SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion
note: This topic has been closed to new comments.
Group Reads Discussions 2015
>
Red Rising - Too many, too similar
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Kim
(new)
Nov 12, 2015 06:09PM
Do you think we've hit saturation point for these dystopic YA books? (And their movies)
reply
|
flag
I'm a bit leery these days of anything with unsubtle, simplistic political commentary and a protagonist trying to choose between two boyfriends.
I haven't read this one, but I think
and
go a long way to show that YA + Dystopic doesn't auto = mediocre clones. Plus, no #TeamA vs. #TeamB romance drama haha.
If you don't read them you can't reach saturation. Formulaic, popular fiction is designed for people who don't read enough to recognize the formula.
I'm not a big reader of YA, but I could certainly see where the dystopian theme has been overworked. And I'm sure there's a lot more of them out there than I'm familiar with.
While far from an imitator, I read Bradbury's YA dystopian Fahrenheit 451 this year and it beat me over the head so much I nearly threw it across the room. I also read 1984 early this year, and it too waved its finger, however was at least plausible and suspenseful.
David wrote: "If you don't read them you can't reach saturation. Formulaic, popular fiction is designed for people who don't read enough to recognize the formula."I will at least try every book this group chooses as a monthly read.
Kim wrote: "Do you think we've hit saturation point for these dystopic YA books? (And their movies)"Serious question: What have sales figures been telling us? I think that's the only true yardstick for measuring saturation points.
The YA movies have certainly failed to get any real traction at the box office, so the readership is either smaller than we're being led to believe or they aren't the same audiences.
Trike wrote: "The YA movies have certainly failed to get any real traction at the box office,"Is that true? I don't know the numbers, so I'm certainly not calling you out here, but I was under the impression that a lot of the YA movies, particularly the Dystipian ones we're talking about(Hunger Games, Divergent, Maze Runner) did amazing in theaters. Is that not true?
Speaking of YA Dystopia movies, I thought I'd see how they're actually doing, since I don't pay close attention to them, being an OA and all.For the most part, they seem to return their investment. But when you graph them by year, it's a clear downward trend except for The Hunger Games.
Format: title (release) - budget (in millions) - box office (in millions)
City of Ember (2008) - $55 - $17
Divergent 1 (2014) - $85 - $288
Divergent 2 (2016) - $110 - $297
Ender's Game (2013) - $110 - $125
The Giver (2014) - $25 - $66
The Host (2013) - $40 - $63
Hunger Games 1 (2012) - $78 - $694
Hunger Games 2 (2013) - $130 - $865
Hunger Games 3a (2014) - $125 - $755
The Maze Runner 1 (2014) - $34 - $348
The Maze Runner 2 (2015) - $61 - $305
Never Let Me Go (2010) - $15 - $9
Non-dystopian SF/Fantasy YA
Beautiful Creatures (2013) - $60 - $60
Chronicles of Narnia 1 (2005) - $180 - $745
Chronicles of Narnia 2 (2008) - $225 - $419
Chronicles of Narnia 3 (2010) - $155 - $415
Cirque du Freak: Vampire's Assistant (2009) - $40 - $39
Eragon (2006) - $100 - $249
Goosebumps (2015) - $58 - $94
Harry Potter 1 (2001) - $125 - $974
Harry Potter 2 (2002) - $100 - $879
Harry Potter 3 (2004) - $130 - $796
Harry Potter 4 (2005) - $150 - $896
Harry Potter 5 (2007) - $150 - $939
Harry Potter 6 (2009) - $250 - $934
Harry Potter 7a (2010) - $310 - $960
Harry Potter 7b (2011) - $305 - $1,341
I Am Number Four (2011) - $60 - $150
Lemony Snicket (2004) - $140 - $209
Mortal Instruments (2013) - $60 - $90
Percy Jackson 1 (2010) - $95 - $226
Percy Jackson 2 (2013) - $90 - $199
The Seeker: Dark Is Rising (2007) - $35 - $31
Seventh Son (2015) - $95 - $114
The Sorcerer's Apprentice (2010) - $150 - $215
Twilight 1 (2008) - $37 - $393
Twilight 2 (2009) - $50 - $709
Twilight 3 (2010) - $68 - $698
Twilight 4a (2011) - $110 - $712
Twilight 4b (2012) - $120 - $829
Vampire Academy (2014) - $30 - $15
Warm Bodies (2013) - $35 - $117
Wow, I had no idea those movies were so profitable. Look at how much Harry Potter raked in by splitting the last movie. Now I know why Hunger Games did it too. Based on those statistics, if I were in the movie business, I'd be looking for another one. Like Red Rising!
Tommy wrote: "Is that true? I don't know the numbers, so I'm certainly not calling you out here, but I was under the impression that a lot of the YA movies, particularly the Dystipian ones we're talking about(Hunger Games, Divergent, Maze Runner) did amazing in theaters. Is that not true? "The same thought occurred to me, so I looked up as many as I could find. Things like The Spiderwick Chronicles and Bridge to Terabitha seem like the skew younger so I didn't include them.
[Kitchen designer just showed up. Please to pause while we go over the punch list for finishing the remodel.]
The rule of thumb is that a movie needs to make 2-1/2 times its budget to make a profit, but most of that has to come from the US, where studios get the best returns.
Looks kind of hit or miss the way most properties are, but there's a general decline over the past few years. The biggest franchises are still earning money, but overall it seems like big book sales isn't translating directly to equally large movie success.
Interesting that Ender's Game did so poorly. It is still one of my favorite books. However, I believe the authors bigoted rantings hurt the box office for it. Shame. It was a decent adaptation.
I suspect it has quite a bit to do with how well the movie captures the non-readers while still satisfying the readers.The Hunger Games had a big pool of readers, but it still appeals to the non-readers. Our son's friends are mostly non-readers, but they've loved the movies, and then there's the Jennifer Lawrence factor... :)
Having said that, check out Eragon. There was a big pool of readers, but the movie was just so....awful that I'm sure the readers voted with their feet.
And then there's The Seeker: The Dark is Rising. An older book, with a dreadful movie adaptation. Lots of potential, could have been done well but done dreadfully. (IMHO.)
Having said that, check out Eragon. There was a big pool of readers, but the movie was just so....awful...I read the book but haven't seen the movie yet. I'm glad you said that.
Trike, that might be the most well thought out response I ever got to a question asked on the internet. Plus figures to show what you meant as well. And all that without some kind of comment on my assumed homosexuality. Much love to you, sir.
I suspect that some of the other reasons might be the hurry to get some of the movies made after the book looked like it might have been taking off.
I tend to blame publishers for all the crappy novels, but I wonder if the real problem isn't that nearly everyone writing has had their concept of story defined by what they see on big and little screens.
David wrote: "I tend to blame publishers for all the crappy novels, but I wonder if the real problem isn't that nearly everyone writing has had their concept of story defined by what they see on big and little s..."Speaking as a writer - I hope not.
I'm not naive enough to believe that what we see and hear, and read, isn't sitting in the back of our minds somewhere. But hopefully the story we tell is our own.
As far as selling to a market, I'd say it comes down to which buttons the reader wants pushed. Young adults are surely very homogenous in their emotional needs, with the victim fantasy and the power fantasy both hitting the sweet spot.
Tommy wrote: "Trike, that might be the most well thought out response I ever got to a question asked on the internet. Plus figures to show what you meant as well. And all that without some kind of comment on my assumed homosexuality. Much love to you, sir. "Dang it, I keep internetting wrong.
I'll go read some YouTube comments and Donald Trump's Twitter and try again.
I was recently reminded in my review of Red Rising that it's similarities to Hunger Games forgets the fact that Hunger Games is thought of by many as a rip off off a Japanese book/film called Battle Royale which I loved. I remember an interview with the hunger games author stating they'd not seen or read BR. It gets harder to believe the more the plot gets regurgitated.
Kim wrote: "Do you think we've hit saturation point for these dystopic YA books? (And their movies)"There has always been, and always will be, a market for books aimed at the young adult audience, which paradoxically seems to resonate with adults. The themes of alienation, teenage angst and rebellion against authority are all central concepts to this genre. And science fiction is an ideal medium to explore these concepts.
My guess to your question is no. The Hunger Games was probably the first book of this ilk to have really taken off, and needless to say, others are going to try to follow that same successful formula. As long as there continue to be successes with this dystopic-YA theme, successes which capture wide attention, there will be more to follow. And we are going to keep seeing the movies spinning off of them.
What I think will be more interesting is to see how this genre will evolve. It is not always enough to simply follow the same recipe. You have to do something new. I am not convinced that Red Rising offered enough new, so I wasn’t terribly enamored with it, but certainly my opinion is not shared by all.
Rion wrote: "I was recently reminded in my review of Red Rising that it's similarities to Hunger Games forgets the fact that Hunger Games is thought of by many as a rip off off a Japanese book/film called Battle Royale which I loved. I remember an interview with the hunger games author stating they'd not seen or read BR. It gets harder to believe the more the plot gets regurgitated. "I haven't read either of them, so how close is Hunger Games to Battle Royale?
I've only seen the first Hunger Games movie and I was struck by how similar it was to The Running Man by Richard Bachman, the pen name of some guy named Stephen King, which was turned into a movie starring Arnold Schwarzenegger in 1987. It's entirely possible she saw that movie in college and forgot about it, then unintentionally copied it when writing her books. (Or maybe intentionally copied it, who knows. She's older than I am and I was 22 when the movie came out, although I read the book in high school.) King's book essentially predicted the logical outcome of reality TV before reality TV was even a thing. But even then it felt like he was sort of riffing on the cult film Death Race 2000.
And really, these are basically just updated versions of The Most Dangerous Game, whose ultimate expression (in this geek's opinion) came in the form of Predator.
Trike wrote: "I haven't read either of them, so how close is Hunger Games to Battle Royale?."Quite a bit in the basic premise. When I first read The Hunger Games my first thought was that it was a Westernized version of Battle Royale. It itself may have drawn inspiration from The Running Man and others but was the first, I believe, to use children as the main characters.
I liked Battle Royale too, but might not have read it (or watched the Japanese film) if I hadn’t read the Collins books first. As to the issue of originality, you can argue that creative ideation is a myth and that nothing is written in a vacuum. It was easy enough to accept Collins’s statement that she hadn’t read or seen BR and that the respective works were two very similar narratives independently derived by two very different authors. I play the guitar and when I improvise, it feels very unique and creative (the feeling is why I play in the first place, and also why I write) but my playing is a response to my personal limitations, and all the guitarist I heard and enjoyed in the past. It feels creative, but it’s not creative in the sense that something significantly similar could not be produced by someone else. A long narrative (e.g., The Sound and the Fury) gains complexity through its language, which is much more unique to an author than storyline. While it’s hard to imagine anyone other than Faulkner writing The Sound and the Fury this has little to do with the storyline. Maybe Shakespeare recognized this and decided to apply his unique (at least to us) language to familiar storylines.
I'll agree that there are probably no original ideas anymore and that artistry lies in an individual's reinterpretation and execution. But the reuse of very similar plot, metaphors, themes can become stale for a reader. Did Brown intentionally set out to write Hunger Games on Mars? If so, great, he was successful. If not, also forgivable, but noticing how close his work mirrors BA and HG is inevitable to anyone familiar with those works. So for me, in answer to the saturation question posed, the answer is yes. Does that mean that I didn't enjoy Red Rising? I thought it was surprisingly well written and fun to read. Read it in one sitting.
Bruce wrote: "Wow, I had no idea those movies were so profitable. Look at how much Harry Potter raked in by splitting the last movie. Now I know why Hunger Games did it too. Based on those statistics, if I wer..."
Well, it looks like Universal Studios was looking for a money-maker and quickly picked up Red Rising: http://deadline.com/2014/02/universal...
Of note, this article was from just over a week after Red Rising the book was released to the public, and it notes that the script was already written. So, if this has any truth to it, then Brown already knew there was a possibility that a movie would be made before his novel was tested by mass public opinion.
I don't know, maybe I'm being too hard on the writer, but I really wonder whether simultaneously "writing a novel" and "creating a Hollywood blockbuster movie" clouds the judgement of some authors to release a quality book. I ran into another book recently (The Girl on the Train) where the movie was optioned 10 months BEFORE the novel was publicly released. When I discovered this, I was no longer surprised that I felt like I was reading a screenplay rather than a novel.
With these two experiences, at the risk of sounding like a complete snob, I think that for myself I will screen new books carefully for their "Hollywood potential". It just hasn't been my thing.
Note: professional writers, please educate me on writing/editing timelines if I'm completely off the mark, but I imagine Brown might have been at least THINKING of his screenplay while writing his novel.
If Brown was indeed thinking screenplay when he wrote the book, that would explain a lot about Red Rising. That might also explain some things about the third Hunger Games.
Trike basically said it as good as I could have. I also have not read Battle Royale, so for all I know Collins could have ripped it off. The idea that she could have written something similar without reading it doesn't sound that crazy to me. It really is a very, very popular trope "x-ammount of people enter, only one leaves". Take the popularity of the trope, mix in the popularity of YA books in America, add in that Collins had already published a book that teetered on MG/YA so she's likely to write more for that general demo.*shrug*
Who knows?
Also, again, haven't read it, but a handful of people I know who read both said that the stories really weren't that similar outside of the whole kids on murder island thing haha. I can't vouch for that, but it's something I've heard at least five times.
Note: professional writers, please educate me on writing/editing timelines if I'm completely off the mark, but I imagine Brown might have been at least THINKING of his screenplay while writing his novel. As I understand it, the process is completely different. I've not written a screenplay, but I have written novels.
I was recently at a writers' festival I was helping to run, moderating a panel "The Book is Better than the Film." We were fortunate enough to have Graeme Simsion whose book The Rosie Project has been wildly successful and is being made into a movie. (Not Sci-fi or Fantasy)
His first writing related degree was in writing screenplays. To cut a long story short, his comment was that in a screenplay, you have very limited time. A book that would take hours to read aloud has to be cut down to 90-120 minutes or so. Of course you can show more easily in the visual medium, but of necessity, things must be cut, and things must be changed.
As both an author and someone trained in writing screenplays, he's done the book/screenplay conversion himself - something most authors are not able to do because they lack the technical skills.
As someone who has written multiple scripts and comics along with prose, the processes are all very different. The basic storytelling "rules" are all in place, but the way you tell the story is vastly different.
I guess what I wondered is whether some authors who write a screenplay at the same time as a novel might allow some of the screenplay format leak into the novel.I'm nowhere near a writer myself, and perhaps it's just that I've recently read a few "books-turned-movies" where I just feel something is lacking when building a world and characters.
LadyCello wrote: "I guess what I wondered is whether some authors who write a screenplay at the same time as a novel might allow some of the screenplay format leak into the novel.I'm nowhere near a writer myself, ..."
In response specifically to something missing: in a movie/TV show, it's all about what you see. There are exceptions, of course, but you typically don't want tons of narrating/direct links into character thought like you get in many novels.
Also, the average novel is what, 350 pages? Roughly around there, give or take? For a screenplay, one page of script is roughly 1 minute of screenplay.
So say you adapt a 350 page novel into a 2 hour movie. You have about 120 pages to get as much of that 350 page story into your script. There will definitely be things missing, the goal for the person adapting the story to script is to make sure you stay true to the essence of the story, then be as faithful from there and, if possible, try to make some of the scenes look cooler when translated to screen than they were when written in the novel(the dragon scene from the 4th Potter book comes to mind).
I think we all prefer narratives of a given length, and of course we all prefer at least slightly different levels of complexity. A film is generally too short for me (and I tend to OD of CG). I generally prefer a novel to the film, but some writers like King have so much bloat, the film adaptation is almost always better. Better still, IMHO, are the books adapted to TV series. An extended series allows for character development in a way that’s hard to achieve with a stand-alone novel. But I think a successful adaptation will always expand on the narrative.
Nothing about Red Rising rings of originality and the prose isn't special. (but) The story did get me to the end of it and the author's reimagining (some suggest regurgitating, I don't) worked in places. I did go for the 2nd installment (golden son?) and got to the end of it as well. (But) I just finished "Wild Seed" by Octavia Butler, I closed the book sad it was over and thought "wow!". Red Rising was far away from that place. a Lamborghini and a Fiat will both get its operators from point a to point b.
Don thanks for the reminder to read some more Octavia E. Butler. Really enjoyed her Xenogenesis trilogy.
Screenplays are very different animals from novels. A lot of people will claim that a screenplay only has the same amount of material as a short story, but that's not true. Sure, if you take out the massive amounts of white space in a screenplay you end up with something that's about 40 pages long, but that's not the point.Visual information is communicated much more adroitly than written description is. So when J.K.Rowling goes on for pages and pages describing Hogwarts and what Hermione was wearing and exactly how Harry looked at Dobby, in the movie you take in all of that information within seconds. The sets are there, the actors are emoting and they're dressed. No time at all is spent on description because you can see it..
Some things don't translate at all. I've never seen any novelist capable of translating Jackie Chan to the page. It might be impossible. Similarly, Stephen King's stuff is dependent upon his prose. Without that you're left with warmed-over Twilight Zone episodes. You have to be a REALLY good filmmaker to overcome that, which is why of the 100+ King stories translated to movies and TV, only a handful are any good.
As for books being optioned months before they're published, that's just the nature of the business. Studios are always looking for the next hit property, and book publishers have a very cozy relationship with Hollywood. Often times the agents for one are the agents for the other, and agencies often connect the two industries.
So when a promising story comes in, the literary agent immediately calls her counterpart in L.A. and gets the wheels rolling with the studio at the same time she's shopping it around New York.
I've read a few books over the decades where the cover copy exclaims, "Soon to be a major motion picture!" (one even proclaimed it would be starring Bruce Willis) and then you never hear anything about it, because it sinks into development hell.
King excels at the not-quite-novella length (he seems to write these much more carefully) which naturally develop the limited complexity required for a feature films. Dick gets filmed a lot too, but it’s because his short stories elicit expansion. I think the best adaptations invoke the written narrative, but take you somewhere else.
Trike wrote: "Screenplays are very different animals from novels. A lot of people will claim that a screenplay only has the same amount of material as a short story, but that's not true. Sure, if you take out th..."I'm happy to see these posts regarding development of a screenplay versus a novel. It's something I've been trying to understand more recently, and anything I can learn I appreciate. I know that books have been made into movies for ages, but I guess until I've started thinking about it recently, I was naive enough to think that a book somehow needed to "prove itself" in popularity with outstanding reviews and sales figures BEFORE a studio would want to spend big money to make a movie of it. I never thought once about how closely intermingled the publishing and movie industries might be, but given just the list of YA releases above, it makes more sense that a studio would want to jump on what they perceive as a money-maker before another one does.
Speaking of the list of YA book-to-movie releases, the only ones I've seen are Warm Bodies and the first three Harry Potter movies. Funny, it was seeing the third Harry Potter movie that turned me mostly off of seeing book-to-movie adaptations at all. I think that was when the movie series reached the point of losing too much of the essence of the novels that I loved. Plus, I found that I liked the world-building I pictured in my own mind as opposed to that which is just shown to me on screen.
I won't say I'll NEVER see another book-to-movie adaptation again, but I likely will not do so with a book I loved. I guess this means I may actually see Red Rising if it comes to be!
LadyCello wrote, "Funny, it was seeing the third Harry Potter movie that turned me mostly off of seeing book-to-movie adaptations at all."Yeah, the Harry Potter movies kind of turned me off too.
My take on it is also no, we haven't reached saturation and are unlikely to. Every year there is a brand new batch of YA readers who haven't read or seen the movies already made, who have the same growing up issues and are just starting to learn and grasp those familiar themes.I grew up reading Andre Norton and Piers Anthony, while not labeled YA, they most certainly fit. Simplistic themes, straight good and bad, everything wrapped up in a comfortable way.
As Trike pointed out, probably we are past the blockbuster, large money maker YA dystopians but like romance novels, they aren't ever going away.
Mod
Tommy wrote: "Trike basically said it as good as I could have. I also have not read Battle Royale, so for all I know Collins could have ripped it off. The idea that she could have written something similar witho..."I've never read nor seen Battle Royale before, so I wandered over to look at the description. My initial thought from the first batch of words was 'Lord of the Flies'. Then thought, nah, this one is government backed, Lord of the Flies was an accident. Couple more sentences and the description mentions Lord of the Flies.
So:
Story of the Minotaur and Theseus - ? - 400 B.C.? (basis for Theseus and Romulus/Lycurgus and Numa/Solon and Publicola - Plutarch - (somewhere between 46 and 127 AD > kids sent as tribute to Minos. Put into a Labyrinth where a Minotaur will eat them. Technically possible to survive. One of the inspirations/sources for Hunger Games.
Lord of the Flies - William Golding - 1954 > kids crash land on island, no adults. Not the intention to have games or death but some games and death occur. More about the break down of society when there are no adults around.
Wobble to Death - Peter Lovesey - 1970 > completely unrelated since it involves adults. Just related to the later Long Walk. Just here it's adults. The point is a 'walking competition'. No death is intended, though there are deaths.
The Racer - Ib Melchior - 1975? > Basis for film Death Race 2000 (1975) - I always thought of it as 'Running Man, in cars'. "In the Year 2000 Hit and Run Driving is No longer a felony. It's the national sport!" Bleak Dystopian future (of 2000). Many enter the contest, many die. Adults involved.
The Long Walk - Richard Bachman (Stephen King) - 1979 >
Contest involving a 'long walk' and a hundred boys. In a dystopian future. Where death might be one of the outcomes. I had some vague recollection that they walk until one is left, but I don't see anything in that in description.
The Running Man - Richard Bachman (Stephen King) - 1982 > another one that involves adults not kids. Television show (like Hunger Games being 'watched'). The 'Running Man' is hunted (instead of a bunch of people set loose at once). The Running Man must survive against many opponents who are a part of the show. Death will occur (or massive injury) for one of the opponents.
Battle Royale - Koushun Takami - 1999 > desert island - high school kids - 'ruthless authoritarian program - 'only one survivor left standing'. Not read. I don't know how close it is to that description.
The Hunger Games - Suzanne Collins - 2008 > 13 districts (13th 'destroyed'). The 12 that remain send two people to compete. Mostly kids. Compete until there is one winner. The others dead. Watched/'televised'.
Red Rising - Pierce Brown - 2014 > hmms. This doesn't sound like Hunger Games, Running Man, or the others. 'Mars is actually habitable' sounds like Total Recall. Command School sounds like Ender's Game. It'd be more like the people from Capital City, from Hunger Games, fought a battle to see who could be President and/or Games master. Since it's the Golds, the higher class, who fight in the Command School. (All this is from reading the description - which means almost nothing. I've read plenty of books that had little connection to their descriptions).
@hank: I'll bite. Your attempt to invalidate my opinion is Mute. You have absolutely no bases and it's completely speculative on the little knowledge had on what I've seen/read. The fact remains that when another author attempts to recreate the premise of kids killing each each other in a sequestered atmosphere while choosing or being given specific weapons to do so is an idea that is permeating the the zietgeist currently. Doing it again on Mars is execatly that, an idea similarly done recently and justifiably open to criticism.
I will bark back, it is much worse than my bite :)Mostly I have no idea what you are talking about but...
This I agree with completely....
Rion wrote: "Doing it again on Mars is execatly that, an idea similarly done recently and justifiably open to criticism."
I think my point above is that YA readers don't care. There will always be another batch who either aren't aware of the zeitgeist, want to read the new book, derivitive or not (since you have shown everything is probably derivative) or haven't learned how to branch out yet and want another book just like the one they read and loved.
LotF was about innate as opposed to institutionalized brutality. It was an interesting book because it was surprising. I don't suppose anyone is surprised by a society that treats its marginalized in a brutal way.
Bruce wrote: "Having said that, check out Eragon. There was a big pool of readers, but the movie was just so....awful...I read the book but haven't seen the movie yet. I'm glad you said that."
I haven't read the book, but I enjoyed the movie, it wasn't great, but I have found I have a higher tolerance for just good enough movies now that I pretty much stopped going to the theater. Nothing paying nearly twenty bucks to see something makes it so my expectations aren't as high.
This topic has been frozen by the moderator. No new comments can be posted.
SciFi and Fantasy Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
The Racer (other topics)Lives, Volume I: Theseus and Romulus. Lycurgus and Numa. Solon and Publicola (other topics)
Wobble to Death (other topics)
The Long Walk (other topics)
Ender’s Game (other topics)
More...
