Or does it make me seem greedy for more money? Hi, I'm 14 and an ambitious writer. And alongside my ambitions to be a writer, I also plan on making films. I plan to sort of materialize my books I write beforehand into these moving pictures, just as I saw them in my mind while writing the literature. But I'm rather scared of what the public will think of this; a writer making movies out of his own books, it's just tedious and cocky! Heh, maybe that was a tad bit exaggerated, but I want a fellow writer's opinion on the matter. Are there any human beings on Earth who did something similar to what I had described? I feel that if there is, my idea of making movies out of my books would be less of "self-loving writer disgustingly makes films out of his books" and more of "multi-talented novelist/film-maker makes outstanding renditions of his own books in movies".
If you think you can do it, then do it. Nothing wrong with big goals as long as you don't let set backs and naysayers discourage you. My brother and his friends used to do amateur films when they were young. They did the special affects and the whole bit. Some of it I must say was pretty good. One of those kids grew up to be a well known screenwriter. Even did one of the Star Trek films. So it does happen. You just have to practice your art and stay focused on your goals. It's a lot of work but if you care about it enough to do it right then you've got a good shot at succeeding.
Consider that both books and movies are money-making endeavors for publishers/producers, and often from their perspective a "successful" book/movie is one that makes money. If your book is successful/profitable enough, it may seem to prospective film producers that turning it into a movie may be similarly profitable. In which case, no, I wouldn't say it's something narcissistic or pretentious. Even if you're writing the screenplay, directing it, etc. It's business. On the other hand, if you're... well, doing something like self-publishing (which is justifiably discouraged in many circumstances) a movie, then I guess it could (but wouldn't necessarily) seem conceited. Basically, if it's successful enough for other people to want to get on-board with either a book or movie, it's all good. If it's an entirely self-published/produced/financed thing, it can seem a bit overly ambitious I guess. Just my 2 cents.
Once you write and publish a successful novel, then you can consider turning it into a screenplay. Just remember that no feature film is ever written by just one person. You may write the spec script, but don't expect to have the final say if you wish to sell it large production company. Your vision will be changed to fit the vision of the director/EP. They may only credit you for the story, and hire their own writer to finish the final script. (There's a reason film adaptations are not identical to their original source.) Now, if you plan on backing the entire production yourself, then no worries. My advice would be to stick to one medium. First master that art. Become successful. Publish something worthwhile that gains a following. Then let the production companies come to you.
Lots of film directors make films based on their own screeenplays. You are only 14, there's lots of time before any such thing becomes a reality (finish high school, then the University, then a few years struggling, writing plays, maybe a book if you get the spare time) etc etc. But it is certainly good to have such a goal to drive you.
it's an ambitious dual goal, to be sure... and there's nothing wrong with aiming high... but you'd better first learn how the publishing world and the film industry work, since it's certainly not anywhere near as easy to do either one, as you seem to think it is... unless, of course, your family has megamillions that will be at your disposal...
Different stages of life require differing things. At twenty I was detailing cars for extra money, if I could have sold a screenplay I'd have jumped for joy--even if it was trash. Now I don't care. I want to write a story. What would I do with more money? Buy a fifth pair of boots, chrome I don't need, join a second gym? I already drink too much coffee, maybe switch over to blue civet blends. And truth be told, you'll do both, too. You're younger now. Hopefully you'll grow older.
No one is going to think that you are cocky for wanting to make films and literature out of the same material. Well, that's a lie. People are going to think you are cocky just by being an artist, no matter what you do. You believe your thoughts to actually be interesting enough to record and share with people, and so some will see you as an arrogant jerk. These people do not understand artists, and we don't pay any attention to them. They orient their lives in a way that does not concern us. But here's the thing - the real point you need to grasp. Stop thinking of the result. The earlier you understand this, the better. So you are ambitious. You want to make a book, and then a film out of it, and then the public will judge you. All end results. It's telling that you use the word 'public', as if your product is destined for greater consumption. Stop that. Is that a knock to your ego? Do you feel a pang? That's exactly it. If you've attached the meaning of the result to your ego, it's going to be very, very, very, very, very hard for you to not only make anything, make anything halfway decent, and make do with failure. You cannot be thinking about how people will judge you at all during the creative process. Whether you are fantasizing of glory, or fearing humiliation, it will adversely affect your work. Always. Because it's a process. You write good material, not by dreaming of selling movies, but by dreaming of the story, the characters, the themes, the plot, the raison d'etre of the thing. You write, not by making sure that people will think good of you, but by sitting down at the page and attacking the material. It's a process, and when I emphasize process, I mean to focus on the process and not the end. Because you cannot get to the end by concerning yourself with the end. It is the creative process which gets you there. And if you attach your ego to the process, it all becomes much easier. You are a success because you sat down and did the work, no matter the consequences. The thing failed? Doesn't matter, you did the work; you honed your process. Your work reaches the general public? Cool, but it doesn't matter because what's important is you've sat down and done the work. Do you see? Result-driven creation will ruin you. I've seen many a potentially interesting writers and filmmakers succumb to pandering, formula, mediocrity, and despair due to result driven thinking. In fact, I cannot think of a single interesting artist I know that is concerned first and foremost with how a market is gonna take it. The interesting ones are concerned with the material first and foremost, and they approach it with process. Ok, now that's out of the way, I'll tell you that this: is a fine process! In fact, I was a filmmaker first before a writer, and I still visualize the scene like I would as a director. I direct the characters as if they were actors; I play around with the scene like a director (read Directing for Actors. If you want to direct, read the book.) I write dialogue like a screenwriter. My work as an editor influences how I pace my stories and direct the reader's attention in fiction. The process of filmmaking has informed my process of writing to a great extent. That is the power of combining the two mediums - it gives you a better process for how to approach story. The strength is not that people will think it's cool you do film and literature. EDIT: I recommend writing a screenplay first, before writing the book and making the movie. The screenplay is bare bones dramatics, and is open to interpretation to play around with. Screenplays do not delve into the emotional inner lives of characters. It gives you leeway to play around during the filmmaking process, and writing process. I also recommend trying to do this with a short film first. Seriously, for really. Short. If you cannot do a short, you cannot do a full length book/movie. Obviously!
What you are talking about is commonly termed being a "writer-director" (sometimes also called being an "auteur" type filmmaker). The concept is pretty simple and not new at all: A film director who writes his own material, then adapts it to the big screen firsthand, hopefully without too much studio/producer interference. There are filmmakers who do this, but they are somewhat rare these days. Christopher Nolan for example wrote the screenplays for "Memento", "Inception", "The Prestige", "The Dark Knight" and directed the movies himself. Here's a list of 10 well known indie writer-directors: http://thescriptlab.com/features/the-lists/725-the-top-10-best-indie-writer-directors There is nothing conceited or self-righteous about wanting to write material AND adapt it to the big screen yourself. Others have done it before you, and have been showered with respect and awards when they did it right. If you are good at it, you'll be celebrated as a talented new writer-director. Everybody who truly loves movies, typically also loves the work of a good writer-director. If you can handle writing and directing, and think you'll be competent at both, then by all means, go for it.
Yes it's funny and ironic cause im the same age (until June) and want to do the same exact thing! I've imagined movie adaptations of all my novel projects all the time. Sometimes i will brainstorm which actor should play which character. It's fun for me.
