Movie adaptations of beloved, well-known books often spark heated debates among fans following release. A recent Netflix adaptation of Scott Westerfeld’s “Uglies,” directed by McG and starring Joey King, has been a topic of conversation recently in the adaptation world. This film has been met with bleak reviews, achieving only 18% from critics and 44% from audiences on Rotten Tomatoes.
Why?
“Uglies,” published in 2005, helped pave the way for the dystopian genre that flourished in the early 2000s — a result of the successes of films such as “The Hunger Games” and “Divergent.” While the “Uglies” book series critiques societal standards of beauty and conformity through its story, the film adaptation struggles to convey this message effectively. Critics have pointed to a lack of coherence in the plot, weak character development and an immense failure to capture the book’s underlying themes.
In contrast to “Uglies,” “The Hunger Games” back in 2012 not only stayed true to the core of the narrative by its author, Suzanne Collins but enriched it with strong visual storytelling and complex characters, allowing audiences to resonate with the protagonist, Katniss Everdeen.
One could argue that the aesthetics of a film play a significant role in its success. “The Hunger Games” has striking visuals, a captivating score and an engaging world that allows the audience to have an immersive experience with the dystopian reality. The film also captures the obvious contrast between the luxury of the Capitol and the desolation of the districts, giving depth to the story of the games.
On the other hand, “Uglies” has been highly criticized for its uninspired production values and somewhat bland visual approach. Without the compelling aesthetics to draw viewers in at the surface level, a film can really struggle to simply engage an audience, regardless of how true it remains to the source material. “Uglies” proves to be a good example of this problem.
Aesthetics alone cannot sustain a film. “Uglies” still had a chance. The heart of any successful adaptation can be found in the ability to translate the soul of the original story into a new medium. The true success for “The Hunger Games” is that it excels both in its visuals and storytelling, tackling themes such as rebellion and sacrifice through complex characters. The film invites us to reflect on societal issues, making it relevant beyond simply entertainment.
Unfortunately, “Uglies” seemed to have lost sight of this core tenant of the dystopian genre, resulting in a narrative that feels superficial and disconnected from the commentary present in the novel. It is so disconnected from any realistic form of relatability, making plenty of space for eye rolls and watch-checking throughout the viewing experience.
The corny dialogue and clichéd tropes present in the film do not help its case. Many moments throughout the film come across as simplistic and lacking in the nuance present in the book series. Familiar tropes such as love triangles and the “chosen one” narrative distract from the story’s potential. Paired with the poor aesthetics, it is a perfect storm, “Uglies” creating an utterly unconvincing and uninspired film.
Today, there is still a common fascination with dystopian narratives. This could be a result of societal anxieties or a cultural longing for stories that question authority, societal standards, and rebellion. “Uglies” had this in its favor. However, as a result of production and storytelling failures, the film was a missed opportunity to appeal to both fans of the original books and attract new audiences.
While loyalty to the original story is essential, and aesthetics are important when trying to captivate an audience, they are not the sole determinants of a successful adaptation. It is a combination of many things. “The Hunger Games” demonstrates how strong storytelling and depth, in addition to loyalty to the story and aesthetics, work together to create a film that resonates across generations.
“Uglies” serves as a cautionary tale in regard to the pitfalls of adaptation.
