Why everyone is always unhappy with film adaptations of popular books

And in recent years, it has become more and more common to scold film adaptations long before their release. A striking example is the upcoming series "The Witcher". With only a two-minute video and a few promotional shots, fans have already criticized the project for the inconsistency of the characters with the book versions and poor special effects.

And discussions like this appear around many popular fiction-based films. Let's try to figure out what are the reasons for this negative.

Movies and TV shows aren't made for book fans

More precisely, not only for them. Whatever the popularity of the work, the picture should be designed for those who have not even heard of the original source.

The film simply cannot be aimed only at a prepared audience. Then those who just accidentally went to the session, who love a particular director who made a film, or an actor who played the main role, will remain unhappy.

And in this regard, Hellboy of 2019 is very indicative. It was clearly filmed specifically for the fans of the original comics - the world and even some scenes were embodied in a very similar way.

Screen adaptation of works: evaluation of "Hellboy"

But most viewers were still dissatisfied, since not everyone read the comic. And in the end, the tape failed, not even covering the production budget. Simply because without the original source, the story looked ragged, where one event too quickly replaces another.

On the other hand, there is the legendary Lord of the Rings trilogy by Peter Jackson. Millions of viewers are delighted with these films. The director managed to create a huge beautiful world where one cannot but empathize with the heroes.

But the community of fans of John R. R. Tolkien's books here split in two. Many complained about inconsistencies in events, changed heroes, and logical inconsistencies.

Screen adaptation of works: "The Lord of the Rings"

In the film adaptation, Tom Bombadil disappeared, and part of his storyline was transferred to the Ents. In the battle for Helm's Deep, the focus was greatly shifted to the main characters, and Saruman died much earlier, removing an entire line from the finale.

In the same way, if you carefully look and read, they differ from the originals "The Shawshank Redemption" and "The Green Mile", recognized as almost reference film adaptations of the works of Stephen King and simply some of the best films in history.

The point is that a writer and a screenwriter are two different professions. Which leads to the second reason for the discontent.

The very action of films and books is built in different ways

For some reason, this completely obvious fact is often forgotten. The writer has much less opportunity to create visual images: he must describe everything in words. Telling about nature or architecture significantly slows down the pace of the story.

Suffice it to recall Victor Hugo with his detailed descriptions of the sea in The Man Who Laughs or Notre Dame in Notre Dame Cathedral. Not to mention Tolstoy's War and Peace, where whole pages were devoted to oak alone.

Many readers even skim through such descriptions. But in a movie, such a scene can be shown shorter and brighter - it's all about camera techniques.

On the other hand, it is much easier for a writer to reveal the inner world of a character, his way of thinking. In films, you have to go to various tricks for this. Of course, you can add a voiceover from the author or on behalf of the main character. But this is considered not the best technique that destroys the realism of the world.

Therefore, directors need to show more actions that reveal the character of the character, or add dialogues. So, for example, in the TV series "Mister Mercedes" based on the novel by Stephen King, the protagonist had a neighbor, in conversations with whom he voiced his feelings.

Screen adaptation of works: "Mister Mercedes"

The second important discrepancy between the plots of books and films, and especially TV series, is noticeable in the example of "Game of Thrones". The first four seasons of the HBO project largely followed the books of George R. R. Martin, and then the writers themselves created the sequel.

In the beginning, as in the novels, the authors of the series developed the plot. Therefore, at the right time, any important character could die. Or the goodie was doing a vile deed. So Martin created a realistic atmosphere in which there is no clear division into good and evil.

But when the literary basis was gone, the writers began to work according to Hollywood principles and develop characters. That is, from a certain moment, everything that happened was devoted to specific heroes, and not to the story as a whole.

That is why they revived Jon Snow - the audience loved him too much. For the same reason, the line of the King of the Night ended completely inglorious: he was needed only to make Arya's training important.

Screen adaptation of works: "Game of Thrones"

It is normal for films and TV shows to develop exactly the lines of heroes, because the audience loves them, they are more memorable. This is noticeable in the same "Lord of the Rings", where the minor characters were made paler, putting several important ones in the center.

There are a lot of factors to consider when filming

When an author writes a book or draws a comic strip, everything that happens is limited to only one thing - fantasy.

He can come up with all kinds of fabulous worlds, change the laws of physics and create incredible cities on wheels, spaceships and bizarre animals. Describe your heroes as similar to people of the past and confront them with real historical figures. When a director takes on a film adaptation, in addition to the information from the book, he has to take into account other components of the process.

For example, Stephen King once made the protagonist of the Dark Tower series look a lot like Clint Eastwood. But it is no longer possible to take an actor for the main role in the film: he will soon turn 90.

Clint Eastwood in The Good, the Bad, the Ugly

There is, of course, Scott Eastwood - his son, outwardly a copy of his father. But if you watch at least a couple of films with Scott's participation, it becomes obvious that he is worse with dramatic talent.

Likewise, fans dreamed of seeing Mads Mikkelsen in the role of Geralt in The Witcher, as if forgetting that he was already over 50 and the action scenes would be difficult. And the role of Yennefer was intended for Eva Green. She really would fit perfectly on the outside. But the actor may simply be busy on other projects, not interested in the genre, or demand too large fees.

At the same time, viewers often want an exclusively external resemblance. And in cases like "The Witcher" they cite cosplay festivals as an example, where the images closely copy the original source.

However, they do not take into account that the task of the player is just to be like. And the actor still needs to move and talk a lot. And to do it as if he spent his whole life in this guise.

The same goes for special effects. The author of The Witcher, Andrzej Sapkowski, or J. K. Rowling, who created Harry Potter, can describe any fantastic monster quite colorfully and clearly enough for the reader to believe in its existence.

The director needs to find an artist and special effects masters who will visualize this and show the monster in motion. And also to make everything look realistic and believable. Do not forget that it costs a lot of money.

Since the writing of specific books, the world has changed a lot

Many great works were written 70 or even 100 years ago. During this time, humanity has made significant progress in its development. That is why new adaptations include elements that were not in the original.

A century and a half ago, patriarchy dominated in many countries, racial segregation flourished and slavery existed. It is logical that in such realities, writers more often dedicated their stories exclusively to white men.

Film adaptation of works: Uncle Tom's Cabin

Women often had only amorous torment. Very few people wrote about black heroes, and even more so LGBT people, simply because the target audience was completely different.

In the modern world, of course, not only white aristocratic men can and love to watch movies, and therefore viewers want and should see more variety. And this gives the filmmakers freedom. Although in a strange way, some viewers are confused by the fact that in The Witcher, where elves and dwarves exist, a black character appeared. As if he looks more unnatural in this world.

The same goes for technology. When it comes to historical subjects, it is logical that the entourage corresponds to the time of the action. But if you film science fiction literature, then it is reasonable to add modern realities like mobile phones or 3D projections to Ray Bradbury's inventions.

People often judge what they don't understand

It may sound strange, but indeed some of the criticism comes from people who don't know what they are talking about.

This is very noticeable in the example of the same planned "The Witcher". Some dissatisfied people did not read books at all, but only played games of the same name. And therefore, after the appearance of the first frames, indignant comments immediately rained down: why does Geralt not have a beard, and there is only one sword behind his back?

Game "The Witcher: Wild Hunt"

Promo of the series "The Witcher"

In fact, in the original, everything was so: the hero did not wear a beard, but kept an expensive silver sword in a case on a horse. But for many it turned out to be more important to be indignant than to figure it out.

In addition, the current industry obliges filmmakers and TV series creators to talk about future projects in advance. And from the excess of information, viewers inflate their expectations.

For example, some praise the old Polish TV series The Witcher, even though it is budgetary. But the new project from Netflix is much more critical, because they know: a lot of money has been invested in it, it will be released on a popular platform and should greatly attract the public.

Although, in fact, the viewer sees only the final picture, which does not indicate how much its production cost. And it’s strange to praise something simpler and cheaper just because the authors didn’t have the means back then. Better to compare objectively.

Societal toxicity is on the rise

This is the simplest, but unfortunately, common reason why fans don't accept almost all adaptations. It is customary to scold everything on the Internet.

George R. R. Martin on the Maltin on Movies podcast gave Maltin on Movies his opinion on this.

Unlike the old fan communities that have formed around comics or science fiction, the internet is toxic. Then there were disagreements and hostility, but not the madness that happens on the web.

George R. R. Martin

Indeed, it is always easier to scold than to praise, and negativity attracts more attention. And therefore, many, even without having detailed information, immediately rush to criticize any popular film adaptation. Moreover, often users simply retell the opinion of popular bloggers, and do not try to compose their own.

All this does not mean that the film adaptation should not be scolded. There are outright disastrous book-based films out there. For example, "The Dark Tower" by Stephen King, where the plot was turned into an outright mess.

Screen adaptation of works: "Forrest Gump"

But still, before finding fault with the inconsistency of the characters or the altered plot, it is worth evaluating the picture or series as a separate independent work. And then remember that films like One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, Forrest Gump, and The Shining have gone very far from their original sources. But this did not stop them from becoming great.