The LAST Book vs. Movie: The Hunger Games

Hello Owyn is here for the last time *sobs while eating ice cream straight from the carton in the dark while listening to emotional music*. For my last Book vs. Movie, I have decided to compare The Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins.

 VERSUS

*WARNING! ALERTING THERE ARE SPOILERS AHEAD*

Have you ever heard the saying "Parents are always right"? Unfortunately I have, from my parents. They are constantly trying to get me to "try new things" and "stop being indoors so much" and "get a life". Back in summer of 2011, their mission was to get me to read The Hunger Games.
I would never define myself as a conventional rebel when it came to going against my parents. I don't smoke, drink or party. Instead I refuse to read or watch things they want me to. They even got my sister to try to convince me to read the series, but I was stubborn and possibly a bit ignorant.
Then I heard they were making a movie of it. And I had read the back of the book, and it seemed vaguely interesting. When I realized my parents would never let me watch the movie without reading the book, I finally decided to read it around Thanksgiving.
I honestly could not put it down. I finished it in three hours. Then I finished the next two books in the next days. I thoroughly and completely enjoyed them, even with my parents smugly smiling at me when I admitted they were right.
When the first movie of the trilogy came out, I went to see it with my best friend Ana. Since we're odd we didn't go in the opening first weeks, we went when it was out in its fifth week because we wanted to sit wherever the hell we wanted without having to deal with people. Then my bladder became my enemy since when I had to go pee, I missed the kissing scene.
I remember walking out with Ana saying: "Did I miss anything?" And she's all "No not really, well wait... did you leave right before the Mutts?" I nodded. "Oh, then you missed the kissing scene." After almost falling to my knees in front of the movie theater while shouting: "WHY??!!!!?", since I REALLY wanted to see that, I accepted my fate and vowed to get the movie to watch that scene when the movie comes out on DVD.

Differences:

• They didn't have the Mutts look like the past contestants. That was something I was really looking forward to
• They changed the point of view so you can see more of the inter-workings of the Capitol and Gale's reactions to the Katniss/Peeta love plot that you didn't get in the book.
• I didn't really feel the whole connection between Katniss and Rue in the movie, it seemed very fake and forced. I definitely felt it in the book though. 
• There's a lot of focus on the preparation for the games when the contestants are in the Capitol. I didn't like that so much because I just wanted to see the epic death match.
• There's no Avox-girl. And I liked that whole back story.
• I don't know about you, but I pictured the Tracker Jackers bigger. I wanted those things to be scary demons from hell the size of your hand. 
• A difference that I did like was the fact they didn't make Katniss shove Peeta into a vase. I found that ridiculous. 

The Love Triangle: A Rant by Owyn the Intern (the last rant)
I enjoyed the book and the movie, but there is something I'd like to rant about: Love triangles. I don't like them. I haven't liked them since Twilight came out with Bella/Edward/Jacob. Why? Because I was upset how these random girls could get two boys pining after her when some people can barely get one. *stomps foot like a petulant child* It's not fair! Why does Katniss get Peeta and Gale and other girls don't! Therefore, I don't like it. And, ignoring my personal bias, they aren't realistic. You never really see love triangles in real life and only serve as a plot device. And it pisses me off when people root for Gale/Jacob when obviously Peeta/Edward are gonna win. I seriously want to wring their necks shouting: WHY ARE YOU ROOTING FOR THE LOSING TEAM? YOU'RE SETTING YOURSELF UP FOR FAILURE AND LITERARY UNHAPPINESS!!

Which did I like better?:
I liked the book better. Granted, everyone says that (about every book-to-movie adaptation when you ask them this question) but I have specific reasons why in this case. Like I said in the differences, they cut out the Avox girl, probably for time. That kind of pissed me off. I thought it added a nice back story since I found it extremely interesting. And who cares about the time? It's a huge series with a fanatic fan base. If you made the movie 24 hours long, people would probably still watch it. Another reason is the whole changing-focus thing. I didn't like how they showed Seneca Crane with the berries or the riot that broke out in District 11. I liked the first-person aspect of the book; it made the teenagers-killing-each-other-in-a-giant-organized-death-match human and real. In my opinion, they lost that in the movie.

But that's just my opinion. Leave a comment on what you think or which you prefer or what differences you noticed.
Unfortunately this is my last time, so you can send your goodbyes in present form. Preferably cash.
;)
Owyn

My Book to Movie Adaptations: Paranormal

Hello Owyn is back for my last Book to Movie adaptation blog post. For this week, I decided to be open minded and pick books that are definitely not of my favorite genre that I still believe should be made into movies. This genre is:
Teen Paranormal/Dystopian Romance.
Just typing it makes me want to gag.
Now the main reason I hate this genre so much is because I think it's stupid how teen authors can't just write about two humans falling in love. It has to be a human and a vampire, a vampire and a werewolf or a human and a toaster. And when it comes to these romances, "love" is used very loosely.
But, of that genre, there are some diamonds in the rough. Books that I love regardless of the fact they involve some *really* crazy circumstances.

*SLIGHT SPOILERS AHEAD*

Gone by Michael Grant. WHY: Okay, these might be a little more dystopian than paranormal, but I'm still putting in the category. The reason why I think this book should become a movie is because of the special effect aspects and its general plot. The kids in this book develop powers from living in their hometown which is surrounded by an energy barrier. Tell me that isn't badass. While reading, I just kept picturing the kids using their powers in a big-screen setting. Also, the plot has a lot of intertwining stories, like the love between Astrid and Sam, the Coates kids trying to destroy the town, and Lana and her dog escaping from their car wreck.

Evermore by Alyson Noel. WHY: As a definite part of the Teen Paranormal Romance scene, this book has what are referred to as "Immortals" (which is also the title of the series). Or basically, people who have taken an elixir which lets them live for hundreds of years without looking older than 17. The main character Ever deals with falling in love with the new kid Damen, seeing the ghost of her dead sister and whenever she touches people she feels their history and sees their auras. This book would be a great movie because of the success of book-to-movies like Twilight. If you just subtract the vampire and add an immortal, you'd basically have the same book.

The Adoration of Jenna Fox by Mary E. Pearson. WHY: When I read this book, I was 12-years-old, still developing in my literary identity. I decided to try a range of books that were recommended to me by my lovely librarian and this book was one of them. This book is about a girl who wakes up from a coma in the future and no one will give her a straight answer on what happened to her. What would make this book a great movie is the whole conspiracy aspect of it. Not just the whole hiding the truth-from-Jenna, but the whole hiding-Jenna-from-the-government. *EPIC SPOILERS AHEAD* When she was salvaged from a huge car accident, she lost most of her skin/body to burns but her father, practically a mad scientist, rebuilds her skin using bio-gel and she might be able to live for 200 years. But bio-gel is extremely illegal so Jenna is a secret. So with the whole teenage-secret-conspiracy-hideaway, this book would make a great movie.


P.S. A general reason for all three of my selected books to become movies is because they are all the first in series but each of my three picks have their own individual reasons.


Leave a comment on what book you would like to see become a movie or maybe what you thought of my choices.
Until later,
Owyn

Book vs. Movie: Romeo and Juliet

Hey it's Owyn here again. For this week I'm going to compare the iconic play Romeo and Juliet with the 1996 movie version with Leonardo DiCaprio and Claire Danes.

VERSUS    

DISCLAIMER #1: There are probably spoilers. But if you haven't read this or you are unfamiliar with the plot then what rock have you been living under for your entire life?
DISCLAIMER #2: I know it's not exactly a book but it's still an iconic piece of literature. Do you want me to retitle this blog series as "Literature vs. Movie"? It doesn't have the same ring to it.

Like in my To Kill a Mockingbird post, I have been assigned R&J to read at school and because of all my different schools, I have read it twice.
The first time I read it was when I was in seventh grade. All the teenage girls in my class were gushing and squealing about how "this was the greatest love story ever" and "I want to find my Romeo." Same thing happened when I read it again in ninth grade.
It takes all my restraint not to face-palm so hard that my hand flies through my face.
This is not a love story. Well it is kinda, but it's not a good one. A 17-year-old boy and 13-year-old girl meet, kiss, decide they're in love, get married, kill four people (occasionally indirectly) and then kill themselves. All over the course of four days. That's not love, that's practically Vegas.
Obviously those girls did not read it or didn't read it well. 
When I was in the summer after eighth grade, I saw that the Leo DiCaprio version was on Netflix. I had nothing better to do so I watched it. While watching, I mainly thought about how cute Leo was until he got older. And now I'm here, telling you the differences and my opinions.

Differences:
The movie is set in modern day, not the day that it was written.
The Capulet and Montague parents don't have first names in the play
The fighters have guns in the movie, when in the play they have swords.
I don't recall Romeo doing acid in the play
Mercutio was a lot creepier in the movie (personal opinion)
In the movie, Juliet wakes up immediately after Romeo has taken the poison and they have one last exchange, but that did NOT happen in the play.
They cut a lot of the Nurse's lines (probably for time) and ruined the character.

The Nurse: A Rant by Owyn the Intern
I loved the Nurse in the play; she's my favorite character. She was funny, charming, awkward, necessary to aiding and abetting horny teenagers, and sentimental when she needed to be. My favorite scene is when Nurse kind of betrays Juliet and tells her that she should marry Paris so there is no need for trouble. And it was devastating to Juliet because the Nurse was always there to support her, especially when Lady Capulet wasn't. And that blow wasn't nearly as harsh in the movie. It made Juliet's actions be of those of a rash teenager's, but I think they were trying to prove that they were in love, not horny. So that kind of angered me.

Which did I enjoy more?:
Hands down, no hesitation I liked the play more, even with Leonardo DiCaprio being heart-stoppingly gorgeous in the movie. Now I must admit that I wasn't that crazy about either of them. The whole love-at-first-sight thing just makes me want to commit myself to a mental hospital shouting "IT ISN'T REAL! IT ISN'T REAL!" But if I had to choose between the two, it'd have to be the play because you just can't disrespect my Nurse like that!

Which do you think was better? Leave a comment with your opinions!

Predict Casting: Fallen

Hello! Owyn's back for another Predict Casting. Reminder: these are just my opinions. Feel free to leave who you think should play what in the comments.

So this week I'm doing the book Fallen by Lauren Kate, which has no known date for movie release.

Summary: This book is about a young girl named Lucinda "Luce" Price who is sent to Sword & Cross Reform School in Savannah, Georgia, after she is accused of murdering a boy by starting a fire. At the reform school, she meets Daniel, a handsome boy whom she feels inexplicably drawn to, and believes she has met before.

Lucy Hale

CAST LIST:

Luce Price: Lucy Hale. This book is kind of a dark romance, which Lucy has mastered while doing Pretty Little Liars and when I was reading the book I always envisioned Luce as her. 

Cody Linley

Daniel Grigori: Cody Linley. Besides the fact I think he looks awesome as a blonde, I think he'd be great at capturing this moody, elusive love interest since he has the silent smolder down to perfection. And I bet he and Lucy would have great chemistry.
Arriane Alter: Ariana Grande. First of all, Ariana looks great with the whole black/red hair thing that this character rocks. Second, I think she could play the fallen angel Arriane since they both seem equally spunky.

Tyler Posey

Cam Briel: Tyler Posey. Tyler has the shaggy black hair and awesome eyes, plus he has the experience with the paranormal playing the lead in the Teen Wolf series. And he looks good as the bad boy.
Roland Sparks: Roshon Fegan. Besides matching the character description (minus the dreads), I think Roshon can play the slight-comedic-relief character without making him a jokey character, imitating the character he played in Camp Rock.
Gabbe Givens: Ashley Benson. In the book, Gabbe is described as "Neutrogena commercial pretty", which is the perfect way to describe Ashley and she naturally looks like an Angel. Plus, like Lucy, she has the whole dark acting from working on Pretty Little Liars.


Leave comments on who you think should play who (if you have a different idea) or what other upcoming book-to-movie adaptations I should try!
Until next time,
Owyn

Book vs. Movie: Hoot

Hello! Owyn is back again for another Book vs Movie blog post. For this week, I'm doing Carl Hiaasen's Hoot.

    VS    


*ALERTS ALERTING, THERE ARE PROBABLY SPOILERS AHEAD*
If you've noticed a theme in my Book vs. Movie blog posts, it's how I did not have a conventional childhood when it came to reading books and watching their movies. This book/movie is no different! Back in 2006, when this movie was all over commercials and Nickelodeon, I decided to read the book and my mom rewarded me by buying the movie.
But alas! She bought the movie along with the book, so whenever I read, I would feel the movie urging me to be watched. "Owyn.... watch me," it would say in a persuasive and eerie voice. And since I was a very annoying nine-year-old, I pestered my mom to let me watch the movie before I finished the book. But no, she is as stubborn as I am. But we decided on a compromise: when I finished the first half of the book, I get to watch the first half of the movie. 
I accomplished this task easily. I hoped to slip past my mom and watch the entire movie, but she watched me like a prison warden. Then I finished the rest of the book, and got to watch the rest of the movie. And I did notice a few differences.


Differences I Noticed:

• They never say what Mullet Finger's real name is in the movie
• Officer Delinko was never promoted in the book
• In the book, Roy is suspended for 2 weeks, in the movie it's 3 days. 
• In the movie, Roy says his name is Ling Ho in the hospital. In the book, it's Tex. 

NOTE:
When I did watch this movie, I watched it with my close friends Josh and Hudson. Since they were older and obviously more versed (sarcasm), they would tease me by trying to tell me major plot events and spoilers. This usually ended with me with my palms over my ears and shouting "I'M NOT LISTENING" over and over until they finally shut up.

Did I enjoy the book or the movie?:
I have to say, while I enjoyed both, the book was my favorite, even with the slight skewing after watching the first half of the movie with it. I thought that it was funny, the characters were great examples for kids my age, and that it was very well written. And the owls were adorable to read and watch. But I did feel a slight difference after watching the first half of the movie. I guess that's just what happens when your imagination is told what to think (it's almost like a betrayal). But even with that, I still enjoyed the book.

Which do you think was better? Tell me what you think in the comments. Well, until next week!
Owyn

My Book to Movie Adaptations #2

Hello again, it's Owyn here. I'm back to suggest more of my book picks to become movies! Here's this week's list with the theme of: "Books from my childhood" (or books that I read when I was younger since some of you might consider 15 as a part of childhood).

The Penderwicks by Jeanne Birdsall 

WHY: As a book, it was a very visual, compelling read. I think it'd be a great movie because the world needs more family-friendly movies that don't involve talking animals or crazy situations. It's such a sweet story for all ages to relate to. I think the scene where Skye tells off Mrs. Tifton would be a fantastic movie moment, along with Batty nearly getting hit by a bull. 

Amelia's Notebook by Marissa Ross

WHY: Books/movies that act as a guidebook are always a soft spot for me, which is exactly what this book is. It's a lovable story involving a girl moving to a new place and how she makes new friends and keeps old ones. A story not often told in this day and age, as either a book or a movie. Plus, I could perfectly visualize the parts where Amelia and her sister Cleo fight, since Amelia often describes Cleo's nostrils flaring in anger. 

Mysterious Benedict Society by Trenton Lee Stewart

WHY: You don't see many pre-teen oriented mysteries that don't involve some cliche missing animal and ALSO does not involve paranormal creatures or the "odd" death of a loved one. But this book perfectly avoided those things while reaching a broad audience. As a pre-teen girl, I loved it. As a mother, my mom loved it. As a preteen boy, my friend James loved it. And, like in the previous pick, there need to be more adaptations like that. I also think the checkerboard scene would be awesome to watch in a movie. 

 

Dear Dumb Diary by Jim Benton

WHY: It's a clever, middle school angsty, laugh-out-loud hilarious book that captures the journey of dealing with friends, enemies and crushes. It would be a great movie for all ages to see! If you're younger: "I can't wait to be like that." If you're a preteen: "I am so like that now!" And if you're older: "Remember when we were like that? Good times, good times..." The thing I'd be most interested in seeing if it ever does hit the theaters, is when Jamie and Isabelle stalk the male love interest since I nearly shrieked when I read that he turned around so I imagine doing the same in the theater. 

 

Tales of a Fourth-Grade Nothing by Judy Blume

WHY: The book had a very interesting protagonist, and I think that plays a big key in book-to-movie adaptation because it helps you root for them. If they're bland, why bother? Like most of the books on the lists, it's very family-friendly and can reach all ages. I was imagining watching in the theaters where Fudge jumps off the play set and when Sheila takes credit for all the work. I enjoyed reading it and would love to see it on the big screen.

Those are this week's suggestions of books to be made into movies. Feel free to leave suggestions on what books YOU think should be made into movies. Until next time!

Owyn  

Book vs. Movie: To Kill a Mockingbird

Hello, it's Owyn and I'm back for another Book vs. Movie on Friday the 13th! (scary music inserted here).    And I've decided to do To Kill a Mockingbird.

              versus            

*ALERTING, THERE ARE PROBABLY SPOILERS AHEAD* 
I am going to start with saying I have gone to seven different schools (so far). And when that happens, you get to relearn things and never learn things. For example, I have been assigned to read To Kill a Mockingbird twice and I have never been taught about the Civil War.
So in seventh grade I read Mockingbird for the first time and loved it. Granted, I try not to enjoy reading books I have to read for school because I'm a rebel, but I honestly enjoyed it. Even with my monotonous English teacher dissecting every single word, I loved it immensely. Then I read it in eighth grade as a part of required reading and still adored it and also got a new perspective on it through another teacher.
After finishing the book in eighth grade, our class had to watch the movie. I tried to pay attention, I really did, but the people in my class were EXTREMELY loud and distracting so I watched it at home with my parents later that night.
The next day we had to make a list of differences that we noticed (I mentally pointed and laughed at the people who decided socializing was more important than learning.)

Major Differences that My Class Accumulated:

• You never meet Aunt Alexandra, Uncle Jack or Francis in the movie
• They cut a lot of the kids' moments to emphasize on the trial and a general gravitation towards Atticus. Some moments cut out were the little slight puppy-love between Dill and Scout and when they go with Calpurnia to the black church.   
• Jem never has to read to Mrs. Dubose in the movie. 
• There is no mention of Dolphus Raymond, Scout's teacher, or the judge's house getting broken into in the movie. 

NOTE:
I typically find it odd when you watch a movie of a book you had to dissect in class, because (with me) you keep hearing your teacher's voice informing you of all the symbols used, and how this-piece-of-imagery-is-vital-to-everything-and-anything-in-the-plot. But with this I hardly felt it.

Did I prefer the book or the movie?
I have to say for this one I definitely enjoyed the book more, even with the complete and utter analysis I suffered through twice. But I would like to note that I really did like the movie and they did a great job with it, just not as good as the book. There's just something heart-achingly timeless/classic/amazing about that book that you can't replicate in a movie. Like the scene where Atticus shoots the rabid dog; it wasn't nearly as intense as it was in the book. But I did like the way they handled the trial in the movie, it was almost exactly as I pictured it.