The Rise and Fall of Movie Novelizations

Book-to-film adaptations are common practice in Hollywood, but parallel to this well-trodden path lies another, slightly more obscure one: the movie novelization pipeline.

The adaptation of movies into books, also known as novelization, began in the 1910s, and hit peak popularity in the 70s and 80s. But adapting film into a good piece of writing is not without its challenges, and this niche of publishing has long been criticized for its perceived shortcomings: unoriginality, laziness, and a prioritization of profit over quality.

If you’ve ever been thrifting for books, or checked out a revolving stand at a grocery store, you’ve probably seen a few of these: from Dead Poets Society to Alien to Cheetah Girls 2, plenty of Hollywood blockbusters (and not-so-blockbusters) have received the novelization treatment.

And while it would be easy to dismiss these titles as cheap cash-ins, this unique corner of the publishing industry is worth a closer look. Also, though the practice has certainly fallen out of vogue since its heyday, it may be a surprise to learn it is by no means dead!

So let’s dive in, starting with the origins of movie novelizations, why they’re less popular now than they were in previous decades, and why — despite their reputation — some of these novels are actually worth reading.

Silent movies and take-home cinema: The inception of novelizations

The advent of film novelizations came pretty much simultaneously with the advent of cinema itself. Expert Jan Baetens suggests that silent films like 1912’s What Happened to Mary and 1915’s Les Vampires were the first to be given the novel treatment, with the practice continuing even after the introduction of “talkies.” At a time when cinema tickets were costly, and not every town had a movie theater, film novelizations provided an opportunity for everyone to remain in the pop-culture loop.

As cinemas became more widespread and affordable and the film industry evolved, novelizations grew too, reaching peak saturation in the 1970s and 80s. A trip to the theater had, by then, become a relatively attainable luxury — but a world before affordable home theater meant movies were still an ephemeral experience. Being able to buy a written version of the films they loved allowed movie fans to relive them again and again, from the comfort of their own home.

This, coupled with the advent of the mass-market paperback and a desire to tap into the built-in audience a successful film or franchise had to offer, led to a boom in production.

The movie novelization in its heyday: 1970s and 1980s

The most popular targets for novelization have always been science fiction, fantasy, and horror films — in other words, the speculative fiction we all know and love. The bigger budgets generally afforded to these pictures, and the associated marketing push by film studios, made them the most attractive prospects for publishers looking for a return on their investment in novelization rights.

While successful films were essentially free promotion for their book adaptations, novelizations in turn helped promote the films while they were in theaters, since the two were usually released simultaneously. Thus, publishers and film studios entered into a mutually beneficial relationship.

According to the New York Times, publishers estimate that, even today, 1-2 percent of a TV show or movie’s audience will buy its novelization. When dealing with blockbusting franchises, this can represent a massive pool of potential buyers — and was naturally a great part of the incentive to produce tie-ins.

And you’d be hard pressed to name a big movie of the 70s and 80s era that didn’t receive the novel treatment. ET? Novel. The Omen? Novel. Blade Runner? Based on a novel, and then adapted into a different novel based purely on the movie. A mind-boggling cycle!

This is not to say, however, that some lesser-known titles didn’t also somehow find their way onto the page. Since novelizations were typically produced in tandem with the film itself — often working only on an early draft of the film’s script — there was no guarantee that the films themselves would go on to commercial success. Browsing the catalog of specialist retailer Sugen & Co will turn up not only the heavy hitters, but also some obscure and bizarre choices for tie-ins. 

Take, for example, 1979’s The Music Machine. This British disco film, was a commercial and critical failure whose greatest acclaim came from The Guardian dubbing it “not as atrocious as it could have been,” although “the dancing is actually pretty awful.”

Despite the film sinking without a trace after release, it was still somehow selected for a novel adaptation — a piece of memorabilia that will set you back the princely sum of £3 today. 

Misguided examples like The Music Machine — a pretty inexplicable choice for adaptation from the outset since it leans heavily on its (apparently lackluster) musical and dance sequences — show just how keen publishers were to get their hands on film adaptation rights at this time. For every successful movie/novelization combination like 2001: A Space Odyssey — where both film and book went on to critical and commercial acclaim, and eventual cult status — there are plenty of Music Machines lost to time, as well as an entire spectrum of modest successes in between.

The high demand meant many writers were able to make a career out of writing tie-in novels for large publishing houses such as Ballantine, with legends like Alan Dean Foster and Diane Carey being known as much for their film adaptations as for their original works. Others chose instead to go by pseudonyms as ghostwriters, in part to keep their contracted novelizations separate from the test of their bibliography. 

But this is not to say that novelization is entirely its own niche; many established and acclaimed authors have been involved in the novelization process since early in its inception, including such greats as Richard Elman, who penned an adaptation of Taxi Driver, and Isaac Asimov, author of a novelized version of 60s sci-fi romp Fantastic Voyage.

For at least a couple of decades, novelization was an accepted and embraced part of the filmgoer experience. While not every adaptation went on to success, it was a reliable source of income for many and was even seen as a challenge worthy of mainstream authors... although this heyday wasn’t to last.

VHS, streaming services, and the “decline” of movie-to-book production

The number of novelizations being produced annually fell off precipitously over the course of the 90s and into the early 2000s. While Randall D. Larson’s 1995 survey of novelizations listed over 2,500 film and TV tie-in titles released over the course of the previous century, suggesting hundreds of titles were being produced per year during the novelization’s peak, this was not reflective of modern reality. By the time Peter Kobel produced his 2001 article on the topic, it was estimated that only a few dozen novelizations were being written annually.

More affordable home video, and later streaming services, meant that people didn’t need to try and recreate the magic; they could simply experience it again from the comfort of their own couches. With most novelizations being pretty faithful adaptations of their source material, they begin to seem redundant under these conditions. We might, then, think of home video as the death blow for novelizations — but this is not entirely the case.

In certain genres, the practice quietly endures. Where “high-brow” cinema like The Elephant Man, or 2001: A Space Odyssey, was once considered viable for novel adaptations, these types of films do not tend to spur book tie-ins any more.

However, huge franchises from the likes of Disney and Marvel have continued to produce novelizations at a rapid rate. For the Star Wars franchise alone, 20+ film novelizations have been released since the mid 2010s, and tie-ins continue to make bestseller lists in a number of categories.

Novelizations of kids’ movies have also managed to endure over the course of the 2000s. Using characters children are already familiar with as a way of appealing to young readers has stood the test of time, with movies like Zootopia and Moana being adapted in recent years.

While the numbers aren’t what they once were, movie novelization clearly continues to be a viable option, and there is still an audience eager to consume tie-ins. But despite novelizations somehow enduring against all the odds, there is one major obstacle facing this facet of publishing — the “tacky” factor.

The backlash against film-to-book adaptations

Besides the advent of home cinema, a second cause for the decline of novelizations might be their popular perception today. Because they're derivative by nature, novelizations are considered less artistically valuable or interesting to read compared to an author's own original story. When streaming has made many of the more practical justifications for the existence of novelizations obsolete, it can be hard to know why we should keep consuming these “imitations.”

Criticism also comes from the feeling of book adaptations being largely an exercise in padding out existing material. In the eyes of many, adapting a film to a book means turning a 20,000 word screenplay into a 60,000 word novel through the addition of a few extra scenes and a thick layer of waffle. This — coupled with the punishingly tight turnarounds inherent to the practice — cannot help but create an overall impression that quality is not the priority when producing these works.

Thus, novelizations have come to be seen as little more than glorified merch, or cash-grabs.  As Peter Kobel rather ungenerously puts it in that New York Times article, “the literary equivalent of the action figures in fast food restaurants, books like [these] are just additional links in the movie-marketing chain… Most are barely readable, illiterate bits of marketing.” He goes on to claim that fellow writers “scoff” at their novelizing counterparts.

Even the more even-handed and academic writing about novelizations cannot help but partly buy into this quantity-over-quality reputation. Randall D. Larson admitted in his book Films Into Books that “many… are hacked-out exploitations of the write-by-numbers, take-the-money-and-run variety.” 

All in all, novelizations are not considered glamorous work, and their creators are treated with an unfair amount of skepticism. It’s no wonder then that screenwriters, who are usually contractually given the opportunity of “first refusal” should a novel tie-in be created of their work, are (according to Kobel) generally keen to exercise that right and pass on the project to another author.

In defense of tie-ins

The bad reputation of novelizations is, however, an unfair one. Such scathing criticisms roundly ignore the amount of ingenuity that goes into successfully adapting a book under the type of circumstances adaptors experience!

Alan Dean Foster famously never saw the xenomorph from Alien while writing his adaptation, and once had to produce an entire novelization based on the poster for an Italian film due to the limited material available for him. A process of filling in gaps, plastering over cracks, and at times complete conjecture is required when creating these works, under incredible time pressure — in other words, it’s a creative challenge (and achievement!) quite unlike any other.

It’s certainly true that some of these books are born more out of a desire to bring in revenue, rather than any spontaneous artistic impulse. Filmmaking and publishing are, after all, businesses, and to deny this fact would be naïve. But it also goes without saying that there is nothing wrong with a writer producing a manuscript to secure themselves a living.

Even if movie tie-ins were an uncreative exercise in capitalism rather than a genuine output for creative writing, it seems unfair to villainize those authors simply looking to complete an honest day's work. And the stigma around novelizations is also a dismissal of the genuinely impressive and well-regarded writing that has been produced by “jobbing” authors under tie-in contracts.

There are, thankfully, some efforts being made to rehabilitate the image of the movie-to-book adaptation. The International Association of Media Tie-in Writers (IAMTW) was launched in 2005, with the express intention of “enhancing the professional and public image of tie-in writers.” The IAMTW have even offered their own annual industry awards since 2007, the Scribes, recognizing excellence among novelization and tie-in media.

Renowned filmmakers themselves are also increasingly getting involved in the novelization process, with Quentin Tarantino and Guillermo Del Toro both recently turning their hands to adapting their own Oscar-winning works, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood and The Shape of Water, respectively. If a tie-in is nothing more than a glorified trailer, why would leaders in their field be so keen to take on the task?

But perhaps the ultimate testament to the value of film tie-ins is their very survival. In a world of instant replay and streaming platforms, why do people still turn to the “secondary” novel, when they can go straight to the source in two clicks? According to readers, the answer is simple: they long to know more about the world of their favorite movie, and experience it again in a different way.

With audiences calling out for more content, more insight into their favorite characters, and a fresh perspective on familiar stories, movie tie-ins are as valid a part of the fan experience as devouring amateur fan-fiction, or buzzing in anticipation for a sequel’s release. As long as there are movies, there will also be readers ready and waiting to switch off those movies, and pick up the book instead.