Adaptations!

You know those moments, when you're falling alseep at night, and you're kind of half asleep?  You're not really asleep, you're still aware of what's going on, but you're not as conscious as when you're fully awake.  Yea, those moments are when I get the best ideas for blogs.

A few nights ago, as I was falling asleep, I had this idea to write something about book-to-movie adaptations.  I've been thinking about it since then, and it seems like a pretty good idea, so here we go!

OK, in the last few years, there have been some pretty big book-to-movie adaptations, namely Twilight, Harry Potter and The Hunger Games.  In all three cases, people who were fans of the books first have made a huge deal about how closely the movie stuck to the book.  And, I mean, there's obviously the major plot points that need to happen to follow the story, and character development that needs to happen, especially if it's part of a series, which these three all are.  But it's still an adaptation of the book.  That means that it's similar to the book in the major ways, but not exactly the same.  And I think a lot of people forget this.  I mean, I totally understand that when you really love a book, you want the movie to be exactly like it.  I have totally felt that exact same way.  But it seems like sometimes people forget that the movies are based on the books, they aren't a word-for-word interpretation of the book.  I feel like as long as the major plot points are covered, and the author is happy with it, then that should be good enough for the rest of us.

What also really gets me are the adaptations like The Princess Diaries and Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants.*  I've read those books, and they are not at all like the movies!  I mean, the first Diaries is pretty close to the books (plural; there are a dozen books in the series, and the first movie is an adaptation of the first, like, three books in the series) but the second movie has absolutely nothing to do with anything in the books at all.  And with Sisterhood, the first movie encompasses all the major plots points of the first book, but it totally cut out some of the characters in the book!  Like in the book, Bridget has a twin brother who doesn't exist in the movie.  And I know Lena's younger sister is in the second movie, but I'm pretty sure she isn't in the first movie at all.**  And then, the second movie was an adaptation of the fourth book!  They pretty much completely cut out the second and third books!  And, I mean, I agree that four movies would have been a bit much for this series.  But if they cut out two books in Twilight or Harry Potter, people would have lost their minds!***

I guess my point is that these movies were absolutely nothing like the books in so many ways, and yet no one makes a big to do about it.  But heaven forbid they have a character from The Hunger Games say something differently than it is in the book and everyone has a fit.  I think we all need to remember that these movies adaptations of the books, and not word-for-word carbon copies.

Days until summer: NONE!

Exams until summer: NONE! SUMMER VACATION!!

Days until camp: 36 (five weeks tomorrow!!)

*I started rereading Sisterhood the other night, that's what got me thinking about all of this.

**I haven't seen the movies in a while, so this may not be completely accurate.  Feel free to correct me if Effie is in the first movie!

***Myself included, at least as far as Harry Potter is concerned!