One of the big reasons I think young adult literature gets a bad rap is that for a lot of people the only exposure they have is through the movie adaptations of these books. Of course, no movie adaptation is going to be genuinely “perfect” but I think young adult novels in particular face a really difficult set of challenges that other adaptations don’t have to deal with. In this video I’ll try and break down the reasons why movies based on young adult fiction almost always fail as adaptations. For clarity, I don’t necessarily think these all are like, terrible (except Percy Jackson; that movie is a pile of hot garbage, and this blog post is literally the only time you’ll ever see me acknowledge its existence), but I do think that the books are universally better and the movies in some cases totally fail as adaptations. The three movie series I’m going to be examining are the Harry Potter series, The Hunger Games series, and the Percy Jackson series.
Casting is Age-Inappropriate
The age of the actors might not seem like that big of a deal if it’s only off by a couple of years, but it makes a really huge difference in how we perceive what we’re watching. A lot of these novels are dystopian in some way— and a lot of that has to do with how children, namely the main characters, are treated.
For example, almost all of the “kids” cast in The Hunger Games were in their twenties, and because of that you really lose a level of horror that’s present in the books of children being forced to fight and kill other children. I mean, just take a look at these photos of the two main actors (Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss Everdeen and Josh Hutcherson as Peeta Mellark) at the age their characters were supposed to be and the age they were when they were making the movie.
Bookmark, Dragon. “Actual Teen, Actual Adult: Hunger Games Edition.” Bookmark Dragon, 1 January 10, 2014, www.bookmarkdragon.com/2014/01/actual-teen-actual-adult-hunger-games.html.
It’s a crazy difference. The injustice of it just doesn’t translate the same when they look like adults. And I understand that from a logistical sense, it might just not be an option to cast kids for a lot of reasons— you have to ya know, give them school and their parents have to be around and probably showing an actual 12 year old die on screen might bump your rating up from PG-13 to R. But that’s sort of my point: it’s not even that these movies are actively trying to be bad (except for, again, the Percy Jackson movies), it’s that they face huge logistical problems when it comes to adapting these stories. This takes away from the story because it sanitizes the content, and also loses some relatability for it’s teen viewers.
This also really hurt the Percy Jackson movies— I mean I could write a novel about why those movies are terrible, but one of the huge mistakes they made was casting literal adults for people who were supposed to be twelve. In fairness the movie did age them up to be 17, but most of the actors were all older than 17 anyways! Logan Lerman, who played Percy, was 18, and the actress who plays Annabeth (Alexandra Daddario) was 24 when they made the film. One of the main points of that book series was to empower kids who felt different from their peers because of learning disabilities. It completely takes the power away from that if the actors are in their late teens and twenties. One of the other major themes is children’s wellbeing being sacrificed at the altar of adult ideals, and breaking the nostalgia for the good ol’ days that were actually pretty terrible and looking forward to building something new and better. The fact that these messages are carried by actual children in the books is so powerful as a reader, especially as a young reader. You feel like you can have an impact in the world. Whereas when it’s someone older than you, it feels more like something that’s not achievable for you to do. It also takes away a lot of the bleakness in the books, since they make a point of saying most of the half bloods didn’t survive past 16.
Daddario is clearly an adult trying to play a child
Even something like Harry Potter, which is one of the few adaptations that cast actual children as children, has age inappropriate casting in other areas, namely the entire generation that Harry’s parents belonged to. Lily and James died when they were 21. For context, that is one year younger than Jennifer Lawrence was when she was playing a sixteen year old in the hunger games. That is young. But in the films, all the adults of that generation- the ones who we know were in the same year with them at school, are in their 50s. They’re supposed to be like 30! Alan Rickman was 55 when they made the Sorcerer’s Stone movie. It takes away, again, a level of horror and dystopia that is present in the books. This last war was just not that long ago, and Lily and James were quite close to being children themselves when they were murdered. It’s just an absolute tragedy. In the books, you really see how this generation that grew up in and fought in the first war has just been absolutely beaten down— and it really hits home that this last war only ended a decade ago, and that was basically just a fluke that it ended at all. It also hurts a lot more when the people from this generation start dying in the second war Sirius was 37 when he died in the books, and most of those years were spent in wartime or wasting away in Azkaban. It’s just awful. Once you think about it in that context becomes that much more dark, that much more tragic.
Alan Rickman does a fantastic job playing Snape, but is unfortunately 20 years too old for the part
The thing is, I understand why they did it. I do. And from the perspective purely of a movie viewer, I’m kind of glad they did it this way. Child actors are always kind of iffy, so to balance it out they cast absolutely stellar adult actors. Alan Rickman is a perfect snape, Gary Oldman is perfect as Sirius, I truly would not change those casting decisions for nearly anything. And frankly I don’t even think that the age inappropriate casting in this series is even half as impactful as it is in The Hunger Games, or Percy Jackson but I do think that it’s something worth noting, because it shows the limitations that these movies have in just the most basic practical ways. And also how these things stack up on top of each other— every time you change something that is fundamental from the books, you lose a little bit of the ability to have the same thematic impact. Snape being 50 might not seem like that big of a deal, but when you have so much you need to cut out for the sake of time or ratings, those little details are inherently more important in the film than they would be in the books. It also really messes up the timeline of the story, since everyone seems to age ten extra years between the end of school and the end of the first war.
Greatly Condensed/Sanitized
Books can be as long as they please. Movies, on the other hand, have to maintain a reasonable runtime (unless you’re Avengers: Endgame, and then you get a free pass). Books also have the privilege of not having content ratings, so they can include a lot of content that isn’t necessarily rated teen, while movies can’t do the same without alienating a huge chunk of their audience with an R rating.
Harry Potter especially suffers from an extreme case of condensation, which only gets worse as it goes on, because so much of the story builds on itself. This really comes to a head in the 8th movie. The seventh book is an incredible feat of plotting and storytelling— but the movie couldn't possibly hope to follow through, because the previous movies had to omit so much the groundwork for those conclusions just weren’t there. For example: the Kings Cross chapter adaptation, the thematic conclusion of the books, ends up being severely watered down in the film, to the point where it becomes just really confusing and weird? The problem is that the other movies just didn’t have the time to lay the groundwork about Dumbledore's past, about wandlore, about the hallows, or even really sufficiently about the horcruxes. In the books, we see Harry finally get the answers he was craving throughout the entire series. Did Dumbledore really care about him? Was he a good person? Why did his wand protect him so many times? Why wasn’t he told about the hallows? How did Harry survive, again? In the books, we get the answers we craved for so long. But in the movies, Harry’s barely even asking these questions. The themes of the book are also hammered home: bravery, love, friendship and humility become Harry’s saving graces once again. In the movie this is barely even touched on. As a result, what is an absolutely incredible and thematically rich chapter in the books turns into a fleeting and somewhat confusing scene in the films. This isn’t helped by the fact that Michael Gambon did an awful job as Dumbledore but that’s for another post.
An honestly baffling rendition of Kings Cross
The final fight scene with Voldemort also really suffers from this. In the movie, they turn it into a really epic fight sequence. However, that’s not really the point of the scene in the books. Harry confronts Voldemort with his failings: how his hubris, violence, and lack of empathy ultimately lead to his downfall. And when Voldemort dies, he falls to the ground, fully human. It’s such a powerful scene in the book, but the movie really misses the point, partially because they didn’t have time to set up all the stuff Harry confronts Voldemort with.
In the book this fight begins as a conversation; not a physical altercation
You can see this in the Percy Jackson movies too, frankly I didn’t torture myself with a rewatch of that dumpster fire to write this blog, but even obvious examples that I’ve already pointed out the fact that they changed Percy’s age also means they messed up the prophecy— another huge thematic element of the story that emphasizes the power of choice in relation to your destiny. They also exclude and change a lot of the Kronos plotlines, which is a tragedy because he’s a really interesting villain who manages to manipulate a lot of really good people. Exploring how he does that and why could have been really cool.
Kronos is not supposed to have a physical form until the 4th book, but his plotline is so condensed he gets one in the second movie.
I would say out of the three examples I’ve chosen, The Hunger Games does the best job just straight up adapting the book (probably because Suzanne Collins, the author, co-wrote the screenplay). They actually included pretty much all of the important scenes and characters from the books. That said, there is some sanitization, especially when it comes to the games themselves. Most of the violence is included, but the camera is angled in a way to protect the viewer from the violence happening, whereas in the books the violence is described in more detail. Some of the violence is cut altogether. For example, in the book, the last night in the arena is spent listening to Cato be torn apart by mutant wolves. In the movie, Katniss mercy kills him almost immediately. Most of the problems with The Hunger Games movies actually lie with internality vs externality.
Scenes in The Hunger Games are strategically angled to protect the viewer from violent images
Internality vs externality
Another big element that is almost universal throughout YA literature is internality. Almost all of these books have a first person point of view, and if not a first person, then a very contained third person. So much of what we understand about these stories is through the eyes of their narrators— through their discoveries, observations, and knowledge. This, more than anything else in my opinion, is why these movies are doomed to fail from the start. It’s almost impossible to translate this internality from book to film, and it can completely gut your main character, turning them from a complex and interesting person into a shell of a character.
I think out of all of these examples, The Hunger Games movies suffers the most, because Katniss is just so freaking internal. She’s a self-professed quiet person, she’s spent her whole life trying to stay under the radar. She barely speaks in the books. Almost all of Katniss’ character is developed through her own thoughts. She breaks down all of her emotions and motivations in almost excruciating detail in the books— without her internal monologue questioning her every move you lose a lot of her insecurity and relatability. Katniss is capable, but she doesn’t see herself that way, and that informs a lot of her decisions. Without a constant voiceover it would be impossible to show all of her motivations and self-doubt. All we’re left with is the action, so they play that up as much as possible. Katniss becomes a shell of who she once was. This is especially pronounced in both Mockingjay films. Katniss literally stops speaking for a good chunk of that book, so it becomes really difficult to translate what the hell is going on with her. As a result the movies rely more on the action elements of the book, which frankly is the least interesting and least important part of the story.
Katniss is a very quiet and internal character
Harry Potter has this problem too, and as the movies go on, the more problematic it becomes. It really hurts Harry’s characterization— so much of who he is is built from an amalgamation of small details in his internal monologue. For example, in Deathly Hallows, Harry is constantly second-guessing himself and his quest, wondering if he’s on the right track, and wondering what Dumbledore actually wanted from him. Whereas in the movie, it’s hard to tell just how anxious he is about it all. And for one of the best chapters of the book, The Forest Again, the brilliance really lies with Harry’s internal thoughts and feelings. It’s (spoilers) when he realizes he has to die to destroy the final horcrux inside him. He thinks about his heart beating and his body fighting to stay alive as he has to mentally wrestle with his fate and what it means for his loved ones. It’s a beautiful chapter, a total work of art, but since the movie has no way of exploring Harry’s internality, he’s forced to talk through what he’s going through, which completely dulls the impact of what’s happening. In the book Harry refuses to speak to Ron and Hermione one more time, because he knows if he does it would be too difficult to go through with his death. But in the movie he has a full conversation with his friends about what he’s about to do. It really cheapens their relationship in a way, because Book!Hermione and Book!Ron would put up a way bigger fight about it, whereas in the movie they’re forced to let him go pretty easily for the sake of the runtime.
The Forest Again scene in the movie includes Ron and Hermione in order to provide an explanation for what's about to happen. Unfortunately this has a lot of implications for their relationships.
That brings me to the fact that the lack of internality also really hurts the characterization of the other characters, Ron and Hermione in particular. In the books, Harry loves Hermione, but does find her kind of annoying at times, even after they become friends. He can be kind of mean to her in his own thoughts. However, he pretty much always keeps this to himself. In the movies, this sort of translates into Hermione being pretty faultless and having almost no poor character qualities.
I’m not going to lie, Percy Jackson is definitely a less complicated text than the other two series (which, in fairness, is because it’s not technically YA but I personally think it fits the genre well despite the lower reading level), so it relies a lot less on Percy’s internal thoughts and feelings because he expresses them very obviously, if that makes sense. Like Percy is more likely than Katniss to express if he’s upset about something, and why. He’s bad at hiding his feelings about people (read: everyone knows he’s in love with Annabeth way before he does), he often needs things spelled out for him because he’s relatively new to this world he finds himself in, and he’s bad at keeping his emotions in check. So, in theory, this movie should have had a lot less trouble translating Percy’s character to the big screen. Somehow, they still failed epically, though I don’t think the screenwriters got far enough into the book to even consider Percy’s character in that complex a way. I think in the movie, this difficulty grasping Percy’s internal character mostly just translates to the movie being dreadfully unfunny. One of the best parts of the book series is it’s humor, Percy’s humor in particular. He says funny stuff every once in a while, but most of the funny stuff in the books happens in his thoughts, which the films totally miss out on. They could have just made him say it, which may have been a bit awkward but at least there would be some jokes that had potential to be funny in some way.
In Summary
To sum all of this up, when it comes to adaptations, little changes can make a huge impact, and young adult literature in particular faces a lot of practical challenges when adapting their stories to the big screen. That’s not to say that there aren't any redeeming qualities in any of these films— there certainly are some things they do well, and for the most part they are fairly good stand-alone pieces of art (except for Percy Jackson). I actually really really enjoy the first three Harry Potter movies, the third one in particular. I don’t enjoy the later ones as much, because I think they suffer a lot from the problems I discussed. Like I said, a lot of the complexity of that series relies on groundwork that was built in the earlier books that just was not there in the films. The first two Hunger Games movies are really entertaining and relatively well adapted. Mockingjay 1&2 have a lot of issues, but mostly because that book relies extra heavily on Katniss’s internality. And Percy Jackson... you know my feelings about it at this point. It has no redeeming qualities.
What we all have to remember when we consume these films, is that they weren’t made to be faithful adaptations: they were made to make money. That is where 2/3rds of these issues stem from. Percy Jackson aged up the characters in an attempt to target the teen market, The Hunger Games sanitized the book content to maintain a PG-13 rating, and Harry Potter made Deathly Hallows an action movie because that’s a lot easier to market than “a lot of characters have a lot of conversations, but don’t worry they’re really emotionally poignant.”
While some movies do better than others, as a whole they fail on a fundamental level when it comes to translating the thematic and emotional gravity of these stories.
Comments