Okay, I'll admit it: I have no idea how to review this book. Richie Tankersley Cusick (a woman, by the way) appears to have based her novelization on Whedon's original screenplay (or at least a much earlier draft than the movie was made from). So, much of it is different from the finished movie. Do I include these changed events as part of my critique? If Joss wrote those, then I should not (they are not, after all, Cusick's work). However, I have no way of knowing what Fran Kuzui (director of the movie) changed, and what Cusick altered. Thus (to be on the safe side) I will reserve most of my comments on the differences between the events in the book and the movie for the end of the review (incidentally, this portion will be much longer than my brief book review) and stick for the most part to discussing Cusick's actual writing and not her imagination (which is impossible for me to gauge on the evidence of only this novel).
Got me? Okay, time for the review. As in my review of the soundtrack, I will add that I am not knowledgeable in the matter of reviewing. I have read many books in my time on this Earth, but have no skill in determining just what makes one book work better than another. Thus, my opinions here are just that: opinions, based solely on my intuition. As anyone who's read my own fiction will readily concur, I am far from the world's greatest author, and so have no place to criticise (constructively or no) another's work. That being said, however...
First off, let me say that Richie Tankersley Cusick is an odd woman! According to the bio at the back of the book, she writes at a haunted desk, owned by a nineteenth century funeral director! On Hallowe'en, she lays out a full-size replica of Frankenstein's monster, and a Death figure! However, it must be said that none of this eccentricity gives her character when penning a novel. Or, to be fair (as I haven't read her other work), it doesn't lend any flavor to this novel.
Let me qualify that, please: there is nothing wrong with the novel. That is, it's not a bad novel. It's just not any good, either. I have read a few novelizations, although I don't like them that much (see, I'm prejudiced). They can never be as good as an original novel, because the author doesn't understand the characters as well as ones they has invented themselves. They can't change events drastically to ones they would prefer (at least, I don't think they are authorised to do this). They have, in fact, little power at all. They can describe objects however they wish, and make some attempt to round out the characters by revealing their thoughts to the reader. This latter is rather difficult unless one can 'get inside the head' of the character and, as noted previously, authors of novelizations are at a disadvantage here as they did not create the characters. It is also clear that Richie Tankersley Cusick has made no attempt to do this.
That's the main problem with the book. If, in fact, Cusick didn't invent the events that differ from the finished movie (see the introduction above, and the discussion below) then she has shown very little imagination. For the most part, the book is little more than a transcript of the original (probably) screenplay, with "he said" and "she said" added after each line of dialogue. In fact, most of the time, this is not even done. Whenever she can, Cusick merely copies the speech directly, surrounding the words with quotation marks and signing her name to the bottom of the manuscript!
To be fair, the script needed little embellishment, and Cusick probably recognised this fact, and wanted to minimize her intrusion on Whedon's excellent writing. However, in that case, the producers would have been better simply packaging the screenplay rather than hiring some outsider to copy it out and get author's fees for doing so!
Another problem (actually, more a consequence of what I've described above) is the shortness of the book. Now, I'm not fond of the recent trend in novels ("never mind the quality, feel the width" as it's often described) but I do expect to get my money's worth from a novel. The book cost as much as (or slightly more than) an ordinary novel (there's no price on the book and I threw out the price tag) but there's very little there. As a matter of fact, I've read the novel twice, and both times it took little more time to read it than to watch the movie itself! This does not seem right to me.
On the other hand, the novel is very interesting. There are many differences between this and the finished movie, and if these changes were made by Cusick (extraordinarily unlikely, by the way) then this is definitely a good aspect to the novel. However, since I consider it dubious, I cannot count that toward the final judgment on the novel. I know this may not be fair but... what are ya gonna do? Also, I must wonder: was it Cusick's choice to adapt the original screenplay and not a later draft? If so, kudos are in order. If not...
By now I am left without much to say by way of review. I love the movie, so therefore I must love the novel (in a way) - it depicts the same events (kinda) right? It has the same laughs, the same drama as the movie (sorta), right? But it adds nothing. The writing is poor & minimal and the whole novel is unnecessary. I recommend the book - but only for the glimpse at the movie which could have been made (see below). How's that, then, for a review? Muddled? I think so too.
And now for the second half of my discussion.
As mentioned several times before, the novel seems to be based on Whedon's original screenplay (or some early draft). Hence, it has many things which differ from the finished movie. I will discuss some of these now, and weigh their merits. If you have not read the novelization and don't wish to be surprised - please do not read the rest of this discussion as it will ruin the only thing that is good about the novel.
I guess the first things I should comment on are the general things. That is, the overall tone. In many (many) articles on Buffy the Vampire Slayer the series, writers commented that the movie didn't live up to Joss Whedon's vision. Specifically, they state that the movie was 'camped up' a bit, and not as serious as Whedon intended. Now, obviously I can't discuss Whedon's intentions (they were, after all, in his mind alone) and I have no doubt he was miffed over the changes in his script (get used to it pal - that's Hollywood!) but I dispute the oft-mentioned change in tone between the script and the movie.
If the novelization accurately reflects the original script, the tone appears to be exactly the same! Yes, I'll grant you that the climax of the movie was reduced greatly in horror-value than Whedon's original ending (which, in case you're wondering, was just as muddled as the finished version) but other parts of the movie were made more serious than Whedon had written them. These balance out nicely to retain the same tone.
Need examples? Fine. In the movie, Amilyn's death is hilarious! He is staked (and Lothos allows it) and takes several minutes to die (actually, he is still alive during the closing credits - though this is likely supposed to be a 'flashback' unless he really took several hours to die and no-one noticed him in the hallway). It really is a comic scene. The script (or, at least, the novelization) has a death which is far less comic. Buffy and Amilyn are fighting (with Buffy making some puns along the way) and, just as it seems Amilyn will win, Buffy opens the shade, saying Amilyn forgot about sunrise. As he scrambles to close the shade, Buffy stakes him. It's still nighttime. She reminds him in his final moments that sunrise is 'in about four hours, fool'. [Note: this lends weight to the theory that Joss wrote these scenes not Cusick - this scene, while altered for the movie, would eventually make it to the series when Buffy pulls the trick on Luke. There, sunrise was 'in about nine hours, moron'.]
On the other hand, in the script [from here on in, I will refer to events as being in 'the script' - I assume they were, though I've only read the novelization] Lothos and Amilyn are presented as being quite comedic. The 'having a snack' scene with the cat is there (this one made it to the movie) as well as several others. Among them: after feeding on blood, Lothos sits in the silence and... belches; Amilyn attempts to bite a gold card to see if it's really gold; bad jokes abound like 'It's good to be dead'. However, in the finished movie, they are much more serious. It's true that Amilyn is the butt of many jokes, but Paul Reubens plays the character so well that the humor ends up black as soot. Also, Hauer is so intense and bizarre as Lothos that any humor from him becomes wry and deadpan. They become very dramatic and barely comedic (not counting Amilyn's death scene!) - something the creepy choir that backs them up enhances beautifully.
So, I hope I've established now that the tone remains the same, though individual scenes may have altered tones. However, many other things were changed considerably - mostly to no particular benefit or detriment (in my opinion). Let me first say that I do agree that the way most other vampires (not Lothos, Amilyn or Benny) are treated is pretty deplorable. They become far too silly, especially during the Senior Dance raid. That's a big mark against the movie.
The original script has Lothos sleeping, not in a coffin as in the finished movie, but in a pool of blood (something that would reappear in the series' pilot Welcome to the Hellmouth - but done with more taste than Joss used in the movie script). This is one thing I am glad did not make it to the movie! First of all, it's pretty disgusting concept. Also, it would have to be a pretty deep pool to contain Lothos. Remember this is in the high school basement. So someone dug a pit several feet deep in the basement? Why? Thirdly, Cassandra was supposed to wake up there, and make her way to the pool of what she believes is water, and splash it on her face before realizing it's blood. Eewwww! Similarly, during the fight with Lothos, Buffy is supposed to slip and fall into the puddle, spending the rest of the movie covered in blood. This is all really disgusting! What was Joss thinking?
This next one I'm not sure about. Either Joss was quite naive and innocent, or Cusick was directed to make the novel suitable for kids (though she didn't remove the blood pool scenes). I'll explain: in the movie, as Pike and Benny discuss the girls (Buffy and pals) they discuss whether or not Benny would sleep with them even though he hates them. I will reproduce the lines as I remember them:
Slayer lore is also substantially different in the script - much closer to what is in the series. Explorers of my web site will likely have read my diatribe titled "There Can Be Only One?" where I puzzle about how Slayers can be 'born with the strength and skill' but not be 'officially' Slayers (though they are apparently trained by Watchers all their lives - it makes no sense). I also note that, in the movie, there is no such 'born with the strength and skill' blurb. In fact, what happens in the series could be compatible with the movie (if they were all reincarnations of previous Slayers) but is not self-consistent. However, it is even more consistent with what is in the original screenplay.
When Merrick tells Buffy about being the Slayer, we get this little discussion:
Interestingly, Watchers in the script are different from Watchers in the finished movie and Watchers in the series! In the movie, there is only one Watcher, Merrick (as far as we know). He is reincarnated again and again to teach girls to be Slayers. In the series, Watchers are an order whereby parents train their children to be Watchers. There appear to be quite a lot of them. In the script, Merrick describes Watchers thus:
I guess now it's time to get into the last major change - and it's a biggie. I assume it was made because of the change in Merrick's nature. It's also possible, though that Merrick's nature was changed after this as his mortality was no longer necessary. Whatever the order, the whole latter part of the movie was affected by the change.
Let me explain the change, and then discuss it's effects. Merrick's death is different in the script. This is the one point where I believe Joss' original vision should have been upheld - though I see that it wouldn't have allowed for the wonderful reincarnation storyline I love so much. Anyway...
In the movie as completed, Buffy kills Grueller and is greeted with the cold applause of Lothos.
He prepares to kill Buffy, but Merrick intervenes - against all the Watcher rules. Lothos kills him, but
spares Buffy for now, reiterating Merrick's comment that she is 'not ready'. He then leaves.
However, in the script, Merrick (accidentally) intercepts Lothos before he finds Buffy. Lothos
knows of Buffy but not her name (in both the script and the completed movie, once Lothos finds
out her name, he goes after her - more on this later). Buffy shows up, and Merrick tries to get her
to leave without revealing that he knows her. It doesn't work. However, as Lothos tries to hypnotize
Buffy, Merrick manages to get through to Buffy, and she and Pike take off on his motorbike. As
Lothos chases them, Merrick whips out a gun and shoots Lothos in the back to distract him long enough
for Buffy to get away. He tells Lothos that he won't "have this one, not this time." Angry, the
Vampire-King decides to make Merrick into a vampire to help him seek Buffy:
As a consequence of this change, the movie has to fiddle around a bit. They must have Lothos choose to leave - as Merrick no longer stopped him. However, when Lothos later learns Buffy's name (from Benny) he decides to go after her. Why now when he wouldn't before? The movie makes no attempt to explain it. Also, the movie adds some confused business with Merrick's dying words. I'm unsure what the purpose of it is. He tells her to remember: "When the music stops, and the rest is si..." and later, when she is with Lothos, the music stops. Buffy remembers the words and it breaks Lothos' spell. Do the words have some kind of meaning? (Incidentally, Giles says "And the rest is silence" in the series episode "The Dark Age" - coincidence?) It seems to suggest Merrick could see the future. How? It makes no sense.
Some final notes. In the script, Buffy kills Lothos with a pencil, thus surprising him when he thought she was unarmed. So her ingenuity wins the day, while in the finished movie it is his cockiness that is his downfall. He simply leaves himself unguarded. Neither version has a satisfactorily dramatic conclusion; the movie is not harmed by this exclusion.
The script has a stupid ending with Buffy and Pike going to some creepy castle. The movie is much more satisfying with the 'ride into the sunset' (and the news broadcast during the credits).
Those are all the major changes and my thoughts on them. There are many other minor fluctuations (including the character - Wally Bessel - whom Seth Green claims to have played for a scene cut from the movie) but they can be found if you read the novel yourself. I hope you enjoyed reading my thoughts on the subject! If you violently disagree, drop me a line.
The novel is an Archway paperback, published by Pocket Books