Never Judge A Book By Its Movie

            "What is it with you and book-to-movie adaptations? Why are you never satisfied? Why are you so inconsistent? What makes an alteration choice good and what makes it bad? Why do you accept The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey with open arms and yet consider The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian to be both the worst adaptation ever done and what should have been the death of a franchise?" Well you see, there's the thing. When you are adapting a book (or any separate form of media, be it a legend or a stage play) into a film then there are always changes that have to be made. In books a lot of things are shown and told through inner monologue; we see the world through the eyes of one character and that colors our perception of the set universe. Many things are explained in thoughts and observations that, when you are then creating the script, you have to find a way to create the same effect through dialogue or visual work. It's not an easy job.

            Because the two forms of media are so different, change is inevitable. Some things that work in a book just wouldn't work on screen) and, so in order to successfully adapt a beloved story for the big screen, you are going to have to make cuts. 

           The thing is - I've discovered that generally what upsets fans the most (myself included) is not the cuts made to their sacrosanct material. No, what really ticks us off is whenever the adapters add bits that were not even hinted at in the original canon. But that in and of itself is a rather funny thing in that sometimes certain alterations are more forgivable than others. Sometimes we go to see a film and come out ranting and raving about how it is the worst thing ever, but other times the film takes the original universe and story and expands upon it so well that we leave the cinema in a blissful daze, heading home and purchasing another set of tickets for another night. Why is this? Why is it that some changes enhance and others enrage?

             I think that what it really all comes down to is how much respect the people creating the adaptation (and therefore the cuts/additions) have for the original material. Are they truly creating something that will delight fans and draw in new viewers...or are they just going wild with the scissors and 'creativity' in order to check all of the little trope boxes and hope that they will appeal to a certain preconceived and narrow demographic? That is the difference. Changes (cuts or additions) are acceptable and even welcome, so long as they preserve and enhance the original tone, atmosphere, and message of the canon.

           To illustrate this, let us take a look at a famous movie trilogy...a trilogy some consider to be the greatest and most famous 'impossible' book-to-movie adaptation victory. Let's look at The Lord of the Rings.

         For years this was considered to be the trilogy that couldn't be filmed...the epic that could NEVER be successfully brought to the silver screen. There were a couple of vetoed ideas (as well as two interesting animated features) but we all knew that there was no way Middle Earth could ever be translated into a faithful, live-action film. No way, no how. 

         Then a man named Peter Jackson (I call him PJ) came along and teamed up with WETA and New Line Cinema. The rest, as they say, is history. But what made this adaptation such a success where others before it had failed so badly?  Jackson certainly took liberties with the source material, so why is his version worlds better than the Ralph Bakshi animated feature that practically quotes scenes from the book word-by-word? Once again, it all comes down to atmosphere and tone. PJ looked at this monster book and took it apart piece by piece, line by line with great love and care. His adoration and appreciation of the masterpiece practically drips from every piece of dialogue and that care shines through each and every frame of the films. He loved it - and so each alteration was carefully weighed and considered against the backdrop of telling this great story to a new generation. And obviously it worked!

          The first time I saw these films I barely even noticed the changes...and at the time I was a staunch book purist, so this is probably a bigger deal than you realize. Each and every alteration made to the script only served to make the story better; streamlined and yet still rich, foreboding and yet intriguing, mystical and yet accessible. It was the story I loved playing out before my eyes - but bigger and better than ever.

          That is the key to successfully adapting a book into a movie: respect. Changes will always have to be made, that's just the way it works, but don't make a change unless it is absolutely necessary to smooth the transition. Don't cut unless the scene truly isn't vital or can be successfully shown in another way; don't add unless it is to expand the universe along the same vein as the author's apparent intent; and for the love of all our sanity don't mutilate the tale until the characters are unrecognizable, the message mixed and confusing, and the story entirely different, aside from the iconic names. Anything else is fair game - but preserve the dignity of what you're adapting. Approach it with respect, work on it with care, and then the finished product will be loved by old and new fans alike.