Book versus movie adaptions are a serious deal for us literary fans – and so we’ve taken a look at some of the biggest page to screen adaptions of 2015, and judged which medium did it better.
The Martian
Truthfully, I’m not a huge fan of the book or movie, but if I had to pick, the movie is better. Drew Goddard took “The Martian’s” semi-ludicrous plot and turned it into crowd-pleasing entertainment. The cast breath new life in the characters, and Ridley Scott turned out some of his finest directorial work in years.
[Gabrielle Bondi]
Insurgent
The book is WAY better. I think the Divergent movies are seriously misguided when compared to the Veronica Roth’s best-selling book series. Insurgent glossed over the finer parts of what made the middle book such a great and thoughtful read by confusing the plot further and adding a bunch of action scenes. Insurgent was a shallow movie and a total disappointment for this book fan.
[Gabrielle Bondi]
Advertisement
Mockingjay Part 2
I still don’t quite agree with the choice Lionsgate made by splitting Mockingjay into two parts. Both films don’t feel like real movies and they suffer for it. The first part is painstaking and slow, and not much is added in terms of boosting up the plot. The second part is more exciting and the action is non-stop, but we also lose some time to process what’s going on and understand the impact these events are having on the characters. The book wins this round, just for being a tighter storytelling experience.
[Gabrielle Bondi]
Far From The Madding Crowd
While I find Thomas Hardy one of the less obtuse classics writers — I really enjoyed this particular book when I studied it at university — I have to go for the movie on this one. Gorgeously filmed, with wonderful performances from Carey Mulligan and Matthias Schoenaerts, the story was made so much more accessible in in movie-format.
Advertisement
[Hannah Atkins]
Me and Earl and the Dying Girl
Definitely the movie! While I appreciated the message of the book, the narration went back and forth and the voice of our teenage protagonist was fairly annoying. The film, on the other hand, still captured the central themes, but in a chronological and much more pleasing format.
Advertisement
[Hannah Atkins]
The Duff
“The Duff” the book and The Duff the movie are too very different but very good stories. As much as I enjoy the film being a modern breed of teen comedy, the book is my favorite. Kody Keplinger crafts a story that at its core is about self-esteem, promoting body and sex positivity — almost a rarity in most young adult novels. The movie stays away from that, following the overly used Pygmalion formula. For what it’s worth, the film is incredibly charismatic, thanks to Mae Whitman and Robbie Amell. Too bad they couldn’t have channeled that into the same story set forth in the book.
[Gabrielle Bondi]
“Paper Towns” was a better book than movie, but not by a large margin. The movie was well-acted and entertaining, and it also got the book’s message across. I do feel that we get more out of the story and characters — especially the supporting ones — from the book. I wish the movie fleshed out some of Quentin’s friends and parents a little more.
[Gabrielle Bondi]
The movie is so faithful to the novel that they are about equal in quality. The film edges out with some great scenes (the contract negotiation was the best part) and a notable performance from newcomer Dakota Johnson. Either way, this movie seemed strictly catered to “50 Shades” book fanbase. If you aren’t part of it, the movie isn’t all that fun.
[Gabrielle Bondi]
So what do you think of these book to movie adaptions? Who did it better? Let us know in the comments section below!
Advertisement