Anyone who knows me, knows that I love to read. I almost always have a book that I am reading outside of any English texts, and I am the sort of person who generally prefers books to movies. I always get excited when I learn that a book I have read is about to be adapted as a TV show or movie. However, the problem with movie and TV adaptations of books in my opinion is as follows: creators who completely disregard the source material and viewers who expect the adaptation to be exactly like the book.
As an avid reader, I have come across many adaptations (mainly in the form of movies) which I have disliked as a fan of the source material. A movie might be good on its own as a work removed from the original book, but only some movies are good as an adaptation. Some movies or TV shows that are adaptations are so completely different from the original book or book series that the plot is only vaguely recognizable to the fans.
I understand that creators might want to change aspects of the book’s plot to better fit their narrative; this actually works some of the time. Mostly, for me it depends on the type of changes made. Smaller changes are expected, but changing too much makes the story feel unfamiliar.
A large portion of the audience for a movie or TV adaptation of a book or book series is made up of the fans of the original work. While I do believe that art forms like film and TV should not be focused on “fan service” to the detriment of the finished product, I do think that the audience should be taken into consideration. When fundamental aspects of the book are changed when adapted, it often makes the story unappealing to fans of the book (or at least it does for me).
Personally, I find that the classic example of poor book-to-movie adaptations is the original Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief movie starring Logan Lerman as the titular character. The movie changed the characters’ ages from preteens to older teenagers, changed the plot to exclude one of the major villains of the story, and changed the overall personality of multiple characters. The movie felt less like an adaptation of the book and more like a completely new narrative.
Another example of a bad movie adaptation of a book is Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. I generally like the Harry Potter movies, but the fourth one is nothing like the book. The overall mystery is semi-spoiled in the first section of the movie, important characters and subplots are completely removed, and the final trial for Harry (also known as the “third task” for the magic competition he is a part of) is very different from in the book.
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire is rather unique in the sense that it is a perfectly fine movie when separated from the source material. The movie is only of poor quality when compared to the book and viewed as an adaptation. Some of the changes kept with the general narrative fairly well and simply made the plot less complex and easier to follow, but a lot of the changes actually had a major effect on the plot and even an effect on how future creators could adapt the later books in the series.
I also strongly dislike the movie adaptation of The Book Thief, which is a book that I read for English class in 8th grade. My teacher actually showed us the movie with the specific intention of demonstrating how the book is better, and I agree on multiple levels. One of the best aspects of the book is the unique perspective of the narrator whose commentary is almost completely absent from the movie. The plot is also changed and condensed in ways that make the story less impactful.
Now, I have already established that I enjoy watching faithful adaptations of books, but I understand why some changes are necessary. The whole idea of an adaptation is that it is intended to have some changes; it might not be a retelling (which is most often a modern version of an older text), but an adaptation implies some amount of difference.
Movies or TV shows are inherently different from books. Scenes that might work in a book might not work when translated to a scene in a movie or television show, and the creators of the adaptation should be able to make changes that benefit the story.
Movies also have a time constraint (and so do TV shows to a somewhat lesser extent). Books have room for filler scenes that might not be able to be included in a movie or television adaptation. I personally take no issue with a few scenes being either condensed or cut out of the movie entirely.
For me, TV and movie adaptations of books have a hard job; they face the possibility of being a poor adaptation of the original work along with the criticism of fans. I enjoy adaptations of books as movies or TV shows, but I acknowledge that I can fall into the trap of being overly critical of the finished product. Television shows and movies which are based on books are (unfortunately for their creators) always going to be compared to the source material, and that comparison is at the heart of the problem with adaptations.
