with Ask the Author.
See Featured Authors Answering Questions
Learn more