Book Vs Screen - The Big Sellers

At some point, we've all heard someone say "the book was better." But is it always? And why is the book often better than the film?

In this blog, I will discuss three best sellers in both book and screen form. The films must have been good because they sold millions of copies. But are they as good as their book counterparts, who have also sold millions of copies worldwide?

These are all my personal opinions and you are entitled to agree or disagree :)

1: Lord of the Rings by J.R.R.Tolkien.

If you haven't read these books or watched the films, then we cannot be friends...

Firstly, a good move by Peter Jackson, one he later forgot to stand by. The Lord of the Rings is a trilogy, and the movies remained. This allowed the movies to be precise and to the point. No adding sections in that aren't in the book, no dawdling on unimportant scenes. As they are long films regardless, this was a good move.

A sad note though, one of my favourite characters from the first book is Tom Bombadil. Tom is a mysterious character who the Hobbits meet at the beginning of their journey after Frodo is eaten by a tree or Old Man Willow. For me, these scenes introduced the magic of the world and raised a huge question. The ring did not make Tom disappear! This could have been well explored in the movies to give the ring even greater depth.

However, the films are already long, and so missing some characters out was a necessity for Peter Jackson. Tom and Old Man Willow, though very interesting characters, do not reappear in later books and are therefore obvious choices to be cut out.

Interestingly, there are certain things I believe the films improved upon. Formatting for instance. If you have ever read L.O.T. R you know that the books are split in half. One half for Frodo and Sam, and the other for the remaining Fellowship. Can we all agree that Frodo is an annoying character? Yes, he is the protagonist, and he has a hard time. But he whines about it and causes no end of trouble for poor Sam. Who, I hope we can all agree, is a major hero and the people's favourite characters? Yes?

Because Tolkien separates the books in halves, it means that for half the book you have action-packed warriors who're fighting evil with weapons and travelling across the land with a wizard meeting many other magical beings. And the other half is... Frodo and Sam walk, sleep, eat, repeat, walk, sleep, eat, repeat. Obviously, I exaggerate, but you can see where this is going?

The films correct this by moving back and forth between the groups of characters. A technique used in most modern-day books with over one protagonist. Game of Thrones by George. R. R. Martin for example. This keeps the audience engaged. If they have a favourite character, they will read about them again soon, rather than reading that character's full story and then having to finish the book by reading about a whinging Hobbit... (Apologies, I have strong opinions on Frodo.)

Another factor in the films being, perhaps, more easily digestible than the books is the language. The books are written in an older style of English. It is not an easy read. A similar problem to Pride and Prejudice. Though the stories are amazing once you get into them, each sitting takes 5 minutes to readjust my brain to the writing style to be immersed in the story. The films do not have this problem as you need not describe movements. The only things you have to use language for is the character's speech. This is a digestible amount of old English and half the time Peter Jackson reverts to modern English, anyway. Problem solved.

The films are not better than the books. I would say they are on par with them. Both are enjoyable in their own ways and I would recommend both.

2: The Hobbit by J. R. R. Tolkien (You can't do one without the other :p)

First off, these films did not flop. Peter Jackson still made money, and as you can see, I still bought them. All of them.

But we have to talk about the mistake. The Hobbit is one book. This book is for a younger audience than L.O.T.R. It is much easier to read and is playful. So why did Peter Jackson turn it into three films? This is the biggest mistake for these films. The book does not have enough to fill three films. Two, perhaps, if you're going into every detail. L.O.T.R was three books and three films, he had to miss characters and details out. He added them to The Hobbit!

Jackson added characters, such as the female Elf. By modern standards, yes, J. R. R.Tolkien wrote some penis heavy books (pardon my language) and this is a problem that modern fantasy is trying to address. But why did we have to add a love story into the Hobbit? To make up more film time, okay, fine. Kili is the best looking Dwarf (my opinion,) this isn't the worst thing, but he is changing the books which many people will not like.

The elephant in the room has to be the barrel scene. Who liked that scene? Rolling down the river in barrels with unrealistic, almost game-like graphics. Not to mention over the top, silly sword fighting.

The Hobbit is supposed to be funny, so having silly things like barrels makes sense. But not for as long as the film did. Bombur running past the entire group when scared is the level of humour we're going for with the Hobbit, that scene was fine. Shorten the barrels.

My final complaint is the final film. What is one of the biggest tropes in fantasy? Every book ending with a battle. Okay, we enjoy them, that's why so many writers follow the trope's plotline. However, did we need an entire film to show one battle? No. It loses its importance. Because the entire film is a battle, we don't get the build up a battle deserves. L.O.T.R did battles perfectly, and because of this, we expect the same level of attention from Peter Jackson in the Hobbit. But we don't get it.

But it's not all bad. I still own all the movies. Why? When blatantly I have so many problems with them? It's because of the characters. J. R. R. Tolkien created the characters, but Peter Jackson portrays them wonderfully and you really care about them. They're funny and all have unique personality traits that make the book wonderful and the films tolerable.

I would recommend the books to anyone. And the first two films, minus the barrels are good. I'd still watch them but... So many problems.

3. The Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins.

First off, yes, I am missing a film. This is not for any reason, I just haven't bought it yet.

I adored the Hunger Games. I read all three books within two weeks whilst working in China for the summer. I was teaching every day, planning lessons every night, eating out and travelling every weekend. And yet I still read these books, for the simple fact I couldn't put them down. Lunch breaks, a few minutes before going out to eat, before going to bed. I couldn't help myself. So the films had a high bar to hit.

Did Gary Ross pull it off?

I think he did well. He almost stuck to the three books, three films rule. And yes, the final two films seem a little more waffly. But I still enjoyed them. And, unlike the Hobbit, he didn't add things in to make the films longer.

The hardest part of these films is Katniss Everdeen. The book is written from her point of view and she had a lot of internal monologues. She's a complicated character, especially concerning the two men in her life who she loves equally and differently at the same time. When I spoke to people who hadn't read the books Katnisses character was sometimes misconstrued, because of them not knowing the inner workings of her mind. Could this have been done any better in the films? I don't think so. Gary Ross did a good job. You can't have internal monologue going on for an entire film, apart from Spirit Stallion of the Cimarron, but horses can't speak. And therefore, the character came across as well as possible.

The world and everything about Panem was exact to the book. It felt like the same story and that is all you can want from a film adaptation.

And that's it for this book Vs screen blog, thank you so much for reading!

There are far more films and books that could be discussed, but these were the three I chose. If you like what you've read please subscribe and check out my YouTube and all the usual social medias.