Breakdown - Book Adaptations: Movies vs. Television

           Hey guys, Chuck here. Well, it's recently been announced that Warner Bros. is producing a streaming series based on the Harry Potter books by J.K. Rowling, and it will be released on their platform Max (the rebranded HBO Max). And, it's also been announced that, for some reason, Stephanie Meyer's novel series Twilight is also getting series adaptation for a currently unknown network/streaming platform. This, on top of already announced adaptations of Rick Riordan's Percy Jackson and the Olympians, Tony DiTerlizzi and Holly Black's The Spiderwick Chronicles, Christopher Paolini's The Inheritance Cycle, and R.L. Stein's Goosebumps, all coming to Disney+, as well as C.S. Lewis' The Chronicles of Narnia, which is being produced for Netflix. 

         Okay, we're all seeing a pattern here. Yes, studios are now taking book series and adapting them for television instead of film. And for some, including Percy Jackson, The Inheritance Cycle, and The Spiderwick Chronicles, that makes sense. Now, Percy Jackson was previously adapted for film, but that film series ended after two movies, neither of which were particularly successful. And both The Inheritance Cycle and The Spiderwick Chronicles only had a single film with 2006's Eragon and 2008's The Spiderwick Chronicles, respectively. Narnia had three films based on the books, and Goosebumps has been adapted for both film and television before. 

        Now, where did this trend come from, and what started it? Well, believe it or not, there were two television series, one for Freeform and the other for Netflix, that ultimately were the examples of how television can work better for certain books than film can. On Freeform, there was the series Shadowhunters, which was based on the book series The Mortal Instruments by Cassandra Clare. The first book in that series, City of Bones, was adapted to film in 2013, and it was a complete failure. The series, however, ran for three seasons, and was more successful with an audience. Likewise, A Series of Unfortunate Events by Lemony Snicket was adapted for film in 2004, and was moderately well received by critics and viewers, but the Netflix series adaptation in 2017 was much more successful and much more popular. Also, the book series His Dark Materials by Philip Pullman was adapted into a three-season television series for BBC/HBO, and was more successful than a 2007 film adaptation of the first book, The Golden Compass. 

         So, I think it's safe to say that, when only one or two movies are made based on a book series and don't do too well with critics or audiences, a television adaptation is probably a better option. So, while stuff like Percy Jackson, The Inheritance Cycle, and The Spiderwick Chronicles make sense for streaming television, what about Harry Potter and Twilight? After all, both book series launched highly profitable film series adaptations. Collectively, the eight Harry Potter films have grossed $7.7 billion at the worldwide box office, and the five Twilight films grossed $3.4 billion at the worldwide box office. So, why re-adapt them for television? 

        In truth, there is a reason that, flimsy and stupid as it is, honestly makes sense from a certain point of view. And that is this: including material cut out of the previous adaptation. Now, as much as I love the Harry Potter movies, I will admit that there was a lot cut out from the films. For example, Peeves the Poltergeist is a major character in the books as one of the resident ghosts of Hogwarts, and he wasn't in any of the films. I believe that, according to Chris Columbus, Peeves was intended to appear in the first film, and was to be portrayed by Drop Dead Fred star Rik Mayall, but all of his scenes were abandoned on the cutting room floor. Also, in the fourth film, schools Beauxbatons and Durmstrang were represented, respectively, by all girls and all boys, in spite of the book showing both schools to be co-ed like Hogwarts, Hell, Durmstrang was, in fact, founded by a woman. So, as much as I love the movies and have no interest in a new adaptation for streaming television, I do see room for adding things cut from the film series in a new adaptation. As for Twilight? Yeah, I got nothing. I saw the movies with my mom and sister when they were coming to theaters, I was pretty indifferent to most of them, but I just don't care one way or the other. But, I do plan on giving the films the Chuck's Movie Breakdown treatment around the month of September, so keep an eye out for that. 

           So, let's be clear here. As much as I am not interested in the idea of a Harry Potter streaming series, only because I love the films that much, I will admit that television adaptations of certain books are probably better than feature film adaptations. After all, as much as I enjoyed A Series of Unfortunate Events the movie with Jim Carrey, I honestly prefer the Netflix series adaptation of the Lemony Snicket books that starred Neil Patrick Harris. And, I'm definitely looking forward to seeing both Percy Jackson and The Spiderwick Chronicles on Disney+. The Inheritance Cycle, on the other hand, is a "let's wait and see" type of situation, because I don't want to get too overexcited for a series that could fail as spectacularly as the film adaptation of the first book of that series, Eragon. And, who knows? I could be proven wrong on the Harry Potter streaming series as well. We're just going to have to see. 

        Anyway guys, this is Chuck signing off, and I'll see you guys next time.