Almost one year ago the “Percy Jackson” TV series premiered on Disney plus. The show was met with mixed reactions. Long-time and die-hard fans were incredibly happy to see their favorite series, almost 20-years-old, finally on the big screen.
Other fans were still excited about the prospect of seeing their favorite series on the big screen but were dissatisfied with some parts of the series. They felt as if the author, Rick Riordan, was straying from the source material and instead choosing to rewrite parts with experiences he now has.
This ignited debate between the two groups about the purpose of an adaptation. The latter group chose a more purist stance, stating that the show should be as close to the book as possible. The former group argued that there was no point in the show if it was just a translation of the book.
Now, the debate has been reignited over the topic for a different franchise: “How to Train Your Dragon.”
Videos have popped up online comparing scenes from the trailer with scenes from the original animated movie and fans have noticed something peculiar: it seems many parts of the movie have been shot scene for scene, frame for frame, and are perfect replicas of the animated movie.
This might have been an attempt to avoid criticism facing remakes and adaptations like the “Percy Jackson” TV show, and it backfired horribly.
An important thing to note before going any further, when it comes to book-to-movie adaptations, is that screenwriting and writing a novel are two different forms of writing, as obvious as that may seem.
The mediums come down to how things are communicated to the reader or viewer. With writing a novel an author can easily insert you in the character’s minds through first person narration. In film, the viewer is stuck in third person, unless the creative decision is made to include an internal monologue in the form of a voice-over.
This is a delicate decision as the voice-over can quickly become tacky and is most often seen in kids and young adult movies.
Additionally, when constructing a scene, an author has absolute control over the image they create and what the reader sees as well as understands. When working on a huge project like a production, the writers are relying on production and crew to create the scene, as well as the director who likely has their own vision.
It’s for these reasons among others that many novelists find it difficult to take on screenwriting when the opportunity is presented.
This was a leading criticism against Riordan last winter. Despite having no experience screenwriting, he was responsible for co-writing the pilot and the series bible, a reference document used by screenwriters for information on characters, settings and other elements.
Fans felt as though he lacked experience with the medium as a whole and that he was making changes to the series based on criticisms received over the years.
It’s important to note that a similar issue exists within translating a film from animated to live-action.
Some things that work in an animated film just simply don’t have the same effect live-action. “Spiderman: Across the Spider-Verse” released last summer and a primary reason it was so popular was because the animation was stunning.
“How to Train Your Dragon,” a whimsy fantasy movie, used the medium of animation as a careful stylistic choice. It drew the viewers into the make-believe world and allowed for a sense of escapism.
Live-action, on the other hand, grounds a story in realism. Since the heart of the story lies in the gravity-defying movements presented in the animation, fans worry about the meaning getting lost in the translation.
This brings us back to the central issue: should adaptations illustrate the source material directly or allow for creative freedom? Should they be a replication or reinterpretation of the original?
The answer to the question lies somewhere in the middle. Take Peter Jackson’s “Lord of the Rings” trilogy. It made significant changes to what the books originally presented, however, it has still been praised for remaining faithful to the heart of Tolkein’s work.
Production will inevitably have to make changes in order for the adaptation to work on screen, but these changes should be made with careful consideration about the meaning of the work.
