Based on your own novel
When writing a screenplay (under contract) that is based on a book that you also wrote, do you still include the “Based on the book by…” line on the title page? Or would that be seen as pompous overkill?
In the same vein, if you have a PhD is there any reason to put it at the end of your name on the title page? (My personal opinion is that only a douchebag would do either of those things, but then again I’m not yet qualified to make that call.)
– Daniel
Portland, OR
Yes. “Based on his novel,” might be another way to handle it. It’s not boasting, really. It helps explains the rights situation, and might clear up confusion down the road.
No. A PhD means nothing in screenwriting, and to include it would only invite mockery..
Articles
June 6th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
Hehehe. Douchebag is such a funny word. Here’s what you do: Daniel Portland PhD presents: A Daniel Portland PhD Film By Daniel Portland PhD and Starring Daniel Portland PhD based on the literary masterpiece by Daniel Portland PhD: Douchebag! The movie! Written and Directed by Daniel Portland (PhD)
June 6th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Laughing hysterically at the “would only invite mockery.” I agree completely. I have a J.D., which also means nothing, though it can be helpful if you’re going into TV. I have several friends who are lawyers-turned-writers (and one acquaintance who is a doctor-turned-writer). Their specialized knowledge, such as it was, gave them an edge over the competition in getting themselves established in TV. I have found, incidentally, that random info like, “I have a PhD in astrophysics” can be a useful conversation piece in meetings for someone who is early in their career, but not as interesting as the story of how you lived in a war zone when you were a child. At the end of the day, story is king.
June 6th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Your title page should look like this:
Script Title
By Daniel (last name)
Based on Novel Title by Daniel (last name)
Or, if the novel and the script have the same title, then:
Script Title
By Daniel (last name)
Based on the novel by Daniel (last name)
That’s how it’ll appear on screen, so doing the same thing on the script title page is fine.
June 6th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
Yeah, as you see Daniel, even just asking whether you should put PhD at the end of your name gets you teased. So no, leave it off.
June 6th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
Anonymous (#3) is apparently an expert — except that he or she is completely wrong. Screen credits always read “written by”, “screenplay by” or “story by”, for reasons explained repeatedly on other posts. The “based on” credit always comes earlier in opening credits than the screenwriting credit.
June 6th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
Yeah, sorry, I meant for just the novel credit on screen, it’ll appear as either ‘Based on the novel by’ or ‘Based on (novel title) by’.
June 6th, 2007 at 5:53 pm
Well, if PhD stands for Pharmaceutical Dependency, it is not necessary because it is assumed in Hollywood.
June 6th, 2007 at 7:38 pm
I didn’t know PhDs used words like douchebag.
June 6th, 2007 at 8:08 pm
Apparently, you don’t know Jack. Oh, wait – you are Jack. (sorry didn’t mean anything by that, it was just an opening I couldn’t resist)
And as for the “based on a novel by” – only if the book is actually published. ‘Cause if it’s not, then, well… douchebag is about right. (Yes, I’ve actually run into someone crediting a screenplay as based on their own unpublished novel.)
June 6th, 2007 at 8:11 pm
Actually Jack, I don’t think you’re allowed to use words like douchebag unless you are a PhD.
June 6th, 2007 at 11:37 pm
Bill Cosby famously uses “William H. Cosby, Jr., Ed.D.” as an executive credit, and simply “Bill Cosby” when he’s starring in something. Makes you think there’s two different people. :P
June 7th, 2007 at 1:18 am
Casablanca was based on an unproduced play, if my trivia brain serves me correctly. Not by the screenwriters, but still… unproduced.
June 7th, 2007 at 4:39 am
Whoever this is with a PhD, a book and a screenplay, bravo! You worked so hard. Put it all on the front. Who cares what they think? It’s your degree.
June 7th, 2007 at 7:35 am
I’m co-writing a screenplay based on my own unpublished novel. I’ve had some concerns about maintaining the sole right to publish my novel in the future if the screenplay is sold, but I haven’t put too much time into said concerns since selling a screenplay is so difficult anyway.
Right now I think our screenplay cover page says written by the two of us, and we don’t reference that it’s based on something I wrote by myself. Is that a bad thing?
June 7th, 2007 at 9:53 am
Dante,
I used to work at a big five agency. I remember once we sold the film rights to a novel, and after the deal was closed, the author revealed he’d written the novel as an expansion of a screenplay he’d written before, which he’d tried to set up, but couldn’t.
It came up when the screenwriter said, “Okay, now that they’re starting to look for a screenwriter to adapt the novel, BAM, I already did it! Now they can buy my screenplay, too!”
It didn’t jeopardize the project, but it was a disruption. And not a small one. Lawyers were consulted. Teeth were gnashed.
So if you’re about to shop a screenplay based on anything else previously written, even if it’s never been published or exploited, be sure to let your agent/manager/lawyer/producer/studio know in advance.
June 7th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
Okay. I have a question based on the answer to this question. Is it grammatically correct to use a comma followed by “and” in a sentence? For instance “A PhD means nothing in screenwriting, and to include it would only invite mockery.”
I am not passing judgement. I am just genuinely confused as to what is proper.
June 7th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
Okay. I have a question based on the answer to this question. Is it grammatically correct to use a comma followed by “and” in a sentence? For instance “A PhD means nothing in screenwriting, and to include it would only invite mockery.”
I am not passing judgement. I am just genuinely confused as to what is proper.
June 7th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
Aw shit. Sorry about the double post, guys.
June 7th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
Blarneyman – it’s fine. There are pedants who will tell you it’s a no-no. But the comma is just a little pause. Read it out loud – it’s fine to pause there a moment before adding the “and to include it would only invite mockery” bit. That’s how I’d say it, so that’s how I’d write it too.
June 7th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
I wouldn’t like that sentence without it.
June 7th, 2007 at 11:45 pm
No problem. It just looks wrong to me.
June 8th, 2007 at 6:38 am
blarney -
that is specifically what is called an “oxford comma”, due to it’s traditional use by the oxford university press.
it is most commonly used when making a list, or for clarity. for example, the list that the oxford press uses is:
“These items are available in black and white, red and yellow, and blue and green.”
with the oxford comma there being quite clear.
in the case of john’s post, it’s to clearly show a pause. unusual, but totally correct.
thus endeth the obscure grammar lesson for the day!
June 8th, 2007 at 6:44 am
i don’t like how i phrased this –
“for example, the list that the oxford press uses is:”
what i mean is, that’s the example of usage that the oxford university press gives of the an oxford comma. not THE list they use.
as it were.
June 8th, 2007 at 7:56 am
Tim Woods, No, and Oxford Comma is what most would call a “serial comma.” AP (Associated Press) style is to leave it off, ostensibly to save space in newspapers, but it is often needed for clarity. I’m no linguist, so maybe I’ve got the sentence diagram wrong, but I would define that sentence as two independent clauses joined by a coordinating conjunction. Anyway, the comma is appropriate. So says the proofreader.
June 8th, 2007 at 8:36 am
yes, tony, i said the comma is appropriate. i didn’t dispute that. i merely gave it’s proper name so that those who want to know what it is, could say what it is when arguing with grammarists.
and tony – check what you’re saying before you say it. the name serial comma is just another name for oxford comma.
it is also sometimes known as the harvard comma.
but it was an oxford comma for some time before “most” (and let’s face facts, when YOU say most, you mean americans, or american influenced people) called it by other names.
harvard and serial are tardy to the party. it was an oxford comma first.
but if oxford hadn’t gotten there, others would have. the serial folk, or the harvard folk. because no matter what way you look at it, there is/was a need for such a comma.
but it’s name origins still come from the oxford university press.
June 8th, 2007 at 8:51 am
Thanks a million, guys. It’s pretty fascinating.
June 8th, 2007 at 8:54 am
nae problem, our kid.
June 8th, 2007 at 8:59 am
wurst t’ wurst, just google the terms yuv seen ‘ere.
there ya go.
June 8th, 2007 at 9:58 am
Tim, No matter what you call it, a comma before the conjunction at the end of a list is not the same as a comma joining two independent clauses. Also, it doesn’t matter what name came first, in my experience as a professional editor and proofreader, most people call it a serial comma. But thanks for the whole heap of attitude. You’re a peach.
June 9th, 2007 at 10:00 am
i’m cracking up at this grammar discussion littered with fragments, mispellings, uncapitalized words that should be, etc. you jest made my day!
Email killed the grammar star.
June 9th, 2007 at 4:43 pm
Yeah, I personally love the misspelling of “mispellings”. People in glass houses, eh?
June 11th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
i am not a peach! i am a nectarine!
hairless and way tastier.
June 12th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
I am deeply creeped out by the nectarine thing.
March 14th, 2008 at 7:38 am
Don’t worry about commas Tony. Learn to use capital letters first!