With the influx of book-to-movie adaptations out there, I’ve started thinking what actually makes adaptations good or not.
For me, personally, I guess the most important part is how the plot is incorporated into the movie/tv show. If the book is nothing like the movie, then I’ll most likely be disappointed. I don’t expect the adaptation to have EVERY.SINGLE.THING. because I’m realistic. However I do expect that the original book be followed. If it was a succesful best-seller AS IT IS, why change it? Why make it into something completely different from what it is? Also, what is with withholding important details? Why is it that sometimes a movie would rather throw you in blind than actually explain what and why something is hapenning? Those who don’t read the book don’t have a clue what’s going on! I don’t know if it’s a ploy to get people to buy the books, but I find it kind of rude.
Another important aspect that captures my attention with adaptations is the casting. For the casting, I don’t really care if they look like the characters or not. I care more about how the actors bring the character to life. When I saw Divergent, I wasn’t sure about Theo James for Four, but after seeing him acting I was hooked. Same happened with The Fault in Our Stars. I didn’t think Ansel Elgort would be able to portray Gus. And he did. Wonderfully. I also really love to see if there’s good chemistry between the characters. I don’t need them to be madly in love with each other in real life, I just need them to make me think that they’re in love.
The direction. Believe it or not, this is really important. If you watched the first Twilight movie and compared it with the others, you’ll notice there’s a big difference. First of all, the weird green-ish tint that was everywhere. Secondly unnecessary close-ups and shoddy timeline work. All of this interfered with the overall movie experience. The reason Catching Fire was so amazing as a movie is the fact that no details were spared. The arena was wonderfully created and nothing looked “cheap”.
Finally, the romance. If there’s a romance in the book, and you make these characters fall in love in less than 5 minutes in the movie, I’ll probably hate it. Just becaue they’re in love in the books doesn’t mean you shouldn’t show them actually falling in love.
I’m writing this post just after my review/rant of the Delirium pilot went live. I think I’m still a little bit bitter, ha xD. Anyways, this post is also inspired after reading an article online called “Sixteen things you won’t see in ‘The Fault in Our Stars“. I personally loved the movie and didn’t think anything was missing. When I read this article I was kind of disappointed. The things that were “missing” were so little in comparison to the movie. They literally added nothing to the movie. However people assumed it was really vital to the movie.
What makes an adaptation “good” for you? What makes it “bad”? Let me know in the comments below!