Last summer, a friend and I went to the movie theater to see the fairly mediocre but not terrible film “The Darkest Minds.” Like many films before it, it was an adaptation of a series of novels. While I did not think too much of it one way or the other, my friend absolutely despised it. She is, as you might guess, a fan of the books, and has read the entire series.
When we talked about the critical aspects of the film’s comedy, tone, pacing, acting, blocking and lighting, we both agreed it was fairly middling. However, whenever she talked about it herself, she always moved directly to criticize its lack of faith and failure to adapt the novel. Every time the movie differed from the book it seemed she took it as an insult and a dissapointment. Whereas I, not having read any of the books, was completely oblivious to these changes.
I think this is an excellent study in adaptations of books. According to my friend, there were entire plot beats and characters completely missing. If those characters were in the film, maybe it would have been that much better from her point of view. If the film had taken all of the plot beats whole-cloth, what would be the point of spending so much money to make the same story? It would be outright redundant, which is a good reason to have adaptations differ from the books. Besides, I thought the movie was already an hour and forty-five minutes long. Adding all of that may have made it a slog.
The common argument against adaptation is usually visualizing characters you’ve already made mental images of, but I’ve always found this a silly complaint. We don’t enjoy characters because of how they look, although that might be a minor factor; we enjoy them because of how the characters speak, think and act. Here my friend and I had brushed up against what I believe to be the primary issue with adaptations: pacing.
A novel can be picked up and put down at any time. A movie watched on certain formats like DVD, Blu-Ray or online can also be this, but it kills the momentum. Most films are designed to be consistently paced and best viewed in one sitting, while books are divided into chapters that are perfect points to stop and start reading. This principle cannot be applied to film, especially not in a theater. This can be both a strength and a weakness of film, consistent and fluid pacing can heighten an experience, but a shorter timespan can lose nuances and details.
Although, sometimes the movie is better than the book. Prime examples of this include many Stephen King adaptations such as the modern “IT,” and “The Shining.” These movies removed large sections of the original material that were silly, obtuse or unnecessary and the end result was that much better than the source material because of it. There is no definite superior medium, each has its pros and cons. Sometimes the book is better, but sometimes the movie is. Ultimately, the quality of an adaptation is not dependent on the fact that it is an adaptation, but what choices went behind its creation.