The one reoccurring, consistent criticism of film adaptations of books is that they do not stay faithful to the source material. This is a criticism I’m sick of hearing. It’s an easy way to write off an otherwise stellar film, and disregards the differences between print and film as storytelling mediums.
Novels typically range from anywhere between 50,000 and 200,000 words, while the average major motion picture clocks in usually somewhere between one hour or two.
Novels have a lot more room for quirky details, digging deep into characterization, and additional world-building than films do, which is why filmmakers have to cut things. To be quite honest, I don’t really care about them ignoring the fact that Harry wipes his ass on page 394 if cutting it allows the plot to move forward more smoothly. That’s what my attention is focused on.
An adaptation is really only a slight step up from an inspiration. The creative licence filmmakers take to create movies out of books is part of the work that goes into bringing them to life. If a movie or franchise based on a book or series can stand alone as entertainment, then filmmakers have done their job.
The sequel to The Maze Runner was released last month and it led to the usual chorus of “the book was better,” but The Scorch Trials movie stands on its own as a truly incredible movie in the young-adult action/adventure genre. It’s compelling, visually impressive, action-packed, well-paced and the acting is stellar all around. So it doesn’t follow the book to the very last point–who cares? If it makes sense in the universe created in The Maze Runner movie, that’s all that matters.
If all adaptations were identical to the source material, Disney’s The Little Mermaid would’ve ended with Ariel almost killing the prince, before deciding to commit suicide, plunging into the ocean, and dissolving into sea foam. That ending probably would’ve traumatized a lot of children, and angered a lot of parents.
Of course there have been some truly terrible book to movie adaptations. Eragon of 2006 was cringeworthy in its laziness. It disappointed 11-year-old me to near tears. But Eragon wasn’t bad because it hadn’t been adapted properly from its source material—it was just plain bad. It was a bad movie, it was a bad adaptation, and there’s a reason why a sequel never came to be. It was a movie that was terrible, even if you’d never come within 10 feet of the books it was based off of.
Furthermore, adaptations that become problematic when compared to their source material also deserve to be thoroughly criticized for their changes.
Whitewashing Katniss Everdeen for The Hunger Games franchise rightfully caused an uproar, as did the increased focus on the story’s romance, because it took away representation from already underrepresented groups, and reduced a story that was both a harsh critique of society and about rising up against oppression into yet another overdone teenage love triangle.
But when it comes to largely inconsequential elements like Peeves’ presence in the Harry Potter series, I can understand why filmmakers left him out. Yeah, people who only watch the movies are missing out on a hilarious character, but the movies themselves still stand as a phenomenally solid eight-film accomplishment.
So cut filmmakers and film adaptations of books some slack. They’re two different mediums with their own constraints, weaknesses, and strengths. If you come out of a cinema feeling entertained or moved, then they’ve done exactly what they set out to do.
