When Adaptations Surpass The Source Material

Click here sbird.co/46yxvPA and use my code SPACENINJA to get 55% OFF your first month at Scentbird. What’s your favorite fragrance? Comment below!

okay hear me out. the biggest point i rely on when discussing why the hunger games books are so good is the introduction of katniss and her motivations. within the first chapter we are told, through her own dialogue, that SHE ALMOST MURDERED A CAT. all because it was another mouth to feed and the only reason she didn’t go through with it was because of her sister. then after prim dies we are left with a heartbreaking mental breakdown after she finds the cat still alive back home. her sister, who was suppose to be everything good and innocent and worth protecting in this world, is dead and now she’s left with this cat that she wouldn’t have even hesitated to kill. that is beautiful story telling and that’s just something that the movie’s were never able to fully captured.

One of my personal favorite adaptations is The Devil Wears Prada. Meryl Streep took a one dimensional cartoon villain and turned her into an iconic, complex character who has a significant role on the protagonist's growth as a person and a professional. I'm still not done reading the book, but so far it's nowhere near as good as the movie in my opinion, and most of it has to do with the changes done to Miranda.

I agree with every take, except the Hunger Games take. Susanne did an incredible job with how she characterized Katniss, the universe, and her overall storytelling is beautiful.

We’re forgetting the most iconic adaptation of all, Shrek.

Glad to know I’m not the only one who thought Queen’s Gambit was a Biopic. I feel less stupid about myself

I haven’t read the Hunger Games in a long time, but I have to admit I feel defensive about your take. There’s just so much dimension to Katniss that is lost in the movie. I have to re-read it to truly compare, though. Don’t get me wrong, the movies are truly amazing adaptations, but I don’t know. Everything else is spot on to me, no doubt!

Agree with everything except The Hunger Games. The books added SO much depth to the characters, the sociopolitical issues of Panem, the Revolution etc.

In my opinion, The Hunger Games books are much better than the movies but their goal is to deliver a message about hopelessness, powerlessness, and the meaninglessness of war through the eyes of a young woman whose sole purpose has always been survival. If you have ever known refugees from war-torn countries, she got it quite right: of course, Katniss is disconnected from her emotions and she is not an engaging person. As a reader, you see all the hints she is missing and it is heartbreaking. Although I love Jennifer Lawrence, I also thought it was a pity Katniss and Gale were whitewashed: they were written as olive-skinned which suggested that many ethnic groups had mixed, made the characters more relatable to a wider readership (Caucasian or otherwise), and added an interesting social commentary on the distribution of power in the district.

I genuinely do love when adaptations surpass the original. Shows that there are ppl actually working on it who really care about the source they're making it from. Also I definitely think Invincible can come on this list one day.

The Hunger Games (specially Catching Fire) are some exceptional movies but man, they leave so much nuisance behind. It's in things just as simple as casting 20 something old actors as Katniss and Peeta, instead of teenagers. I mean, both Josh and JLaw were amazing on those roles, but the story would have been way more brutal if they would have looked like the actual children that they were suposed to be. Also ereasing the dissability aspect, the brutality of Peeta loosing a leg on the first Hunger Games, Katniss loosing her hearing and also the Capitol giving her a boobjob after the games when she was still unconcious because she looked too malnourished?? The mutos looking like the dead tributes? It was just brutal.

Making Harry a friend of Eggsy's dad rather than Eggsy's uncle without saying a word adds a huge amount of additional meaning, making their father-son duo more compelling. When I think of an uncle recruiting a son and becoming his father figure, it seems done more out of obligation and legacy than actually caring about Eggsy or his dad. But Harry recruiting Eggsy and basically adopting him means so much because for him to do any of that, it shows what an incredible man Eggsy's dad must have been and how guilty Harry feels about his death. Rather than a societal expectation, Harry's guilt combined with his love and respect for Eggsy's dad drives him and Eggsy together, but then Eggsy is ultimately the one who actually wins Harry over, since their relationship was tested multiple times throughout the movie.

Maybe it doesn't have a place in this conversation, but I think The Martian is an example of a movie adaptation that's exactly as good as the original book, but for a completely different reason. On the one hand, the book is hilarious and explains the science in such a way that you feel smarter after reading it. On the other hand, the movie is incredibly tense and nerve-wracking, and Mark's struggle to survive hits a lot harder when you can see what he goes through. But they're both super enjoyable, and the movie is pretty faithful to its source material.

I would have to disagree with your take on the Hunger Games series. In my opinion, the book is way better at portraying Katniss' trauma, she had more depth and feels like a real person. I feel like the movies erased a lot of her characteristics and weren't able to convey her thought process and emotions.

I have to disagree with the Hunger games take. As many people have already said, Katniss is such a well fleshed-out character in the books, and the movies erase so much of that and also the revolution.

Can’t believe you didn’t even mention “Who Framed Roger Rabbit”! It’s such a good movie, that is also so radically different from its source material, and came out so good that the original author of the book made a sequel book that basically made the first book a dream sequence and then it becomes a sequel to the movie!

It doesn't help that American Psycho by Bret Eston Ellis is one of the most difficult books to read. It's not even the heinous amounts of violence; it's a matter of the medium. In the film, Patrick Bateman is passably likeable because you never really have to sit with his worldview outside of a few pieces of internal monologue. The book feels inaccessible on purpose. The movie has an all star cast :')

Arrival could be added to this list. The movie was fantastic and such a boost to the short story it’s based on.

Saying the hunger games books aren’t good is truly an unpopular opinion 💀💀💀

What I think makes the hunger game movies so good is that the medium gives the story an opportunity to expand. The books are limited to Katniss’s pov who notoriously tries to stay out of the politics and surrounding drama more than any other character in the book. The film however is able to expand this pov and give the viewer a look into the game rooms, into the political strategy of President Snow, and other such sequences that gives the story and the world depth that is pulled off in the books but otherwise wouldn’t really be able to have been done justice in the film medium