Do film adaptations give justice to the novel?

Personally, I'm sort of a thrill seeker when it comes to picking out my books and my favorite authors are Stephen King and James Patterson. They definitely are the masters of creating that detailed, spine tingling scenario in your head and you're eventually drawn into that roller coaster ride till the end. Your mind does the work and the imagery or situations described in the novel is different for every reader when it comes to interpretation. But that's really the exciting part.

And taking it a step further, this burdensome task then lies in the creative hands of some Hollywood producer who's just bought the rights to that bestseller of a book. So the big budget's there, you've got scriptwriters-check, the director and a potential all star cast. After blood, sweat & tears of filming, you've got the result. The end product.

Does it live up to the book? Or did these fellas have something in mind?

Some comparisons

J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter novels are definitely a cult classic and has developed a huge fan base globally, with all the magical wizardry and witchcraft that keep you glued page after page, leaving hardly any room for dull moments. Yet, when it comes to the big screen version, despite the spectacular visual effects and Daniel Radcliffe taking on the lead role, avid readers can testify to the fact that there is a lacking of sorts, like particular areas of the book that are not included especially in the recent film adaptation, The half blood prince. However, the fourth installment The Goblet of Fire which was translated into film in 2005, proved to be the most faithful to the novel and even bagged a BAFTA award for best production design and nominated for best art direction.

Another popular household name, The Lord of The Rings captivated movie audiences all over the world with mind boggling, state of the art visuals, under the impressive craftsmanship of Peter Jackson. The film received rave reviews from fans and critics and even earned itself four academy awards and five BAFTA's including best film and best director. Okay, but how does it compare to Tolkien's original version in the book?
While the big screen adaptation proved to be a global hit, it wasn't actually a faithful representation, according to most novel enthusiasts. Readers were quite disappointed when certain material in the book were deleted and new material added that were not created by the writer. Among such changes was the battle in the Shire at the end of the last book which was not included in the movie. And the list goes on and on. Nevertheless, this doesn't seem to bother crazed moviegoers one bit.

Schindler's List, based on the novel by Thomas Keneally which was originally entitled Schindler's Ark, was one of the exceptions of successful big screen adaptation, thanks to the renowned brilliance of Steven Spielberg. The story focuses on a Nazi party leader named Schindler, portrayed by Liam Neeson, who risks his own life to save 1,200 Jews from concentration camps. The film won seven academy awards including best picture.

Conclusion

While paperback die hard citizens are mainly concerned with the accuracy and loyalty when translated onto film and most of them agree that ninety five percent of the time books are far better, movies and books are very different entities. Films leave little room to viewers imagination while novels allow the reader to create their own movies themselves. How the characters speak, their appearance and what the surroundings are like. So if you've seen the movie and haven't read the book, i suggest you do. And readers like me, let's not expand our expectations when the movie's out and put ourselves in the filmmaker's point of view.