In the past decade, Hollywood has been churning out book-to-film adaptations at industrial speed. They follow a well-curated plan to do so. The story was already known to the public before casting began, generating excitement for the film’s release. When these films are announced, Hollywood executives rely on the author’s pre-existing fanbase to give the project traction on social media. This ensures that adaptations will be anticipated by audiences worldwide before a trailer. By the time of the premiere, sales are soaring based on inflated expectations.
Since the fans of the source material boost the new project’s success, one would assume directors would treat the films as the fan service they were meant to be. The directors of these adaptations make it seem like they care more about audience input than they actually do, to benefit the film’s pre-production marketing. Recent cinematic developments have shown that Hollywood book-to-film adaptations often fall short, as directors continue to take liberties to fulfil their own aesthetic desires. The application of directorial power becomes morally grey when the screen adaptation is nothing like the source material that first brought the film to prominence.
How Much Artistic Freedom is Too Much Freedom?
A recent book-to-film adaptation that left viewers wanting more was Justin Baldoni’s adaptation of It Ends With Us (2024). Blake Lively was notably cast as the film’s leading lady, Lily Bloom. Lily’s romantic arc in It Ends With Us covers sensitive topics, including domestic abuse. Yet casting Lively to play a vulnerable character such as Lily is not where the project went wrong. To secure such a high-profile celebrity, the film’s production team also offered Lively the title of executive producer. If Lively was given proper coaching on how to approach the intimate themes of the story tactfully, It Ends With Us could have become a fan favourite. Instead, the production team gave Blake Lively too much directorial power over harrowing themes she could not develop well.
One of Lively’s big mishandlings happened in the choice of her character’s costumes. Lily Bloom, in the novel, is working as a florist; she doesn’t put much time into her outfits. Blake Lively, a wealthy celebrity, ultimately failed to achieve a humble, dishevelled look for the character. She opted for unflattering silhouettes, paired with busy, mismatched patterns, to portray Lily. Fans of the book found these hectic costume decisions offensive to the character they had envisioned. Instead of dressing like a feminine love interest, Lively looked more like a toddler who was given free will for the day. Fans of Colleen Hoover’s book found Lively’s costumes distracting and obscuring the story’s intended messages.
Lively’s relationship with It Ends With Us has striking similarities with Jacob Elorid’s involvement in the 2026 film adaptation of Wuthering Heights. The original Wuthering Heights novel is a timeless piece of literature, with themes of classism and racism that resonate with its time period. Jacob Elordi was cast to play Heathcliff. Heathcliff is an adopted child who is of a different race from the other characters in Brontë’s novel. Heathcliff is intentionally refused opportunities to find love by other characters who have unchecked power over him. Fans of the original Wuthering Heights are offended by the very idea of Elordi’s casting. It’s true that the novel is a tragic romance, and that Jacob Elordi often portrays male love interests in other projects. Fans of the novel believe, like with Lily Bloom’s costuming, that the casting of Jacob Elordi is an ignorant use of the team’s creative freedom.
Director Emerald Fennell also pre-cast Jacob Elordi as Heathcliff. Jacob Elordi’s casting as Heathcliff was a non-negotiable. Unfortunately, to devoted fans of the original Wuthering Heights, it means Heathcliff’s struggle with his racial identity was deemed unrepresentable in the film adaptation’s plot.
I can’t comment much on the quality of Fennell’s adaptation’s content, as it hasn’t been released. Yet, from the trailer’s close-ups of Margot Robbie’s lips, Elordi biting a pen, and Taylor Swift blasting in the background, the film looks like another example of aesthetic gentrification of classic literature. If Fennell did not want to touch the novel’s inherent themes of racism, why did she decide to adapt Wuthering Heights in the first place? Can’t she make her own steamy period piece and cast Jacob Elordi in that?
Hollywood has long been prioritising profit over the cinematic qualities of its productions. Adaptations have become an opportunity to reach a new low. Whether criticism reaches the creators of such pieces becomes irrelevant, as money appears to be a greater power. The only hope that remains is in the artistic dignity of the directors who, going into the industry, would not compromise their beliefs for a studio deal.
By – Caroline Bystrowski