The Giver question

The movie was okay; they just shouldn't have named it The Giver. It was completely different from the book. They should have named it Hunger Games 4 because it seems like that was the movie they were trying to make. I think the only way The Giver will be accurately transformed into a movie is if its made by a small, independent studio. There's not enough action in the story for a big, Hollywood company to make the amount of money that they want. I was so happy to read everyone's comments and know that I'm not the only who felt this way about the movie!

i is an awsome movie

Hi,

I read the book a while ago and I loved it. The movie wasn't great in my opinion, and didn't do the book justice. Let's just say they 'hollywoodized' it.

The movie is alright, I think Tiffany was right on when she said they "hollywoodized" it. I liked it independently of the book, if that makes sense. I think the acting was good, the kids just seemed a little too old for what ages they were supposed to be in the books. Taylor Swift has this strange little cameo too?

Compared to the book, the movie was terrible in my opinion. On its own not thinking of the book is was an ok movie. It didn't have the same feeling at the book at all, they strayed pretty far from it. I had read the book for the first time just before watching the movie because I had wanted to see it, but I usually like to read the book first. I accepted a long time ago that movie adaptations will never align with the books the way we would like, but I figure as long as an effort it made and they pull the important bits, I can be ok with it. And the movies that stray, I'm okay with if they are not selling it as a movie for a book with as much emphasis on it originally being a book. I feel like when they but such a big emphasis on the book aspect of it and have the previews being the only clips that were pull from the book, other than the names, it gives the fans a false hope. That's what The Giver was to me. False hope. The book is so good, there was a lot of potential there and it's not even that long so it's not like trying to do an adaptation for Harry Potter and having to cut out a bunch of stuff or change it (like taking away poor Neville's act of heroism). And Taylor Swifts presence was over hyped too, which annoyed me. I'm not a fan of hers (she's fine I just don't listen to her music), but it was clear that they threw her in to get ticket sales. I saw previews and posters kind of highlighting her as the star of the movie. She was in it for a few minutes. Hardly worth credit on the movie posters.

I absolutely loved the book. As far as book adaptations go, this movie was not bad. There are many books turned movies that venture so far from the book it is ridiculous. I found the movie watchable, actually, they displayed a lot more emotions in the movie than the characters in the book did. I thought that was interesting. The book has a lot of content and there were just a lot of details that the movie could not get into. For someone who watches the movie and has not read the book, they will probably have a bunch of questions that need answering. On the plus, there were a few things that the movie did explore that were very vague in the book, so I think those aspects gave it some nice depth where I can say the movie was not as bad as it could have been. Would not buy the movie though.

The book was great. Many of my 7th and 8th grade students liked the movie, because it was quite modernized and as someone mentioned previously "Hollywoodized", and the action at the end seemed more intense and suspenseful. However, several of them voiced their disapproval and confusion because of the many changes. They wanted to see the book dramatized, but they didn't get to see what they imagined. There are a lot of adaptions.

I saw it. I wish I never did. It was a disgrace.

It's like the producers didn't care about staying true to the book at all, just whatever would make more money. Whatever was good for marketing. Whatever was appealing to teens nowadays. They tried to make it a second Hunger Games. Jonah was like, 17. He and Fiona had a romantic relationship. Fiona ends up in danger and Jonah has to save her.

They tried to make the movie some thrilling scifi adventure. But The Giver isn't that. It's way more meaningful. But they sacrificed that to make a quick buck. Gross.