It doesn't seem as if a work of fiction can be even moderately popular these days without having a movie (if not games and other products) adapted from it.
It makes sense for the studios. Take a story that already is loved by many, have someone rewrite it - making moderate changes for the screen version - and put it on film.
Sometimes this is hugely successful, either critically, commercially, or both. From "The Princess Bride" to "Silence of the Lambs" to my personal favorite, "Lord of the Rings," there have been some huge blockbusters that were once books.
Likewise, there are some adaptations most people agree were less than great - or outright sucked. Movies such as "Eragon" and "The Seeker: The Dark is Rising" seemed to disappoint everyone, not just the diehard fans.
Video games also have seen many film adaptations lately. While I may have moderately high hopes for Jerry Bruckheimer's "Prince of Persia" film, I pity who saw "Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li" recently.
But whether they're good or bad, there's one thing that bugs me about the concept of an adaptation: Most people just don't seem to get them.
You see it all the time. Those die-hard fans of a certain property who simply will never be pleased with an adaptation of their obsession. They're enraged at any and every tiny change made for film and hold a personal vendetta against movie studios for not being faithful to the "author's intent."
You would think they wrote the source material themselves.
Funny thing is I think some of these people do feel as if it's their baby being butchered on screen when their favorite character has some lines removed. They scoff and say, "The author would never have approved of that change!"
I heard that a lot with the 2005 adaptation of "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy." Whether you think it was a good film or not, many people said Douglas Adams was surely rolling in his grave because of changes made to the story.
What most of them fail to realize is before his untimely death, Adams penned the first draft of the film script himself, meaning many if not most of the changes were actually his own invention. So was the author unfaithful to his own intent? Did he somehow go against his own wishes for how he wanted the screenplay to be written?
Like many other young males out there, I saw "Watchmen" during the weekend. As a huge fan of the graphic novel, I found the film to be a stunningly faithful adaptation and a darn good flick. Not without its flaws, sure, but you could say that about any work.
But yet again you find that special little cluster of fanboys who are simply up in arms about the film, hating every frame of it.
"Harry Potter," "Twilight," "Narnia ... " I greatly applaud fans for being so reverent to their favorite works, but there's something they all need to get into their heads:
Film is not paper. Nor is it a video game, nor is it a comic book.
There's a reason we have a variety of different storytelling methods. Each has something different it can offer and should be treated as an entirely different beast.
As someone who wants to make a living writing fantasy fiction, I personally see some of the highest storytelling potential with the written word. But I also desperately want to be involved in writing for TV, film and video games. If, say, I'm fortunate enough to ever have the film rights to one of my stories purchased, I want to write the first draft of the script.
This isn't because I want to be a dictator and make sure everything is word-for-word what the book was, but rather because I understand how different the story would need to be.
What works well in a novel often does not work half as well on the screen. Long conversations, internal monologues, pages of description, etc. all need to be handled a very different way. Trust me, a film version of "New Moon" where every line is word-for-word like the book is not what "Twilight" fans want to see. It needs to change and evolve in order to work well in a different medium.
Sure, sometimes the changes needed are small and subtle - such as changing the ending of "Watchmen" a bit or giving Neville some of Dobby's role in "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire" - but sometimes they're more major.
Fans just need to remember, believe it or not, that the scriptwriters and directors are just doing their best to make a movie enjoyable, both for you and non-fans. Often people who sign on to these sorts of projects have the same reverence for the source material as you do. Cut them a little slack.
Enjoy film adaptations for what they are, and if you don't like them, it's not as if the book isn't there waiting for you anymore.
Be the first to comment on this article!