Many beloved fantasy films (and these days, television series as well) are adapted from novels and comic books, and it’s almost unheard of that a story will be reflected on the screen precisely as it’s described on the page.
There are several reasons for these changes, but the broadest one is this: novels and movies are simply different animals. For example, while pacing in the written word can afford to take its time, a movie has a time limit, usually around 2 hours (or 3, for epic fantasy like Lord of the Rings.) The number of characters is as limitless in a novel as the author’s imagination, while in film and television, for each new character you face the very real issues of casting, salaries, agents, actors’ egos, etc.
Ultimately, for those charged with the thankless task of adapting a story for the large or small screen, the job becomes about remaining true to the spirit of the story, rather than making a literal translation.
And wouldn’t it be nice if it were always as cut-and-dry as that?
The problem adapters often face is the cruel and vicious reaction from the fanboy community. No matter what, no adaptation is ever good enough to appease everybody, and fantasy fans are a particularly fanatical bunch. (In fact, by sheer coincidence, someone wrote in this week to the Oracle to discuss this very topic.)
When Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh, and Philippa Boyens set out on the monumental task of adapting The Lord of the Rings for the screen, they knew there would be much that had to be changed in order to streamline the events into a cohesive trilogy of films. Large sections were cut or simplified. Whole characters, like the enigmatic Tom Bombadil, were excised completely. For Frodo, who was 50 years old in the book, they cast the teen-aged Elijah Wood. The love story of Arwen and Aragorn was significantly beefed up.
Did the writers go too far? The reaction is split, and while almost everyone can agree that the films were a success, there still remains a faction of rabid fanboys who have turned their back on the movies (often after watching them many times to find out just why they hate them.)
The first two Harry Potter films were very true to the books, and as a result, while enjoyable, they felt a little long and leisurely paced. The third film, Prisoner of Azkaban (the best of all the films thus far, in my opinion), departed both in style from its predecessors, and in the way it streamlined major plot points. Every film since then has begun to play like a reader’s digest version of the books, which grew to mammoth lengths.
When Watchmen came out earlier this year, the director Zach Snyder brought to the screen what many people considered an “unfilmable” story, and it worked splendidly. But because of some plot-tweaking in the end which included the omission of a giant squid, a whole slew of devotees of the graphic novel thought the film was ruined.
Is there an obvious answer, a litmus test to determine how much change made in adaptations is too much? Unfortunately, no. Adapting a story is an art, and like all art, whether the artist achieved their goal is entirely subjective. What one would hope is that those in the fan community maintain a level of civilized and polite discourse when bringing up their opinions via the internet.
What a world that would be, huh?
Looking to buy something mentioned in this column (or any other media)? Support TheTorchOnline.com by purchasing it through this link.
![[Bloglines]](http://thetorchonline.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/bloglines.png)
![[Digg]](http://thetorchonline.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/digg.png)
![[Facebook]](http://thetorchonline.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/facebook.png)
![[Fark]](http://thetorchonline.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/fark.png)
![[Google]](http://thetorchonline.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/google.png)
![[Squidoo]](http://thetorchonline.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/squidoo.png)
![[StumbleUpon]](http://thetorchonline.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/stumbleupon.png)
![[Technorati]](http://thetorchonline.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/technorati.png)
![[Twitter]](http://thetorchonline.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/twitter.png)
![[Windows Live]](http://thetorchonline.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/windowslive.png)
![[Yahoo!]](http://thetorchonline.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/yahoo.png)
![[Email]](http://thetorchonline.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/email.png)
I completely agree that Azkaban is the best movie so far (although the latest is the second best), and I think the fact that they were willing to jettison much of the story is the reason why. Every writer knows: you gotta kill your babies!
You mean kill your darlings? Isn’t that the phrase used? I heard it all the time this semester, we had to turn in a 450 word story of publishable quality. There was a lot of killing our darlings.
I think you can use either.
Are you majoring in Creative Writing?
Yeah, I’ve heard both sayings. I guess “kill your babies” IS kinda gruesome!
Yup, and it’s so much fun, especially at finals time when I’m working on 30 page final projects. *dies*
And I guess in that case I do just kind of like “darlings” better than “babies” because it sounds a little nicer.
Kill you baby… My editor kept telling me to. I hated it, but I finally did. I let him go. It wasn’t easy, but it was for the best. Since then, I’ve written two shorts and started the sequel.
And as for book to movie transitions, they have to be different. They are different mediums. Can you imagine how long The Lord of the Rings would have been if they hadn’t cut some of the information out?
I guess I’m pretty forgiving when it comes to movie adaptions. The first time I watch the movie, I can’t help but pick it apart, but I still enjoy it (as long as the movie is any good, that is). After that, I can divorce the book from the movie pretty well and treat the movie as its own entity most of the time.
Harry Potter, for example. I like, even love, the movies on their own, but when I want the original, untouched story, I just re-read the books.
I’m happy for them to edit a story to get it to a filmable length, and I’m even okay with plot tinkering to get things to make sense as long as it still works within the framework of the story and they dont make characters act contrary to how they’ve been written. The Harry Potter movies benefitted in some ways from a good pruning of the sub-plots and characters. I still prefer the richer experience of the books, but the movies have done an admirable job of condensing the story into (mostly) watchable chunks that are true to the spirit if not the letter of the canon.
What really rips my undies is when film makers tinker with fundamentals of the piece. Though I haven’t read the book or seen the movie, one I can think of recently is Jodi Picoult’s “My Sisters Keeper” (it’s non-genre so I think I can safely spoiler it a little). The story of two sisters, the book ends with a death. For the movie however they completely changed the person who dies to give it a more “up” hollywood ending. Now if I were Jodi I’d be screaming “the whole point was for person A to die NOT person B - if I wanted B to die I would have written it that way”.
I am probably one of the few who read Lord of the Rings novel after seeing the movie. I saw all 3 and thought this really is one of the best stories ever told and went out and bought the book. I finished reading and said to myself, why is this book so beloved? I found Peter Jackson’s retelling was superb, a veiw into a majestic world while the book left me bored and disapointed.
On the other hand I have found all Harry Potter movies are the complete opposite. The books are far better than the movies, but I do agree that the 3rd movie is the best so far.
And the less we say about the Twilight Saga movies, the better.
I guess it all comes down to the directors interpretation of the story and wether we the readers agree with it, as to wether we find the movie an enjoyable escape, or a dead horse being beaten to make more money from a franchise.
I, too, accept that content may have to be changed to adapt a book to the movie screen but there is such thing as going to far.
Such as Percy Jackson. Christopher Columbus did a horrible job of adapting that, purely because he left out major scenes important to the plot, as well as major characters. My best friend was devasted to discover what she was describing to me was not how it went in the book. I will be waiting until the DVD release where I can pick it up for a dollar instead of wasting 13.