For a long time now, it is common for books to get adapted into films or TV shows, and sometimes these adaptations gain more success and attention than the original work itself. There seems to be some bitterness in society towards adaptations – there are many who believe that the book version is always better than the screen one. But is it really fair to judge adaptations based on comparisons to their inspirations?
Often, the plot or significant events that occur in the book versions have to be altered in order to fit the medium of a film. Many fans of the original piece wish for fidelity to the story that they know and love, but this can actually take away from the movie or TV show. Instead, the director has to find a way to deliver the same story in ways that are fit for being showcased on the screen.
When adapting a novel, directors are required to re-interpret and then re-create the story with their own artistic vision. The differences in artistic objectives between a director and an author does not take away from one or the other, but instead provides viewers and readers with two works that explore different character dynamics and themes within the same plot. If a movie does not include certain events that occur in the book, it does not take away its literary value and whether it is still entertaining or not. A movie’s value should be judged separately from whether it stayed true to the book it was adapting.
As someone who loves reading, I can completely understand the disappointment that comes along with seeing the adaptation of one of your favorite books and noticing that they missed details you were hoping to see on the screen. However, I think everything should be approached with an open-mind, and film adaptations are not the exception!
