Why was Legolas in Peter Jackson’s “The Hobbit”? Were Thanos’s goals accurately portrayed in the Marvel Cinematic Universe?

Film adaptations of books are nothing new — “Jurassic Park” was based on a fantastic Michael Crichton novel, for example — but over the years, criticism has grown, and filmmakers’ decisions on what to cut or leave in has increasingly been brought to the forefront of the conversation.

Buoyed by the growing popularity of “BookTok,” a category of TikTok dedicated to book reviews and recommendations, auteurs are frequently under fire for the vision they bring to the screen.

These debates recently came to our newsroom after the release of “Wuthering Heights,” a film which was adapted from an Emily Brontë novel of the same name. Here are some of the takes that have come out of those discussions.

Jordan Neperud — Ship Life Editor

I have very mixed feelings about adaptations. I am not a purist. I think it is necessary to make changes when going from different media. I do not think it is possible to create a great film that is a 1:1 recreation of a book, as the pacing and dialogue would most definitely suffer from it. 

On the other hand, I think there needs to be a certain expectation of staying loyal to the source material. If you are changing everything but the title and character names, is there a point in calling it an adaptation? 

The example that comes to mind is the latest “Wuthering Heights” movie. I gave a condensed version of my thoughts in my review, but the more I think about it, the more I find the choices that Emerald Fennel made to be baffling.

The original novel was about the cycle of abuse and how a victim became an abuser. It was a critique of classism and racism in the Victorian era. It explored serious themes, like domestic violence. Fennel ignored all of that in this film.

She made terrible casting choices, such as casting a white man to play a man of color. She cast 35-year-old Margot Robbie to play Cathy, who was 16 in the novel. Fennel ignored themes in the original novel, instead creating a “sexy” forbidden love story that is about as deep as the puddle of egg yolks Jacob Elordi spends far too long playing in.

She also turned Isabella — a victim of domestic violence so horrific that she ran away pregnant and penniless — into a girl who is in a BDSM relationship with Heathcliff. At a certain point, changes like these become disrespectful to the source material, and I think Fennel crossed that line to the point of no return.

This movie made me realize that as a society, we need a break from adaptations. It is not for the sake of respecting the source material, but for the sake of having original content again. It feels like everything is a sequel, prequel, remake or adaptation of something else.

It feels like every new movie or TV show is an adaptation of a video game. From “Fallout” to “The Last of Us” to “Five Nights at Freddy’s,” there seems to be a lack of original content right now. Look at Disney. All it is doing now is sequels from movies it released ages ago in between the live-action remakes.

It seems like people are afraid to tell original stories these days, and that is a shame. Maybe it is because Hollywood thinks all the money is in making the same things over and over again. Maybe as consumers, we are unwilling to give the unfamiliar a chance. Either way, I miss seeing new media.

Hannah Stoner — Asst. Sports Editor

Book to movie adaptations should not perfectly mirror the original. When turning something into a film, it should have a similar vibe and replicate key components of the novel. If two media exist with the exact same plot, that becomes boring.

Adaptations also act as a way for an author to get a second chance and change something they might not have liked in the original. However, authors are not always involved in their adaptations, and they might sell the rights to their work. In that case, it is up to the director to add a new spin to something that was already beloved.

Megan Sawka — Managing Editor

Adaptations should reflect the theme and message of the original work, but it does not have to be an exact remake. Audiences can tell the difference between a genuine remake or adaptation.

For example, Disney’s live-action remakes, like “Snow White” or “Moana,” might be good movies, but they feel soulless and like a cash grab. On the other hand, adaptations like “Five Nights at Freddy’s” are not one-to-one with the original source material, but they reflect the original message and respect what fans want.

Despite this, what audiences want are original stories. Adaptations can work for some, but overall, they crave originality.

Abbygale Hockenberry — A&E Editor

I think that if you are going to make a movie adaptation of a book, it should have only the basics. More if preferred, but I just do not think it is reasonable.

I used to be the type that would get mad when the movie is completely different from the book, until I realized what all it takes to make a movie. Some things are not able to be done in a film that can be done in a book, like internal dialogue.

Also, not everything in the book is essential to be included in the film. Depending on how fast you read, it can take someone eight to 14 hours to read a novel. A movie, however, is not as long and needs to fit the entire book into a tight space of an hour and a half to two hours.

It also depends on what they are changing and why. Once it is created as a film, it is no longer the author’s piece of work — it is just the author’s story. The director has every right to make it their own, and they should. I think people get so angry with adaptations because they are too close to the original. A 1:1 creation is just not possible with two different minds on the scene — the author and the director.

Share