Books vs. movies: Why adapting a hit novel can be a real 'Hail Mary'

For nearly as long as movies have been made, books have served as inspiration — for better or worse.

A quick Google search tells me the first book to be adapted into film was the Charles Perrault fairytale "Cinderella," which was adapted for the not-yet-big screen in 1899 by Georges Méliès; a slightly longer look at Google reassures me that's at least one of the earliest examples, though there's some debate about whether it counts since "Cinderella" was just one story in a collection.

In any case, the film world has a long tradition of using literature as source material with mixed results.

Andy Weir's hit sci-fi novel "Project Hail Mary" is just the latest example. The novel was published in 2021, and the film directed by Phil Lord and Chris Miller was just released on March 20. If you're still deciding whether to see it in theaters, check out my "Meet Me Here" co-host Dyer Oxley's review.

RELATED: Will 'Project Hail Mary' soar higher than 'The Martian'?

I'm on team "see it in theaters." Anyone intimidated by the runtime of two hours and 36 minutes just remember that the book is a whopping 496 pages (in the standard paperback edition), so you'll really be saving time.

And here's the thing: Despite being KUOW's book czar, as Dyer likes to say, I actually thought the movie was better than the book. We debated the pros and cons of both formats on this week's episode of "Meet Me Here," which is (mostly) safe for you to listen to if you haven't read the book and/or seen the movie. We did our best to avoid spoilers.

Despite common bookworm logic that the book is always better than the movie, I think some stories are just better suited for film, like "Project Hail Mary." But there have been film adaptations that made we want to shield my favorite books from Hollywood producers, lest they be mangled before my very eyes.

Dyer and I played a game I called The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly to steer you toward the best adaptations and far away from those that never should've been made.

The Good

Dyer's pick is one I can get behind: "Blade Runner," the adaptation of the novel "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" by Philip K. Dick.

"It’s an adaptation done right, because it evolved the book into something new," he said. "There are some big differences between the book and the movie, but to make the movie, some conscious decisions had to be made around the noir tone."

While fans of Philip K. Dick may have been aghast at just how different the adaptation was, his novel cried out for some creative license to be taken to adapt it for a wider audience.

I went with a more basic interpretation of what makes a good film adaptation: "The Devil Wears Prada."

If you didn't know this more recent cult classic, starring Meryl Streep and Anne Hathaway, was a book first, don't feel bad. The original novel by Lauren Weisberger was, frankly, terrible. It's been a hot second since I tried to read it, but I recall being genuinely flabbergasted that someone did read it and managed to turn it into a film worth watching.

The Bad

"Annihilation," the novel by Jeff VanderMeer, is one of my favorite books. It's weird. It's mysterious. It's deeply unsettling. That's a perfect recipe for me. And "Annihilation," the movie starring Natalie Portman is one of my favorite movies.

But I picked this adaptation for my bad example for the same reason Dyer picked "Blade Runner" as a good one: It's incredibly different from the book.

If a good adaptation is one that sticks strictly to the source material, "Annihilation" and "Blade Runner" fail the test. But if a good adaptation is one that takes the source material to new heights while still staying true to the core story and intention, "Annihilation" takes the cake. It's beautiful yet horrifying, mind-bending yet chillingly calm. It was everything the book was, transformed for a visual medium.

RELATED: Why you should judge a book by its cover, according to a PNW designer

Not everyone wants their cherished fictional universes tampered with, though.

Dyer was not a fan of the Snyderverse adaptation of Superman stories. These include the 2013 superhero flick "Man of Steel," followed by "Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice," and "Justice League." All films were directed by Zack Snyder.

"Snyder had a lot of Superman and DC Comics material to use, and he opted to go with the storyline that is pretty much an exact replica of what Marvel movies were already doing," he said. "The writing, the dialogue was really atrocious. So, it was a lot of bad decisions with a big budget."

The Ugly

Dyer's ugly pick was perhaps personal: "Bonfire of the Vanities" by Tom Wolfe, a journalist turned novel writer. For journalists like Dyer, it offered a familiar lens into the different factions of a city, from politicians to activists, "all playing tug of war."

The book was a success, but the 1990 film "bombed."

"It’s one of those movies where they focused on getting and hyping big names [Tom Hanks, Bruce Willis, Melanie Griffiths, Morgan Freeman], but didn’t execute the story," he said. "It wasn’t funny and actually a bit confusing. It’s painful to watch."

But was it more painful to watch than the film adaptation of Christopher Paolini's "Eragon"? I think not.

The book about a teenage boy who gets a dragon and joins this great war to overthrow an evil king was everything I wanted as a nerdy fantasy kid. And when the movie was announced, I was so stoked. I wanted to see the dragon, a blue queen named Saphira, brought to life. To say the movie was a massive disappointment, Saphira included, would be a vast understatement.

The movie was so bad, so incoherent, and so visually unappealing that I never even finished Paolini's series after the second book. I just couldn't bare to be reminded of what had been done Saphira. Sad.

What are some of your favorite and most despised film adaptations of books? Join the conversation at meetmehere@kuow.org.