People who love reading are frequently disappointed by the movie versions of their favorite books. There have been some great films made from books, but typically, movie versions of books tend to aggrieve readers because they are not “just like the book.” When a film director works off of an adapted screenplay, the results are simply not the same as reading the book.

Not all movie versions are better than books. Most will agree that a film like The Godfather is better than the book. Few people reread Mario Puzo’s novel with fervor, but many watch this film again and again. To most Godfather fans, Francis Ford Coppola significantly improved on the book, and took out a lot of extraneous and pornographic material written by Puzo that was not particularly relevant to the main story. A minority may favor the book, but the majority love the movie more.

Books and movies are very different entities. Films leave little to viewers’ imaginations. When you read, you’re creating your own movie in a sense, and decide the most important parts: how the characters speak, what they look like, and what their surroundings are like. This process of imagining and interpreting as reader is a creative process distinctly different from viewing a film.

When directors cast roles for films, they don’t always get it the way you would want it. For instance, casting Tom Hanks in the Da Vinci Code has been considered a significant mistake. Highly elaborate sets may be wonderful but they may not be a faithful portrayal or your interpretation. You may find yourself disappointed by movie versions that don’t live up to your imagination.

A classic complaint about movie versions concerns the deletion of material the reader finds important. If the director must make a shorter film, there’s no way to include everything, especially when it comes from a long book. Gone with the Wind in film version deletes the fact that Scarlett O’Hara had two children by her first two husbands, and really disliked them.

Perhaps the director wanted to make Scarlett more sympathetic and knew portraying this dislike would make people hate Scarlett. It’s a very important aspect of the book, and forms her character into a much more complex being. The film to some is still “better than the book,” but to others it’s a good movie, but not a faithful representation of the book.

One of the things that may annoy readers most about movie versions is deletion of material in the book while adding new material not created by the writer. There is a laundry list of complaints regarding Peter Jackson’s The Lord of the Rings for instance. While important material, like the battle in the Shire at the end of the last book, is deleted, other material that was not Tolkien’s is added instead. These changes include:

• Arwen setting off for the Gray Havens and then nearly dying.
• Aragorn’s flirtation with Eowyn.
• Sauruman’s death by falling off of the tower of Isengard.
• Frodo abandoning Sam prior to crossing into Mordor.
• Faramir torturing Gollum and kidnapping Frodo and Sam.
• Faramir’s intention to seize the ring from Frodo.

This is a short list of complaints, and there are many more. Overall, the films are still considered good. Jackson even took the time, devoting almost 12 hours of film to telling the story. The problem with Jackson’s interpretation is that it is not yours, or ours. In the end, no director can satisfy all readers since he or she works off his interpretation, may be under time constraint, and works in a different medium completely. What may work in text, may not always work in film form. We (including film directors and screenplay adaptors) have created mental movie versions through reading, and no film, unless you make it yourself, can truly satisfy.