After my list of the best adaptations, let’s talk about the worst ones—again, from my perspective.
Leading by a large margin in my ranking is World War Z. I absolutely love the book. I consider it the best piece I’ve read on the theme of “we’re all going to die.” The book delves into the psychology of people in critical situations. It shows what makes modern society so vulnerable to global threats. Most people are unprepared to live without the comforts of civilization. Some will exploit others for profit until the last moment, while others will cling to false remedies, believing they won’t be affected, that the government will save everyone, or something else. There are heroes and cowards, and being a coward isn’t always bad. In short, the book is very much about people.
The zombies, too, are described in such a way that it becomes clear why humanity nearly fell: they’re slow but tireless, and they summon other zombies with their sounds. The infection didn’t spread immediately, which allowed the disease to reach global proportions.
In the film World War Z, everything is the opposite: people turn into zombies in seconds. And beyond the zombies themselves, nothing from the book remained in the adaptation.
Second place goes to Ender’s Game. Honestly, I believe this book is impossible to adapt properly. Most of it revolves around the psychology of making team decisions and taking responsibility for them. It’s a constant reflection on actions, endless deliberation on how to act and what will come of it. The Giant’s Game alone is worth so much. It’s a book you can’t put down because of its depth. But the adaptation turned it into a basic “King of the Hill” game for kids, only set on a spaceship.
Third place: Starship Troopers. The film simplified the book dramatically. Once again, the book is about personal growth and development, set against a backdrop of interesting events. But the movie reduced it all to “run and shoot.”
In fourth place is A Man Called Ove. This is a wonderful book that gradually reveals the protagonist, showing the personal, hidden, and carefully guarded aspects of his character, buried under his gruff and antisocial demeanor. I wouldn’t say the movie failed completely, but it didn’t capture the depth. The character was simplified and rougher, and his relationship with the world was also simplified. In the book, the protagonist meticulously prepares for suicide, focused and deliberate… And something always interrupts him—a knocked-over post, a misplaced bicycle, a doorbell… He sets the world right according to his perfectionism, ready to leave it once again. This wasn’t conveyed well in the film. And most importantly, for me, by the end of the movie, there wasn’t the same sense of sadness for this outwardly grumpy and gruff but kind-hearted man.
Fifth place: Night Watch and its sequel. I didn’t understand what that was all about. Besides Konstantin Khabensky running around the underground carriage with a flashlight, either in shock or high, and a decent song by Gorod 312, nothing else stuck with me. And yet the books were pretty good and very popular at the time.
I’ll place Wolfhound alongside the Watch adaptations. My husband considers the book to be a typical women’s romance. In part, I agree with him. Female authors often portray their heroes not as men would see them, but from a woman’s perspective—this is what a man should be. But the first Wolfhound book is solid fantasy, and it could have made a good film adaptation. But something went wrong.
