#mr vandermeer I'm so sorry an ugly bitch like alex garland and skydance would do something like this to you. i read your stunning book.

[essektheylyss]

loving your annihilation film reactions. APPARENTLY the movie rights were acquired/film production started BEFORE the book was actually properly published? and the director has said that the adaptation was more of his memory of the manuscript. all this to say that i have tried long and hard to accept and love annihilation the film and annihilation the book as their own things born from the same seed but where lies the strangling fruit that came from the hand of the sinner I shall bring forth the

HAHAHAHA oh yes, this is... very much an issue in Hollywood. Sometimes it works (iirc The Martian was done like that and that movie is phenomenal!) but... often it doesn't, particularly if the author is not involved.

(I have separate thoughts I will not detail here about the increasing interchangeability of authors and screenwriters pushed by Hollywood but like... if you can already craft a story, format and structure can be learned if you're willing. That's not the problem.)

I did set out to watch it for the adaptation choices because I really love the concept and process of adaptation and I thought the book was phenomenal and had very specific opinions on how you could faithfully adapt it, and in this scenario I think every choice that was actually made was wrong.

But also, once I realized that I thought every choice was wrong, I did start looking at it on its own, and... I find that so much of the framing just of the movie on its own is deeply shallow? (Which, I haven't watched Ex Machina since college, but I remember feeling similarly about that one. Ooooh, your robot is a bitter girlboss. We all saw Bladerunner.)

More specific (negative) opinions, and book spoilers, and my thoughts on how to adapt it below the cut, both in case people do really like the movie and cuz it got reeeeal long—

In my opinion, the scientific aspects of it are the absolute most banal possible application of... well, biology, frankly (especially when you're originally dealing with fungus, my absolute beloved, so I was bound to have many opinions here)—the whole like... instant mutation thing? WHAT. It wants to be surrealist without ever selling me on any of the aspects that make it surrealist or even committing to the surrealism, like it doesn't believe or take seriously its own premise so it needs to explain it to make sure you, the audience, do not judge the absurdity of it, and achieves the opposite, where I just feel like the write didn't know how sci-fi or suspense worked as genres. I'm here to suspend some disbelief! I'm not here to have all of the wind cut from the sails because somebody needed to spend $50 million to try to convince people he was clever.

The structure of the film is bizarre and leans way too hard on exposition dumps and just telling both the characters and the viewer exactly what they're looking at, which negates any of the mystery of "The Shimmer" even once you've divorced whatever this is supposed to be from Area X. I really hate the choice to use camera footage rather than journals, especially given they've maintained the radio and satellite interference.

The way the backstories are set up really feels like it chokes out the purpose of the character motivations and then parades the lifeless corpse of that purpose through the streets pretending it's a theme (and, looking at the base level of where the characters are being led, I'm pretty sure an episode of Hannibal did it better). I will say, I do like Josie a lot, and I think she is actually the only one who maintains the concept of the biologist in the original, and her exit should've been the thesis of the film, and the ending with Ventress is genuinely bizarre (and, frankly, gives me end of Kingdom of the Crystal Skull vibes, which is in zero ways a compliment).

It seems like Lena is the last to understand, which makes no sense considering she's the biologist, and this is a biology puzzle (and gives me the impression that this was not someone who understood or appreciated the aspect of the biological intrigue of it). It started with her explaining mitosis, and she should've been the one to understand it best through it all. The scenes with Lena's doppelganger feel... so meaningless, and again, really just negates the ineffability of the whole concept, and the point of the inevitability! Why did the phosphorus burn down the lighthouse this time but not with Kane. Why did the doppelganger let herself be destroyed only for Lena to go back. (And, frankly, they and the treatment of the biological science have an insufferable vibe of edgy film major who just took a philosophy 101 course. And I would absolutely know.)

In terms of my thoughts on adaptation, I think the first mistake was getting rid of the conceit of having stripped them of names. It's the easiest thing to maintain in film, even easier than in prose. You lose some of the effect when they're not calling attention to it all the time, but you don't undercut it at all. (Same with "The Shimmer" instead of Area X.)

As I read the book, I felt the psychologist's hypnosis would be hard to adapt, but actually, I think film editing choices (jarring cuts, jump cuts, lighting effects, etc) could've made it very easy, especially since you then have to simply transition back to a more traditional flow of editing once the biologist stops being effected by it.

I'd have also organized it roughly as it is in the book starting at the tower, and shown the husband's return in flashback, along with the biologist's memories, probably with a lot of jump cuts. Also, just keep the original timeline of Area X! I don't really get the point in changing it, except to add urgency, even though... part of the horror of the original is that the process is slow but it is inevitable.

In general, much of the rest of the aspects of Area X's weirdness and how it affects the biologist are pretty straightforward, even on film. I imagine they were demotivated by the very... intangible aspect of depicting the interaction with the lighthouse keeper at the end, but honestly... A24 could've done it, no sweat. I'm no expert on effects, but I think both The Green Knight and EEAAO had aspects to them that I'd say were comparable to ways to make that scene work.

And really, I do think that this screenplay feels like it was written to make sure the audience knew that the writer understood all of the clever details, and as such so much of the ambiguity that makes the book fascinating and haunting is lost. Even with some of the fucked up horror effects, it feels a lot more like a generic action movie than the suspense thriller it should've been, especially because so much of it is just stated outright.

(Also, oh my god I hate a climactic title drop in a situation in which it did not need to ever be said to have the effect.)

Which is why I return back to, the first mistake was giving them names.