Interview: 'Bridge to Terabithia' Screenwriter David Paterson
Filed under: Drama, Sci-Fi & Fantasy, Disney, Sony Classics, Family Films, Interviews, Cinematical Indie

It took screenwriter David Paterson long time -- 14 years from the time he first bought the film rights to his mother's book -- to see Bridge to Terabithia brought to life on the big screen. While on his recent PA tour for the film, Paterson sat down for a phone interview with Cinematical to talk about the book and the film.
I know the book was based in part on your own childhood. Can you talk about that?
Yes, but I have to be careful, we want to guard the ending -- not everyone's read the book, so I have to be careful how I talk about it. There are a lot of people who read the book when they were younger, but there's also this whole new generation that may not even be familiar with the book. And you know, if everyone who's read the book brought two friends to the movie, that still wouldn't be enough. We have to reach out to a whole new audience here.
The book itself was about an important part of your life, though, which is something not every screenwriter can say about a script they've adapated.
There are lot of similiarties yes -- the events that led to my mom writing the book happened when I was seven, eight years old. My best friend was Lisa Hill, and I met her on my first day at a new school. We became the best of friends, right from the start -- neither of us had any other friends. At that time, it was very unusual for a boy and girl to be friends, but we never even thought of it that way. My mom wrote the book as a way of trying to make sense of a senseless event. So she wrote the book, and then took the book to her publisher -- she didn't think it would be even be published but they recognized the importance of the subject matter. She asked my permission to have it published -- imagine that, being an adult who's written a book, and relying on the whim of an eight-year-old -- and I said okay, as long the book is dedicated to Lisa and to me, because it was really our story.
More after the jump ...
There was another film version of the book made back in the '80s -- a made-for-tv version, I think.
Yeah, er, we don't like to talk about that. That's like the unwanted relative you avoid bringing up at family dinners or something. At the time that was made 1985, I was 19, I wasn't a writer yet, so being involved wasn't an option. That was made without our (the Paterson family's) involvement at all.
How did you come to be involved with the script for this movie?
I optioned the book from my mom's publisher in 1990 partially in response to the other film being made so badly; I didn't want to see that happen, ever again. I just thought it was kind of demeaning. Her writing was so wonderful and to have it treated so slip-shod, made into a cheesy after-school-special type film, just didn't make sense to me. It took two years to get the rights to the book -- just because you're the author's son doesn't give you any special privilege when you're dealing with rights and publishers, let me tell you. I actually wrote the first version of the script while I was still working on the rights -- I knew the story so well, of course.
So I go through all that to option the film rights to my mother's book, and then nobody -- I mean nobody -- was remotely interested. Every studio turned me down. Disney, in fact, was one of the first studios to pass on it 14 years ago. Nobody at that time was interested in adapting a children's book -- studios kept saying there was no money in adapting kids books. I never saw Bridge to Terabithia as a kid's book, I saw it as a good story. Does it have kids in it? Yes. But that doesn't mean it's a story that only kids would have an interest in seeing. That's the problem with Hollywood, they want to be able to categorize everything in one-sentence, digestible chunks -- what is it, who's it targeted at? And if it defies that kind of categorization they don't know how to handle it.
Now all of a sudden, children's literature is is like the new oil field of Hollywood -- but even so, they don't usually do a straight translation of the book. They either interpret into a film or adapt it into a film. Ninety-nine percent of the time they take some of the very basic ideas of the book - some of the key characters and events, just to satisfy the reading base of the book -- then they move it to the moon to make it more interesting, add a bloody car chase to make it more thrilling, whatever -- just to make it appeal to everyone else who hasn't read the book already. Hollywood looks at source material as something to be improved upon.
What approach did you take, then, in adapting Bridge to Terabithia to the screen?
Well, I could never improve on my mother's book. It's such a good story, and so well-written, and hopefully a lot of people who see the film will actually go back and read the book. One of the reasons I had to wait so long was I had to wait for Walden Media to come into existence -- they respect the original source material. Their job, what they do, is just to protect the source material. And their objective also is to try to get the book read -- to get people not just seeing a film, but reading the book in addition to seeing the film. They go to teachers and say: what would you want from a movie made from this book? Most of the time they say, "Just don't change it, don't screw it up."
How did Walden Media get involved in Bridge to Terabithia?
About three or four years ago they approached me. I had gotten really tired of all the "no's" from the studios, so for a time I just sat on the rights, waiting for the right time. It seemed eventually, it would happen, that someone would realize you can make good films out of children's literature.
And then along came Harry Potter. When you started to see the success of the Harry Potter films, did a light go off that the timing might be getting better?
Yeah, and the idea that maybe you can take a book that a lot of people like and make a really good movie about it. The studios finally started to get that as well. The other thing that happened thanks to the Harry Potter films was that authors started to realize they actually had power. It used to be, a lot of authors were just so grateful to have their material made into a movie, to have that extra money. What JK Rowling did, was she said, "Sure you can make a movie out of my book, but I'll be joined at your hip, and you'll do it the way I want or you won't do it at all. "
So you really credit JK Rowling with making it easier for authors to get their books made into decent films.
Well of course, the Harry Potter books were so wildly successful that she had the leverage to do that, but nonetheless it really opened the door to adapting children's literature into good films. She was one of the first authors to really say, I'm going to be involved if you're going to adapt my book.
The trailers show a lot of the fantasy world of Terabithia brought to life. Can you talk about the decision to make Terabithia more real?
Clearly there are compromises when you take a book to screen -- about 50% of the book takes place in Jesse's thoughts. Film is a visual medium where you don't have the benefit of being able to tell what's going on inside the person's head the whole time -- you can't have this scrolling bar at the bottom of the screen telegraphing his thoughts and emotions.
Or an annoying voice-over telling you what he's thinking through the whole thing.
Exactly. No. So you have to find a way to show those things visually and that's what we've done with this film -- we've brought those aspects of the book to life, I think in a very good way.
Have you felt a lot of pressure from your mother to do this right?
Not from my mother so much, no, but holiday dinners with my siblings (laughs) -- now those would be a little uncomfortable if I really screwed this up. So I'm glad that it's come out so well.










Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
2-16-2007 @ 4:18PM
e said...
Thanks for posting this! This book was one of my favorites as a kid, and I even remember watching the Wonderworks TV-film that he mentions.
Reply
2-28-2007 @ 12:52PM
Ken Thompson said...
Dave, you should have listened to the others who were helping you develop the screen version, and you should have taken a hint from comments made concerning "War of the Roses" -- You do not kill off a leading character. The War was able to pull it off, you didn't. The War involved equally-guilty lead characters. Yours involved a lovely young girl who deserved more. My wife and I left the movie with an empty feeling. When the girl died, we just knew that she would be brought back in some manner. When Jess's little sister became a "princess" and Jess a "king" looking out over Terabithia with the Giant Troll, it was "obvious" that his sweetheart would be his "queen". I mean, if you can create a giant troll and all of the other fantasies, what happened to the "queen"? Very disappointing. You should not have fought so hard to keep the last 20 minutes! A movie is not a book, and creative liberties are always taken. Next time, listen to others. What could have been a very powerful ending was not. Ken
Reply
3-06-2007 @ 12:22PM
Tim Mahoney said...
And you, Ken, are much the poorer because you need the character to live. It seems to me that you have a blue sky vision of life, that everything must be OK, that "Happily Ever After" really happens.
What is also obvious is that you do not get the meaning or the intention of the book, nor of the movie. It is a defining piece of Jess Aaron's life where he learns to open up to a friend and lets his imagination roam. It is also how Jess deals with the loss of his friend. Leslie was never "his sweetheart. His budding feelings of affection were directed right at Miss Edmunds, while Leslie was his friend, no more and no less.
Leslie was established at the very beginning of the book as a character who could be either boy or girl. Her hairstyle and her name, as well as her manner of dress, is pointed out by Jess in his interior monologue as being able to work for either a boy or a girl. It is eventually established that Leslie is a girl, but for no more reason that to advance the plot point of the races becoming less of an event because the boys are being beaten by a girl who, by a rule of the school, shouldn't even be in the area occupied by the boys. This was done to establish the idea that Jess could be friends with anyone, and that anyone, with Leslie's imagination, could have helped Jess create Terabithia. Other minor plot points built upon the unusualness of a boy having a friendship with a girl, but none of them were central or had the story rely upon them.
So to have Jess Aarons be King of Terabithia, while his little sister, Maybelle, is Princess, flows in the story just fine. It is the continuation of the land of Terabithia. Jess realizes he needs it to go on, Maybelle certainly will grow with knowing Terabithia, and the magic continues.
As a final thought, without the death of Leslie, where would the impetus be to build the Bridge to Terabithia
Reply
3-15-2007 @ 11:07PM
Scott K said...
Old Post testing
Reply
3-16-2007 @ 12:28PM
Ken Thompson said...
Hi, Tim. Thank you for your comments. However, your response is directly relevant to the book and not the movie. A book has much more opportunity to develop the characters. In fact your final comment goes directly to my point: "without the death of Leslie, where would the impetus be to build the Bridge to Terabithia?" Exactly, and the reason for building the bridge is to realize the return of Leslie, and such is quite natural as the bridge was built to oversee this great kingdom and the friendship he once had, regardless of what the book had in mind. And, friendships can clearly lead to romantic encounters, including making Leslie a queen. A movie is not a book, nor is it a close rendition of the book. Your comments are more directed to those in a book club rather than one involved in the dynamics of a movie. And again, "Her hairstyle and her name, as well as her manner of dress, is pointed out by Jess in his interior monologue as being able to work for either a boy or a girl. It is eventually established that Leslie is a girl." I don't know, but I recognized Leslie as a girl from the first moment she appeared in the movie, possibly it took you longer to recognize that fact. Possibly greater development should have been forthcoming in the movie where her gender appeared to be more that of a boy as is frequently done in some Chinese films. Again, this is a movie and the standard of not killing off lead characters is well-known in the industry. Your digression to explaining the book is not relevant to what Dave should have been doing -- paying more attention to those who were developing the movie. Apparently others also had concerns about his attempts to replicate the book. If I want tragedy all I have to do is get up each day. When I go to a movie I want a fantasy and not the reality of life.
Reply
3-16-2007 @ 1:57PM
Kim said...
Ken, I think you're missing the point. Bridge to Terabithia isn't Katherine Paterson's story, although she wrote the book. It's David Paterson's story, that his mother wrote for him and about him and his best friend Lisa, who was killed when he was seven. That tragedy is the whole point of both the book and movie.
Why would David change the story -- his own story -- just because it's a movie? This isn't a case of Hollywood killing off a character just to make it tragical; it's a story based on real events, written to help a small boy learn to deal with grief. I'm tremendously glad that Disney didn't pressure David to change the heart and soul of the story.
Reply
3-16-2007 @ 9:05PM
Ken Thompson said...
Well, I'm glad that they at least got the troll in to validate the reality of his experience and to make it a true story. Whatever.
Reply
3-26-2007 @ 11:41PM
Alexis said...
I just want to say...I think that the death at the end of this book/movie was meant to be, and I am personally glad they didn't change the ending in the film. In the book/movie Leslie met Jess because she needed to teach him the values of life. And because what happened at the end happened Jess was able to fully understand what she had taught him and pass it on to someone else who needed the strength--his little sister. True, a book is not a movie, but for a movie to throw out the "too sad" parts for people so it can be a "cute family movie", ruining a profound and beautiful story of two soul mates, is dumb. I'm 15 and while I might be considered a kid, I am old enough to grasp the true meaning of the ending of this movie and I find it much more meaningful then if they ending hadn’t happened (though it wouldn’t have been nearly as sad!). Granted, Disney did false advertise so that little kids who probably aren't prepared to see such an intense movie like this would see it, but I am glad they kept the ending.
Reply
4-10-2007 @ 4:10PM
teasea said...
you should have taken a hint from comments made concerning "War of the Roses" -- You do not kill off a leading character.
Hollywood has been declining at the box office for many years now. Blanket statements such as this one are largely responsible for the lack of variety and poor quality of the stories.
Yours involved a lovely young girl who deserved more. My wife and I left the movie with an empty feeling.
You were supposed to feel empty because she deserved more. But, in fact, she got more. Terabithia, and the Queen who created it, now live forever. There is even a bridge to go visit her.
When the girl died, we just knew that she would be brought back in some manner.
She was. Refer to the previous comment.
Ken, your comments sound suspiciously like they came out of the "Hollywood Insiders Confidential: How to Write a Script"
Reply
5-01-2007 @ 1:01PM
Ken Thompson said...
Dear Teasea & Alexis, Your derision seems to be misdirected. If you will read my comments more carefully you will find that I was but reporting the comments made by professional critics of the time that the “War of the Roses” was produced. Evidently you believe that they are nothing but amateurs parroting the directives of Movie Making 101. Unfortunately, I am totally unaware of "Hollywood Insiders Confidential: How to Write a Script". Possibly the producers of "War of the Roses" were but amateurs parroting this reference and the critics were but blithering buffoons? Who knows?
You should probably be deriding the producers and critics of that movie.
More importantly, you should be directing your comments to those movie producers who were encouraging Dave to do something different. Again, I was but pointing out to Dave that there may have been a reason for their attempts to get him to do something different. But, hey, they also don't know what they are doing and are but parroting the dictates of some amateur reference on movie-making.
If his movie was but a documentary, you both may have a point. And, from your comments, you seem to believe that the movie is nothing but a documentary. But, I must believe that the producers were trying to maximize their profits rather than indulging in the fantasies of a belated documentary. The movie probably did quite well as a documentary, but did it reach its potential as a children’s fantasy?
And, changing the ending to where one was not looking at the troll but at a lost love would probably have gone a long way toward increasing those profits. But, of course, you are arguing that Dave’s documentary outweighs the desire of the money-grubbing producers for a greater profit.
And, changing the ending to where Leslie is seen in the distance certainly does not degrade the movie to one of being a “cute family movie.” How disingenuous. Unfortunately, the ending does not seem to represent the desires of children mourning loss that I and my wife have known, and we have known hundreds. When my wife was 7 years old, her uncle, who was carrying her on his shoulders, was shot right out from under her as he ran trying to escape. He pinned her under him and she was saved only by a friend pulling her out from under him so she could run away. Even under such conditions the loss of a loved one by a young child was looked on as but a person “going somewhere” where they could eventually find them again. Children do not have a grasp of death other than that one is leaving. For Dave it appears as though they just left, never to be seen again. But for others, the dead but depart to a “better place” where they will again be found. It is in such a “fantasy” (after all, even Dave’s “documentary” is a fantasy), that Leslie would be found and joined together with Dave in “death.”
But, should you wish to portray this movie as a documentary rather than a fantasy of death for children, please do so, but do not deride those who point out the obvious and those who, quite clearly, by Dave’s own admission, strongly urged him to do something different.
Ken
Reply