# Hunger Games: Book vs. Movie -- Discuss -- MERGED thread



## martaszemik (Dec 4, 2011)

I'm anticipating the Hunger Games movie in March, but I'm fearing it will not live up to the books. I read the first one almost three years ago, patiently waited for the third one to be published later, and the story lived with me for a long time.

Now, I'm afraid the movie may spoil the book (although the trailers look promising). It's rare that movies live up to a reader's expectations, so I'm debating whether to see it.

What are your thoughts?


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

If we extrapolate based on the long history of Hollywood converting books into movies, I'd say we have about a 99% probability of the movie not being as good as the book. All I ever reasonably hope for is that it is not _too_ terribly worse than the book.


----------



## Patricia (Dec 30, 2008)

Is the movie based on the first book or the whole trilogy?


----------



## martaszemik (Dec 4, 2011)

I believe the first book only. I'm pretty sure they'll make Catching Fire and Mockingjay as sequels. The story is just too long and complicated to fit into one, plus think about the $$$ they'll make. This is the next Twilight.


----------



## me3boyz (Jan 10, 2010)

martaszemik said:


> This is the next Twilight.


I'm rather hoping it'll be the next Lord of the Rings. But I never expect the movie to be better than the book. I loved the LotR movies, yet still watch them and wish certain things were in the movie. We'd need two intermissions for Return of the King if they didn't stop where they did!


----------



## purplepen79 (May 6, 2010)

Judging from the previews, it appears that the moviemakers did a good job with both the casting and the set design (at least the visual effect of the preview matched or enriched what I imagined when I read the books). Of course, visual effect can be far different from overall effect for me. For instance, I loved the visual effect of _Avatar_ but didn't care for the script. Still enjoyed the movie though for its visual cornucopia, especially the dragon sequences. I felt like I was really flying on a dragon, watching it. After seeing _Avatar_, I desperately wished someone would make Anne McCaffrey's _Dragonflight_ into a movie. Going back to _Hunger Games_, the parts in the arena were filmed near where I live in western NC, so that's an added incentive for me to want to see it. Was Suzanne Collins involved with the movie at all?


----------



## Zackery Arbela (Jan 31, 2011)

NogDog said:


> If we extrapolate based on the long history of Hollywood converting books into movies, I'd say we have about a 99% probability of the movie not being as good as the book. All I ever reasonably hope for is that it is not _too_ terribly worse than the book.


Given that the first draft of the script for Twilight basically threw the book aside and turned it into a run of the mill actioner that only kept the characters names, I'd say you are right. From what I read, Edward was a badass vampire warrior, Bella was a Buffy clone, and the whole thing ended in a giant gun battle on jet skies...luckily (or not, depending on your opinion of Stephanie Meyers) they went back to the drawing board and stuck more closely to the source material.

Given that track record, we should be thankful that Katniss isn't a cyborg in a bikini fighting an alien invasion. Or that Michael Bay isn't directing, other wise all bets would be waaaay off...


----------



## Jan Strnad (May 27, 2010)

For some reason, I'm totally unenthusiastic about this film. Maybe my excitement will grow as the film gets buzzed, but right now, the idea isn't doing anything for me and the trailer I saw didn't change that apathy.


----------



## Sean Patrick Fox (Dec 3, 2011)

NogDog said:


> If we extrapolate based on the long history of Hollywood converting books into movies, I'd say we have about a 99% probability of the movie not being as good as the book. All I ever reasonably hope for is that it is not _too_ terribly worse than the book.


+1

The quality of the script, the acting, the directing, these are all important factors. But in my experience, more so than anything else, the biggest issue in book-to-film adaptations is the time limit. You just don't get to see the characters grow and the story unfold like you would in a book.


----------



## martaszemik (Dec 4, 2011)

That would be awesome if it turned out to be like Lord of the Rings (my all time favorite!), but that's some big shoes to fill. If it gets anywhere close, I'd be happy.

The Hunger Games characters are so unique, I hope the cast can pull it off.


----------



## Jan Strnad (May 27, 2010)

Jennifer Lawrence is terrific, so there's hope.

I just have this sinking feeling that it'll be too pretty and "Seventeen magazine-y" for me. But then, I'm hardly the target audience.


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

martaszemik said:


> I believe the first book only. I'm pretty sure they'll make Catching Fire and Mockingjay as sequels. The story is just too long and complicated to fit into one, plus think about the $$$ they'll make. This is the next Twilight.


It's not that complicated and will be even less so in a screenplay.


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

Panem was never described in nearly as much detail as the world in the LOTR books. I only wish! That is the main reason I read the books.

OTOH, I think the author did a good job keeping the scope of that detail within the parameters of her story. *I* wanted more but then that's what I look for in dystopian books.

So they'd have alot to create to make it 'epic' like LOTR.


----------



## Harry Shannon (Jul 30, 2010)

I have a feeling they have assembled the right team and cast. Jennifer Lawrence is pitch perfect, Woody Harrelson seems right, on and on. The co-writer on the script is Billy Ray, who is best known for adult fare. It may be more intimate than epic at times, but that also suits the books. I'm looking forward to it.


----------



## Cege Smith (Dec 11, 2011)

I am eagerly anticipating the movie and have made my "girl night" plans to see it opening day already since my husband balks at this kind of stuff.

I guess I am going into it with the expectation that it won't be as good as the book, but that it is going to bring to life the characters that I loved so now when I reread the series (which I will) I will be able to truly "see" them.  I think it is incredibly difficult to cram all of the character development and plot twists into one short block of time, but from what I've seen from the previews (and a new trailer was just released a few days ago) it looks like they are staying very true to the book.

In my mind, they can't deviate from the formula much at all without alienating the fan base that will bring in the oodles and oodles of money that the studio is expecting.


----------



## marianneg (Nov 4, 2008)

I'm also not expecting it to be just like the books, but I am looking forward to it.  I love the casting, the music is wonderful, and the trailers gave me a thrill.  I already told DH that we were going


----------



## Brad Murgen (Oct 17, 2011)

I think it would be really hard for them to screw up this movie.  The book is perfect for translation to the big screen... skimps on world details so filmmakers can take more liberties, has plenty of action and violence, teen characters to bring in the kids, good casting.  I think it will be an entertaining film, which is all you can ask for.


----------



## flipside (Dec 7, 2011)

Hard to tell.

I think they've made good trailers.

But we've also seen horrible movies with great trailers.

So yeah, will reserve my judgment upon seeing the actual film.


----------



## B.A. Spangler (Jan 25, 2012)

Most movies can't replace the story we see through our reading of the book.

Interesting observation - my son has read the series twice (loves to read). Yesterday, while at the movies, he approached the new Hunger Games movie poster - his mouth open in an _aww yeah_ expression. He ran his fingers over the gold images and smiled. He liked what he was looking at. But then he turned his face up to me and in a flat tone said, _the've got the wrong actors._

Now I haven't read the books, but from what he said, he felt the actors picked were too old to play the main characters of the story.

What my son had visualized while reading the series is likely very different from what others had visualized while reading the series.

Bottom line, to those that read the series, they will find something disappointing in the movie - it may be small or it may be big. And to those who never read the series, they will base their opinion solely on how good the movie is.


----------



## Jorja Tabu (Feb 6, 2012)

I have high hopes because I love the actress in the lead role--Jennifer Lawrence. Even though she doesn't _look_ the way I imagined Katniss, I think she's talented enough to capture our heroine well.


----------



## sandrasstories (Feb 1, 2012)

I've never read the books, but I hear they're really good. The movie, at least, looks good. I want to buy the books before I see the movie, but I have half a dozen other novels to read. Including Sherlock Holmes, The Night Circus, Pathfinder, and Jane Eyre. Getting behind. Sigh.


----------



## 4eyesbooks (Jan 9, 2012)

I just finished Catching Fire and now I'm reading The Mockingjay.  After reading the book and seeing the trailer for the first movie I thought they nailed casting Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss.  My only disappointment was Peeta.  He didn't look like I had pictured him from the book, but we'll see.  Lenny Kravitz is Cinna and Woody Harrelson is Haymitch so I'm excited about that casting.  I think from what I've seen of the trailer they are staying very close to the book, but the movie can never capture every experience as richly as the novel.  I will still be there in the theater to watch with my buttered popcorn in hand


----------



## planet_janet (Feb 23, 2010)

I think it's going to be a good movie (from what I've seen and read thus far).  I can't wait to see it!


----------



## KateEllison (Jul 9, 2011)

I certainly hope so! 

Personally, I think the story will translate well to the big screen, as it's action-packed and straightforward (plus author Suzanne Collins was a TV writer before she was a novelist anyway). Since the book is so popular, they'll probably stick closely to the original narrative (which ruins some movies in my opinion since books and movies are totally different mediums with different needs in terms of a narrative), but because of the book's style and structure I don't think that will be a weakness here.

Also, there are supposed to be 4 films total. 1 for each book with the last book being split into 2 movies just like HP and Twilight. Believe me, Lionsgate is going to milk this cow for all it's worth.


----------



## Guest (Feb 7, 2012)

martaszemik said:


> This is the next Twilight.


This is absolutely the danger that this movie faces. The beauty of Susan Collins's work, according to Time Magazine, was that it could be "all things to all people." If they make it so that it's only a love triangle for teenage girls (which the trilogy eventually devolves into), they will have abandoned much of the story's potential.

"I volunteer as tribute," will go down as one of the worst lines of dialogue ever delivered in a movie. Jennifer Lawrence sounds like an automated answering machine message, and from watching the trailer I really don't see any way they could salvage it.


----------



## Imogen Rose (Mar 22, 2010)

I am really looking forward to it. The trailer looks great!


----------



## Carl Ashmore (Oct 12, 2010)

I certainly hope so - judging by the trailer it seems to be pretty close to the book


----------



## acellis (Oct 10, 2011)

Movies very seldom live up to the book.

One example wghere it did is the book I Am Legend, by Richard Matheson, made into the movie, The Last Man on Earth, staring Vincent Price. Check them both out!


----------



## tahliaN (Nov 6, 2011)

I actually think it will be better, at least for me, because It will be over in 2 hrs instead of having sleepless nights until I've finished reading it.


----------



## Kathelm (Sep 27, 2010)

> This is absolutely the danger that this movie faces. The beauty of Susan Collins's work, according to Time Magazine, was that it could be "all things to all people." If they make it so that it's only a love triangle for teenage girls (which the trilogy eventually devolves into), they will have abandoned much of the story's potential.


That's exactly my fear. I was once summarizing the plot to my brother-in-law, focusing on the political situation, only for my preteen niece to say I was missing the point. ::sigh:: I would argue that the sequels are more of a treatise on post traumatic stress disorder than a love story, but like Time Magazine says...

Anyway, I'm skeptical, but the trailer gave me some hope that at least someone involved is taking it seriously. They might not ruin it.


----------



## Patrick Skelton (Jan 7, 2011)

Here's to hoping!


----------



## purplepen79 (May 6, 2010)

Kathelm said:


> I would argue that the sequels are more of a treatise on post traumatic stress disorder than a love story, but like Time Magazine says...


Great point about the sequels being a treatise on Posttraumatic Stress Disorder -- in the Hunger Games discussion on here a few weeks ago, a couple of us danced around that theme in our comments. I know there's a lot of debate about the ending of Book 3, and I can see both sides of the argument; however, whatever else the ending of _Mockingjay_ is, to me the final chapter is breathtaking in its portrayal of how longterm PTSD feels


Spoiler



and how brave Katniss is to continue her life and marry and have children, even though she has little hope that the future will be any better than the past. After all she's suffered, it would be so much easier for her at that point to curl up in a corner somewhere and refuse to go on, but she doesn't. She decides to live, and to someone in her situation, that has to be the scariest thing she can do. I like that Collins doesn't sugarcoat it and shows how difficult it is for Katniss to recover, even though she has Peeta and later their children to help keep her sane.


 There is no magic wand (or person or happy ending) that can cure PTSD--only a daily struggle to reclaim the life that was stolen by trauma. I just hope the movies don't let that theme slip by into some Hollywood glitz happy ending fest. I have hope after seeing the previews, but I guess we'll see when the movie comes out . . .


----------



## swlothian (Feb 20, 2012)

I haven't read these books yet.
What do you suggest?
Read the book or see the movie?


----------



## martaszemik (Dec 4, 2011)

Without a question, read the book first. You'll enjoy the experience much better.


----------



## Klip (Mar 7, 2011)

purplepen79 said:


> Judging from the previews, it appears that the moviemakers did a good job with both the casting and the set design (at least the visual effect of the preview matched or enriched what I imagined when I read the books). Of course, visual effect can be far different from overall effect for me. For instance, I loved the visual effect of _Avatar_ but didn't care for the script. Still enjoyed the movie though for its visual cornucopia, especially the dragon sequences. I felt like I was really flying on a dragon, watching it. After seeing _Avatar_, I desperately wished someone would make Anne McCaffrey's _Dragonflight_ into a movie. Going back to _Hunger Games_, the parts in the arena were filmed near where I live in western NC, so that's an added incentive for me to want to see it. Was Suzanne Collins involved with the movie at all?


Completely off topic. Purplepen, the artwork on your book covers is gorgeous. Reminds me of Chagal.


----------



## purplepen79 (May 6, 2010)

Masha du Toit said:


> Completely off topic. Purplepen, the artwork on your book covers is gorgeous. Reminds me of Chagal.


Thanks!


----------



## AHeath578 (Mar 11, 2012)

Not sure if there is a topic running on this already but I found this thread through the search function so here's hoping I'm not causing two overlapping threads lol.

Went to see the movie this weekend! I was horribly disappointed.  Perhaps its because I just read the book one week before the movie came out but the number of things they changed (for NO reason UGH) was astonishing. Casting was alright, though I feel like maybe Jennifer Lawrence wasn't actually a great choice since they describe Katniss as being olive skinned and brown eyed and, yknow, _small_. In the book she describes her fears of death because she's waaay smaller than everyone except Rue. But otherwise casting was good.

Just... the differences! Gah!! I understand changing things for the big screen when it comes to time limitations but, really, they added in conversations that NEVER happened so I feel like they could have taken all that fluff out and kept to the story way better.

Differences I found:


Spoiler



-The opening scene with Prim screaming and then Katniss singing to her. Felt like an excuse to have her sing.
-The entire conversation with Gale at the beginning of the movie, minus the part where he says they could run away.
-They ONLY showed the hovercraft at the reaping (which didn't happen during the book) and never during the actual Games.
-Took out Haymitch being at the reaping but decided to put in a conversation on the train with Peeta where he asks Katniss if she's met him before.
-Katniss getting her pin from the lady in the Hub (can't think of her name, just Greasy lol) instead of the mayor's daughter... And then having to secretly hide it the entire time! Really, that seemed unnecessary to me. I don't see why there was even any reason to add it in that she was sneaking it when they could have just let her have it and never mentioned it.
-There was not a single scene of them shoveling food into their mouths, which I was wholeheartedly looking forward to lol.
-Cinna freely talking about how distasteful he finds the Hunger Games, even though in the book they made it perfectly clear they were being watched day and night and he would keep his mouth shut but everyone could tell what he thought.
-The Game Makers watching their training?! Did not happen. No. The Game Makers did not see them until they were being scored.
-OMG the whole scene with Peeta throwing the weight because the others were 'looking at him like a piece of food'. Nooo. That was 3 minutes wasted on a scene that did NOT happen and would not have happened because they were given, and they followed, instructions to specifically not show off their skills.
-Them showing Rue's skill during training.
-The scores. Seriously. In the book it talks about how only the tributes from districts 1 and 2 ever got above an 8 and everyone else averaged around 4. But, for some reason, in the movie, everyone got 7-10. I felt like that seriously took away from how amazing Katniss's 11 was.
-Her outfit during the interview was supposed to shimmer and look like fire, not actually be on fire like her opening ceremony costume.
-Her backpack was supposed to be NEON orange. Nuff said.
-She found water immediately in the movie. I guess dehydration isn't scary enough for film.
-Peeta never killed anyone. He was supposed to be the one who killed (well, finished off anyway) the girl by the fire.
-I feel like they could have kept the scene with Rue appearing during the night and her eyes reflecting, instead of having her in the tree going 'Pssst' in the morning. That scene felt like it was written for the big screen!
-Rue telling Katniss Peeta was by the river.
-They took out Rue's explanation of why she loves music, which made her funeral scene feel a little awkward...
-I felt like they made Katniss very generous with her kisses and cuddles. Like, zero hesitation full-on-love kissing. Not accurate at all.
-They kept the soup gift but skipped over the sleeping medicine and just had Peeta sleeping on his own.
-Thrush was supposed to be killed by Cato, not a mutation.
-OH MY GOD the wolf mutations. Why did they think it was okay to take wolves that had the features of all the fallen tributes and make them all into generic, tail-less, short haired dogs?
-The entire conversation between Katniss and President Snow. Never happened.
-They took out the entire conversation between Katniss and Peeta about how she didn't know how she felt about him and how it had all been a show. Which... was_ kinda_ the finale of the book. Instead they seemed to make it so that Katniss was pretending and Peeta was oblivious, even when they got back to District 12.



I know there were more, after the movie I spent well over 2 hours ranting and raging to my husband lol.

And, of course, they had to add in a couple minutes of Katniss staring at Gale.
And thus we have Twilight, er, I mean The Hunger Games. 

Anyone notice any other differences?

I'm so sad, I didn't get to see the green goo coming out of Glimmer. I was looking forward to that part most. 

I'm kinda shocked though. I went with my book club and none of them could stop talking about how accurate and to-the-book the movie was!! I was outraged. $20 on tickets, $20 on movie snacks, and $20 on lunch after. I felt like the money for my house's gas bill had been stolen.

Bah.  /rant.


----------



## Jan Strnad (May 27, 2010)

I enjoyed it, though knowing how the first episode comes out (and the second and third) did spoil the suspense for me. I wondered if it would make sense if I hadn't already read the books.

AHeath578, "true to the books" is a subjective concept. I thought the movie was very true to the book in all essential ways. Knowing how horribly stories can be twisted and contorted almost beyond recognition in the transition from book to film, I thought that the changes in _The Hunger Games_ were minimal.

If you want to see a real book-to-film travesty, check out_ The Lovely Bones_ or _A Sound of Thunder_. If you dare.


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

Did the move cover all 3 books or just the first? Just the first one, right?

Gotta start the next YA movie dynasty.....


----------



## Darrell Pitt (Feb 12, 2011)

Just the first one.

I'm really surprised. I've never heard so much nasty media stuff as quickly about a film as I have this one. I'm not sure what's inspired it. Maybe it's because the books are so popular or perhaps the subject matter is so serious.

I'm talking about the stuff about the actors not looking starving and they should be darker skinned/olive complexion.


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

I haven't read the book or seen the movie, but will get around to both. Not very interested from the sound of it. But a friend who loved the book saw it with her BF last week and she was really disappointed with the movie and the BF was meh. Then again she's 28 and maybe the movie is designed for a younger aged viewer?


----------



## D. Nathan Hilliard (Jun 5, 2010)

The problem is twofold.

First of all you have to compress the story into a two hour format. You can't do that without making alterations. You have to make allowances for the fact that a filmmaker has a harder time showing what's going through a characters head than a writer, especially without bogging the film down in exposition. He also doesn't want to waste too much time in side stories or characters that he will have to explain so minor characters that aren't directly essential to the plot or story tend to be in danger of being cut.

Add that to the fact that the fans of a popular book are going to see any deviation from that book as a "flaw" and the director has his work cut out for him.



Spoiler



For instance I hear that a supporting character early in The Hunger Games is missing from the film. I can actually understand why because her purpose in the book was really to demonstrate the unfairness of the situation due to simple things like who you were born to, and that could effectively be done without her in the film.



Also, sometimes things that work in books don't always work well on the big screen. I think the best example of this would be Stephen King's "The Shining." The hedge animals were a creepy factor in the book, but Kubrick realized they would come across very poorly on film and changed them to the hedge maze. King was incensed, but his later attempt to make a version more true to the book proved Kubrick right on that score.


----------



## bordercollielady (Nov 21, 2008)

I saw the film last weekend and while I enjoyed it - I enjoyed the book more.  I won't restate it - but I thought they sugar coated the ending some..  per what AHeath wrote.    Also - the cinematography was choppy  (shaky-cam)... I think they used it  so that the violence was not as explicit - to get their PG rating -  Think "Blair Witch Project"... but it was giving me a headache..  But the acting was wonderful and aside from the ending - I think it followed the book really close.. Looking forward to the sequels.


----------



## Joseph_Evans (Jul 24, 2011)

If you have read the first book and seen the film which do you think is better? Or are they just as good as each other? I'm going to see it on Tuesday and very much looking forward to it!


----------



## purplesmurf (Mar 20, 2012)

Book all the way!


----------



## bordercollielady (Nov 21, 2008)

The book without a doubt...you can read my assessment of the movie in an earlier thread!


----------



## Kathelm (Sep 27, 2010)

I saw it over the weekend.  The action scenes were bad, but other than that, I thought it was a pretty good adaptation.  The cast was great, and they were willing to go beyond Katniss' POV (which was one of my complaints about the series, more so in the sequels).  It was missing a lot of the depth, though.

Other than the action, I didn't have any major complaints.


----------



## Jan Strnad (May 27, 2010)

You have two major differences between a movie screenplay and a novel:

1. Length. A novel is longer. Screenplays are typically 90-120 pages. If you go by the rule of thumb that 1 page = 1 minute, the Hunger Games screenplay would be about 145-150 pages long MAX. (Maybe someone who's read/seen it could tell us.) That's far shorter than the novel, and the screenplay format is nowhere nearly as dense as a book, with extra line spaces and heavily indented dialogue, etc.

So, a lot gets thrown out in the movie. Extraneous characters go away. Some characters are combined. The mayor's daughter gets cut, so where does the mockingjay pin come from? From another character whose scene is brief but needed. Etc.

2. Depth. Movies are very, very good at showing us the surface of things. District 12 was depicted visually with an attention to detail that wasn't in the books. But, books can go inside characters' heads and show the _meaning_ of things, and that's where the depth comes from.

I think this is where most movies disappoint when compared with the books.

But overall, I thought that the _Hunger Games_ movie was quite good and that they're well on their way to a successful franchise!


----------



## Stan R Mitchell (Feb 26, 2012)

My wife and I watched the Hunger Games this past weekend and I thought it absolutely rocked. I think it even held its own with the book, which also rocked.

So often movies fall short of the book, but I think this one held its own, if not slightly surpassed its print sibling.

And it seems my assessment follows the rest of the public. The movie blew out the box office, grabbing the third biggest opening weekend of all time. It also earned better-than-solid ratings on Rotten Tomatoes.

The movie is nothing short of incredible, in my opinion.

This incredible success by Suzanne Collins should go miles toward motivating thousands of starving writers around the globe and should buoy the spirits of book publishers throughout the country. Success — and I mean insane, incredible, impossible success — can be closer than you ever think.


----------



## lea_owens (Dec 5, 2011)

I think the movie was a good interpretation of the book. I was glad I read the book first, though, so that I had a good understanding of what was going on. My 19 year old son had not read the book but he really enjoyed the movie. My 21 year old daughter had read the book and I think she enjoyed the movie more than my son because she was able to have some great discussions with friends about the differences, what was left out, what was added (or just brought forward from the second book).


----------



## Stan R Mitchell (Feb 26, 2012)

Agreed, Lea_Owens. 

I had a friend who hadn't read the book and he felt the movie was a lil' weak. Like a 7 out of 10. But my other friends who've read the book are rating it at 9.5 or 10.

I think they did struggle to get all the background across in such tight time parameters.


----------



## Alicia Dean (Jul 11, 2011)

I actually liked the movie better than the book, because it was more action packed and it didn't seem to take as long to get to the actual games. Plus, the present tense writing bothered me a little. In the movie, that wasn't an issue. I think the casting was fantastic.


----------



## Stan R Mitchell (Feb 26, 2012)

Alicia, I'm glad you mentioned the present tense. That bothered me, too, and I told my wife that I can't remember reading a present tense book in years. (Maybe a small, intense part of a book, but not the whole thing.)

So, I'm wondering what advantage that offered to write it that way, other than uniqueness...


----------



## hs (Feb 15, 2011)

I liked the movie a lot, and it met my expectations. (There was no way the movie was going to surpass the book for me because the book was so AWESOME.) The actors were prettier than I imagined, and of course, I didn't expect everything in the book to translate to the movie. 
My main worry going into the movie was whether it would pull me in on the same emotional level as the book, since we see inside Katniss's thoughts in the book but won't be able to in the movie. But Jennifer Lawrence did a great job, and I was hooked.
I can't wait for Catching Fire.


----------



## Lindafaye (Mar 29, 2012)

I liked the books and the movie. I read the books first...and I was not expecting to like the books. I was out of something to read, picked up the book to look at the beginning and got hooked. Read all 3 books in a weekend.

I was not expecting to like the movie - i thought it would be too graphic for me to enjoy (I passed out watching The Clockwork Orange eons ago) and I have a low tolerance for violence.


Spoiler



I was very glad for the "shaky camera" effect, the quick shots of the Capitol and that the mutts were not as horrifying as the book.



There were several changes from the book to the movie, but 2 hours and 22 minutes is a LONG movie


Spoiler



and adding more characters (for example, Madge and the prep team) would have added even more time to the movie. I was surprised Katniss found water so easily and didn't like the scene where Katniss told Petta that the Careers were looking at him like he was lunch....that just seemed wrong.



All in all, thumbs up for the movie. I am sure we'll be getting the dvd when it comes out.


----------



## purplesmurf (Mar 20, 2012)

I'm very surprised by the amount of people who thought the movie was so amazing. Maybe it's just me but my husband and the other couple we went with also felt the same way. I though it was extremely slow in the beginning and hated the shakey camera in the beginning. Having a first person story and turning it into a movie with no inner monologue of that character really makes it hard to like her as much as you did in the books. I only think the movie was a 6 or so out of 10 and probably won't see the next one in theaters but will wait for it to be on dvd.


----------



## Malweth (Oct 18, 2009)

Jan Strnad said:


> 2. Depth. Movies are very, very good at showing us the surface of things. District 12 was depicted visually with an attention to detail that wasn't in the books. But, books can go inside characters' heads and show the _meaning_ of things, and that's where the depth comes from.
> 
> I think this is where most movies disappoint when compared with the books.


I wouldn't say this is categorically true; it's just perhaps more difficult to do effectively in film. Hitchcock was excellent at this.


----------



## purplepen79 (May 6, 2010)

Joseph_Evans said:


> If you have read the first book and seen the film which do you think is better? Or are they just as good as each other? I'm going to see it on Tuesday and very much looking forward to it!


Although I enjoyed the books, I liked the movie better for a couple of reasons. For one thing, when I was reading the books, I got the sense that they had been written to be made into movies--well-visualized scenes and a breakneck pace, without much dwelling on the characters' internal states. This is one reason Katniss as a first-person narrator frustrated me at times--with first-person, an author has the opportunity to delve deeply into a character's internal world. We really don't see this in _The Hunger Games_--it's more about external action than internal action, and after seeing the movie, I think I would have liked the series better if it had been written in 3rd person, because we likely would have gotten a more well-rounded sense of the society (don't get me wrong, I really enjoyed the series, but this is one of my major quibbles with it). The movie offered the 3rd person perspective in a way the books didn't--the movie showed far more of


Spoiler



the gamemakers' and President Snow's behind-the-scenes manipulations, the riots in District 11, than the book


, and this helped clarify some important points to me.

Also, the theme of image versus substance and how the characters had to play to the camera to make good TV even while they're in a match to the death really came across in the movie in a chilling way, just because the nature of the film medium is tailor-made for this kind of social commentary.


----------



## Brownskins (Nov 18, 2011)

Resurrecting an old thread since the Blu-Ray/DVD just came out, plus believe it or not, I just saw it this past weekend at the dollar movie theater...

I think the movie was a good adaptation of the book given the default constraints - time, casting, budget, etc.  I've read the the trilogy, my wife has not.  But we both enjoyed the movie - just enough tension, and sufficient plot to answer some questions, but leave you looking forward to the subsequent films.  Casting was a little tricky if you're a stickler to how the book described the characters, but the selected cast acted their parts pretty well.  

Of recent book-to-film adaptations, LOTR to me takes the first tier, followed by Harry Potter.  This is a contender for third.


----------



## Ergodic Mage (Jan 23, 2012)

To be honest I had no interest in Hunger Games when it came out. Sunday my wife bought the DVD and everyone but me wanted to watch it, being a great dad I decided to join the family. Heck I could always fall asleep! ha

Surprisingly I ended up enjoying the movie; in particular the setting was very good. But the Tributes came across as 2 dimensional.
Because of the setting I decided to give the book a read just for the heck of it. I've reached the part where the Game begins quickly and it followed the movie and I still have the same opinion; great setting with lackluster characters.

But I'm not sure if I want to read any further. I noticed that Collins tends to get sidetracked at explaining something instead of keeping focused. For example the reaping is the culminating moment of the story's introduction and she got side tracked with Peeta, Katniss and the bread scene. Couldn't figure out why she put it there instead of on the train ride which happens right afterwards.

So now I'm at the beginning of the Game awaiting the 60 second countdown and there is still 2/3 of the book to go. Way too much space for sidetracking and info dumps when the action should be going on. Also now the story revolves around the Tributes and they don't impress me. Oh well I'll probably finish it just to say I have.


----------



## Nicole Ciacchella (May 21, 2012)

I saw the movie when it came out and just watched it again with my hubby over the weekend. I'm a huge fan of the series, which I've read twice.

I thought the movie was fantastic. Jennifer Lawrence is an amazing actress, and I thought she did a great job as Katniss.

The thing that struck me the most about the movie was how it made me develop a whole new appreciation for Haymitch. He mostly annoyed me in the books, because I was just so disgusted that he couldn't pull it together and just help Katniss and Peeta. But the movie made me really think about what it would be like to be in Haymitch's shoes.


Spoiler



As if it's not bad enough to have won the Games yourself, and to have to live with the PTSD of that, he also has to go through the torment of seeing new kids from his district die year after year after year. Watching him schmooze the people in the Capital further drove home how terrible it would be to have won the Games. These were the same people who callously watched you fight to the death, and who are placing bets on Games involving innocent kids from your district. Yet, you have to make nice with them and try to convince them to send gifts to your Tributes.


 It took the movie to make me see how much I underestimated Haymitch.


----------



## Stuart Wilson (Aug 23, 2012)

i kinda agree with Alicia - i'm not really a fan of first person perspective so movies help cut that out nicely!


----------



## MalloryMoutinho (Aug 24, 2012)

I absolutely loved the books, but only liked the movie. The book was great since it was able to demonstrate the overbearing dominance of the government, while also sowing the emotional toil this world placed on the characters. But the movie, well it didn't really showcase either part. The movie tried to walk a fine line between the two which left me slightly disappointed in both. I wish the movie had either gone the 'R' route and showed the true horrors of the district society. Or, kept it 'PG-13' but focus more on the relations between and emotions of the characters.


----------



## Ergodic Mage (Jan 23, 2012)

Finished the book and was pleasantly surprised that I enjoyed it as well as the movie. The extra character development helped while the fear and emotional confusion at the end came across much better.

I have heard it compared to Battle Royale but I saw more similarities in the setting with Rollerball (1975 version).


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

Alicia Dean said:


> I actually liked the movie better than the book, because it was more action packed and it didn't seem to take as long to get to the actual games. Plus, the present tense writing bothered me a little. In the movie, that wasn't an issue. I think the casting was fantastic.


I'd agree. I enjoyed the book (and the sequels), but didn't care much for the first person, present tense writing style.

I thought they did a great job with the movie (watched it this weekend) and agree that the casting was fantastic.

I can see how the movie my be lacking in some areas to those who have read the books (as discussed above though) as it goes pretty quickly through the background and set up stuff.


----------



## Gareth K Pengelly (Aug 25, 2012)

I liked the plot of the book, but the style of writing put me off.

The film was pretty good, tbh. I enjoyed it.


----------



## Lyndsay (Jul 25, 2012)

Movies are NEVER as good as books! You just can't put all the minute detail into a movie as you can do in a book and even when you watch the movie, if you haven't already read the book you WILL miss all the little details of the things that are not spelled out for you, things that you definitely get from reading. 

Having said that I thought that the first movie was brilliant; the casting was perfect, although I didn't picture Woody Harrelson as Haymitch but weirdly it works. I pictured Katniss as more of a bag of bones since she barely gets any proper food in District 12 but Jennifer Lawrence has a really nice figure and definitely doesn't look half-starved! Then again Hollywood likes to put a shine on everything, I think things and people could have been portrayed a bit rougher, so then when things improve you can really appreciate the difference... or something like that. I particularly enjoyed Elizabeth Banks as Effie as I've never seen her in such a role, she's usually the funny woman and I think she played Effie exactly as I pictured her. There's always things that get changed for the movies, which I always hate and things they miss out but I guess they can't include everything or the movie would go on for hours. I really look forward to the other movies but since I've already read the books it's going to have been too long for me to remember all the little details of the book that they missed/changed in the movies so I'll look forward to other people's feedback on the other movies


----------



## MsTee (Jul 30, 2012)

I enjoyed the movie, but not as much as the books. Personally, I felt they did a really great job with it and stayed true to the story line. Even my hubby (who's not big on fantasy themes) liked it! I also felt they had a really strong cast. A commenter mentioned their views about Haymitch being changed - I agree. When I'd read the books, I'd imagined a surlier, completely unlikable character, but the I warmed to the Haymitch (even Effie!) in the movie. All around great job IMO. I can't wait for Catching Fire.


----------



## jatkin (Sep 9, 2012)

> I actually liked the movie better than the book, because it was more action packed and it didn't seem to take as long to get to the actual games. Plus, the present tense writing bothered me a little. In the movie, that wasn't an issue. I think the casting was fantastic.


The present tense in the book didn't bother me. I enjoyed the book much more than the movie (though the casting for the movie was fantastic for sure). I think the biggest difference between the book and the movie is that the book is written in first person and that's very difficult, if not impossible, to pull off in a movie. It's not just the voice you lose, but I think, without all the conflict in Katniss's head, you lost sort of the emotional core of the story. Her internal struggles were just as important as the external fight for your life ones. I think they lost that in the film.


----------

