Is the Book Actually Better Than the Movie?

Hello all! I'm Wes and today we are going to talk about the Hunger Games, both the movie and the book. Nate, without any sort of inter-group coordination, posted a blog earlier about the Hunger Games which ended up being quite serendipitous. Because of that, I won't be diving into the background and general information about The Hunger Games and its movie counterpart

In this review, I won't be talking about every single that is different between the two. The movie is long, so I will just be highlighting a few differences that I noticed. Throughout the process of making the film, some things are almost impossible to keep true to, so I will be giving some leeway when it comes to that. I also might completely forget what I just said and go on a tangent about how the grass was colored differently (you get the point).

*spoilers, duh*
---

The movie starts off with text and an interview with the then Gamemaker. This works as a quick way to introduce the context of the story so it can be gotten out of the way. The movie also utilizes flashbacks, a method that can set up quick background information and a method that is also used in the book. In the book, Katniss is who we open on. The context in the book is given further in the exposition with flashbacks and her dialogue with us and meshes well with the present-day storyline. 

What about the iconic Mockingjay pin? In the book, we see Madge (District 12's mayor's daughter) give Katniss the pin, which shows the irony, which is called out in the book, of how Madge could sympathize with a tribute while herself being exempt from the Reaping. In the movie we see Katniss get it from the District 12 Black Market, which shows how a country, which claims to be powerful, is so misguided that its citizens need to go through illegal means to survive. Both situations convey the Capitol's failure as an institution to support the basic human survival need of its citizens (I might have just way over-analyzed it but still). The differences in how Katniss obtained the pin takes away the moment from the books where we see the mayor as something other than unhuman

Into some smaller differences (mainly differences that I don't have a lot to say about):

Drunk Haymitch at the Reaping. In the book, yes. In the movies, no. Kinda sucks that we couldn't watch Woody Harrelson fall off a stage in a drunken stupor.

Peeta's dad doesn't visit Katniss after the Reaping in the movie.

The control room scenes from the movie don't exist in the book. I like the movie version, which shows us the high-tech inner workings of the arena.

The District 11 revolt doesn't happen in the books, but let's be honest, fans of both the book and movie revolted after they killed Rue.

Cato can be sympathized with (that short monologue about how dying and living are the same).


Those are the main big ones. There are smaller changes that were obviously made to cut down on time, and I think, after reading back through this, that I did a pretty good job of leaving those out.

---

So which is better? Both share the same basic plotline and characters. 

Books capture something that movies can't, the inner thoughts of characters. Even amazing filmography can't completely express what a character is feeling. This is where movies gain a slight edge. One of the beauties about books is that the settings and character's appearances can be molded and shaped by the reader.

Movies set in stone the settings and appearances. But movies also provide a sense of grandeur, a sense of complete awe. Seeing the Capitol for the first time just has that sense of "wow" that is enhanced even more by the wonderful score. The wave of emotions that we go through as we watch the characters suffer. There's something like seeing another person suffer that really makes us sympathize with them more than we would if they were just words on paper. Movies do an amazing job of humanizing its characters, more than a book could. 

After my much longer paragraph about movies, it may seem like I find movies to be superior, but it has to be remembered that these movies are adaptations of the book, not the other way around. So what's my opinion? I think that it really depends. There are situations where the book is better, where they are the same, and where the movie prevails. Even within that, it is still very subjective. If you prefer the movie over the book, go for. If you prefer the book over the movie go for it. Watch movies, read books, because both are a fun experience and who knows, maybe you'll get something out of it.

Comments

  1. Great review! I like how you not only identified a major change between the book and movie version, but also explained why the difference was significant. I also agree with you that in general there are certain advantages and disadvantages of the medium in which a story is told in. The Hunger Games does a good job of adapting the books to work well as a movie, but personally I prefer the books.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Great post! I thought you did a great job talking about all the major differences between the Hunger Games books and movies. I agree that a couple of the things that weren't in the movie were probably excluded to cut down on time, and it's still possible to understand the movie without them. For example, one reason why Madge probably wasn't in the movie was because they didn't have enough time to introduce a new character, and she isn't completely necessary to understand the plot of the movie. Another thing I enjoyed about your post was how you talked about some of the pros and cons of turning a book into a movie. I thought the points you made were mostly true, but when it comes down to it, I think it really depends on the book, and there is no definite way to determine whether the book or the movie will be better.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Great review! You did a great job explaining why the one major change impacted the movie so much, as well as the other small changes. You also explained the advantages and disadvantages of both the book and the movie and gave reasons why you thought both the book and the movie were good overall. Personally, I think movies based on books almost always leave out a ton of important details that were present in the book, so I usually prefer reading the books before watching the movies. However, there is no way to prove which is better for any given story; in the end, it all depends on how well each one was made.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Nice job! I really liked your last few paragraphs about how the different media used changes how you can tell the story. I particularly agree with you that one advantage books in general, and especially The Hunger Games, is that the author can lay out and describe a character's inner thought and feelings and feels without it feeling out of place or forced. I think that this is especially true for the Hunger Games, since the book's narrated in the first person and in a pretty distinctive tone and voice, and since there's a lot of discrepancy between what the characters, especially Katniss, are thinking and feeling and how they act.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Very nice! I often don't think about whether I liked the book or movie better. I often do notice that seeing pictures or videos of books I've read complements the book nicely, so one isn't better or worse than the other, they are 2 parts of the same story, so even though the book and movie were different, they were also what made the other one whole. Many bolognas to you, sir!

    ReplyDelete
  6. You summarized the key points of each medium so well! I wholeheartedly agree that movies solidify the appearance of characters and elements, while books provide a vague outline that allows you to put the pieces together in your head. Personally, I tend to gravitate towards movies, simply for the amazing visuals that many films display nowadays. Awesome article.

    ReplyDelete
  7. You did a really good job of summarizing the main points. I often think about if the movie or the book is better when reading books based on movies or vice versa. I agree that sometimes movies are better than the books, however this isn't always the case. But I do usually read the books first. But I really like how your last few paragraphs describe that in detail. Great job!

    ReplyDelete
  8. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  9. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Nice job! I like the way you concisely summarized the main plots of the story and mentioning the key elements of both the movie and the book. I liked the way you discussed how different medias in storytelling can change the tone and impact the way that the narrative is received. For sure, movies introduce a more cemented visual compared to books, which offer the reader more freedom of imagination. Personally, I enjoyed both the books and the movies. Nice job!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Recap of 2020 So Far

Why is Harry Potter so great?

Five Feet Apart