By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Movies & TV - The Hunger Games - Books vs Movie (spoilers will be had)

So, when I first heard about The Hunger Games, I was intrigued really wanted to go see the movie. My friend suggest I read the books and he gave me audio book copies of all three.

I listened to each book and was really taken in by the story, the disparity of the future country, the relationships between the people, the hardships, the rebellion, triumph, and emotional losses.

After reading them all I was even more interested in seeing the movie as I wanted to see that self-imposed imagery presented on the big screen. Yeah.... I knew a book that took 11hrs to read to me wasn't going to be 100% detailed in the movie. But man did the studio and director make serious mistakes. Don't get me wrong, the movie is still good, however, you get the feeling that you are constantly fast forwarding through a much more detailed story.

First and biggest mistake was to make it a 2hr movie. WTF. Did these idiots really not think the movie would do well? Did they not see what other Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, and other big novels to movies did? 3hrs should have been the minimum with up to 3.5hrs the max.

I mean the overall story and plot is there, but there is virtually NO character growth. You never get the sense of true hardship in District 12, no starvation. You never get a true sense of the relationship Katniss has with anyone. No demonstration of the true bond she had with Rue and why that scene is important, beyond its initiation of Rue's districts rebellion. No mention of Rue reminder Katniss of her sister... hell the movie didn't even go into how much Katniss did for her family and especially her sister.. the fact that she had many times more chances in the pot due to taking extra food rations, etc. Then there's the true build up of the love display between her and Peeta. wtf... that is just poorly done and almost non-existant. Its a vital part of the story and a main plot in the 2nd book. Yet, this barely shows it and doesn't even really display that Katniss is completely faking it.

Then beyond the lack of any real character or emotion... there's plot and action issues that simply didn't exist in the book. For instance, the movie shows her going to destroy the food supply. But it doesn't explain WHY. It shows the small kid having his neck snapped, but it shows her standing not too far behind them... yet she is not seen. That doesn't happen like that in the book. It explains that her and Rue realized that they needed to remove their food supply so they would be in the same harsh circumstances as everyone else. (btw, its been week by then in the book but the whole event looks to take a couple days in the movie) That after the blast Katniss drags herself, completely deaf, back under the brush before the others return and kill the guard.. and then she sleeps there overnight before returning to find Rue caught in the net. oh man... Then there is the entire missing areas of her nearly dying without water in the beginning and the many days spent with  Peeta in the rocks hiding and he nearly dying from fever....

So much lost that mostly could have been added had they simply made the move a proper length.

Especially the ending.

Peetawas not healed all good when the end happened. His leg tore back open in struggling on top of the cornucopia and he was bleeding to death. Cato survived to dawn break when Katniss finally put him out of his misery as the mutts didn't kill him completely. When it was announced only one could win,  Peeta was on his death bed practically when she forced him to work with her berry plan. Then after being taken aboard the hover craft, they amputated his leg and replaced it with a mechanical one.

Then there is a major blow up on the train home where she tells him she was faking her love and the story should end with that deep emotional conflict and the unknown of what is going to happen now that she has pissed off the capital and has to continue the love lie otherwise who knows what will happen to everyone and their families.

They needed an extra hour of filming. Hopefully the new director doesn't make the same mistake with Catching Fire. Maybe even add some flashbacks to fill in this missing development.

Advice to others.... read/listen to the books. The story is phenomenal and emotionally wrenching. Then watch the movie for its entertainment and lead in to the future movies.



Around the Network

LOL I can tell you listened to an audio book because it's Peeta not Pita lol

And it's Cato lol


Going from a first-person narrated book to a movie isn't a simple task when it comes to character development. They had to let things go and I think they did a very good job at it. I mean Peeta's leg has no importance in the other books and the same goes for Katniss' ear (except a little detail in the second book).



I was more bothered by the lack of hovercrafts.



Yes, the movie sucked. The first 10 Chapters are key and they basically summarized them in 5 minutes and you never get a real sense of the struggle. Personally, I would have taken money-making to the next level with this movie, particularly cuz of it's popularity. Make the first book into 2 movies just like they are doing now with endings. You really need a good 2 hours to tell the whole beginning. I would have ended the first book with the death of Rue as the big cliffhanger that would draw viewers back to the theater.



I thought the parts left out from the book were minor, the changes were smartly handled, and the parts added to the movie that were not in the book greatly enhanced the story.

For example:

Left out:
Madge was left out of the movie. This was a minor loss as her family's backstory isn't interesting until after the first book and even then it's not all that important.

Changes:
Instead of Madge giving Katniss the Mockingjay pin she buys it then gives it to Prim for luck and after the reaping Prim gives it back for luck. I thought this was a much more heartfelt and personal origin of the pin. I like both versions, but the movie version works better for the sister's relationship.

Additions:
Since book is all in first person from Katniss' point of view the reader gets to know all of Katniss' assumptions and theories of what's going on such as how a kiss gets her soup. With the movie we get to see all kinds of "meanwhile" moments like how President Snow interferes with the game or how Haymitch works behind the scenes to keep at least one of his tributes alive.

Overall it was a very entertaining movie and one of the best adaptions of a book to film I've enjoyed.



Around the Network

lol, yeah I realized later today that I spelled the names wrong. :) I don't like reading, but listening while working and driving, etc is awesome.

As for plot points... yes some of the things left out like the leg, Madge, various other little things are not important.

However, better character development is very important. They could have developed the beginning a lot better, they could have developed the fake love issue better, they could have developed Rue better and so on.

That's why it should have been over 3hrs with a lot more character emphasis. The main plot points were still hit and it is a good movie. I just feel bad for those who only see the movie as they are missing out on a lot of story and emotion that really doesn't come out in the movie.



I don't think any movie should be over two hours. The regular Lord of the Rings movies were too long and the extended versions where waaaaaay too long. I don't have a problem with splitting a book into two movies, but at that point why not just turn it into a TV series like Game of Thrones. TV is a much better format for book adaption, if done right. Movies should always try for the perfect 90 minute run time. Long enough to tell a story but brief enough that your soda doesn't convert to urine and need immediate evacuation before the credits role. Going to a three hours flick? Don't buy anything with caffeine ;)



The movie was decidedly mediocre. The book was amazing though.



All hail the KING, Andrespetmonkey

kain_kusanagi said:

I don't think any movie should be over two hours. The regular Lord of the Rings movies were too long and the extended versions where waaaaaay too long. I don't have a problem with splitting a book into two movies, but at that point why not just turn it into a TV series like Game of Thrones. TV is a much better format for book adaption, if done right. Movies should always try for the perfect 90 minute run time. Long enough to tell a story but brief enough that your soda doesn't convert to urine and need immediate evacuation before the credits role. Going to a three hours flick? Don't buy anything with caffeine ;)


I fully agree on the TV series part. The Hunger Games would have been an epic, high-quality TV series in the same scenario as Game of Thrones.

However, there is no reason a movie can't be 3hrs long. So many of the best movies that exist are that long and if the story is entrapping, you don't even notice.



superchunk said:
kain_kusanagi said:

I don't think any movie should be over two hours. The regular Lord of the Rings movies were too long and the extended versions where waaaaaay too long. I don't have a problem with splitting a book into two movies, but at that point why not just turn it into a TV series like Game of Thrones. TV is a much better format for book adaption, if done right. Movies should always try for the perfect 90 minute run time. Long enough to tell a story but brief enough that your soda doesn't convert to urine and need immediate evacuation before the credits role. Going to a three hours flick? Don't buy anything with caffeine ;)


I fully agree on the TV series part. The Hunger Games would have been an epic, high-quality TV series in the same scenario as Game of Thrones.

However, there is no reason a movie can't be 3hrs long. So many of the best movies that exist are that long and if the story is entrapping, you don't even notice.

Well I notice. Believe me, I notice.