kradical posted this  in his journal:

"Is the fact that, in this country, we view things on screen as more real than things in print. Part of it is simple numbers: more people watch TV and movies than read books and comic books. That's why when you adapt a novel into a movie, you've got an entire Academy Award category to yourself (and other adapters like you), but when you adapt a movie into a novel, you're a talentless hack who's just in it for the money (never mind that screenwriters are far better compensated for their work than prose writers)."

As a media tie-in writer myself, I have to admit that this has never occurred to me.  Exactly why is it that people who turn a book into a screenplay are potential Oscar winners while people who turn screenplays into books are nothing but hacks?

It's really meant as a rhetorical question.  I know the answer--money.  Screenplays earn scads of money, scads of people see the movie, and rave about it on TV, in movie reviews, and to their friends.  As a result, money pours into the studio, and money gets attention.

Far fewer people read books than go to movies.  Even fewer people read books based on movies.  Movies are easy entertainment; books are more challenging.  So almost no one cares about a carefully crafted novel adaptation of a movie.  Readers will flock to a movie based on a novel to see the book come to life and to see how well it does or doesn't work.  Unfortunately, the opposite isn't true.  Movie viewers are less likely to pick up books because are harder to get through, and they don't figure that the book will add anything to what they saw on screen.

As a result, screenwriters get Oscars while media tie-in writers languish.