5 . Reading a book and watching a film are two very different experiences, but it’s normal to have high expectations when a film of a favourite book is made. There are many times I have been pessimistic or even disappointed by a film of a book I love.

The source material for a film may be taken from classic novels, short stories, comic books and stage plays, as well as non-fiction such as biographies and autobiographies, even those written by ghost writers. All can work well, but why do many adaptations and indeed remakes fail with both cinema audiences and critics? And why do some adaptations get lower ratings than others?

A key question is obviously how close to the original the film is. Since a typical film is only around two hours long, it becomes a question for screenwriters to decide what is appropriate for the screen and what to leave out. Screenwriters take creative liberty and sometimes there may be changes to the plot, additions, and even different endings to please producers, directors and test audiences. I, like many people, have often left the cinema feeling “the film is not like the book”.

Another problem area is the cast. Finding actors acceptable to film audiences can mean the difference between success and failure. Readers of the book use their imaginations to visualise characters and have very definite ideas about how characters should look and sound. This is where I think many film adaptations fall down.

Despite the challenges, there have been some highly successful films made from popular books. For me, Jaws, Harry Potter and The Lord of the Rings all fit this category. And possibly the best proof of a successful adaptation is the James Bond series, the majority of which has been adapted from the 007 novels of Ian Fleming. Perhaps unusually, audiences seem to accept that the actors who have played James Bond have changed so often, although everyone seems to have their favourite. I know I do.