Do film adaptations ruin your favourite books? For me, yes

I wanted to write a response to this Guardian article I saw. However, I just kept writing and that I actually wanted to write this for my blog.

As we now approach the summer 'blockbuster' film season, the final instalment of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows beckons, feverishly anticipated by millions of fans. Of course, fans of these and other books already know what becomes of their heroes; so why must we anxiously see it on the big screen?

For me, it boils down to a conflict between wanting to see if a director's vision for a book plays out with mine on-screen, and then resignation at how much of the story is cut out from the final edit. For example, my first disappointment in the Harry Potter series came in Alfonso Cauron's The Prisoner of Azkaban when he switched the mysterious gift of a Firebolt broom to the closing scenes. It removed much of the suspenseful build-up to revealing Harry's 'would-be' murderer, and replaced it with a rushed, smug unveiling at the end. Yes, the accompanying Hippogriff feather gave a huge knowing wink to the audience, but it felt like an afterthought; a pretty red ribbon to wrap the film up with. And please don't get me started on Dumbledore's death in Half-Blood Prince.

Another infamous example of 'good book, shame about the film' was Chris Weitz's adaptation of Phillip Pullman's Northern Lights, into The Golden Compass. Hailed as the beginning of a new trilogy akin to the likes of Lord of the Rings, it died a whimpering death, thanks in no small part to the aggressive removal of all Church and God references, at the panicked behest of New Line Cinema, who found themselves at the centre of a right-wing Catholic revolt.

Faced with accusations of atheism from the Vatican and leading God-fearing American children astray, spirituality and the dangers of religious dogma were hacked from the film like Tony Makorios (read the book). In hindsight, perhaps a US company making a film questioning Church authority was doomed to fail. Needless to say, the rest of the trilogy was shelved for the forseeable future.

Another book rumoured for the big screen was Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman's collaboration Good Omens; a comical quasi-parody on the original Omen story. Immediately I envisioned who I wanted to play the two main characters, Aziraphale and Crowley; I had to stop myself. In a film industry where throwing huge bucks at the special effects, cutting the story to suit viewing times, and the inevitable hot potato of release dates to avoid competition with other films, how on earth could it work? Incidentally, I just found out that Good Omens is due to be made into a TV adaptation, as confirmed by Neil Gaiman. Provided they don't cast Liz Hurley, I'm all for it .

Now I am not against all adaptations; we have all seen how comic book adaptations have been successful (well, the male superheroes anyway), but we have seen time and time again how film executives, lawsuits and budgets can dictate the direction of a film. I think it is high time the authors took a stand; of course tweaks have to be made to make it cinematically viable. But they should not allow themselves to be bullied or be dictated by greed into effectively changing their work of art to maximise profits at the box office. Remember who bought the books in the first place.

(Image courtesy of Baylor University)