This article is written by a student writer from the Her Campus at UCLA chapter and does not reflect the views of Her Campus.
I genuinely cried tears of joy in seventh grade when my favorite book series, Shadow and Bone, was adapted into a Netflix show. The idea of seeing my favorite characters who had previously only lived on paper, come to life on screen and be able to relive some of my favorite moments in a different medium was the most exciting thing in the world for my 12-year-old self.
As a die-hard fan who had spent most of my middle school years obsessively rereading the series, I noticed quite a few changes when the show finally aired. Certain characters were aged up, important plot points were changed or omitted, and entirely new ones were added. However, the general fan consensus was that the adaptation was good and everyone, including me, was devastated when it got cancelled after Season 2.
As someone who loves reading, I’ve seen quite a few books and book series turned into screen adaptations over the past few years. Some have been good, winning praise from fans, and others haven’t, drawing in widespread criticism from disappointed lifelong readers. It begs the question: What makes a good screen adaptation, and is it possible to make one faithful to the source material?
Book adaptations are hardly new. From the silent film era’s 1899 version of Cinderella to the 1939 film adaptation of Gone With the Wind and the success of popular book franchises such as Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter, book-to-screen adaptations are arguably the driving force behind the film industry. The reason is simple: popular books already have fans. Fans’ excitement of seeing their favorite characters on screen is enough to drive up enough hype and excitement to draw non-fans in. However, it’s these fans who have the strongest opinions if an adaptation misses the mark.
Recently I watched the Netflix adaptation of Emily Henry’s popular romance novel People We Meet on Vacation and thoroughly enjoyed it. I went online to see what people were saying and it seemed like everyone who hadn’t read the book thought it was a great movie, while long time book fans lamented over certain crucial elements from the book not being included. I ended up reading the book afterwards and understood the disappointment from fans. It was a great movie overall, but not a great adaptation.
So what makes a good adaptation? There’s no shortage of good adaptations that have come out in the past years. In fact, there have been quite a few that have been deemed better than their original source material, although as a chronic book reader I usually hate when people say that. Some popular adaptations that have been pretty well received have been To All the Boys I’ve Loved Before, the Hunger Games franchise, The Perks of Being a Wallflower, Bridgerton, and most recently Heated Rivalry.
The book-to-screen adaptations that I’ve enjoyed such as Daisy Jones and the Six and Shadow and Bone, books that I had read and loved before their subsequent adaptations, weren’t perfect adaptations. A lot of plot points I was excited to see were omitted or changed, but despite these changes, they were still solid adaptations that were widely enjoyed by long time fans. I think a large part was due to author involvement with both productions, as both book authors were executive producers when it came to those respective shows. That was a large part in why the adaptations, although not completely accurate, were still faithful to its source material.
An adaptation isn’t supposed to be a word for word duplication from a book on to a screen and in every adaptation, things are going to be changed or omitted. It’s just important that these changes supplement the source material and don’t completely change it. If something is added it should serve a purpose and show something about the original plot or characters that didn’t initially translate well from the book.
Characters are also important. If an actor can embody the original spirit and personality of a book character, I will automatically enjoy an adaptation. Shadow and Bone’s plot was all over the place, but the casting was spot on for every character and fans were so excited to see these beloved characters on screen that they were more forgiving of the show’s discrepancies.
Lastly, the main themes have to stay intact during a book-to-screen adaptation. Among other controversies, one of the reasons people were upset about Emerald Fennell’s recent Wuthering Heights adaptation was that it cut out the second half of the book, turning a novel centered around themes of vengeance, class conflict, and obsession into simply an erotic romance. Changing the main themes of the source material while making an adaptation completely changes the plot. If Emerald Fennell wanted to make a period piece romance with Margot Robbie and Jacob Elordi instead of classifying it as a Wuthering Heights adaptation I believe it would have been much better received by the general public.
So to answer my question about whether it’s possible to make a good book to screen adaptation, I think it is. But in order for this to happen, previous fans need to detach themselves from the idea that there is such a thing as a “perfect” adaptation. Things will inevitably be changed, but as long as these changes stay faithful to the original source material, the characters are embodied well by actors, and the main themes stay intact, then the adaptation will ultimately succeed even if it isn’t a perfect replica of the source material.
