OTT & Transmedia : Subject: Adaptation: Why "Betraying" the Book is Necessary? by Nikolay Tsenov

Hey Nikolay, this is Michael from the Stage 32 team. I just wanted to let you know I moved your post from Screenwriting to OTT & Transmedia , as it fits much better there. Let me know if you have any questions, and all the best to you!Also here is an adaptiation thread: https://www.stage32.com/lounge/transmedia/Film-Adaptations-transposing-I...

Michael Dzurak How is a question on script writing better in transmedia???? Transmedia is about merchandising or the idea you can tell different parts of a story in different media. It's not about adaptation or how faithful to a novel a film script should be.

Nikolay Tsenov In adapting a novel to the screen, you need to be aware of the different ways each works in a story. For example people often think that novels are more detailed than a film because in their memories things are so vivid. However, when you reread the most vividly remembered sequences, you find that in fact, little of what is in your mind is in the words; it was all constructed in your own mind. In film, the opposite is true. The entire setting is constructed and instead of recalling all that patent setting, we tend to focus down onto specifics. We experience the story differently. So the intention of the written work isn't necessarily conveyed by a complete or literal adaptation to the screen. You also must deal with the fact that novels are direct author's words into the reader's mind. Film is at least twice removed from that - the image and angle are already chosen, the actor is chosen and the actor makes choices. And of course... time. You have 90 minutes or up to 120 minutes to tell you story on screen. Something has to go, right?

I agree that some changes are necessary for the screen, but often, the film ends up changing the entire essence of the story.

Take the latest "The Count of Monte Cristo" (2024), for example. Having read the book, I noticed that the film deviates significantly from the original plot. It’s one thing to tweak a few scenes for pacing, but it’s another to alter the very soul of the narrative.

To me, changing the theme is crossing the line. If the message of the film totally different than the book, why bother? (The film I’m thinking of is I Am Legend.)

I love this question! Especially when it comes to dense material like Tolkien's work and certain Sci-Fi publications. Staying "loyal" doesn't seem to be utterly necessary, if one can find a way to infer that a thing has occurred or if you're pressed for time constraints on screen run-time. This is one of the things I love best about streaming shows. I can watch the four-hour "extended" version and hit the pause button and have an intermission if I want to watch the whole book. Though I suppose it's all fair game as long as we're not altering the main story line.

Frankly, I had to come up with a book that I wasn't technically able to "betray" in screenwriting. The book is a role-playing game and the fictional story line in the screen material essentially teaches viewers how to play the game to create their own stories.

Shadow Dragu-Mihai "telling one story across different mediums" seems to me to fit adaptation.

Mike Boas What do you think of Stanley Kubrick's The Shining vs Stephen King's book? Faithful in theme? Or same themes presented very differently?

I think there's nothing wrong with giving a story new life through adaptation—in fact, it's often necessary. The problem arises when audiences refuse to divorce themselves from the source material and judge the film for not being something it was never trying to be. A movie isn't a book. It has different rhythms, different constraints, and different emotional tools.

A movie isn't a book, but why shouldn't it follow the book? Isn't a movie made to recreate the book as much as it possibly can? :)

That’s a good question about The Shining, but unfortunately I can’t give an informed answer. Although I like the movie and King’s work in general, that’s one book I couldn’t get through. I remember being inside Jack’s point of view, a recovering alcoholic who regretted breaking his son’s arm, bothered me. I didn’t want to follow him down the dark path of hurting his family.

What do you think? Did the movie keep the book’s theme despite its changes?

Mike Boas I think that the movie version expanded the abuse within the Torrance family from one alcoholic dad to a generational abuse theme where old habit die hard and last through many generations. Hence there are two Gradys (Charles and Delbert), the apparent time travel of Jack to the 1920s (including the party scene), and a host of references to the past and past generations. Also, there's the results of "Manifest Destiny" and the destruction of the indigenous populations of North America.

So Kubrick said the movie is "a famiyl quietly going insane together" and he was right, but he eschewed the film's subtext in order for it to be explored by (meta moment!) later generations. It's a dark, dark film. But I love it for it's subtleties and ambitions.

@Nikolay I don’t consider the many changes needed, to adapt a novel into a film, as actual betrayal per sae. To encapsulate the best possible visuals, from what readers can only imagine on a psychological level, & where possibilities are vast, is more like nurturing. Whole chapters, may have minutes or only seconds worth of screen time. Text maybe riddled with thoughts, feelings & redundant exposition that cannot be used. Plot changes, can suck to fans of the book, which I have felt. Often though, the original structure would not work well on screen, be too expensive to make, or the changes gave way to a new sequence.

There are many things that might make it impossible to stay 100% loyal to the original screenplay: budget, location, time constraints, etc. And some things might be harder to create visually than in writing. - And I definitely would encourage some changes to help the movie match the modern audience.

- One example of what should have been adapted better is Disney's recent "Snow White" disaster. Consider this: "West Side Story" is very heavily based on "Romeo and Juliet" but contains many necessary changes. "Snow White and the Huntsman" took a few bits of the Snow White story and came up with a very different story and it worked nicely. What if Disney had taken the Snow White story and changed it into something like a captive girl (named "Jane the Pure of Heart") escapes from an evil "something", is taken in and befriended by unusual beings in the forest, faces some horrible obstacle, eventually learns she is a princess and in the end leads people to freedom? It starts off kind of Snow White then evolves into a story of a strong woman leader who leads people to victory. It accomplishes the task of taking an old fairy tale and stereotype and turning it into a modern story of empowerment without looking like "Disney bows down to being Woke."

I think this conversation shifts completely once you move into transmedia.

For me, I’m not adapting a story—I’m building an ecosystem around it.

With Pretty Little Lucy, I created a parallel layer that functions more like a true crime lens / ARG than a traditional narrative extension. It doesn’t retell the screenplay. It interacts with the real world.

The audience isn’t just watching the story unfold—they’re encountering fragments of it:

* transcripts appearing across platforms

* “evidence” that feels discovered rather than presented

* behavior patterns that can be analyzed in real time

So instead of asking “How faithful should an adaptation be?”

I’m asking “What happens when the story stops being contained at all?”

At that point, fidelity to source material becomes less important than consistency of psychology and experience.

Each medium isn’t translating the story—it’s participating in it.

Some things don't or won't translate from novel to screen. They are two different art forms. However, deliberately changing something just to change it -- like killing Ellie in 2019's Pet Semetary -- shouldn't be allowed. What did the filmmakers gain by doin that? Nothing. It's also interesting to note that King's novels seem to be the most changed by filmmakers as they move from book to screen. Misery and The Shining being two huge examples. If the day comes that I publish a novel, I'm not sure I want to sell the movie rights. I don't know that I could live through that kind of trauma.

I adapted my Great-Uncle's memoir titled "Bodyguard Unseen" which was published in 1932. It had some moderate success since it was an anti-war memoir similar to "All Quiet on the Western Front" The title of my adaptation is "All Quiet on the Italian Front" since in was about Italian Americans who were recruited to fight for Italy in World War I, this was two years before American joined the war as an ally of Italy in World War I. It has done very well in screenplay contests with four first place awards. I love the fact that his Grand-Nephew wrote this screenplay 90 years after the book was published and 50 years after my Great-Uncle died.

This is a very good question. To me... it is all about alignment. The real question would be... does the book's meaning, essence, and message align with the director, crew, and cast? When it does, it can flow like magic, as if something or some hidden force is guiding them. Like-minded people collaborate and create something amazing. When it does not, the entire book can be twisted into a completely different narrative. Leaving fans of the book disappointed and confused.

I think you have to be true to the "idea" of the source material, which isn't necessarily the same as being true to its exact chronology or every scene. I recently finished and adaptation of couple of short stories I was commissioned to write by a producer who had an option on them. I didn't much care for the source material and was reluctant to take the job but decided to give it a go. The title story was about the late-night delivery of a load of dry ice that goes wrong. Not very exciting, but what I was able to do was take the material and turn it into an allegory about the ICE raids going on around the country, while still maintaining all the story beats and chronology of the primary scenes. In the end, the "theme" of the story was quite different from the author's original intent, but it was the same story, and he was actually quite pleased with it. The second one included an unlikeable lead character, who seemed to have no real motivation for all of the cruel things she was doing. So, once again, the challenge was to try and find a reason why the character felt the need to act out and make the story about that. I had to make a significant change to the relationships between two of the characters, plus a couple of cosmetic changes to the setting but, again, the story's main beats and chronology remained intact. However, I think the lead character now comes across as tragic rather than cruel, so I was quite pleased with that turnaround. Haven't heard back from the material's original author yet, but I'll be quite curious to hear what he has to say.

Henry Fielding's classic mid-18th century novel, "Tom Jones," runs to well over 900 pages of very small print. My first draft of the libretto came out to be 110 single-spaced legal pages of dialogue alone. The current draft is about 100 pages including dialogue, lyrics and stage directions. I've kept the stage directions to a minimum, mostly brief descriptions of the locale of each scene, character entrances and exits. I never indicate what a character is thinking, actions (other than the most general) or how to read a line. That sort of thing is best worked out in rehearsal. Each production, indeed each performance, will be different to the one preceding

My approach to adaptation is staying true to the author's own work in the screenplay. If the narrative strays from the author's writing, then it is no longer an adaptation it becomes an interpretation. IMHO, the work then should become "suggested by". But unless the screenwriter is directing, the reality is that changes will possibly made to the script and unless controlled contractually it is out of the screenwriter's hands.

I'm not adapting anything per se but I am dealing with this exact thing turning two of my old story ideas into screenplays. My novelist habits die incredibly hard so I'm kind of forced to cut a lot of that in order for the story to work as a screenplay (what can I say, I prefer slower, methodical pacing). I'm probably gonna have two canon versions of the same story as a result, one told in novel form which can have all the psychological depth I want, and one told in screenplay form that probably won't hit as hard but nonetheless will be a faster experience for many.

Any sale is better than no sale

Are you making the written word visual? Or, are you making a story that was inspired by that written word? Are you interpreting the written to visual or the themes to visual? Are you making the written word visual because someone said, “I’ll give you $500k to turn this into a movie.” It all makes a difference.

All screenplays are short stories. Putting your novel into a short story, is like slipping a size 10 dress on my size 16 body -- something's got to give! That said, I am currently adapting one of my own novels (The Choice, a novel tackling abortion). It forced me to differentiate between subplots that are essential to plot and subplots that enrich but do not create more suspense or add more questions. On screen, it's always a good idea to reduce the number of people with speaking parts.- -- which is one reason multiple book characters are often merged into one screenplay person. .

I think the amount of license you take while doing an adaptation depends a lot on the type of project that you are doing. Obviously, a documentary about a subject requires strict fidelity to the absolute truth, insofar as the filmmakers can achieve that. Documentarian Ken Burns has built a career out of making films that adhere to extensive research, and entertain as well and educate. And even he has been known to bend the facts a bit in order to make a better story. A dramatic screenplay based upon a novel might give the screenwriter a lot of leeway in order to make the material fit for a motion picture. An example is the adaptation of the Philip K. Dick's novel 'Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?'' which the filmmakers took enormous liberties in creating the movie and rounding out the characters, and it became the incredible sci-fi classic 'Bladerunner'. And I have never known anyone who criticized the reworking of the story for the big screen. Creating a 'factual' dramatic story from historical facts might call for stricter adhesion to the facts. In writing a screenplay based on source material about the terrorist bombing of the Los Angeles Times building in 1910 I have found myself combining minor characters and allowing to places and a lot of liberties on relatively minor dates and locations in order to tell the story -- the principal people and events and the causes leading up the bombing,, the nationwide manhunt to apprehend the culprits and the so-called 'trial of the century' that resulted from it. As always, the story is the thing. As an old professor told us back in film school many years ago, the difference between documentary and drama is, documentary gives us the facts; drama allows us to explore the truth. As Mark Twain notably said, 'Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.' (and it is even questionable whether Twain actually said that, but it makes for a good story.)

In writing a script for a true WWII story, I heard too many times I have to change the story and fictionalize it or it is a documentary. Ha! This is such an amazing true story that fiction could not make it better!! I even have dialogue in books to use. I intend to keep it as true to the story as possible!! I have to make scenes which may not be quite chronologically correct but fit better in a spot to tell the authentic story.

A book Deadly Dancers was written about me and my parters who founded Chippendales.The hulu show changed timelines,and claimed it was inspired by true events.We were unhappy as when they opted the book we never imagined theyd ignore it and our documentary on hbo max curse of chippendales.very disappointed

With collaborative synchrony, a good adaptation will never betray the original source content. With exquisite alchemy, It will communicate the heart, soul and truth, from one format to another, whatever the subsequent structure and time limits. Like wine poured into a crystal goblet or a shot glass, it will be the same wine. Emotions do not get lost in good translations and multicultural adaptations. Books can be beautifully transformed into movies or series. With respect to length restrictions, note how a good trailer captures the essence of a good movie. Just like you would never betray a good friend, never betray the creators and fans of original creations.

Hello Nikolay and Hello to stage32 community,

Personally, I think the issue isn’t whether you stay 100% faithful, but what you choose to be faithful to. A film isn’t a book: the language changes, the timing changes, and the way emotions are conveyed is different. Being too faithful can actually become a limitation, because you risk bringing to the screen something that only works on the page.

The real boundary, for me, is respecting the soul of the story: its themes, characters, and deeper meaning. If you change an event—like in Pet Sematary (2019)—but the core meaning remains consistent, then it can work. But if those changes end up betraying what the story was really about, then yes, that becomes a mistake.

So no, total faithfulness isn’t always the best choice. Sometimes you need the courage to adapt, not just copy.

A few years ago, I wrote and did some filming for my book Assumptions. Let me tell you, the changes that needed to be made were so necessary. In fact. I'm rewriting the complete series because there were other storylines that didn't involve the 2 MCs that needed to be told. I think overall the structure of the story, especially with the MCs stayed the same, but so much changed with the secondaries.

I think the most challenging thing to adapting a book is most books would make a four to five hour movie if you didn't cut something out. If you are shooting for a two hour movie you need to eliminate irelevant characters and eliminate some scenes. One of my favorite adaptation was done by Stephen Gelller for "Slaughterhouse-Five," which was directed by George Roy Hill. The film was produced 54 years ago in 1972 and it still holds up. I love Valerie Perrine as Montanta Wildhack.

I think the word "adaptation" is doubly misleading. On one hand, it takes for granted that there's this thing called "adaptation" — some kind of magic process that turns water into juice (or juice into water, same difference). And that whatever comes out the other end somehow, magically again, carries "a version" of the original.

The second misleading thing is that it assumes all literary works can be "processed" or adapted the same way, but in my experience, literary works — like types of cancer — are very different animals and may require very different methodological treatments. In other words, trying to be 100% faithful isn't a mistake — it's an impossible illusion.

Here's the thing, though: adaptation doesn't just exist, it's popular. It's what we do every time we read a favorite author's book, embodying their narrative stream of consciousness with the resources of our own life and culture. Reading means taking the original work apart down to its most basic components and building something new — something that, lacking the social concreteness of a film image, can never really be validated beyond the superficial.

Now, adapting for the screen — which is where we operate — is, I think, a perverse form of literary reading, where what you imagine gets frozen by the camera and broadcast to millions. All those infinite interpretive possibilities and nuances of meaning, like quantum fluctuations, collapse under the adapter's eye into a single version and point of view, which may end up resembling the novel closely — in character types, psychology, relationships, narrative structure — or not!

True. No producer is going to put up money so we can turn DUNE or Harry Potter or The Lord of the Rings or Game of Thrones into something that — even if it has the same basic components and the same dramatic resolution — disappoints millions of fans. That's the producer's limit to set. But as writers, at least while the process lasts, we need to feel free to explore in every direction and to the very end, even if Don Quixote ends up as a cop one month from retirement and Sancho is the delivery guy who brings him pizza on his night shifts.

My oddessy might be considered a strange one. I wrote a unique story and published it as a novel. Reader reviews were good,, but the adapted screenplay turned out to be superior in several ways. Structuring the work for the screen made me rethink how important beats and their placement are to the story. While I was faithful to the story and the characters, writing the screenplay made me realize the narrative needed tweaking. Now, I'm considering republishing the work as a beat-driven novella based on the screenplay.

I adapted one of Frank Herbert's novels to the screen, but even with a well-known author's name behind a work it often does not get made. I am presently adapting a franchise series of scripts to a video game format. We feel that the video games, if they catch on, will help build our audience and also the players will let us know what scenes and situations work and which fall flat. In other words, the players will help us rewrite the screenplays before production.

There are numerous potential adaptation categories, so I don’t think that there is just one answer to the question you raise. I can only respond in the context of my film script "Because of You" which is based on a true story. It tells the story of a heroic American officer in WW II who falls in love with a capable and charming English women who is an officer in in the British ATS. I wrote the script after learning of the existence of letters detailing their secret love relationship that were hidden away in the attic of a family member for nearly eight decades. After being given access to these letters, I researched their military records and found the basis for an intriguing narrative to frame their personal love story. He is tragically KIA in Germany while trying to save a German woman with two small children wander into the line of fire.

My guideline for telling their story was to stay faithful to what I found in their letters, in their military records, and in letters written by men who served with him. His D-Day After Action Report provides enough details for several scripts. For example, it includes never before published information on his role in finding a way off Omaha Beach through a German minefield. Her military records are equally revealing. They document a failed first marriage that eventually complicates and challenges their relationship. Her records also indicate that after her fiancé’s death and the end of the war she is recruited by SOE (Special Operations Executive) to be a covert operative in the Cold War in Eastern Europe.

I adapted three of my published books into screenplays. Yes, I had to cut off certain parts of the novels to make them into screenplays, because they would have exceeded the number of pages for standard features. However, the main story in each one was maintained.

Being a 100% faithful is impossible. In a novel, you can be more detailed and talk about the rain for a couple of paragraphs. In the script, you can't do that. Also, a minor character might not be included in the screenplay if they don't advance the plot. I use Game of Thrones as an example of how to give each character their arc. There are too many, and they can slow the story down. The book is always better than the movie, in my opinion.

I've done an adaptation for biopics and couldn't possibly fathom misleading or omitting and material facts. Take that for what it means.

Hello Nikolay Tsenov, I think adjustments can work well if they help connect with the audience the adaptation is targeting, especially when it improves visual storytelling and pacing, and I do see dialogue changes as still part of the adaptation. At the same time, if too many core elements shift, it starts to move away from being an adaptation and becomes something different.

Thank you for your Lounge question. You have lots of great opinions here by people who have experience with adaptations. I have never adapted a novel, although I would like to someday. It depends on what you want to emphasize about this story, your timeframe and what will work on the screen. It will inevitably be different than the book. You want viewers to go away from it saying: I like the movie version better, because for an 90 minutes, I was entertained and engaged.

If we're talking a complete work of fiction, then inevitably things will need to change from book to screen.

I've adapted my first novel to screen. It's not straight forward, but it is certainly possible. The biggest challenge is understanding what each type of audience needs. In the script I've added scenes or details that are explained through narration in the book.

I may be one of two on here telling a true WWII story. Keeping a true story authentic is not like adapting fiction at all. I have seen true stories so ruined in film and then the world audience believes the false narrative as truth. I'm sure it hurts a novelist to see their idea totally changed in film, but we owe it to history to not remake history.

This is FALSE! Betraying spurce material is the fastest way to lose your fan base! The only reason why producers change from source materuial.is because they care about inclusion and DEI. Henry Carvil is a HERO by demanding Warhammer 40k tv show stays 100% with source material. When release the show will gross far more than the last 5 star wars and star trek series combined! I am an author I can't tell you how many producers I threw out of my office because they wanted to make radical changes that would piss off my fan base!

To illustrate my commitment to my books, universe and fan base, I have turned down to date $2.5million in deals because the producer wanted to change my story too much, I would rather stay poor and keep the trust of my fans, than be rich and betray my fanbase!

This can be very touchy subject for the writer who created the story, the director who felt the the need to shape its vision the way they felt it should be to the studio worried about ensuring ideally a 4 quadrant outcome to earn at a profit the money spent to bring the refreshed story to market. I have seen films that enhanced the story and it seemed the author and studio were on the same page_Summer Eliot's Careful He Might You- book enhanced the film and film enhanced the book which is exceedingly rare.

Wuthering Heights the latest reiteration had only the characters and the barest of the barest plot in play.

As a writer of short stories if I ever sold it to a studio for adaptation I'd aspire to John Irving's advice when he said something to the effect of of "It's somebody' else's baby" making it easier to relinquish control.

Readers of a writers work expect something akin to what they visualize while they read.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but fundamentally changing the entire narrative of a book when adapting it for the screen—starting from the core essence of the main characters and ending with a completely different finale—just doesn't sit right with me.

Pet Sematary already had a very faithful adaptation in 1990 that was written by Stephen King himself after he was, among others, disappointed with Stanley Kubrick's adaptation of The Shining. King even wrote his own screenplay that was then a 1997 miniseries.

So, Pet Sematary was done faithfully once, then the next version took liberties, but did something new. With The Shining, it was the first version that took liberties, so a more faithful to the source adaptation followed.

A third take on either now seems unlikely.

If someone decides to adapt a book into a film, it should follow that the path to financial prosperity lies in staying true to the book's actual story, rather than inventing a different screenplay. I cannot understand why a studio would take a book loved by many—with a guaranteed future audience—only to suddenly change the story. It makes no sense to discard the very foundation that made the material successful in the first place.

Hello Grace,

I completely agree with you—you summed it up very well. One of my novels in Turkey was adapted into a film, and when I watched it, I was honestly shocked. Only about 20% of my original story remained. Characters who were single in the novel were married in the film, and so on. In other words, not only was the structure of the story changed, but the core theme it was trying to convey was completely different. I couldn’t proudly say to anyone, “This film is based on my novel.”

That said, I also realized that some of the changes actually made sense in cinematic language—they needed to be that way. So, as you said, it’s not necessary to stay 100% faithful to the novel, as long as the changes don’t damage the backbone of the story and instead elevate the work to a higher level.

Personally, I wouldn't mind those changes as long as the main point/theme of the adaptation is similar to the original one.

If you think about it, there have been many great movies in which the main story was quite different from the original story. A great example for me is The Death of the Sacred Dear.

Lanthimos used the story of Agamemnon and Ifigenia for his movie, but in the end the father killed his son, not his daughter to save his family. I thought the symbolisms were still clear, regardless of the storyline presented at the big screen.

I'm also keen on adapting stories from Ancient Greece, and presenting them in today's world with some changes. That's why I believe that adaptations don't have to follow the original story to the letter.

Nikolay Tsenov I think “faithful” and “effective” are not always the same thing in adaptation.

A book and a film are different storytelling languages, so sometimes changes aren’t betrayal they’re translation. What works in a novel (internal monologue, layered detail, slow pacing) often needs to be reshaped to work visually and structurally on screen.

That said, I don’t think anything should be changed just for shock value or convenience. The core emotional truth and themes should stay intact, even if plot points shift.

So for me, it’s less about being 100% faithful and more about being faithful to the spirit of the story.

I don't like to change the narrative of the book. If I really don't like it, I don't make a movie out of it. I write the book that I like.

Stories can and will change. I can accept some deviation from strict adherance, as long as the main IP concept isn't lost.

My favorite adaptations honestly are the most creative ones, i.e. ones that draw completely outside the lines. I'm thinking "Clueless" (Emma/Jane Austen) or "Apocalypse Now" (Heart of Darkness/Joseph Conrad). I find it more intriguing. "Anyone But You" (Much Ado About Nothing/Shakespeare) is another more recent one.

I think this is different than writing a biopic, where there's some responsibility to the person being written about. Although true stories aren't really "adaptations" in the same way.

Nikolay Tsenov "I cannot understand why a studio would take a book loved by many—with a guaranteed future audience—only to suddenly change the story" Or do the same to an existing cannon! For instance. every incarnation of The Doctor (Dr. Who) the Dr.'s been arrogant but likeable, and involved with problems impossible for humans - not with situations we've been muddling through. I stopped watching Dr. Who not because they had a lady doctor (Lady Master worked quite well), but because of the forced woke story lines. Changing a stories tone and prime plot is bait and switch, and is done because the writer/director/producer/??? knows the story they want to tell will not sell, so they sugar-coat it with a story that does sell. Ug-g-g-g-g!

I wish all successful novelist had the clout that made the Harry Potter movies so wonderfully Harry Potteresque.

I think I'd also add, as long as my story's message isn't compromised, or totally wiped out to meaning something else, then I'm probably okay with some tweaking.

@kadir Ersoy

I don’t think the issue is “betraying” the book—it's understanding what actually needs to be preserved.

Total fidelity is often a trap. A novel lives in the reader’s imagination, while a film has to translate everything into images, time, and performance. What works beautifully on the page can feel slow or ineffective on screen.

For me, the line is simple: you can change plot points, structure, even characters—but you can’t lose the core. Theme, emotional truth, and character essence are non-negotiable.

Take Pet Sematary (2019)—changing who dies is a bold move, but it only works if the story is still about grief, denial, and the consequences of not letting go. If that core shifts, then it’s no longer an adaptation—it’s a different story using the same title.

So no, being 100% faithful isn’t the goal. Clarity is. Impact is. Truth is.

A good adaptation doesn’t copy the book—it understands it.

"Ghost World" is a great example of how an adaptation improved the original material (graphic novel) in making what I consider an almost perfect film. Working with the author, director Zwigoff wrote a remarkable adaptation and directed a compelling film. "Ghost World" is 25 years old this summer. It is hard to believe Thora Birch is now in her forties. I think Steve Buscemi is the only person in the world who could have played Seymour.

I see a completed screenplay as a starting point. Everyone involved in making it into a movie will have their own perception of the script and each will have input on how it plays out.

Book adaptions are rarely a deliberate massacre of the writer’s voice, even if fans are disappointed by the film. There are so many new factors to consider, & film producers may even reject a best selling book. Novels can be a mind blowing psychological journey for the reader, but the film crew must break it down by visual action & unique dialogue. Thoughts, feelings & exposition that embody text, cannot be transferred to screen. Often the emotional journey/universal theme in a novel remains, but location & plot structure alter. EG Private plane that would cost a million on screen, is replaced by a local park, for mere hundreds. Antagonist kills their victims in a different way, EG Gun laws in UK means police permission for even fake guns that don’t fire shots, & licence fee for real ones. So Jane Doe dies by poison in film. Production houses are now hiring more script readers, to look for their specific remits, with regard to book adaptions.

Debbie Croysdale I understand what you are saying, however, to use my own experiences. I have has producers tell me that want to make male characters female, and female characters male. I told them NO! and I rejected their offer, then I had one producer complain about representation! My series is a military series there is no representation EVERYONE IS GREEN! EVERYONE KILLS! That is what my fan base loves! So, I turned down that deal! Producers care more about DEI and Inclusion BS than keeping with the purity/spirit of the book. Case in Point Amazon/MGM with Henry Cavill; Henry is my hero! He put his foot down and said THERE ARE NO FEMALE SPACE MARINES!! Even though Producers in MGM and Amazon was afraid they we turn away female viewers. That just illustrates how little they know the fan base I know 100 of woman who play W40K! And they have no problem with male only space marines because the universes has the Sisters of Battle! So, as I do understand what you are saying I have to disagree because in my own experiences and Henry Caville's producers don't care about source material!

@Alexander I find some producers & filmmakers do care about the source material, but I never dismissed that many do not care. I agree with you that many producers want to change/modify, often in a crass or damaging way. Also some studio franchises want only more of the same, built in audience & guaranteed sell. However films like The Godfather 1972, Shawshank Redemption 1994, Silence of the Lambs 1991 & many more recent films are faithful to original artist’s work.

there can be pros & cons with add-ons in a movie. it can betray the actual author's trajectory of their book overview & intended outcomes could lose it's essence. however; if a director does this and it causes the book sales to spike in doing so that may be a good advantage for the author in the long run.. we all have differing interpretations of viewing and comprehending & by adding extras/additional content or straying a bit from the authentic storyline may distort the real version or break viewers perception of the author if it is misconstrued. what must be done is for the scriptwriter and director have the author read the manuscript entirely to ensure they are 100% ok with what will be relayed (added or removed) from the original storyline. this ensures that if there is any negative impact in book sales or it is critiqued after viewing the movie the author would have been aware of the script content prior.

Not even Shakespeare, Oscar Wilde and Noel Coward are safe from "adaptation." A couple of decades ago, one director set out to "improve upon" their classic scripts. For some bizarre reason, "A Midsummer Night's Dream" was relocated from Ancient Greece to late 19th century Italy and a whole backstory was created for the character of Nick Bottom, placing him in an unhappy marriage. When it came to the Wilde and Coward plays, the adaptations were quite frankly vulgar!

The Catch-22 adaptation has aged well, a lot of other adapatations not so well...

Yes.

Debbie Croysdale Really well put. I think the biggest shift in adaptation is moving from internal experience to external expression. What works on the page often has to be reimagined visually rather than translated directly.

And like you mentioned, practical constraints (budget, location, regulations) quietly shape storytelling more than audiences realize. It becomes less about “faithfulness” and more about capturing the core emotional truth in a different medium.

The HouseMaid- changed the ending from the book. That said, it was still was an amazing story. I actually loved how they adapted the book to movie.

I think Sherlock Holmes has suffered enough and should be given a decent and permanent burial.

Hi, I've adapted three novels (two best sellers) to screenplays: Into the Beautiful North by Luis Urrea, In the Shadow of the Angel by Kathryn Blair and Zapatista by Peter Ross. They all went smoothly. However my biggest concern was losing options and producers switching gears on me and wanting to produce a limited series and I didn't have the TV or Streaming rights. One author increased the option amount when the option ran out and I was very close to getting it produced. Another author wouldn't extend the option, again very close to getting it produced. Both novels ended up never being produced. Hoping the "third time's a charm" with mystery -thriller, Zapatista. It's a tough game. However I love adapting novels and I'm pretty good at it.