Image courtesy of IMDB
It's often said that books are better than their film and TV adaptations, and for the most part, I agree. However, I've noticed one genre where adaptations are as good as or even better than the books they're based on: fantasy.
Consider some of the most popular fantasy movies and TV shows since the start of the millennium:
- Harry Potter
- Peter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings
- Game of Thrones
- The Witcher
- The Wheel of Time
Aside from the Harry Potter series, where the books are hard to beat IMHO, I enjoyed the adaptations over the books in all of the other cases. In the case of Game of Thrones, for example, my low opinion of the books led me to delay in watching the TV series until four seasons had aired. Fortunately, once I started watching it, I found that I enjoyed it much more than the books.
What is it about fantasy books that lend them to adaptations that are comparable or better? I can think of two reasons.
The first is that fantasy books are usually lengthy. The first two books of A Song of Fire and Ice (all that I've managed to read) are over 800 pages long, and so is the first book in The Wheel of Time series. Did they need to be so long? I would argue that the answer is no. There's too much unnecessary filler in the books. Movies and TV series are time-constrained, so they need to pick and choose which parts include, and as a result, they're able to keep the interesting parts of the story while discarding the filler, making the experience more enjoyable for the viewer.
I also believe that the visuals in a movie or TV show help make fantasy stories better. Unlike books that take place in our everyday world, it's hard to imagine what a fantasy world looks like. Peter Jackson did a great job bringing Middle Earth to life, and one of the best aspects of the Game of Thrones TV series was the visuals, ranging from the settings to the costumes. It was grander than what I had pictured in my head when I read the books.
What's your take on adaptations of fantasy books?
