Movie Adaptations

Initiated by:
• Ceit

Details

I don't know if it's the most common gripe about movies, but it's certainly a common complaint - the unsatisfying adaptation.  It doesn't even have to be a beloved book for people to get all up in arms about the flaws of the movie.  We can't deny that the two mediums are very different and tell different kinds of stories in better and worse ways.  Some adaptations can even be better than the books they were inspired by.  Of course, it is a matter of opinion (remember that? How time flies!)  Here are some names to jog your memory:  https://ew.com/best-book-to-screen-adaptations-of-all-time-8685833 https://screenrant.com/worst-book-adaptation-movies-according-to-rotten-tomatoes/ https://buchtelite.com/23748/opinion/book-to-movie-adaptations-failures-and-successes/ https://www.cracked.com/article_47593_20-film-adaptations-that-left-out-the-best-part.html https://www.cracked.com/article_39080_20-movie-adaptations-that-are-every-bit-as-good-if-not-better-than-the-source-material.html So what makes a movie a good adaptation of a book?  Why is a cartoon a glowing childhood memory and a live action movie an act of vandalism?  Why is a 1931 film that takes quite a few liberties a classic, while a 1994 production, by all accounts much more faithful, largely forgotten?  When the movie erases the message of the book, can it be considered an adaptation at all?