So I just saw the movie "The Hunger Games" this weekend. I must say it was a great movie and I thoroughly enjoyed it. But one thing that bothered me about the hype regarding "Hunger Games" is that people tend to compare it too much to the book. Yes, the movie was based on the best-selling novel of the same name. But why are you going to compare your movie watching experience to your book reading experience? These are two totally different things. It's like comparing apples and oranges. I hear comments like "the book was better." WTF?! No duh!
Of course the book will be better! When you read a book, you are only limited by your imagination. Also, the author has the time to include more detail and description. Books can be as long as they want (as long as they can hold the reader's attention). A good example of this would be the Song of Fire and Ice series by George R.R. Martin. Those things are like encyclopedias! Movies cannot. I also hear things like "the movie left out this and that." Ok. The movie was freaking 2.5 hours long! What? You want to watch a 4 hour movie or something? Of course they are going to have to cut some parts. I definitely know a movie is good if it's 2.5 hours long and I didn't even notice the time go by. Usually, I'll watch a movie and start to tune out at 1.5 hours. If it's more than 2 hours, you've lost me. Rarely is there a movie that would hold my attention for that long. This movie was almost 2.5 hours and I didn't even notice! I was in suspense the whole time.
I also read a comment that someone wrote that said something to the extent of "the book described the mechanically engineered dogs as having the eyes of murdered children. They did not show this in the movie, so the dogs weren't anything special." WTF?! How are you going to show this in the movie? Really people, stop being so nit picky. Oh yeah, another stupid comment I read was "In the book, Katniss has straight, dark hair that's braided to the side. But in the movie, they made her hair wavy." Really?! I have no words...
I think it's ridiculous to compare a movie to a book. I know some people complained that the movie left out a lot of detail so some parts didn't make sense. I never read any of the books and everything made sense to me. I don't care if the movie took out some characters or changed other characters. For the most part, it stayed true to the book (at least that's what I heard). And even if it didn't, I still enjoyed it. A good movie is a good movie.
I understand that not everyone enjoyed the movie. That's fine. Everyone has different tastes and not everyone will like it. This doesn't bother me as long as their reason for not liking the movie doesn't have anything to do with the book. Like I said, they are two different experiences and should be seen as that.
You wrote this back in March. I was just curious if you'd read the books since then and if you still feel exactly the same? I read the books first, then saw the movie. I told myself not to expect the movie to be the same and not to judge it based on the book, but honestly I couldn't help but be a little disappointed at what they chose to leave out versus what they chose to include or fabricate. That's why I love Game of Thrones so much - they include all my favorite dialogue from the books and just leave out a lot of the boring details from the books. Now I wait and read the chapters in the books after watching HBO. I like seeing it first in the dramatic way it is presented in the series, then I read the book to fill in the intricate details.
ReplyDeleteYes, I have read the entire series since then and honestly, I enjoyed the movie better. Maybe it's because I saw the movie first? I don't know. I don't think the movie left anything out from the book that was significant enough to make it any better. IMO. Maybe I'll feel differently when the second movie comes out. Game of Thrones. Awesome show! I haven't read any of the books though and am considering reading them, but just haven't gotten around to it.
ReplyDelete