Many different stories have been adapted over the years, with varying results. graphic by Cora Grabel
Why does it seem as though live-action is viewed as the best medium for a story?
In about a month, the TV adaptation of one of my favorite book series, The Murderbot Diaries by Martha Wells, is coming out on Apple TV+. This adaptation has been in the works for years, and now that it’s finally here, I’m beyond excited. Wells’ series has had a massive effect on me, and I’ve never felt more seen by a character than by Murderbot. At the same time, I’m incredibly nervous.
There’s a reason why Wells first wrote this story as a book. The trailer for the series came out a few weeks ago, and while I enjoyed it (I thought the set design especially was great), there were some things I’m hesitant about. What makes the book so good is the witty and dry commentary from the main character. This comes from the internal monologue on the main character, something that is notoriously hard to pull off in film. In the trailer, it seemed as though the main character would get sections of voiceover to try to emulate the narration from the books, but I know it won’t be the same.
It often feels as if the sentiment around live-action adaptations is that they are the best thing that can happen for a book, video game, or animated movie. But if this adaptation removes or vastly changes one of the best aspects about the book, what’s the point of it? Why should I care when I know that the best version of this story was already created?
Maybe adaptations are beneficial because it’s more likely that people will watch a two-hour-long movie or eight or ten episodes of a series than a 500 plus page book. However, this doesn’t make sense for the upcoming Murderbot adaptation. To my knowledge, the first ten-episode season only covers the events of the first book, All Systems Red. This book is a novella, only 144 pages long. The audiobook for it is around three hours long. In this case, it’s actually much less of a time commitment to read the book than to watch the show. In other situations, though, watching a movie or a show takes much less time than reading a book. The most recent Dune movies are long, clocking in at just under a combined five and a half hours. The book is 658 pages, and the audiobook is around 21 hours long. For someone who doesn’t read that often, watching two movies will probably seem much more appealing than reading this time consuming book.
In addition, adaptations certainly encourage more people to read or watch the source material. According to BookNet Canada, sales of Dune increased by 80% after the release of the first movie in October 2021. As a personal example, I watched the first season of Silo on AppleTV+ in 2023. At first, I didn’t know it was based on a book series, but I ended up reading and enjoying all three books. This is a bit out of the ordinary for me—I usually try to read the source material before watching an adaptation—but it is quite common for people to be first exposed to various stories through their adaptations. However, the goal of adaptations isn’t to increase sales of the source material. If studios even think about the ways that an adaptation helps the original creator, they’re seeing those benefits as a nice bonus—good for the author, but not really relevant to the studios if the adaptation is successful on its own. The individual creators of adaptations might have the best of intentions, they might be passionate fans of the source material who want to share something that has brought them joy to a wider audience, but the studios and corporations behind them adapt things they think will make themselves money.
The issue is that not every story translates to live-action well. There are certain things authors can do in a book that adaptations struggle with, but modern adaptations seem to try to be as authentic and faithful to the source material as possible. Adaptations that are seen as very faithful are praised, and those that are not are often criticized. Most of the criticism probably comes from fans who are upset that the adaptation doesn’t look exactly like what they’ve pictured in their heads, but not delivering on what was promised is an issue for any story. In the case of adaptations, this means presenting and marketing a movie or show as a direct adaptation of the source material then drastically changing certain plot points, characters, or even themes. Again, there are certain things that live-action just cannot do.
This doesn’t only apply to book-to-movie (or show) adaptations, it also comes into play with animated movies or shows being turned into live-action. Take the recent spate of live-action adaptations of classic Disney animated movies. The original animated versions are full of charm and visually appealing in a way that only works with 2D animation. To be fair, I haven’t actually watched all of these adaptations—I quit after watching the live-action version of The Lion King (which was, in my opinion, not actually live-action) because I didn’t want to keep watching sub-par versions of movies I enjoyed. What was the point? Animation is a valid medium, and can even enhance the story in a way that live-action can’t. I watched the first season of Arcane in 2021, and I remember seeing some sentiment about how some people wanted a live-action version. I did not understand that view at all. The gorgeous animation was one of the main reasons I loved that first season so much. The visuals couldn’t have nearly the same effect in live-action.
However, adapting a piece of media used to have less restrictions on it. Many Shakespeare plays or Jane Austen books that have been loosely adapted in movies that share general similarities with the source material but often make substantial changes. Viewers of the movie might not immediately recognize that what they’re watching is an adaptation of a classic work of literature. For example, 10 Things I Hate About You is a reimagining of Shakespeare’s The Taming of the Shrew, and Clueless is loosely based on Austen’s Emma. This style of adaptation seemed especially prevalent in the 90s and early 2000s, but seems to have fallen out of favor in the last decade. Now, it feels as if certain adaptations are afraid to take risks to avoid controversy and backlash. If we’re only watching adaptations to see a rehash of a story that will never be better than the original, what’s the point? What purpose do adaptations actually serve?
I don’t really have an answer. I don’t think that any story needs an adaptation, but they can certainly be enjoyable to watch. Maybe I’d enjoy adaptations more if they were willing to take risks, to deviate from the source material and present new ideas. A good part of the reason I’m excited for the adaptation of The Murderbot Diaries is to see another version of this story and how it’s translated to a new medium. At the same time, I know I’m going to be annoyed if the show changes any aspects of the book that I think are crucial, and every fan is likely going to feel the same way about slightly different parts. What I’m going to try to do is accept the show as it is and try not to let any of my biases and preferences for the books interfere with my enjoyment of the adaptation. After all, the show can’t make me love the books any less.
