From the Page to the Screen...
- ibetyoudidnt
- 1 day ago
- 7 min read
It is well known that book to screen adaptations are a painful source of disagreements.
This issue arises from the limited amount of time in a film, as we all know. The hardest part for any screenwriter is "what do I cut?", "what is more important to the story?" and "what is going to keep the film worthwhile?"
Lots of people will argue some stories are too good, or too intricate to adapt to the screen. Sometimes this is true, sometimes it isn't. Now it is my turn to add to the fire.
In no particular order, here are some of the adaptations I have seen ("I Bet You Didn't See" reviews linked where available) and read the novels so I can give an honest opinion, and a rating.
1 - LORD OF THE RINGS (3 Books and Films) & THE HOBBIT (1 Book, 3 Films) - 8/10 for adaptation.
Simply put, you cannot make a film about people walking across the world without incident, certainly not for the length these films were. You can get the director's extended editions and see the changes and additions, but there is so much involved they were well made. The Hobbit had many additions to link it more closely to LOTR and, while personally I felt that the inclusion of a younger (but older looking) Legolas was just an excuse to add to those links, it was given a purpose and helped drive the story. I don't agree with Kili's implied love for Tauriel, though. And Tauriel was an original creation. LOTR has its own issues too. The Oliphants are made to be much bigger than the books implied and Arwen is a much more active role in the films. I'm also pretty sure I didn't hate Frodo as much in the books as I do in the films! The books are incredible, the films do themselves justice and deserve their accolades.
2 - HARRY POTTER FRANCHISE (7 Books, 8 Films) - 8/10
Like LOTR, so much happens in these books that just cannot be put into a film. The additional factor for so much being left out, and no extended editions on the same level as LOTR, is that the majority of the side stories are irrelevant to the main plot. There are countless plot holes and issues that aren't addressed in the film that are in the book, but exposition in films is a big no-no when you can avoid it. Why keep explaining the science behind something when it is easier and more advantageous to assume people watching know the story and how this is done? It is a lot easier, saves time and avoids dragging things out. Great films, great books.
3 - THE BOOK THIEF (1 Book and Film)- 9/10
I thought this was really, really well done. It is very true to the book and where things have been altered, they just can't be portrayed on screen. The narrative is told by Death in the book and Death uses colour - related to the Nazi flag (it is based in WW2 Nazi Germany) - to describe how the story appears to Death. This is dropped because it simply isn't relevant or needed for this type of adaptation. However, the characterisations, relationships and details are as true to the book as they can be and I was very impressed. Geoffrey Rush and Emma Watson were superb! I love the book and the film.
4 - THE MORTAL ENGINES (Film based on the first book in a 4 book original series) - 3/10
This really disappointment me. I am a huge fan of the books, but I do think they would make a much better TV series than film series. It is too grand in size and there is too much going on for changes to make the most sense. There was the classic Hollywood move of making the disfigured female lead not very disfigured, and relationships between characters didn't really build properly. Certain details were added in ways that felt more like a passing, half-hearted attempt to connect fans to the book series, but it was so badly done I didn't notice it until the third watch (I think they deliberately had the line muffled by noise), and fans of the series would know how inaccurate it was. It seemed odd to be included as it was. There are too many niche details that you needed background support on knowing to make this into a successful film. I reckon it would make an epic TV series, grander than Game of Thrones. There are 4 books in the original series, 3 in a prequel series and a further 3 ( still to be released) in an interim series. There is also a book of short stories based around Anna Fang, one of the main supporting characters. I love the book series (I've read them all several times) but am very disappointed by the film.
5 - THE PERKS OF BEING A WALLFLOWER - 6/10
This would have been a tricky book to adapt, given that it is written in letters from one person to someone anonymous. There are no responses, so you only get one side's story, and that is the point. It is only a short book, but I found it quite compelling, and the reveal at the end is quite... sudden. I felt the film did that well. It kept the ideas of the book quite wall and most of the little details came through. I just didn't feel it had the impact the book did - this is one of those where I watched the film before the book, so I knew the ending, but the book had far more impact on me that the film. Decent attempt though and by no means a bad film.
6 - WAR OF THE WORLDS (1 Book, multiple attempted Films) - 2/10
I love War of the Worlds. The book is a great example of Victorian era thinking and ideas relating to space and life on Earth. It is clever, dramatic, disturbing in places and very real in others. The issue with adapting it is that the story is about one man surviving on his own. Now, this can be done and has been, but for some reason it just can't be with War of the Worlds. I think it is because H. G. Wells had the Journalist (the narrator) focus on trying to get to his partner, Carrie. And so this has been morphed into a love story of sorts. The Tom Cruise version turned this into family, merged characters together and lost the humanity that Wells put into the people. The 1950's version was better, but did the same sort of thing and merged lots together. The recent TV series that have been attempted are too loose in their adaptations to really make an impact and change the Martians. Part of the charm of the original story was that these were bulky, cumbersome creatures who could created machines to do their dirty work. This is rarely ever lived up to. It's disappointing because the book is an absolute Science Fiction classic.
7 - THE GOLDEN COMPASS (Film based on the first book in "His Dark Materials" Series)- 5/10
This adaptation of Northern Lights by Philip Pullman is ok. My issue is it is all very rushed. The filmmakers also seemed to have clearly been intending to make a series, but the reception just wasn't good. They didn't capture the characters very well, and the nuances of the relationship with their spirits just wasn't there. It was on of those that had the story, and without the books it is a decent film. But because of the success of the book series, a film just isn't enough time to do the story justice. The BBC series with Lin-Manuel Miranda and James McAvoy, however, was amazing. A few points of the book that I loved were still missed out, but I thought they did a much better job.
8 - THE INVISIBLE MAN (1 Book, 1 Film) - 7/10
Another H. G. Wells work, but such a good film. We are talking about the 1933 classic with Claude Rains in the lead, not the 2020 film of the same name that is very loosely based on the book so I don't count it. 1933 was within the "Golden Age of Hollywood" and filmmakers were developing the industry faster than ever. The Invisible Man captures the madness that came with the experiments Griffin was performing, and was a really good opportunity for filmmakers to play around. There are a few discrepancies from the book, but ultimately it is very true to it and one I do enjoy watching, especially for the practical effects of an empty pair of trousers skipping down the road and Griffin "pointing" a gun at someone, where the string it is suspended on is visible! I can imagine how good it must have been at the time, though!
9 - THE MAZE RUNNER SERIES (5 Books, 3 Films) - 7/10
Honestly, I feel this series is a very good adaptation, with understandable omissions and amendments. I think more changes towards the end of the film series, but again I was on board with it. The books don't hold much more detail than the films, and I think there is sufficient to be able to merge them or move them elsewhere in the film. Again, some of my favourite details are changed in the films, but I'm not sure I really mind all that much. I just hope they avoid making the prequel books into films as there is too much scope to change too much, especially as they set the scene for why the world is like it is. I think any film adaptation of those would be bad ones.
10 - NEVER LET ME GO - 4/10
I made the mistake of watching the film immediately after finishing the book. I think Never Let Me Go is one of the best books I've ever read. I love the development of the characters from their young age through to their realisation of their true purpose. My issue with the film was that while they kept the big details from the book, it was rushed and key scenes were shortened so that they didn't have the impact that they needed to. However, I thought Carey Mulligan and Andrew Garfield were very good. Another one where on its own, the film is good. Against the book, not so much. However, some of the scenes were shot in my hometown, and I have a poster for the film up in my house with Garfield and Mulligan running down the Pier that I frequently walked down throughout my childhood.
Honourable(ish) mentions -
The 5th Wave - Book is way better than the film.
Dracula - Which film version are you into?
Frankenstein - I love how many different interpretations there are!
Murder on the Orient Express - Great book, interesting movie idea by Kenneth Branagh until the end!
The Island of Doctor Moreau - Love the book, the film was a good effort but not as good as it could be.
Comments