- Position‹2 of 3›
- Books should not be adapted into movies
Certain parts of the book are inevitably left out to accommodate movie production. There is no “perfect” adaptation.
The argument
Movies often have to omit elements of a book so that it can fit the production; be it plot, characters or other small details. This could affect the story’s overall direction, and confuse those who have read the book first. Movies cannot ensure the full representation of a book's contents. For example, “It” had to be divided into two parts to fully encapsulate the story Stephen King wrote. They were released two years apart, one in 2017 and one in 2019. Compared to the book, which is sold as one volume, there exists a disconnection in the story that the film tells.
Premises
Counter-arguments
Critics reply that 'cannot fully represent' is true of every adaptation but does not show adaptation is undesirable: a film is a different work in a different medium, not a defective copy, and is fairly judged on its own terms rather than by fidelity to the book. They note adaptations routinely introduce books to far wider audiences, sustain interest in the source and can illuminate it through a director's interpretation; the 'It' example shows a long novel needs more room, not that it should not have been filmed. Incompleteness, they argue, is the nature of translation between media, not a reason to forgo it.
Rejecting the premises
[Rejecting P1] Omitting material is inherent to translating any long work to film; that a film is not a complete copy does not make it a failure, since it is a different work in a different medium. [Rejecting C] Adaptations widen a book's audience and offer fresh interpretation; being unable to reproduce every detail is the nature of the medium, not a reason not to adapt.