From Book to Film
Most film adaptations only have around two hours to fit the whole book into and very often end up changing the narrative to suit.
If you've read the book before watching the film, you'll know exactly what these changes are and you might not be entirely happy with them.
So, it's often best to think of the film and the book as separate entities.
Here's some previous book to film transitions and their results:
The Perks of Being a Wallflower
The Perks of Being a Wallflower was adapted into a film in 2012. Fans of the book enjoyed seeing it brought to life with a perfect cast. Many things however, were changed to make the material suitable as a film. Fortunately, the author Stephen Chbosky wrote and directed the film himself. So, the film can just be seen as a retelling of the book.
The main difference is that the book is just Charlie’s letters (and thus everything is filtered through him) but in the film we get an external view of the world around him. Additionally, some of the novel’s darker parts are not in the film. You can only see the infamous poem scene and Candace's pregnancy subplot in the deleted scenes on the dvd. However, the film is no lightweight itself and still packs an emotional punch. In fact, Charlie’s main trauma (no spoilers here) is easier to understand with the flashbacks shown in the film.
Although Chbosky does explain why the movie had less darkness packed in:
"In a novel the reader is 100% in charge, with the pace, how fast you read, when you put it down, when you choose to step away. Whereas a viewer, the filmmaker specially in the movie theater, we're the ones in charge. You have to be very respectful of people's emotional limits."
Result: If you enjoyed one version, you’ll enjoy the other. Just remember that the book is a darker tale of youth while the film is a more sensitive coming of age story.
The Fault in Our Stars
The Fault in Our Stars was adapted into a film in 2014. Like most adaptations, the narrative was changed around or simplified in places due to time constraints. However, the author John Green was often on the set and said that with the script “there were certainly a few moments that I advocated for, because I knew they were popular with readers or they were fanatically important, but they all ended up in the movie”. He also “got to spend a lot of time with the actors, and we talked about the story and the characters”.
Similar to what happened in Perks of Being a Wallflower’s adaptation; many darker elements were changed or omitted. Abigail Chandler explains how “the film tones down some of the book’s less palatable observations about cancer, and removes some of the raw tragedy from both Hazel’s parents and the loss of Isaac’s eyes.” The ending was also somewhat changed from the book's.
One of the screenwriters, Scott Neustadter explained the change, “The end needed to be a little less bleak. We’re allergic to happy endings, but we’ll always go for the hopeful one.”
Result: Various things in the narrative may have been changed but the film respects its source material. Like Chandler writes “I doubt, though, that many books fans will leave disappointed. Or with dry eyes”
Similar to what happened in Perks of Being a Wallflower’s adaptation; many darker elements were changed or omitted. Abigail Chandler explains how “the film tones down some of the book’s less palatable observations about cancer, and removes some of the raw tragedy from both Hazel’s parents and the loss of Isaac’s eyes.” The ending was also somewhat changed from the book's.
One of the screenwriters, Scott Neustadter explained the change, “The end needed to be a little less bleak. We’re allergic to happy endings, but we’ll always go for the hopeful one.”
Result: Various things in the narrative may have been changed but the film respects its source material. Like Chandler writes “I doubt, though, that many books fans will leave disappointed. Or with dry eyes”
The Great Gatsby
The Great Gatsby has had many film adaptations with two big name productions in 1974 and 2013.
In his review of the 1974 version, Roger Ebert outright advised his readers to just read the book instead.
Ebert described it as being "a superficially beautiful hunk of a movie with nothing much in common with the spirit of F. Scott Fitzgerald's novel" and that despite "having assembled a promising cast, [it] fails to exploit them very well."
He laments "the willingness to spend so much time and energy on exterior effect while never penetrating to the souls of the characters." But, if you like slower paced narratives, great set and costumes design, and the combination of Robert Redford and Mia Farrow then you'll enjoy it. Still, the glaring flaw is that it glamorizes what it should be criticizing and that makes it a loose adaptation.
The 2013 version values style over substance in the exact way the novel said not to. Maybe this means it proves the novel's point about excess. Matt Zoller Seitz describes it as "so immense and overwrought — lumbering across the screen." However, the characterization went much deeper than previous versions and Seitz admits despite the film's flaws, "The director is genuinely interested in his actors' performances, and in the characters' psyches". One big change from the novel is how the film's narrative is one long flashback with Nick in rehab for alcoholism. There is no mention of Nick going to rehab in the novel and it changes the fate of his character. Ultimately, it's a very controversial adaption with fans of the book. But I believe it's still worth a watch for the great performances by the cast.
Result: No film adaptation can live up to the true spirit of the book. If you want a real critique of the Jazz Age and not just gorgeous people doing lavish things then stay with the book.
In his review of the 1974 version, Roger Ebert outright advised his readers to just read the book instead.
Ebert described it as being "a superficially beautiful hunk of a movie with nothing much in common with the spirit of F. Scott Fitzgerald's novel" and that despite "having assembled a promising cast, [it] fails to exploit them very well."
He laments "the willingness to spend so much time and energy on exterior effect while never penetrating to the souls of the characters." But, if you like slower paced narratives, great set and costumes design, and the combination of Robert Redford and Mia Farrow then you'll enjoy it. Still, the glaring flaw is that it glamorizes what it should be criticizing and that makes it a loose adaptation.
The 2013 version values style over substance in the exact way the novel said not to. Maybe this means it proves the novel's point about excess. Matt Zoller Seitz describes it as "so immense and overwrought — lumbering across the screen." However, the characterization went much deeper than previous versions and Seitz admits despite the film's flaws, "The director is genuinely interested in his actors' performances, and in the characters' psyches". One big change from the novel is how the film's narrative is one long flashback with Nick in rehab for alcoholism. There is no mention of Nick going to rehab in the novel and it changes the fate of his character. Ultimately, it's a very controversial adaption with fans of the book. But I believe it's still worth a watch for the great performances by the cast.
Result: No film adaptation can live up to the true spirit of the book. If you want a real critique of the Jazz Age and not just gorgeous people doing lavish things then stay with the book.
The Outsiders
The Outsiders was adapted for film by Francis Ford Coppola in 1983. In 2005, Coppola re-released it with 22 extra minutes added in from deleted scenes and called it ‘the complete novel’ edition. Coppola had a strong working relationship with author S.E. Hinton and because of this relationship, the film is quite faithful to the novel. If you love the characters in the book then you'll enjoy the cast's depiction of them. (Look for Hinton's cameo as a nurse near the end). Nathan Rabin of AV Club claimed "Like the novel on which it's based, Coppola's Outsiders appears destined to remain a cherished favorite of young people".
The flaws of the movie are the same flaws as the book; some may believe it's too sentimental for its own good.
Like Peter Travers of Rolling Stone writes, "the film is being seen through Ponyboy, a wanna-be writer with an intense love for reading Gone With the Wind. Coppola has directed the film as Ponyboy would have done it."
Result: The film perfectly complements the book and is a must watch for fans. Plus, it has many stars before they were famous (including a young Tom Cruise).
The flaws of the movie are the same flaws as the book; some may believe it's too sentimental for its own good.
Like Peter Travers of Rolling Stone writes, "the film is being seen through Ponyboy, a wanna-be writer with an intense love for reading Gone With the Wind. Coppola has directed the film as Ponyboy would have done it."
Result: The film perfectly complements the book and is a must watch for fans. Plus, it has many stars before they were famous (including a young Tom Cruise).