Whay are some books never made into a movie?

Question

For example my favorite book Silken Savage by Catherine Hart was never made into a movie.

Answer 1

I think there are a variety of reasons for that. They could include things like:

-there is no one interested in buying the book rights,

-production companies don't think the book or books would have enough popular appeal (and thus won't make money),

-a smaller company may be interested but doesn't have the necessary money or backers,

-the book wouldn't make a GOOD two-hour movie because it's too involved and would need much more screen time to do well (and thus would be very costly to make), or

-the book wouldn't make a GOOD two-hour (or less) movie because it's too character-driven.

There are probably as many more reasons as there are production companies, though.

Answer 2

I don't know I get the sneaking suspicion people who say "the book was better" aren't movie buffs, they're lit buffs. I personally think Stanley Kubrick had a monumental skill at making books and short stories into much much more than they ever were as books, and this is coming from a writer. Sometimes the authors disagreed with his choices, but ultimately his movies became their own entities (I think for instance the movie "The Shining" had much more commercial and artistic success than the book ever had, because Kubrick was an artist and King is a genre writer, not an artist).

On the other hand, more movies today seem to be taken from literature. Off hand, Beowulf (not that it is at all accurate or good, I wouldn't know, haven't seen it yet) is a new one based on way old literature. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Sideways, these are random examples but there are a million out there. It seems perhaps that some books would not bode well as movies, at least in an american theatre.

The Perks of Being a Wallflower is written entirely through letters from the main character, Charlie. A movie about a kid writing letters about his life would be pretty boring to watch, it works much better with the direct translation through the reader. Similarly, the movie "Stranger than Fiction" would be a pretty confusing book.

Answer 3

Well, I think Catcher in the Rye has never been made into a movie because Salinger doesn't want it to be. The authors ultimately have some say as to whether they'll sell the rights. And, as others have said, some books do not translate to screen.

Answer 4

I agree with everyone who has answered. I would also like to add that every movie that I have seen and read the book too, the book is always better. Not to say that most of the movies weren't good, but I always got more from reading the book than watching the movie.

Answer 5

Some books contain too much character development and detail to be translated into a 90 minute movie and still do justice to the book.

Answer 6

The Killing Star, by Charles Pellegrino.

It might not be suitable for making into a movie. All life on Earth is destroyed, most of it very quickly.

Answer 7

Because a book is particularly a book, written for reading not for watching on the screen.

Answer 8

Because not all books are movie material...some are too long and some have no movie audience appeal...so you might like this book but probably it was not a huge seller...

Answer 9

Not all books work well being transformed to the big screen. Also not all authors want their book to hit the big screen.