After the flick, I ask him, "Well, what did you think?"
"Well, it was good - but what happened to the story? They left out Ares, and Clarisse, and the part at the stream," he replied.
"Well, that happens, honey," I said. "Movies based on books are usually different because they have to leave things out. But you liked the movie?"
Long pause. "Yeah I suppose," he said seriously. "But the book was better." And thus, another generation of book snobs is born.
Don't get me wrong. I absolutely recognize that it is impossible to turn a book into a movie, and preserve every little detail. You can spend time in books doing things that would bring a movie to a screeching dramatic halt. That said, some directors and screenwriters do a better job than others. Take Peter Jackson's epic "Lord of the Rings" trilogy. Did he adhere to every word Tolkien wrote? No, but Tolkien's book word for word would have made a lousy screenplay. Jackson kept all of the most important aspects of the story and, while I may disagree with some of the changes he made, I think his three-movie set may be the best book-movie adaptation I've ever seen.
Take, as another example, Harry Potter. These are movies that I think are okay adaptations. They've left quite a bit out, in my humble opinion. But they are serviceable. I've seen a number of them multiple times, and I don't feel as though I'm being tortured when I do. So while I prefer the books, I find the movies entertaining in their own right.
My initial reaction to "The Lightening Thief" was the same - entertaining in its own right, but I prefer the book. But the more I thought on it, and the more I talked about it with others (who have also read the books, and one who had seen the movie), the less I feel that way.
Some of the changes were cosmetic. For example, they aged Percy and Annabeth to be about 14-15 years old, not kids just out of sixth grade. This is the type of change of which I am usually most forgiving, unless there is a critical reason to preserve age (as in the case of Harry Potter). They omitted the scene at the St. Louis arch (which really only serves to highlight Percy's abilities as a son of Poseidon, so okay). They added a character to the scene at Auntie Em's Garden Emporium; okay, no big deal. They changed the role of the pearls. Instead of being given to Percy at Santa Monica by a nereid, they have to find them as they cross the country. As they find a pearl, the next location on the map (given to them by Luke) appears. This is kind of hokey, but I guess the cross country trek needed more drama.
There were even things done well. I think Chris Columbus (who directed the first two Potter movies) did a good job with the special effects. I didn't find them incredibly intrusive and the magical creatures (the centaur and satyr) didn't look plasticky and fake. I thought the scene at the Lotus Hotel & Casino was well done. I think the characters related to each other in a way that was true to the book (although there was some romantic sizzle between Percy and Annabeth that simply doesn't exist until later books in the series). And the acting was fine. Logan Lerman and Alexandra Daddario are a fine Percy and Annabeth. Grover, played by Brandon T. Jackson, was an entertaining (if a little bit "jive") Grover. Pierce Brosnan put in a fine turn as the centaur Chiron, trainer of heros. I found Steve Coogan's aging rock star portrayal of Hades to be good, and even Sean Bean turned in a satisfactory performance as Zeus (he was a bit brooding, but not in the movie enough to turn that into a negative).
But with those positives, I found some serious flaws.
1. Total omission of the Kronos storyline
This, by far, is the worst sin. Yes, the active story of the book is Percy's quest to retrieve Zeus's master bolt. But in Riordan's book, the background story is the impending return of the Titan lord, what it means for Olympus, and the prophecy surrounding Percy (Yes, if this sounds a bit like a Harry Potter rip-off it probably is, and I don't really care.). All of this is missing from the movie. No mention of Kronos, no mention of a prophecy. Yes, Luke is correctly identified as the thief, but he becomes a petulant teenager who feels scorned by his Olympian father (Hermes) and wishes the downfall of Olympus in spite, instead of someone manipulated by the Titan. Without the influence of Kronos, it is then easy to cast Hades into the "bad guy" role by making him desire possession of the master bolt so he can overthrow his brothers on Olympus (Zeus and Poseidon) because he feels he got a bum rap when they divided up the world. Not only is this not in the book (in fact, one of the most entertaining scenes in Riordan's book is Hades carrying on about how he doesn't need more spirits in the Land of the Dead because the current influx is causing traffic problems at the gates), it's not even mythologically accurate - I never remember Hades as wanted to overthrow Zeus or being unhappy about being Lord of the Underworld (in fact, I have a hazy memory that he chose that, but I digress).
Without the Kronos storyline, you lose the main purpose of the tale - it's weight, if you will. A co-worker, who initially recommended Riordan's books, called it an "emasculation" of the story. And I have to agree with him. Columbus and screen writer Craig Titley have written an empty-headed teen adventure flick that happens to incorporate some Greek mythology and the plot shell of Riordan's creation. And, without the Kronos story, there is absolutely nothing to hang a sequel on; the movie becomes a stand-alone episode, much like a lot of television shows (although I did look up the box office for "The Lightening Thief" and they failed to recoup their production costs, so I doubt a sequel would be in the making anyway). Nice summer popcorn fare, but not much more.
2. No mention of Thalia or her tree.
The loss here is more explanation of Luke's motives, and why he is susceptible to Kronos (of course they ditched Kronos and made Luke a sullen teenager so it doesn't matter much; that's why it's not my #1 quibble). You also lose a part of Annabeth's story, and her relationship to Luke - but they didn't really explore that either.
3. They save Percy's mom - and take her to Olympus.
Okay, it was all noble of Grover to stay behind, but Percy learns something by not retrieving his mother from the Underworld - he learns commitment to something bigger. Then to top it off, his mother leads them to the Empire State Building to return the bolt to Zeus. Why does a mortal woman know the way to Olympus anyway - even if she can't get there?
4. The final fight with Luke.
This didn't initially bother me, but in retrospect it's just a gratuitous way to put more pressure on the summer solstice deadline. Luke's whole plot was to steal the bolt and give it to Hades to start a war to destroy Olympus. Now he's been found out, he's going to kill Percy and take the bolt for himself? Huh?
5. Zeus's "law" prohibiting contact between Olympians and their demigod children.
This is just a pathetic attempt to excuse Poseidon's absence from Percy's life (and Athena's from Annabeth's life, and Hermes' from Luke's, etc.). These are Greek gods. They don't need excuses. There's plenty of mythological history to explain this.
Bottom line: Rick Riordan's books are entertaining fare (even for me, a 37-year old woman). The movie strips them of what made them entertaining. The movie may be worth a DVD rental, or Netflix, or a $2 viewing at your community pool. It's fine entertainment for a lazy summer night. My daughter took a friend of hers to the movie and she enjoyed it thoroughly.
Then again, she never read the book.
