In the spirit of the newly released “Hunger Games” movie, I thought it would be interesting to reflect on the transition from book to movie and why some people argue that the book is always better. I, myself, am not a reader or fan of the Hunger Games, but have been unavoidably overwhelmed by the influx of excitement via Facebook, Twitter, and television commercials for its recently released film now in theaters. Though I did not see the film, my perception from what I’ve heard about it is that it was disappointingly bad. Unfortunately, this seems to be the case for most book-to-film remediations.
Considering the likes of Harry Potter, the Twilight Saga, James and the Giant Peach, The Indian in the Cupboard, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo and countless others, such films are constantly criticized for being subpar if not downright bad. Perhaps this is because the portrayals in the film do not align with people’s own imagined descriptions and depictions from the text. Maybe the film skips parts that were in the book or oversimplifies a plot/scenario/relationship; whatever the case, more often than not, the hype for such movies is met with utter disappointment and, at times, outrage.
Granted, it is merely impossible to please everyone, and every film has its critics, but it is certainly worth contemplating the reasons for why the book is always said to be better than the movie. What do you think?