6 sci-fi and fantasy authors who hated the screen adaptations of their books

As a seasoned bookworm and movie enthusiast, I find myself often caught between the enchanting worlds of literature and the silver screen. Having delved into countless adaptations, both successful and not-so-successful, I can’t help but empathize with authors who have had their cherished works transformed for Hollywood.

This week, author George R.R. Martin stirred up a commotion by openly criticizing HBO’s Game of Thrones prequel House of the Dragon in a blog post. It seems that he is dissatisfied with how the show has interpreted his book Fire & Blood. Martin specifically addressed the issue of the show omitting a particular character from the book, suggesting that this choice could lead to detrimental consequences further along. He hinted that there may be even more significant problems ahead for House of the Dragon if they proceed with certain changes planned for seasons 3 and 4.

It came as a shock to learn that Martin, who is currently one of the most renowned author celebrities, and has consistently supported TV series adapted from his work, seems uncertain about the direction of the upcoming show “House of the Dragon,” questioning showrunner Ryan Condal’s plans for its future. While he occasionally voiced concerns about “Game of Thrones” during its run, this is an unprecedented level of skepticism, as he wonders if Condal has any plans at all for the show. For Martin, this post was particularly noteworthy or provocative.

However, unlike certain other authors who strongly condemned adaptations of their works, this was relatively minor in comparison. Let us examine some authors who had issues with film interpretations of their novels, and how they expressed and dealt with these problems:

Ursula K. LeGuin didn’t like the Sci-Fi Channel’s adaptation of Earthsea

Kick off our exploration of Ursula K. LeGuin’s works, particularly her famous Earthsea series. Unlike traditional high fantasy epics that revolve around war or grand-scale conflicts, the Earthsea novels offer a more nuanced and tranquil narrative. Each book delves into various characters inhabiting a chain of islands where magic is casually employed. The announcement by The Sci-Fi Channel about producing an Earthsea miniseries, based on the initial book in the series, A Wizard of Earthsea, sparked enthusiasm.

However, their initial enthusiasm waned upon viewing the final outcome, which dated back to 2004. Le Guin herself was preparing for the worst. “Upon reading the script,” she wrote for Locus magazine, “I understood that what the writer had done was effectively murder the books, dismantle them, remove an eye here and a limb there, and combine these pieces into a completely different narrative, held together with string and clichés.” She expressed concern that they would use the name Earthsea, along with some scenes from the books, in a generic fantasy film featuring a flimsy plot driven by sex and violence.

I want to say that I am very sorry for the actors. They all tried really hard. I’m not sorry for myself, or for my books. We’re doing fine, thanks. But I am sorry for people who tuned in to the show thinking they were going to see something by me, or about Earthsea. I will try to be more careful in future, and not let either myself or my readers be fooled.

In Le Guin’s view, although she admired the actors, she found issue with the casting choices in the sci-fi show. The characters in her novel series, Earthsea, are predominantly people of color. For instance, Ged, who is one of the main characters, is a person of color. However, in this adaptation, most of the characters were white, which Le Guin felt was not reflective of the diverse world she had imagined. In her words for Slate, she wrote that “Danny Glover is the only man of color among the principal characters (there are a few others in minor roles),” which was significantly different from the Earthsea she had conceived.

My color scheme was conscious and deliberate from the start. I didn’t see why everybody in science fiction had to be a honky named Bob or Joe or Bill. I didn’t see why everybody in heroic fantasy had to be white (and why all the leading women had “violet eyes”). It didn’t even make sense. Whites are a minority on Earth now—why wouldn’t they still be either a minority, or just swallowed up in the larger colored gene pool, in the future?

Le Guin expressed a milder criticism towards the 2006 animated film, Tales from Earthsea. Although she was still somewhat dissatisfied that it didn’t capture her books as intended, she acknowledged its merits. In her words to director Goro Miyazaki, she said, “This isn’t my book. This is your movie. It’s a good movie.” This time, at least, she did not express the same level of dislike.

6 sci-fi and fantasy authors who hated the screen adaptations of their books

Alan Moore has hated every movie or TV show based on his work, but let’s focus on Watchmen

Discussing authors who dislike adaptations of their work often leads to Alan Moore, a significant figure in comic books for the past half-century, known for masterpieces like “Watchmen”, “Batman: The Killing Joke”, and “V For Vendetta”. However, he expressed his disdain towards all these adaptations.

He’s adamant about not watching many adaptations of his creations because he fundamentally dislikes the concept. As he put it to GQ, “I wouldn’t want to spend time watching any adaptations of my work. From what I’ve heard, it would be excruciatingly painful. It would feel like torture, and for no particularly good reason.

Despite some modifications of Moore’s work receiving praise, it’s worth noting that shows like HBO’s 2019 ‘Watchmen’, while extending the original concept rather than strictly adapting it, have been widely appreciated by both fans and critics. Conceived by Damon Lindelof, this series garnered significant acclaim. Interestingly, when Lindelof reached out to Moore seeking his approval for the show, the author’s response was less than favorable.

I think it opened with, “Dear Mr. Moore, I am one of the b******s currently destroying Watchmen.” That wasn’t the best opener. It went on through a lot of, what seemed to me to be, neurotic rambling. “Can you at least tell us how to pronounce ‘Ozymandias’?” I got back with a very abrupt and probably hostile reply telling him that I’d thought that Warner Brothers were aware that they, nor any of their employees, shouldn’t contact me again for any reason. I explained that I had disowned the work in question, and partly that was because the film industry and the comics industry seemed to have created things that had nothing to do with my work, but which would be associated with it in the public mind. I said, “Look, this is embarrassing to me. I don’t want anything to do with you or your show. Please don’t bother me again.”

Moore appears quite skeptical about the broader entertainment industry, whether it’s films, television, or comics. Even his graphic novels didn’t receive the appreciation he expected. He expressed that people often missed the storytelling aspects he valued most when consuming works like “Watchmen” or “V for Vendetta”. Instead, they focused on the increased freedom with violent and sexual content, referring to it as “more room for explicit content such as nudity and gore”.

Indeed, it appears that Alan Moore is rather critical of adaptations based on his works. However, it seems there are not many things he appears to enjoy wholeheartedly.

Stephen King hated Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining movie

This is a good one. Stephen King published his horror novel The Shining, about a struggling writer who goes bonkers and tries to murder his family while cooped up in a snowboard hotel, in 1977. A few years later, Stanley Kubrick released his movie version of The Shining, which has gone down in history as a classic. And Stephen King hated it.

King stated to The Paris Review, “It was too cold.” He expressed a lack of emotional investment in the family from the character, adding, “The way Shelley Duvall’s Wendy was portrayed – it was demeaning to women. She was essentially just a scream machine, with no involvement in the family dynamics whatsoever. I also felt that Kubrick failed to recognize that Jack Nicholson reprised his motorcycle psychopath character from previous films, such as Hells Angels on Wheels, The Wild Ride, The Rebel Rousers, and Easy Rider. Kubrick seemed oblivious to the fact that the man was already unstable. This absence of a grounded portrayal of insanity undermined the tragic element if the character arrived for his job interview already mad. In short, I strongly disliked what Kubrick did with that.

King did write a screenplay for The Shining movie before filming started, but Kubrick ended up hiring novelist Diane Johnson to write a new version emphasizing the parts of the story he was most interested in. “Then he redid it himself,” King continued. “I was really disappointed.”

It’s certainly beautiful to look at: gorgeous sets, all those Steadicam shots. I used to call it a Cadillac with no engine in it. You can’t do anything with it except admire it as sculpture. You’ve taken away its primary purpose, which is to tell a story.

King expresses disapproval towards the film adaptation, yet there’s an intriguing twist: I’ve had the chance to read King’s novel and watch Kubrick’s movie. From my perspective, the film surpasses the book in quality. Granted, the movie is more chilling because it’s colder, which contributes to its eerie atmosphere. To be honest, King’s initial work contains some overly dramatic and humorous elements that Kubrick’s version effectively omits.

It seems that even though I’m here, I’m not entirely alone, as The Shining by Kubrick continues to be screened in cinemas today. Interestingly, Stephen King penned the scripts for a three-part TV miniseries adaptation of The Shining, featuring a new cast, which was aired back in 1997. However, it’s possible that you may not have come across this version, as it seemed to be quickly forgotten by many shortly after its broadcast. Despite an author’s dislike for an adaptation, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the adaptation isn’t cherished by others. Now, let me share some thoughts on…

P.J. Travers thought Disney ruined the Mary Poppins movie

Currently, we find ourselves delving into the timeless films category of this discourse. What could be more delightful than “Mary Poppins”? However, it’s worth noting that the author of the original books, P.J. Travers, found it less than satisfactory.

Caitlin Flanagan penned an article in “The New Yorker” where she mentioned that Travers shed tears at the film premiere. She explained that these tears might have been mistaken for joy or wealth (since she owned 5% of the box office earnings, and the movie made her wealthy). However, the movie did not bring her artistic satisfaction or financial happiness; instead, it inflicted a peculiar sort of harm on her work.

The première was the first Travers had seen of the movie—she did not initially receive an invitation, but had embarrassed a Disney executive into extending one—and it was a shock. Afterward, as Richard Sherman recalled, she tracked down Disney at the after-party, which was held in a giant white tent in the parking lot adjoining the Chinese Theatre. “Well,” she said loudly. “The first thing that has to go is the animation sequence.” Disney looked at her coolly. “Pamela,” he replied, “the ship has sailed.” And then he strode past her, toward a throng of well-wishers, and left her alone, an aging woman in a satin gown and evening gloves, who had travelled more than five thousand miles to attend a party where she was not wanted.

As per biographer Valerie Lawson’s account, Travers expressed her disapproval to a writer for The New York Times, stating that the movie deviated significantly from the books, being more of a vibrant spectacle rather than embodying true magic. Moreover, she was particularly critical of the character portrayed by Dick Van Dyke as Bert, finding his constant smiling reminiscent of Iago and the character lacking in authenticity, describing it as all fantasy with no genuine magical elements. (Many thanks to Literary Hub for compiling these quotes.)

In essence, it often occurs that writers express dissatisfaction with adaptations that are widely recognized as classics. This seems to happen frequently, possibly because a disgruntled author provides an intriguing narrative angle when they disagree with something popularly adored. However, the majority of films do not attain classic status, leaving original authors to harbor their disapproval in private.

It seems that Hollywood has struggled to accurately portray P.J. Travers’ dislike of the Mary Poppins movie, as depicted in 2013’s film Saving Mr. Banks. This movie narrates the interactions between Travers and Walt Disney, featuring Emma Thompson and Tom Hanks. Despite the depicted tension, Disney appears to be portrayed as more altruistic than what one might expect from Travers’ perspective.

Speaking as a die-hard fan, it’s no secret that Roald Dahl, the renowned children’s author, had a firm dislike for the 1971 film adaptation of “Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory,” which was based on his beloved book “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.” However, let’s fast forward to more recent times:

6 sci-fi and fantasy authors who hated the screen adaptations of their books

Brandon Sanderson has a lot of problems with Prime Video’s The Wheel of Time TV show

In the previous year, author Brandon Sanderson, known for completing the final installments of the epic fantasy series “The Wheel of Time” after its original creator Robert Jordan passed away, joined two prominent figures in a video discussion. The topic was the season finale of Amazon Prime Video’s adaptation of “The Wheel of Time”. Although the books this season is based on weren’t penned by Sanderson himself, given his strong connection to the series, his opinions hold significant value.

In essence, he expressed regret over certain aspects of the episode, stating that requests for changes were not granted. He identified numerous issues within the episode, both general and specific, suggesting these problems may have been present in previous episodes as well. He explained that while the show excels at scenes and is generally excellent, his main concern lies with the characters’ development and the lack of a clear narrative arc or theme, which he feels often takes a backseat to exciting scenes, causing him some concern.

Concerning the particular point, Sanderson expressed concerns about how the show portrays channeling, which represents magic in this universe. He stated, “I fear they might soon start flouting their own rules…I’ve previously warned them about that…They’re already doing it with channeling.” He continued, “At one moment they may state that it must be done a specific way and then at other times it isn’t. I warned them about this with teleportation…If [Ishamael] can teleport, why doesn’t he immediately hide behind the shield when she mentions it? The moment you begin to disregard Robert Jordan’s metaphysics, issues arise everywhere.

In simpler terms, Brandon Sanderson faced various issues with the adaptation of his work into a TV series, including character development and background details. Discussing all these problems would take too long. Essentially, a well-known contemporary author was expressing dissatisfaction towards an ongoing screen adaptation of his work, most closely mirroring George R.R. Martin’s current circumstances. Sanderson later explained on Reddit that he wants to like the series and finds it entertaining, but believes viewers won’t return for more because they need those significant, climactic moments to keep coming back. In other words, people don’t come back for individual scenes; they come back for when things build up and reach a climax.

Could it be that the team behind Amazon’s Prime Video might consider Sanderson’s suggestions for the third season of The Wheel of Time? It’s a possibility. Some who are familiar with George R.R. Martin speculate that, through his blog post about House of the Dragon, Martin may be aiming to influence the show slightly. Perhaps there could be a conversation between Martin and Sanderson, sharing insights and shaping strategies. After all, they are the only two in this unique position.

Michael Ende took legal action against the 1984 movie adaptation of The Neverending Story

In summary, while Martin and Sanderson maintain a relatively soft critique, possibly to preserve their connection with the studio, other authors on this list are more forceful in their criticisms. An example is Michael Ende, author of “The Neverending Story” from 1979. The movie adaptation of his book, released in 1984, was met with strong disapproval by Ende himself. At a press conference in Stuttgart last April, he vehemently denounced the film, even demanding to have his name removed from the credits. As PEOPLE reported in 1984, “The creators of the movie did not grasp the book at all, according to him, and only sought to make a profit.

In the movie, Ende served as an advisor but later alleged that director Wolfgang Petersen significantly altered the script. “I placed my trust in them,” Ende lamented. Five days before the premiere, he discovered the final draft. The shock set in as they had transformed the entire narrative’s essence. For him, Fantastica losing its creative connection to Bastian was the heart of the novel.

Ende expressed the movie as a “massive melodrama of tackiness, money, luxury, and artificiality,” not in a favorable manner. In an attempt to have the studio eliminate scenes he felt were inconsistent with the story’s internal logic, he even obtained a legal injunction. Unfortunately, he lost this lawsuit, which left him displeased, as he stated afterward.

According to the logic of the ruling: the original novel had undoubtedly been distorted, but since the film was aimed primarily at a younger audience, such distortions were irrelevant. Of course the truth of the matter was that sixty million dollars were at stake. The only voice of opposition came from a lone author who had evidently grown too big for his boots. After all, majority opinion deems a movie to be the pinnacle of a novelist’s success. Shouldn’t writers be grateful if directors want to film their books? In financial terms, losing the court case cost me far more than I gained from the rights. At the time I took the whole thing to heart, but these days I don’t let it get to me. I heard somewhere that Part II has been released at the cinema – I haven’t even watched the thing.

1990 saw the release of “The NeverEnding Story II: The Next Chapter,” a sequel perhaps it would have been wiser for Wolfgang Petersen, its creator, to avoid watching in the cinema. Given its reception, there might not have been any viewers left standing.

In essence, our discussion has highlighted that Hollywood doesn’t always view books as inviolable, especially when it comes to genres such as sci-fi and fantasy. This reality often leaves authors displeased when they notice extensive changes in the movies or shows based on their work. Occasionally, these adaptations are universally panned, such as the Sci-Fi Channel’s take on Earthsea, while at other times, the movie transcends the book and may even outlive it, like the case with The Shining.

Regarding long-running adaptations such as “House of the Dragon” and “The Wheel of Time”, we’re still uncertain about their ultimate outcomes. Will George R.R. Martin and Robert Jordan (or Brandon Sanderson, in the case of “Wheel of Time”) continue to express concerns, and if they do, will their criticisms influence the final product? Is it appropriate for them to air their grievances, or should they step back from these projects to reduce stress? These are interesting questions.

Personally, as messy as these sorts of situations can get, I’m glad that Martin made his issues known. I like House of the Dragon and I think the producers should listen to the creator if it they want the series to be as good as it can possibly be.

2024-09-07 16:42