Writer's place in the adaptation
Should a writer be involve in the process of adaptation of his book ? If yes, to what extend?
​
We can assume that it is important to us, readers, to be sure that the adaptation will transcript the words who loved to screen. But, do we really want to see exactly on screen what we read? And what if the differences in the movie or tv show has an alternative ending because of the writer? So much questions.
​
Here are some examples of cases where a writer was involve - or not - in the adaptation.
​
"The Shining" directed by Stanley Kubrick based on the eponym Stephen King's novel.
If you have read the book, you know the movie is not a great adaptation. You know that the movie is way far from the original idea by Stephen King. But "The Shining" is considered by many people like a really great movie. So, if Stephen King had said anything on Kubrick's movie, it would have been really different.
​
In the adaption of another Stephen King's book, "The Mist", the author rewrote the last scene for the screen and change drastically the ending. But was it for the better? The fact with that kind of debate is that is really subjective. It depends on one another.
​
On the opposite, if you compare "50 shades of Gray" the book to the movie you have the case of a writer really invest in the adaptation with a movie not really successful with only one star on Rotten Tomatoes (https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/fifty_shades_of_grey). You can often hear that the movie is flavourless. Majority of people who never read the book don't like the movie and the one who read the book prefer it. Perhaps it is because the director, Sam Taylor-Johnson, did not have the the creative liberty she wanted/needed. Her vision of the movie was drastically different from E.L. James's. Perhaps in this case, if the writer was less invested in the movie, it would have be better? We can only wonder.
​
Cinquante nuances de Grey - 50/50 (critique). (n.d.). Retrieved 22 February 2023, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Dq5uCMojFY
Are the book better than the movies ?
It is a really subjective debate that depend on several factors; if you read the book before or after you saw the adaptation. It depends on your taste and of course a lot of other factors like the implication of the author in creative process of the movie.
​
In our research to create this article, we lead a seminar to a class. We had three different results.
​
- The one who prefer the movie
- The one who prefer the book
- The one who loves both
​
For the first result, the person preferred the movie because they saw the movie first and thought the book was to much different. In the case of the person who prefer the book, either if the person read it before or saw the movie, it is always a question of sensibility. The movie shows us things and we have to interpret them in our own way. The book is a lot more descriptive in the scenes and feeling. And in majority of cases, the books are more complete than the movie. Imagine if Peter Jackson had adapted "The Lord of The Ring" word for word. You might have a really good movie but wouldn't it be too long? And would you really like to see something you exactly read?
This question led to the third result we had. Loving both without having to choose. Loving the book for its quality and the movie for the same reasons.
​
So, are the books better than movies? Well, it's like saying that pears are better than apples. It depends on your taste and you can like them both because they are two different things.