Today I saw "The 13th Warrior" with Dave. The movie is based on a book, "Eaters of the Dead" by Michael Crichton. Good movie, and Dave said it follows the book fairly well. There are some differences, of course, which led me to think about why this happens.

There are a lot of books made into movies, plays made into movies, movies made into books, plays into television shows, etc. Never is the adaptation a faithful reproduction. Well, at least there are no successful adaptations that are basically the same as the original.

And lots of people complain about that. People who see a movie after reading a book will notice the missing pieces, the stuff that didn't make it into the movie. They'll also notice the changes and additions that are made for the movie. Same television or anything else.

There are three factors at work here. One is that different media handle different aspects of the storytelling differently. There are limitations to every creative form. Movies are two hour long stories, very visual and sound oriented, more so than television. Television has 10-15 minute chunks in between commercials, but long stories can be made into a mini-series or a regular series. Plays have real people, few special effects but more of a randomness factor. Books can be very long, can treat many aspects of a story in depth, but is rather static. Once again, a story is adapted to the medium.

The second factor is the culture. A story written twenty years ago can't be done again the same. Society changes, culture changes, attitudes change. Stories reflect the current society, and old stories must be changed to remain accessible to the audience. A story that is redone for a different country is usually changed significantly. Once again, different cultures mean that a story is tailored to the specific cultural bias.

The third factor is the people making the adaptation. Most people want to improve the work or put their personal stamp on it. I read a story and will focus on different parts of it than other people. So if I adapted a story from one medium to another, I would emphasize different things, the parts that I thought were important.

So an adaptation will differ from the original. And it should. People are trying to send a message, and even if it's an adaptation, the creative people involved will tinker to get their message across. Nothing wrong with that, and I think it would be boring just to watch a movie that somehow exactly follows the original.

An example. "Starship Troopers" I thought was a good movie that kept the flavor of the book. Many people hated there not being any battlesuits and the supposedly heavy emphasis on the human government. Well, the book is not about battlesuits. It's a story about a kid who joins the army and how he grows up. The government was done correctly, and the importance was the military, not the hardware. So I thought it was a good adaptation.

My point is that too many people watch a movie or television adaptation and expect to see the exact book on screen. That's not going to happen. We should want the essence and spirit of the story, not the form. I heard that they're working on a Lord of the Rings movie. That will make a lot of people unhappy.