By Ruth Cawley
It is a fair observation that the Hollywood star lost some of its lustre in favour of indie or more niche stories. The rigid standards upon which Hollywood built its renown have crumbled in a more open, opinionated society. No longer do stories need to be consistent with the majority’s beliefs in terms of religion, politics, or social norms. Television series such as Black Mirror and Game of Thrones demonstrate people are enthralled by morally ambiguous characters and non-definite resolutions to storylines. When adapting such stories to screen, there is room for more creative interpretations from producers and networks. This often leads to one of two outcomes: the adaptation is heralded as the latest serial sensation, or avid fans shake their heads in disappointment at a lacklustre attempt. Despite being one of the most popular genres, fantasy and sci-fi content often bears the brunt of the failed endeavours. Netflix’s The Witcher, Amazon Prime’s Rings of Power and The Dark Tower, and the original Percy Jackson film series all serve as prominent examples of adaptations that fell short of audience expectations.
In contrast, many adaptations have incurred high accolades from audiences and creators alike. Such successes originated from novels like Bridgerton, Good Omens, The Lord of the Rings, and The Queen’s Gambit. With sci-fi and fantasy genres, issues tend to arise due to the inherent complexity of the stories. When such complexities are met with the hubris of Hollywood executives and potentially limited creative resources, this can result in less than stellar reviews from critics and audiences alike. There is a turbulent balance to be struck when adapting such genres into a bingeable, entertaining series. Creators must maintain the integrity of source materials while simultaneously infusing their own creative stamp into the production. This can be tricky when it’s often unclear which boundaries cannot be crossed.
So, what factors cause these sought-after adaptations to fail once they hit the screens? There doesn’t appear to be a one-size-fits-all explanation. Instead, there are a myriad of circumstances during the production or distribution of filming adaptations that cause them to either skyrocket or crash-land into the cinematic space. Fidelity to the source material is typically the main culprit. Shows such as The Witcher experience extreme criticism from audiences due to the changes made in the story development from the novels. Of course, it is expected that directors, producers, and writers of an adaptation will make their own creative decisions and put their own spin on the story. However, fans expect a certain level of commitment to the source material to be reflected onscreen. Andrzej Sapkowski, author The Witcher novel series, confirmed that he doesn’t directly collaborate with the creators of the Netflix adaptation. A former Witcher producer, Beau DeMayo, revealed many of its writers were unfamiliar with the preceding games and books. Limited appreciation and understanding of the source material breeds low morale among writers. It creates an implicit lack of commitment to adapting in favour of creating an entirely new show on the bedrock of pre-published stories. DeMayo remarked, “you have to respect the work before you’re allowed to add to its legacy”. Without avid fans of the books and games making up Netflix’s audience, there would be no legacy to continue.
Alternatively, the executives of adaptations are sometimes gun-shy about controversial parts of stories. This rings true for fantasy adaptations. Phillip Pullman’s trilogy of fantasy novels, His Dark Materials, provoked controversy among Christian communities which accused the series of impressing atheism upon children. Despite this controversy, the novels were extremely popular worldwide. In 2007, New Line Cinema and other production companies allocated a $180 million budget to adapt the first book (Northern Lights) to film with the alternate title of The Golden Compass. Considering that a child sacrifice prominently features in the finale of the first book, Hollywood was understandably concerned about upsetting viewers. However, this key event kickstarts the beginning of the saga’s second instalment and its main storyline. By diluting the film’s end, New Line Cinema stalled their own progress and ceased production after negative feedback of The Golden Compass from fans and critics alike. In contrast, the BBC series His Dark Materials followed the books’ narratives more steadfastly which is likely because it was developed by individuals with deep connections to the source material. The show producers also made admirable use of a longer-form storytelling format. By adapting the series to television, they were able to examine plotlines and characters in greater depth than that of the film counterpart. This proved true for adaptations such as the Disney+ Percy Jackson series.
Regarding the Percy Jackson film series, there are many aspects that incited high criticism from viewers and critics. One of which being the many changes made to the narrative in The Lightning Thief. The films didn’t focus clearly on Percy’s initial disconnect from his demigod powers and diagnoses of ADHD and dyslexia. Such struggles were driving factors of his character development and the overall storyline. Key scenes such as Percy’s battle with Ares were omitted altogether. Reviews were mixed, indicating too much of the plot was changed from the source materials and the characters didn’t share the key traits of their book counterparts. In fact, the films were so poorly received that production ceased after the second instalment of an expected five films. From this research, Hollywood seems to place too much emphasis on what adaptations are supposed to look like on a big screen versus what the stories are truly about. Rick Riordan, author of the book series, was directly involved with the Disney+ development and plasters his support for the show across his social media. Riordan previously expressed disappointment in the adapted film series on his socials and makes a clear effort to distance the Disney+ project from them. On Instagram, Riordan wrote “… if some of you seriously think I’d allow any callbacks to certain movies, you haven’t been paying attention for the last decade. The show is its own thing. And [in my opinion] it’s so much better!”
Listening to audience feedback and learning about the source material appears essential to successfully adapt stories to screen. Sometimes, the current interests of audiences do not align with certain adaptations and thus the timing of their release is poorly calculated. The pandemic was an ideal time for screen releases as unemployment levels increased and outdoor movements restricted. Adaptations like BBC’s Normal People benefitted significantly from audiences having additional leisure time to consume content. Upon speculation, there is no magic formula for Hollywood to create the perfect screen adaptation of our favourite novels and comics. However, there is much to be gained from listening to audience preferences and consulting with the creators of the source material for greater insights. There is no universal reason why Hollywood adaptations fail or simply get a lacklustre response from fanbases. The main reasons are chalked down to lack of knowledge and commitment to the source material, a clash of creative input between producers, or delivering through the wrong format to audiences.
Hollywood blockbusters and adaptations are declining rapidly in quality and creativity. Notable filmmakers have expressed criticism for the large number of revivals or sequels to past successes in the recent years and suggested that the industry is running out of ideas for fresh content. At Cannes Film Festival 2024, George Lucas commented that “…The stories they’re telling are just old movies. ‘Let’s do a sequel, let’s do another version of this movie.’ And it’s not just in movies, but in almost everything, there’s almost no original thinking.” Francis Ford Coppola expressed similar worries that filmmaking is becoming more financially driven: “…more a matter of people being hired to meet their debt obligations because the studios are in great, great debt. And the job is not so much to make good movies, the job is to make sure they pay their debt obligations.” Based on these insights, the film industry lacks the passion it previously had. Rechannelling focuses on creativity and cooperation between producers could alleviate many of these issues, especially regarding adaptations.