With many stories being adopted by the film industry and transformed into movies or TV shows, we can find excitement in discovering that our favourite book will soon be on screen. However, the disappointment can be all too real when we realise the producers failed to bring the novel any justice.
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring ÔÇô J.R.R Tolkien
J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings (1954), a text which divides itself into the trilogy of The Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers and The Return of the King, has had a resounding influence on the fantasy genre and sold more than six hundred million copies. Peter Jackson’s film adaptations (2001-2003) hold similar acclaim from audiences and critics alike. While I consider The Two Towers and The Return of the King to be Jackson’s most faithful adaptations of Tolkien’s source material, I think The Fellowship of the Ring remains superior in its written form.
Tolkien’s world of Middle Earth is undeniably dark. After leaving The Shire, home of the central protagonist Frodo Baggins, the narrative offers sparse moments of peace before we’re thrust into a conflict where characters disband, turn on one another, or meet tragic deaths. As brilliant as these later moments are, Tolkien allowed his readership to invest themselves in the innocence of Middle Earth first. While Jackson does an okay job of adapting the novel’s opening chapters, his film seems overly eager to rush past the serenity expressed in Tolkien’s prose. For example, the novel dedicates about thirty pages to world building before the mystery surrounding the ominous One Ring gains traction. Perhaps that’s an awful long time spent learning nothing relevant to the future story, but I think that Tolkien’s effort to immerse us within the Hobbits’ community lets us enjoy Middle Earth innocently, before the bad stuff starts.
Another moment of tranquillity comes at the hands of Tom Bombadil, a jovial and mild-mannered character who’s bafflingly omitted from Jackson’s adaptation. Bar the Elven paradise of Rivendell, Tom remains one of Frodo’s last safety nets before his quest into Mordor, and this security was greatly missed in Jackson’s film.
In my opinion, Tolkien’s elongated world building and Tom Bombadil’s charismatic persona edges The Fellowship of the Ring’s written form over its film adaptation. While Jackson doesn’t necessarily dishonour Tolkien’s work, I would hold this novel’s adaptation in higher esteem if these elements had been depicted accurately on-screen.
by Liam Billingsley
Percy Jackson ÔÇô Rick Riordan
In order to appease my younger self, it only felt right to discuss the atrocity that was the duo of Percy Jackson films. Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief (2010) and Percy Jackson and the Sea of Monsters (2013) were adapted from the first two novels in Rick Riordan’s series. His fantasy pentalogy follows a young Percy Jackson throughout a series of narratives inspired by Greek mythology. I fondly remember these novels, patiently awaiting each new release, researching the history behind these myths and theorising about the long-awaited adaptations.
When the films were finally released, disappointment was all-pervasive. The well-loved series seemed more juvenile, cartoonish and awash with a strict sense of bathos. These novels, packed with action, suspense and plot twists, seemed reduced.
Despite the books and films being targeted at children and young adults, I knew that this feeling of disappointment was felt by most twenty-somethings who grew up reading Riordan’s work. There seemed a lack of attention to detail in these movies – with characters’ backstories seeming half-baked and the world-building leaving a lot to self-decipher. The failure of these films to capture the sparkle of the novels is epitomised by the unfinished nature of the film series, giving up after only two films. However, when you can see the success of similar franchises, such as the Harry Potter films, the Twilight Saga and The Hunger Games, it is evident that these young adult fantasy adaptations can be successful when approached correctly – what went so wrong with the Percy Jackson adaptations? Lovers of the fantasy genre can easily admit that the first one or two films in an adaptation series can always appear rusty, evident through the first few films in the Harry Potter franchise. Therefore, it is easy to wonder whether the Percy Jackson films would have done the books justice if given the opportunity for the full catalogue to be adapted into film.
By Molly Openshaw
Stormbreaker – Anthony Horowitz
ÔÇÿA waste of both my time and money’ are the words that I would use to describe Stormbreaker; the 2006 spy-action film based on the titular novel by Anthony Horowitz.
For those who are not familiar with the story, Stormbreaker is the first book in the ongoing Alex Rider series and acts as the protagonist’s origin story. It follows his entry into a lucrative world of secrecy and violence as an agent of the MI6 after his uncle’s sudden death. As a young teen I was absolutely obsessed with these books, so you could imagine my excitement (and subsequent disappointment) when I discovered that a film adaptation had been released a few years prior.
I was let down by the filmmakers upon viewing the movie. It was, in my opinion, deeply flawed from start to end. The film wasn’t always faithful to the storyline: they had cut out and changed many scenes, perhaps in order to appeal to a wider American audience. Right from the very beginning, the film and the book open very differently, setting two completely different and conflicting tones. It felt as though it were being set up to be another blockbuster action-packed spy franchise, riding on the coattails of other popular series such as James Bond. However, it was all too much: the excess violence took away the gravity of what 14-year-old Alex Rider was being forced to do, and at times he felt more like a glorified hero than a weapon of the state.
Overall, the film lacked depth ÔÇô the characters were bland and their dialogue boring – I found it quite hard to connect or sympathise with any of them. The romantic subplot ÔÇô which wasn’t present in the novels at all ÔÇô made me feel indifferent to the storyline. It felt like it was introduced as a last-minute afterthought and had no relevance to the film at all ÔÇô when will film creators realise a romance isn’t always needed to tell a great story?
Therefore, it goes without saying the book was lightyears better than the film. The storyline was engaging, the characters felt human and were much more likeable ÔÇô it has a depth that the movie was so deeply missing. To summarise the movie, it was wasted potential, and I can only hope that these mistakes aren’t repeated in potential future adaptations.
By Genevieve Gunn
