Movie adaptations of books: What works and what doesn't?

It seems like almost all movies these days are based on something else. In an earlier post I talked about comic book movies, but they aren't the only source material for Hollywood these days. Lots of Hollywood blockbusters are based on popular novels, especially those of the children and young adult genres. But undoubtedly some of these adaptations are better than others. So what works and what doesn't?

Let's start by looking at perhaps the most famous book series adaptation of all time, and what one could argue was the kickstart of the now extremely popular childrens/young adult book adaptation genre.

Harry Potter by J.K. Rowling

Over 400 Million Copies Sold (7 Books)

 $7,723,431,572 Box Office Gross (8 Films)

Harry Potter is without a doubt a cultural phenomena. Harry Potter is one of the most successful book series of all time, has been sold in over 200 countries, translated in 68 languages and sold over 400 copies. The film adaptations are the highest grossing film series of all time. There are few people who haven't seen a Harry Potter film, and even fewer who have never heard of the character at all. There is even a Harry Potter theme park in Universal Studios, Orlando.   

The films are mostly well reviewed, especially the final installment, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2, which has a 96% positive review rating on Rotten Tomatoes. (And is personally one of my favorite films of all time, but that's besides the point)

So what works about the Harry Potter films? Well for starters there is an extreme respect and seriousness for the source material. It would be easy to make these movies all flash, or even hokey, but there is a great respect for the characters and the world of the books. Yet Harry Potter is easy to respect. It may be a children's series about a boy wizard, but the core of the story is about the casualties of war and dealing with death and loss. 

Not all books are as profound as Harry Potter. When you don't have good source material, it's hard to make a good adaptation. Which brings me unfortunately to my next example. 

Twilight by Stephenie Meyer

Over 100 Million Copies Sold (4 Books)

 $3,345,177,904 Box Office Gross (5 Films) 

Oh god, oh god why. Why did this franchise make so much money? Okay. Alright. I have a confession to make. I have read the Twilight books. Oh god, there I said it. (I was in 7th grade don't judge me.) However, and don't shoot me here, while they are in no way good books they are still 1,000 times better than their movie counterparts. 

The first Twilight movie is literally awful, it's honestly painful to sit through. The script is awful, the acting is awful, the special effects are awful, EVERYTHING about it is awful. To give the filmmakers some credit here, they didn't have much to work with. Unlike Harry Potter, the themes of Twilight involve enteral love on a scarily codependent psychological level. 

Yet still these films were extremely successful. So if quality doesn't matter, what is it that makes people flock to see novel based films? Well, what is it that the Harry Potter and Twilight films have in common?  Not much, but one of the few things both films do is closely follow their source material. Which brings me to my next point.

Percy Jackson and the Olympians by Rick Riordan

Over 20 Million Copies Sold (5 Books)

$430 million Box Office Gross (2 Movies)

Now I personally have not read the Percy Jackson and Olympians series, nor seen the films. I do know however, that fans of the series were widely disappointed with the film adaptations of the novels. The reason for the largely negative reaction from fans being that so much of the plot and events of the books are changed in the films. As a result, while the movies weren't box office disasters they also weren't nearly as successful as the Harry Potter or Twilight films, as they might have had the potential to be.

However, one must note that critics gave the films largely negative reviews as well. The first film currently holds a 49% positivity rating on Rotten Tomatoes, while the second an even lower 41%. So perhaps there is more going on here than simply disappointed fans. 

To continue this point, there are other films that differ from their books source material that still manage to be successful. 

The Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins

Over 65 Million Copies Sold in US (3 Books)

$832,678,739 million Box Office Gross (2 Movies)

The Hunger Games is one of the most successful ongoing film franchises. The series was well received by fans and critics alike, especially the second film Catching Fire which currently holds a 89% positivity rating on Rotten Tomatoes. 

There are certain things about the books that were altered for the films. Yet, unlike Percy Jackson, the fans of the Hunger Games don't seem to mind the changes. Perhaps that is because the elements of the story that were changed were changed because they simply could not work in a two hour film version, and not because of laziness or lack of respect for the source material. 

The Hunger Games films are honestly well made films, and can stand alone from their source material as just good films in general. It remains to be seen if the last two films of the franchise will be as successful as the first two, seeing as they will be based on the final book of the series which was largely the most negatively reviewed of the trilogy. 

So what do you think? What is it that makes a film adaptation of a book successful? Is it more important for the film to be good on it's own, or should it follow it's source material as closely as possible? Or does none of this matter, as there will already be a built in audience who will go to see the film regardless of quality? 

Why comic book movies are dominating the Hollywood Box Office

For those of you who know me, you are probably not at all surprised by the fact that I chose to write my first post on this blog about comic book movies. If you do not know me yet, hello my name is Lindsay Koenig and I am a huge nerd. But according to the Hollywood summer box office, I'm not alone.

This summer Marvel Studios, owned by Disney, released a film based on a little known comic book called Guardians of the Galaxy. This was considered a pretty big risk for the studio because unlike previous films they'd released such as Captain America or Iron Man, Guardians of the Galaxy was not a popular comic book series. Not only this, but Guardians was by far the most "comic book like" of all their previous films; featuring a colorful cast of alien characters such as a talking tree and raccoon. The studio had no way of knowing if this quirky film would make any money at the box office.

But Marvel Studios needn't have worried. The film opened with a whooping 95 million dollars in it's opening weekend. Not only that but it has since made over 251 million dollars and has secured it's place as the top grossing film of the summer and is on track to be the highest grossing film of the year.

Guardians of the Galaxy wasn't the only comic book film to roll in the dough this year, however.
In fact, 4 of the top 10 grossing films of 2014 are comic book movies. Here's a look at some of the other big money makers.

Amazing Spiderman 2

Released May 2, 2014

$202 Million 

X-Men: Days of Future Past

Released May 22

$232 Million

Captain America: The Winter Soldier

Released April 4th

$259 Million 

So what is it about comic book films that makes them so successful? And why are some studio's comic book movies more successful than others?

To figure this out I'm going to start with the most successful studio out of the many currently producing comic book movies: the Disney owned Marvel Studios.

Back in 2008, Marvel Studios released it's first film. Iron Man became the first in what would become one of the most successful film series of all time. Iron Man was a huge hit not only with audiences, but also with critics. Before 2008 (which also featured the success of Warner Brothers comic book flick The Dark Knight) comic book films were looked at as a bit of a joke, or one notes without much depth to them other than actors in spandex fighting bad guys. 

What made Iron Man so unique, and I believe ultimately so successful, is that there is much more to the film than it's action and explosions.

Firstly, the main character of the film is flawed. Tony Stark feels like a real person, not the typical "do-gooder, responsible hero" type character one might except from a children's cartoon series. Because Tony Stark feels like a real person it is easy for the audience to relate to him and become invested in his story. I would argue that Marvel does an excellent job of making all their heroes seem like real people with real flaws, problems, and emotions. It would be easy for a larger than life character like Iron Man or Captain America to slip into something like a caricature, but these films do a great job of grounding their heroes and making them accessible to the audiences.  

Secondly, something that I found hugely important to the success of a film such as Iron Man, is the respect for the source material. While many might find the subject matter to be a bit of a joke, or something silly or goofy (see the Batman films outside of the Dark Knight Trilogy); Marvel Studios has been extremely respectful to it's source material. There is an element of seriousness to Iron Man and the other Marvel films, even when events on screen would seem far fetched in real life. The stakes are real for these characters, which makes it real for the audience. If you don't understand what I'm getting at think about it this way, Iron Man doesn't make "boom" "pow" nosies when he is fighting bad guys, does he?

Thirdly, and what I would argue most importantly, is that Iron Man deals with issues that are relevant to our world and society today. Within the first few minutes of the film our main character is captured by terrorists. Not only this, but Tony Stark's character arc involves him dealing with the fact that his company not only sold weapons to the American Military but also to terrorist groups, and Stark realizing his responsibility for what his company has done. These plot lines hit pretty close to home, especially in a world where terrorism is such a prevalent issue. By tackling such topics, Iron Man becomes more than just a movie about a superhero.

Since Iron Man, many other comic book flicks have tackled important societal and emotional issues. Iron Man 3 dealt with anxiety and post traumatic stress disorder, while Captain America: The Winter Solider had a heavy political subplot about government and power. Even Guardians of the Galaxy, for all it's crazy space shenanigans, contained undertones about loss and dealing with grief. 

Marvel Studios isn't the only studios whose comic book films deal with issues outside of what might be excepted for the average Hollywood action flick. 20th Century Fox's X-Men franchise deals largely with the way society treats minorities, while Warners Brother's Dark Knight films focus on issues such as terrorism and corruption.

These are just a few of the many reasons I believe comic book movies have been so successful in recent years, and why they continue to dominate the box office. I can only open that other genres start to pick up on what makes these films so successful. If every popcorn flick was as good as the average comic book film, Hollywood would be in good shape.