Book-to-Movie Adaptations Should Be Split Into Two Parts: Part One
Spoilers for “The Hunger Games” books and movie within. Proceed at your own risk.
I know I was late to the party, but I finally finished “The Hunger Games” trilogy early last week, and I loved every page. The writing was fast-paced and engrossing and the end of each chapter made me want to read just one more before I put the book away for the night. Bravo, Suzanne Collins.
(Quick side note: I have absolutely no idea how these books garnered a “Twilight”-esque, 12-year-old-girl-ish reputation. The body count in those 1000 pages rivaled Operation Barbarossa in World War II. The amount of blood and gore surprised me, especially for a book that’s supposedly aimed at the young adult audience. I get that there’s a love triangle in there, the main character is female and the author is female, but still. How many 12-year-old girls want to read about people getting flayed alive?)
Something funny happened as I read the third and final book, “Mockingjay.” I played a game with myself. I tried to pinpoint where the third movie would stop and the fourth movie would begin (the plan is for a four-movie series).
It’s becoming commonplace for book-to-movie adaptations to split their final acts into two parts. The reason, as with everything else in our world, is money. Why make one movie and charge $15 per ticket when you can make two movies and double your profit?
But let’s get past the obvious money grab for a moment and focus on the creative positives of this method. I’m actually okay with the “Last Book in the Series: Part 1” approach because it allows the director to put much more detail into the film than would be possible otherwise.
Andrew Meola,
Movie,
Walk In Radio,
books