Did the Odyssey reveal a shocking truth about adaptations?

Staunch readers have an interesting phenomenon plaguing them: their greatest dream and fear are the very same. 

The initial news of an adaptation of your favourite story insights an immense amount of excitement- the idea that the imagination you so fondly had in your head can now finally be painted on screen. 

Then the dread settles. Every single person who never read the book, never even knew the title, and even went out of their way to make a mockery of it will now have access to your favourite scenes, the characters you so cherished, and the world it was set in. 

A similar situation persists as Christopher Nolan’s The Odyssey makes its way across IMAX theaters to a blockbuster collection of $652 million. What most simply consider a masterpiece written and directed by an impressive director, the Odyssey is really a take on the coveted and revered epic by Homer. Of course this fact is not unknown, neither is the contestation of opinions it has charted between readers of the original and moviegoers. 

While the general consensus accounts the movie to be extraordinary in storytelling and screenplay- the grand scale of it immerses watchers into the story through the brilliant use of forced perspective and other non-cgi effects, those who have taken the time to read Homer and learn about the greater stories of Greek mythology have criticised the film as not remaining true to the source and taking too many creative liberties, even attaining to it as being too commercial. 

And while both those perspectives are equitable in their validity and open up a can of worms regarding what authenticity and representation can really mean in the sense of stories travelling through mediums, it also presents a reality many readers need to face and many creators need to understand. 

Adaptations of any scale- whether those filmed entirely on IMAX film or produced for streaming platforms are not meant for the individual to view simply to permit them the title of “good” or “bad”. Those descriptions are subjective where someone with knowledge of the source would vary in their reaction to a casual watcher and so. Rather adaptations are a compilation of good decisions.

It is an unfortunate truth that including every aspect of the original, casting actors identical to the characters, and keeping every dialogue in is immeasurably difficult, if not impossible. Therefore, it is this formula of the correct level of direct quotes, minimal changes to the character sketch, and sensible departures from the original that preserve the essence of the book without bounding it to a drab and dragging screenplay. 

As for the readers, while it can be incredibly difficult to see a coveted story be available to the “undeserving” masses and tougher even to watch it be changed to fit a screen, it is true that some aspects of a book simply cannot be adapted. 

This task only turns gigantic for a manuscript that is written outstandingly well and is considered by all means, perfect by its readers.

The initial reaction to any and all news revolving the production of these adaptations therefore is negative and snarky and quite anxiety-inducing for those who have much to lose as their beloved characters change their morals, sometimes their hair, and the show turns to be set in the city instead of the suburbs. 

As an avid reader who has noticed the recent surge in book-to-screen adaptations, including stories that were read as an impressionable teenager that remain quite close to heart, I urge fellow book readers to understand something that allowed me not to simmer in a quiet rage from the copious amounts of new commercial attention following this media: 

Those who never read the source will never know the true motivations behind a character's choices, their internal monologue in a paramount scene, or why the incredibly boring moment was insanely important to the plot. In fact, the more changes they make the more of the book you get to preserve by those niches of the story never making it to the commercial screen. 

It is unfortunate when great stories are ripped off to make passable pictures and aimed at an audience they expect will be on their phones while the show plays. 

And so, while readers pacify themselves through this phenomenon, perhaps producers should take a moment to cater to the loyalists of the source, take the time to study it themselves, and care more to recreate the same feeling reading the story brought, rather than make a measly attempt at piecing random, potentially viral moments into a mandated profitable timeframe. 

Staying true to the source is important, but ensuring the wonder of the story doesn’t disappear through too literal a screenplay and absolutely no creative liberties that still match the underlying essence might be the key to making a reader happy. At least we hope.