Good and Bad Instances of “Adaptation Expansion”
The Blind Eternities forum
Posted on Oct. 16, 2021, 9:24 a.m. by DemonDragonJ
Usually, when a book is adapted into a movie, material from the book needs to be removed, so that the movie is not excessive in duration, with some prime example of that being the 1939 Wizard of Oz movie or the Harry Potter movies, which excluded numerous subplots from their source material in their famous adaptations.
However, there are occasions in which a movie adaptation of a book needs to add new content that was not present in the source material, most often because the book was very short and did not contain sufficient material for an entire film, so this thread will be to discuss both good and bad instances of "adaptation expansion," to use the term from TV Tropes.
First, I shall provide several instances in which I felt that an expansion of a movie adaptation of a book worked for the better. The original book of Jumanji is extremely short, so a direct adaptation, with no new material, would likely have been only ten to fifteen minutes in duration, so I think that the famous 1995 movie did an excellent job at expanding such a short book into a feature-length film. Similarly, I also really appreciated the expansion of the film adaptation of The House with a Clock in its Walls, because, again, a direct adaptation of the book would have been very short. The new material that was added to the movie felt very natural and organic, as if it belonged, and did not distract from the story in any way.
Also, while it may not be from a movie, Ikkaku’s flashback of when he met Kenpachi in Bleach was only several pages long in the manga, but the animation studio expanded it into an entire episode of the anime, which is one of the few instances ever where I actually appreciated filler in a Japanese animated series. I have mentioned that example, before, but it is such a good example that I felt that I should mention it, here, as well.
Now, however, I shall provide several examples in which I felt that expanding an adaptation of a book was a poor decision and made the movie worse. The Hobbit is a very short book, shorter than any individual installment of Lord of the Rings, yet Peter Jackson and the other filmmakers decided to produce an entire film trilogy from it, with each movie being nearly as long as were the movies of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, which were more than three hours each. The movies felt terribly bloated and overdrawn, dragging out plots that should have been streamlined and succinct and ruining what could have been a cinematic masterpiece. I did appreciate some of the expansion, however; for example, Bard the bowman is a very flat character in the original book, so I am glad that the movies made an effort to give him depth and dimension. Similarly, the dwarves in the original book were severely underdeveloped, as well; apart from Thorin being the leader and Bombur being overweight, they had no significant character traits and were practically interchangeable with each other, so I did appreciate how the movie gave each of them a distinct personality and appearance. However, was it really necessary to have the subplot of the corrupt lord of Laketown being a control freak who oppressed his people? The scene in which Sauron appeared at Dol Guldur was nice, but it was still blatant fanservice and did not contribute to the story. I heard that the filmmakers had originally planned for The Hobbit to be adapted as a duology of films, but it is clear that the studio wished to make more money by adding a third film to the project, which is very unfortunate, because I think that a duology would have been better than a trilogy, in this case.
Other instances of expanding an adaption failing horribly are the various feature-length film adaptations of the novels of Dr. Seuss that have been made in recent years. There is a reason for which his works were adapted as fifteen- to twenty-minute television specials during the 1960’s and 1970’s, with that reason being that the stories were intended for such a short medium; they have very straightforward and simple stories that deliver a message swiftly and succinctly; they are not intended for longer formats, and the recent films clearly demonstrate that by adding great amounts of material that did not originate in Dr. Seuss’s works. I saw both The Grinch with Jim Carrey and The Lorax with Danny DeVito, and neither of those films were anywhere near as good as were the animated specials that I recall from my childhood, due to the amount of additional material that the filmmakers added to the movies.
One other example that I cannot easily place into either category is the recent film adaptation of The Polar Express; the original book is a classic, and I actually enjoyed the film, very much, but some parts of it did feel stretched and drawn-out, so perhaps the book would have been better as a half-hour television special, rather than a feature-length film.
What does everyone else say about this? What are some examples of both good and bad adaptation expansion?
Not quite literature, but a lot movies based on some sort of classical world mythology are poorly made and get the source material completely wrong: Gods of Egypt (Australian man pretends to be Egyptian so he can make out with Australian woman pretending to be Egyptian, helped by Scottish man pretending to Egyptian god, and that's not even getting into the plot), half of everything with Hercules in the title (the Disney animation was pretty good, even when getting its mythology tangled), anything that shows Shiva or Kali as a mindless homicidal maniac...
October 16, 2021 12:14 p.m.
TypicalTimmy says... #4
I would consider The Watchmen film a good version of expansion, because having Dr. Manhattan appear to be the world's greatest threat in order to coax peace among all nations was a lot better than some giant octopus alien.
October 16, 2021 2:50 p.m.
DemonDragonJ says... #5
Caerwyn, The Hobbit was the same as LWW in that the massive battle at the end happened almost entirely off-screen in the book, but the movie showed it in full detail; I wonder if Lewis and Tolkien disliked showing massive battles?
Also, your mention of The Ten Commandments reminds me that the book of Exodus never states that Moses was raised as the pharaoh's son, but nearly every film adaption made after that one keeps that addition. Similarly, the majority of adaptations of The Wizard of Oz show the Wicked Witch of the West with green skin, despite the original book never describing her skin color; that detail originated from the famous 1939 film, which shows how influential it was, and still is.
October 16, 2021 10:25 p.m.
Tolkien avoided a battle scene in the Hobbit because it was a children's book. Besides, he wrote both Helms Deep and Pelennor in fairly graphic detail, so it is fair to say the man did not shy away from the horrors of war.
The battle in the Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe was ultimately not relevant to the story he was trying to tell. LWW is, at its core, about the corruption and redemption of Edmund, and the thematically appropriate moment was Aslan's sacrifice and resurrection at the Stone Table, which occurred simultaneously with the battle. Thus that was the part of the plot Lewis focused on.
I'll note that, though still in the eyes of a children's novel, The Last Battle contains some fairly intense imagery, including Jewel the unicorn impaling enemies with his horn and the deaths of numerous inhabitants of Narnia. In such a case, where the battle was an important part of the plot and thematically necessary for the Revelation-like theme of the novel, he had no issue writing a battle scene.
As for The Ten Commandments, you are neither correct about the film nor Exodus--in both instances, baby Moses is found by the Pharaoh's daughter and raised as if he were the daughter's child (Exodus 2:5-10).
What I think you meant to reference is the relationship between the unnamed Pharaoh of Exodus and Moses being a brotherly relationship. As I noted above, that is not an element of Exodus itself, but formed a central part of the film, and Heston and Brynner make for a rather enjoyable watch, even from a secular point of view.
October 16, 2021 11:47 p.m.
DemonDragonJ says... #7
Caerwyn, I see; thank you for that clarification.
Caerwyn says... #2
The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe (2005), did a rather good job at adapting a relatively quick children's book into a full-length movie. The major addition was the battle at the end, which happens off-camera in the book itself. The film adaptation did an excellent job preserving plot, themes, and characters, making for a delightful little film.
Compare to the Voyage of the Dawn Treader. Dawn Treader is not an easy book to adapt--it is essentially a number of little vignettes with an overarching plot to connect them, but without an overarching antagonist or threat, other than the general and esoteric threat of the unknown. The movie tried to shoehorn in this larger conflict to tie everything together, and lost pretty much all the charm of the novel in the process.
Prince Caspian was kind of a forgettable film (frankly, it is the most forgettable of the novels also). I know it has adaptation expansion, but it was clearly not memorable or egregious enough to make an impression.
Every single example of adaptation expansion in Game of Thrones (and I do not mean when they ran out of source material, since that is not really expansion but creation) was poorly executed. It is clear that Weiss and Benioff are talentless hacks who only succeeded in the early seasons of GoT because George R.R. Martin (who has a background in writing for television) held their hand considerably.
Even in the early seasons, every single deviation from the books was bad--something that should have been seen as a clear red flag for what was to come when the books ran out.
The Ten Commandments (1953) expands greatly on Exodus to cover more of the personal relationships of Moses, particularly between Moses and Pharaoh. It works pretty well, mostly thanks to solid performances from Heston and Brynner.
I am not including films on the above list that completely changed the plot of the underlying source material, since that would constitute both adaptation expansion and contraction simultaneously. Some examples might be Blade Runner (a good example of total change), Troy (a garbage example), The Lost World: Jurassic Park (bad), etc.
October 16, 2021 12:01 p.m.