The Art of Adaptation

[BuksRGud0410]

A controversial element of the recently released Pet Sematary remake (NO SPOILERS!) got me thinking: at what point is a film adaptation crossing a forbidden line?

I have always argued that because film is an entirely different storytelling medium than books, we can't expect every film adaptation to adhere slavishly to every beat, character, event, and twist employed by the book. The term "the book was better" always got to me, because so many people say it simply because the two pieces of media weren't identical to one another.

But where do you draw that line? Surely, at some point the liberties taken by an adaptation go too far, alter the story too fundamentally, or violate the meaning of the work(s) from which they derived. I used to balk at Stephen King's distaste for the Kubrick film because of the thematic deviations, but now I'm wondering if there is merit in that complaint.

[Kyleigh Cok]

Personally, when I read books first and watch the adaptations later I tend to enjoy them if they at the very least follow the main plot of the story. I have seen many where they take the name of the book, the characters, and the idea but twist it into something wholly different.

I enjoyed the tv show adaptation of The Mortal Instruments which is “Shadowhunters” and I believe they did well with that.
An example of an adaptation that disappointed me is The 100. The books we’re amazing and such an interesting concept. The TV show started off its first two seasons good, however they didn’t include crucial characters from the book, added new ones (which is understandable for a tv show), killed off characters early on that had much more importance in the books. Now, the tv show is about to begin its 6th season and it’s taken a turn for the worst. They took the central characters and twisted relationships, and the plot has gone in a wild direction. It is not even recognizable as an adaptation which is truly disappointing seeing as so many people loved the direction the books went in.