I was hoping to watch the first 2 movies but I was wondering whether I need to read the books first to understand it? Also if I watch the films before reading, is it worth bothering reading the books after? Is there much difference?
I think the films are self-sufficient. The main difference is the books are told from Katniss point of view so you know what she is thinking, and there is as usual a lot more detail in books.
I watched the film first then read the books. Obviously with reading the books after, I was picturing Jennifer as katniss and always wondered how I would have pictured her if I'd read the books first. Loved the books though and the films.
I disagree. I haven't seen the third film yet, but I thought the first, and particularly the second, were rather good. I have seen a number of Jennifer Lawrence's films and have yet to see her give a performance that was anything less than totally convincing. Considering that she is the protagonist, Katniss is actually a taciturn, moody and rather introverted character. Lawrence pitched her to perfection both times, combining an outward coldness with an inward warmth and vulnerability. She doesn't have that many lines, so much of her expression has to be through body language. Many a lesser performer would have failed there.
I have also read the books and the films are fairly faithful reproductions. In response to the OPs question, no, you don't need to read the books first (although you should see the films in the right order) but it helps.
Well I've read the books and watched the films so far. It's all a bit hard to judge. The first book is better than the first film, but then I think the films get better, mainly because of the genius performance of Lawrence.
I'd do both though, but I'm an huge fan, there's a weary sarcasm in Katniss inner-thoughts in the books, which Lawrence does well to convey, but of course she can't put into words because there's not the same inward-narrative. Yet the fact that Collins wanted to keep it only being from her perspective, means that the films have more breadth than the books because it can go in many ways, and show things the books doesn't.
Katniss is a fascinating character in ways, because she often isn't sympathetic at all, and that is the big thing of the books really.
They're similar, but different enough to appreciate in both forms.
Comments
The books are a million times better, except for the third one, which is awful
I have also read the books and the films are fairly faithful reproductions. In response to the OPs question, no, you don't need to read the books first (although you should see the films in the right order) but it helps.
I'd do both though, but I'm an huge fan, there's a weary sarcasm in Katniss inner-thoughts in the books, which Lawrence does well to convey, but of course she can't put into words because there's not the same inward-narrative. Yet the fact that Collins wanted to keep it only being from her perspective, means that the films have more breadth than the books because it can go in many ways, and show things the books doesn't.
Katniss is a fascinating character in ways, because she often isn't sympathetic at all, and that is the big thing of the books really.
They're similar, but different enough to appreciate in both forms.