Movie adaptation has become more common than ever in the past couple years. There are movies from books, comics, real life story, and even remakes of the same movie from the past. Success and failure of a film adaptation, more often than not, depends on the reviews by critics. What intrigues me is how a movie can be perceived as "great" or "terrible" when it is based off an already existing idea.
Take one recent book-to-movie adaptation 'Life of Pi' for example. Most reviewers have said positive things about it being a good interpretation of the original story, especially the ending of the movie where in the book conclusion can be interpreted differently by different readers. So the director created the movie in his own input with a little difference, and the audience loved it. When compared to popular high-grossing movies of book adaptations from Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter and Twilight series, fans of the books would only be satisfied with the closest representation of their imagination from the story. Should there be a change from the original plot, surely there will be negative reviews saying the movie does not depict the actual book.
So, where is the creativity? Movie adaptations should be appreciated in its own rights to some differences. I think there is a good movie from an adaptation if it differs from the original story as it shows how the same plot be developed into something else. Critics who cannot accept movie adaptations should just stick to the original, be it books, comics, real life stories or remakes, instead of judging the newer version as inaccurate.