OPINION

The opinions published by The Match are solely those of the author, and not of the entire publication, its staff, or Collegiate School. The Match welcomes thoughtful commentary and response to our content. You can respond in the comments below, but please do so respectfully. Letters to the Editors will be published, but they are subject to revision based on content or length. Letters can be sent to match@collegiate-va.org.

By Nina Zeballos

The Harry Potter book cover (left) versus the movie poster (right). Image credit: The Artifice.

My mouth is slightly agape and my face is visibly distorted, caught in a state of cringe. I stare at my TV, watching a poor cinematic attempt to bring life to the novel series Twilight. Despite slight controversies surrounding this series, Twilight quickly became one of my favorite reads when I was 15 years old. After I swiftly finished the series of four books, I decided to watch the movies in hopes that they would do the novels justice. I don’t know why I even gave the movies a chance, but I must have been lacking in judgment. 

I have seen countless film adaptations of books, yet my opinion has never faltered; books are superior. Whether it’s Pride and Prejudice, The Fault in Our Stars, or Divergent; while they come close, the books never fail to deliver. As Genevan philosopher Jean-Jacque Rousseau once said, “The world of reality has its limits; the world of imagination is boundless.”

With books, there are infinite interpretations and variations from reader to reader. With films, we are confined to the artistic vision of the director and limited by budget. Readers have the ability to imagine the story with the characters they prefer, scenery, actions, etc. It is truly up to one’s imagination to decide whether the sky on a given day is an aqua-blue or a Carolina-blue, whether the characters are 5’9 ft or 6’0 ft, and whether the setting looks like the countryside of Ireland or the countryside of America. It is also impossible to fully build and shape a world in the short one-and-a-half to three hours of a normal film. Scenes are bound to be cut, which devalues the overall story, especially when the scenes include significant details.

Upper School student Chase Gill (‘25) says, “It’s simply infeasible to contain all aspects of a novel into a few hours worth of film. It leads to sections being shortened or removed altogether. This isn’t to say that books cannot be portrayed well in a movie form, but you would need multiple movies (or a show) to contain the same level of detail. This is why the creators of the more recent 2021 Dune movie chose to make it part one of a two-part series rather than a stand-alone movie like the older 1984 Dune. Same for the Foundations TV show. It can contain much more detail because it can have a much longer run time than a single movie.”  

For example, when I saw The Hunger Games movies, I noticed slight changes from the books and details that weren’t included, which made my viewing experience slightly disappointing. One minuscule detail that differed between the books and the films was Katniss’s sister’s cat, Buttercup. In the books, Buttercup is described as yellow, while in the first movie, the cat is black and white. Additionally, the origin of the Mockingjay pin, a momentous symbol, did not parallel the novels. Even though some details seem insignificant, they still detract from the viewing experience. 

The Hunger Games book cover (left) versus the movie poster (right). Image credit: Francesco Rao.

Along with the cat and the pin, the characters were nothing as I imagined, and the scenery was lacking. Because The Hunger Games movies were made to attract the widest audience, some scenes in books that possessed gruesome violence had to be cut to not be rated R, such as the fact that Peeta lost part of his leg in the games. 

After finishing the movies, I concluded that I preferred the books. Although I would consider the movies enjoyable, compared to the books they were inadequate. Contrary to my judgment, Jack Henry (‘22) prefers the movie adaptations of The Hunger Games over the novels. “I usually prefer the books because I believe they tell a more complete story; however, The Hunger Games movies execute the story and emotion much better than the books.”

A survey was sent out to the Collegiate Upper School comparing a few popular books that were turned into movies. The survey included The Hunger Games, the Divergent series, and the Harry Potter series. 

Of the sixty students who responded to the survey, 46.7% of the students preferred The Hunger Games books over the movies, 38.3% preferred the movies, and 15% had no preference or hadn’t seen or read the series. The Divergent series was also surveyed. Of the students, 31.7% preferred the books, 18.3% preferred the movies, and 50% had no preference or hadn’t seen or read the series. The last series surveyed was Harry Potter. An astounding 65% of the students preferred the books, 25% preferred the movies, and 10% had no preference or hadn’t seen or read the series.

The overall statistics point to the majority of the tested pool of students liking the books over the movie adaptations.

Caroline Crawford (‘25) believes, “The Harry Potter books are the best things to ever hit the earth. The movies are only half as good as the books because they skip many important scenes.” A drawback to movie adaptations: the films would need to be immensely lengthened to achieve the level of detail present in the books. Along with Crawford, Upper School math and computer science teacher Kristine Chiodo conveys, “The books in all of these series give so much more back story and open up the thoughts of the characters!”  

Despite film adaptations possessing the potential to be excellent, the books will never falter. As Giles Ferrell (‘24) eloquently puts it, “The books are always better. There are zero exceptions.”