The Hunger Games (The Hunger Games, #1) The Hunger Games discussion


72 views
Does the movie overlook the details too much?

Comments Showing 1-30 of 30 (30 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Sy (new) - rated it 4 stars

Sy The movie version has definitely altered things compared to the book. Did this make the movie "weak" and not impacting as the book? Why do so many people dislike the movie?


Sophie YES! I know that most people were like "OMG that was amazing" but most of those people hadn't read the book. Sure it was a good movie otherwise, but the fact that I knew what should of happened really downgraded it for me. The producers missed all the really jarring, thrilling stuff - like the mutts in the arena are supposed to look like the dead tributes but NO! They wanted some scary pit-bulls instead. *sigh*

Yes, the movie was a bit of a letdown and I just hope the second one is better. :(


Grlpwr00 i have read the book and seen the movie and sure the producers did skip things like the mutts but they also added some stuff so that when you were watching the movie it wasn't exactly like the book when you knew what was goin to happen and all the details. in my opinion the producers and everyone did a GREAT job making the movie


Mariam Matta I was annoyed with:

The mutts didn't have the eyes of the dead tributes

The movie was really dark at times

I have to rewatch it, I can't remember.


message 5: by Olivia (new) - added it

Olivia Mariam wrote: "I was annoyed with:

The mutts didn't have the eyes of the dead tributes

The movie was really dark at times

I have to rewatch it, I can't remember."


ok


message 6: by Olivia (new) - added it

Olivia i wonder if they did change some parts or was almost everything that was there, in the movie.


message 7: by [deleted user] (new)

Mariam wrote: "I was annoyed with:

The mutts didn't have the eyes of the dead tributes

The movie was really dark at times

I have to rewatch it, I can't remember."


The movie is about children killing each other. Are you honestly surprised at how dark it was?


Angela Jordan (The Gleek) wrote: "Mariam wrote: "I was annoyed with:

The mutts didn't have the eyes of the dead tributes

The movie was really dark at times

I have to rewatch it, I can't remember."

The movie is about children ki..."


Maybe she meant that the lighting was dark?


message 9: by [deleted user] (new)

Possibly. Sorry if that's what you meant


Hannah As a huge fan of the books, I agree that there are certain parts that were missed out that may have slightly damaged the film version but I do believe there are good reasons for most of the changes.

I know people who have complaints about the change to Clove's death. Now, I know the film was fairly graphic anyway but to have an up close shot of a character we are supposed to respect smashing somebody's head with a rock is a bit too violent for many people and there may have had to be a change in the age classification and at the end of the day the film industry wants to make as much money as possible.

The mutts having the eyes of the tributes is another issue I would put down to this, it could be psychologically damaging to some if they had included this part. I assume that is the reason behind it although I'm not entirely sure.

Also, the age old argument that it would have been a ridiculously long film if everything was included has to be brought up. I don't actually think that all that much was left out of the films, of course I would have liked to see Madge, more of the Hob, more of Katniss and Peeta's relationship in the training centre etc. I would also have loved a bit more of them bonding in the cave but I understand that it's an action-y film and people had an issue with the slower scenes in the novel.

Also, the loss of Katniss' commentary had to be countered and the way the producers/writers did that was, frankly, pure genius. Having Caesar and Claudius commentating was such a simple, clever idea that it really worked.

I don't think I know anyone who really dislikes film, if you ask any avid reader and especially one of a book made in to a film, the book is almost always better in their eyes. As readers, we should understand that there is something really magical about the images you create in your own head and that a film version can rarely live up to that.

As a ya novel, I know kids of about 13+ have read it and would never be allowed into a 15 to watch it at the cinema and therein lies the issue, leaving out legions of fans from being able to see the film would have been far more damaging than the fairly subtle changes made.

Personally, I enjoyed the film and thought it was a generally very strong adaptation of the book, especially bearing in mind the subject matter. Reading about kids killing kids is one thing, seeing it happen on a screen in front of you is another and I am convinced that the smaller changes are based on the classification in order for the film to make more money.


Hannah Oops, for the record, that wasn't supposed to be such a long comment. Sorry!


message 12: by Olivia (new) - added it

Olivia Hannah wrote: "Oops, for the record, that wasn't supposed to be such a long comment. Sorry!"

not bad for long comment though. some other ppl has their comment longer then others..


message 13: by Olivia (new) - added it

Olivia that about sums is all up.


Wise Cat I'm glad I read the book first, as with all movie versions of any book, stuff is left out. They had to stick to the main characters and events to keep it to about 2 hours.

I liked how Katniss blew kisses to the crowd in the book when she & Peeta were being introduced in the chariot. And how more of her relationship with both Peeta and Gale was more explored in the book. Also, in the movie, they showed a flashback of Peeta and Katniss about the same age they are now, when Peeta threw her a loaf of burned bread. In the book, they were about 11. I like this better.

They had to tone down the violence in the book to make it appropriate for younger audiences. Overall, I think they did a good adaptation of an amazing book. The cast was RIGHT on, except I would have preferred a more menacing actor to play Snow. I like Sutherland, but he didn't seem evil enough. Reading about Snow in the book SCARED me. That guy was chilling!!!!!!


Wendy The movie is okay, I think. I watched it when I was reading the book, so I focused a lot on the details, like where the mockingjay pin is from, like Katniss crying after shooting the arrow to the apple. They are all altered in the movie. And some parts, like that girl died from nightlock... the movie didn't explain it well.
Well, comparing to books, movies are usually "weak", because they cannot put every single detail and thought that characters had into 2 hours. I think it all depends on how they pick things from the book and try to catch audiences' eyes.


message 16: by Olivia (new) - added it

Olivia Wendy wrote: "The movie is okay, I think. I watched it when I was reading the book, so I focused a lot on the details, like where the mockingjay pin is from, like Katniss crying after shooting the arrow to the a..."

yea i think so 2.


message 17: by Olivia (new) - added it

Olivia :)


Angela Ashley wrote: "I thought the movie was decent, not exactly horrible.
I wished Madge was in the movie. I wish there wasn't so much shaky camera. The movie was PG 13 and I don't think it exactly met up to the ratin..."


Yes, some parts of the movie felt like an amateur camera was used. The camera felt wobbly and it was hard to focus on something.


message 19: by Olivia (new) - added it

Olivia Angela wrote: "Ashley wrote: "I thought the movie was decent, not exactly horrible.
I wished Madge was in the movie. I wish there wasn't so much shaky camera. The movie was PG 13 and I don't think it exactly met ..."


yea i think i did notice that as well.


message 20: by Olivia (new) - added it

Olivia some part were still bit on the shaky, but some part were ok.


message 21: by Sandra (last edited Dec 27, 2012 05:53AM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

Sandra The movie was far from horrible, but some of the details could have been left in there. I mean, they could have made the movie a half hour longer and include some more. Like the mutts - I think was a pretty important detail, to just complete the terrifying experience of realizing they were loking like other tributes.
Or how Katniss got the Mocking jay pin. It looked like worthless piece of junk, while in the book it was golden en had a special meaning to Madge. She gave it to Katniss. And the pin was the reason Rue trusted and helped Katniss.
And I have to say, in the book it wasn't all the obvious Gale had feelings for her.

What I did love in the film, is that they showed the District 11 riot after Rue died, which we only find out about much much later :)


message 22: by Jeni (new) - rated it 3 stars

Jeni My mother hadn't read the books, but really liked the movie. She is visually impaired and virtually blind, but had little trouble following the "gist" of the whole story.

I tend to think of movies as a way to give a detailed summary of a book, instead of re-creating the book on film. It's difficult to put every single thing from a story into a film, merely due to time constrictions.

If anything, I agree the significance of the Mockingjay pin was downplayed too much. My mom, though, thought it was brilliant to signal using the birds and it was something she commented on a few times.

All in all, I liked the movie fine. :)


Allen Crowe The movie I thought was disappointing. You never really got a feel for the situation or the characters like the book. This lack in relating to the characters... or even caring left the movie as unsurprising and fairly lame. Sorry to say because I love the books! The made it feel fake and unreal. Even the highly emotional parts did not hit home at all. I think they went for the effects... like the city scene and hoped to cash in on the book value. Should have been much slower to start and better acted.


Wise Cat I do agree that a lot of stuff was left out, but the gist of the story was there. I would have liked to have seen more of Gale, as he was a minor character in the movie. Katniss's relationship/friendship with him is not explored much. I agree with another poster about how she would have liked to have seen more of the Hob.

I don't remember Madge at all, but I saw a post where someone mentioned seeing her. The Capitol scene was just perfect, as it was how I pictured it.

I agree that the movie could have been just a bit longer, to include more of the connections/histories between the characters. To me, it was just as important as The Games.

Prim's cat, Buttercup, was just in one brief scene. It didn't even show the depth of Prim's love for him, and how Katniss didn't like him.

The fight scenes were shown in a quick, blurry way...but I thought it was to tone it down for a younger audience. I didn't really want to see that either; it's detailed enough in the book. Kids get it, they know kids are killing kids. And The Games are not THEIR idea, but the adults'. This is the main reason I think it has crossover appeal for adults, both the book and movie. The kids are used as pawn in a power struggle among adults.

I wish there was a prequel to it, as I wonder what Katniss means by "The Dark Days." What happened, and how long it lasted. I know this is part of the fun of it, speculating what year it is, but I wish I knew at least what CENTURY it is. It is clearly in the future, but how far????


message 25: by Jeni (new) - rated it 3 stars

Jeni I like that we don't know what century it is. It could be 75 years from now or 750. That's what makes it so messed up. If revolution happened today and bombs dropped, would we be sending our kids to fight to the death in 75 years?


message 26: by [deleted user] (new)

I just got mad that Madge wasn't in the movie, that really ticked (Catching Fire humor, get it? It's bad, I know) me off. I just hope they don't skip over any characters in Catching Fire.


Hannah I also think it's important to remember that Suzanne Collins was on the script writing team and approved of all the changes that were made.

Obviously it's annoying when we want to see something specifically (Madge seems to be the biggest issue with book fans)but artistic changes have to be made at the end of the day.

I think the lack of Gale and Katniss' relationship can be easily picked up on in CF really. It would have been very difficult for them to come up with a way to put those bits of the inner monologue on to screen but that's a lot easier in CF because we actually spend time with Gale.


Allen Crowe True... all good points, but we could have slowed down a little to like enjoy the dress burning off and changing colors when she twirled. It just seemed a little skipped over. It is hard with any great read you love to see it on screen, but they missed to much of the inner turmoil, almost all of it!?! And I do think any great screen play can be destroyed by the director in the end. If they can make a war scene from 1950 that makes you tear up then they could have added more emotion and heart to it. I still love it, but not like the book. I WANT To CRY over a death scene! know what I mean?


message 29: by Katy (last edited Dec 28, 2012 05:09PM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

Katy I have a problem with casting...Jen Lawrence is a good actress but she didn't look like Katniss.....Katniss is half starved and teeny and 16. Jen is curvy voluptuous, and 22. Plus Peeta is suppose to be big and strong and yet Josh was shorter than Jen? I really thought the girl who played Clove would have made a better Katniss. And I think they should have mad the 'peeta throwing the bread to Katniss' like the book...with them as kids. It showed how long Peeta loved Katniss and how he saved her then as we'll.


message 30: by Jeni (new) - rated it 3 stars

Jeni Katy wrote: "And I think they should have made the 'Peeta throwing the bread to Katniss' like the book...with them as kids. It showed how long Peeta loved Katniss and how he saved her then as well."

I guess I have a more dubious outlook on Peeta's supposed love for Katniss. Throwing burned bread into the mud to a starving person out of sympathy isn't something I can automatically translate into love. It only shows me that he has the ability to be sympathetic. The movie played it out just as I imagined it. Starving girl begging for food; baker's boy throwing her some bread out of compassion.

Also, I still think Peeta's confession of his crush on Katniss was part of his strategy to get sponsors. He scored lower than her and the star-crossed lovers thing is a great game plan. He knew he was a dead man. Even his mother thought so. What to do? Garner sympathy and get some help. It was the same with joining up with the careers. He did it to gain advantage on the playing field to extend his chances. Again, I think the movie did this pretty well, in my opinion.

I viewed Peeta as a manipulative, conniving player. Sorry, Peeta fans-no hate, please! It's just how I read the character and I haven't really seen any evidence to the contrary. If that strategy turned into genuine affection through a shared trauma of the games, then fine, but I didn't believe the unrequited love story for a second.

So, my take on the story was different, not necessarily right--just different. I enjoy seeing other perspectives. For me, the movie was spot on to the feelings I had reading the books.


back to top