What are our expectations for the movie adaptations?

...I’m scrolling through this thread about Tom Tykwer's "Perfume," and honestly, I can't believe how quickly—and almost invisibly—this discussion about a fresh, buzzy new movie morphed into something else entirely. It’s turned into a debate over how closely dear Tom stuck to the book, whether he stayed faithful to the source, if every single scene—especially those end sequences everyone seems obsessed with—matches the pages, and whether the lead actor is just too handsome to play a guy who is playing a character... It feels like we’ve all gotten caught up in those pedantic arguments and completely missed the forest for the trees. The real question isn't about specific scenes or plot points, but rather how effectively Tykwer captured the actual soul of the book on screen. And just when I thought about how impossible book adaptations are with an audience like us, brightfox6 hits me with some blunt truth. She basically told me, "When you go to see the Little Butcher, leave your expectations, your 'prejudices,' and your love for the book at the door and just enjoy the movie." Now I'm left scratching my head, so I figured I'd ask you guys...
...When you sit down for a book adaptation, what are you actually looking for? Does it matter to you if every single "story beat" or scene makes its way onto the screen, or is it more important to see if the director successfully translated the author's core message—even if they have to strip away certain scenes to get there? (I mean, is Michael Haneke allowed to film his version of Drunkardism, based on that sexually explicit work by E. Jelinek, without including any "real" explicit scenes? Or did Nichols make a mistake by leaving out the steamy parts in Marbers' Closer?) Do you have rigid expectations for the casting? Must the actors look exactly like the descriptions in the book, or is it enough that they capture the right expression, regardless of looks? (Could Grenouille be a pretty American boy instead of a grotesque Frenchman? Could the blue-eyed, almost charming Benoit Magimel pull off the endlessly arrogant Walter Klemmer?) Do you approach an adaptation with "preconceptions," expecting the director to follow a specific set of rules, or can you watch a film independently of the book? How much creative license should a director have? Does it bother you when they take too much freedom—stripping the film down to a raw idea or motive while tossing out all the context? (Is brightfox6 right to enjoy that freedom, or is Poirot right to claim that Winterbott ruined "Jude"? Was Haneke on the right track when he tried to visually approximate a Kafkaesque letter in his Castle?) Do you struggle with these dilemmas yourselves? Ultimately, do you prefer movies based on books, or do you lean toward original screenplays—or does it even matter? 🙂

...The floor is yours, and I’ll probably chime in along the way...🙂

I expect to see more original screenplays. Either that, or they should at least be adapting some decent literature. Or better yet, they could take an approach like Children of Men, where the book serves as mere inspiration rather than a rigid, suffocating blueprint.

It’s hard to expect anyone to nail a book adaptation. First, you have screenwriters who take far too much liberty with the material. Sometimes, a book is just too dense to squeeze everything into a single movie, much like the situation with Harry Potter. Certain scenes simply don't translate because they'd drag the pacing down or are impossible to visualize on screen...
But with the movie Watchers, the script is pure idiocy. The book was about the bond between a frightened woman and a man accompanied by an intelligent dog, all while being hunted by a creature... Instead of crafting a romantic horror, they gave us some bratty kid, a monster picking people off one by one, and a genetically modified killer.
Personally, I don't hold my breath anymore. The moment I hear a film is being made based on a novel or a comic, I can almost guarantee it will be garbage.
Americans generally know how to handle their own films—with the exception of Daredevil, where Kingpin is Black—but foreign productions, like Constantine, are even worse once you've actually read the source material.

When reading a book, everyone imagines the characters differently in their own heads, so it's impossible for a movie adaptation to please everyone.
As for the plot, I feel that if a book was particularly popular, there shouldn't be too much deviation from the original story...☕

I honestly haven't encountered anyone who actually thinks a movie beats the book... the whole thing reached its peak at the local AMC during a screening of Vinci's code, where people were basically sitting there every 15 seconds acting like the book was superior... I mean, after just two scenes 🙂

To me, it all feels less about the story and more like a desperate need to show off and say, "Yes, I'm smart and I read books," rather than anything else 🙂

Look, I'll be the first to admit it—I'm not exactly a scholar. The only book I've ever read that actually got a screen adaptation was Emil and Detectives 👍 😁

I suppose the issue is that filmmakers simply can't secure massive budgets for adaptations unless they lean into something mainstream. They might have incredible ideas and vision, but as a whole, it ends up being a fiasco...

I mentioned before that I was actually pleasantly surprised by how faithful Tom Tykwer's movie adaptation of perfume was to the book. Honestly, I just really wanted to visually experience that specific atmosphere of Paris and Grasso that you get in the novel. I don't think I would have been happy if the director had decided to transpose the whole plot to the 21st century, maybe mixing in reality shows or some other modern nonsense that I'm already sick of.
The novel is intentionally constructed quite conservatively (at least until near the end).

But, that doesn't mean I always want a frame-for-frame replica of the scenes from the book. Especially when there are already several faithful adaptations out there—sometimes it’s actually refreshing when a director goes a little 'crazy' and tells the story a bit differently.

That one scene I complained about isn't really an issue for me as a deviation from the book, but rather as a mismatch with the character's personality in the MOVIE. Even in the novel, a sentence like "a tear rolled down his cheek" wouldn't have fit him at all.

crimsonmoose3 said:Man, you really can't expect much when it comes to book adaptations. First off, there's those damn screenwriters who just take way too much liberty with the source material.

...and that’s exactly what I want to dig into—what does "too much creative liberty" actually mean to you guys? Is it about how, as crimsonmoose3 pointed out, white characters suddenly turn Black or ugly people become Hollywood models just to be more "marketable"? Or maybe it's when they swap out something central—like how the movie based on Hornby's Football Fever turned the whole thing into baseball? To me, it feels like when an American adaptation takes a brilliant autobiographical story rooted in something deeply cultural—like a passion for soccer, where a team's wins and losses mirror the hero's own life—and guts the core themes just to reshape it for a totally different audience, turning it into some sugary-sweet romance. Why is it such a massive struggle to make a decent adaptation? Aside from what rowdybadder41 mentioned—that everyone has their own mental version of a book that a director just can't possibly replicate—why does this always seem to go wrong? 🙂

There’s a huge difference between a simple adaptation and a true "cinematic adaptation." Honestly, when you watch a movie based on a book, the best way to enjoy it is to just clear your head of the source material and judge it purely on its own cinematic merits. But man, that's easier said than done if the book meant something to you... once you know the characters and the plot by heart, every tiny deviation feels just slightly "off."

In my opinion, one of the gold standards for adaptations is Rosemary's Baby. The story stays about 99% faithful to the book, the characters are perfectly captured, and Roman Polanski brings his signature style to make it an absolute classic!

I feel the same way about Fight Club. The movie follows the book's plot pretty closely (though the ending shifts a bit), the vibe is spot on, the cast is incredible, and it's easily a five-star experience for me.

Then you have Blade Runner. It actually has very little to do with the literary source material. But even so, the movie is a masterpiece that stands entirely on its own. Dick's book served more as a spark of inspiration, allowing the film to build a brand-new story that works brilliantly as a standalone piece.

And then there’s Rules of Attraction. Personally, I thought it was great—bold, controversial, and the ultimate anti-teen movie.
I actually read the book after seeing the film. Once I did, the movie felt a little diminished for me (just a tiny bit, though, I still love it). The book was much more brutal and provocative, tackling certain themes in ways the film didn't quite have the guts to explore.

Then there's that famous one, Da Vinci's code. It feels like it was made specifically for people who had already read the book. If I hadn't read it first, I probably wouldn't have understood the purpose of half the characters in the movie. And that's not ideal...
(Plus, what really bothered me about the code was how they twisted the core premise of the book, leaving just enough room to suggest that Jesus might have been more than just a man capable of performing miracles.)

Lord of the Rings is pretty solid too, though maybe that's because I'm not a die-hard J.R.R. Tolkien fanatic and don't have every single detail of the books memorized. My only gripe is that the characters felt warmer in the books, whereas in the movies, everyone almost feels like a statue reciting epic lines.

It goes on and on from there. The "rules" for a good adaptation always seem to change. I suppose the most important thing is to capture the core plot and the characters without betraying the soul or the message of the book. At the end of the day, you just have to remember that film and literature are two completely different mediums...

Larry Martin11:
Is brightfox6 right to enjoy it, or is Poirot correct when he claims that Winterbott totally ruined Jude...

🙂 Xavi, don't think for a second that I haven't noticed what you're pulling... You're trying to drive a wedge between me and the rest of the crew, aren't you? You wanted to pull it off, but you just didn't have the nerve... So instead, you're just circling around, trying to set a trap...

Or, since we’re already talking about literary inspirations, there was some bard involved... I think it was Shakespeare... 😁 He called, and then his Iago says...
Oh, watch out, man... just a heads-up, my lord, be careful with that jealousy...
It’s got those green eyes... 😛 Some kind of monster that just mocks you... honestly... it’s a feeling you can't quite shake once it sets in.
The meat it feasts upon... honestly, that cuckold is living in pure bliss.
Who, knowing exactly how things are going to end, doesn't even bother hating the person who did him wrong...
But, oh, what miserable minutes does he drag himself through...
Someone who absolutely adores you, yet can't help but second-guess everything... someone who’s constantly suspicious, even while they're head over heels...

And all because of one marriage proposal... 😬 Just...🤔 ... screw love, you're the moderator anyway, so maybe some repressive measures are coming our way...

So, basically, I'm trying to channel my inner Gary Cooper in that Wilder masterpiece... Love in the Afternoon...
She who loves and runs away, lives to love another day... maybe.

Honey, he's all yours! 😉

...brightfox6, you're reading me like some kind of unencrypted open book 😉

Larry Martin11:
...brightfox6, you're reading me like an unformatted open book 😉

Kissing hands, you beautiful people! 😘

(😳 HANDS, you trolls, I wrote hands, there just wasn't a decent emoji for it.)

electriccyclist15 said:In my opinion, one of the best adaptations out there is Rosemary's Baby. The story stays 99% faithful to the book, the characters are perfectly captured, and Roman Polanski applied his signature style to turn it into an absolute classic!

Exactly! I was stunned when I finished reading Rosemary's Baby and realized it wasn't just some script adaptation (like Ingmar Bergman's scene from marriage); the book actually came first. Every single detail and line of dialogue matches the movie perfectly. It's incredible how closely Polanski stuck to the source material.

Then look at his next move. In his following film, Polanski made one of the boldest creative interventions ever—he messed with the ending of Macbeth. He added a scene that isn't even in the Shakespearean play. In this new scene, the new king, Malcolm, goes to the witches for advice, doing the exact same thing Macbeth did at the start of the movie—letting the witches lead him astray and trigger the tragedy. In an adaptation that is otherwise word-for-word faithful, this is a total curveball. The message? There's no peace; the cycle of evil just keeps spinning. That's his worldview. The tragedy itself wasn't dark enough for him. (Keep in mind, Macbeth was his first film after his wife was murdered in that infamous massacre, and those "evil wins" endings continued in Chinatown, The Tenant...)

I also read Bitter Moon, where Polanski turned an excellent book into an excellent movie. He changed quite a bit compared to the book, but all for the better. Once again, he intervened at the end—the most crucial part of any film—and true to his style, the ending is darker than the book. Much better and much more powerful.

If you ask me, great adaptations aren't the ones that slave away to the source material. A truly great director is strong and brave enough to reshape it into something independent and uniquely their own.

Whether you’re looking at a movie or a book, you’re dealing with art—more often than not. Just like with literature, an author usually starts with a spark of inspiration, and it's perfectly natural for one medium to feed into the other.

Then there’s the fact that everyone sees things through their own lens. Some people will grasp a book or a film differently than others; some might miss the point entirely because the work just doesn't align with how they process information. In short, it all boils down to interpretation.

And honestly, how much does an author actually want their work dissected? It brings me back to the great Jean Renoir, who basically said he couldn't care less if some self-proclaimed intellectual tries to overanalyze his intentions behind a film. I’m with him on this—art is primarily an emotional experience. So, once again, we're back to interpretation.

Furthermore, a director is almost certainly going to interpret a book through their own personal prism, pulling out whatever resonates most deeply within them. This makes the idea of being "faithful" to the source material incredibly relative. Why do I say relative? Because not every book is equally ripe for the screen. For instance, how much can you really deviate from the likes of Charles Dickens, Victor Hugo, Anne Brontë, or Jane Austen? Not much, really. You get more wiggle room with someone like Ernest Hemingway or William Faulkner. And then, of course, you have those elusive modern authors from Europe and Asia.

Plus, interpretations shift as artistic expression evolves over time. The way people viewed Virginia Woolf in "to The Lighthouse" (though Kenneth Branagh tends to lean toward faithful adaptations) is worlds apart from how she was interpreted nearly twenty years later in "The Hours," which touches on "Dalloway." It would be fascinating to see even deeper parallels across larger spans of time.

Ultimately, so much depends on who is actually turning that book into a screenplay. Is it the original author, or a third party? Stanley Kubrick pulled a brilliant move with Lolita by essentially telling Vladimir Nabokov to step aside and let him handle the adaptation. The result, quite the opposite of what one might expect, was a purely Kubrickian vision—a film that served as a perfect vehicle for launching certain satirical arrows, even for Nabokov himself.

In the end, I find myself leaning toward the conclusions of thinkers like George Bluestone: film is a perceptual medium where the primary presentation is visual, whereas a novel is more conceptual, discursive, and verbal. Every work should be judged on its own merits based on the specific language and constraints of its medium. At the end of the day, the inspiration for any performance remains deeply personal.

@ Joseph Lee3, Maria Barnes
👍
(I'd add something more—but honestly, I'm feeling pretty 😍 without any actual text to work with, unless maybe through some examples. Though, personally, I'd take Roman Polanski over these modern "young guns" any day 🙂.)

But then again, if the screenwriters had actually followed the Lovecraftian Re-animator story more closely, we wouldn't have ended up with that dark, horror-filled mess...

I’m not really feeling it. Usually, movies just end up disappointing me (with a few exceptions, like Green's Valentine's Day caveman)

Roger Allen3 said:I can't help but feel like it's mostly just people trying to prove they're smart by saying "yes, I actually read books"—more about ego than anything else, I guess.🙂

Well, I'll be the first to admit—I'm probably not the brightest... the only book I've ever finished that actually had a movie version was Oliver Twist.👍 😁

I agree—😳 😬 🙏

For me personally, the end result of the movie is what matters most—faithfully adapting a great book doesn't necessarily guarantee a good film. They are just two different mediums, after all, and some things simply don't translate one-to-one, so they shouldn't have to. I'll throw out a cliché, slightly random example—that show That's my Bush by the creators of South Park. There’s this one scene with a fetus riding a dog, which feels totally absurd in a live-action setting, whereas in South Park, it would probably be perfectly fine and totally normal. I won't go on forever with examples—my limited literary background keeps me in check, I suppose.😳

Basically, I just want to say that I care much more about whether an adaptation works as a standalone movie rather than just being a book projected onto a screen.🙏 🙏

I was thinking the other day about how I usually tell myself a movie might be okay if I haven't read the book first, but honestly? It almost always ends in disappointment
Anyone actually found a good book that actually made for a good movie?
The last one I checked out was Anna Karenina and it was such a letdown

p.s. sorry if we've already covered this