I think it just depends on the writer. I tried writing novels for roughly 7 years and failed miserably, never having finished even one. I switched over to writing screenplays instead and now have 5 finished screenplays in just 3 years time. It just depends on the writer.
I'm happy to hear you've found something that works out for you! I've been writing seriously since about last year October (4 months now). Can I ask you how far you got with your 'most complete' book? and how long it took you? so lets say that you were writing a book and got to about 30k words, how long did that take you? Thanks!
I absolutely agree! I was struggling to write my novel since 2012. This year I tried to write it in a screenplay and it's going so fine, I have 66 pages so far (in like 2 weeks). Once it's done I'm going to hire a ghostwriter to turn it into a book :)
@@adetayo_first Hey. I've written 6 chapters so far (20 pages each). I put it on hold 3 months ago but I want to get back to it so badly! 6 or 7 more chapters till this book is finished.
"usually internal stories are very hard to turn into films" TOTALLY, i am a student and someone paid me to turn their book into a shortfilm, i struggled so much with this until i found the way out and i think i did a pretty good job at it, still i had some fun writing it even if it took a little longer than expected, i hope i got to capture the escence of the book
I hate to bring up the example because the book and the movie were both absolute garbage but Twilight was probably the best example of how an overly internal book didn't translate to film. They basically created a shot-for-shot depiction of the book scenes, including a word for word copy of the dialogue. However, most of the "important" information about her feelings were omitted. A simple voice over would've sufficed, but instead they just left Kristin Stewart awkwardly making faces while the camera slowly dollied in or out. Again, it's all utter nonsense, but there was so much more to the book that the movie just cast aside.
Yep, movies are a visual medium that have to adhere to physical restrictions, and whatever special effects can do to extend them, but books are pretty much only limited by the ability of the author to communicate an idea to the reader. It's one of the reasons why 2001 wound up with that terrible ending to the movie. The book had stuff that just does not translate well to film and while Kubrick did a masterful job with most of the rest of the film, he was clearly overextending his abilities with the last half hour or so. Using more action and dialogue in books will pretty much automatically make them more marketable to people looking to option them for screen plays. Obviously, there's more, but it's a huge thing.
My novel started out as a screenplay. I translated it into a book. It was a little challenging but I did it. Got a professional edit and now I’m rewriting.
I want to write a murder mystery. I have scribbled down some ideas which I'm going to piece together. Although I feel as though writing a novel wouldnt allow me to characterise sufficiently and I feel as though it would do better in screenplay form. My reservation for that is that most great films originate from novels and are adapted to suite anyway. But then I feel why not just write a screenplay to begin with.
@@jr5993 I wrote the screenplay first because it was easier for me. Then I submitted the slugline to a publisher for representation and they accepted it. When I sent in the screenplay, they denied it and said they only accept novels . I started working on my book immediately. It really doesn’t matter which way you go, just make sure it’s for the right reason.
@@mccroryfilm3836 true. Thanks. I'm also thinking of non fiction as I feel that I would be able to consistently keep at something I am passionate about for longer.
@@jr5993 In either case, you'd want to do a proper outline. You should have more chances to characterize in a novel than in a screenplay, but you have to make the character building interesting for the reader. You also have the option for more subplots where the characters of the novel are revealed to the readers than you would in a screen play.
I think it's like comparing apples to oranges. Yes, they're both fruit but so entirely different. Screenplays are such a well-defined medium with rules like one minute of screen time per page and the eight sequences/three-act structure. To be visually evocative, novels have to be far more verbose. To be internally evocative, novels require voice-over or dialog. I understand his point about turning an orange into an apple and with some books, it's just not worth the effort. There have been several adapted films over the years that were so good, I ran out and read the book. But how many times have we heard, 'the book was better'? Being a collaborative medium, film can suffer from "too many cooks spoil the broth" while a novel remains more true to the singular vision of the writer. Each medium favors a different element of its narrative so to me, it's not a matter of better/worse or easier/harder but a matter of appreciating each on its own merits.
I enjoyed your verbose internal thought process. I would add that part of the craft of screenwriting is being able to relinquish complete control of the final product; to accept that your unique vision will not come to fruition. However, that being said, it may be that the contributions of other immensely talented people will elevate your vision beyond your humble beginning. Whether a screenwriter, playwright or novelist, one must be able to accept that "your darlings" (parts you're proud to have written) will be sacrificed on the alter of profitability.
The internalization of prose makes reading it a far more personal endeavor, with the reader's imagination as a requirement, than watching another's interpretation of it on screen. One is active and the other is passive, like the difference between playing a game and watching others play it.
Books definitely don't have to be particularly verbose in order to conjure up a vivid scene, otherwise, Haiku and the like wouldn't be a thing. They get 17 syllables in total to convey something to the reader, and there are strict rules about the syllables in each line and that there must be a break either before or after the second line. The rules don't make much sense unless you realize that the Haiku wasn't originally its own thing, it was the first 3 lines to longer poems that would refer back to previous lines. And if you didn't follow the rule regarding the break, you'd have issues continuing. You get far more power from fewer of the right words than more words in general. If you pay attention, Stephen King does very little in terms of describing how the characters are dressed unless the way they're dressed contains an important detail, and even then it's just the bare minimum to convey the detail and relevant camouflage. On the other hand, when Edgar Allen Poe wrote The Pit and the Pendulum, he deliberately used sentences that were longer, more passive and somewhat harder to follow in order to give the prose a more foreboding and dread filled as the reader has a hard time recalling the beginning of the sentence fully. It's a great trick that's incredibly hard to pull off successfully.
I prefer screenplays, but I don't know if that means I find them easier. In a way screenplays are easier since an overwritten screenplay tells you in the page count (among other clues) that you're doing it wrong. On the other hand, a novel will let you write. And write. And write.
I find, after spending many years writing screenplays, that writing a novel has turned out to be easier. Yes, it’s often good to “show not tell” but in a screenplay you have to do show it all the time. In a novel you can just “tell it” if you tell it well.
I don't particularly like it when novels "tell" me what characters are thinking or why they act certain ways. I'd rather be "shown" through prose and have it left to my imagination. "Telling" has become rampant in modern novels because, apparently, readers are not to be trusted (and thanks to social media, that's been somewhat proven to be true).
Honestly, you can, but it's a good idea to circle back and see how much of the "telling" was needed and viciously look for ways of removing the telling in favor of action and dialogue. Sometimes the thing that you thought you needed the audience to know isn't even that important.
A good novel, like a good screenplay, will always show rather than tell. It's the old advice from Chekov: 'Don't tell me there is a bright moon shining, show me the glint of light from broken glass.'
I've written novels and screenplays. I have yet to decide which I would rather write. I suppose it is like having two children with totally opposite personalities and you love them both. However there are times you need to take a break from each of them in order to keep your sanity. In writing a novel you have to think like a writer as well as the reader. In writing a screenplay you have to think like a writer, an actor, a director, a DP, a producer, not to mention things like budget, the length limitations of the screenplay (around 90-120 pages), the feasibility of locations, and all the while mentally glue your butt to the theater seat and, as a viewer, objectively watch your own movie as it unfolds. Gotta love em both!
What you'll find is that an expert will be able to communicate things simply, a professional is just somebody who gets paid to do it. The professional may be an expert, or they may not be. And the expert may or may not be somebody that ever gets paid. It's important to mind the difference when looking for advice. A professional will know about the practical bits of working in the industry, but the expert will be of more help if you want to be one of the best in the area.
Dr. Atchity nails it when he describes the freedom a novelist has to meander. I think of Hugo's Epic, Les Miserable. Its incredibly verbose, philosophical, poetic, theological, etc. However, even the reduced format we've watched of Les Mis, on broadway, or on film, still retains those elements but ECONOMICALLY, so that it preserves both the spirit of the work, as well as the plot. But think of the work in reducing such a work? If a person is naturally verbose, their weakness is being concise (possibly Hugo's problem or is it his genius). However, I think its clear that he intended that work to be a treatise on French society and its ills. A novel perfectly suits this intent, where as a screenplay could wain in trying to accomplish the same. What we can forgive a novelist for a slow-moving plot, or cardboard cut-out characters, and verbosity, are anathema in a screenplay. Being precise and concise, in every story element (character, plot, dialogue, etc). that is the difference and the GREAT difficulty of screenwriting. But what a thrilling challenge!
I really enjoy your musings, but Hugo was an established poet too, which, in the francophone tradition, involves witticisms. His lack of conciseness was a _choice,_ not a shortcoming. Cinema is just bound by harder rules because there is too much money involved. But what are the "clear-cut" stories of David Lynch's short _The Alphabet_ or even his _Rabbits,_ or _Wavelength,_ by Michael Snow? Cinema can learn a lesson or two from lyric poetry (or abstract painting). It just needs daring producers, courageous investors willing to bet on art instead of confining themselves to entertainment.
I've written novels and screenplays. I have yet to decide which I would rather write. I suppose it is like having two children with totally opposite personalities and you love them both. However there are times you need to take a break from each of them in order to keep your sanity. In writing a novel you have to think like a writer as well as the reader. In writing a screenplay you have to think like a writer, an actor, a director, a DP, a producer, not to mention things like budget, the length limitations of the screenplay (around 90-120 pages), the feasibility of locations, and all the while mentally glue your butt to the theater seat and, as a viewer, objectively watch your own movie as it unfolds. Gotta love em both!
Screenwriting is more FUN! I love writing setups and payoffs and sticking just to the story at hand. I also like revealing story with only dialogue and visual cues. I feel it’s a more streamlined way of writing.
My self-published novel (on amazon) started out as a screenplay. I spent the better part of 18 months writing a pilot and seven follow on serialized episodes, stretching my "muscles" along the way, learning and perfecting my writing...with help from coverage and feedback of course. When it came time to transform the pilot and a few episodes into novel format, well, that was like turning an apple into a banana...or so it seemed. Eventually, my book reads like - a screenplay got married to novel, and gave birth to a treatment masquerading as a novel. I join the masses in agreeing that it is harder to write a screenplay than a novel; in the same vein, jumping back and forth between formats is like - jumping out of a plane, then asking yourself whether you packed the parachute correctly.
I agree with Doctor Ken. Screenplay is the ultimate expression of writing. You can say something and allow your audience work it out in a novel. Never in a screenplay. I can go on and talk about this, however if we all can argue this, then we all can understand this too...
No, the novel is the ultimate expression of writing. You have the difficulty of prose (structuring thousands of sentences and paragraphs). Every aspect of the novel is seen by the audience and judged and you can not rely on visuals. Meaning you have to have the creativity to come up with hundreds of descriptions in different scenarios. And we haven't even started on the fact that you have to spend hundreds of pages in the characters minds. Writing a novel is the true test of every aspect of your writing ability. It's all on show.
I prefer the writing of a book because in my opinion writing a screenplay is brutal as fuck too many rules , too much confinement and not enough opportunity to truly express yourself as a writer.
The title should read that making a movie is harder, not writing a screenplay is harder. The only pertinent point he said was that each line of dialog in a screenplay is held to a higher standard by the audience than in a novel. The rest is due to casting, etc. Everything in the first seven minutes an most of the rest is equally pertinent to a novel.
I’ve written two fiction novels and my third was suggested by a publisher to be rewritten as a screenplay. Some stories are made for the screen and others for print. Both are damn hard.
I think it’s apples and oranges. A screenplay does not require the marathon endurance required in a novel. Novels have the luxury of chasing down subplots and expand upon tangents, which give the reader the impression that they’re truly entering another world. Conversely, a novel is too sprawling a world and can’t conform to the tightness in language and story required of a screenplay. Comparing the two in terms of difficulty is a bit ridiculous.
Perhaps the title should be "Here's Why Writing a STORY for a Screenplay is Harder than Writing one for a Novel". A novel is likely to require deeper characterisation esp the inner life of characters. Exposition is easier in a novel. Unless it's first person, a novel requires a good prose style which is evocative.
@Shurikn-productions Nicolas Henry good point. I just thought that the aesthetic value in literature was harder to achieve as it's harder to create a narrative of a scene than to shoot it. The technical aspect of it. The materialization of it through words. I haven't looked at a script to know how that's achieved there. But that's a good point.
Harder to just write an expressive work? OR harder in the sense of writing something truly worth a memorable story that people talk about for more than a day or two... and besides the points of being "awful"? See... Here's the thing. Script-writing is difficult depending on the particular detail-voracity of the script, and that should hinge upon some degree of intent. The same can be said for novels, BUT with a caveat that novels allow you unconditional space to accomplish. Some scripts are so rigid and crystalline that by the time they're even in some rehearsal, or a tertiary "go ahead" has been given, there is no question about hair color, eye color... height of set pieces, directions of which cameras panning with what lenses... The director's job is no longer a directing effort, but reading and vomiting orders "as canon" since the whole project has been foreseen already... That red glass cup in the fifteenth short-view in the second act absolutely must be of red glass, and exactly two-thirds full of dark wine... Absolutely no substitution would work there... or then... Some of the time, however, a little more lucid script can be allowed for the director to scratch notes for continuity's sake and then shoot it the way he wants... as he sees fit, and perhaps because it's a difficult subject to broach with a purely visual medium, it's worth that open-endedness to allow some scenes (even most scenes?) space to be re-shot and varied, since only through experimentation will we quite get to see whatever was going through the writer's and producer's and even director's minds as they tried to interpret the thing for us (audience)... Novels, on the other hand, are written and then edited and sent to print. The audience IS the reader, and interpreter. BUT this doesn't mean it's any easier. Readers over the centuries and decades have every reason to be a bit more finicky about their choices and tastes. Writers are better advised to find newer and fresher concepts, OR to find newer and different voices through which to pronounce those concepts. There's the comfort of near unlimited space to be considered a novel, and still explore and relate or describe sub-plots and internal dialogues to the most diabolical degrees, and there will be some readers who simply eat it up. BUT to write something truly remarkable. To encourage chatter about the subject for days after without it turning sour and deteriorating into a slurry of what's awful about the work is a different category all together. Frankly, I wouldn't suggest that either one is particularly easier or more difficult. I'd say the screenplay is more unforgiving to the writer in quantity versus quality. Yet, while there are plenty of novels that carry page-counts into the thousands, there aren't so many of those that remain popular, even as subjects of exposition in literary courses or as dubious basis for reference elsewhere. Everyone's heard (at least) of Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but far fewer can even name two or three titles between the two of them, and even fewer can offer up a suitable synopsis of anything they've written. Being able to quote one or the other from some video or short film reference from years or months back is about all the more that "Pop Culture" (the avid movie-consuming public) can stand. Most would scarcely know of Dostoyevsky if not for Jordan Peterson's online publicity. So no... I wouldn't say one or the other is more or less difficult... as a whole. I think there's more to it in terms of complexity required and space allowed before we get too far off the rails here. BUT that's just my primitive and admittedly amateur observation. ;o)
Let's say I want to create a mini series and I already have the story in its entirety in my brain. What is the best way to make it happen ? Should I write a Novel and if people like it maybe someone would offer to make it into a mini series or a film ? Or should I try to write a screenplay from the get go ? Assume the story itself is incredible. Also, how to decide if a book or a cinematic experience is better to tell my story ?
@@singhkirat87 It's really complicated. My advice is that you write a Novel. If it's good, people will respond to it and you'll know. But you have to find ways to get the book into readers hands yourself which is not easy. If enough people read it and it's good - you can consider which medium you want to transfer it to. If it's a screenplay, you have to understand that this type of writing is different from writing a novel and takes time and effort to learn and execute. You can 'shadow' other writers by hand copying their novels/screenplays until you pick up on and recognize the patterns, nuances, intricacies and so on, so that you can use those as a proven template/blueprint you can follow to dramatically increase you chances of success. You must understand - you are a sales man more than you are a writer even if you do not realise. First you sell the story to your readers, line after line, chapter after chapter. Second you sell your story to studios and agents so it gets made into other mediums. Third you sell your story to yourself...You must absolutely believe and have conviction in the greatness of your story so that you can keep selling and pushing it tothe world with a clean conscious and determination until you succeed. Tell me more about your story. Just a short elevator pitch.
I think I need to write the book first if I want anyone to make the movie, for one particular story. Why? As an unknown artist, I don’t expect anyone to commit to the script. It’s inherently too expensive to film. I never wanted to write a novel, but that might be what it takes to de-risk the decision. Until I get something else sold first. So I’m betting my time and energy that I can write and self-publish a version that can generate a review that can generate an audience that can generate interest (and confidence) in adapting my story into the film. And I’m the screenwriter to do it.. I already wrote the treatment, other pieces. Hoping to use NaNoWriMo to help propel me to the first raw manuscript… which will probably suck balls. Maybe, just maybe, it will be worth going further.
Great interview! 2 things : "she is my sister!" "she s my daughter!" and not the mother lol. 3 - Helen of Troy: one of the reasons why all the movies failed... as beautiful as Diane Kruger is for instance, how ca you embody the most beautiful in the world?!... Impossible! And that's why also, for instance, Hitchcock was brilliant to don't represent the first Mrs de Winter in "Rebecca". Such beauty is just impossible to represent.
For all the fragile egos in this comment section, I'm sorry your ideology's bubble has burst, but screenwriting is not "novel writing with fifth grade language." I'm certain any novelist who goes into a screenplay with that mentality will have to humble themselves the hard way. There are several reasons why screenwriting is harder - Higher demand for economy, craft, and brevity. A novel's story is closer to finger painting. A film's story is an incredibly strict, refined and complex piece of engineering and craft. You couldn't ask enough questions in a lifetime. If there's so much as one letter that doesn't add to your story, the whole thing falters. - Novelists think screenwriting is easier to write because there are fewer words. That's what makes it harder. The amount of story that exists in a paragraph in a novel must somehow be conveyed with a single image in a screenplay. - It's much trickier to externalize characters, themes, and meaning with cinematic language than with a literary one. Take the opening line to any book that directly spoon feeds its theme, try to convey that same idea with the restrictions of cinematic language. I'll come back to you in a few weeks. - Screenwriting involve two languages (the literary one which is a blueprint for the cinematic one) novels merely one. - Dialogue in a novel has to look good on paper. A screenplay has to sound good when said out loud. This adds an extra layer of difficulty to screenwriting that's absent in novels, one that's often eluded even seasoned veterans.
Both mediums are way to complicated to sum up as one being easier than the other. Since he mentioned it's harder to compress story into a tighter, more contained story, my guess would be that he's an over-writer. An under-writer on the other hand might find writing screenplays much easier than meeting the word count to satisfy a novel. And that's just one example. This whole "We have it worse" and "We've overcome more" mentality just turns into an egocentric dick measuring contest between writers who have no respect for crafts other than their own. And as someone who likes both mediums (and frankly, finds screenwriting easier), it's just obnoxious to listen to.
I'm going to assume you used Rocky to pull that anecdotal evidence out your ass. Rocky is an exceptional case because Stallone managed to find a story that was both personal and marketable. The stars aligned. This an't happen with the vast majority of screenplays.
No ✋ this man is out of his depth. He’s an intelligent talented and experienced man, and when it comes to this, he would have to have had a novel traditionally published in order to compare the difficulty of his 100 page stories where prose and dialogue are allowed to be as bulky as an instruction manual, to a 500 page story where every little moment has to be written elegantly and flow naturally and obey many more rules of novel writing than the marginal list of screen writing rules. It’s like saying a machine gun is harder to use than a bow and arrow. It’s not even something to compare and only people who’ve done one out of the two things they compare will always say they do the better one without even having tried the other, and hopeful up and comers see this single minded truth and think it’s an industry standard. Sad
Think screenplay is much more easier than a novel? Well watch Fantastic Beasts and think again. A great novelist cannot easily produce a good screenplay,
So I’m 3 years late on this video but I’m curious of this concept would work for a book that’s being made into a manga. I started working on this project for myself and i love getting more knowledge on making my work more captivating for those who want to read it. Taking all advice and criticism please !!!
I'm sorry but this makes no sense. Writing a novel is way harder, and takes much more time then a screenplay. Take it from somebody who has done both. Screenplays are blueprints essentaily for films. While novels are all you have is the novel. It's harder. Anybody with a brain knows that.
Step 1: Buy the book rights. Step 2: Coverage to determine whether the bought rights are feasible to adapt. Step 3: ... profit? PROFIT???? FROM 90% REJECTIONS OF BOUGHT RIGHTS???? Are you... see, this is why Hollywood is going broke. Step 4: Hoard book rights to prevent anyone else from profiting from them.
Hmm, novels are works of art that require tremendous effort. Movies are made for people with small attention spans. As a beginning writer, I'm glad I chose to learn the craft through screenwriting first, but I can't agree with his overall opinions on the craft of writing, as a whole.
lol what are you saying that are all movies are for short attention span masterpieces like the godfather or seven samurai are like that blockbusters like marvel shure but not all movies are like that your opinion is wrong
He’s forgetting the fact that the author has already done all the hard lifting (sometimes half a decades worth of studying characters, themes, and their beliefs) for you. Also being expansive means that you have to have in-depth knowledge of what you’re talking about, expanding it to show the reader all it’s complexity coherently, it’s not just talking for the sake of it. I feel he’s not only being disingenuous but slightly disrespectful. Imagine, to think that translating something is harder than having to create the original world from scratch. Even though most people will tell you that many translations of novels are in fact lack lustre. Also sometimes a screenplays success can come from what colour and tone the actor gives the words on the page, an author stands alone.
“The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.” 2 Peter 3:9 NIV ROMANS 10:9-11 “If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame” Matthew 11:28-30 “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.” “For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.”” Luke 19:10 God wants us to believe in His One and Only Son, Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior, who died for our sins :D When we truly believe in our hearts that Jesus is the Son of God, who died for our sins so we could have eternal life with God, we are saved from the eternal fire and have eternal life in Christ Jesus!! 💖 May God bless you all 😊❤️🕊
Most top selling books or books by famous authors are movies, tv shows or mini series. I don't get what he is talking about 7 Harry Potter Books 2 50 shades of Grey Books All Twilight Books Vampire Diaries The Witcher Alex Cross books Dresden files Shadowhunters Every book Stephen King has ever written is a movie or tv series Every super hero movie or show was a comic book first 😳😳😳
He's talking about the complexities inherent in each format, with screenplays being more rigid in structure vs. novels being more freeform in nature. Although that's not what the title implies.
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
I think it just depends on the writer. I tried writing novels for roughly 7 years and failed miserably, never having finished even one. I switched over to writing screenplays instead and now have 5 finished screenplays in just 3 years time. It just depends on the writer.
I'm happy to hear you've found something that works out for you! I've been writing seriously since about last year October (4 months now). Can I ask you how far you got with your 'most complete' book? and how long it took you? so lets say that you were writing a book and got to about 30k words, how long did that take you? Thanks!
I absolutely agree!
I was struggling to write my novel since 2012. This year I tried to write it in a screenplay and it's going so fine, I have 66 pages so far (in like 2 weeks). Once it's done I'm going to hire a ghostwriter to turn it into a book :)
I am happy to hear that !! Keep it up and Stay healthy !!
@@maou7222 hiii. How’s your screenplay coming along? Are you done?
@@adetayo_first Hey. I've written 6 chapters so far (20 pages each). I put it on hold 3 months ago but I want to get back to it so badly! 6 or 7 more chapters till this book is finished.
"usually internal stories are very hard to turn into films" TOTALLY, i am a student and someone paid me to turn their book into a shortfilm, i struggled so much with this until i found the way out and i think i did a pretty good job at it, still i had some fun writing it even if it took a little longer than expected, i hope i got to capture the escence of the book
I hate to bring up the example because the book and the movie were both absolute garbage but Twilight was probably the best example of how an overly internal book didn't translate to film. They basically created a shot-for-shot depiction of the book scenes, including a word for word copy of the dialogue. However, most of the "important" information about her feelings were omitted. A simple voice over would've sufficed, but instead they just left Kristin Stewart awkwardly making faces while the camera slowly dollied in or out. Again, it's all utter nonsense, but there was so much more to the book that the movie just cast aside.
Yep, movies are a visual medium that have to adhere to physical restrictions, and whatever special effects can do to extend them, but books are pretty much only limited by the ability of the author to communicate an idea to the reader. It's one of the reasons why 2001 wound up with that terrible ending to the movie. The book had stuff that just does not translate well to film and while Kubrick did a masterful job with most of the rest of the film, he was clearly overextending his abilities with the last half hour or so.
Using more action and dialogue in books will pretty much automatically make them more marketable to people looking to option them for screen plays. Obviously, there's more, but it's a huge thing.
My novel started out as a screenplay. I translated it into a book. It was a little challenging but I did it. Got a professional edit and now I’m rewriting.
I want to write a murder mystery. I have scribbled down some ideas which I'm going to piece together. Although I feel as though writing a novel wouldnt allow me to characterise sufficiently and I feel as though it would do better in screenplay form. My reservation for that is that most great films originate from novels and are adapted to suite anyway. But then I feel why not just write a screenplay to begin with.
@@jr5993 I wrote the screenplay first because it was easier for me. Then I submitted the slugline to a publisher for representation and they accepted it. When I sent in the screenplay, they denied it and said they only accept novels . I started working on my book immediately. It really doesn’t matter which way you go, just make sure it’s for the right reason.
@@mccroryfilm3836 true. Thanks. I'm also thinking of non fiction as I feel that I would be able to consistently keep at something I am passionate about for longer.
@@jr5993 In either case, you'd want to do a proper outline. You should have more chances to characterize in a novel than in a screenplay, but you have to make the character building interesting for the reader. You also have the option for more subplots where the characters of the novel are revealed to the readers than you would in a screen play.
I think it's like comparing apples to oranges. Yes, they're both fruit but so entirely different. Screenplays are such a well-defined medium with rules like one minute of screen time per page and the eight sequences/three-act structure. To be visually evocative, novels have to be far more verbose. To be internally evocative, novels require voice-over or dialog. I understand his point about turning an orange into an apple and with some books, it's just not worth the effort. There have been several adapted films over the years that were so good, I ran out and read the book. But how many times have we heard, 'the book was better'? Being a collaborative medium, film can suffer from "too many cooks spoil the broth" while a novel remains more true to the singular vision of the writer. Each medium favors a different element of its narrative so to me, it's not a matter of better/worse or easier/harder but a matter of appreciating each on its own merits.
I enjoyed your verbose internal thought process. I would add that part of the craft of screenwriting is being able to relinquish complete control of the final product; to accept that your unique vision will not come to fruition. However, that being said, it may be that the contributions of other immensely talented people will elevate your vision beyond your humble beginning. Whether a screenwriter, playwright or novelist, one must be able to accept that "your darlings" (parts you're proud to have written) will be sacrificed on the alter of profitability.
The internalization of prose makes reading it a far more personal endeavor, with the reader's imagination as a requirement, than watching another's interpretation of it on screen. One is active and the other is passive, like the difference between playing a game and watching others play it.
Books definitely don't have to be particularly verbose in order to conjure up a vivid scene, otherwise, Haiku and the like wouldn't be a thing. They get 17 syllables in total to convey something to the reader, and there are strict rules about the syllables in each line and that there must be a break either before or after the second line. The rules don't make much sense unless you realize that the Haiku wasn't originally its own thing, it was the first 3 lines to longer poems that would refer back to previous lines. And if you didn't follow the rule regarding the break, you'd have issues continuing.
You get far more power from fewer of the right words than more words in general. If you pay attention, Stephen King does very little in terms of describing how the characters are dressed unless the way they're dressed contains an important detail, and even then it's just the bare minimum to convey the detail and relevant camouflage. On the other hand, when Edgar Allen Poe wrote The Pit and the Pendulum, he deliberately used sentences that were longer, more passive and somewhat harder to follow in order to give the prose a more foreboding and dread filled as the reader has a hard time recalling the beginning of the sentence fully. It's a great trick that's incredibly hard to pull off successfully.
@@Damacles9 *altar
I prefer screenplays, but I don't know if that means I find them easier. In a way screenplays are easier since an overwritten screenplay tells you in the page count (among other clues) that you're doing it wrong. On the other hand, a novel will let you write. And write.
And write.
Screenplays is a puzzle you putting together. Novel is literally speaking.
I applaud novelists and screenwriters. Bravo to all of you Benihana Word Salad Aficionados! Chop Chop and Carry On!
I find, after spending many years writing screenplays, that writing a novel has turned out to be easier. Yes, it’s often good to “show not tell” but in a screenplay you have to do show it all the time. In a novel you can just “tell it” if you tell it well.
And your screenplays... Did they sell well? 🤔
I don't particularly like it when novels "tell" me what characters are thinking or why they act certain ways. I'd rather be "shown" through prose and have it left to my imagination. "Telling" has become rampant in modern novels because, apparently, readers are not to be trusted (and thanks to social media, that's been somewhat proven to be true).
Honestly, you can, but it's a good idea to circle back and see how much of the "telling" was needed and viciously look for ways of removing the telling in favor of action and dialogue. Sometimes the thing that you thought you needed the audience to know isn't even that important.
A good novel, like a good screenplay, will always show rather than tell. It's the old advice from Chekov: 'Don't tell me there is a bright moon shining, show me the glint of light from broken glass.'
I've written novels and screenplays. I have yet to decide which I would rather write. I suppose it is like having two children with totally opposite personalities and you love them both. However there are times you need to take a break from each of them in order to keep your sanity. In writing a novel you have to think like a writer as well as the reader. In writing a screenplay you have to think like a writer, an actor, a director, a DP, a producer, not to mention things like budget, the length limitations of the screenplay (around 90-120 pages), the feasibility of locations, and all the while mentally glue your butt to the theater seat and, as a viewer, objectively watch your own movie as it unfolds. Gotta love em both!
I have been wondering for a while what made novel writing and screenplay writing so different. Thanks for addressing my questions.
so rare to watch a professional explains something so professionally clear...thanks
Glad it was helpful!
What you'll find is that an expert will be able to communicate things simply, a professional is just somebody who gets paid to do it. The professional may be an expert, or they may not be. And the expert may or may not be somebody that ever gets paid. It's important to mind the difference when looking for advice. A professional will know about the practical bits of working in the industry, but the expert will be of more help if you want to be one of the best in the area.
Dr. Atchity nails it when he describes the freedom a novelist has to meander. I think of Hugo's Epic, Les Miserable. Its incredibly verbose, philosophical, poetic, theological, etc. However, even the reduced format we've watched of Les Mis, on broadway, or on film, still retains those elements but ECONOMICALLY, so that it preserves both the spirit of the work, as well as the plot. But think of the work in reducing such a work? If a person is naturally verbose, their weakness is being concise (possibly Hugo's problem or is it his genius). However, I think its clear that he intended that work to be a treatise on French society and its ills. A novel perfectly suits this intent, where as a screenplay could wain in trying to accomplish the same.
What we can forgive a novelist for a slow-moving plot, or cardboard cut-out characters, and verbosity, are anathema in a screenplay.
Being precise and concise, in every story element (character, plot, dialogue, etc). that is the difference and the GREAT difficulty of screenwriting. But what a thrilling challenge!
I really enjoy your musings, but Hugo was an established poet too, which, in the francophone tradition, involves witticisms. His lack of conciseness was a _choice,_ not a shortcoming. Cinema is just bound by harder rules because there is too much money involved. But what are the "clear-cut" stories of David Lynch's short _The Alphabet_ or even his _Rabbits,_ or _Wavelength,_ by Michael Snow? Cinema can learn a lesson or two from lyric poetry (or abstract painting). It just needs daring producers, courageous investors willing to bet on art instead of confining themselves to entertainment.
I've written novels and screenplays. I have yet to decide which I would rather write. I suppose it is like having two children with totally opposite personalities and you love them both. However there are times you need to take a break from each of them in order to keep your sanity. In writing a novel you have to think like a writer as well as the reader. In writing a screenplay you have to think like a writer, an actor, a director, a DP, a producer, not to mention things like budget, the length limitations of the screenplay (around 90-120 pages), the feasibility of locations, and all the while mentally glue your butt to the theater seat and, as a viewer, objectively watch your own movie as it unfolds. Gotta love em both!
Screenwriting is more FUN! I love writing setups and payoffs and sticking just to the story at hand. I also like revealing story with only dialogue and visual cues. I feel it’s a more streamlined way of writing.
My self-published novel (on amazon) started out as a screenplay. I spent the better part of 18 months writing a pilot and seven follow on serialized episodes, stretching my "muscles" along the way, learning and perfecting my writing...with help from coverage and feedback of course. When it came time to transform the pilot and a few episodes into novel format, well, that was like turning an apple into a banana...or so it seemed. Eventually, my book reads like - a screenplay got married to novel, and gave birth to a treatment masquerading as a novel. I join the masses in agreeing that it is harder to write a screenplay than a novel; in the same vein, jumping back and forth between formats is like - jumping out of a plane, then asking yourself whether you packed the parachute correctly.
Sensational interview. Thank you
Bring Dr Ken more he is a very good teacher
The World Acceding to Garp is one of my FAVORITE movies of all time.
Depends on what the outline process looks like for a novel vs a screenplay. Cuz if ur outline is detailed enough for a novel, the book writes itself
Novels you could write without an outline. Screenplays you can make an outline but doesn’t mean you gonna follow it
The best correlative medium to screenplay writing is poetry, hands down. What else can evoke so much with so few words?
Virtually any form of written communication will benefit from effort spent on poetry.
I'm one year late but wow your comment is actually such a good point ! Filmography is definitely a question of imagery, and therefore, poetry !
1:45 these are the exact problems plaguing cinema right now. As well as the open (as in not closed) narrative.
Thank you so much you both 🙏🏼
This chanel is just amazing 💎😘 Grazie
The internal dialogue and plus minus scene thing is the most confusing part.
Glad to learn more about what coverage means. Thanks.
7:08 amazing thx
I agree with Doctor Ken.
Screenplay is the ultimate expression of writing. You can say something and allow your audience work it out in a novel. Never in a screenplay. I can go on and talk about this, however if we all can argue this, then we all can understand this too...
No, the novel is the ultimate expression of writing. You have the difficulty of prose (structuring thousands of sentences and paragraphs). Every aspect of the novel is seen by the audience and judged and you can not rely on visuals. Meaning you have to have the creativity to come up with hundreds of descriptions in different scenarios. And we haven't even started on the fact that you have to spend hundreds of pages in the characters minds. Writing a novel is the true test of every aspect of your writing ability. It's all on show.
I prefer the writing of a book because in my opinion writing a screenplay is brutal as fuck too many rules , too much confinement and not enough opportunity to truly express yourself as a writer.
The title should read that making a movie is harder, not writing a screenplay is harder. The only pertinent point he said was that each line of dialog in a screenplay is held to a higher standard by the audience than in a novel. The rest is due to casting, etc. Everything in the first seven minutes an most of the rest is equally pertinent to a novel.
I’ve written two fiction novels and my third was suggested by a publisher to be rewritten as a screenplay. Some stories are made for the screen and others for print. Both are damn hard.
I totally agree.
For many years now I have been so so so turned on the idea of if I am writing a book or a screenplay. I have an outline but no real material.
In books you tell the story, in screenplays you show the story.
I think it’s apples and oranges. A screenplay does not require the marathon endurance required in a novel. Novels have the luxury of chasing down subplots and expand upon tangents, which give the reader the impression that they’re truly entering another world. Conversely, a novel is too sprawling a world and can’t conform to the tightness in language and story required of a screenplay. Comparing the two in terms of difficulty is a bit ridiculous.
it depends, on the story the writers take on the story and the intent.
Insightful.
Have a writhing many books from my laptop
Perhaps the title should be "Here's Why Writing a STORY for a Screenplay is Harder than Writing one for a Novel". A novel is likely to require deeper characterisation esp the inner life of characters. Exposition is easier in a novel. Unless it's first person, a novel requires a good prose style which is evocative.
A screen writer has a different kind of brain than a novelist.
some people can do both, and perhaps you can too if you remain open to it.
@@atis9061 yes, I believe so, for me dramatic writing comes more naturally
Creating scenes in words is easier than shooting with a camera?
@Shurikn-productions Nicolas Henry good point. I just thought that the aesthetic value in literature was harder to achieve as it's harder to create a narrative of a scene than to shoot it. The technical aspect of it. The materialization of it through words. I haven't looked at a script to know how that's achieved there. But that's a good point.
For someone who has contemplated writing a story, which format do you think a beginner should begin with?
Indecisive Explorer short story
Good practice for creating story world, character development, and plot.
Harder to just write an expressive work? OR harder in the sense of writing something truly worth a memorable story that people talk about for more than a day or two... and besides the points of being "awful"?
See... Here's the thing. Script-writing is difficult depending on the particular detail-voracity of the script, and that should hinge upon some degree of intent. The same can be said for novels, BUT with a caveat that novels allow you unconditional space to accomplish.
Some scripts are so rigid and crystalline that by the time they're even in some rehearsal, or a tertiary "go ahead" has been given, there is no question about hair color, eye color... height of set pieces, directions of which cameras panning with what lenses... The director's job is no longer a directing effort, but reading and vomiting orders "as canon" since the whole project has been foreseen already... That red glass cup in the fifteenth short-view in the second act absolutely must be of red glass, and exactly two-thirds full of dark wine... Absolutely no substitution would work there... or then...
Some of the time, however, a little more lucid script can be allowed for the director to scratch notes for continuity's sake and then shoot it the way he wants... as he sees fit, and perhaps because it's a difficult subject to broach with a purely visual medium, it's worth that open-endedness to allow some scenes (even most scenes?) space to be re-shot and varied, since only through experimentation will we quite get to see whatever was going through the writer's and producer's and even director's minds as they tried to interpret the thing for us (audience)...
Novels, on the other hand, are written and then edited and sent to print. The audience IS the reader, and interpreter. BUT this doesn't mean it's any easier. Readers over the centuries and decades have every reason to be a bit more finicky about their choices and tastes. Writers are better advised to find newer and fresher concepts, OR to find newer and different voices through which to pronounce those concepts. There's the comfort of near unlimited space to be considered a novel, and still explore and relate or describe sub-plots and internal dialogues to the most diabolical degrees, and there will be some readers who simply eat it up.
BUT to write something truly remarkable. To encourage chatter about the subject for days after without it turning sour and deteriorating into a slurry of what's awful about the work is a different category all together. Frankly, I wouldn't suggest that either one is particularly easier or more difficult. I'd say the screenplay is more unforgiving to the writer in quantity versus quality. Yet, while there are plenty of novels that carry page-counts into the thousands, there aren't so many of those that remain popular, even as subjects of exposition in literary courses or as dubious basis for reference elsewhere. Everyone's heard (at least) of Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but far fewer can even name two or three titles between the two of them, and even fewer can offer up a suitable synopsis of anything they've written. Being able to quote one or the other from some video or short film reference from years or months back is about all the more that "Pop Culture" (the avid movie-consuming public) can stand. Most would scarcely know of Dostoyevsky if not for Jordan Peterson's online publicity.
So no... I wouldn't say one or the other is more or less difficult... as a whole. I think there's more to it in terms of complexity required and space allowed before we get too far off the rails here. BUT that's just my primitive and admittedly amateur observation. ;o)
This was very helpful
Let's say I want to create a mini series and I already have the story in its entirety in my brain. What is the best way to make it happen ? Should I write a Novel and if people like it maybe someone would offer to make it into a mini series or a film ? Or should I try to write a screenplay from the get go ? Assume the story itself is incredible. Also, how to decide if a book or a cinematic experience is better to tell my story ?
Did u get ur answer? What did u finally do?
Please reply... I am in almost same state as u
@@singhkirat87 It's really complicated. My advice is that you write a Novel. If it's good, people will respond to it and you'll know. But you have to find ways to get the book into readers hands yourself which is not easy. If enough people read it and it's good - you can consider which medium you want to transfer it to. If it's a screenplay, you have to understand that this type of writing is different from writing a novel and takes time and effort to learn and execute. You can 'shadow' other writers by hand copying their novels/screenplays until you pick up on and recognize the patterns, nuances, intricacies and so on, so that you can use those as a proven template/blueprint you can follow to dramatically increase you chances of success. You must understand - you are a sales man more than you are a writer even if you do not realise. First you sell the story to your readers, line after line, chapter after chapter. Second you sell your story to studios and agents so it gets made into other mediums. Third you sell your story to yourself...You must absolutely believe and have conviction in the greatness of your story so that you can keep selling and pushing it tothe world with a clean conscious and determination until you succeed.
Tell me more about your story. Just a short elevator pitch.
I think I need to write the book first if I want anyone to make the movie, for one particular story. Why? As an unknown artist, I don’t expect anyone to commit to the script. It’s inherently too expensive to film. I never wanted to write a novel, but that might be what it takes to de-risk the decision. Until I get something else sold first.
So I’m betting my time and energy that I can write and self-publish a version that can generate a review that can generate an audience that can generate interest (and confidence) in adapting my story into the film. And I’m the screenwriter to do it.. I already wrote the treatment, other pieces. Hoping to use NaNoWriMo to help propel me to the first raw manuscript… which will probably suck balls. Maybe, just maybe, it will be worth going further.
A novel is harder. It takes more skills to be a novelist and you can't rely on the visuals to project your vision.
"Daughter"
"Sister"
"Daughter"
"Sister"
Great interview! 2 things : "she is my sister!" "she s my daughter!" and not the mother lol. 3 - Helen of Troy: one of the reasons why all the movies failed... as beautiful as Diane Kruger is for instance, how ca you embody the most beautiful in the world?!... Impossible! And that's why also, for instance, Hitchcock was brilliant to don't represent the first Mrs de Winter in "Rebecca". Such beauty is just impossible to represent.
But how to decide if you should write a novel or a screen play ?
What do you like more..watching films or reading novel?
For all the fragile egos in this comment section, I'm sorry your ideology's bubble has burst, but screenwriting is not "novel writing with fifth grade language." I'm certain any novelist who goes into a screenplay with that mentality will have to humble themselves the hard way. There are several reasons why screenwriting is harder
- Higher demand for economy, craft, and brevity. A novel's story is closer to finger painting. A film's story is an incredibly strict, refined and complex piece of engineering and craft. You couldn't ask enough questions in a lifetime. If there's so much as one letter that doesn't add to your story, the whole thing falters.
- Novelists think screenwriting is easier to write because there are fewer words. That's what makes it harder. The amount of story that exists in a paragraph in a novel must somehow be conveyed with a single image in a screenplay.
- It's much trickier to externalize characters, themes, and meaning with cinematic language than with a literary one. Take the opening line to any book that directly spoon feeds its theme, try to convey that same idea with the restrictions of cinematic language. I'll come back to you in a few weeks.
- Screenwriting involve two languages (the literary one which is a blueprint for the cinematic one) novels merely one.
- Dialogue in a novel has to look good on paper. A screenplay has to sound good when said out loud. This adds an extra layer of difficulty to screenwriting that's absent in novels, one that's often eluded even seasoned veterans.
Both mediums are way to complicated to sum up as one being easier than the other. Since he mentioned it's harder to compress story into a tighter, more contained story, my guess would be that he's an over-writer. An under-writer on the other hand might find writing screenplays much easier than meeting the word count to satisfy a novel. And that's just one example. This whole "We have it worse" and "We've overcome more" mentality just turns into an egocentric dick measuring contest between writers who have no respect for crafts other than their own. And as someone who likes both mediums (and frankly, finds screenwriting easier), it's just obnoxious to listen to.
lol, a great script can be written in 3 days. A great book not so much.
A great 1st draft may be written in 3 days, but how many rewrites until its a true polished working screenplay?
I'm going to assume you used Rocky to pull that anecdotal evidence out your ass. Rocky is an exceptional case because Stallone managed to find a story that was both personal and marketable. The stars aligned. This an't happen with the vast majority of screenplays.
Are you genuinely stupid?
It's a 2 way street. I can write novels, but I wouldn't know where to start to write it as a screenplay.
So, how many scripts have you written? :D
Curious
Yes
What about Netflix?
No ✋ this man is out of his depth. He’s an intelligent talented and experienced man, and when it comes to this, he would have to have had a novel traditionally published in order to compare the difficulty of his 100 page stories where prose and dialogue are allowed to be as bulky as an instruction manual, to a 500 page story where every little moment has to be written elegantly and flow naturally and obey many more rules of novel writing than the marginal list of screen writing rules. It’s like saying a machine gun is harder to use than a bow and arrow. It’s not even something to compare and only people who’ve done one out of the two things they compare will always say they do the better one without even having tried the other, and hopeful up and comers see this single minded truth and think it’s an industry standard. Sad
"I'm sorry for my long letter, I didn't have time to write a shorter one." Mark Twain.
Exactly, he seems to have no idea what he's talking about
Think screenplay is much more easier than a novel? Well watch Fantastic Beasts and think again. A great novelist cannot easily produce a good screenplay,
Because they're two different art forms. Just like a person writing scripts would likely struggle writing great poetry.
Yo Man nice. Have you had any of your screenplays produces? Or have you written in other mediums?
@@YM-ow1jx Don't give up man. Just keep on being consistent and doing the best you can. Trust the process. Trust the timing.
And then read The Cursed Child. You'll realize that Rowling losing her touch has nothing to do with medium.
So I’m 3 years late on this video but I’m curious of this concept would work for a book that’s being made into a manga. I started working on this project for myself and i love getting more knowledge on making my work more captivating for those who want to read it. Taking all advice and criticism please !!!
Agreed.
I do not agree. Prose is infinitely more difficult for me.
Exactly, it takes more skills to be a novelist.
I'm sorry but this makes no sense. Writing a novel is way harder, and takes much more time then a screenplay. Take it from somebody who has done both. Screenplays are blueprints essentaily for films. While novels are all you have is the novel. It's harder. Anybody with a brain knows that.
godard on scrreenplay : cahier de charge l
Rocky was written in three days.
The 1sf draft was written in 3 days. Stalone said only 10% of what he vomited in that first draft made it into the film.
Step 1: Buy the book rights.
Step 2: Coverage to determine whether the bought rights are feasible to adapt.
Step 3: ... profit? PROFIT???? FROM 90% REJECTIONS OF BOUGHT RIGHTS???? Are you... see, this is why Hollywood is going broke.
Step 4: Hoard book rights to prevent anyone else from profiting from them.
Hmm, novels are works of art that require tremendous effort. Movies are made for people with small attention spans. As a beginning writer, I'm glad I chose to learn the craft through screenwriting first, but I can't agree with his overall opinions on the craft of writing, as a whole.
lol what are you saying that are all movies are for short attention span masterpieces like the godfather or seven samurai are like that blockbusters like marvel shure but not all movies are like that your opinion is wrong
He’s forgetting the fact that the author has already done all the hard lifting (sometimes half a decades worth of studying characters, themes, and their beliefs) for you. Also being expansive means that you have to have in-depth knowledge of what you’re talking about, expanding it to show the reader all it’s complexity coherently, it’s not just talking for the sake of it. I feel he’s not only being disingenuous but slightly disrespectful. Imagine, to think that translating something is harder than having to create the original world from scratch. Even though most people will tell you that many translations of novels are in fact lack lustre.
Also sometimes a screenplays success can come from what colour and tone the actor gives the words on the page, an author stands alone.
That's assuming all screenplays are adaptations. The majority of them start from scratch as well.
@@commandercaptain4664 It really doesn’t matter if it’s an adaptation or an original, it’s still the same medium.
Hockey is also harder than football 😅
1 to 2% are accepted and 50% of those are written by Stephen King.
“The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.”
2 Peter 3:9 NIV
ROMANS 10:9-11 “If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame”
Matthew 11:28-30 “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.”
“For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.””
Luke 19:10
God wants us to believe in His One and Only Son, Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior, who died for our sins :D When we truly believe in our hearts that Jesus is the Son of God, who died for our sins so we could have eternal life with God, we are saved from the eternal fire and have eternal life in Christ Jesus!! 💖 May God bless you all 😊❤️🕊
>> Great advice, says Peter Jackson, not.
First and last
Most top selling books or books by famous authors are movies, tv shows or mini series. I don't get what he is talking about
7 Harry Potter Books
2 50 shades of Grey Books
All Twilight Books
Vampire Diaries
The Witcher
Alex Cross books
Dresden files
Shadowhunters
Every book Stephen King has ever written is a movie or tv series
Every super hero movie or show was a comic book first
😳😳😳
You are too ignorant to get it. You aren’t in this industry to understand.
He's talking about the complexities inherent in each format, with screenplays being more rigid in structure vs. novels being more freeform in nature. Although that's not what the title implies.